..Most of these so-called "early church fathers" were in fact Gnostic anyway, If you want to separate fact from fiction read the books written by the real "Church Fathers"....the Apostles of Jesus Christ.
...This is why Protestants reject virgin worship...because Mary had other kids ...after Jesus. This whole penchant for virgins in nonsense.
how many church fathers were there and how far do you go back?
And the Bible demonstrates that one is born again first and then baptized...matter of fact the thief on the cross wasn't baptized. And how come the eucharist still remains a wafer after being concencrated, if it's suppose to have changed to an actual body?
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
Kindly refrain from equating "Evangelicals" with Protestants or putting them under that rubric. An Evangelical may or may not be a protestant or in the Roman Catholic Denomination possibly, possibly in neither. That is, many evangelicals do not trace their history back to the movement that protested vs the papacy & came out of his rule. I am confident that if u read enough "church fathers" u can find all kinds of varying opnions.
300's onward is "Early Church" ??? (commenting on the video you responded too, not yours)
That's ridiculous... what happened to the first 300 years of the church? How about the fact the first 300 years of the church strictly disagreed with everything Calvinistic that I've read... they would have called it semi-Gnosticism in my knowledge at least. Sad... I have no problems with quotes, but to skip 300 years and call it early church is pure ignorance.
@droptozro Semi-gnosticism? Baloney. To believe the Calvinist Tulip has no connection to denying the orthodox definition of Christ as YHWH-the-Son, and man.
Election is a difficult doctrine, taught in the Bible. Genuine Christians have different explanations of it. Some think that the Limited Atonement debate is talking past each other: Atonement sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect (not everyone goes to Heaven because Christ died for them). It is clear that Christ died for all
I've got a 2 part video, you're welcome to go read/watch it for yourself--it's the Ante-Nicene fathers writings versus Calvinism, and then the Ante-Nicene writers commenting ON Gnostic doctrines/teachings--and they sound alike in some doctrines. This debate started a long time before Augustine or Calvin---election doesn't mean what you're imposing on it. Go read the quotes or check it out yourself, you can't argue the facts of their writings as a whole on certain doctrines.
I have done considerable reading of Augustine; he seemed rather "Calvinistic" to me. In fact didn't Calvin win debates by quoting Augustine verbatim?
How do you know that "election doesn't mean what you're imposing on it"? Kindly backquote me where I imposed.
I have gone thru the entire Bible & marked all the passages on salvation, including election. The so-called "church fathers" wouldn't change my mind one whit unless they persuaded me that God's word taught something.
Now don't go & tell me that then ancient "church men" all taught the same thing; don't tell me that Pelagius & Augustine taught the same thing or that it was not Athanasius Contra Mundum.
If you want to prove something, go to it; I own a large collection of the "church fathers" in my library. But I'm not going to go look up things for you at this point. Have you heard of a work called Sic et Non by Pierre Abélard?
You've got the 10 volume set?(it's free online, I've read parts of it, and also have a dictionary of early christian beliefs arranged on doctrines/ideals in the church) Awesome, have you actually read it? or are you just telling me they all don't agree on main doctrines in ignorance? Don't be arrogant now, have you read it and that's truly the conclusion you've arisen to or not?
Nope haven't heard of it, you can watch my video and post a proper response or you cannot.
1) Do u claim that Pelagius & Augustine taught the same thing?
2) Do u claim that Athanasius was not Contra Mundum with different "church fathers" in hearty disagreement?
Sic et Non by Pierre Abélard is supposed 2 B a collection of ch fathers in contradiction to each other.
I own & have read the Apostolic Fathers. I own the Accordance Computer church fathers. I did a lot of research on the topic of "flesh" in the ch fathers. I don't recall uniformity
How about as I asked, start with my 2 part video and post a documented response? I'll definitely watch it, you'd be the literal first to try to take it on after so many I've asked to try to rebut it. Show me an Ante-Nicene writer who counters the uniformity that I've found in the video who speaks clearly that one may be genuinely saved and may fall away, or that only past sins are forgiven(in our sense). Defend the "P" ultimately.
@droptozro To speak of being genuninely saved & fall away is to speak an oxymoron. When I say I AM SAVED, I mean that Christ has given me the gift of a transformation in nature (from Adamic to His human nature, new birth) and the gift of eternal life; i.e., I am going to go to Heaven that where He is there I may be also. Your use of the word "saved" is a misnomer: you suggest that one is given an opportunity to go to Heaven if one is a good boy (works). That is not salvation, but validation.
I was just reading Oh My Darling Clementine, Clement of Alex, who waxes proflic in oppostion to idolatry, which is practiced by Romanists. You see characters in Spanish language telenovelas, where papalism is the default religion & persons addressing Mary the way one addresses God. You see persons bow down before statues & pray. They may get mad at the saint who doesn't deliver & hang it upside down in a closet or bury a saint idol to sell a house. Do you do such?
I'm not Catholic..and you can watch the video I have and go comment on that if you want to speak about losing(not attaining) final salvation by enduring to the end. I've already seen that warranted faith quotes/channel/book/writings by that writer(John Gill)...and I've spoken with the creator of that website. He uses quotes few and far between, and ones that even I don't disagree with.. but has to ignore the vast majority who reject Calvinist type of theology. Take it or leave it.
Cl of Alex speaks here of SALVATION, not VALIDATION
"The divine Scriptures & institutions of wisdom form the short road to salvation. Devoid of embellishment, of outward beauty of diction, of wordiness and seductiveness, they raise up humanity strangled by wickedness, teaching men to despise the casualties of life; & w/ one and the same voice remedying many evils, they at once dissuade us from pernicious deceit & clearly exhort us to the attainment of the salvation set before us. ch8
It is a heresy to substitute VALIDATION for SALVATION. Salvation means that Christ paid for my sins & fulfills the promise of giving me the status of "should not perish, but have eternal life," when I believe on Him. If I should believe & then perish, God would be a liar; which He cannot be. What Church Father calls God a liar?
"O the prodigious folly of being ashamed of the Lord! He offers freedom, you flee into bondage; He bestows salvation, you sink down into destruction; He confers everlasting life"
"“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life.”53 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak."
COMES NOT INTO CONDEMNATION! Put that in anyone's self-righteous, validation-seeking pipe for smoking. No eternal life via validation, but by coming as a sinner for grace & salvation.
"cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life.”53 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this54 is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them"
Dude... I don't even disagree with the quote you gave... that still doesn't defend "P" unless you're reading into it your theology--which you are. Here's a CLEAR quote from the same exact writer claiming exactly what I said... do you agree with Clement of Alexandria or not???
XL. Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father.. (cont)
"who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. "For by the state in which I find you will I judge," also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the catastrophe of the drama he has given up his part...(cont2)
while it is possible for the man who formerly led a bad and dissolute life, on afterwards repenting, to overcome in the time after repentance the evil conduct of a long time. But it needs great carefulness, just as bodies that have suffered by protracted disease need regimen and special attention. Thief, dost thou wish to get forgiveness? steal no more. Adulterer, burn no more. Fornicator, live for the future chastely. (cont3)
Thou who hast robbed, give back, and give back more than [thou tookest]. False witness, practise truth. Perjurer, swear no more, and extirpate the rest of the passions, wrath, lust, grief, fear; that thou mayest be found at the end to have previously in this world been reconciled to the adversary. It is then probably impossible all at once to eradicate inbred passions; but by God's power and human intercession, and (cont3)
...and the help of brethren, and sincere repentance, and constant care, they are corrected" - Clement of Alexandria
here's a full quote that clearly states only past sins are forgiven and one MUST live holy by synergism by the same exact writer or his efforts are useless(as Ezek 18 says). Please take this to my video, I'm not going to keep debating on this channel any further on this man's video... this is it. And the video has plenty more quotes espousing these exact views.
It is tough to follow exactly what Cl of Alex means in ur long quote. Let me make a suggestion, post your arguments at BibleAndTheology. com where there is an open forum & plenty of room to post as long a message as you wish. It is tough to do it in these little boxes. I didn't see anything in ur quote that says, "A man can be regenerated Y get the gift of eternal life & have it taken back from him."
since this is not God's Word anyway, its value is quite limited.
“For this is the will of my Father, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.”58 As far as possible in this world, which is what he means by the last day, and which is PRESERVED till the time that it shall end, we believe that we are made perfect. Wherefore He says, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (cont)
59 If, then, those who have believed have life, what remains beyond the possession of eternal life? Nothing is wanting to faith, as it is perfect and complete in itself. If aught is wanting to it, it is not wholly perfect. But faith is not lame in any respect; nor after our departure from this world does it make us who have believed, and received without distinction the EARNEST of future good,"
Cl of Alex was not waiting around for Church Councils to canonize scripture. He already received Paul's writings as scripture:
" 78 So also may we take the Scripture: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ;” "
@dropt Cl of ALEX seems to take the flesh & blood of Jn 6 figuratively: A
"89 .. But u r not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him.
@drop C of A seems to take the f & b of Jn 6 figuratively B :
"The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; & the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit & Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified."
@drop Wud Clem of Al approve of "priests" wearing dresses or skirts instead of pants today?
"What reason is there in the law’s prohibiting a man from “wearing woman’s clothing “?191 Is it not that it would have us to be manly, and not to be effeminate neither in person and actions, nor in thought and word? For it would have the man, that devotes himself to the truth, to be masculine both in acts of endurance and patience, in life, conduct, word, and discipline by night and by day;"
@drop U say "This debate started a long time before Augustine." Isn't that an admission that among persons who called themselves Christians, there was disagreement? If so then the selection of some professed Christians to call "Church Fathers" & others mere non-fatherly Christians or heretics begs the question. I, myself, don't call anyone a "Church Father" who denies the perseverence of the saints, for that is what it means to trust Christ as Savior:I trust Him to keep me from perishing & save.
