Follow
We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Early Church, however, saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” not a sacrifice of bread and wine.
Before Roman Catholicism came on the scene, the Early Church saw the Lord’s Supper as a memorial meal, and saw praise and thanks as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, in accordance with Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15,
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1)
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
It is in the light of Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15 that the Early Church’s understanding of Malachi 1:11 can be seen most clearly, as the Early Church Fathers testify.
There are, however, three traps into which we must not stumble in our analysis:
1) The Patristic writers of the Nicæan and ante-Nicæn era occasionally used sacrificial terms when writing about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and Malachi 1:11. They do not always use the same terms, and when they do use the same terms, they do not always use them the same way. Nor do the terms necessarily refer to the bread and wine, though Rome often assumes that they do. Context will keep us out of this trap.
2) The word Eucharist is a transliteration of the Greek word, “ευχαριστια,” and it is translated as “thanksgiving.” Sometimes it refers to the bread, and sometimes it refers to thanks. Thus, the “sacrifice of the Eucharist” does not of necessity imply a sacrifice of “bread,” but rather a sacrifice of thanks. Translating the word “ευχαριστια” as “thanksgiving” instead of transliterating it as “Eucharist” as context demands will help keep out of this trap.
3) When Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples, He instituted the Lord’s Supper, but He also offered praise and thanks and a hymn to His Father (Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26). When a Church Father says that Jesus instituted “the oblation of the New Covenant” at the Last Supper, he is not of necessity referring to the bread and wine, but to the thanks and praise, which the Early Church saw as the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11. By maintaining the distinction between what Jesus offered to His Father and what He offered to His disciples we will avoid stumbling into the third trap.
The traps are easily avoided, and the Scriptures as well as the testimony Church Fathers themselves provide the data we need when we evaluate the Early Church’s position on Malachi 1:11.
By way of reference, here is Malachi 1:10-11, the verse upon which Rome’s Mass sacrifice is presumed to turn:
“Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:10-11)
We continue this week with Irenæus and Tertullian. In the case of Irenæus, the oblation of the new covenant is the praise and thanksgiving we offer to God by collecting the first fruits of our labor for the poor and needy. Rome misuses Irenæus by conflating the collection for the poor with the supper that follows it. In the case of Tertullian, his repeated observation is brief and emphatic—the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 is “simple prayer from a pure conscience.”
Before we proceed with Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we will have a brief sidebar on the Early Church practice of including the collection for the poor at the Lord’s Supper. Knowledge of this practice helps us contextualize some of the passages Roman Catholicism uses to allege the practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Early Church.
THE OFFERING FOR THE POOR
As we noted two weeks ago with Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement was concerned that godly men who had honorably brought forward the tithes (gifts) had been unlawfully deposed from the office of presbyter (chapter 44). As we explained at the time, that was a reference to the bringing forward of tithes for the poor (i.e., “gifts” (Luke 21:1-4)). It was not a reference to offering of bread and wine as a sacrifice.
Last week, we also discussed Justin Martyr’s understanding of Malachi 1:11 in relation to the Lord’s Supper, but this week we take note also that Justin also included the collection of tithes and offerings for the poor in the context of the Lord’s Supper. In the same chapter that he explains the order of worship in which thanksgiving is pronounced over bread and wine, he also explains that the wealthy bring their gifts and deposit them with the presiding officer in order to provide for the poor among them. In chapter 13 of his First Apology, he makes reference to using the Lord’s bountiful provisions for ourselves and to provide for those “who need” and then in chapter 67 describes the practice in more detail:
“And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. … And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 67)
Both of these references to caring for the poor are in the context of the Lord’s Supper. This consistent desire to provide for the needs of the widows, the orphans and strangers is the Early Church’s obedience to the Old Testament law to collect tithes for this very purpose (Deuteronomy 10:18, 14:29, 16:11-14, 24:17-21, 26:12-13). Because caring for the poor is a way of worshiping God, the Early Church included the collection of food and clothing for the poor as part of their regular worship. It was to them a sacrifice of praise.
As Justin Martyr describes the practice, when we gather together “we bless” the Lord “for all things wherewith we are supplied.” Thus, the thanksgiving during the Lord’s Supper includes gratitude not only for what God has done for us in the death of His Son, but also for the abundance with which we have been supplied of the earth. It is for the abundance of His provision of food that we thank Him, and as a sacrifice of praise, we return to Him a portion of what He has given to us, and dedicate it to the use of the poor.
This practice of including the collection for the poor during the worship service has provided Rome an opportunity to see the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving as a propitiatory sacrifice of bread and wine. But in the Scriptures, caring for widows and orphans and those in need is simply considered a sacrifice of praise. For example, see Paul’s appropriation of sacrificial language to describe the “incense” and “sacrifice” and “thanksgiving” offering of providing for the needs of the saints:
“Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God. For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God.” (2 Corinthians 9:11-12)
“For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.” (Philippians 4:16-18)
Caring for the poor through the collection of tithes is a sacrifice of praise to God, an offering, a way of expressing “thanksgivings unto God,” an “odour of a sweet smell” to Him. In other words, it is incense and an oblation of praise to God, a well pleasing sacrifice in accordance with Malachi 1:11. Thus, we see in the Apostolic Constitutions that sacrifices have been replaced with “prayers, and intercessions, and thanksgivings,” and “first-fruits, and tithes, and offerings, and gifts” have been replaced by oblations which are presented by the bishops to the Lord:
“Those which were then the sacrifices now are prayers, and intercessions, and thanksgivings. Those which were then first-fruits, and tithes, and offerings, and gifts, now are oblations, which are presented by holy bishops to the Lord God, through Jesus Christ, who has died for them.” (Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 4).
The fact that tithes are brought forward for the poor during the weekly gathering for the Lord’s Supper—and the fact that the fruit of the field and the vineyard would be included in those tithes in an agricultural society—has led Rome to see the collection for the poor in the Church Fathers as a sacrifice of bread and wine for sins. What we shall find this week is that when a Church Father refers to an offering of the tithes to God for His use in accordance with 2 Corinthians 9 and Philippians 4, Rome can only see a propitiatory sacrifice for sins.
IRENÆUS (early 2nd century – 202 A.D.)
Irenæaus provides for us an excellent example of how a sacrifice of praise by collecting of tithes for the poor has been turned by Rome into a sacrifice of bread and wine for the propitiation of sins. In Against Heresies, Irenæus discusses the end of the Levitical dispensation, explaining that the Lord never had any need for their offerings in the first place, but rather “repudiated holocausts, and sacrifices, and oblations” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.1). In this vein Irenæus continues, exhorting Christians to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and to offer the sacrifice of caring for the poor:
“Then, lest it might be supposed that He refused these things in His anger, He continues, giving him (man) counsel: ‘Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon Me in the day of your trouble, and I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me;’ [Psalms 50:14-15] … He continues, exhorting them to what pertained to salvation: ‘Wash you, make you clean, take away wickedness from your hearts from before my eyes: cease from your evil ways, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow; and come, let us reason together, says the Lord.’ [Isaiah 1:16-17]” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.2).
Caring for “the oppressed” is a “sacrifice of praise.” We highlight Irenæus’ particular emphasis on collecting tithes for the poor because it is in this context—the collecting of first fruits of the harvest for the poor—that Irenæus brings two thoughts together, the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 and the Lord’s Supper:
“Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is My body.’ [Matthew 26:26, etc]. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.5)
In this paragraph from Irenæus, two of the three traps of the Sacrifice Challenge await us. First, Irenæus uses sacrificial language (i.e. “to offer”) in close proximity to a reference to the Lord’s Supper (trap 1). Next, we read Irenæus to say that Jesus “taught the oblation of the new covenant” at the Last Supper (trap 3). Rome would have us conclude therefore that Irenæus thought Jesus had instituted the Mass Sacrifice of His own body and blood on the night before He died as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Irenæaus himself, however, rejects Rome’s interpretation, and will help us avoid the traps.
As we have stated for the last three weeks, we must remember that Jesus not only broke bread at the Last Supper, but also, praised, thanked and hymned His Father. Additionally, when a Church Father uses sacrificial language in relation to the Lord’s Supper, we must determine what precisely he thought was being offered there. Irenæus will identify for us the “true sacrifice.”
Now Irenæus just spent the bulk of chapter 17 explaining that the Lord does not need or desire sacrifices or oblations because the sacrifice of thanksgiving is the only sacrifice in which the Lord is interested, and caring for the poor is the incense that He desires. In this context, Irenæaus says that by teaching the disciples “to offer to God the first-fruits,” Jesus had “taught the new oblation of the new covenant.” So which was the oblation of the new covenant? Was it the praise or was it the bread and wine? Rome insists that Irenæaus is referring to transubstantiated bread and wine. But Irenæus denies this explicitly, and insists that he is referring to the praise. Listen as he explains in the very next paragraph that the oblation of the new covenant is not the bread, but the thanks itself:
“Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds,
And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. [Malachi 1:11]Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that theincenseisthe prayers of the saints.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17.6)
The “offering” that the Church makes “through Jesus Christ” is “prayers.” This is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” But Irenæus is far from finished on this topic. His next chapter is entirely devoted to what the “sacrifice” and “incense” of Malachi 1:11 actually are. His next chapter also tells us what it is, precisely, that Jesus taught His disciples to offer.
In the first sentence of the chapter 18 he writes, “The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to Him” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.1). As he proceeds, it is clear that the sacrifice of the New Covenant “which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world” is none other than gratitude, which is expressed by tithing a portion of the fruits of our labor, consistent with 2 Corinthians 9:11-12 and Philippians 4:16-18:
“And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside; for there were both oblations there [among the Jews], and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the people; sacrifices there are, too, in the Church: but the species alone has been changed, inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by freemen. … those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things; as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God.” [Luke 21:1-4] (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.2)
Note that the “sacrifice of praise” here is provision for the poor and the setting aside of personal property for the needy. Irenæus continues in the same paragraph emphasizing that the “incense” and “sacrifice” he has in mind is Christians voluntarily setting aside the fruits of their labor for the poor as a way of expressing their thanks to God. In this context he cites, as we have above, the example of the Philippians setting aside their own property to meet Paul’s needs. This, says Irenæaus, is the sweet smelling sacrifice offered to God from a pure conscience:
“Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, ‘I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.’ [Philippians 4:18] For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.4)
Note well that “the Church alone” offers this acceptable sacrifice, which is none other than setting aside the first fruits as a tithe for the poor, along with the giving of thanks for the abundance of God’s provision. Irenæus goes on from here, contrasting the Jews and heretics—who offer “the fruits of ignorance, passion and apostasy,”—with Christians—who are known for “giving Him thanks” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.4). Then Irenæus continues, making it crystal clear that the “offering” is the thanks and praise to God as expressed through the collection of tithes for food and clothing for the poor:
“Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. For even as God does not need our possessions, so do we need to offer something to God; as Solomon says: ‘He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord.’ [Proverbs 19:17] For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in: naked, and you clothed Me; sick, and you visited Me; in prison, and you came to Me. [Matthew 25:34-36]’ ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.6)
Feeding and clothing poor is a way of offering a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God. It is in this context that Irenæus made a comment that is used by the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support the Mass Sacrifice. Irenæus is plainly referring to a sacrifice of praise by tithing for the poor when he says that “the Church alone offers this pure oblation.” The Catechism takes his reference to the collection for the saints, and uses it to support the offering of the Mass Sacrifice:
“The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper – ‘taking the bread and a cup.’ ‘The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.’ [Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.4] The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1350)
We object to Rome’s use of Irenæus here because he was talking about a sacrifice of praise. Rome co-opts Irenæus’ language about setting aside food and clothing for the poor, and substitutes transubstantiated bread and wine in order to force Irenæus into supporting a Mass Sacrifice. As we shall demonstrate, Rome has taken Irenæus grossly out of context here because his own words show the impossibility of construing his “pure oblation” as the Mass Sacrifice.
