Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Realcatholicgk]

Realcatholicgk, your zeal for the Catholic Church is admirable.

My point of view however, reflects the works of God in the salvation of mankind.
While yours reflects salvation of mankind by the Catholic church.

[Introduction]
The works of God are: Creation of the flesh (Adam+Eve)

[Fall]
The giving of intelligence and introduction of knowledge.

[Judgment]
After the fall.

[Death]
After judgment:

These four are Gods center piece in the whole bible.

Jesus, again uses the same center piece to recreate a new kingdom.

If one breaks the day Jesus was crucified into 4 quarters of a day, one can see those four things.

Jesus delivered mankind’s soul in one day, thus that one day encompasses the whole of the 7-day first creation to one 24 hour day.

If we can see it, we will realize that salvation is all Gods work and our works have absolutely nothing to do with our salvation.

I can see where God gave us His word in print via human writers, but inspired to give us the necessary knowledge to receive so great a work of salvation.

It was all in His design: Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,

…“was made subject to vanity” first creation
…“who hath subjected [the same] in hope”…second creation

We can see Gods complete works in His first creation and in the second as well.

I said all that to point out that salvation is universal.

That’s what Jesus wanted us to understand when He said: Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Did not Jesus forgive His persecutors? Why?
Is it because He loved them?

If the answer to that is Yes, then His enemies and ours are precious in His site to.

That must also mean that salvation for mankind is purchased, by God, paid for and given to us as a free gift.

Does that not make us all brothers and sisters in Christ?

Hence: love one another, love our enemies:

Differing religious beliefs have nothing to do with salvation, but it does direct us to God.

If then,the heart of mankind is not changed, then God can not use us as instruments for good.

That is why I present the love of God as non divisional, but as a unifying love that has no borders.

I have no problem with any belief, only when that persons belief harbors hate.

That needs an attitude adjustment that only th love of God in us can make a difference.

Peace>>>AJ

**

Hi AJ, “wave”

Good post overall. I read but didn’t obsorbe every word yet. I am rushed but wanted to reply soonest. I am on my way to Mass. I Will comment more on your post later.SDA and several of your own protestants groups would eat you up for things said in this post. I will check my beliefs and comment more later from a catholic point of view. You may be more “catholic” than you realize. I agree with the love for one another. If I didn’t think Protestants didn’t deserve love and savlation I wouldn’t attempt to help them see the correct way. If you believe the scriptures, every thing you said is true but jesus gave us a “blue print” if you will on what was expected. of course, being human our members get off track sometimes and the HS has to pu;ll the RCC back on track. In 2,000 years we haven’t do so badly. But in only 500 years the Protestants have developed 61,000 groups 100 versions of the Bible, 1,375 different combinations of doctrines and dogmas. They all disagree with one another, they all disagree with the Catholic church. tt seems a Non-brainer to me If you have a one on 61,000 chance in gettin g it “right” go with the odds. there is one agains 61,000 and each of the 61,000 against all the others and the one.

I trust, belief and confess that I believe the One is correct. Everything the RCC teaches if supported by scripture otr oral tradition. No other denomination can say that and not be found guilty of herecies.

We shall talk more. If you told be what denomination you are It would better allow me to converse with you without generalities about the 1,375 dogmas and beliefs. You might believe in the trinity, mary, Real presense, Divinity of Jesus,etc, etc, etc. It is hard to say, you guys keep dividing like an uncontrolable cancer on the body of Christ. And I actually meant that in a nice way!
.

God Bless.**

 

[GKC]

You do realize that logically and mathematically, that a recreation or maybe exact replica means more than one sacrifice, victim and death? Only the replica is never as good as the original. You can’t (well you can) say that it is the same exact one… there is neither blood nor cross, nor Roman soldiers, nor nails, nor thieves.

Thanks for answering the question; I thought I understood that the implication was a death, but wanted to make sure I had the RC teaching correct.

You are missing the definition. As I said in the first post I addressed on this, it’s not a recreation. It’s not a replica. It’s the same Sacrifice. The one with Blood and Nails, and Soldiers and Thieves. On a hill. Recall that one, now? The same Victim. The same death. Re-presented in the Mass, outside of time and space, which creations are not binding limits on God. Made present (re-presented, presented again, brought to), to those at the Mass. The same, one, only and original Sacrifice.

If you don’t grasp this, you are going to spend electrons arguing with something the Catholic Church doesn’t teach. Which is not unusual, but not useful either. No one expects to you to agree, but it is helpful if you understand what you are not agreeing with.