Keep it up brother! Refute those Protestant heretics. It's amazing the mind-bending gymnastics that's required to be a Protestant. Keep it up! Pax et bonum!
It really bugs me that we, as true (not ELCA) Lutherans (originally known as Evangelicals or Evangelical catholics), Anglicans (Episcopalians), or occasionally even eastern Orthodox Christians get grouped in with all the Protestants (most of which are lacking in any actual doctrine or practices even resembling Christianity). While we may not all be in 100% full communion, the Orthodox, Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism share at least 80% of their doctrine and tradition in common.
The very early church father believed that a child could not know sin and therefor the Celtic Faith started in 36ad to now still believe baptism must be done when a person reaches the "age of accountability" . Constantines Catholic religion blurs this fact. Augustines corrupt lifestyle and along with Jeromes misinterpitation of the Septuagint made everyone belive them only. I am a Celtic Priest and ask you not to include "us" in your statement that "all" the Early Church were are Catholic...
Pt 3: The Eucharictic style and the beliefs of the Celtic faith used in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century and still use today are from the Jewish Christian background of the Apostles up to the time of Constantine. Augustine and Jerome curroupted our Liturgies and the original "Gallican Chants" were destroyed by the Constantines Catholics. The Early Church Fathers and Celtic faith were early Jewish Christian not Catholic on day one To say Polycarp, and others b4 350ad are Catholic is ridiculious...
Pt 2: The Celtic church started in 36 ad and was the largest faith until the Synod of Whitby. The Celtic faith also covered much of Europe and we built the original monastaries used as hire learning centers until they were turned over to Constantine or the Catholic church later in history. The first bishop of Rome was Linus a Celtic captive leader from Briton (Britan) and so were many others until the time of Constantine.
There is no such thing as "The Celtic Church." The NT never calls a denomination a church. There is only 1 Church, the Body of Christ. There is only one way to join it, trust the real Christ as Savior & receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Acts 1-2; 1 Cor 12:13. "The Celtic Faith" would be either a misnomer or wrong. The faith is defined by the Bible & is not regional or racial.
Pt 1: You hinge your early church fathers knowledge on the assumption that they were all Catholic from page 1...and that all the writings in this enclopedic work to be of the Cathlic view and perspective. In truth the early church fathers were Celtic and many opinions were from non religious writers. Romes views were added after Catholisim became the dominate faith due to the Synod of Whitby in the 300's where the Celtic Faith washed their hands of Constantine and Paul's splintered churches.
How do I find the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Are they all summed up in one book or are they seperate? What are they called? I hear so much about them, I would like to get my hands on those writtings or books. Please help.
Go to cbd (dot) com and search "Early Church Fathers" and you'll find a list of their writings. However, I strongly suggest that one be firmly grounded in the Scriptures first before venturing into this field since some of the Fathers (like Irenaeus and Origen) strayed from Biblical truth on some topics. Thus it is good to have a good understanding of the Bible in order to discern such things. Happy reading!
Start w/ "The Apostolic Fathers." You can prob find them on line. Don't read the Shepherd of Hermas since it has a racy (pornographic?) start. If you want absolute paranoia & megalomania, read Ignatius on the bishop & deacon. Iggy departed from the NT.
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles."
The Loeb Classics has a nice little edition of the Apostolic Fathers, bound in one volume, Greek on one leaf with English beside it on the facing leaf. & there is prob an index in the back for checking topics.
Then there is a series on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc., large volumes.
Myself, I have these "Fathers" in my Accordance Bible Computer program.
otc, i think you are missinig the point with the response video. He is not saying that early church fathers weren't unanimously united in various doctrines, he is saying that they weren't all believers of universal atonement. He is simply stating the fact that there were church fathers who believed in limited atonement. You must agree, he quoted them!
Secondly, he asked you some questions in his video, why will you not respond to them?
People cant seem to understand, the Church Fathers are the Messianic Jews of the New Covenant Writings. The Disciples, Apostles and Original Church people.
They were ALL Jewish!
The church fathers who you think are true are nothing more than Gentiles who go against what the REAL Church Fathers said.
All you have to do is read the Book of Acts, Romans, Hebrews
you will clearly see that the Disciples (Messianic Jews) are the Real Church Fathers! Why do people go outside of Scripture?
You can find Jews who believe all kinds of things; atheist Jews, Talmudic Jews, secular Jews, Christian Jews. I believe that the orthodox Talmudic Jews hold to all men being born with a yetzer hara (evil imagination).
If the Eucharist isn't #1 IMPORTANCE to the PRODS. then what the hell is? read your bible john 6 even if you don't believe. the eucharist is more important than listen to you 900th sermon being preached your nutsssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!
why would the mass be the most important thing? the mass doesnt save you... it doesnt give you eternal life.... you sure arnt spiritually born again by eating it..
and the bread doesnt turn in the flesh of Jesus.... what jesus did is finished.... the work is completed on the cross..... surly you can work that out
@porkyo123 Hell is what is important, yeah; you're gonna roast!
(LOL).
Porky, remember that "El diablo es puerco."
John 6: The words that I speak to you are spirit.
For me the Lord's supper is very important. But it seems that few know how to celebrate it properly. The purpose is to remember Him who paid for our sins. "Do this in remembrance of me."
but first of all, get born again by trusting Christ as Savior; then we can straighten out the priorities in meetings of God's people.
@Thunkful2 The early Church broke bread why wouldn't you want to do it weekly? To me it's more important than hearing a sermon. Also. I did the born again thing In the " Church Of Christ " until l I found out that as Catholics we are born again at baptim. Of course it's great to remember him that's obvious but we as Catholics go much deeper when we take the Lords Supper, OUCH! LOL. John 6 Keep Reading. And when I visit a Catholic Church I know Im in a church!
You can get all the good sermons you want any time (e.g. J Vernon McGee on YouTube), not that there is any reason why u wud have to choose to hear God's word taught vs taking the Lord's Supper.
Hold on there, the "Church of Christ" does not do the born-again thing. They teach salvation by works (a misnomer, since that wud be validation, instead of salvation.) I joined a "Church of Christ" when I was 9. I walked forward to "join the church." The preacher asked me if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God. I said, "Yes." That was common knowledge. The demons also believe that. They dunked me in the water. I got no salvation, but was made a church member.
@Thunkful2 Wrong! If I remember correctly the church i attended was a split off and this particular minister believed in saved by grace. You send alot of replys I need to take a break. But as a Christian I believe this is sad. This seems like a religion of the ego...who has the right answers or who thinks he's right instead of you should know them by there love. The Devil is in the details.
You can't get born again by being either sprinkled or dunked in water. The new birth is getting eternal life & involves being recreated. If any man is IN CHRIST he is a new creation, old things are passed away, behold all things are new. That is being born again. Your nature is changed, you receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, & you are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, His Church.
@Thunkful2 Sorry you left out Baptism. the Catholic Church knew this long before the Prods wanted to change things LOL. Hey, what if both of us are wrong?
@pork. greetings. what the Prods think is irrelevant. Many passages teach that salvation is by grace thru faith apart from works (of which water baptism is one). Take Acts 16 Sirs what must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus & u shall be saved." Now if I believe, but die before I get baptized, God wud be a liar if He didn't save Me. There are 1 or 2 passages where it looks like baptism might be saving along with faith, but since salv is guaranteed just on faith, bapt can't be necessary.
@pork the 2 passages where baptism looks like it might be salvific can be understood as Holy Spirit Baptism, which is not something man does, not man's responsibilty in the salvation process. Otherwise u cud make a case for like 1000 times a company guarantees "If A, then salvation." & elsewhere it said, "If A & B, the salvation." U wud logically conclude that only A were necessary.
Moreover, in the OT salvation is not by baptism. And the thief on the cross was not baptized. He believed & was saved. If he had believed & been baptized, it is also true that He would have been saved.
At any rate, scripture is clear that salvation is not by works (Eph 2:8-9, etc.), and water baptism is a work. It also destracts from trusting Christ as Savior since It becomes the object of faith, which only Christ is.
I attended a couple of RCC masses in High School with my girl friend. It didn't go deep; in fact it was all quite past me; some religious rigamarole. I attended a church in England where they actually did the Lord's Supper right & focused on the Lord Jesus & His death for an extended period. The "Church of Christ" I went to as a boy just did a perfunctory ceremony.
You know the truth is that when boys go to a papist church with supposedly celebate clergy (violation of scripture: husband of one wife, children who believe), they are in danger of sodomistic rape. This has been so universal & pervasive that this invalidates the papist system if nothing else did. "I know I'm in a church?" how about in a sodomite brothel of child-rapists?
@Thunkful2 How about the ministers that lure women into there office and have there way with them or pay the prostitudes for da cheap trick? Or maybe sowing a seed for a cute buck or two? Don't throw stones! I could go on. Didn't Christ say he would seperate the wheat from the chaff? It looks to me like he will call the shots in the END not us!
If a denomination is shot through state by state, country by country with rape of boys that says something to me. By their fruits you know them. Luring a woman into the office for adultery is also bad, though not as bad. But if a denomination were shot through and through with that, state by state, country by country I would also reject that denomination. I don't refer to isolated instances, but to a pervasive denominational characteristic.
John 6 flesh & blood are literal, but the eating is figurative. To receive eternal life, John 3:16 says to simply believe in (trust in) the Lord Jesus as Savior. Thus you receive Christ's flesh & blood when you trust Him as Savior. John 6: "The words that I speak to you are spirit." It is a figure of speech, like "I am the door." Christ has no hinges.
I read the most incredible double-talk on transub from OneTrueChurch.
@Thunkful2 Christ let Nicodemus well know what he meant by 'Born again"( Baptism ) Christ said to Nic your the great teacher you should know these things. ( paraphrasing ) Did you also know the great flood stood for Baptism and the dove that landed on the ark stood for the Holy Spirit. Ouch! Did you also know when he said bring two of each kind on the ark it meant 2 of each tribe? That's what us Catholic Born againers LOL call TYPeOLOGY.