When discussing the Lord’s Supper, Irenæaus has Jesus instructing the disciples to “offer to God the first fruits of His own created things.” As we have seen with Irenæus, this corresponds to the gratitude expressed by the collection of tithes and first-fruits of the harvest for the poor. This is the “offering,” as Irenæaus has thus far made abundantly clear, in accordance with Philippians 4:18. Only after that offering of thanks has been made at the Lord’s Supper, and in fact only after that offering has ended, does Irenæus then have the presbyter invoking the Holy Spirit, and asking Him to exhibit to the people Christ’s sacrifice symbolically. Irenæus, like those we have discussed in previous weeks, cleanly maintains his categories. Thanks is offered to God, and bread is offered to men. In other words, the offering of thanks is over before the words of institution are spoken, and once the words of institution are spoken, the sole purpose of the elements of bread and wine is not to offer them to God, but to “exhibit” Christ’s sacrifice to the people through the symbols of bread and wine.
The reason this is so significant is that Roman Catholicism teaches that the transubstantiation of the bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ for the Mass Sacrifice takes place only upon the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and unless that invocation takes place, what is offered is not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Listen as the Catechism explains that the words of invocation are “the heart of the Eucharistic celebration,” and that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ until the Holy Spirit is invoked:
“At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1333)
Francis of Assisi, too, made this abundantly clear when he said that the bread and wine cannot possibly be transubstantiated until after words of institution—i.e., “This is My body, … this is My blood”—are spoken:
“For we know that the Body cannot exist until after these words of consecration.” (Francis of Assisi, Admonition III)
But Irenæus does it exactly backward, and in the process maintains his categories. Thanks is offered to God, and bread is offered, or in this case, “exhibited”—to men. First he offers gratitude as a sacrifice of praise to God—”giving Him thanks”—, and when the offering is over, he invokes the Holy Spirit that He might exhibit symbolically to His people Christ’s sacrifice under the symbols of bread and wine:
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελέσαντες, completed) the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes [symbols] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37)
We have highlighted the word, “τελέσαντες” here because it is rendered as “perfected” in Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers, but the more accurate rendering is “fulfilled,” “finished” or “accomplished.”
In his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides uses the word “τελεωσαντες” (in its 5th century B.C. Attic Greek form) in the same context that Irenæus does when he says that after the hymn and libations were finished, the fleet moved out to assemble for battle:
“The hymn sung and the libations finished (τελεωσαντες), they put out to sea, and first out in column then raced each other as far as Aegina, and so hastened to reach Corcyra, where the rest of the allied forces were also assembling.” (Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 6, 32.2 (431 B.C.))
The term is used by Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus, in his Library of History (c. 30 – 60 B.C.) to describe what the Thebans accomplished in a very short time:
“The Thebans, having accomplished (τελέσαντες) in eighty-five days all that is narrated above, and having left a considerable garrison for Messenê, returned to their own land.” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book XV, Chapter 67)
The term is also found in a spurious work attributed to John Chrysostom, Sermo in sanctos duodecim apostolos. We cite it solely for the value the Latin translator of the spurious work provides to the present discussion. The sermon includes the phrase, “ενα δρομον τελέσαντες,” which includes the particular word used by Irenæus above, and means “one end of the course,” or as the Latin translator helpfully renders it, “unoque etiam cursu terminato” (Migne’s Patrologia Græca, Tomus Octavus, (1836) 624-625). Here, as the Latin makes abundantly clear, τελέσαντες means terminato, or “end.”
The term is also found in John Kaminiates’, The Capture of Thessaloniki, in which a man is described as accomplishing a task and remaining in place until the day ended (τελέσαντες, 10th century A.D., Byzantine Greek), (John Kaminiates: the Capture of Thessaloniki, 65, (904 A.D.)).
In all these cases, the term means that something has come to an end, is finished, accomplished, is over, ended and done. It never means, “when we are just getting ready to start.” It is the same term Irenæus uses to say that the “pure oblation” of the New Covenant is over before the presbyter ever states the words of institution or invokes the Holy Spirit. From that point forward, the bread and wine are for the people, and are exhibited to them as symbolic representations of the sacrifice of Christ. They are not offered to God.
Let us now revisit Irenæus’ description of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, recalling that Irenæus saw that the oblation was finished before the Holy Spirit was invoked:
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have finished the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes [symbols] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37)
The “pure oblation” of the New Covenant is over before the presbyter even gets a chance to “transubstantiate” the bread. And when he invokes the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are not received by God, but by the people. First thanks is offered to God. When the oblation of thanksgiving is over, the Holy Spirit is invoked. Then the body and blood of Christ’s sacrifice are symbolically “exhibited” to and “received” by the participants. At no point does Irenæus have consecrated bread offered to God.
Clearly, Irenæus understood that “giving Him thanks” is the pure “oblation of the New Covenant” that Jesus taught to His disciples. Then when the Holy Spirit was invoked, it was not to transubstantiate the bread to offer a sacrifice to God, but solely for the benefit of the people that Christ’s sacrifice would be exhibited by the symbols of bread and wine, so that the recipients of the symbols would be blessed by what they signify.
If this is not sufficient evidence, we need only read Irenæus’ words from the very same paragraph, in which he insists that the “pure oblation” of the New Covenant, as prophesied by Malachi 1:11 and as instituted by Christ, is fulfilled not by offering physical sacrifices to God, but by spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise. Here he explicitly identifies Hebrews 13:15 (“the fruit of the lips”) and Romans 12:1 (“our bodies a living sacrifice”) and Revelation 5:8 (“the incense is the prayers of the saints”) as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. We note here as we have before that the word “Eucharist” is translated as “thanksgiving,” as indicated, in order to avoid trap 2 of the Sacrifice Challenge:
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to Malachi the prophet. For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ [Malachi 1:11] as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ [Revelation 5:8] Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ [Romans 12:1] And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ [Hebrews 13:15] Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; [Colossians 2:14] but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth.’ [John 4:2] And therefore the oblation of thanksgiving is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure.” (Irenaeus, Fragments, 37)
If the oblation of thanksgiving is “the fruit of the lips” then it is not an offering of transubstantiated bread and wine.
We close this section on Irenæus by citing one last section from Against Heresies. That Irenaeus believed the sacrifice was the praise and nothing else is evidenced by his own repeated emphasis throughout his works that the sacrifice to God by His New Covenant people is “a heart glorifying Him,” and that this is the “true sacrifice” of the New Covenant:
“For it was not because He was angry, like a man, as many venture to say, that He rejected their sacrifices; but out of compassion to their blindness, and with the view of suggesting to them the true sacrifice, by offering which they shall appease God, that they may receive life from Him. As He elsewhere declares: “The sacrifice to God is an afflicted heart: a sweet savour to God is a heart glorifying Him who formed it.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17.2)
We note that Irenæus saw “a heart glorifying Him” as “the true sacrifice.” These are not the words of a man who believed that Jesus had instituted a sacrifice of transubstantiated bread and wine to His Father to propitiate Him continually for our sins.
TERTULLIAN (160 – 225 A.D.)
Tertullian’s interpretation of Malachi 1:11 is that “carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated,” and the only sacrifices of the New Covenant are praise, prayer, hymns, ascription of glory, a humble spirit and gratitude. In his Answer to the Jews, he is emphatic on this point:
“Why, accordingly, does the Spirit afterwards predict, through the prophets, that it should come to pass that in every place and in every land there should be offered sacrifices to God? As He says through the angel Malachi, one of the twelve prophets: ‘I will not receive sacrifice from your hands; for from the rising sun unto the setting my Name has been made famous among all the nations, says the Lord Almighty: and in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name.’ [Malachi 1:11] Again, in the Psalms, David says: ‘Bring to God, you countries of the nations’— undoubtedly because ‘unto every land’ the preaching of the apostles had to ‘go out’ — ‘bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up victims and enter into His courts.’ [Psalms 96:7-8] For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God, we thus read, as it is written, ‘An heart contribulate and humbled is a victim for God;’ [Psalms 51:17] and elsewhere, ‘Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows.’ [Psalms 50:14] Thus, accordingly, the spiritual ‘sacrifices of praise‘ are pointed to, and ‘an heart contribulate‘ is demonstrated an acceptable sacrifice to God. And thus, as carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated— of which Isaiah withal speaks, saying, ‘To what end is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? Says the Lord [Isaiah 1:11] — so spiritual sacrifices are predicted as accepted, as the prophets announce. For, ‘even if you shall have brought me,’ He says, ‘the finest wheat flour, it is a vain supplicatory gift: a thing execrable to me;’ and again He says, ‘Your holocausts and sacrifices, and the fat of goats, and blood of bulls, I will not, not even if you come to be seen by me: for who has required these things from your hands?’ [Isaiah 1:11-14] for ‘from the rising sun unto the setting, my Name has been made famous among all the nations, says the Lord.’ But of the spiritual sacrifices He adds, saying, ‘And in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name, says the Lord.’ [Malachi 1:11]’ ” (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 5)
In his work, Against Marcion, Books III and IV, he repeats his claim that Malachi 1:11 was merely prophesying “simple prayer from a pure conscience” and “ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns”:
“…according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; ‘I will declare Your name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise unto You.’ [Psalms 22:22] For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him. And a little afterwards He says: ‘My praise shall be of You in the great congregation.’ [Psalms 22:25] In the sixty-seventh Psalm He says again: ‘In the congregations bless the Lord God.’ [Psalms 68:26] So that with this agrees also the prophecy of Malachi: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; neither will I accept your offerings: for from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering’ [Malachi 1:10-11] — such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns. Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found among you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, chapter 22).
“Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that among all nations, by Malachi when he says: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering’ [Malachi 1:10-11] — meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience—it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 1)
According to Tertullian, “simple prayer from a pure conscience” and “ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns” from a humble heart were the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. According to Irenæus, we offer a sacrifice of praise to God when we set aside the fruits of our labor for the poor in accordance with 2 Corinthians 9:11-12 and Philippians 4:16-18. He identifies Hebrews 13:15 (“the fruit of the lips”) and Romans 12:1 (“our bodies a living sacrifice”) and Revelation 5:8 (“the incense is the prayers of the saints”) as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Therefore, when he says “we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks,” it is apparent from his own writings that the oblation is not the bread and the cup, but rather “the fruit of the lips.” Not only does this identify “giving Him thanks” as the “oblation,” but also shows that Irenæus believed that Jesus had indeed instituted the oblation of the New Covenant at the Last Supper, and the oblation He taught was prayers of gratitude offered to God.
Rome takes Irenæus out of context by forcing him to say that “the pure oblation of the New Covnenant” is Rome’s Mass sacrifice of transubstantiated bread after the Holy Spirit is invoked. But as we have shown, Irenæus understood that the “pure oblation” of the New Covenant took place before the Holy Spirit is invoked, and therefore, he cannot possibly be taken to refer to a mass sacrifice being offered to God at the Last Supper—or at any subsequent meal. The only thing the bread is used for after the Holy Spirit is invoked is to “exhibit” Christ’s sacrifice to men under the symbolic forms of bread and wine, which remain bread and wine throughout.
We will continue our series next week with Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage.