Try it again. The same Sacrifice. Not another one. Not a duplicate one. Not a recreated one. Not a replica of one. Not an additional one. Not a later one. Not a repeated one. Not a symbolic one. The same Sacrifice. The same Sacrifice that you would have seen had you been at the Hill, in roughly 2004 AD. Because that is precisely what happens in the Mass.

GKC

 

[pneuma07]

With regard to “symbolically or spiritually” that same addition could be properly read into many sentences spoken by Christ…for example when Jesus said, I am (symbolically or spiritually) the true vine. So as to avoid mistakes by those who are inclined to be overly literal those words must be read into almost all of Jesus’s figurative statements (as he rarely speciified). Further, if one was to be honest about what the RCC understands to be Ignatius’s beliefs one would also be making additions to Ignatius’s words along the lines of:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the (blood and the) flesh (and the rest of the body) of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh (blood and body) which suffered (and was poured out) for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

Now although the text doesn’t contain those words, the RCC would feel quite justified on adding them based on what the RCC is sure Ignatius must have actually believed. Likewise, I feel quite justified on adding “symbolically or spiritually” based on what I am sure Ignatius must have actually believed.

Dear Radical, dear Brian,

  I cannot swim very well through megathreads. :) Anyway it seems  this  proposal belongs to those going so far unanswered.  So  I'm trying a contribution.

Docetism ( from the greek verb for “to seem” ) is the belief that who (or what) was walking and preaching in Galilee and Jerusalem being called Jesus was not a real human being, had not real flesh. Now, you Radical appear to propose that the consequence of this tenet on eucharistic view, and what the ECFs would oppose, is that since there never existed Jesus’ real body and blood in the first place according to dcetists, then a “non real presence” view of Eucharist implying a degree of reverence-inspiring symbolism was rejected by them, to Ignatius’ outrage.

My impression was and is a little different. I hope it is not considered too simple.

Rather than deriving from the non real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus ( some kind of presence must have been there for them too, maybe symbolic, or spiritual, but for sure there was no real body), the rejection of a non real presence of body and blood in the eucharistic elements ( to be supposedly substituted by other forms of non real presence, let’s say “even less than merely symbolic”), Ignatius IMHO tells us that rejection of real presence in the Eucharist is but a natural consequence of the rejection of Incarnation, ie of the real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus.

The Eucharist, from the point of view of the Apostolic Churches(the one you Radical at present don’t accept), can be regarded as in a manner a continuation and extension of the Incarnation. On the contrary, Ignatius’ adversaries had it that the divine element is in no way encompassed in the material element.

*Putting “(merely) symbolic” and “body or blood” together with flesh ( sarx) could *hardly be seen as comparable additions IMHO. You know sarx does not generally mean “the soft muscular parts of the body” in biblical language. It is correlated to the hebrew bashar, meaning the whole material constituent of men.
In a context where Incarnation is referred to, we should carefully remember John 1. Do you believe the Logos became just “the soft muscular parts of a human being “, without nails or bones ? We are just dealing with the material aspect of the human being. So, when sarx is used in such a context you could safely say that body and blood are just there, without adding or subtracting.

On the contrary, your interpretative gloss, suggesting a mere symbolic nature of the Eucharist, would mean ( if the basic assumption leading your general approach were not correct ) a substantial change of Ignatius’ statement.

Bless you

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi Non,

You do realize that logically and mathematically, that a recreation or maybe exact replica means more than one sacrifice, victim and death? Only the replica is never as good as the original.

Non, why do you attempt to limit God’s ability to do what He desires? There is no recreation nor exact replica. There was the one timeless sacrifice offered by Jesus for our sins. You do realize that logically God can do what He wants Yes, but He does what He says…(One sacrifice-never to be repeated in any fashion Hebrews 7,8,9) without your understanding don’t you? It is call a mystery **( you do know the “mystery” has been revealed - NT) **for a good reason. We can’t understand How God does it **(Yes we can!!!)**We are assured that He does. He wants to allow His followers to be at the foot of the cross as He dies for our sins. It is His right is it? This is no Hollywood production (theatrics would be a better description and that is what it is. At every Mass we go back and join Jesus at the last supper and at Calvary **(Where is that in Scripture…it’s not)**as he atones for Our sins. He paid a price **(Once for all believers)**that He didn’t owe, because we owe a price we couldn’t pay. He said in scripture that He would do that and demanded that we each be able (able to what?)