@pork Well there are types in the Bible, to be sure. You can be sure when the Bible indicates it. Otherwise, they may be debatable, but still useful illustrations of truth. Thanks for mentioning the dove. I never thought of it as a type of the Holy Spirit; but I don't rule it out. What about the raven? I don't know where u get 2 of a tribe from.
Moses is a type of Christ (2 comings, gentile wife, 40 years vs 40 days). Ezekiel did an obvious type with his hair cutting & model city.
Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I am in their midst, thus says the Lord Jesus. I know I am in a church when the people are born-again & gathered in His name. But I know I am in The Church, the Body of Christ because I sense His presence & headship with me right now as I sit here.
If I am with people worshipping saints & bowing at statues, I know I am not in a church, but with idolaters.
To claim that a priest is changing bread into Christ's body & raising it up & worshipping it is idolatry. That is worshipping a piece of bread. It is an abomination. Also to pretend to be resacrificing Christ over & over is an abomination. He declared on the cross, It is finished. He paid for our sins once & for all on the cross.
@Thunkful2 How foolish! You can't limit God on what he can and can't do! If the Priest can't change it Christ can! Also God knows our heart and if we do make a mistake in worshiping do you think he's going to condem us to HELL? How do you know it's a piece of bread? It seems to me you limit your Chridt.
@pork He said, "It is finished." Now who is limiting Christ? You don't think He was able & succeeded in finishing our atonement on the cross? Not only was He crucified & finished atonement, but I was there too & crucified (Romans 6; Gal 2). By joining me to Him in the Body of Christ, uniting me with Him, what happened to Him also happened to me as I am part of His Body. "I have been crucified with Christ." It is all over; the battle was won, my purchase was complete. I just have to trust Him.
Since Christ paid for your sins on the cross, if you trust Him as only & sufficient Savior, you are a child of God with no fear of going to Hell, regardless of doctrinal blunders. I know it is Matzos because I have bought them at the store & they are the same -- the person who bought the bread is witness. Matzos have lines on them & holes punched in them & are unleavened. Do u see the symbolism? The stripes, the pierced hands & feet, the unleavened unsinful body of Christ?
Okay, Glenn, figured it was time I responded (been busy with a limited term job 4 the last few months, anyway). VIS-A-VIS your comment about Moslems quoting the Bible to "disprove" Christianity, I recommend STRONGLY that you yourself be VERY careful NOT to quote documents like: the Talmud, the KORAN, the Bhagavad Gita, or any Lama-originated literature in your posts. Seriously. Stick to what you know (which, I must admit, you actually do QUITE well where that point is concerned).
this sounds like a silly argument made by atheists. As Catholics we believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. If you examined it under a microscope it would still only look like bread but it is really the body and blood of Christ in substance.
What does the word SUBSTANCE mean to you atomically?
What are you trying to say by that word, substance?
I understand what you mean by appearance, but please define what you mean in technical terms by the word substance. For example, do you mean that the bread has the same nutrients as human flesh? When Christ performed the first memorial and he said this is My body, while he sat before them, was it cloned somehow?
by substance i mean what something actually is. we believe that after the consecration, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ but still appear as bread and wine although they are no longer so. No, the bread would not appear to have the nutrients of human flesh if examined it would appear in every way even at the atomic level to be bread. But we believe that a real change takes place metaphysically so that it is no longer bread and wine though it appears that way
which metaphysical change is it that you refer to? You say that the bread change metaphysically, describe exactly which change was made metaphysically with the bread. Also dilineate for me the exact moment this happened. How do you know it happened. And where in the bible do you see proof that there had been a change that in fact did happen.
Could he meant these as symbols to 'represent' his body and his blood? is this at all a possible interpretation? after all, he did use real bread and wine.
you ask which metaphysical change. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've made it very clear that it is changed into the body and blood of Christ even though it still appears as bread. The Change takes place when the priest echos the words of Christ "this is my body..this is my blood shed for the remission of sins" And no it can not be taken symbolically for reasons that i mention in my other videos dealing with the eucharist see
Do you know what 'hypostasis' is? In order for Christ to pay for sins and live a righteous life, he took the form of a man. He cannot take the form of angels, because an angel would have to die for the sins of fallen angels. Christ, as a perfect man, died for man and was able to because he was very man of very man. The infinite took the form of the finite. The body of Christ among a crowd of people could not be distinguished. Christ was 100% God and 100% man.
ABout why lots of Protestants stopped believing that bread and wine are body and blood of Jesus, a Lutheran pastor said:
"well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman "
In light of the hypostasis, did Christ give of he real body? or regenerate skin and organ to supply the need of the disciples that day?
You assert that RC priests dispense of his real body across Sunday to millions of people at one time, how much of this flesh is being regenerated?
Are you sure that you want to believe that the tons of bread that are dispense really is the actual body of Christ? You will have to reconcile then, how much of his body is left, how big his body is, etc
It is a spiritual nutrient. The way I understand it, and some Catholics may disagree, is that Christ puts his spirit into the bread and wine, thus putting spiritual nourishment into tangible form. It is easier for me to understand it that way than to say that the Eucharist looks like bread but it's really a hunk of human flesh.
**It is easier for me to understand it that way than to say that the Eucharist looks like bread but it's really a hunk of human flesh.**
Ok so then is it human flesh or is it not, please choose yes or no. Christ said, this is my body. Did he say that figuratively or did he say that cannibalistically?
What benefit would there be in Christ changing the bread to a man's flesh over and over again? Why does it not taste like meat? How would it smell if you didn't eat the bread for a few days?
"What benefit would there be in Christ changing the bread to a man's flesh over and over again?" -God made a new conventant w/ His people where we truely are brothers/sisters in Christ. We are a family bc all family share in the same flesh/blood. What point would there be to go to a church service to just eat bread/wine symbolically? I can eat bread/wine anytime & it doesnt bring me closer to Christ, but when I commune at Church w/ fellow believers, we are actually partaking in the Lords Supper.
"Ok so then is it human flesh or is it not, please choose yes or no. Christ said, this is my body. Did he say that figuratively or did he say that cannibalistically?"
Christ did indeed say, "This is my body." He did not provide any further explanation, so neither can I. He did not break it down into metaphorical terms, like he did when he was using parables. Nor did he give an explanation as to the metaphysical details of it.
@Thunkful2 Not sure why talk about wine, drugs, cigars or caves when you have a lot of deeper issues you should be tackling. Read 1 Cor 11 in context and then tell me that they didn't drink wine. Also, there is no requirement that the Lord's supper be with wine. You can use anything that can give symbolism to blood. Remember, after all, it was only a SYMBOL. Further, if you will be strict about these things, I will then ask, where does the bible say he took a wafer? lol
There is no ref to wine in the Lord's supper, tho I have no objection to it, partic if u are going to pass around one cup -- stronger the better! Kindly obey Hezekiah 9:6 "Thou shalt not shoot canon balls at canary birds."
I like matzos because they symbolize the stripes & piercings of Christ's body along with no leaven, no sin.
As for at the last supper, the bread and wine became his actual body and blood. He held in his hands his own body. for an in depth look at what the earliest Christians believed on this, check out my video
its the first in a 4 part series. watch all 4 parts. It proves that all the Early church fathers accepted Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. the reformed view started with Calvin in the 1500's
I'm not sure why I would care what people; fellow brethren in the faith or not, believed in this issue. I do not base my trust in what you or anyone believe.
The only thing that interests me in reading from you or others on doctrine, is for the sole purpose of checking in the bible to see if these things be so. Do you actually take everything a church father says and take it as absolute?
Yes or No
Yes? then let's talk about Augustine's soteriology.
@Thunkful2 Transubstantiation (TS) is not synonymous with the Real Presence (RP). TS describes how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. It took centuries and the development of philosophy to describe the nature of the change in substance (i.e. that the accidents remain but the substance has changed). The reality of the RP has existed since Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Why would Ignatius of Antioch call the Eucharist the 'Medicine of Immortality' it it were a mere symbol?
here's what I think. Yes, we have theological differences. But we serve the same Lord. And we have the same enemy...who probably really delights in seeing us hanging at each other's throats. Dialogue is important...but we must check our motives. If we are dialoguing to flex our intellects and show off our Bible erudition...well... apologetics can take on a form of ego stroking. Are we becoming all things to all people in order to bring them closer to the Lord?
BUT OF COURSE WE MUST CONTINUE FIGHTING UNTIL ONE CONCEDES!!!!!! ONE HAS TO BE RIGHT, and of course it is me, because i am always right. LMAO (that was sarcasm) im with u all the way margottelint =]
---"zmode82 but why is it that I dont see the word Catholic written before it?"---
The Bible also does not contain the word Bible itself, or how many books are contianed in the Bible. Additioanlly, it also does not contain the word Trinity. Is one to conclude then that the trinity is a false doctrine?
There are so many verses that the God commands us to follow the Bible only. Like, galatians 1:8, Psalm 19:7-12, 2 tim 3:15-17, Isaiah 8:20 etc.. I can go on forever. If a church leader does not teach or lead according to the Bible, why bother attending that church? Now, what is your proof and I demand biblical sources that support why a Christian should not follow the Bible as his final authority.
No, its fine, I guess youre right we choose whether or not we want to follow the Lord's commandments. I mean its not like the Lord isnt going to judge us by those commandments after we die. Its not like He send those who disobey His words to burn in Hell. Youre right the Bible doesnt say that, so who needs His grace to seek salvation, if it doesnt matter if your church or leaders doesnt follow His commandments which are written in the Bible? Yeh, you are quite the scholar.
Insult you? I said youre right, didnt I? and you havent provided why you couldnt understand what you have read. So, you either lack reading comprehension, or your pride is blinding you. You seem like a smart guy, so I dont think you lack reading comprehension.