Tim, another excellent article. Do you think it u s also important to point out, for instance, in the Irenaeus quote 18, he says ” those who have received libery.” The reason I think its important to emphasize this is because this also works as much against the sacrifice of the mass as the non offering of the bread. Thx K
TIM–
You wrote: “For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελεσαντες, completed) the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes [symbols] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37)
We have highlighted the word, “τελεσαντες” here because it is rendered as “perfected” in Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers, but the more accurate rendering is “completed” or “finished.”
Yes the word “completed” or “finished” is a good rendering. When multi-parts of a recipe are put together, mixed, or confected, the whole recipe must be completed or finished first before it is to be baked.
In the same way, what we offer to God,–our prayers, thanksgivings, praises, gifts of alms for the poor, bread and wine, and our very lives–are a “completed” oblation. That oblation is now ready to be consecrated as a whole by the power of the Holy Spirit to become that perfect sacrifice. And the bread and the wine become for us, the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Just like what Irenaeus says in Chapter 18:
5. “Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly(accidents–the appearance of bread and wine) and heavenly(substance–Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity ); so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
The parentheses above are my opinion on the mystery of the Real Presence in the sacrament.
Bob said ” Yes the word completed or finished is a good rendering. When multi- parts of a recipe are put together, mixed, or confected must be completed or finished first before it is baked” Tim has never said this Bob. ” must be completed” , you mean for the forgiveness of sins. Things aren’t being mixed here to achieve forgiveness or salvation. We are thanking Him for the fruits of a salvation and forgiveness we already possess. And this is of the utmost importance because its the difference between faith and works to achieve the favor or forgiveness of God. Tim said when the thanksgiving and the offering of “acceptable sacrifices” ( prayers, thanksgiving, offerings for the poor, broken and contrite heart), then the bread is broken in” remembrance” of His past sacrifice that already saved us. You continued ” That oblation is ready to be consecrated as a whole by the power of the Spirit to become that perfect sacrifice. And the bread and the wine become for us the body and blood of our savior.” Nice try.Of course you mean that Christ is offered again for sins. First the oblation is not the bread and the cup. And second invoking the Holy Spirit is after the thanks, love offerings for the poor, praise etc. has been given to God. Bob, Tim has been consistent through all these articles Bread is never transubstantiated, and it is NEVER offered for sins. Thanks, Beautiful day in Phoenix, 85 degrees. Hope you are well. K
Kevin, you observed,
I don’t think Bob was attributing this to me. He was merely explaining his take on Irenæus.
Bob, you continued,
What we must remember is that Rome teaches that “that perfect sacrifice” of the Mass is the “pure oblation of the New Covenant” that Irenæus was talking about. But Irenæus clearly saw the “sacrifice of praise” by the collection of the tithe for the poor as the “pure oblation of the new covenant,” and when that was over, he moved on to something else. If that “something else” is the “pure oblation of the New Covenant,” why does he say the oblation is finished before the oblation actually starts?
Your reference to chapter 18 is a good one. Consider:
Paragraph 1: the “a pure sacrifice” is “to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation … so that man, being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude”
Paragraph 2: “those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property”
Paragraph 3: still talking about the offering for the poor, and note well that it is not the “sacrifice” that sanctifies the man, but the “pure conscience”: “Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend.”
Paragraph 4: still talking about the “sacrifice” of setting aside the first-fruits for the poor: “as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. … For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things”
Again in Paragraph 4 as we approach his discussion on the Lord’s Supper: it seems that some of the people who are “offering” the first fruits of creation, do not believe that the “Father” is the “Creator,” which puts them in a bind. Are they really offering what is “His own” if He is not “Creator? ”
The effect is “subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks.” How can they be consistent in offering to Him “His own” creation if He is not Creator? And there’s the rub:
If before the Lord’s Supper they offer to Him “His own” but in the process deny that He is creator, they are being inconsistent.
Paragraph 5: If they don’t agree that He is Creator, then they ought not be offering Him “the first fruits of His creation,” because it is not “His own”:
But notice how well he maintains his categories: first fruits of Creation are offered to him as a sacrifice of praise in accordance with Philippians 4:6-8, and then when what was “produced from the earth … receives the invocation of God,” it is offered to men, and not to God.
Paragraph 6: By thanking God for what He has provided from His creation, “we have rendered thanks, thus sanctifying what has been created”:
Still talking about the tithe for the poor. Now he mentions an altar, but it is in heaven, and it is to that altar that our prayers (sacrifice of praise) and oblation (sacrifice of praise by setting aside food for the poor) are directed:
That is the pure oblation of the New Covenant. When that “pure oblation” is finished, then the Lord’s Supper begins, and the minister invokes the Holy Spirit (Fragments, 37). By Roman Catholic canon law and the order of the Mass, Irenæus invokes the Holy Spirit too late to make Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity the “pure oblation” of the Mass Sacrifice.
My original claim stands: namely, that in Irenæus, “the pure oblation of the new covenant” is over before the Lord’s Supper even begins, and when the Lord’s Supper begins, the bread is offered to men, and not to God. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper cannot be the “the pure oblation of the new covenant.”
I may edit the article to include this, because it is such a good point.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
KEVIN–
Kevin said: “First the oblation is not the bread and the cup.”
That’s not what Ireneaus says. Lookie here:
“Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is My body.’ [Matthew 26:26, etc]. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.5)
What are we to offer God? The first fruits of His created things. What does he say the created things are?
1) “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is My body.’
2) “And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood”
And he calls this oblation “the new oblation of the new covenant”. What are we to do with it? Offer it to God!
Tim also said: “My original claim stands: namely, that in Irenæus, “the pure oblation of the new covenant” is over before the Lord’s Supper even begins, and when the Lord’s Supper begins, the bread is offered to men, and not to God. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper cannot be the “the pure oblation of the new covenant.”
Yes, it is if you read “completed” in the light of “all of the parts of the oblation–thanks, praise, prayers, alms–are put together to make one “complete” oblation. After the oblation is in its “finished” form, it is then offered to God. Then it makes perfect since with offering God what is created–we, the created, offer to God ourselves bearing the gifts He provided to us from creation, bread, wine, and alms, with our thanks, and praise, and payers. And in the consecration, the Holy Spirit sanctifies that completed(finished) oblation into a pure and acceptable sacrifice to offer God through Jesus Christ.
We, then, partake of Christ’s divine nature by sharing His Body and Blood in communion.
Bob,
Thanks for your comment. You wrote,
Actually, he doesn’t. Here are his words: “And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant”. It doesn’t say “he called it the oblation of the New Covenant.” It says he “taught the oblation of the New Covenant.” What we need to do is find out what Irenæus called the New Oblation. Just because the oblation of the New Covenant was taught at the Lord’s Supper does not mean that he taught that the Lord’s Supper was the oblation of the New Covenant. That is why we need to read Irenæus’ own words. In the next chapter, Irenæus makes very clear that the collection for the poor, which Paul called a sweet smelling sacrifice, and is a sacrifice of praise, is the “oblation of the new covenant”:
It is not the transubstantiated elements that are the “oblation of the new covenant.” It is the collection of the food for the poor. This is why it is so important to read the Fathers in context. When that “pure oblation” is over, that is when Irenæus invokes the Holy Spirit in order to start the Lord’s Supper. From that point forward, the bread is to be exhibited to and received by men, not offered to God. That Irenæus called the “offering for the poor” by some of its constituent elements “the bread and cup of blessing,” I do not deny. But what Rome cannot escape is that “transubstantiation” is not alleged to occur until after the Holy Spirit is invoked, and Irenæus does not invoke the Holy Spirit until after the “pure oblation of the New Covenant” is over. There is no mass sacrifice in Irenæus.
You continued,
That is a valiant, if Quixotic, effort to make Irenæus say, “after the pure oblation of the New Covenant is finished, the pure oblation of the New Covenant begins.” That would be like Thucydides saying,
What happens after the oblation is “τελεσαντες” is something different from an oblation. It is not the next phase in the oblation. That is not how “τελεσαντες” is used in antiquity or even in the Middle Ages. He says “For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have finished the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
Thanks is given to God. Then the pure oblation of the New Covenant is over. Then the Holy Spirit is invoked to make the bread represent the Body of Christ and the wine His Blood. Then the Lord’s Supper begins, at which point Christ’s sacrifice is exhibited to men under the symbols of bread and wine. They are not offered to God at this point, but to men.
Your attempt to make “τελεσαντες” mean “is in its ‘finished’ form” is to separate “τελεσαντες” from its actual meaning.
Thanks,
Tim
Kevin,
Has Tim ever written anything, including his grocery list, that you didn’t swoon over?
Hi Jim, hope you are well. Honestly Jim, Tim and I have had our differences, not only doctrinally, but the way we view things. Having said that, I do believe he is doctrinally very sound. And when it comes to this stuff, maybe the best I have read. Jim, just so you understand. My whole career and life has been around many famous people. Trust me i don’t buy into any of that stuff. I am just a guy when i find something I believe is the truth in the face of error, I am in the foxhole. You may think Tim’s arguments are wrong, but you can’t say they aren’t meticulously researched , considered, studied, always with a high regard for God’s Word and delicate handling of the Truth. I believe the word of God Jim and the constant work to understand it is the most important thing. I don’t buy into that fan boy stuff. although you have managed to convince some. God bless you.
Bob,
Here is a more traditional Historicist view identifying the Papacy that you can research. To be certain, it is not new:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/johns-revelation-unveiled-part-2/
Revelation 12:3-4 December 16
Pg.131
It was that old Serpent the Devil473 who deceived our first mother in the garden of Eden487 and thus brought untold miseries onto the entire human race. Thereafter, he restlessly went forth to and fro throughout the Earth488 and proceeded to mislead nearly all individuals.
Satan misled even all the Nations489 except the True Israel within the Older Testament’s Nation of Visible Israel,490 from whose bosom the Messiah was to be born.491 And Satan misled the Nation of pagan Rome in particular. For he dragged down and debased the “Stars” or the Political Leaders there too492 in his grim attempt to destroy the Messiah at His human birth, and later again at His death.493
Fifth. This awesome spectre is described as “a great red Dragon having seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns upon his heads.”471 Clearly, this refers to the Devil specifically in the guise of the Roman Empire.
That is an identification plainly made in many portions of Holy Scripture.494 It is therefore the conviction also of Tertullian, Victorinus, Pareus, the Dordt Dutch Bible, Mede, Tillinghast, Goodwin, Sherwin, Matthew Poole, Cramer, Matthew Henry, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Thomas Newton, John Brown of Haddington, Priestley, Thomas Scott, Adam Clarke, Bishop Elliott, David Brown, Albert Barnes, and many Theologians.
Furthermore, the spectre seen by John was that of “a great red Dragon” with “ten horns.”471 This corresponds to the Roman or fourth “great” Beast in Daniel’s vision. For that Beast there was “dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong” with “great iron teeth” and “ten horns.”495
Moreover, John’s Dragon had “seven crowns” upon its seven heads. These seven crowns and heads were probably successive and not contemporaneous. But either way, they clearly identify the beast as the temporal political power corresponding to the “seven mountains” surrounding the ancient city of Rome.
In addition, those “seven crowns” or seven Kings or Kingdoms may also represent the seven successive and heathen ancient World Empires (of which Rome was the then-current one). And again, the “seven Kings” remind one both of the seven successive forms of government of the Roman Empire itself as well as of Rome’s seven chief “Kings” or Emperors during John’s own century in particular, at the time that Apostle received this very vision.496
487 Gen. 3:1-6,13-16; II Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:11-15. 488 Job. 1:6 & 2:1. 489 Rev. 12:9; 20:3f; I Jh. 5:19,21; cf. n. 408. 490 Dt. 7:1-8 & Rom. 9:6. 491 Rom. 1:3 & 9:4f. 492 Rev. 12:4,7b,9b cf. nn. 408 & 474 & 481. 493 Cf. nn. 474f & 498-500. 494 Rev. 17:3,8-18; 13:1f cf. Dan. chs. 2 & 7:7f,19 & 9:26f & 11:30.36 to 12:1,11 cf. Mt. 24:15,28. 495 Dan. 7:3,17,19. 496 Rev. 12:3f & 13:1-3 & 17:8-11 cf. Dan. 7:7f (where the 10 minus the 3 yields 7 horns and where the next horn is the 8th).