You can’t (well you can) say that it is the same exact one… there is neither blood nor cross, nor Roman soldiers, nor nails, nor thieves.

Yes we can because it is! There is Our Lord’s Body and Blood! **It is wine and wafer…have you looked at it? What does it taste like? I’ll bet the wafer was bland and the wine okay.**There is the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. There is the mystery (there is no mystery there, unless you consider Jesus work a mystery in your own mind) of our redemption. But, I guess, being Protestant (excuse me, but I am a Christian whereas you are a Catholic) you might not understand!

And mathematically it can be proved: Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, gave His real followers one church (**yes, I agree…wow we agree)**and left the HS to guide them - Good people and some bad people, without God’s authority attempted to overthrow Jesus’ church and in the process got themselves controlled by the Devil. **(we agree again…maybe some hope?) **They corrupted the real bible and distorted Jesus teachings and left to multiply and divide over and over again. I would really like some evidence of this…can you give any? So, 1 church 2,000 years old plus 61,000 counterfeit groups claiming to be part of that church.(which of course equal Zero) makes ON E TRUE CHURCH! **1 + 0 = 1 - good math
**

Thanks for answering the question; I thought I understood that the implication was a death, but wanted to make sure I had the RC teaching correct.

Not a problem! Our pleasure! Don’t Protestants teach Jesus died also? **(You’ll have to ask one)**at least most of the 61,000 should It is hard to know with 1,375 different doctrines and dogmas to choose from. It could take years and to research and by then there will be over 100,000 groups at least. II am so glad the catholic church has remained firm in our beliefs for 2,000 years. It is so much easier following the true church! That’s great, but Christianity is a personal relationship with a personal God in Jesus, rather than following a church, you might consider Jesus…He saves!

God Bless

May God open your eyes, your ears and your heart to the Lord and Savior of all believers that you may be saved…amen.

 

[Radical]

  I cannot swim very well through megathreads.

same here…I am always inclined to believe that I have missed an important response

Anyway it seems this proposal belongs to those going so far unanswered.

I know I owe you a response re a post on page 10 (or so)…is there any other? Your posts always require the most thought (and words) and so must be left until time allows…I’ll try to get to that one this weekend.

Rather than deriving from the non real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus ( some kind of presence must have been there for them too, maybe symbolic, or spiritual, but for sure there was no real body),…

Did those gnostics even participate in a eucharist or have a eucharist of their own? Ignatius’s comment that they abstained caused me to think that they didn’t participate in the Eucharist b/c for them it made no sense at all…if Jesus had no body he could not have instituted such a sacrament

Ignatius IMHO tells us that rejection of real presence in the Eucharist is but a natural consequence of the rejection of Incarnation, ie of the real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus.

I would go even further and say that Ignatius IMHO tells us that rejection of the sacrament the Eucharist is but a natural consequence of the rejection of Incarnation, ie of the real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus…and of course of the rejection of a real bodily crucifixion.

Putting “(merely) symbolic” and “body or blood” together with flesh ( sarx) could hardly be seen as comparable additions IMHO. You know sarx does not generally mean “the soft muscular parts of the body” in biblical language. It is correlated to the hebrew bashar, meaning the whole material constituent of men.

good point, “sarx” can indeed mean the entire body

On the contrary, your interpretative gloss, suggesting a mere symbolic nature of the Eucharist, would mean ( if the basic assumption leading your general approach were not correct ) a substantial change of Ignatius’ statement.

As you note, the change is only substantial if Ignatius is not speaking symbolically. If he is speaking symbolically, then there is no change whatsoever. The insertion of “symbolically or spiritually” is the same addition I would make to Jesus’s words in Luke where he says, “This is (symbolically or spiritually) my body which is given for you…” If my insertion is appropriate in Luke then it is appropriate in the letter to the Smyraeans unless Ignatius had already deviated from the truth.

Notwithstanding my weak example of RC an insertion, my point remains exactly the same. The RCC is not in a position to claim foul with respect to my insertion simply b/c it is an insertion, for they would make the same insertion for “I am the true vine…” against the fellow who takes those words of Jesus literally. I would suggest that “making insertions” is commonplace on both the RC and the Protestant sides when the proper interpretation of scripture is at issue.

God bless you Pneuma.

