I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Ozzie]

Pax:

If you read my posts and those of the other Catholics that have been responding to you, you will “never” be able to find a statement that supports your claims against us. We do not believe, as you put it, that "the “grace” of God gives you the power to perfom works worthy enough to, ultimately, merit salvation.

I have read all of your posts, Pax. I even responded to most of them. I know what all of you have written and I have not distorted anything. Not one RC on this thread believes he/she HAS, possesses, presently, eternal life. They are all waiting to see what God has to say at the end of their lives. They’re hoping they do. But NONE believe they do, based on the posts in this thread. And this lack of knowledge is based on Roman Catholic teaching. It is a blatant denial of what Scripture reveals and a blatant denial of what Christ accomplished (past tense) for all who believe in Him. Do you believe you have eternal life right now, Pax? If so, based on what? If not, why not? If it has anything to do with you, other than believing what Christ has accomplished on your behalf, then it is by works. Period!

ROM 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

It is clear and obvious that you have interpreted the scriptures provided you based not on the context or the expressed intent of the holy word of God, but rather on your own tradition’s doctrinal pre-disposition which did not exist in Christianity prior to Martin Luther. That is a historical fact that cannot be refuted and it is a man made tradition that you have used as your premise to argue away the clear meaning of scripture.

Your doctrine of “once saved always saved” has no scriptural foundation. I have researched over 65 verses that clearly refute it, but you will not take me up on my offer to study them.

Catholics have as scripture puts it, “the hope” of salvation that is provided by the merits of Jesus. Catholics have a moral certitude that they are saved, but we do not have a metaphysical certitude. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4: 3-5, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”

Do you realize that your belief “pronounces judgment before the time?” Do you realize that your belief is a judgment that is reserved to God? Do you realize that no Christians ever believed what you believe for the the first 16 centuries of Christian life? Do you realize that scripture warns of falling away from the faith? Have you read Hebrews 10: 26-31where it says, “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 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? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Does this mean anything to you?

Ozzie, you cannot take your doctrinal premise and place it along side all of scripture and its clear context without coming to the conclusion that it is utterly false. Your belief fails the biblical test. Your belief fails the historical test. Your belief fails every logical test, and your belief fails the tests of repentance, justice, and even common sense.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

It is clear and obvious that you have interpreted the scriptures provided you based not on the context or the expressed intent of the holy word of God, but rather on your own tradition’s doctrinal pre-disposition which did not exist in Christianity prior to Martin Luther. That is a historical fact that cannot be refuted and it is a man made tradition that you have used as your premise to argue away the clear meaning of scripture.

Catholics have, as scripture puts it, “the hope” of salvation that is provided by the merits of Jesus. Catholics have a moral certitude that they are saved, but we do not have a metaphysical certitude. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4: 3-5, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”

Do you realize that your belief “pronounces judgment before the time?” Do you realize that your belief is a judgment that is reserved to God? Do you realize that no Christians ever believed what you believe for the the first 16 centuries of Christian life? Do you realize that scripture warns of falling away from the faith? Have you read Hebrews 10: 26-31where it says, “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 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? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Does this mean anything to you?

Ozzie, you cannot take your doctrinal premise and place it along side all of scripture and its clear context without coming to the conclusion that it is utterly false. Your belief fails the biblical test. Your belief fails the historical test. Your belief fails every logical test, and your belief fails the tests of repentance, justice, and even common sense.

Ozzie, the saddest part of this whole thing is that you will never receive the precious body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The sacrifice of the mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 1:11 where we read, “**For from the rising of the sun to its setting ** my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”
Every hour of every day from the rising of the sun to its setting the mass is somewhere being offered. At the mass the perfect sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented in time. At the mass we can worship God in the most beautiful and perfect way possible because Jesus is there body, blood, soul and divinity. At the mass we have the great privilege of witnessing and participating in the promise Jesus made to us in John Chapter 6 and at the last supper. We receive Him in the Eucharist. This has been the source and summit of the Christian faith since the Last Supper, and history substantiates this…first in Scripture, then the early Church Fathers, and then all Catholic Christian writers and teachers thereafter. Again, none of this changed until after the reformation when literally all hell broke loose.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

I challenge you to accept my email file or sixty five plus verses of scripture that thoroughly negate the “once saved always saved” doctrinal error that you have as a center piece of your faith. Just send me a private message and I will email the file.

