Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[ArielRussu]

Protestants reject and deny the will of God.
First by denying the works which He accomplishes in us when we cooperate with His will to do what He commands.

No, Protestants reject the Catholic Churches version of the will of God. They reject one organizations interpretation of God.

Next, when they deny His Word passed down in His Doctrines and Traditions through the Church.

No, they deny the man made traditions and inspired doctrine of the Catholic Church, who claims they are the true church and teach the full truth. However, the Orthodox Churches claim the same thing.

And then, to embrace their private word which they read into the Scriptures to disobey and contradict the Word He passed down through His Church.

Like the catholic church reached decisions about Scripture and Doctrine by cherry picking the opinions of different theologians some now nicknamed the Fathers of Catholicism, (ex. Augustine). In addition too gathering all the like minded higher ups in the Church together to debate topics and issues. Like in Vatican 2. Yes, in Vatican 2 they did bring in lay people and priests, but only people whose beliefs the Vatican thought fit its agenda. But if a conclusion was reached the Pope didn’t like, the findings of the lay people and priest groups got scrapped and were then replaced with elite members from the Vatican, who would then “investigate” an issue and give a “church approved” answer the Vatican agreed with.

 

[De_Maria]

No, Protestants reject the Catholic Churches version of the will of God. They reject one organizations interpretation of God.

The Catholic Church’s version of the will of God is the true version.

No, they deny the man made traditions and inspired doctrine of the Catholic Church, who claims they are the true church and teach the full truth. However, the Orthodox Churches claim the same thing.

The Orthodox Teach virtually the same thing as the Catholic Church and have a legitimate claim to being the true Church. You would do well to leave Protestantism for the Orthodox. But the Catholic Church Teaches the fullness of God’s Truth.

Like the catholic church reached decisions about Scripture and Doctrine by cherry picking the opinions of different theologians some now nicknamed the Fathers of Catholicism…

No. You don’t get it even though it is clearly revealed in Scripture.

The fact is that Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based on the Teachings of Jesus Christ. That’s the order of things.

1. Doctrine existed first. Brought into being by Jesus Teaching the Church.
2. NT Scripture followed. Brought into being by the Catholic Church recording the Teachings and life of Jesus Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Interesting to me too is that Catholics hold to the Last Supper as being the first Mass while the Historian indicates it took years for the Mass to develop. Any insight into those thoughts?

If one understands the mass as the celebration of the Eucharist, that happens more than once in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Yes… but his words were all spiritual robed in a metaphor. In that same context He also said, “The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE SPIRIT and are life.” Not literal and physical was his point.

This is a common anti-Catholic interpretation of the passage. Yes, the passage can be understood metaphorically as well as literally, but when Jesus held up the bread and wine at the Last supper and said “this is my Body” it was not a metaphor, any more than “Let there be light” was a metaphor.

When Jesus said the flesh is of no avail, he was talking about the carnal understanding. We cannot grasp the mysteries of God using only human logic. He clearly was not discounting his own flesh, which bore our sins upon the cross.

And the early Church father’s comments on what the first Christians did…and how they viewed the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist speaks far more loudly than the weasel language of the 21st century…mere metaphor.

I have to admit, it is a puzzle to me why modern evangelicals who hold such anti-Catholic views can so readily ignore how the early church understood the words of the New Testament.

The doctrine of the real presence has to first be grounded at the Last Supper.

From the initiation of the Passover meal, the lamb was literally eaten.

. Interesting to me too is that Catholics hold to the Last Supper as being the first Mass while the Historian indicates it took years for the Mass to develop. Any insight into those thoughts?

These two are not contradictory. The Eucharist is embedded in the context of the Last Supper, which was a communal meal.

There were Masses in the early days of the Church, just not as we know it today.

Actually the description of the Mass by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, )written between 153 and 155 A.D.) is amazingly close to what we have today.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/st-justin-martyr-on-the-eucharist-and-the-ancient-mass/18543/

Even before water baptism, we become “new creatures” 2 Cor. 5:17.

This is a modern view, propogated at the Reformation with strong Calvanistic influence. It was not taught until 1500 years after the birth of the Church.

The early church taught that we become a New Creation when we are “in Christ”, and that we came to be “in Christ” at baptism. In baptism we are joined to HIm, and regenerated.

 

[guanophore]

The “washing of regeneration” is a spiritual expression not literal. notice how the word “water” is not included. You need water to have a water baptism ceremony. Oh yeah… the word baptism is also missing from the passage. Ooops.