You said sarcastically I'm a "scholar". Don't patronize me.
I am not prideful at all. If you read my profile I was going to leave my Catholic Faith 10 years ago but the evidence to become a Protestant was severly lacking.
Let's read the verses together you provided:
Gal 1:8......Paul admonishes the Galatians NOT to fall away from the Gospel he preached.
Nothing is said about the Scriptures being the final authority on Faith.
Well, let see. Paul says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Im sorry dont see how draw that conclusion from that scripture. Paul is really that even if he, an angel or anyone were to preach another gospel other let him be cursed. Now, where is the gospel written?
Now, lets be a little more logical and less dogmatic. A Christian priest or preacher without a Bible, is about as useless as a soldier without a gun. How can I trust an unarmed soldier with my life? Needless to say a church leader without a Bible.
Im going to try again try to keep up with me this time. If we go to church to listen to a man speak do we not want to make sure that he is receiving his tachings straight from the Bible. In Isaiah 8:20, to the LAW and TESTIMONY (the law and testimony is written in the Bible)if they SPEAK not according to His(God) word it is because there is no LIGHT in them. Why follow someone who doesnt have the LIGHT in them? It makes no sense to me.
Now, you said earlier that you are not interested in my analogies. You know, Christ used to speak in parables to help men use their own logic to understand His message(matt.13:10-17) So if you dont want to use reason or logic in this discussion, then I have nothing more to say.
"You made a claim you can't back up with God's word." I did back it up, and I broke down little by little how 2 of those verses support my claim. You still havent explained to me why those verses do not support my claim. Im trying to be reasonable. Now, I am aware this is a debate. Its not my fault youre a bit sensitive, but its not a crime to be sarcastic in a respectful debate. Just as long as we are not pointing fingers and calling out names.
Also, I dont see how you cornered me when you havent even explain to me how I am wrong. All you have said was the verses I provided doesnt support my claim Im still waiting on you to explain to me why I am wrong. Also, I know you didnt say I didnt hurt your feelings, but I know I did and for that, I am sorry. Is it possible that you resulted to pointing out my sarcasm bc you couldnt back up you claim?
Ok Im going to take things a little slower. I already explained to why Paul based on that verse didnt tell he preached to them. Gal. 1:8 says, and I really do hope you look into the Word of God and please use your logic when you read. Paul clearly says, that even if we(refering to himself as well as the other apostles or an agel, and/or anyone) SHOULD meaning they havent yet, but if they SHOULD preach another gospel let hi be eternally damned. Where do you find the gospel?
Where do you find the gospel? The gospel is written in the Bible. If someone preaches another gospel, let him be eternally damned. The gospel is only found in the Bible. Would you trust a Christian who teaches from the Qu'ran? No of course not, you know better than that. Youre a Christian and christian only relies on what is written in the Bible. Why would a Christian leader go to another book to teach about Christ? It makes no sense.
No matter how you disect or dodge this. You know that a church, a christian church, cannot function if they do not speak according to the Word of God. Hence, the Bible has to be the final authority. Otherwise, that church cannot be classified as a Christian church. A church nonetheless, but not Christian. A Rabbi only teaches from the Torah in a synagouge. A Muslim leader only teaches from the Quran in a mosque. A xian priest must only teach from the Bible in a Church.
"Our debate for the 11th time now is whether the Bible is the sole rule of faith which you still haven't established. "
LOL! You've just established the Bible is the sole rule bc you have just made the claim that the RCC has been speaking according to the word of God for 2000 years. Now, whether or not the RCC today still follows what the Bible says, that is still disputable.
for the 12th time......the Bible is not the only source of God's Word. It was preached through the Church as well....as Scripture states not everything Jesus said or did was written down.
Your pastor thinks he is legitimate because he went to "Bible College."
The Catholic Faith is divine and is a direct succession of the Apostles. Without the Catholic Faith there is no Faith.
My pastor did not go to Bible college. He is just a man no different than anyone else who reads from the Bible and preaches the gospel to those who are willing to hear the word of God and then hopefully repent of their sins, sin no more, and to put their trust in Jesus for their salvation. Also, Jesus brought the Church to the world, not the other way around.
"The Church brought Christ to the world"? Listen to yourself, John 3:16,18 says it clear that it was God who brought Christ, His only begotten Son to this world, and He and only He, came to save the world and not condemn it. Put your trust in Jesus, and not the works of man.
OMG! I cant make it any clear to you if I attempt to make it any clearer than I already have I would have to end up giving a definition for each individual word on that verse to make it clear to you. You have been brought to believe that only thru the church are you saved. Whereas, in John 14:6 says it clear that He is the only way.
Im not trying to get off easy, more and more accusations, and yet you yourself havent been able to explain to me why we dont need the Bible. Yet, ironically enough, youre asking me to go directly to the Bible to provide answers. Based on your logic, my opinions should be divine enough to tell you how to worship God, but I dare not give you any opinions on how to worship God. I would only tell someone to worship God the wayHe commanded it. Otherwise, its called idolatry.
..Most of these so-called "early church fathers" were in fact Gnostic anyway, If you want to separate fact from fiction read the books written by the real "Church Fathers"....the Apostles of Jesus Christ.
...This is why Protestants reject virgin worship...because Mary had other kids ...after Jesus. This whole penchant for virgins in nonsense.
vachief 2 weeks ago
how many church fathers were there and how far do you go back?
And the Bible demonstrates that one is born again first and then baptized...matter of fact the thief on the cross wasn't baptized. And how come the eucharist still remains a wafer after being concencrated, if it's suppose to have changed to an actual body?
shanana000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
motibi 6 months ago
Kindly refrain from equating "Evangelicals" with Protestants or putting them under that rubric. An Evangelical may or may not be a protestant or in the Roman Catholic Denomination possibly, possibly in neither. That is, many evangelicals do not trace their history back to the movement that protested vs the papacy & came out of his rule. I am confident that if u read enough "church fathers" u can find all kinds of varying opnions.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Do you have the delusion that if one is not a papist, he is therefore a protestant, if He claims the name of the Lord Jesus as His Savior?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
300's onward is "Early Church" ??? (commenting on the video you responded too, not yours)
That's ridiculous... what happened to the first 300 years of the church? How about the fact the first 300 years of the church strictly disagreed with everything Calvinistic that I've read... they would have called it semi-Gnosticism in my knowledge at least. Sad... I have no problems with quotes, but to skip 300 years and call it early church is pure ignorance.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro Semi-gnosticism? Baloney. To believe the Calvinist Tulip has no connection to denying the orthodox definition of Christ as YHWH-the-Son, and man.
Election is a difficult doctrine, taught in the Bible. Genuine Christians have different explanations of it. Some think that the Limited Atonement debate is talking past each other: Atonement sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect (not everyone goes to Heaven because Christ died for them). It is clear that Christ died for all
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
I've got a 2 part video, you're welcome to go read/watch it for yourself--it's the Ante-Nicene fathers writings versus Calvinism, and then the Ante-Nicene writers commenting ON Gnostic doctrines/teachings--and they sound alike in some doctrines. This debate started a long time before Augustine or Calvin---election doesn't mean what you're imposing on it. Go read the quotes or check it out yourself, you can't argue the facts of their writings as a whole on certain doctrines.
droptozro 8 months ago
@drop
I have done considerable reading of Augustine; he seemed rather "Calvinistic" to me. In fact didn't Calvin win debates by quoting Augustine verbatim?
How do you know that "election doesn't mean what you're imposing on it"? Kindly backquote me where I imposed.
I have gone thru the entire Bible & marked all the passages on salvation, including election. The so-called "church fathers" wouldn't change my mind one whit unless they persuaded me that God's word taught something.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@droptozro
Now don't go & tell me that then ancient "church men" all taught the same thing; don't tell me that Pelagius & Augustine taught the same thing or that it was not Athanasius Contra Mundum.
If you want to prove something, go to it; I own a large collection of the "church fathers" in my library. But I'm not going to go look up things for you at this point. Have you heard of a work called Sic et Non by Pierre Abélard?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
You've got the 10 volume set?(it's free online, I've read parts of it, and also have a dictionary of early christian beliefs arranged on doctrines/ideals in the church) Awesome, have you actually read it? or are you just telling me they all don't agree on main doctrines in ignorance? Don't be arrogant now, have you read it and that's truly the conclusion you've arisen to or not?
Nope haven't heard of it, you can watch my video and post a proper response or you cannot.
droptozro 8 months ago
@droptozro You ignored some of my points.
1) Do u claim that Pelagius & Augustine taught the same thing?
2) Do u claim that Athanasius was not Contra Mundum with different "church fathers" in hearty disagreement?
Sic et Non by Pierre Abélard is supposed 2 B a collection of ch fathers in contradiction to each other.
I own & have read the Apostolic Fathers. I own the Accordance Computer church fathers. I did a lot of research on the topic of "flesh" in the ch fathers. I don't recall uniformity
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
K then.. I'll have to look thru my dictionary.