 

[montanaman]

Hey–I’ll take that file! Send it to me, please!

 

[MariaG]

Catholics do not live lives of mortal terror concerning salvation. True, salvation can be lost through mortal sin, but such sins are by nature grave ones, and not the kind that a person living the Christian life is going to slip into committing on the spur of the moment, without deliberate thought and consent. **Neither does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot have an assurance of salvation. This is true both of present and future salvation. **

One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin. For example, “By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10), “If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20), “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I *will be *saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

The full text of this can be found here. catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

For those who truly wish to know the truth of what Catholics believe on the assurance of Salvation.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[WBB]

Ozzie:

I didn’t say I haven’t read any of those writings, but the the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures.

WBB:

I am surprised that no one has picked up on this. Where, oh where is*** that*** taught in the scriptures (that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures)?

Since I haven’t gotten an answer, I’ll ask again. Where, oh where is ***that ***taught in the Scriptures (that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures)?

 

[RBushlow]

Ozzie:

the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures. And no, most of those deemed “Church Fathers” were not taught directly by the Apostles.

Ozzie,

First, could you please show me the passage that supports your contention that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from Scripture.

Second, you are also incorrect about the Church Fathers not being taught by the Apostles. Read about St Ignatius of Antioc (first martyr to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum), or St Polycarp. These were both taught and consecrated to their offices directly by the Apostles. After reading up on them you will even know which Apostles.

Third, the Church Fathers were cited originally to demonstrate the beliefs of the first postapostolic Christians. Which you seem to believe are the same as your beliefs.

May God bless and keep you in His peace always.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

It is clear and obvious that you have interpreted the scriptures provided you based not on the context or the expressed intent of the holy word of God, but rather on your own tradition’s doctrinal pre-disposition which did not exist in Christianity prior to Martin Luther.

If you would carefully read and examine each of the interpretations I provided for each of the verses you presented to proof-text your theory on “progressive” salvation, you would see I interpreted accurately and within not only their immediate context but within the context of all the N.T. writings. What I presented was totally Biblical and in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I quoted only Scripture, never Martin Luther, and the Scriptures existed long before Luther was born on this earth.

Catholics have a moral certitude that they are saved, but we do not have a metaphysical certitude.

This is “mumbo jumbo.”

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4: 3-5, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”

Paul is talking in the context of his ministry, not his salvation. Flash back to 1 Cor. 3:13 and you’ll see the context. Paul had a ministry that was entrusted to him by Christ and he was responsible only to Christ. He repudiated any judgment by other men (or even himself) concerning him or his ministry, or comparing him to other leaders (see, 3:21), such comparisons meant nothing to him. Why? Because the day is coming when his works (not his salvation) will be examined by Christ Himself (see, 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

Do you realize that your belief “pronounces judgment before the time?” Do you realize that your belief is a judgment that is reserved to God?

I pronounce no judgment on anyone. I do proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own words: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and BELIEVES Him who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and DOES NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT BUT HAS PASSED OUT OF DEATH INTO LIFE” (Jn. 5:24). I do expose false doctrines, especially those of the legalists, and, like the Apostle Paul, ask those who claim belief in Christ why they are so quick to desert Him who called them by the GRACE of Christ for a “different gospel” following those who distort the gospel of Christ (see Gal. 1:6-8). It is the obligation of all Bible believing Christians to expose the distorted doctrines of false teachers, especially those of the legalist.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Do you realize that no Christians ever believed what you believe for the the first 16 centuries of Christian life? Do you realize that scripture warns of falling away from the faith?

First of all what you say about no Christian ever believing what I believe about salvation by grace through faith alone is obviously false. The Scriptures themselves prove you wrong. Have you read the book of Acts? I’ve read the history of the Church and I know how doctrines developed through the years, both good and bad, true and false. I am only concerned with what the writers of Scripture wrote, and must examine what others have written and teach today according to the Scriptures.