 

[look3467]

We shall talk more. If you told be what denomination you are It would better allow me to converse with you without generalities about the 1,375 dogmas and beliefs. You might believe in the trinity, mary, Real presense, Divinity of Jesus,etc, etc, etc. It is hard to say, you guys keep dividing like an uncontrolable cancer on the body of Christ. And I actually meant that in a nice way>>>Realcatholicgk

The point that I don’t identify with any one belief is because I identify with the love of God above all else.

You see, the church is defined not as a physical body but rather a spiritual body.
All physical bodies whether flesh or material have and end, to as where the spiritual Church has no end.

Now, if I identify you as a brother in Christ simply because Jesus died for your soul, then you are my brother or sister in Christ regarless of what denomination, church you espose.

Now, if one’s religious beliefs demostrate not the love of God as defined and demostrated by Jesus, then it begs the a question.

About division: Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Spiritualy speaking, Jesus came to divide the light from the darkness.

Key verses:
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Does this not sound as division from within the same?

You see, mankind does a poor job of managing God’s affairs, especially if evil raises it’s head and causes harm to the body.

Because the Catholic Church has survied due to flexability on it’s part, does not mean it is the true managed institution.

It is a means by which many can come to God where non other institution may give satisfaction.

That is why Jesus Christ’s Church is not made with human hands (Physical body) but a spiritual body and managed by non other than Jesus Himself.

Here is the 911 call to all humanity: Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

In other words, there is no advantage to any human title to be part of this new tabernacle but Christ alone.

In the Spirit of God, we can all have fellowship regardless of age, tilte, religious belief and or practices.

If God’s love is not in the mix, then there will be divisions.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Robbinson]

The point that I don’t identify with any one belief is because I identify with the love of God above all else.

You see, the church is defined not as a physical body but rather a spiritual body.
All physical bodies whether flesh or material have and end, to as where the spiritual Church has no end.

Now, if I identify you as a brother in Christ simply because Jesus died for your soul, then you are my brother or sister in Christ regarless of what denomination, church you espose.

Now, if one’s religious beliefs demostrate not the love of God as defined and demostrated by Jesus, then it begs the a question.

About division: Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Spiritualy speaking, Jesus came to divide the light from the darkness.

Key verses:
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Does this not sound as division from within the same?

You see, mankind does a poor job of managing God’s affairs, especially if evil raises it’s head and causes harm to the body.

Because the Catholic Church has survied due to flexability on it’s part, does not mean it is the true managed institution.

It is a means by which many can come to God where non other institution may give satisfaction.

That is why Jesus Christ’s Church is not made with human hands (Physical body) but a spiritual body and managed by non other than Jesus Himself.

Here is the 911 call to all humanity: Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

In other words, there is no advantage to any human title to be part of this new tabernacle but Christ alone.

In the Spirit of God, we can all have fellowship regardless of age, tilte, religious belief and or practices.

If God’s love is not in the mix, then there will be divisions.

Peace>>>AJ

The Church is spiritual - but it is also, per the scriptures, a physical Church. What do you think Jesus meant when he told his disciples that if there are disagreements, bring them to the “Church”? He obviously was referring/contemplating a phyisical and visible Church that could resolve disputes. What Church is that? There is indeed only one Church which traces its authority and doctrine back to the apostles (the Catholic Church).

Also - think of Philip and the Eunich. The Eunich is reading Isaiah and Philip asks he understands - he says, “how can I understand if there is no-one to teach me?”. Philip assists and then the Eunich sees and is baptized. This is telling us that we can’t be, solely, or own interpreters of scripture. There is an authority and true deposit of faith. Peter also warned that many would twist Paul’s words (which he says are difficult to understand) to their own destruction.

The apostolic succession and consistent doctrine of the Catholic Church is God’s divine design to protect the understanding of gospel and prevent its perversion.

Just some food for thought. I know that, personally, I am capable of interpreting any particular verse in any number of ways and could construct viable possible interpretations that appear to hang together with my own interpretation of other verses. That is, in fact, why there are now over 30,000 denominations of sincere Christians all thinking they have the truth with the assistance of the Holy Spirit - yet differing significantly on many key areas of doctrine.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[look3467]

The Church is spiritual - but it is also, per the scriptures, a physical Church. What do you think Jesus meant when he told his disciples that if there are disagreements, bring them to the “Church”? He obviously was referring/contemplating a physical and visible Church that could resolve disputes. What Church is that? There is indeed only one Church which traces its authority and doctrine back to the apostles (the Catholic Church).