How about as I asked, start with my 2 part video and post a documented response? I'll definitely watch it, you'd be the literal first to try to take it on after so many I've asked to try to rebut it. Show me an Ante-Nicene writer who counters the uniformity that I've found in the video who speaks clearly that one may be genuinely saved and may fall away, or that only past sins are forgiven(in our sense). Defend the "P" ultimately.
droptozro 8 months ago
@droptozro To speak of being genuninely saved & fall away is to speak an oxymoron. When I say I AM SAVED, I mean that Christ has given me the gift of a transformation in nature (from Adamic to His human nature, new birth) and the gift of eternal life; i.e., I am going to go to Heaven that where He is there I may be also. Your use of the word "saved" is a misnomer: you suggest that one is given an opportunity to go to Heaven if one is a good boy (works). That is not salvation, but validation.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop
Here is a website that lists sayings of Church Fathers in support of the Calvinist TULIP.
warrantedfaith. org/ theology/ calvinism/ 485-calvinism-declared-by-the-church-fathers
(I had to put in spaces to get past the youtube censor)
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop
I was just reading Oh My Darling Clementine, Clement of Alex, who waxes proflic in oppostion to idolatry, which is practiced by Romanists. You see characters in Spanish language telenovelas, where papalism is the default religion & persons addressing Mary the way one addresses God. You see persons bow down before statues & pray. They may get mad at the saint who doesn't deliver & hang it upside down in a closet or bury a saint idol to sell a house. Do you do such?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Clement of Alex:
"do not worship through vain deceits
The works of men, of gold, and brass, and silver, and ivory,
And images of dead men, of wood and stone,
Which other men, led by their foolish inclinations, worship;
But raise to heaven pure arms:
When they rise from bed, purifying themselves with water,
And worship alone the Eternal, who reigns for ever more."
- Chapter 6
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
I'm not Catholic..and you can watch the video I have and go comment on that if you want to speak about losing(not attaining) final salvation by enduring to the end. I've already seen that warranted faith quotes/channel/book/writings by that writer(John Gill)...and I've spoken with the creator of that website. He uses quotes few and far between, and ones that even I don't disagree with.. but has to ignore the vast majority who reject Calvinist type of theology. Take it or leave it.
droptozro 8 months ago
Cl of Alex speaks here of SALVATION, not VALIDATION
"The divine Scriptures & institutions of wisdom form the short road to salvation. Devoid of embellishment, of outward beauty of diction, of wordiness and seductiveness, they raise up humanity strangled by wickedness, teaching men to despise the casualties of life; & w/ one and the same voice remedying many evils, they at once dissuade us from pernicious deceit & clearly exhort us to the attainment of the salvation set before us. ch8
Thunkful2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dropt
It is a heresy to substitute VALIDATION for SALVATION. Salvation means that Christ paid for my sins & fulfills the promise of giving me the status of "should not perish, but have eternal life," when I believe on Him. If I should believe & then perish, God would be a liar; which He cannot be. What Church Father calls God a liar?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Clement of Al on Salvation:
"O the prodigious folly of being ashamed of the Lord! He offers freedom, you flee into bondage; He bestows salvation, you sink down into destruction; He confers everlasting life"
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Clement of Alex gives the P!
"“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life.”53 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak."
COMES NOT INTO CONDEMNATION! Put that in anyone's self-righteous, validation-seeking pipe for smoking. No eternal life via validation, but by coming as a sinner for grace & salvation.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@dropt C of Alex:
"cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life.”53 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this54 is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them"
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
Dude... I don't even disagree with the quote you gave... that still doesn't defend "P" unless you're reading into it your theology--which you are. Here's a CLEAR quote from the same exact writer claiming exactly what I said... do you agree with Clement of Alexandria or not???
XL. Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father.. (cont)
droptozro 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
"who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. "For by the state in which I find you will I judge," also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the catastrophe of the drama he has given up his part...(cont2)
droptozro 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
while it is possible for the man who formerly led a bad and dissolute life, on afterwards repenting, to overcome in the time after repentance the evil conduct of a long time. But it needs great carefulness, just as bodies that have suffered by protracted disease need regimen and special attention. Thief, dost thou wish to get forgiveness? steal no more. Adulterer, burn no more. Fornicator, live for the future chastely. (cont3)
droptozro 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
Thou who hast robbed, give back, and give back more than [thou tookest]. False witness, practise truth. Perjurer, swear no more, and extirpate the rest of the passions, wrath, lust, grief, fear; that thou mayest be found at the end to have previously in this world been reconciled to the adversary. It is then probably impossible all at once to eradicate inbred passions; but by God's power and human intercession, and (cont3)
droptozro 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
...and the help of brethren, and sincere repentance, and constant care, they are corrected" - Clement of Alexandria
here's a full quote that clearly states only past sins are forgiven and one MUST live holy by synergism by the same exact writer or his efforts are useless(as Ezek 18 says). Please take this to my video, I'm not going to keep debating on this channel any further on this man's video... this is it. And the video has plenty more quotes espousing these exact views.
droptozro 8 months ago
@dropt
It is tough to follow exactly what Cl of Alex means in ur long quote. Let me make a suggestion, post your arguments at BibleAndTheology. com where there is an open forum & plenty of room to post as long a message as you wish. It is tough to do it in these little boxes. I didn't see anything in ur quote that says, "A man can be regenerated Y get the gift of eternal life & have it taken back from him."
since this is not God's Word anyway, its value is quite limited.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop: Cl of Alex A
“For this is the will of my Father, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.”58 As far as possible in this world, which is what he means by the last day, and which is PRESERVED till the time that it shall end, we believe that we are made perfect. Wherefore He says, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (cont)
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Cl of Alex B cont
59 If, then, those who have believed have life, what remains beyond the possession of eternal life? Nothing is wanting to faith, as it is perfect and complete in itself. If aught is wanting to it, it is not wholly perfect. But faith is not lame in any respect; nor after our departure from this world does it make us who have believed, and received without distinction the EARNEST of future good,"
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Cl of Alex was not waiting around for Church Councils to canonize scripture. He already received Paul's writings as scripture:
" 78 So also may we take the Scripture: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ;” "
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@dropt Cl of ALEX seems to take the flesh & blood of Jn 6 figuratively: A
"89 .. But u r not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop C of A seems to take the f & b of Jn 6 figuratively B :
"The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; & the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit & Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified."
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop
"96..Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
I have been quoting from "The Instructor" (Paedagog.) ch VI
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop Wud Clem of Al approve of "priests" wearing dresses or skirts instead of pants today?
"What reason is there in the law’s prohibiting a man from “wearing woman’s clothing “?191 Is it not that it would have us to be manly, and not to be effeminate neither in person and actions, nor in thought and word? For it would have the man, that devotes himself to the truth, to be masculine both in acts of endurance and patience, in life, conduct, word, and discipline by night and by day;"
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@drop U say "This debate started a long time before Augustine." Isn't that an admission that among persons who called themselves Christians, there was disagreement? If so then the selection of some professed Christians to call "Church Fathers" & others mere non-fatherly Christians or heretics begs the question. I, myself, don't call anyone a "Church Father" who denies the perseverence of the saints, for that is what it means to trust Christ as Savior:I trust Him to keep me from perishing & save.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Keep it up brother! Refute those Protestant heretics. It's amazing the mind-bending gymnastics that's required to be a Protestant. Keep it up! Pax et bonum!
IgnatiusBenedictus 1 year ago
@Iggy:
How do you know that the papacy is God's plan for the Church?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
It really bugs me that we, as true (not ELCA) Lutherans (originally known as Evangelicals or Evangelical catholics), Anglicans (Episcopalians), or occasionally even eastern Orthodox Christians get grouped in with all the Protestants (most of which are lacking in any actual doctrine or practices even resembling Christianity). While we may not all be in 100% full communion, the Orthodox, Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism share at least 80% of their doctrine and tradition in common.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago 2
The very early church father believed that a child could not know sin and therefor the Celtic Faith started in 36ad to now still believe baptism must be done when a person reaches the "age of accountability" . Constantines Catholic religion blurs this fact. Augustines corrupt lifestyle and along with Jeromes misinterpitation of the Septuagint made everyone belive them only. I am a Celtic Priest and ask you not to include "us" in your statement that "all" the Early Church were are Catholic...
ReneMayeaux 1 year ago
@ReneMayeaux Rene, what is your proof of all that? do u expect us to believe it just becs you say it?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Pt 3: The Eucharictic style and the beliefs of the Celtic faith used in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century and still use today are from the Jewish Christian background of the Apostles up to the time of Constantine. Augustine and Jerome curroupted our Liturgies and the original "Gallican Chants" were destroyed by the Constantines Catholics. The Early Church Fathers and Celtic faith were early Jewish Christian not Catholic on day one To say Polycarp, and others b4 350ad are Catholic is ridiculious...
ReneMayeaux 1 year ago
@Rene
There again, u make a bunch of assertions. Do u have proof for any of it?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Pt 2: The Celtic church started in 36 ad and was the largest faith until the Synod of Whitby. The Celtic faith also covered much of Europe and we built the original monastaries used as hire learning centers until they were turned over to Constantine or the Catholic church later in history. The first bishop of Rome was Linus a Celtic captive leader from Briton (Britan) and so were many others until the time of Constantine.
ReneMayeaux 1 year ago
@Rene Prove it, Rene.
There is no such thing as "The Celtic Church." The NT never calls a denomination a church. There is only 1 Church, the Body of Christ. There is only one way to join it, trust the real Christ as Savior & receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Acts 1-2; 1 Cor 12:13. "The Celtic Faith" would be either a misnomer or wrong. The faith is defined by the Bible & is not regional or racial.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Pt 1: You hinge your early church fathers knowledge on the assumption that they were all Catholic from page 1...and that all the writings in this enclopedic work to be of the Cathlic view and perspective. In truth the early church fathers were Celtic and many opinions were from non religious writers. Romes views were added after Catholisim became the dominate faith due to the Synod of Whitby in the 300's where the Celtic Faith washed their hands of Constantine and Paul's splintered churches.
ReneMayeaux 1 year ago
@Rene
I suppose you don't understand that your posting assertions establishes nothing. You need to present proof if you expect to be believed.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
great video. i will subscribe and watch some of your other ones.
tatripp 1 year ago
How do I find the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Are they all summed up in one book or are they seperate? What are they called? I hear so much about them, I would like to get my hands on those writtings or books. Please help.
sarahmcc28 1 year ago
@sarahmcc28
-
Go to cbd (dot) com and search "Early Church Fathers" and you'll find a list of their writings. However, I strongly suggest that one be firmly grounded in the Scriptures first before venturing into this field since some of the Fathers (like Irenaeus and Origen) strayed from Biblical truth on some topics. Thus it is good to have a good understanding of the Bible in order to discern such things. Happy reading!
