How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[ReadTheBible]

19 Therefore , brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

**26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment , and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries **28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. **29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace ? **30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What did they do when they meet on Sunday? They are celebrating the Eucharist.

What is the sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant referring to? When Jesus initiated the Eucharist .
Matthew 26:28
Mark 14:24

And the consequences for one deliberately missing the Eucharist on the Day (Sunday) the Lord’s Day after being given the knowledge of truth? Read it for yourself.

I have zero idea how you read that passage and take away from it that they were meeting together and celebrating the Eucharist. It doesn’t say that at all.

If we live a life of sin after receiving the gospel we do not receive grace. The punishment would be hell. It’s very straight forward. The blood of the covenant is the blood Jesus shed on the cross. There’s nothing in those verses concerning the Eucharist or Purgatory or Indulgences.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I would ask a question in return. During the Apostles own ministries did some of the 1st people preached to try to pervert the gospel, message, or doctrine of Christ?

We know that happened according to Paul.

We’ve kind of been over the Eucharist idea but I would ask all Catholics some questions regarding it.

In Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18, Jesus spoke of the cup as being the fruit of the vine, or the cup’s contents. These verses show that He commanded His disciples to drink not His literal blood, but the fruit of the vine.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning their abuse of the Lord’s Supper he said the following:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Why would Paul in admonishing them not say eat his flesh and drink his blood? Why does he say eat the bread and drink this cup repeatedly if it wasn’t a solemn memorial?

 

[steve-b]

Based on what you write, There is no indication you opened or read the links I gave.

ReadTheBible:

I opened and read your links but again, you are citing webpages that are Catholic resources. They gave passages which I dealt with. Can we at least keep our dialogue strictly on scripture instead of providing 3rd party sources? If you asked me to explain something and I gave you a link to MartinLuther.com (no clue if that’s a site or not) would anything on the page hold weight with you?

I quote scripture copiously. To say you don’t want Catholic sources at all, causes me to acknowledge, that you don’t know who wrote, and canonized the scriptures that you want to accept solely.

The writers of the NT were already in the very Church they were writing to and for. It’s the Catholic Church. BTW, you do realize there was no bible at the time of the apostles… right? AND there was no inspired index of books that listed by writers and work, the inspired writings . There were 100’s of writings claiming to be inspired. How did we end up with 73 total books?

Excerpt,… Muratoreian canon, ~170 a.d.

** emphasis mine**

it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church.
From: Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

BTW, the canon wasn’t closed till 382 a.d. by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome.

let’s NOT forget, Luther, on his own, 1500 years after the fact, demoted 7 scriptural books to non scripture status. And to this day, that is the Protestant canon.

Oh BTW, Re: purgatory, it is also described in Macc, an OT book removed by Luther. Your whole argument belies the fact you don’t read links

ReadTheBible:

You haven’t given your explanation for scripture that negates the idea of Purgatory that I gave in Romans 6, Hebrews 10, & Hebrews 7.

You haven’t contradicted Purgatory

 

[hope]

I did explain it. Neither passage you gave says anything about death in Matthew 5:26 & Luke 12:59.

You are wrong
You started your explanation at verse 21 ignoring the previous verse

I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is therefore in the context of entering the kingdom of heaven. The ending verse is

Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny

Nothing in your explanation deals, even though I asked, with from what you are being released and what is it being paid? No you did not answer those questions.

.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I quote scripture copiously. To say you don’t want Catholic sources at all, causes me to acknowledge, that you don’t know who wrote, and canonized the scriptures that you want to accept solely.

The writers of the NT were already in the very Church they were writing to and for. It’s the Catholic Church. BTW, you do realize there was no bible at the time of the apostles… right? AND there was no inspired index of books that listed by writers and work, the inspired writings . There were 100’s of writings claiming to be inspired. How did we end up with 73 total books?

You have provided 3rd party websites that give scripture and their stance on scripture. I’m well aware of how scripture itself was canonized. I haven’t cited Luther once in any discussion except to say that I’m not using a 3rd party site which happens to agree with me to give you my thoughts. I hope you see the difference.

It seems as if you give the glory to the Church for cannoning scripture. Isn’t it to God’s glory instead? Didn’t God say his word would last forever?