Brian

Yes, your right, the church is spiritual first!

And then the assembly of believers is the physical.

I am not wanting to say that the Catholic Church is not credible, but simply to say that the love of God in us supersedes all earthly organizations.

Theological differences are but causes for love to be born from within us.

Light was born out of darkness and not the other way around.

Love is born where there is no love, otherwise, it is not love.

If Light was all there was, there would be no need to create for everything would be the same.

But since God decided to divide, then creation came into existence.

Day/night

Good/evil

trial/opportunity/to do good

Division/multiplier

If that which is spiritual (not of this world) unites us, what difference makes a religion?

Are we not encouraged to love one another despite our differences?

If it were not for the differences, would we have the opportunity to exercises love?

1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Judgment is here and in the now! How will we perform?

If we are placed in an environment where good can be generated, would we not be made to make judgments?

In Jesus than we are emboldened to do good works in the time/days of our judgment.

Spiritually speaking, is the only way to please God!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[NonCatholic]

Just some food for thought. I know that, personally, I am capable of interpreting any particular verse in any number of ways and could construct viable possible interpretations that appear to hang together with my own interpretation of other verses. That is, in fact, why there are now over 30,000 denominations of sincere Christians all thinking they have the truth with the assistance of the Holy Spirit - yet differing significantly on many key areas of doctrine.

You may want to look at the post I made today in the forum “Where did YOU get your authority”; it will be helpful.

 

[Robbinson]

Yes, your right, the church is spiritual first!

And then the assembly of believers is the physical.

I am not wanting to say that the Catholic Church is not credible, but simply to say that the love of God in us supersedes all earthly organizations.

Theological differences are but causes for love to be born from within us.

Light was born out of darkness and not the other way around.

Love is born where there is no love, otherwise, it is not love.

If Light was all there was, there would be no need to create for everything would be the same.

But since God decided to divide, then creation came into existence.

Day/night

Good/evil

trial/opportunity/to do good

Division/multiplier

If that which is spiritual (not of this world) unites us, what difference makes a religion?

Are we not encouraged to love one another despite our differences?

If it were not for the differences, would we have the opportunity to exercises love?

1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Judgment is here and in the now! How will we perform?

If we are placed in an environment where good can be generated, would we not be made to make judgments?

In Jesus than we are emboldened to do good works in the time/days of our judgment.

Spiritually speaking, is the only way to please God!

Peace>>>AJ

Ok - but if you don’t mind my further exending this inquiry - since Jesus described a physical Church with authority where disputes could be resolved - in your way of thinking, where would one go if its “the body of believers”? To the baptist church, or the AOG church, or the methodist church or the . . . . ? No - there is one Church. At the time of the apostles, it was the apostles - they established a church with “bishops” - it was the apostles and then their successors - and that church still exists today.

We are not all apostles and teachers (scripture tells us that) and we are not our own interpreters of scripture either (scripture tells us that). We are to go to the “Church” - the Church with authority from Jesus, for resolution.

Again - empirically, history bears out the truth of this claim (in addition to the scriptural basis) as for over 2,000 years the Catholic Church has remained with one doctrine, whereas the the Protestant reformation has not yielded the good fruit of unity (as prayed for by Jesus), but rather a remarkable, and tragic, fracturing of the body of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[look3467]

Ok - but if you don’t mind my further extending this inquiry - since Jesus described a physical Church with authority where disputes could be resolved - in your way of thinking, where would one go if its “the body of believers”? To the baptist church, or the AOG church, or the methodist church or the . . . . ? No - there is one Church. At the time of the apostles, it was the apostles - they established a church with “bishops” - it was the apostles and then their successors - and that church still exists today.>>>Robbinson

If the church is a spiritual body of believers would it not make sense that that body, what ever name it might choose to call itself by, to be a source of authority for that body?

Many church assemblies of varying beliefs are within themselves their own governing body as per their understanding of the bible.

Then there are those by which only what the governing heads declare as laws, rules also per their understanding of the bible.

Listen, the Jewish state has been the same pre and post the cross for 2,000 plus years without so much as a change.

Wouldn’t that mean that they are the true linage of the Levitical priesthood by which we ought to all become as like Jews in order to be part of God?

The establishment of the Levitical priesthood was a picture of what was to come, the real high priest of God.

Because they adhered strictly to the letter of the law, the heart was far from God.

Jesus came to fulfill the letter of the law so that we might be set free form it and rather look to Jesus for our salvation.