AgApE010 1 year ago
@sarah
Start w/ "The Apostolic Fathers." You can prob find them on line. Don't read the Shepherd of Hermas since it has a racy (pornographic?) start. If you want absolute paranoia & megalomania, read Ignatius on the bishop & deacon. Iggy departed from the NT.
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles."
Iggy goes on & on
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@sarahmcc28
The Loeb Classics has a nice little edition of the Apostolic Fathers, bound in one volume, Greek on one leaf with English beside it on the facing leaf. & there is prob an index in the back for checking topics.
Then there is a series on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc., large volumes.
Myself, I have these "Fathers" in my Accordance Bible Computer program.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
otc, i think you are missinig the point with the response video. He is not saying that early church fathers weren't unanimously united in various doctrines, he is saying that they weren't all believers of universal atonement. He is simply stating the fact that there were church fathers who believed in limited atonement. You must agree, he quoted them!
Secondly, he asked you some questions in his video, why will you not respond to them?
reformedman 2 years ago
@reformedman
Do you think that the limited vs nonlimited atonement debate is a phoney debate since that both sides believe 2 things:
1) Christ's death made a payment sufficient to cover all men's sins.
2) Christ's death does not result in everyone being saved.
(Sufficient for all; efficient only for the elect).
???
That was the position of reformed covenant theologian J. Oliver Buswell (Systematic Theology writer).
Thunkful2 8 months ago
What are your credentials? I'd like to know if you're qualified to be speaking authoritatively on these matters.
Polarflex 2 years ago
People cant seem to understand, the Church Fathers are the Messianic Jews of the New Covenant Writings. The Disciples, Apostles and Original Church people.
They were ALL Jewish!
The church fathers who you think are true are nothing more than Gentiles who go against what the REAL Church Fathers said.
All you have to do is read the Book of Acts, Romans, Hebrews
you will clearly see that the Disciples (Messianic Jews) are the Real Church Fathers! Why do people go outside of Scripture?
Christian3269 2 years ago
@Christian3269 Do you have some proof that Luke was a Jew?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
hi - just a quick question - was mary jewish? if she was jews dont believe that there are born in sin...
jews believe that are born pure.... so how does that fit with the RCC teaching....
sort of comes un stuck dont it....
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
@loudmouthspeaker
3 Jews = 4 opinions.
You can find Jews who believe all kinds of things; atheist Jews, Talmudic Jews, secular Jews, Christian Jews. I believe that the orthodox Talmudic Jews hold to all men being born with a yetzer hara (evil imagination).
Thunkful2 8 months ago
If the Eucharist isn't #1 IMPORTANCE to the PRODS. then what the hell is? read your bible john 6 even if you don't believe. the eucharist is more important than listen to you 900th sermon being preached your nutsssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!
porkyo123 2 years ago
why would the mass be the most important thing? the mass doesnt save you... it doesnt give you eternal life.... you sure arnt spiritually born again by eating it..
and the bread doesnt turn in the flesh of Jesus.... what jesus did is finished.... the work is completed on the cross..... surly you can work that out
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
@porkyo123 Hell is what is important, yeah; you're gonna roast!
(LOL).
Porky, remember that "El diablo es puerco."
John 6: The words that I speak to you are spirit.
For me the Lord's supper is very important. But it seems that few know how to celebrate it properly. The purpose is to remember Him who paid for our sins. "Do this in remembrance of me."
but first of all, get born again by trusting Christ as Savior; then we can straighten out the priorities in meetings of God's people.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 The early Church broke bread why wouldn't you want to do it weekly? To me it's more important than hearing a sermon. Also. I did the born again thing In the " Church Of Christ " until l I found out that as Catholics we are born again at baptim. Of course it's great to remember him that's obvious but we as Catholics go much deeper when we take the Lords Supper, OUCH! LOL. John 6 Keep Reading. And when I visit a Catholic Church I know Im in a church!
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork
Indeed, why wouldn't you want to do it weekly?
You can get all the good sermons you want any time (e.g. J Vernon McGee on YouTube), not that there is any reason why u wud have to choose to hear God's word taught vs taking the Lord's Supper.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
Hold on there, the "Church of Christ" does not do the born-again thing. They teach salvation by works (a misnomer, since that wud be validation, instead of salvation.) I joined a "Church of Christ" when I was 9. I walked forward to "join the church." The preacher asked me if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God. I said, "Yes." That was common knowledge. The demons also believe that. They dunked me in the water. I got no salvation, but was made a church member.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 Wrong! If I remember correctly the church i attended was a split off and this particular minister believed in saved by grace. You send alot of replys I need to take a break. But as a Christian I believe this is sad. This seems like a religion of the ego...who has the right answers or who thinks he's right instead of you should know them by there love. The Devil is in the details.
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork
You can't get born again by being either sprinkled or dunked in water. The new birth is getting eternal life & involves being recreated. If any man is IN CHRIST he is a new creation, old things are passed away, behold all things are new. That is being born again. Your nature is changed, you receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, & you are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, His Church.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 Sorry you left out Baptism. the Catholic Church knew this long before the Prods wanted to change things LOL. Hey, what if both of us are wrong?
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork. greetings. what the Prods think is irrelevant. Many passages teach that salvation is by grace thru faith apart from works (of which water baptism is one). Take Acts 16 Sirs what must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus & u shall be saved." Now if I believe, but die before I get baptized, God wud be a liar if He didn't save Me. There are 1 or 2 passages where it looks like baptism might be saving along with faith, but since salv is guaranteed just on faith, bapt can't be necessary.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork the 2 passages where baptism looks like it might be salvific can be understood as Holy Spirit Baptism, which is not something man does, not man's responsibilty in the salvation process. Otherwise u cud make a case for like 1000 times a company guarantees "If A, then salvation." & elsewhere it said, "If A & B, the salvation." U wud logically conclude that only A were necessary.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
Moreover, in the OT salvation is not by baptism. And the thief on the cross was not baptized. He believed & was saved. If he had believed & been baptized, it is also true that He would have been saved.
At any rate, scripture is clear that salvation is not by works (Eph 2:8-9, etc.), and water baptism is a work. It also destracts from trusting Christ as Savior since It becomes the object of faith, which only Christ is.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
I attended a couple of RCC masses in High School with my girl friend. It didn't go deep; in fact it was all quite past me; some religious rigamarole. I attended a church in England where they actually did the Lord's Supper right & focused on the Lord Jesus & His death for an extended period. The "Church of Christ" I went to as a boy just did a perfunctory ceremony.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
You know the truth is that when boys go to a papist church with supposedly celebate clergy (violation of scripture: husband of one wife, children who believe), they are in danger of sodomistic rape. This has been so universal & pervasive that this invalidates the papist system if nothing else did. "I know I'm in a church?" how about in a sodomite brothel of child-rapists?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 How about the ministers that lure women into there office and have there way with them or pay the prostitudes for da cheap trick? Or maybe sowing a seed for a cute buck or two? Don't throw stones! I could go on. Didn't Christ say he would seperate the wheat from the chaff? It looks to me like he will call the shots in the END not us!
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork
If a denomination is shot through state by state, country by country with rape of boys that says something to me. By their fruits you know them. Luring a woman into the office for adultery is also bad, though not as bad. But if a denomination were shot through and through with that, state by state, country by country I would also reject that denomination. I don't refer to isolated instances, but to a pervasive denominational characteristic.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
John 6 flesh & blood are literal, but the eating is figurative. To receive eternal life, John 3:16 says to simply believe in (trust in) the Lord Jesus as Savior. Thus you receive Christ's flesh & blood when you trust Him as Savior. John 6: "The words that I speak to you are spirit." It is a figure of speech, like "I am the door." Christ has no hinges.
I read the most incredible double-talk on transub from OneTrueChurch.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 Christ let Nicodemus well know what he meant by 'Born again"( Baptism ) Christ said to Nic your the great teacher you should know these things. ( paraphrasing ) Did you also know the great flood stood for Baptism and the dove that landed on the ark stood for the Holy Spirit. Ouch! Did you also know when he said bring two of each kind on the ark it meant 2 of each tribe? That's what us Catholic Born againers LOL call TYPeOLOGY.
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork Well there are types in the Bible, to be sure. You can be sure when the Bible indicates it. Otherwise, they may be debatable, but still useful illustrations of truth. Thanks for mentioning the dove. I never thought of it as a type of the Holy Spirit; but I don't rule it out. What about the raven? I don't know where u get 2 of a tribe from.
Moses is a type of Christ (2 comings, gentile wife, 40 years vs 40 days). Ezekiel did an obvious type with his hair cutting & model city.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork "I know Im in a church"
Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I am in their midst, thus says the Lord Jesus. I know I am in a church when the people are born-again & gathered in His name. But I know I am in The Church, the Body of Christ because I sense His presence & headship with me right now as I sit here.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 You sense his presence typical BoAgainer LOL. You sure it's not the guy with the horns? You better get the Eucharist.
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork I see the pretended resacrifice of Christ as demonic. The raising of the host as idolatrous. The statues as idols.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork "I know Im in a church"
If I am with people worshipping saints & bowing at statues, I know I am not in a church, but with idolaters.