The seven successive Heathen Empires of the Ancient World are:
(1) the Ancient Egyptian Empire, 2700 to 1000 B.C. (cf. Gen. 12:10 to Ex. ch. 15 & Is. 52:4);
(2) the Ancient Assyrian Empire, 1000-625 B.C. (cf. Isa. 52:4 with II Kgs. 15:19 to Jer. 50:17f);
Satan drags only One-Third of the Angels into Perdition
Pg.132
It should be noted, however, that this prediction would not be fulfilled completely until long after John’s own day. For it was only after the time of Constantine that Rome would clearly be seen to have ten uncrowned horns or provinces. And those ten provinces would thereafter soon be broken up into ten distinct Kingdoms, subsequently held together in an artificial way only by the Romish Papacy.497
Barnes says: “John meant to describe what occurred in the World at the time when the True Church seemed to be about to extend itself over the Earth and when that prosperity was checked by the rise of the Papal Power…. The woman is driven for 1260 years into the Wilderness and nourished there…. I regard this therefore as referring to the time of the rise of the Papacy.”
(3) the Ancient Babylonian Empire, 625-539 B.C. (cf. Isa. ch. 13 to Dan. ch. 5);
(4) the Ancient Medo-Persian Empire, 550-331 B.C. (cf. Isa. ch. 41 to Mal. ch. 4);
(5) the Ancient Grecian Empire, 336-64 B.C. (cf. Dan. chs. 2 & 7 to 8 and 10 & 11);
(6) the Ancient Roman Empire, 338 B.C. in Rome or 64 B.C. in Palestine, down to A.D. 321 (cf. Dan. chs. 7 & 9 & 11 to 12; Mt. chs. 24; Rev. chs. 1 & 12:13f & esp. 13:1f & 17:10’s “one is [now]”); and
(7) the Papal Romish Empire, A.D. 606-???? (cf. Rev. 13:11f cf. 17:10’s ” and the other has not yet come”: i.e., “not yet” at the time John wrote this).
The seven different forms of Ancient Roman Government are: Monarchy, Consulate, Dictatorship, Decemvirate; Tribunate; Military, and Emperorship. The so-called seven “Kings” or Emperors of Pagan Rome, are very problematic.
Sulla’s Roman Republic fell in B.C. 70. After Pompey conquered Palestine in B.C. 63, Julius Caesar ruled first as the last consul and then as a would-be Emperor from B.C. 59-44 (cf. Dan. 11:36-42).
Thereafter there was no “King” or Emperor until the emergence of Octavian as Caesar Augustus in B.C. 37 – A.D. 14 (cf. Dan. 11:41,45 & Lk. 2:1f). He was then followed by Tiberius Caesar, A.D. 14-37 (cf. Lk. 3:1); Caligula, A.D. 37-41 (cf. Acts 11:11,28); Claudius, A.D. 41-54 (cf. Acts 18:2); Caesar Nero, A.D. 54-68 (cf. Phil. 4:22 & II Tim. 4:6-8 & probably too Rev. 1:9f); Galba (A.D. 68-69); Otho (Jan. to Apr. 69 A.D.); Vitellius (Apr. to late 69 A.D.); Vespasian, late 69-79 A.D.; his son Titus, 79-81 A.D. (cf. Mt. 24:15-28); and Domitian (81-96 A.D.); etc. See the ca. 69-140 A.D.
Suetonius’s standard history The Twelve Caesars. If this count of seven “Kings” or Emperors of Roman begins with Julius Caesar, the seventh Roman Emperor would have been Galba. On the other hand, if one starts the count of Roman Emperors from Christ’s death and resurrection and ascension, the seventh “King” or Emperor would be Vitellius.
Either way, that would still harmonize with a 69 A.D. date for the Book of Revelation. [Walt-this is largely preterist view for an early date of revelation to identify antichrist in 70AD]
Whether the seven “Kings” or “Kingdoms” or Empires or Emperors are taken to refer to the Ancient World Empires or to the first seven Emperors specifically of Rome, the seven “Kings” or “Heads” certainly seem to be viewed not contemporaneously but successively. See Rev. 13:1-3 & 17:8-11 cf. nn. 497 & 590-594.
The Geneva Bible (at Rev. 13:1 cf. 12:3) interprets these seven heads as representing Rome, her seven hills, and her Post-Neronian Emperors.
The Dordt Dutch Bible (at Rev. 12:3 & 13:1 & 17:9f) regards the heads as seven hills and seven forms of government in or from Rome.
Similarly: Bishop Thomas Newton; Priestley; the D’Oyly & Mant Bible; the Columbia Family Bible; and the Cottage Bible. B.H. Carroll regards the Heads as seven ancient Empires; the seventh as Pagan Rome; and the eighth as Papal Romanism.
Even the Scofield Bible (at Rev. 12:3 and at ch. 17) regards this as “apostate Christendom headed up under the Papacy and…the Beast’s confederated Empire…viz. Rome” and as “a confederate ten-Kingdom Empire covering the sphere of authority of ancient Rome.”
And the Holy Bible Pilgrim Edition alias the New Scofield Bible (1948) at Rev. 17:9 & 13:3 points out that “Rome the capital of the Beast’s Empire is built on seven mountains” which “also picture seven Kings or seven forms of government in the Roman Empire. At the time John was writing, five of these had already come and passed away, one was ruling, and the last had not yet come….
The Roman Empire came to an end and its parts became separate Kingdoms.” 497 Rev. 12:3 cf. and contrast with 13:1 & 13:11-12 & Dan. 7:7f,19-25.
Bob,
You might want to do some of your own research here when transubstantiation (e.g., real presence) occurred. While I know you don’t trust Tim’s views on this issue, here is another view:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/calvin-on-the-papacy/
Rev. Prof. Dr. John Calvin (1509-64) was the greatest of all Protestant Reformers. He lived and testified and died — during the time of cruel papal tyranny over the Church of Christ.
There was no Papacy in the Early Church. As predicted in Holy Scripture, it would arise only later — and to test and strengthen True Christians. Daniel chapters 7 to 12; Second Thessalonians chapter 2; First John chapters 2 to 4; Revelation chapters 11 to 18.
This occurred especially from about A.D. 600 onward. It climaxed around A.D. 1215, when the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation was enunciated officially.
Yet the Papacy was still the most powerful agency in deforming Christ’s Church — also in Calvin’s day. Indeed, even today, the Popes and the Papists who support them most carefully need to be distinguished not only from the true Protestant Christians they oppose — but also from the (often pious) Roman Catholics who are their dupes.
Rev. Prof. Dr. John Calvin on the characteristics of Papists and the Papacy
“Let the Papists…deny…if they can that the state of religion is as much vitiated and corrupted with them, as it was in the kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam! They have a grosser idolatry, and in doctrine are not one whit more pure; rather, perhaps, they are even still more impure! God — nay even those possessed of a moderate degree of judgment — will bear me witness. And the thing itself is too manifest to require me to enlarge upon it…. Scarcely can we hold any meeting with them [‘the Papists’], without polluting ourselves with their idolatry. Their principal bond of communion is understandably in the ‘Mass’ — which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege!”
Rev. Dr. John Calvin on the beginning and rise and development of the Romish Papacy
Argues Dr. Calvin: “In the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine [A.D. 354-430] was present, we do not perceive that the legates of the Roman See but Aurelius the…Bishop presided. Nay, even in Italy itself, a Universal Council (that of Aquileia) was held at which the Roman Bishop was not present — [and the A.D. 339-97] Ambrose, who was then in high favour with the Emperor, presided.” Indeed, the title of ‘Sole Pope’ or ‘Universal Father’ was never given to any Bishop of Rome before Gregory the Great — who promptly repudiated it! Calvin explains further: “The controversy concerning the title of ‘Universal Bishop’ arose at length in the time of Gregory [the Great, Bishop of Rome A.D. 590-604]…. But he strongly insists that the appellation is profane; nay, blasphemous; nay, the forerunner of Antichrist….
“[Asked Gregory:] ‘What else is intimated, but that the days of Antichrist are already near’ (Lib. IV Ep. 76)…. ‘None of my predecessors [as Bishops of Rome] ever desired to use this profane term’ (Lib. IV Ep. 80)…. ‘To consent to that impious term, is nothing else than to lose the faith’ (Lib. IV Ep. 83)….
“‘Everyone that calls himself or desires to be called ‘Universal Priest,’” insisted Gregory, “is…a forerunner of Antichrist’ (Lib. VII Ep. 154)…. ‘None ever wished to be called by such a name’ (Lib. IV Ep. 82)…. ‘Though I prohibited you [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria] — you have taken care to write a word of proud signification by calling me ‘Universal Pope’ (Lib. VII Ep. 30)!”2
However, soon after Gregory the Great, the various successive bishops of Rome started to demand that they be called ‘Pope’ alias ‘[Universal] Father.’ Continues Dr. Calvin: “At length [the new Emperor] Phocas…conceded to Boniface III [who was Bishop of Rome from A.D. 607-8] what Gregory by no means demanded — viz. that Rome should be the head of all the churches….
“Zachary the Roman Pontiff [from 741 to 752]…had the jurisdiction of the Roman See established over the churches of France…. The tyranny of the Roman Bishop was established, and ever and anon increased….
“It is absolutely certain that [this was]…new, and of recent fabrication…. But doubtless, it was necessary that those Antichrists should proceed to such a degree of madness and blindness — so that their iniquity might be manifest to all men of sound mind who will only open their eyes….
“Let these ‘worthy’ defenders of the Roman See tell me with what face they can defend the title of ‘Universal Bishop’ — while they see it so often anathematised by Gregory! If effect is to be given to his testimony, then they — by making their Pontiff ‘universal’ — declare him to be Antichrist….
“The existing state of the Papacy…is clearly a hundred times more corrupt than in the days of Gregory [590-604] and Bernard [1090-1153] — though even then, those holy men were so much displeased with it…. In the present day, the World is so inundated with perverse and impious doctrines; so full of all kinds of superstition; so blinded by error and sunk in idolatry — there is not one of them which has not emanated from the Papacy or at least been confirmed by it….
“Shall we recognize the ‘Apostolic See’ — where we see nothing but horrible apostasy? Shall he [the Pope] be ‘the Vicar of Christ’ who, by his furious efforts in persecuting the Gospel — plainly declared himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be the successor of Peter, who goes about with fire and sword demolishing everything that Peter built? Shall he be ‘the Head of the Church’ who after dissevering the Church from Christ her only true head, tears and lacerates her members? Rome indeed was once the mother of all the churches. But since she began to be the seat of Antichrist [by 666 A.D.], she ceased to be what she was.
Thanks, Walt. I’d quibble with Calvin on the date, but I’m happy to be among the faithful members of Christ’s church who have acknowledged Rome to be the Antichrist of whom we were duly warned by the apostles and prophets. Thanks for posting this information from Calvin.
Tim
Tim,
I hold to your particular views of the early dates as being more accurate than what Calvin concluded. We disagree in terms of how I interpret the 1260, 1290 and 1335 day-year periods, but indeed you are exactly right when you said:
“but I’m happy to be among the faithful members of Christ’s church who have acknowledged Rome to be the Antichrist”
Amen!