The Livitical priesthood had and end as the new High priest ushered in a new creation of which He alone becomes the head of it.

What that does is liberate us to worship God directly from the inner most sanctuary of our heart’s without the aid of another.

Tell me, when you pray, do you go directly to God when you are by yourself?
If yes, then the Holy Spirit listens and connects you directly.

Ref: Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

If you are strong and healthy, why go to the hospital? Unless, you want to help out those who are less fortunate.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

We are not all apostles and teachers (scripture tells us that) and we are not our own interpreters of scripture either (scripture tells us that). We are to go to the “Church” - the Church with authority from Jesus, for resolution>>>Robbinson

Let me document that for you: Apostles and teachers, Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The body of Christ is made up of all those and not one is above the other.
For there is but one head of the church, and that is Christ.

Now, if there can be an organization that aids believers in coming to Christ, then by all means go for it.

The Catholic Church by no means holds a clean and honest record as to it’s dealings with apostates, unbelievers.

But all that is forgiven as God causes changes to occur to correct mankind’s mismanagements.

Still, He will not be ignored, for He will raise up those that will worship Him in spirit and in truth.

I hold no one to any requirement other than to love God and neighbor.

Jesus was asked,Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

After that, mankind has added all sorts of requirements, dogmas and practices.

That being the case, no wonder why there are so many.

Yet, in all of them, God is sought after, unfortunately, some are misled because they themselves do not seek out the truth.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Robbinson]

If the church is a spiritual body of believers would it not make sense that that body, what ever name it might choose to call itself by, to be a source of authority for that body?

Many church assemblies of varying beliefs are within themselves their own governing body as per their understanding of the bible.

There are a couple problems with this way of thinking:

1. Jesus clearly envisioned a visible Church (would be a light on a hill) to which one could/should go for resolution of disputes. It was clear what that Church was when the apostles were alive (it was made up of the apostles). And they appointed bishops to be their successors. Would Jesus direct us to a Church and then we have no way of distinguishing between the thousands of denominations to get the right answer? This doesn’t make much sense when you think about it - does it?
2. Peter and the Apostles were give the authority to bind and lose (not all disciples of Christ). And when you read Acts, you will see that they ordained successors with the laying of hands. Paul even warns Timothy to be careful who he ordains. Why would they bother to do that (and why bother with the warning) if any disciple could start preaching and teach different doctrine and claim to be the “true Church”? (Isn’t that precisely what has happened since the reformation - 30,000 plus claimed “true Churches” all lacking apostolic authority)?

The establishment of the Levitical priesthood was a picture of what was to come, the real high priest of God.

I agree with this. But just because Jesus is the High priest with authority doesnt mean he can’t appoint (or that his authority is diminished if he appoints) ordained underlyings as bishops to teach for him, consistent with his teachings. This is in fact the pattern in the Hebrew scriptures (Moses being given diciplinary authority assigns underlyings authorized to govern and Aaron being given levitcal priest hood duties ordaining his descendants to do so, all under God) and this is in fact expressly what Jesus in fact did - expressly giving his apostles this authority to bind and lose, to forgive sins and teach and “feed the flock”.

Jesus came to fulfill the letter of the law so that we might be set free form it and rather look to Jesus for our salvation.

Yes - we are freed from the Mosaic Law (by God’s grace), but not from obedience. Paul describes an obedience of faith in Romans and Jesus tells us that if we love him, we will follow his commandments. That includes partaking in the sacraments and adhering to the authority of the apostles and their successors, expressly given to them by Christ.

Tell me, when you pray, do you go directly to God when you are by yourself?
If yes, then the Holy Spirit listens and connects you directly.

Yes - I pray to God the Father and Jesus alone for direct petitions. I also pray to Mary and the Saints for intercession on my behalf to God (as you might ask a friend to pray for you when you are ill, as well as your praying to God directly). I nevertheless am obedient to the authority of the Church in guidance regarding faith and morals and interpretation of scripture (or those key doctrinal areas where the Church has taken a formal position as a matter of dogma).

If you are strong and healthy, why go to the hospital? Unless, you want to help out those who are less fortunate.