The “washing of regeneration” is water baptism. Water baptism was never separated by the Apostles from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration | Called to Communion

Most Protestants also accept the Apostles’ creed, where it says “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. How can anyone be forgiven of their sins without regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Only being washed in His Blood, applied to us personally through the waters of baptism, is this kind of cleansing made.

The second century bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus (b. 115-130, d. around 200 AD). In his work titled Against Heresies writes,

“And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.” (A.H., I.21)

By denying that these writings represent what was passed on from the Apostles, you are claiming that the Holy Spirit allowed the church to go off the rails within one persons’ lifetime. That even those taught by the Apostles misunderstood them. Instead of the HS leading the Church into all Truth, they got mixed up by 130 AD?!

And if the Church was already mixed up then all the subsequent rulings of the HOly Councils, like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of scripture all must be called into question.

 

[JonNC]

From the initiation of the Passover meal, the lamb was literally eaten.

This is most certainly true.

 

[guanophore]

Why is it not literal?.. Because almost all of the New Testament Truths are spiritual.

This is a common hermeneutical mistake. Spiritual realities and truths are not opposed to “literal” truth. Just because something is literal does not make it physical, yet it is no less spiritual. A good example are angels, who are pure spiritual beings. They have no physical bodies, but they are “literal” (real as opposed to metaphorical). Another example might be love, which is not well “literally (physically) defined” but is quite real (not metaphorical).

The sacraments are literal and spiritual. They are real, and are enactments of events that occur on the spiritual plane.

You accept this concept, because you are arguing that the human soul is “regenerated” before baptism. This means you agree that there is a “literal” (real, not metaphorical) event that has occured, but may not be observable physically. Sometimes we can see the physical signs that something has occurred like when the Spirit fell upon the house of Cornelius.

We have been made spiritual so that we can understand them. The natural man does not understand spiritual truth. Catholicism is very literal, physical, and natural. All appealing to the natural senses. Holy water, incent, Cathdrial Church buildings, statues, etc. It is an impressive show. But our truths are spiritual.

You are right, what we received from the Apostles is that we are also physical beings, and we can take advantage of apprehending spiritual truths through the physical senses. Catholicism is also very much pointing to mysteries that occur on the spiritual plane that may not be manifested in the physical. A good example of this is infant baptism, where no change may be observed in the infant, but according to the Teachings of the Apostles, we affirm that it has occurred.

 

[tgGodsway]

but when Jesus held up the bread and wine at the Last supper and said “this is my Body” it was not a metaphor, any more than “Let there be light” was a metaphor.

Really,… Jesus was standing in his own body and held up bread and said, this is my body! … Did He mean it was the literal body he simultaneously dwelt in?.. It couldn’t be for a few good reasons. Number 1. it was physiologically impossible and goes against the very natural laws God created. #2 It was unlikely because Jesus never spoke in a nonsensical way the kind crazy people talk.

Okay… then what did He mean? He also said, I am the light of the world… was He saying He was a literal flame of fire?.. or were his words to be understood SPIRITUALLY? His revelation was spiritual not natural. This is why so many people could not get him.

There is no room here for a literal interpretation unless you make Jesus say illogical and nonsensical things. His words had spiritual meaning behind them. It is over the top clear.

 

[guanophore]

No, Protestants reject the Catholic Churches version of the will of God. They reject one organizations interpretation of God.

Not entirely. In fact, most of our theology is consistent with Protestant theology. We agree on much more than we disagree.

No, they deny the man made traditions and inspired doctrine of the Catholic Church.

De_Maria:

I don’t think that most Protestants have any idea which of the traditions are man made, and which are sacred traditions passed down from the Apostles.

Do you believe the Apostles taught doctrine inspired by God? Do you believe this doctrine was accepted before the books of the NT were written?

Catholic Church, who claims they are the true church and teach the full truth. However, the Orthodox Churches claim the same thing.

It is curious you would use this as a defense for departing from the Apostolic faith, as the things to which most Protestants object are shared by the Catholic and the Orthodox. One of those is that the Sacraments are vehicles of grace!

Like the catholic church reached decisions about Scripture and Doctrine by cherry picking the opinions of different theologians some now nicknamed the Fathers of Catholicism, (ex. Augustine). In addition too gathering all the like minded higher ups in the Church together to debate topics and issues.

You may not be aware of how questions about doctrine are resolved. Yes, the Church does reach decisions about the meaning of Scripture and Doctrine through a process of discernment. But what you might think of as “cherry picking” is the Church determining which which of the ancient writers best represented the teachings of the Apostles that were handed down. This is also how the canon of the New Testament was discerned.