Bob/Jim,
I know you will like this statement by Calvin:
“Rome indeed was once the mother of all the churches….” and you both would admit…”and she is so to this day, the best, the greatest, the most powerful, the most wealthy, the most brilliant in light and love of the world, the most visible, the greatest of influences, the proudest of her tradition, the greatest promoters of her visible miracles and wonders, etc.”
However, Calvin concludes, “But since she began to be the seat of Antichrist [by 666 A.D.], she ceased to be what she was.”
As you can see between how the reformers viewed Rome, and how you guys see her in her splendor, there is a big difference.
Read what the Scottish reformers thought about her here:
http://reformationhistory.org/nationalcovenant_text.html
Here is a glimpse (I’ll list them for your easy to debunk them):
And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men;
all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty;
his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel;
his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law;
the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments;
his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word of God; his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament;
his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ’s body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men;
his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the word;
his cruelty against the innocent divorced;
his devilish mass;
his blasphemous priesthood;
his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick;
his canonization of men;
calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relicks, and crosses;
dedicating of kirks, altars, days;
vows to creatures;
his purgatory, prayers for the dead;
praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators;
his manifold orders, auricular confession;
his desperate and uncertain repentance;
his general and doubtsome faith;
his satisfaction of men for their sins;
his justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations;
his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith;
his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy;
his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the kirk of God.
And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed kirk;
to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our head:
promising and swearing, by the great name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this kirk, and shall defend the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives; under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God’s fearful judgment.
Tim, do we have any information on when and how this transformation from the thanks being the thanks being the offering before the words by the Presbytor and the bread being exibited and given to the people after, to transubstantiated bred being offered as propitious. Frankly, in the rise of Roman Catholicism they went from the acceptable sacrifice to the unacepatable sacrifice. Who were the culprit specifically? Do we have this and when it began? Thanks K
Kevin, “when and how this transformation from the thanks being the offering” to transubstantiated bread being offered will be covered in this series. Thanks,
Tim
Thanks Tim
Tim,
What do you know about the book entitled “The Mass of the Early Christians”? I’ve been watching on EWTN a new study on the New Testament by Scott Hahn and Mike Aquillina who claim that before the bible was finalized in 382 (when the Synod of Rome meets to approve all the books) as required by the “Pope” order in 380, the entire early church worshiped only the Eucharist that Jesus called the New Testament.
Have you heard that the Eucharist was called the New Testament?
The Mass of the Early Christians Paperback – June 5, 2007
by Mike Aquilina (Author)
What did the first Christians believe about the Eucharist? How did they follow Jesus’ command, Do this in remembrance of me? How did they celebrate the Lord’s Day? What would they recognize in today’s Mass? The answers may surprise you.
In The Mass of the Early Christians, author Mike Aquilina reveals the Church’s most ancient Eucharistic beliefs and practices. Using the words of the early Christians themselves — from many documents and inscriptions — Aquilina traces the Mass s history from Jesus’ lifetime through the fourth century. The Mass stood at the center of the Church’s life, evident in the Scriptures as well as the earliest Christian sermons, letters, artwork, tombstones, and architecture. Even the pagans bore witness to the Mass in the records of their persecutions.
In these legacies from the early Church, you ll hear and taste and see the same worship Catholics know today: the altar, the priests, the chalice of wine, the bread, the Sign of the Cross…the Lord, have mercy …the Holy, holy, holy …and the Communion.
You ll see vividly how Jesus followed through on his promise to be with us always, until the end of time.
I’ve perused it a little. What I find is the typical Roman Catholic approach to the Fathers which is to read the Fathers irrespective of context. Here is an example from page 39 of The Mass of the Early Christians, as he cites Origen, put provides no reference:
It is difficult to validate because the book is written in popular style, and not academic, so it does not have citations. The citation is from Origen’s 13th Homily on Exodus. When we explore the citation further, Origen is rebuking them because they are focusing more on the Lord’s Supper than on the preaching of the word. Origen starts by saying, “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices…”, just like Paul admonished the men of Athens using their own religious practices in Acts 17:23,
Using a people’s own religious practices to rebuke them should not be taken as a wholesale approval of their religious practices. In fact what we find is that Origen is rebuking them because they are putting all the emphasis on the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper and neglecting the ministry of the Word, which deserved twice the respect and devotion that the bread of the Lord’s supper did. Just think of the significance of that statement. Rome says the Eucharist is the highest point in our worship, and Origen said the preaching of the Word occupies that privileged position. Here is a fuller response that I provided to Jim when he cited Origin’s homily in support of Eucharistic adoration:
—————————-
Jim,
The Ante-nicene father to whom you refer is Origen, from his 13th homily on Exodus. The specific language, “you take reverent care” is quite good. The original Latin is “cum omni cautela et veneratione servatis” or literally, “with caution and with due reverence.” I, too, believe that the Lord’s supper should be celebrated reverently and with caution lest we too hastily pass the bread and wine from person to person and pew to pew. But don’t let the Latin fool you. The word “veneratione” isn’t the word for “worship” which would be either “adorare” or “colere,” or some conjugation thereof.
With that behind us, we can proceed with what Origen was saying. You’ll be happy to know that he was using their outward reverence during the Lord’s supper as a way to rebuke them, for they were going through the motions of rituals, but were paying no attention to what mattered more, and by all means, should have received twice there reverence they displayed during the Lord’s supper:
In other words, the Lord’s Supper is great, and I’m glad you show great reverence when you partake of the Lord’s supper, lest by an act of negligence, you should drop the elements. But when you preach the word—an activity twice as important—you are completely negligent. This should not be so.
Now contrast the fact that the preaching of the Word was the high point of the worship service in the early church, with the current teaching of the Roman Church which says that the worship of the Eucharist is the apex, the zenith, the high point of the worship service and indeed of the Christian life.
Sorry, Jim. No evidence for Eucharistic Adoration in Origen.
Tim
Tim, Origen wrote:
“But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body? …”
Then you wrote to Jim:
“Now contrast the fact that the preaching of the Word was the high point of the worship service in the early church, with the current teaching of the Roman Church which says that the worship of the Eucharist is the apex, the zenith, the high point of the worship service and indeed of the Christian life.”
I just watched Scott Hahn video and saw his TV program tonight, and it is clear he is making a much more “allegedly consistent” claim of the Romish Church that the WORD is the EUCHARIST.
Hahn is arguing that the Early Church Fathers, and Rome today, believe the Word is the Eucharist. He says that before the WRITTEN new testament manuscripts were compiled, he has documented that the Early Church Fathers taught only that the Word and Eucharist were one, and the same thing.
He says Protestants and Catholics share the view that Jesus Christ was the sacrifice at Calvary, but after that all the Apostles and Early Church Fathers worshiped only the Eucharist because they knew nothing else as the written manuscripts were not compiled yet until 380 and 382 approved by the infallible Roman Bishops.
Walt,
The early saints were confecting the Eucharist decades before one word of the NT was penned.
Jim said:
“Walt,
The early saints were confecting the Eucharist decades before one word of the NT was penned.”
You obviously don’t know your history.
Tim,
Did you ever actually attend Mass before leaving the Church?
It sure seems like you didn’t. If you did, you heard the Bible read and usually preached.
Nothing has changed in 2,000 years.
Jim,
I’m not sure I follow. Did I deny at some point that the Bible is read and preached at Mass?
Thanks,
Tim
You said the Bible was replaced with bread.
Tim,
Did the Christians of Origin’s time receive the Eucharist?
Yes?
THEN I BET THEY ADORED IT AS THEY ADORED CHRIST!!!
Why else would anyone even bother with it? If it is just a memorial meal, it sure is a drab one as it falls short of the yummy lamb dinner the Jews got to have. ( And the Jews got 4 cups of wine. Ask Walt. He is a fan of Scott Hahn ).
You are playing games again. Nobody said they ever put the Sacrament in a monstrance and processed through the streets of the pagan Roman Empire intent on feeding them to lions.
Sheeeesh! Give me a break.
Jim, I think I’m still missing your point. Did I at some point allege that you said that the Early Christians “put the Sacrament in a monstrance and processed through the streets of the pagan Roman Empire intent on feeding them to lions”?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Ha! Ha! You are so cagey!
Consuming the Word is the key I understand from Scott Hahn.
He said that the “Infallible scriptures” were approved by the “infallible bishops” according to Roman Catholic teaching where when he asked his teacher Dr. Sproul he was told the Protestants teach that the “infallible scriptures” were compiled by a “fallible church”. This to him was impossible or a gamble where in Rome the key is that “infallible bishops” approved all the Scriptures.
Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church Hardcover – May 28, 2013
by Scott Hahn (Author)
From the bestselling author of The Lamb’s Supper and Signs of Life comes an illuminating work that unlocks the many mysteries of the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist.
Long before the New Testament was a document, it was a sacrament. Jesus called the Eucharist by the name Christians subsequently gave to the latter books of the Holy Bible. It was the “New Covenant,” the “New Testament,” in his blood. Christians later extended the phrase to cover the books produced by the apostles and their companions; but they did so because these were the books that could be read at Mass.
This simple and demonstrable historical fact has enormous implications for the way we read the Bible. In Consuming the Word: The New Testament and the Eucharist in the Early Church, Dr. Scott Hahn undertakes an examination of some of Christianity’s most basic terms to discover what they meant to the sacred authors, the apostolic preachers, and their first hearers. Moreover, at a time when the Church is embarking on a New Evangelization he draws lessons for Christians today to help solidify their understanding of the why it is Catholics do what Catholics do.
Anyone acquainted with the rich body of writing that flows so inspiringly from the hand and heart of Dr. Hahn knows that he brings profound personal insight to his demonstrated theological expertise,” writes Cardinal Donald Wuerl in the foreword to the book. Consuming the Word continues in that illustrious tradition. It brings us a powerful and welcome guide as we take our place in the great and challenging work in sharing the Good News.
http://www.amazon.com/Consuming-Word-Testament-Eucharist-Church/dp/030759081X
Here is the video…but I cannot find a free version online:
http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/MULTIMEDIA/EWTN+HOME+VIDEO/All/CONSUMING+THE+WORD+-+DVD.axd
Tim,
You have to watch this video…please. I can see why Scott Hahn is one of the Catholic church leaders now on this Early Church movement.
Thanks, Walt. I’m half-way through it now. He makes some pretty significant comments about “all the Holy Fathers,” but they were not so unanimous as he says. I’ll have some more thoughts when I have finished the video. Thanks for the heads up.
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for watching the video. It is pretty incredible the claims he makes with such authority on the “biblical-apostolic” period, and then the Early Church Fathers period.
I watched it twice on Sunday. It was very helpful in understanding how Rome things in our generation.
Walt,
Do you think Scott Hahn is a secret Jesuit agent?
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
Do you think Scott Hahn is a secret Jesuit agent?”
Not at all. I think he is a highly ignorant teacher who has been totally brain washed by the Romish antichrist.
Jim Dodson addresses the issue of the bread and wine reflecting the true reformed view.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1027141236267
THE LARGER AND SHORTER CATECHISMS.
HAVING SEEN WHAT THE SCRIPTURES PRINCIPALLY TEACH US CONCERNING GOD, IT FOLLOWS TO CONSIDER WHAT THEY REQUIRE AS THE DUTY OF MAN
QUESTION # 169.
(Larger Catechism)
Q #169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
_________________________
Question 1—By whom is the Lord’s supper to be administered?