The Jews yet again for the 3rd and final time call Israel home. Is it for the glory of the Jews that Israel was born in a day or is it the glory of God because he promised it so?

 

[ReadTheBible]

You haven’t contradicted Purgatory

You are correct I haven’t but scripture does in the verses I gave you.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I quote scripture copiously. To say you don’t want Catholic sources at all, causes me to acknowledge, that you don’t know who wrote, and canonized the scriptures that you want to accept solely.

The writers of the NT were already in the very Church they were writing to and for. It’s the Catholic Church. BTW, you do realize there was no bible at the time of the apostles… right? AND there was no inspired index of books that listed by writers and work, the inspired writings . There were 100’s of writings claiming to be inspired. How did we end up with 73 total books?

You have provided 3rd party websites that give scripture and their stance on scripture. I’m well aware of how scripture itself was canonized. I haven’t cited Luther once in any discussion except to say that I’m not using a 3rd party site which happens to agree with me to give you my thoughts. I hope you see the difference.

It seems as if you give the glory to the Church for cannoning scripture. Isn’t it to God’s glory instead? Didn’t God say his word would last forever?

The Jews yet again for the 3rd and final time call Israel home. Is it for the glory of the Jews that Israel was born in a day or is it the glory of God because he promised it so?

Are you trying to say you don’t use 3rd party ideologies in you responses?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You haven’t contradicted Purgatory

You are correct I haven’t but scripture does in the verses I gave you.

No they don’t

 

[hope]

Purgatory says the sins we die with must be paid for by the “purifying fire” of purgatory. Scripture, however, says that Christ’s death on the cross paid for our past, present and future sins. Likewise, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, so God sees us as He sees His Son, perfectly righteous. This is why we are perfected, and it is why God will remember our sins no more, since they have been punished on the cross. As the Scriptures above demonstrate, God’s word proves purgatory to be a false teaching. Even worse, it blasphemes the gospel of Christ by teaching that His sacrifice and imputed righteousness was not sufficient

There is a lot here that I would answer but I have question. When Jesus said

Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." How does that fit in with your above statements. It contradicts your assertions. Why would there be a need for them to forgive sins? Wasn’t Jesus’sacrifice sufficient?

 

[ReadTheBible]

Nothing in your explanation deals, even though I asked, with from what you are being released and what is it being paid? No you did not answer those questions.

In Matthew you would be released from prison after paying everything owed to the individual you are in quarrel with.

In Luke, Christ would have the people to be as wise in the concerns of their souls as they are in outward affairs. It’s still prison you would be released from and money being paid.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Why would Paul in admonishing them not say eat his flesh and drink his blood? Why does he say eat the bread and drink this cup repeatedly if it wasn’t a solemn memorial?

First of all, in the original Greek the word anamnesis or “memorial” basically means to represent or make present. It doesn’t mean “remember” the way that we take it now. St. Paul himself uses the word anamnesis in his teachings on the Eucharist. In the same way that the Levitical Jewish Passover meal wasn’t simply a rememberance, neither is the Eucharist. If you are really interested in learning about the foundations of catholic teaching on this I would encourage you to read Brent Petrie’s book titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.

As for the apostles and early church fathers possibly perverting the gospel, and a non-apostolic reformer 1600 years later deciding he’s right and the apostles and ECF’s were wrong…well, this is spiritual pride on such a massive scale that I never quite know what to say to that. I can only recommend that you delve into the writings of the apostles and early church fathers, with an open mind.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." How does that fit in with your above statements. It contradicts your assertions. Why would there be a need for them to forgive sins? Wasn’t Jesus’sacrifice sufficient?

Do you claim the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t sufficient for every sin of all alive then and everyone born after until the end of time?

 

[hope]

Really how mundane of Jesus to speak the obvious. As I have already stated Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven in both scriptures as the context shows.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Do you claim the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t sufficient for every sin of all alive then and everyone born after until the end of time?

This is a common evangelical/non-apostolic fallacy. Jesus’s sacrifice is what makes salvation POSSIBLE. It doesn’t guarantee it. You still need to repent of your sins and be forgiven. And he gave the apostles and their descendants the ability to do that. I would only ask why you seem to think that Jesus isn’t capable of giving the apostles this gift to absolve, especially when He SAID he was doing so and it’s recorded in scripture.

