Transubstantiation: What changes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
byfaithalone said:
Are you serious?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Click to expand...
So are you telling us that if you should die carrying any unrepented sins with you, God would overlook those sins because your pastor told you all you had to do was believe and you were were automatically saved?

Are you aware that the Bible says that even the devil’s believe.
 
byfaithalone said:
I understood and understand the teachings just fine. I disagree with many of them. They do not align with the Scriptures.
The Gospel is not too much to comprehend. If your church’s beliefs are more complicated than the simple message of the Gospel, then there is a big problem.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. If you understood the Scriptures correctly, then you would have no problem understanding Church teaching; and vise versa. So if you find contradiction between Church teaching and Scripture, then I would say there is definitely a problem.

A faithful Catholic has no problems with Church teaching and the Bible because they both say exactly the same thing. Otherwise, why would we be here in the first place? I certainly would not have come back if I thought Church teaching didn’t agree with Biblical truths. The only thing I can think that would be confusing is that the Church expounds upon Biblical teaching that otherwise might be misconstrued by the faithful. I would venture to guess that in some, the explanations might prove difficult in themselves to understand - perhaps even to the extent to seem un-Biblical. If that were not true, then we wouldn’t even be having this thread about the nature of Transubstantiation.

But I digress and I must admit that I’ve been off topic. I will now endeavor to remain on topic from here on in… If more discussion on Catholic teaching and the Bible is warranted, it should be opened up in another thread.
 
byfaithalone said:
How do your propose someone prove a negative? It is YOUR claim that the bread cease to be bread and becomes literal flesh. The proof lies on your shoulders, not mine.
Click to expand...
It has already been done here several times.

Given your assurance that transubstantiation is false doctrine, I would assume you would have some scripture that directly contradicts the teaching.

Contrary to your assertion above this would actually disprove transubstantiation.

Since you don’t have any verses that do this I guess that leaves us with the fact that you simply dismiss the doctrine as an error by asserting your personal authority to declare all the verses referring to the Eucharist as metaphorical.

We have many verses in scripture that lead us to believe that these verses should be taken literally.

Do you have any that tell us they should be taken metaphorically?

Your logic seems to be “Jesus has used metaphors therefore anything he has to say should be taken as a metaphor.”

You don’t really mean to make this assertion do you?

Chuck
 
byfaithalone said:
Are you serious?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Click to expand...
After claiming Jesus Christ as your personal Savior which guarantees you eternal salvation, how is it possible that you would sin after that? Wouldn’t the grace of Jesus Christ prevent that?
 
You are very ignorant of Scripture to make such a FALSE claim. Jesus says THIS IS! Was the bread and wine always??? NO. HE consecrated it! and HE said for his apostles to DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME!!

Matthew 26:26-28
“And as they were eating, Jesus took
bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take,
eat; this is my body. And he took the cup,
and gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my
blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Mark 14:22,24
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread,
and blessed, and brake it, and gave to
them, and said, Take, eat: this is my
body…And he said unto them, This is
my blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many.”

Luke 22:19-20
“And he took bread, and gave thanks,
and brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given
for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Likewise also the cup after supper,
saying, This cup is the new testament in
my blood, which is shed for you.”

Luke 24:30-31,35
“And it came to pass, as he sat at meat
with them, he took bread, and blessed
it, and brake, and gave to them. And
their eyes were opened, and they knew
him; and he vanished out of their
sight…And they told what things were
done in the way, and how he was known
of them in breaking of bread.”
 
Did I mention this was the Transubstantiation thread?

looks around for his thread police hat😃

Chuck
 
Tomster said:
After claiming Jesus Christ as your personal Savior which guarantees you eternal salvation, how is it possible that you would sin after that? Wouldn’t the grace of Jesus Christ prevent that?
Click to expand...
Why would you presume to think God’s grace equate sinlessness? Paul knew he was a sinner, the CHIEF of sinners at that.

If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.
 
clmowry said:
It has already been done here several times.

Given your assurance that transubstantiation is false doctrine, I would assume you would have some scripture that directly contradicts the teaching.

Contrary to your assertion above this would actually disprove transubstantiation.

Since you don’t have any verses that do this I guess that leaves us with the fact that you simply dismiss the doctrine as an error by asserting your personal authority to declare all the verses referring to the Eucharist as metaphorical.

We have many verses in scripture that lead us to believe that these verses should be taken literally.

Do you have any that tell us they should be taken metaphorically?

Your logic seems to be “Jesus has used metaphors therefore anything he has to say should be taken as a metaphor.”

You don’t really mean to make this assertion do you?

Chuck
Click to expand...
The question then becomes who decides which verses are to be interpreted literally and which verses are to be interpreted metaphorically.

Byfaithalone desires to have the market cornered in this regard. What pride!
 
byfaithalone said:
Why would you presume to think God’s grace equate sinlessness? Paul knew he was a sinner, the CHIEF of sinners at that.

If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Click to expand...
And he also said that he was working out his salvation in fear and trembling. Get it, working out. No assurance of salvation here.
 
byfaithalone said:
Why do you equate fall with loss of salvation?.
Click to expand...
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 2:2-8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 5:10 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 11:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Pet 1:17 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rev 20:12-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 3:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Christ gave us a Church (the Catholic Church), not a book.

The Catholic Church then gave us scripture, the bible. Therefore, shouldn’t the Catholic Church be the one to interpret scripture correctly (bound on earth will be bound in heaven, loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven)? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church then be the correct teaching authority for scripture?

If the Catholic Church was wrong for over 1500 years on the interpretation of scripture and key issues such as the Real Prescence in the Eucharist, then are you saying that Christ abandoned His Church for 1500 years and allowed it to teach in error to millions of Christians concerning key issues on salvation over those 15 centuries??

I don’t think so.
 
Tomster said:
And he also said that he was working out his salvation in fear and trembling. Get it, working out. No assurance of salvation here.
Click to expand...
What do you think working OUT means? it doesn’t mean work FOR it. How do work OUT something you do not possess?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top