Answer—The persons to whom the administration of the sacraments is committed are such as unto whom the teaching of the Word of God is committed, Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23. Unto such it belongs to feed the church, not only by the preaching of the Word, but by the administration of the sacraments, which are ordinances fitted to the faith of the church, in which they are said to receive and spiritually feed upon Christ and his benefits, Jer. 3:15. Now, Christ has set officers in the church for the growth and edification in the faith, unto whom this work is to be committed, Eph. 4:11-13. Thus, Christ celebrated the Lord’s supper first with those unto whom he had committed his teaching, Matt. 26:26-28.
Question 2—What are the elements appointed to be used as the elements of this sacrament?
Answer—The elements to be used in the Lord’s supper are bread, for our Saviour took bread, a sign of his body broken, Mark 14:22; and wine, a sign of his blood poured out, Mark 14:23, 24. The cup is, by metonymy, put here for the wine, drinking the fruit of the vine, Matt. 26:29.
As to the character of the former, whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened has been warmly disputed. The Latin church, and the Lutherans, have favored unleavened bread as the kind used by Christ, Matt. 26:18; Deut. 16:3. Others who oppose the use of leavened bread make it a significant sign of sincerity, 1 Cor. 5:8. The Greek church, and the Reformed, on the other hand, have generally favored the use of leavened bread, since the use of unleavened bread was part of the ceremonial ordinances abolished in Christ, Col. 2:16, 17; Eph. 2:14-16.
With regard to the character of the drink pressed from the fruit of the vine, whether it be alcoholic or not, has been in contest since the 19th century “Temperance” movement. The alcoholic character of wine is clearly held forth in Scripture, Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 2:3. This character was recognized by the generality of the people, Luke 7:34; Acts 2:15.
Question 3—Why are bread and wine appointed to be used as the elements of this sacrament?
Answer—These elements were appointed by Christ himself as visible symbols most fitted as emblems of his body and blood, 1 Cor. 11:24, 25. Hence, we ought to find in them some analogy or resemblance between the sign and the thing which they, as those signs, were appointed to signify:
The analogy or resemblance between the bread and body of Christ, consists in these several things:
1.) Of all provisions, bread is the most necessary for the preservation of the natural life, for none can exist without it, Gen. 47:15. Therefore, it is called the staff of life, Lev. 26:26; Ezek. 5:16. Likewise, nothing is so necessary for the soul as Christ, the bread of life, which came down from heaven, of which, if a man eat, he shall live forever, John 6:32, 33. Without this spiritual bread, we shall all perish, John 6:53.
2.) Bread is most calculated for the nourishment, and strengthening, and satisfying of the body, in its active pursuits, Judg. 8:5. In like manner, nothing is more calculated for the nourishing, and strengthening, and satisfying of the soul, than the broken body of Christ, John 6:56.
3.) Bread is the cheap and common provision of all, Jer. 37:21. So, too, Christ has provided a common salvation for sinners of mankind, which is suited for all men in all conditions, Jude 3; Matt. 11:28.
4.) Bread must be prepared before it is usable as bread to nourish and sustain us, by grinding the grain and baking in the fire, Isa. 28:28; 44:19. So, Christ was ground between the Father’s wrath and the malice of men and devils, and cast into the fiery furnace of judgment, so that he might be bread for our souls, Isa. 53:4, 5; Ps. 22:14.
5.) Bread is a food never loathed by those who are in health, Gen. 18:6. Likewise, the bread of heaven, Christ, is always agreeable and pleasant to the believer, Song 1:16. To such, he is precious, 1 Pet. 2:7; although the greatest part of mankind loathe and abhor the heavenly manna, John 6:41.
The analogy or resemblance between wine and the blood of Christ, consists in the following particulars:
1.) Wine, in order to be used, must be forcibly squeezed out of the grape, which must be bruised for this purpose, Isa. 16:10. In like manner, the blood of Christ was forcibly separated from his body, John 19:34. He was bruised in the wine-press of Divine wrath, that his blood might be drink to our perishing souls, John 6:53.
2.) Wine is of a refreshing, and cheering, and strengthening nature, Ps. 104:15. What is more refreshing, cheering or strengthening to the traveler to the Zion above, and to the soul harassed by Satan’s temptations, than the application of the blood of Christ to that soul by faith? John 6:55.
3.) Wine is of a medicinal virtue, Luke 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23. Likewise, the blood of Christ, when applied by the Divine Spirit, cleanses and cures, making the soul to rejoice in the Lord, 1 John 1:7.
4.) Wine is of no advantage unless it is actually used, Prov. 31:6. So, too, the blood of Christ is of no profit at all to the soul, unless it is applied by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and made use of by faith, Col. 1:14.
Question 4—How are these elements to be set apart from the common use?
Answer—The elements are to be set apart from common use by three things:
1.) By the word of institution, 1 Cor. 11:23, 24; whereby the elements are identified as signs and seals of the Lord’s body and blood, Matt. 26:26-28.
2.) By thanksgiving, Mark 14:22-24; whereby all good gifts of God are to be received, 1 Tim. 4:4.
3.) By prayer, Luke 22:19, 20; whereby all good gifts are to be sanctified, 1 Tim. 4:5.
Question 5—How are these elements to be given?
Answer—The bread is to be taken and broken, 1 Cor. 10:16; and both elements are to be given to the communicants, 1 Cor. 10:21. Although there is little controversy regarding the distribution of the bread, the same cannot be said with respect to the distribution of the cup. As for the use of wine in this ordinance, it is a necessary part, for Christ has appointed a full feast and complete nourishment of his people, and the Papists are guilty of sacrilege in withholding the cup from the common people, Matt. 26:27. Likewise, they are guilty who would substitute something other than wine, as the Aquarii, or Hydroparastatæ, of old, who were considered by the Catholics to be engaged in an act of heresy by such a usage, Isa. 1:12, 13.
Question 6—How are the communicants to receive these elements?
Answer—The communicants, by the same appointment, are to take and eat the bread and take and drink the wine, 1 Cor. 11:24, 25. These elements are to be received in a thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed for them, Luke 22:19, 20. This remembrance consists both in a shewing forth the Lord’s death as well as serving as a memorial until he come again, 1 Cor. 11:26.
Thank you, Tim!
Bob, in response to your comment ” Then it makes perfect sense with offering God what is created -we, the created thing, offer ourselves etc…… And in this consecration the Holy Spirit sanctifies that completed oblation into a pure and acceptable sacrifice to offer God thru Jesus Christ” Bob, I think you missed this quote in the discourse ” Those who HAVE RECEIEVED liberty” And this is an important distinction. It is done in remembrance of the ONE sacrifice, ONCE ( epiphax- never to be continued or repeated) that perfected us Heb. 10:14. Since we are already been perfected in the eyes of God according to the writer of Hebrews, and according to Ireneus ” those who have received liberty), and there are no more sacrifices for sin Heb 10:18, and sin has been put away 9:24, and we have been sanctified past tense 10:10, your position of offering ourselves in conjunction with the bread ( transubstantiated) for your sins is “completely” untenable. This goes directly to the faulty axiom of RC that churches are extensions of incarnation thru the acts of the church. It is finished doesn’t mean it is ongoing. Thanks K
KEVIN–
Rom 12:1 “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
This is what Paul and Ireneaus both are talking about. Christ is the Lamb of God and the Bread of Life. So we sing “Dying You destroyed our death. Rising You restore our life. Lord Jesus, come in Glory”
Through Him, with Him, and in Him, we and all we offer become living and acceptable sacrifices to the almighty Father.
Bob, ” This is both what Paul and Irenaeus are talking about” No, Paul makes it clear that nothing we do is meritorious in salvation. You said ” Don’t you guys teach that faith alone save you.” This is what Paul teaches, it is all by grace. So many passages dedicated to the fact there is one finished sacrifice and its all by grace. In fact if you read Romans 4:16: Roman Catholics have no excuse. If they want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by fair alone. When Irenaeus says that God exhibits the sacrifice both the bread and the body of Christ in order that those who receive these symbols obtain remission of sins and eternal life, he is not saying by doing this we are meriting the remission of sins and eternal life, but by faith we receive these things as a symbol of forgiveness that was provided for us on the cross. Rome’s faulty axiom says ” you do and God gives you grace” IOW God says listen Bob I’ll come half way and you have to come half way and you will get there. But Paul is very clear it is ” the free GIFT of righteousness” Romans5:17 , it is the “free GIFT of eternal life” 6:23, and its is a GIFT by his grace ” being justified as a GIFT by His grace thru the redemption which is in Jesus Christ” Romans 3:24. Bob, at some point thru all these articles you must realize that the sacrifice of the Mass is a work to merit continuance in grace, and the greatest violation of the gospel there ever was. If Irenaues was teaching that by sacrificing ourselves we are earning more forgiveness and eternal life, then he was a heretic. But he wasn’t teaching that. Thats what Rome says he was teaching. He meant the same thing as Paul, we bring our acceptable sacrifices in faith, we receive the elements by faith, and it reminds us of the forgiveness and eternal life HE provided for us. Again He said ” all power and authority has been given to ME on heaven on earth.” We aren’t extensions of incarnation in that we finish His plan of redemption. It is finished. We can only believe. So the Roman system of meriting continuance in grace thru the sacrament of the Mass is the antithesis of the gospel. Have a great day. K
Bob, incidentally, correct me if I’m wrong but you have a hangup why faith alone justifies the Christian. The reason faith alone justifies is because it is the instrument that receives Christ, our righteousness, and brings Him to the heart, thru the Spirit woking thru the Word. Paul is clear this is all a work of God and nothing we do can contribute to our justification. Love is always second in natural order and stretches out to neighbor. This is why Reformed say that we are justified by faith, and not faith formed in love. Paul says in Roman 9, ” not because of works, but because of Him who calls.” As you can see clearly Bob, nothing we do can contribute to our justification. This is why the Reformers didn’t separate justification from sanctification, but distinguished it. All of salvation is undergirded, if you will, by a righteousness we receive by faith. And so it isn’t our inherent righteousness which justifies us, or the accumulation of it thru sacraments , but the perfect righteousness that is received only by faith. Our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness. Paul said Phil. 3:9 being found “in Him” Not having a righteousness of my own which comes from law, but a righteousness that comes fro God thru faith. God bless
KEVIN–
Y’know, Kevin, if I had said this “we do this so that receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”, you would have written another 500 word essay as to why I don’t believe in JBFA and how I don’t read the Bible and that I am trying to earn my way to heaven and how it’s heresy and that I should come out of that apostate church. But I didn’t write it, Irenaeus did. He said we do this so that receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and eternal life.
It doesn’t get any plainer than that. WE DO THIS SO THAT WE MAY OBTAIN REMISSION OF SINS. Yes, it is by grace that we are even offered forgiveness in the first place. Yes, it is through faith in Jesus Christ that we do these things.
That is what a sacrament is all about. If we did not have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit, why in the world would we do it?
You mean it’s a free gift for just the elect. Not everyone. The rest receive the grace to go to hell. You believe God predestines many to go to hell, right?
