The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ArchStanton said:
Would Our Lord want it done ‘differently’?
Click to expand...
Just one more truth to be divided over?

Everybody thinks their way is right, and all others different. But is the race won by claiming the most difference and by excluding as many as you can?
 
ArchStanton said:
ustin Martyr

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 [i.e., has received baptism] 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 ]).
Click to expand...
Nobody argues the the Eucharist is common bread and common drink. When we meet to take the Lord’s Supper it has great meaning. The real question is does this quote support transubstantiation? Is Justin saying that the Bread and Cup are transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ and cease to remain bread and wine, or do they remain bread and wine that is special in that it represents the flesh and blood of Christ and and it has Spiritual significance in the life of faith?

Remember, the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation says the bread no longer remains bread and is 100% the body of Christ (it just looks and taste like bread). Not the bread is special bread. Justin clearly says we receive bread. It is just not common bread.
 
mcq72 said:
Just one more truth to be divided over?

Everybody thinks their way is right, and all others different. But is the race won by claiming the most difference and by excluding as many as you can?
Click to expand...
Obedience is the key though…

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God , which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
 
When you take it together with [Jn 6], [1 Cor 10 and 11] etc, you have the foundation for the Real Presence. Notice the last line from Martyr "… is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

Blessings!
 
ArchStanton said:
When you take it together with [ Jn 6 ], [ 1 Cor 10 and 11 ] etc, you have the foundation for the Real Presence. Notice the last line from Martyr "… is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus .
Click to expand...
But is that the same thing as transubstantiation? Almost all of Christianity will say the Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper in some form or fashion. The question is not, “Do the ECF’s believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist”? It is, “do they believe in the bread ceases to be bread and the wine ceases to be wine?” Even Calvin believed that partaking of the bread and wine in faith were truly partaking in the body and blood of Christ.

Again from the Ligonier.org website (which is one of the best places to learn reformed theology).

*Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ.…

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Understood… i guess for me it comes down to ‘trusting the Church’ as opposed to an individuals personal interpretation.

Blessings!
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Actually moving through the NT and beyond , ☞, time has clarified the price even more.
Click to expand...
Perhaps on future events but otherwise, the price is clearer to us than apostolic times?

Was the price of OT Law, clearer to Scribes and Pharisees than Moses?
Click to expand...
As for “price” (salvation) then vs now and the "Law"of Moses…explanation

Re: the OT law of Moses and salvation, to scribes and pharisees, THEN, a premier important distinction to know…AND, especially for those in the Church THEN, as it is NOW, …agreed?

So

Who makes this a clear and important distinction between THEM, then AND Now?

Saul, a pharisee, who became Paul an apostle, (he knows both sides of the argumnent) was clear about that distinction, concerning "works" of “law” , the Mosaic laws, and "works" by grace and faith (good works)…NOT by the laws of Moses.

Example
Re: that “price”, (salvation)
To Paul , Good works had nothing to do with works of the law.

For greater explanation
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Example
Re: that “price”, (salvation)
To Paul , Good works had nothing to do with works of the law .
Click to expand...
Again, do we see clearer than the apostles? Are we rightly defining their doctrine with such expanded detail?(and upping the price, that is expanding required beliefs).
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Obedience to the Truth is key.
Click to expand...
Exactly! and how can we be certain that the truth is being told to us?

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God , which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH
mcq72 said:
Amen, but the Lord also said beware of any leaven of those that sit in the Chair.
Click to expand...
Mt 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses . Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you , but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

[OT seat on the chair of Moses, NT seat on the chair of Peter ]
 
“Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Matt. 16:12

Obedience to any proclaimed " truth bearer" or prophet is conditional, upon them bearing the truth.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Obedience to any proclaimed " truth bearer" or prophet is conditional, upon them bearing the truth.
Click to expand...
Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to ME . Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Once again, The Church!
 
So one can be all messed up ( hypocrite, proud etc.) and not have some bad doctrine at same time, even though Jesus infers they have both? One negates the others possibility?🤔
 
Last edited:
ArchStanton said:
Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to ME . Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Once again, The Church!
Click to expand...
Yes, we listen to the apostles in their foundational teaching, in particular their writ.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Example
Re: that “price”, (salvation)
To Paul , Good works had nothing to do with works of the law .
Click to expand...
Again, do we see clearer than the apostles? Are we rightly defining their doctrine with such expanded detail?(and upping the price, that is expanding required beliefs).
Click to expand...
You and I weren’t declared the pillar and foundation of truth. That title goes to the Church Jesus builds on the apostles with Peter as the chief over all. Outside of which as Paul says, there is no salvation.

🤔 Where you ask, does Paul say THAT?

Depending on one’s translation (dissension or division ) the same Greek word is used. διχοστασίαι. Here: Rm 16:17-21 AND Gal5:19-21
“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ [Gal 5:21]

IOW,

that’s where the following familiar phrase comes from,
Outside the Catholic Church (the only Church Jesus established) there is no salvation

AND
Jesus said Re: The HS
Jn 16:12-15

AND
Re:
Jn 17:20-23

Therefore
✓ since the HS doesn’t speak on His own, He speaks what He receives from Jesus, ergo He won’t contradict Jesus. The HS then isn’t going to influence or teach anyone no matter who it is, to be outside the one and only Church Jesus established.
✓ The HS isn’t behind all the 10’s of thousands of sects/divisions/denominations etc we see today. THAT Division as Paul warned, is from Satan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top