Do you realize that long before the RC church developed into what it became Paul warned those who followed the teachings of the legalists, those who taught that they were “justified by law” (i.e., a law principle, in other words, “works”) that they were “severed from Christ,” they were “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4)?

Your belief fails the biblical test. Your belief fails the historical test. Your belief fails every logical test, and your belief fails the tests of repentance, justice, and even common sense.

(1) It’s impossible for my belief to fail the “Biblical test” when my belief is totally Biblical. It’s true that my belief fails the test of the false doctrines that pregressively developed down through history. But that’s a good test to fail. (2) My belief can’t fail the test of “repentance” and “justice” because we are told in Scripture to “repent” and “believe,” and that God is “just” and the “justifier” of the one who has faith in Jesus. (3) As for the test of “common sense,” well, I would steer clear of that, Pax, and opt for “divine sense” if I were you. “Common sense,” or "man-sense" considers the cross foolishness.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55:8-9).

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Ozzie, the saddest part of this whole thing is that you will never receive the precious body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The sacrifice of the mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 1:11 where we read, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”

First of all, Mal. 1:11 has as much to do with the “Eucharist” as works have to do with grace. It is a prophecy regarding the future Millennium when Christ will ascend the throne of His father David and rule the nations from Jerusalem (Lk. 1:32-33). Mal. 1:11 will not take place until after Christ’s 2nd Advent.

But you’re right in that I will never receive the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Christ in the “Eucharist” because none of the aforementioned is there. It is a wafer made of wheat, and the poor little girl who is allergic to wheat still suffers a reaction when ingesting it. I do, however, celebrate communion with GREAT JOY “in REMEMBRANCE” of Him and know that by partaking of it I “PROCLAIM His death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:25-26). In remembrance I thank Him for His one time, once-for-all-time, historic, sacrificial death for the forgiveness of ALL my sins; not just up to the time of baptism, but past, present and future (1 Pet. 2:24; Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 1:3; 1Jn. 3:5). That there on the cross He forever reconciled me to God, forever redeemed me with the price of His shed blood, and by His sacrificial blood forever satisfied (propitiated) the offended holiness of God because of my sins; so that now God may look upon me, a believer, with divine favor (grace). There is no need to ever “re-present” what Christ once-for-all-time historically finished. The non-Biblical notion of “re-presenting” Christ’s sacrifice billions of times does not proclaim His once-for-all historic death and what He forever accomplished there by it, but instead perpetually proclaims He never finished what the Father sent Him to do.

BTW, the early Church celebrated communion as a “thank offering.” Only later did it take on the non-Biblical notion of a sacrificial offering, according to the precepts of men.

 

[WBB]

Ozzie,

You still have avoided my question. Where is it written in the Bible that the authority for faith and doctrine is the Scriptures?

 

[RBushlow]

Ozzie:

. . . . the the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures. And no, most of those deemed “Church Fathers” were not taught directly by the Apostles. Still, none were Apostles.

Ozzie,
Please do not sidestep the issue. Answer directly I raised in the following.

First, could you please show me the passage that supports your contention that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from Scripture.

Second, you are also incorrect about the Church Fathers not being taught by the Apostles. Read about St Ignatius of Antioc (first martyr to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum), or St Polycarp. These were both taught and consecrated to their offices directly by the Apostles. After reading up on them you will even know which Apostles.

Third, the Church Fathers were cited originally to demonstrate the beliefs of the first postapostolic Christians. Which you seem to believe are the same as your beliefs.May the peace of Christ be with you always.

 

[WBB]

RBushlow:

Ozzie,
Please do not sidestep the issue. Answer directly I raised in the following.

First, could you please show me the passage that supports your contention that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from Scripture.

Second, you are also incorrect about the Church Fathers not being taught by the Apostles. Read about St Ignatius of Antioc (first martyr to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum), or St Polycarp. These were both taught and consecrated to their offices directly by the Apostles. After reading up on them you will even know which Apostles.

Third, the Church Fathers were cited originally to demonstrate the beliefs of the first postapostolic Christians. Which you seem to believe are the same as your beliefs.