I can assure you that the Councils have, by no means, been “like minded” in these things. Beginning with the first Council we read about in the book of Acts. If you doubt this, you might look into the Arian controversy, and what happened at the Church Councils to resolve the issues that arouse around this heresy.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, in Vatican 2 they did bring in lay people and priests, but only people whose beliefs the Vatican thought fit its agenda.

I think you may have a very poor source of history on Church councils, and Vatican 2 in particular.

But if a conclusion was reached the Pope didn’t like, the findings of the lay people and priest groups got scrapped and were then replaced with elite members from the Vatican, who would then “investigate” an issue and give a “church approved” answer the Vatican agreed with.

The Church is not a democracy, Ariel, which is a struggle to understand for many in modern societies. The Church was given a “once for all” divine deposit of faith that is contained in scripture and sacred tradition. It is the duty of the Church to preserve, protect, and promulgate (teach) this divine deposit of faith. The Holy Spirit protects the Church without fail in these endeavors. The purpose of councils is to discern what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. Of course there are people who disagree, and persons who have missed the mark will be overruled.

 

[De_Maria]

guanophore:

but when Jesus held up the bread and wine at the Last supper and said “this is my Body” it was not a metaphor, any more than “Let there be light” was a metaphor.

Really,… Jesus was standing in his own body and held up bread and said, this is my body! … Did He mean it was the literal body he simultaneously dwelt in?..

What, you don’t believe that He could be in two places at once? This is a grace that even His lowly Saints, like Padre Pio, have been given. Yet, you don’t think that the God of the universe has power over time and space?

It couldn’t be for a few good reasons. Number 1. it was physiologically impossible and goes against the very natural laws God created.

How about walking on water? Does it go against natural law?
How about turning water into wine? Does it go against natural law?
How about curing the sick, the lame, bringing people back from the dead? Do those things go against natural law?

#2 It was unlikely because Jesus never spoke in a nonsensical way the kind crazy people talk.

Lol! “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Okay… then what did He mean? He also said, I am the light of the world… was He saying He was a literal flame of fire?.. or were his words to be understood SPIRITUALLY? His revelation was spiritual not natural. This is why so many people could not get him.

Yes, His revelation was spiritual and true. And yes, Jesus is the light of the world, literally and spiritually.

There is no room here for a literal interpretation unless you make Jesus say illogical and nonsensical things. His words had spiritual meaning behind them. It is over the top clear.

Jesus sounds illogical to you, because deep down, you don’t believe that He is God. You think of Him as a regular Joe, who couldn’t produce a supernatural sign or miracle, to save His life.

But we believe that Jesus Christ is All Powerful God. And we believe that He held Himself in His hands, when He said the words, “Take, eat, this is my Body.”

 

[guanophore]

Really,… Jesus was standing in his own body and held up bread and said, this is my body! … Did He mean it was the literal body he simultaneously dwelt in?..

This is how the Apostles understood it.

It couldn’t be for a few good reasons. Number 1. it was physiologically impossible and goes against the very natural laws God created. #2 It was unlikely because Jesus never spoke in a nonsensical way the kind crazy people talk.

Now who is using their natural mind rather than the Spiritual? Why would you think that Jesus could not indwell the bread and wine at the same time He indwelt his physical body? Miracles usually go against the physical laws that God created. He has the authority and the ability to do that, or do you deny this? Did he pass through walls after His resurrection? Did he take his physical body to heaven with Him?

If you think that Jesus never spoke in a manner that sounded nonsensical or crazy, you need to revisit John 6 and why many disciples left him. You need to reread why Jesus “brothers” went to fetch him while he was preaching.

21When his familyb heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”Mark 3

Okay… then what did He mean? He also said, I am the light of the world… was He saying He was a literal flame of fire?.. or were his words to be understood SPIRITUALLY? His revelation was spiritual not natural. This is why so many people could not get him.

Both things are true, tgG. Jesus does appear as a literal flame of fire, or light. How did Paul describe his encounter of Christ on the road to Damascus?

There is no room here for a literal interpretation unless you make Jesus say illogical and nonsensical things. His words had spiritual meaning behind them.

Both things are true, tgG. Something that is spiritually true may sound illogical and nonsensical to the world. Of course there are spiritual meanings, both literal and metaphorical.

You are trying to apply human wisdom to the sacraments.

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. 6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, I Cor. 2

 

[tgGodsway]

The “washing of regeneration” is water baptism. Water baptism was never separated by the Apostles from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

I think Peter’s answer fits best here. Peter said, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh…” meaning not a literal bathing with water to remove physical filth, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest. Literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, namely sin. Sin is a spiritual problem to be dealt with spiritually not literally and physically.
Secondly, the Apostle Paul used the word Baptize in a non-literal sense when he said, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” 1st. Cor. 12:13. Notice, it is the Spirit who did the baptizing and Christ body became the object to which we were spiritually submerged. This concept is all spiritual and not literal.