CK, Aquinas said God loves all men in some ways and some men in all ways. Romans 9: 13 ” Just as is written ” Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. What shall we say then ? There is no injustice with God, is there?? May it never be. You see CK the reason we accept this truth is because we have the right view of our utter spiritual bankruptcy before God, so it would be fair for Him to send all men to hell as we count fairness. The fact that He spares some we are grateful for. Not like in Roman Catholicism where man’s not son bad and God’s not so mad. Thanks K
CK, what does the word elect mean? If Obama was elected president, does that mean Romney and all the other candidates get to be president too? Im sure you weren’t calling Washington saying, hey whats going on here, why can’t Romney and Jeb Bush be president too. Yet in God’s election, which is Holy and righteous, you seem to have a problem with His prerogative to do this? CK, it comes from a fault understanding of the condition of unbelievers. God burns in his wrath thru unbelievers the scripture says all day long. They are enemies of God. Romans 1 says his wrath is being poured out in unbelief even now. Hebrews says it is a terrifying thing to fall in to the hands of the living God. People have a hard time with God’s wrath because they are wrongfully convinced of man’s goodness. Thats when we read in Romans 5 that while we were yet sinners we were reconciled to God thru his Son. Pat tense. For the one trusting in Christ alone, he is no longer an enemy of God, but a friend. Why? Because Christ paid the entire price for sin and guilt, fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law, satisfied ( past tense) the wrath of God and provided us entry thru faith alone in the gospel. ” Abraham believed God and was counted righteous. And then scripture says an amazing thing. He was a friend of God. God is no longer angry at us, but counts us friends. And not only that, Romans 8 says ” who can bring a charge against God’s ELECT. No one. God bless K
CK,
Even “being elect” is a free gift. It is not customary to say “The rest receive the grace to go to hell”. But we can see his grace in sending sinners to hell. It is more gracious of God to continue the sinner’s existence in hell than to annihilate them. Some hell is better than hell-less nothing.
Bob, I wanted to add one more thing. If you read Tim’s article, one very important thing is he gives 3 faulty things that Rome will have us fall into, that we should sty away from in the fathers. And this is really for me the issue. Namely, that words used by the Fathers like oblation, sacrifice, etc. don’t mean ” a sacrifice for the quick and the dead.” for sins. ” He rejected their sacrifices, but out of compassion to their blindness, and the view of suggesting to them ” the true sacrifice” Notice their is only one sacrifice for sins. In the quote fro Irenaeus after the oblation is finished, it says that ” in order that HE may exhibit this sacrifice” God exhibits the sacrifice to us in the elements. So the sacrifices are presented so that HE can then exhibit it to us in the breaking of the bread in remembrance of the one sacrifice that perfected us. And note Bob, against your position of created thing sacrifice, Turtullian says ” For it is not in earthly sacrifices but spiritual.” These sacrifices are offered as spiritual sacrifices. God accepts them and exhibits in the elements to us the blessings we have received by faith in the one true sacrifice. These are not continual sacrifices of ourselves and our Lord propitious for our sins. This is my lat post today. If i made a mistake, Tim can correct me. Thanks Bob.
TIM–
Ireneaus said: ” we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
Isn’t it interesting that Irenaeus says we do this so that receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and eternal life? Don’t you guys teach that faith alone in Christ alone does that? Looks to me like Irenaeus believes the Eucharist is efficacious for the remission of sins. How can that be if it is only bread and wine?????
good point
Bob, thanks for your response. You said ” you said ” you would have written another 500 word essay as to why I don’t believe in JBFA, and how I don’t read the bible and that I’m trying to earn my way to heaven and how it’s heresy and I should come out of an apostate church. But I didn’t write it Irenaeus did.” First of all I would not write a 500 word essay, but much larger. Second, it wouldn’t be about how you don’t believe in jbfa because believing in jbfa can’t save anyone, but you seem to describe it this way. I explained with precision what is meant in Reformed theology to be justified by faith alone in Christ alone. See my previous post to you. Third, you are trying to earn your way to heaven if you support the position you just expounded to me on Irenaeus. Fourth, the Mass of the Roman Catholic church is heresy of the highest order. It takes a sacrament which is a visible sign of invisible free grace and makes it and abominable work to propitiate one’s own sins and merit ( earn) continuance in grace and justice, and one’s salvation. Fifth, you are in an apostate church and should leave that communion immediately. Sixth, don’t base your salvation on any church father, but on scripture. There are only 4 verses on the Lord’s supper in all the Epistles, and the book of John doesn’t even mention it. And yet you are fixated on the Catholic Mass because you have been taught you need to do it to obtain eternal life. Yet there are a thousand verses that say we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. When the Philippians jailer asked Paul ” what must I do to be saved?” , he didn’t tell him go do the Mass. He told him simply believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8, John 3:16, 1:12, 5:24, and so many others. You continued ” yes its by grace that we are offered forgiveness in the first place” Thats not what scripture teaches. There is no “in the first place” in the second place” in the final place.” Its all by grace, and its all by faith Romans 4:16, 11:6. There is no salvation on the installment plan in scripture. ” the righteous shall live by faith” Paul calls us righteous ( positionally), and faith covers the whole of salvation. Nothing coming from ourselves. Bob, God did not come to help us achieve His favor with His help, He lived the law in our place, fulfilled all righteousness, and saved us 2 Corinthians 5:21. Thanks
KEVIN–
I might have miscounted but I think you gave me 409 words in that response.
You said: “Yet there are a thousand verses that say we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.”
And yet you can’t produce one single verse that actually says that. Oh, you give all those verses that you try to explain in ways to try to make them say it, but they don’t.
I can give you one verse where the Word of God specifically says we are NOT justified by faith alone. And try as you might, you cannot make it say otherwise. The words of that verse are plain and perspicuous. You have built your whole argument on a false premise. I have based mine on the Word of God.
Kevin,
You are Charlie Hebdod.
Spurgeon ” believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He would have never chosen me afterwords.” In a way only Spurgeon can say it!
Just as is written ” Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. What shall we say then ?
Kevin,
This means God favored Jacob over Esau. It does not mean God predestined Esau to hell. We’ve talked about this before.
CK ” This means God favor Jacob over Esau. It does not mean God predestined Esau to hell.” CK, hell is one of the most mentioned subjects in the NT. In fact Jesus was a hell fire and brimstone preacher. The references are numerous thru the Gospels? So here is my question. Do you believe in hell? And who goes to hell in your opinion? Here is what Jude said ” wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam, wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been RESERVED for ever” Jude says that God has reserved a place in hell for the wicked. Do you agree with this? Or do you have to check with your Magisterium first? I always find it interesting when people will always talk about how God is fully love, always fixated on his love, but they don’t support his being fully holy or just. Remember, CK the bible doesn’t say that God is love, love , love, although He is fully love, but it does say that He is Holy, Holy, Holy. Holiness is God. And He is fully just. And He has certainly reserved hell for the wicked. But I understand you don’t think people are quite that bad. There is some inherent goodness in them right? God hated Esau, He dint favor Jacob a little more that Esau. Why ? 11: ” for though the twins were not yet born, and had done nothing good or bad, son that God’s purposes according to his CHOICE would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.” You might want to reassess your position on James 2. A good place to start would be Tim’s article on this blog. God bless. K
Kevin wrote to CK,
” A good place to start would be Tim’s article on this blog. ”
Kevin doesn’t know all public revelation ended with John. He thinks Tim writes inspired scripture.
Heh
Kevin of course I believe in hell. I believe those who are judged by God to be wicked will end up in hell. I just don’t believe God forces people to act/be wicked so he can send them to hell.
God created hell for the fallen angels. Man can choose to join them.
CK, no reformed christian has ever said that God forces man to sin. Scripture is clear God doesnt cause anyone to sin, But God has decreed everything. I agree with the Tim, Psalms is clear. The wicked have been created for the day of destruction. God passes over men, and saves others, and it is just. It would be just for Him to throw all men into hell, the fact He shows mercy on some is his perogative. CK, you cant ignore the doctrine of election. It is clearly taught in scripture. Cant you see the assurancecthat comes to a believer understanding that before we have done one thing, God chose us. This brings great comfort to the believer. The unbeliever isnt worried about the doctrine of election. Those who reject God will get exactly what they deserve.
Kevin wrote:
It would be just for Him to throw all men into hell, the fact He shows mercy on some is his perogative.
When this truth sinks deep down in the soul, then one begins to laugh at every Adamic fig leaf.
Eric W said-
Even “being elect” is a free gift. It is not customary to say “The rest receive the grace to go to hell”. But we can see his grace in sending sinners to hell. It is more gracious of God to continue the sinner’s existence in hell than to annihilate them. Some hell is better than hell-less nothing.
Me – so not being elect is also a gift because some hell is better than hell-less nothing? Where is this in the bible?
Easy for you to say since you have judged yourself to be one of the ones elected to go to heaven.
CK, you wrote:
Easy for you to say since you have judged yourself to be one of the ones elected to go to heaven.
Response:
Your spiritual life is shallow. I’m not only going to heaven, but I will called heaven.
“Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.” – Rev.18:20
EW, of course Catholics have a difficult time with the concept of elect. It makes them angry that we hold so dear to this biblical truth. You see to believe it is to believe the true gospel, and then it can’t be any longer about them and their noble work in atoning themselves. God bless bro.
Now you are also a mind reader. I’m not angry at all. I just think you are wrong
We are called to heaven but will not get there until we are judged by God. You have already judged yourself to heaven. That’s all in saying
CK, what does this mean to you 1 John 5:13 ” These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” ? CK, one of the reason’s for the Reformation was the medieval church of Rome had so destroyed the gospel and the sacraments, they took away the assurance of the people. So not only did they not permit men to be saved by purporting a gospel of gracious merit, but they took away the very security God offers in scripture and in the gospel. You said: We are called to heaven but we won’t get there until we are judged by God.” Lets see what John says about this faulty statement. 5:24 ” Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and BELIEVES Him who sent me, HAS eternal life, and DOES NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT, but has passed out f death into life. CK, Ephesians is very clear, those who are trusting in Christ ALONE are seated in the heavenly places NOW with Christ. He loses none that are His. Hebrews 9:28 ” says when He comes back to it will not be in regard to sin, but to gather His people. Judgment for the believer we are assured we will pass through ” in Christ” because we have put on the robe of righteousness, not ours, but His. When He was raised, so were we Romans 4:25. CK, my prayer for you is that you turn from a church who has taken not only the assurance away from it’s people , but any chance of being saved through the gospel of grace sponsored salvation by works.. I hope you will turn to Scripture as all the former Catholics here have. Jesus said for in the scriptures one will find eternal life. Salvation comes thru the WORD. God bless
CK,
Yes, I judge. I judge that God is not unjust to forget what I commit to Him. With this judgment I judge with, I will be judged. Again, your spiritual life is shallow.
—————-
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. – Matt.7:1,2
—————
But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. – Heb.6:9-12
What? Work accompanies salvation? Do you feel better when you say my spiritual life is shallow? Is that part of your labor of love that you know God will reward you for? Regardless, you are elect and it doesn’t matter how you behave God since you believe he owes you salvation. He promised it to you.
CK, you asked:
Do you feel better when you say my spiritual life is shallow?
Response:
Yes, I feel better because I resolved to speak plainly. You’re being admonished because you confess to be a Christian. Forget the benefit of the doubt. I’m giving you the benefit of belief. I do this when someone is off the Apologist list.
——————-
Is that part of your labor of love that you know God will reward you for?
Response:
Yes, he is not unjust to forget it. Do you boast in your knowledge of Him ?
——————–
You wrote:
Regardless, you are elect and it doesn’t matter how you behave God since you believe he owes you salvation. He promised it to you.
Response:
Wrong, you confessing Christian. We didn’t pluck election from the mind of Calvin. Here, this is where we got it from:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love…Eph.1:4
Holy and without blame is woefully inconsistent with “you are elect and it doesn’t matter how you behave God”.
——————–
Again, You wrote:
….since you believe he owes you salvation. He promised it to you.
Response:
A confused RC will thoughtlessly mix “owes” and “promised” together. It’s a reflection of spiritual laziness.
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. – 2Cor.1:20
CK,
Unbelievable isn’t it? Calvinists love a god ( small g ) who makes men for hell for his “good pleasure”.