Seems like we are on the same wavelength, RBushlow!

 

[determan01]

Hi,

I believe that people who rely solely on Scripture as law like to cite 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

That said, I am new, but it seems to me that we are arguing due to a misunderstanding of semantics. Did Christ Jesus really mean we were to carve off a piece of His flesh and digest it? Or was He using a metaphor to mean we must make Him apart of ourselves so that we can carry out God’s will. That we must incorporate all of Christ’s teaching, lessons, and have faith in him as our redeemer to be saved. Since Christ was the word of God eating His flesh and blood could be meant as reading, memorizing, and believing in His message of salvation. I hope I am doing justice to this I am only an novice.

Secondly, saying we are eating the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist may be a metaphor as well. It is true that the Host is bread and wine even after we consecrate it. It is also true that Christ is really present. It has been said before, By consuming the Host we are also affirming our desire to be like Christ, to abide by His teaching, His word. Which means we act on the metaphor that Christ told us. As well, it is our only opportunity to be with the real presence of Christ on Earth.

It seems silly to argue about the reality of the Body or flesh of Christ contained in the Host. Obviously the host doesn’t bleed. It also seems silly to deny the reality of Christ being present in the Host. It is meant to be a mystery

Maybe we are confounded by it because it is God’s way of testing our faith.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BTW, the early Church celebrated communion as a “thank offering.” Only later did it take on the non-Biblical notion of a sacrificial offering, according to the precepts of men.

St.Ignatius of Antioch said :

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

St.Justin Martyr said :

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

St.Irenaeus said :

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).*

 

[WBB]

determan01:

Hi,

I believe that people who rely solely on Scripture as law like to cite 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

That said, I am new, but it seems to me that we are arguing due to a misunderstanding of semantics. Did Christ Jesus really mean we were to carve off a piece of His flesh and digest it? Or was He using a metaphor to mean we must make Him apart of ourselves so that we can carry out God’s will. That we must incorporate all of Christ’s teaching, lessons, and have faith in him as our redeemer to be saved. Since Christ was the word of God eating His flesh and blood could be meant as reading, memorizing, and believing in His message of salvation. I hope I am doing justice to this I am only an novice.

Secondly, saying we are eating the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist may be a metaphor as well. It is true that the Host is bread and wine even after we consecrate it. It is also true that Christ is really present. It has been said before, By consuming the Host we are also affirming our desire to be like Christ, to abide by His teaching, His word. Which means we act on the metaphor that Christ told us. As well, it is our only opportunity to be with the real presence of Christ on Earth.

It seems silly to argue about the reality of the Body or flesh of Christ contained in the Host. Obviously the host doesn’t bleed. It also seems silly to deny the reality of Christ being present in the Host. It is meant to be a mystery

Maybe we are confounded by it because it is God’s way of testing our faith.

The verses in 2 Timothy never say that the Scriptures are the sole authority…

"But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. "

St. Paul says the scriptures are “capable of giving wisdom for salvation,” and the scriptures are “useful for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”, but it never says they are authoritative and certainly not the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine. St. Paul also says that along with the scriptures that Timothy is to “remain faithful from what you have learned and believed because you know from whom you have learned it.” This would be the Apostolic Tradition which was an oral Tradition. It is this oral Tradition of the Apostles that led to the written Tradition of the scriptures, and it is through the Apostolic Tradition, that the “light” shed by the scriptures is focused for Catholics.

About the Eucharist, Catholics don’t understand it as “carving a piece of flesh” at all. However, the reality is that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ regardless of whether you believe or not. It is a matter of faith.

 

[RBushlow]

determan01:

Hi,

I believe that people who rely solely on Scripture as law like to cite 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

That said, I am new, but it seems to me that we are arguing due to a misunderstanding of semantics. Did Christ Jesus really mean we were to carve off a piece of His flesh and digest it? Or was He using a metaphor to mean we must make Him apart of ourselves so that we can carry out God’s will. That we must incorporate all of Christ’s teaching, lessons, and have faith in him as our redeemer to be saved. Since Christ was the word of God eating His flesh and blood could be meant as reading, memorizing, and believing in His message of salvation. I hope I am doing justice to this I am only an novice.