None of us are spiritually strong and healthy - we all sin (even Christians) and fall short of the glory of God. Through God’s grace and the power of the HOly Spirit, he has given us faith (without which we would be lost). But it doesn’t end there. With faith, we are charged (the obedience of faith) with following God’s/Christ’s commandments. Faith without works is dead. The Church is our guide and offers the sacremental means (as directed by Jesus) towards completing our journey.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[NonCatholic]

Robbinson:

Ok - but if you don’t mind my further extending this inquiry - since Jesus described a physical Church with authority where disputes could be resolved - in your way of thinking, where would one go if its “the body of believers”? To the baptist church, or the AOG church, or the methodist church or the . . . . ? No - there is one Church Which Catholic Church?. At the time of the apostles, it was the apostles - they established a church with “bishops” - it was the apostles and then their successors - and that church still exists today.>>>

The gathering place of the “body of believers”, which in the Apostolic era were peoples homes or by a creek side. In this day there are both, peoples homes and buildings. Thought I would just add that…pardon the interruption.

 

[Robbinson]

The gathering place of the “body of believers”, which in the Apostolic era were peoples homes or by a creek side. In this day there are both, peoples homes and buildings. Thought I would just add that…pardon the interruption.

No worries re: interruptions - jump right in.

I’m not referring to a physical building - but an organization with authority (given by Christ) to provide spiritual guidance and resolve disputes. That could be in someone’s house, if its under the guidance and authority of the apostles or their successors (as it was in the early Christian era). The NT clearly contemplated a “Church” with a hierarchical structure which could and would provide authoritative guidance to the flock. This Church was (1) established by Christ with express authority; (2) was to be “visible” - a light on a hill (not invisible or a hidden church) and (3) was to stand until the end of time.

Other than the Catholic Church - can you name a Church today that meets these three criteria?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[look3467]

The crux of the whole is in one word “Liberty”.

We are free in Jesus to worship Him as we are led to by Him.

Now, we do recognize that in the human growth pattern are infants, toddlers,pre-teens, teenagers, young adults, middle aged and Seniors.

By the same token is the spiritual growth of souls.
Babies need nursery care and so forth.

The early church was in it’s infancy and needed a jump start.

The Apostles, 12 of them really represents the whole of humanity, as the number 12 is an earthly representation of things.

As the church body begin to grow both in body and in spirit, the original Apostles would eventually die off thereby giving charge to furtherance of the Gospel of Christ by selecting and of laying of hands.

But that in itself was not meant leaders, to become lords or to keep people under bondage.

Remember, there was no bible to speak of, therefore necessitating word of mouth and a conveyance of leadership.

Paul warned about pride in it’s members, seeming that they felt better than, higher than and more righteous than the average believer and apt to condemn those who believed not as they.

Ref: 1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

If an established institution was to be the only mode of knowledge to it’s congregation about God, then put away the bible.

But there is something greater than an institution, a practice, a dogma, a tradition, and that is the Spirit of God in it’s church, the people, which go out to the ends of the earth without restrictions operating only with the desire to reach souls for the kingdom of God.

Now that kingdom on earth, has no end and remains the same yesterday, today and forever more!

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I am at awe many times when I realize the magnitude of God’s wisdom and love.

I rejoice at His wonderful ways and my finding out.

Truly, an awesome God!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[NonCatholic]

No worries re: interruptions - jump right in.

I’m not referring to a physical building - but an organization with authority (given by Christ) to provide spiritual guidance and resolve disputes. That could be in someone’s house, if its under the guidance and authority of the apostles or their successors (as it was in the early Christian era). The NT clearly contemplated a “Church” with a hierarchical structure which could and would provide authoritative guidance to the flock. This Church was (1) established by Christ with express authority; (2) was to be “visible” - a light on a hill (not invisible or a hidden church) and (3) was to stand until the end of time.

Other than the Catholic Church - can you name a Church today that meets these three criteria? The church of God. You have no choice but to say the Catholic church because, as you know, the RCC teaches that there is no salvation outside of Rome and to say otherwise is a “mortal” sin…which is a ridiculous notion since one tiny sin would result in death (mortal death) without the Lord and Saviors’ imputed righteousness.

Blessings,

Brian

Well first of all the premise has an error in it that makes the rest invalid. The elders/bishops were overseers (mature believers who were able to teach in addition to the Deacon qualifications) were guides, not authorities; except in the teaching of the Word via the Bible.

Christ is the only one who has authority over the church.

Col 1:25 Of {this church} I was made a minister (the servant of a king from (Diakonos)) according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the {preaching of} the word of God,

Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives {ought to be} to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself {being} the Savior of the body.