To claim that a priest is changing bread into Christ's body & raising it up & worshipping it is idolatry. That is worshipping a piece of bread. It is an abomination. Also to pretend to be resacrificing Christ over & over is an abomination. He declared on the cross, It is finished. He paid for our sins once & for all on the cross.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 How foolish! You can't limit God on what he can and can't do! If the Priest can't change it Christ can! Also God knows our heart and if we do make a mistake in worshiping do you think he's going to condem us to HELL? How do you know it's a piece of bread? It seems to me you limit your Chridt.
porkyo123 8 months ago
Thunk you limit your Christ!
porkyo123 8 months ago
@pork He said, "It is finished." Now who is limiting Christ? You don't think He was able & succeeded in finishing our atonement on the cross? Not only was He crucified & finished atonement, but I was there too & crucified (Romans 6; Gal 2). By joining me to Him in the Body of Christ, uniting me with Him, what happened to Him also happened to me as I am part of His Body. "I have been crucified with Christ." It is all over; the battle was won, my purchase was complete. I just have to trust Him.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@pork
Since Christ paid for your sins on the cross, if you trust Him as only & sufficient Savior, you are a child of God with no fear of going to Hell, regardless of doctrinal blunders. I know it is Matzos because I have bought them at the store & they are the same -- the person who bought the bread is witness. Matzos have lines on them & holes punched in them & are unleavened. Do u see the symbolism? The stripes, the pierced hands & feet, the unleavened unsinful body of Christ?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
Okay, Glenn, figured it was time I responded (been busy with a limited term job 4 the last few months, anyway). VIS-A-VIS your comment about Moslems quoting the Bible to "disprove" Christianity, I recommend STRONGLY that you yourself be VERY careful NOT to quote documents like: the Talmud, the KORAN, the Bhagavad Gita, or any Lama-originated literature in your posts. Seriously. Stick to what you know (which, I must admit, you actually do QUITE well where that point is concerned).
bimboblacky 2 years ago
I own a pretty advanced microscope. Please send me a sample of the eucharist so that I can identify the dna of the flesh and blood sample.
Remember, you said, "the actual flesh and bood"
reformedman 2 years ago
this sounds like a silly argument made by atheists. As Catholics we believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. If you examined it under a microscope it would still only look like bread but it is really the body and blood of Christ in substance.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
"body and blood of Christ in substance."
What does the word SUBSTANCE mean to you atomically?
What are you trying to say by that word, substance?
I understand what you mean by appearance, but please define what you mean in technical terms by the word substance. For example, do you mean that the bread has the same nutrients as human flesh? When Christ performed the first memorial and he said this is My body, while he sat before them, was it cloned somehow?
Please define your terms, I am serious.
reformedman 2 years ago
by substance i mean what something actually is. we believe that after the consecration, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ but still appear as bread and wine although they are no longer so. No, the bread would not appear to have the nutrients of human flesh if examined it would appear in every way even at the atomic level to be bread. But we believe that a real change takes place metaphysically so that it is no longer bread and wine though it appears that way
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
which metaphysical change is it that you refer to? You say that the bread change metaphysically, describe exactly which change was made metaphysically with the bread. Also dilineate for me the exact moment this happened. How do you know it happened. And where in the bible do you see proof that there had been a change that in fact did happen.
Could he meant these as symbols to 'represent' his body and his blood? is this at all a possible interpretation? after all, he did use real bread and wine.
reformedman 2 years ago
you ask which metaphysical change. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've made it very clear that it is changed into the body and blood of Christ even though it still appears as bread. The Change takes place when the priest echos the words of Christ "this is my body..this is my blood shed for the remission of sins" And no it can not be taken symbolically for reasons that i mention in my other videos dealing with the eucharist see
view_play_list?p=F574B7398B3CEDEE
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
[Part 1]
Do you know what 'hypostasis' is? In order for Christ to pay for sins and live a righteous life, he took the form of a man. He cannot take the form of angels, because an angel would have to die for the sins of fallen angels. Christ, as a perfect man, died for man and was able to because he was very man of very man. The infinite took the form of the finite. The body of Christ among a crowd of people could not be distinguished. Christ was 100% God and 100% man.
reformedman 2 years ago
yes, all of this is true. You're point? How is this relevent to the issue of transubstantiation
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
ABout why lots of Protestants stopped believing that bread and wine are body and blood of Jesus, a Lutheran pastor said:
"well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman "
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
[Part 2]
In light of the hypostasis, did Christ give of he real body? or regenerate skin and organ to supply the need of the disciples that day?
You assert that RC priests dispense of his real body across Sunday to millions of people at one time, how much of this flesh is being regenerated?
Are you sure that you want to believe that the tons of bread that are dispense really is the actual body of Christ? You will have to reconcile then, how much of his body is left, how big his body is, etc
reformedman 2 years ago
I'm not sure why part 1 didn't show up but in it I ask you if you fully know and understand the term 'hypostasis'
reformedman 2 years ago
each particle of bread and wine is the full Christ body, blood, soul and divinity.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
@OneTrueChurch, you say "each particle of bread and wine is the full Christ body, blood, soul and divinity."
What is your proof of that?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2
it is the faith of the church. i believe in the church, that settles it
OneTrueChurch 8 months ago
@OneTrueChurch
What is your proof that it is the faith of the Church, the Body of Christ?
What is your proof that the papal organization is the Church?
What is your proof that the papal org is infallible?
1TC, I urge you to repent of trusting the "church" & trust Christ as your Savior.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
It is a spiritual nutrient. The way I understand it, and some Catholics may disagree, is that Christ puts his spirit into the bread and wine, thus putting spiritual nourishment into tangible form. It is easier for me to understand it that way than to say that the Eucharist looks like bread but it's really a hunk of human flesh.
backwoodsninja 2 years ago
**It is easier for me to understand it that way than to say that the Eucharist looks like bread but it's really a hunk of human flesh.**
Ok so then is it human flesh or is it not, please choose yes or no. Christ said, this is my body. Did he say that figuratively or did he say that cannibalistically?
What benefit would there be in Christ changing the bread to a man's flesh over and over again? Why does it not taste like meat? How would it smell if you didn't eat the bread for a few days?
reformedman 2 years ago
"What benefit would there be in Christ changing the bread to a man's flesh over and over again?" -God made a new conventant w/ His people where we truely are brothers/sisters in Christ. We are a family bc all family share in the same flesh/blood. What point would there be to go to a church service to just eat bread/wine symbolically? I can eat bread/wine anytime & it doesnt bring me closer to Christ, but when I commune at Church w/ fellow believers, we are actually partaking in the Lords Supper.
catchzz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ok so then is it human flesh or is it not, please choose yes or no. Christ said, this is my body. Did he say that figuratively or did he say that cannibalistically?"
Christ did indeed say, "This is my body." He did not provide any further explanation, so neither can I. He did not break it down into metaphorical terms, like he did when he was using parables. Nor did he give an explanation as to the metaphysical details of it.
backwoodsninja 2 years ago
@reformedman
Where does the Bible say that the Lord's supper ever had wine in it?
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 Not sure why talk about wine, drugs, cigars or caves when you have a lot of deeper issues you should be tackling. Read 1 Cor 11 in context and then tell me that they didn't drink wine. Also, there is no requirement that the Lord's supper be with wine. You can use anything that can give symbolism to blood. Remember, after all, it was only a SYMBOL. Further, if you will be strict about these things, I will then ask, where does the bible say he took a wafer? lol
reformedman 8 months ago
@reformedman
There is no ref to wine in the Lord's supper, tho I have no objection to it, partic if u are going to pass around one cup -- stronger the better! Kindly obey Hezekiah 9:6 "Thou shalt not shoot canon balls at canary birds."
I like matzos because they symbolize the stripes & piercings of Christ's body along with no leaven, no sin.
Thunkful2 6 months ago
As for at the last supper, the bread and wine became his actual body and blood. He held in his hands his own body. for an in depth look at what the earliest Christians believed on this, check out my video
/watch?v=TuICbxBifLs&feature=PlayList&p=F574B7398B3CEDEE&index=5
its the first in a 4 part series. watch all 4 parts. It proves that all the Early church fathers accepted Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. the reformed view started with Calvin in the 1500's
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
I'm not sure why I would care what people; fellow brethren in the faith or not, believed in this issue. I do not base my trust in what you or anyone believe.
The only thing that interests me in reading from you or others on doctrine, is for the sole purpose of checking in the bible to see if these things be so. Do you actually take everything a church father says and take it as absolute?
Yes or No
Yes? then let's talk about Augustine's soteriology.
No? then why mention church fathers?
reformedman 2 years ago
@OneTrueChurch Give me your refs to where transubstantiation was taught in the apostolic fathers.
Thunkful2 8 months ago
@Thunkful2 Transubstantiation (TS) is not synonymous with the Real Presence (RP). TS describes how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. It took centuries and the development of philosophy to describe the nature of the change in substance (i.e. that the accidents remain but the substance has changed). The reality of the RP has existed since Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Why would Ignatius of Antioch call the Eucharist the 'Medicine of Immortality' it it were a mere symbol?
wbowersox87 6 months ago
Comment removed
Thunkful2 6 months ago
@OneTrueChurch
double-talk.
How can you believe that a thing is so & not so at the same time?
Well, you can repeat the contradictories every day before breakfast & just before you go to bed.
(Alice in Wonderland)
Thunkful2 8 months ago
here's what I think. Yes, we have theological differences. But we serve the same Lord. And we have the same enemy...who probably really delights in seeing us hanging at each other's throats. Dialogue is important...but we must check our motives. If we are dialoguing to flex our intellects and show off our Bible erudition...well... apologetics can take on a form of ego stroking. Are we becoming all things to all people in order to bring them closer to the Lord?
margottelint 2 years ago
BUT OF COURSE WE MUST CONTINUE FIGHTING UNTIL ONE CONCEDES!!!!!! ONE HAS TO BE RIGHT, and of course it is me, because i am always right. LMAO (that was sarcasm) im with u all the way margottelint =]
EgyptianRocker 2 years ago
---"zmode82 but why is it that I dont see the word Catholic written before it?"---
The Bible also does not contain the word Bible itself, or how many books are contianed in the Bible. Additioanlly, it also does not contain the word Trinity. Is one to conclude then that the trinity is a false doctrine?