Secondly, saying we are eating the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist may be a metaphor as well. It is true that the Host is bread and wine even after we consecrate it. It is also true that Christ is really present. It has been said before, By consuming the Host we are also affirming our desire to be like Christ, to abide by His teaching, His word. Which means we act on the metaphor that Christ told us. As well, it is our only opportunity to be with the real presence of Christ on Earth.

It seems silly to argue about the reality of the Body or flesh of Christ contained in the Host. Obviously the host doesn’t bleed. It also seems silly to deny the reality of Christ being present in the Host. It is meant to be a mystery

Maybe we are confounded by it because it is God’s way of testing our faith.

determan01, what question are you answering? This thread is not about the Eucharist. The current discussion is about the beliefs of the Early Church. The Holy Eucharist was just mentioned incidentally. Read several posts to get the idea of the thread before jumping in.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Ozzie]

RBushlow:

First, could you please show me the passage that supports your contention that the authority for faith and doctrine derives from Scripture.

First you tell me what the word *“inspired” *(Gr. theopneustos) means. And if there are any other writings that we possess that are considered “Scripture” and have their divine authority.

Second, you are also incorrect about the Church Fathers not being taught by the Apostles. Read about St Ignatius of Antioc (first martyr to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum), or St Polycarp. These were both taught and consecrated to their offices directly by the Apostles. After reading up on them you will even know which Apostles.

If you would go back and read my post I specifically said, *“not all.” *The title “Church Fathers” generally applies to the whole period of the ecumenical formation of doctrines, before the separation of Eastern and Western Christendom. For the Latin church this line generally closed with Pope Gregory I who died in 604 A.D. The line of the Greek church with John of Damascus who died about 754 A.D.

Bottom line, my friend, early church writers differed with early church writers. Augustine, in fact, was decidely evangelical in his views on sin and grace, and his views were picked up by Luther and Calvin, which were virtually condemned by the Council of Trent. There is no “unanimous consent” amongst the so-called “church fathers.”

Third, the Church Fathers were cited originally to demonstrate the beliefs of the first postapostolic Christians. Which you seem to believe are the same as your beliefs.

I never said these writers and I were in complete agreement. My emphasis has always been on the Scriptures for faith and doctrine. And if you want to discuss faith and doctrine with me, it’ll have to be based on what is written there, not the early writers. Even the writings of these men must be tested by what is written in the N.T. Actually, we today have a far better advantage, even better than someone like Ignatius. We have the whole N.T. writings in our possession. Especially since the Reformation; the Scriptures were put back into the hands of the people and men have studied their contents.

 

[WBB]

Ozzie:

First you tell me what the word *“inspired” *(Gr. theopneustos) means. And if there are any other writings that we possess that are considered “Scripture” and have their divine authority. If you would go back and read my post I specifically said, *“not all.” *The title “Church Fathers” generally applies to the whole period of the ecumenical formation of doctrines, before the separation of Eastern and Western Christendom. For the Latin church this line generally closed with Pope Gregory I who died in 604 A.D. The line of the Greek church with John of Damascus who died about 754 A.D.

Bottom line, my friend, early church writers differed with early church writers. Augustine, in fact, was decidely evangelical in his views on sin and grace, and his views were picked up by Luther and Calvin, which were virtually condemned by the Council of Trent. There is no “unanimous consent” amongst the so-called “church fathers.” I never said these writers and I were in complete agreement. My emphasis has always been on the Scriptures for faith and doctrine. And if you want to discuss faith and doctrine with me, it’ll have to be based on what is written there, not the early writers. Even the writings of these men must be tested by what is written in the N.T. Actually, we today have a far better advantage, even better than someone like Ignatius. We have the whole N.T. writings in our possession. Especially since the Reformation; the Scriptures were put back into the hands of the people and men have studied their contents.

Yes of course, we have a better perspective 2000 years hence than a person who was actually taught by the Beloved Disciple John (who ate, drank, laughed, cried, and wept with the Savior and was there for the crucifixion and resurrection). Thank heaven we are so much more fortunate to have the bible.