 

[ReadTheBible]

First of all, in the original Greek the word anamnesis or “memorial” basically means to represent or make present. It doesn’t mean “remember” the way that we take it now.

Anamnesisa in the Greek literally means a calling to mind or remember.

 

[hope]

You didn’t answer my question. You are deflecting I assume because you cannot explain why it doesn’t contradict your statements. If you don’t or can’t answer that in itself is an answer.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

No. In Greek culture, anamnesis was a term used to denote the movement of an abstract idea into this material world. Plato, for example, used it as one of his key ideas. For him, knowledge was an act of anamnesis , or “remembering,” whereby the realities of the world of forms (ideas) came to people in this world. So, anamnesis meant more of a process in which something in another world came to be embodied in this physical world.

What you are saying is that God’s covenants with His people have always been symbolic and the sacrifices etc didn’t literally do anything.

Does Paul Teach the Real Presence of Christ? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Hodos]

Same way Arius challenged validity of Trinity or same way Copts challenged validity of Chalcedon, or even same way Catholics challenge validity of your position. Without authority there are only subjective opinions- as I said before, either relativism or Church with clear authority… nothing else solves this problem.

No, because again, we aren’t talking about opinions devoid of evidence are we? We actually have documents that provide to us the apostolic teaching. We can objectively analyze Arius teaching and say, what you are saying about the nature of Christ conflicts with what the apostle John taught about his eternal pre-existence in these verses, etc. We aren’t just throwing around opinions from the ether. There actually is a context where not all opinions are equally valid because evidence can actually be presented to demonstrate that this is not consistent with apostolic teaching. And again, no one is saying there is no authority. What we are saying is that our authority is submissive to the ultimate authority which is God and his will revealed through the person of Christ.

We can make personal conclusions, ones that are subject to our fallible opinions and perceptions. That’s it kinda.

Again, not really. You keep assuming that all opinions are equally valid given the pre-existing evidence of God’s revelation provided in scripture.

heretical baptism was considered valid (even those heresies you would not agree with) in Early Church, yet they were not included as part of Church in it’s Ecumenical Councils or other agreements (St. Augustine clearly considered heretics to be out of Church).

Again, you make my point for me in that the true Church, the Church triumphant, is not circumscribed by the Roman Catholic denomination. This isn’t to say that all doctrinal statements are correct from any one denomination, but it should make us question whether all dogmatic statements of doctrine should even have been declared as dogmatic (necessary to the faith for the purpose of salvation) as opposed to adiaphoron.

 

[ReadTheBible]

You didn’t answer my question. You are deflecting I assume because you cannot explain why it doesn’t contradict your statements. If you don’t or can’t answer that in itself is an answer.

Honestly if we could just stay on one topic at a time it would be easier.

In John 20 starting in verse 20

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness on the basis of God’s previous appointment. There is a famous Greek scholar J. R. Mantey who pointed out the Greek “Fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution.

God alone can pardon sin. This is all throughout scripture. The position Catholicism takes regarding the above verses are in error. It is in direct violation of Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22

The disciples were authorized to announce the terms of salvation not grant salvation.

Really how mundane of Jesus to speak the obvious.

One can’t take every single passage of scripture as literal because plenty are discussed figuratively.

Just some examples. When Jesus said I am the vine, he didn’t literally mean he was a vine. He said he was the door. He didn’t mean he was literally a door. He told the disciples they were the light of the world. They weren’t literally lights. We are to be the salt of the earth. We aren’t literally salt.

 

[ReadTheBible]

You didn’t answer my question. You are deflecting I assume because you cannot explain why it doesn’t contradict your statements. If you don’t or can’t answer that in itself is an answer.

As a follow up to John 20:23.

Scripture gives us 2 definitions of blasphemy. If a man claims to be God, or claims to have the power of God (ie forgive sin) it is blasphemy.

John 10

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Mark 2

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only

Jesus and God are one just as he claimed. This is why he can forgive sins. No mortal from Adam, to Moses, to David, to Solomon, to Daniel, to any of the apostles have the power to pardon us from sin.