Mechanized0 2 years ago
Thanks for your help, but I rather attend a church where the Bible is the final authority.
zmode82 2 years ago
ecept the bible never claims this for itself
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
That is your opinion and you are welcome to have it.
zmode82 2 years ago
It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
The "Bible" does not claim final authority. If it does show it.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
There are so many verses that the God commands us to follow the Bible only. Like, galatians 1:8, Psalm 19:7-12, 2 tim 3:15-17, Isaiah 8:20 etc.. I can go on forever. If a church leader does not teach or lead according to the Bible, why bother attending that church? Now, what is your proof and I demand biblical sources that support why a Christian should not follow the Bible as his final authority.
zmode82 2 years ago
I don't have my Bible with me. When I get home I will check out your evidence.
Stay tuned.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
I read all your Scripture references.....not ONE says the Bible is the only authority.
Would you like to try again ?
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
No, its fine, I guess youre right we choose whether or not we want to follow the Lord's commandments. I mean its not like the Lord isnt going to judge us by those commandments after we die. Its not like He send those who disobey His words to burn in Hell. Youre right the Bible doesnt say that, so who needs His grace to seek salvation, if it doesnt matter if your church or leaders doesnt follow His commandments which are written in the Bible? Yeh, you are quite the scholar.
zmode82 2 years ago
You totally dodged my question.
You provided 4 verses of Scripture that you claim clearly says "The Bible is the only authority."
None of them do.
Instead of trying to insult me back up your Protestant Doctrine. Your off to a bad start.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Insult you? I said youre right, didnt I? and you havent provided why you couldnt understand what you have read. So, you either lack reading comprehension, or your pride is blinding you. You seem like a smart guy, so I dont think you lack reading comprehension.
zmode82 2 years ago
You said sarcastically I'm a "scholar". Don't patronize me.
I am not prideful at all. If you read my profile I was going to leave my Catholic Faith 10 years ago but the evidence to become a Protestant was severly lacking.
Let's read the verses together you provided:
Gal 1:8......Paul admonishes the Galatians NOT to fall away from the Gospel he preached.
Nothing is said about the Scriptures being the final authority on Faith.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Well, let see. Paul says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Im sorry dont see how draw that conclusion from that scripture. Paul is really that even if he, an angel or anyone were to preach another gospel other let him be cursed. Now, where is the gospel written?
zmode82 2 years ago
Your sentences make no sense.
The above verse does NOT say the Bible is the only authority. You said it does.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Now, lets be a little more logical and less dogmatic. A Christian priest or preacher without a Bible, is about as useless as a soldier without a gun. How can I trust an unarmed soldier with my life? Needless to say a church leader without a Bible.
zmode82 2 years ago
You keep dodging our initial dialogue.
You said the Bible is the final authority and gave me 4 verses that don't back up your claim.
Do you have any other evidence from God's Word that backs your Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
I am not interested in your analogies.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Im going to try again try to keep up with me this time. If we go to church to listen to a man speak do we not want to make sure that he is receiving his tachings straight from the Bible. In Isaiah 8:20, to the LAW and TESTIMONY (the law and testimony is written in the Bible)if they SPEAK not according to His(God) word it is because there is no LIGHT in them. Why follow someone who doesnt have the LIGHT in them? It makes no sense to me.
zmode82 2 years ago
Now, you said earlier that you are not interested in my analogies. You know, Christ used to speak in parables to help men use their own logic to understand His message(matt.13:10-17) So if you dont want to use reason or logic in this discussion, then I have nothing more to say.
zmode82 2 years ago
More sarcasm huh?
You need to keep up with yourself. You made a claim you can't back up with God's Word.
I know our Lord spoke in Parables. I said I was not interested in yours.
You have nothing more to say? That's what I thought.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
"You made a claim you can't back up with God's word." I did back it up, and I broke down little by little how 2 of those verses support my claim. You still havent explained to me why those verses do not support my claim. Im trying to be reasonable. Now, I am aware this is a debate. Its not my fault youre a bit sensitive, but its not a crime to be sarcastic in a respectful debate. Just as long as we are not pointing fingers and calling out names.
zmode82 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
Your embarrassing yourself.
The verses you quoted do not in anyway shape or form say whay you claim: that the Bible is the final authority on matters of faith. Not one verse.
Debate....Dialogue....it's all the same.
"It's not my fault your sensitive".
I didn't say you hurt my feelings.....I was just pointing out that when you cornered yourself you resort to sarcasm.
How noble of you.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Im still waiting on you to explain to me why a church doesnt need a Bible? I did what you asked, but you havent done what I asked. How noble of you.
zmode82 2 years ago
Also, I dont see how you cornered me when you havent even explain to me how I am wrong. All you have said was the verses I provided doesnt support my claim Im still waiting on you to explain to me why I am wrong. Also, I know you didnt say I didnt hurt your feelings, but I know I did and for that, I am sorry. Is it possible that you resulted to pointing out my sarcasm bc you couldnt back up you claim?
zmode82 2 years ago
No need to apologize whether you think you hurt my feelings or not I don't care.
I see I have to speak to you like a 2nd Grader........
" The Bible is the final authority and it CLEARLY says it......I can go on forever showing verses......"
Those were your words.
1st claim....Gal 1:8 Paul tells the Galatians not to deviate from the Gospel he preached to them.....
Where for the 3rd time does it say in Gal 1:8 that the Bible is the final authority ?
WHERE? This is hilarious.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Ok Im going to take things a little slower. I already explained to why Paul based on that verse didnt tell he preached to them. Gal. 1:8 says, and I really do hope you look into the Word of God and please use your logic when you read. Paul clearly says, that even if we(refering to himself as well as the other apostles or an agel, and/or anyone) SHOULD meaning they havent yet, but if they SHOULD preach another gospel let hi be eternally damned. Where do you find the gospel?
zmode82 2 years ago
Sorry typos, I meant to say I already explained to you why Paul based on that verse didnt say what you thought he said.
zmode82 2 years ago
Where do you find the gospel? The gospel is written in the Bible. If someone preaches another gospel, let him be eternally damned. The gospel is only found in the Bible. Would you trust a Christian who teaches from the Qu'ran? No of course not, you know better than that. Youre a Christian and christian only relies on what is written in the Bible. Why would a Christian leader go to another book to teach about Christ? It makes no sense.
zmode82 2 years ago
No matter how you disect or dodge this. You know that a church, a christian church, cannot function if they do not speak according to the Word of God. Hence, the Bible has to be the final authority. Otherwise, that church cannot be classified as a Christian church. A church nonetheless, but not Christian. A Rabbi only teaches from the Torah in a synagouge. A Muslim leader only teaches from the Quran in a mosque. A xian priest must only teach from the Bible in a Church.
zmode82 2 years ago
I am not dodging anything. You quoted verses....I read them and they don't back what you say. That simple.
"You know that a church, a christian church, cannot function if they do not speak according to the Word of God. "
Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years.....speaking according to God.
Our debate for the 11th time now is whether the Bible is the sole rule of faith which you still haven't established.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
"Our debate for the 11th time now is whether the Bible is the sole rule of faith which you still haven't established. "
LOL! You've just established the Bible is the sole rule bc you have just made the claim that the RCC has been speaking according to the word of God for 2000 years. Now, whether or not the RCC today still follows what the Bible says, that is still disputable.
zmode82 2 years ago
Who said the Word of God was only in WRITTEN form ????
Not me.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Ok if the word of God is not written in the Bible, where else are we supposed to get His word from?
zmode82 2 years ago
Also you said:
Church+scriptures=revelation of God.
So based on that equation, its only logical to assume that:
Church-scriptures=no revelation fo God.
So you did say a church needs the Word of God to receive a revelation from God. Thats exactly what Ive been trying to point out.
zmode82 2 years ago
I did not say it wasn't written in the Bible.....
for the 12th time......the Bible is not the only source of God's Word. It was preached through the Church as well....as Scripture states not everything Jesus said or did was written down.
Your pastor thinks he is legitimate because he went to "Bible College."
The Catholic Faith is divine and is a direct succession of the Apostles. Without the Catholic Faith there is no Faith.
The Church brought Christ to the world.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
My pastor did not go to Bible college. He is just a man no different than anyone else who reads from the Bible and preaches the gospel to those who are willing to hear the word of God and then hopefully repent of their sins, sin no more, and to put their trust in Jesus for their salvation. Also, Jesus brought the Church to the world, not the other way around.
zmode82 2 years ago
"The Church brought Christ to the world"? Listen to yourself, John 3:16,18 says it clear that it was God who brought Christ, His only begotten Son to this world, and He and only He, came to save the world and not condemn it. Put your trust in Jesus, and not the works of man.
zmode82 2 years ago
Your right, your pastor is just a man.
The Hierarchy of the Catholic Faith are direct successors of the Apostles. They are a divine office with roots directly from Christ.
"Also , Jesus brought the Church to the world not the other way around."
Agreed. And the Church brought the Bible to the world not the other way around.
Now back to our original dialogue......are you going to show me in the Scriptures where it says it's the final authority?
Gal 1:8 doesn't.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
OMG! I cant make it any clear to you if I attempt to make it any clearer than I already have I would have to end up giving a definition for each individual word on that verse to make it clear to you. You have been brought to believe that only thru the church are you saved. Whereas, in John 14:6 says it clear that He is the only way.
zmode82 2 years ago
OMG ! is right.
You still haven't proved one iota with the verses you quote. Not one.
Now your talking about Salvation ???
Your not getting off that easy. Please show me your other verses which claim Sola Scriptura. Your previous ones didn't cut it.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
Im not trying to get off easy, more and more accusations, and yet you yourself havent been able to explain to me why we dont need the Bible. Yet, ironically enough, youre asking me to go directly to the Bible to provide answers. Based on your logic, my opinions should be divine enough to tell you how to worship God, but I dare not give you any opinions on how to worship God. I would only tell someone to worship God the wayHe commanded it. Otherwise, its called idolatry.
zmode82 2 years ago