 

[tgGodsway]

What, you don’t believe that He could be in two places at once? This is a grace that even His lowly Saints, like Padre Pio, have been given. Yet, you don’t think that the God of the universe has power over time and space?

It is not about His ability. It is about the likelihood of it. It is very unconvincing to me. Rather than take his statements as a metaphor, to which you seem to do easily with his other statements, you’d rather suggest Jesus became literal bread, while he held up the very same bread. I almost want to laugh if it wasn’t so important and serious.

 

[JonNC]

Really,… Jesus was standing in his own body and held up bread and said, this is my body! … Did He mean it was the literal body he simultaneously dwelt in?.

So, this is beyond His ability but being both fully God and fully man is not? Rising from the dead is not?
He meant exactly what He said. Is means is.

**Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”** -Luther.

 

[De_Maria]

I almost want to laugh if it wasn’t so important and serious.

That is Satan, toying with you.

It is not about His ability. It is about the likelihood of it. It is very unconvincing to me.

What is the likelihood of turning water into wine?

Rather than take his statements as a metaphor, to which you seem to do easily with his other statements, you’d rather suggest Jesus became literal bread,

No. I’m not sure if you’re being honest here. Jesus did not become bread.

a. The natural bread became heavenly bread.
b. Because Jesus Christ transubstantiates the natural bread into the Bread of God, which He is.

while he held up the very same bread.

No. He held up His Body, the Bread of life, the Bread which God sent down from heaven, in the likeness of natural bread.

 

[tgGodsway]

Because Jesus Christ transubstantiates the natural bread into the Bread of God, which He is.

Please show me this teaching in the foundations of biblical thought. Please show me how Paul taught this, how Peter taught it. It is a nice way to explain it, but falls short of biblical reality. But please,… give me transubstantiation from scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

guanophore:

The “washing of regeneration” is water baptism. Water baptism was never separated by the Apostles from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

I think Peter’s answer fits best here.

St. Peter’s answer is Catholic Teaching.

Peter said, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh…” meaning not a literal bathing with water to remove physical filth, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

No. That’s not what he means.

He means what the Catholic Church Teaches.

a. The water of Baptism is not important because it washes dirt off the skin.
b. It is important because it invokes the Holy Spirit and washes the sins off our souls.
c. That is God’s answer, God’s reward, for those who have a clean conscience in regards to God. For those who have faith in Him. He sees that they believe and He reckons it to them as righteousness.

Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest. Literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, namely sin. Sin is a spiritual problem to be dealt with spiritually not literally and physically.

On the contrary, in another place, St. Paul links literal water with the Word, because it is thus that God has empowered the Church to call forth the Holy Spirit and wash our souls of sin.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Secondly, the Apostle Paul used the word Baptize in a non-literal sense when he said, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” 1st. Cor. 12:13. Notice, it is the Spirit who did the baptizing and Christ body became the object to which we were spiritually submerged. This concept is all spiritual and not literal.

The Spirit always does the Baptizing. Water baptism is merely the means by which the Spirit is called forth.

CCC#694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism,…

 

[tgGodsway]

What is the likelihood of turning water into wine?

When Jesus turned water into wine, there was a real manifestation of it. In other words, the water really became wine. I’m sure they tasted it and said, hey, this is wine not water. But when Jesus said “this is my body which is given for you,” It was a reference to the giving of his literal body at the cross as a sacrifice, broken for us. This did not happen in the moment He said the words. Therefore His speech cannot be taken literal and physical. It was metaphorical.
But we are not going to agree on this, so this will be my last statement on it De_Maria

 

[tgGodsway]

The Spirit always does the Baptizing. Water baptism is merely the means by which the Spirit is called forth.

If physical water is a necessary element needed to meet a spiritual condition for the holy Spirit to spiritually baptize people into Christ body, then Paul would say so. He did not. When Peter spoke of new birth in 1st. Peter 1:23 he said, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever.” Where is the call to use water for baptism? New birth is a new identity in Christ, a new family to be born into. We are placed into Christ body by the holy Spirit. We are soaked into His body and made one with Him. Yet Peter, did not instruct the method by which this is accomplished. I could find at least 10 other examples where water is not included in the “method.”

But if you want to use water in a water baptism, I’m good with that. It does not change life for me. But if you try to impose this on me, you would need to use the SUM of thy word is truth, principle to convince me.