Eph 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

Also,
Matthew 28:18 & John 17:2 & Job 34:13

 

[look3467]

No worries re: interruptions - jump right in.

I’m not referring to a physical building - but an organization with authority (given by Christ) to provide spiritual guidance and resolve disputes. That could be in someone’s house, if its under the guidance and authority of the apostles or their successors (as it was in the early Christian era). The NT clearly contemplated a “Church” with a hierarchical structure which could and would provide authoritative guidance to the flock. This Church was (1) established by Christ with express authority; (2) was to be “visible” - a light on a hill (not invisible or a hidden church) and (3) was to stand until the end of time.

Other than the Catholic Church - can you name a Church today that meets these three criteria?

Blessings,

Brian

True, the Catholic Church expresses all 3 of your mentioned points, there is no argument there by me.

I do point out though a different view of those same points, not as a point of contention, but as a presentation for review.

1.“Establishment by Christ as the head authority figure” of His church. (spiritual)

1. “Visible”: That an individual be seen to reflect the love of Christ in action in the midst of a dying world.
2. “Stand till the end of time” meaning the spirit of God in mankind has no end.

The work of the Holy Spirit is to call us out from the world by leading us to seek Him out via the institutions proclaiming the worship of God.

peace>>>AJ

 

[two1176]

The crux of the whole is in one word “Liberty”.

We are free in Jesus to worship Him as we are led to by Him.

Now, we do recognize that in the human growth pattern are infants, toddlers,pre-teens, teenagers, young adults, middle aged and Seniors.

By the same token is the spiritual growth of souls.
Babies need nursery care and so forth.

The early church was in it’s infancy and needed a jump start.

The Apostles, 12 of them really represents the whole of humanity, as the number 12 is an earthly representation of things.

As the church body begin to grow both in body and in spirit, the original Apostles would eventually die off thereby giving charge to furtherance of the Gospel of Christ by selecting and of laying of hands.

But that in itself was not meant leaders, to become lords or to keep people under bondage.

Remember, there was no bible to speak of, therefore necessitating word of mouth and a conveyance of leadership.

Paul warned about pride in it’s members, seeming that they felt better than, higher than and more righteous than the average believer and apt to condemn those who believed not as they.

Ref: 1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

If an established institution was to be the only mode of knowledge to it’s congregation about God, then put away the bible.

But there is something greater than an institution, a practice, a dogma, a tradition, and that is the Spirit of God in it’s church, the people, which go out to the ends of the earth without restrictions operating only with the desire to reach souls for the kingdom of God.

Now that kingdom on earth, has no end and remains the same yesterday, today and forever more!

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I am at awe many times when I realize the magnitude of God’s wisdom and love.

I rejoice at His wonderful ways and my finding out.

Truly, an awesome God!

Peace>>>AJ

If all that is needed is the Bible, how come everyone who reads it has a different interpretation of what Scripture means? If the message is so obvious, why all the confusion? The Bible needs an interpreter (the Magisterium) much like the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Early Christians did not even have access to the Bible. It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that the Bible was readily available. The early Church Councils were held when errors arose in regards to fundamental doctrine(people doing there own thing) in order to protect the truths of the Faith. When we decide what the Bible means from our own personal viewpoint, we can come up with some wild ideas which can be used to justify just about anything (spiked kool-aid anyone?). We are suppose to be a community of believers as the Body of Christ, not a loose federation of people believing whatever they want.

“…that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me…”

 

[NonCatholic]

If all that is needed is the Bible, how come everyone who reads it has a different interpretation of what Scripture means? If the message is so obvious, why all the confusion? The Bible needs an interpreter (the Magisterium) much like the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Early Christians did not even have access to the Bible. It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that the Bible was readily available. The early Church Councils were held when errors arose in regards to fundamental doctrine(people doing there own thing) in order to protect the truths of the Faith. When we decide what the Bible means from our own personal viewpoint, we can come up with some wild ideas which can be used to justify just about anything (spiked kool-aid anyone?). We are suppose to be a community of believers as the Body of Christ, not a loose federation of people believing whatever they want.

“…that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me…”

Please pardon the interruption. There are many “so-called” Christians and then there are Christians that have the personal relationship with Christ, that is why there are some many lose interpretations and cafeteria Catholics…for that matter. The real question is that of discernment. Look at Matthew 7:13-end of the chapter and you will get the understanding of the FEW and MANY…keep in mind when reading that Jesus is talking to very religious people. Enjoy the read! God Bless!