Ever read the Halloween thriller, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”? It’s sick. In it, God is like a guy who amuses himself by dangling a spider over a flame, deliberating on whether or not to singe the poor critter to ashes. ( Tim probably hasn’t read it as bedtime story to his kiddies yet. )
The only reason these guys find this doctrine so delightful is because they have whistled themselves in the dark to being certain they they are the lucky bastards who have been selected for mercy while it is you and I who have been earmarked to show god’s just wrath.
Won’t they be surprised if they find themselves cooking alongside us as their god just may have been toying with them by granting them a temporary faith?
Then we can have the last laugh. ( Well, sort of ).
Jim said ” God is like a guy who holds a Spider over a flame, deliberating on whether or not to singe the poor critter to ashes.” Don’t forget that the scripture says the Spider’s heart is evil and desperately wicked. Out of it proceeds fornications, lies, and every evil thing. Now that we added that truth to the story, we can understand how the little Spider deserves to burn, don’t we. In fact now we have that understanding, we are thankful that God has shown mercy on some. Right Jim? K
Jim, you wrote,
Then you wrote,
Then your pope said,
Well, anyway, you were saying something about Charlie Hebdo and I got off topic.
Here is what Jonathan Edwards said:
Here is what God says about Himself:
Since God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11), and “according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself” (Ephesians 1:9), and He “hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), and “to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Romans 9:22), I have no problem saying “who makes men for hell for His good pleasure,” for He Himself has so instructed us in His Word.
You may call Him a “small g” God, and for a little while He will endure it with much longsuffering. I do suggest, however, that you not despise “the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering” for if it pleases Him it may “leadeth thee to repentance” (Romans 2:4).
Thanks,
Tim
“the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering” for if it pleases Him it may “leadeth thee to repentance”
So how exactly does that work for the predestined “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”?
Jim wrote:
The only reason these guys find this doctrine so delightful is because they have whistled themselves in the dark to being certain they they are the lucky bastards who have been selected for mercy while it is you and I who have been earmarked to show god’s just wrath.
Response:
Wrong again…you are very good at being wrong. Once upon a time, I was earmarked to show God’s wrath:
True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair. – WCF, Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
—————–
Do this Jim:
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? – 2Cor.13:5
Catholic Guys,
This whole icky blog is exactly like that creepy Charlie Hebdod magazine. Tim and “Kaustic Kevin” are of the same ilk as the dead scribblers who made a life of insulting people of faith, regardless of which faith, simply for the sake of insulting. While all the liberals are making them out to be “martyrs for free speech”. they we are anything but martyrs. They were intolerant hate mongers who used the press to vent their atheistic worldview.
Neither Tim nor Kevin are trying to make converts. They pretend to be but in fact only want to puke up hate against Mary and the Eucharist in order to offend.
Some months ago I emailed two of the ministers at Kevin’s church in Arizona and asked if he represented their congregation. I gave them examples of the slurs he spews. They were disgusted by his delivery and apologized profusely for him. They assured me he does not speak for anybody under their pastoral care but is loose canon with an agenda of his own.
Anybody with half a brain knows you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. Yet look at the rhetoric Falloni uses. Does anyone honestly think he is a Christian of any stripe? I sure as hell don’t. He doesn’t desire the salvation of Catholics or their conversion to his church. He prefers us to stay Catholic so he can pukes at us. If all Catholics suddenly turned Protestant, Kevin would be disappointed as his crumby life would have no more avenue on which to vent and spew.
As for Tim, notice that he does not write on Catholic/Protestant areas of dispute such as Sola Scriptura or Sola Fides. ( A year ago he tried and got his nose bloodied by Nick over the Book of James ). Rather, his specialty is in blaspheming the devotions he was exposed to as a child, ( probably by his mother).
This is the sickest blog on the web. I visit it just to keep tabs on how bad it is.
The Catholics on this blog have made and continue to make some fantastic arguments that would have converted any honest non-Catholic, Trouble is, Tim and Kevin’s problems are not intellectual. They are emotional. And maybe they are demon inspired.
Catholic Guys,
Jim wrote:
This whole icky blog…
Why continue to read after this pusillanimous starter ?
“Anybody with half a brain knows you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. “
Gee, I don’t know Jim, you seem to pretty adept at catching flies with the rotting corpse of your tired “apologetics” that you drag around the internet from blog to blog.
Now that you’ve shot your way out of here and James Swan’s blog, where to next?
EA and Eric W,
Two Catholics that turned into a couple of “them”.
EA,
CARM BLOG maybe?
because it gets better!
pu·sil·lan·i·mous /ˌpyo͞osəˈlanəməs/ adjective
showing a lack of courage or determination; timid.
synonyms: timid, timorous, cowardly, fearful, faint-hearted, lily-livered, spineless, craven, shrinking
Lily-livered! I love it!
EA,
you are such a sycophant on Swan’s site. Whenever he makes a shot, you parrot it ( and in two languages!)
Well don’t try it here. The job is taken. Kevin has cornered that position.
syc·o·phant /ˈsikəˌfant,ˈsikəfənt/noun
a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
synonyms: yes-man, bootlicker, brown-noser, toady, lickspittle, flatterer, flunky, lackey, spaniel, doormat, stooge, cringer, suck, suck-up
Lickspittle! I like it when you guys use such fancy words.
Tim,
When you were in the Portland area, didja’ ever go to Pilgrim’s Books?
Seeing Kelvin, Eric W, Walt and EA together on one blog, I am reminded of how I liked to go to Pilgrims’ and strike up a conversation with some other browser. Upon being overheard that I was a Catholic, folks gathered around from various aisles to weigh in against me. The more the better. It was easier to argue against several rather than just one. Why?
Because like Paul amid the sadducess and pharisees, I would get them arguing against each other on some issue like Baptism or something. Then I would point out how SS doesn’t work. One Catholic against a half dozen Bible Only believers wasn’t even close to a fair fight as I had them surrounded.
I would love to have these guys all in one room together!
Jim,
Great. Maybe you, CK, Matthew, Debbie, Scott (or even Bob) could tell me how many infallible papal statements have been issued in the History of the Catholic Church. Since I have no doubt that you would all agree on the number and titles of Infallible papal statements, you would be able to prove once and for all that infallibility works.
The floor is yours,
Tim
JIM–
You said: “wasn’t even close to a fair fight as I had them surrounded”
That reminds me of the stories of Old West buffalo hunters. It’s called “getting a stand”. The hunter would sneak up on a herd of buffalo and shoot one in the middle of the herd. They wouldn’t spook because they can’t really tell where the shot came from. But they alert to the wounded buffalo and start to surround it to give it protection. As they bunch up, the hunter shoots another one and they begin to surround it, as well. They then become easy pickin’s because they won’t stampede. Their instincts for protection are their own demise.
If the buffalo had been a united front and stampeded the hunter, he wouldn’t have had a chance.
I hate to admit it but you are right. Even within the Methodist Church there are those who just cannot agree on doctrine and both sides quote the bible to “trump” each other. It’s happening right here on this very blog between Kevin and Walt.
Bob said:
“I hate to admit it but you are right. Even within the Methodist Church there are those who just cannot agree on doctrine and both sides quote the bible to “trump” each other. It’s happening right here on this very blog between Kevin and Walt.”
Clearly you and Jim are facing some real struggles in your knowledge of history. Just read Scripture and especially the New Testament. The infant church or primitive church was not even close to being in unity. If you think that the Apostles were all in agreement you really need to take some time, put yourselves into a quiet room for a couple days and read the epistles again. No unity.
The only period in history where there was true unity and uniformity for a brief window (1638-1649) was the Church of Scotland during the second reformation.
If you think the Papist church has unity, or uniformity, you are highly deceived.
Jim wrote:
Because like Paul amid the sadducess and pharisees, I would get them arguing against each other on some issue like Baptism or something. Then I would point out how SS doesn’t work.
Response:
Thanks for your unintended support to SS. You liken us to sadducess and pharisees. All of us are SS adherents, right ? Thanks again. You show that it’s natural to adopt some form of SS when an infallible mageisterium is absent. An infallible mag. was absent prior to Jesus and Paul.
Unlike the S & P, we wait for our infallible mag. to return in glory. By God’s grace, and having learned from the Father, we will receive him because SS bears witness of Him. We will receive the promised life in Him. The glories of adoption (not Mary, silly Jim) are delivered in stages.
Notice how Jim is likened unto Paul. He can do that because Paul lacked the Primacy. They both lack Primacy.
Eric W said ” you km now its natural to adopt SS when there is no infallible magisterium around. BeforevJesus and Paul there was o infallible magisterium. How did they ever manage with just the infallible Word. K
There are ways to answer the things asserted in the comments. This is Tim’s blog and it’s his job to do this. But here are my two cents:
Praise the Lord Who has made things simple, giving us simple things: breaking bread together, setting some aside for the needy, and offering thanks to Him for purging our sins!
It was a horrible thing the Lord Jesus Christ endured, but it’s finished, and He brought us to the Father directly as the Only Mediator between God and man. Thank you, Lord, for You will not give Your glory to another, and we never have to be afraid that You will do this thing that frightens us – leave us in the hands of men.
Revelation 1:
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Returning to Tim’s post, I’m just grateful to the Lord that He made things simple: sharing the bread and wine together in remembrance of what He did for us, setting aside portions for those in need, and giving thanks to Him for purging our sins. It’s clear from these testimonies that this was the focus of early Christians, not the re-sacrificing of the Lord in the elements.
John 19
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
MARIA–
You said: “I’m just grateful to the Lord that He made things simple: sharing the bread and wine together in remembrance of what He did for us, setting aside portions for those in need, and giving thanks to Him for purging our sins. It’s clear from these testimonies that this was the focus of early Christians, not the re-sacrificing of the Lord in the elements.”
You are exactly right. there is no re-sacrificing of the Lord in the elements. It’s impossible. He is risen!
Bob, yes, Jesus Christ is risen, and ascended, and will return to us. He isn’t present on earthly altars but is exalted on high.
Christ is in Heaven.
Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Christ will be revealed from Heaven.
2 Thess. 1
3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; 4 so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: 5 which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: 6 seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7 and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them
MARIA–
You said: “Bob, yes, Jesus Christ is risen, and ascended, and will return to us. He isn’t present on earthly altars but is exalted on high.”
You are absolutely right! Christ is exalted on high. And he isn’t present on earthly altars to be re-sacrificed again. The altar is His altar where He offers our oblations as our Eternal High Priest.
Hi, Bob! I don’t understand this, “The altar is His altar where He offers our oblations as our Eternal High Priest.” Maybe give your reference.
What I focus on in regard to Jesus as our High Priest is the following. It speaks about the once and for all character of what He did on our behalf. There’s so much more I don’t know about His work for us but I affirm this:
Hebrews 9:11-12
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Maria,
I may address this in a post in the near future, but for now, there are some rather complicated terms that Rome uses in order to affirm that each Mass is a sacrifice, but that it is not a “re-sacrifice.” It’s a little complicated, but there are two issues: the first being the difference between an oblation and a sacrifice, and the second being whether the Mass occurs in “chronos” or “kairos” time. To give you a sampling of the subtlety and the nuance, I’ll just offer you this (from Roman Catholic sources):
That’s some pretty nuanced stuff alright. They’ll grant that the mass is a re-sacrifice in chronos time, but not in kairos time. Since it is not our prerogative to administer our thoughts, words and deeds in what they call “kairos” time, the distinction is invalid and the Mass is indeed a re-sacrifice. We are no more authorized to “re-present Christ’s sufferings to God in kairos time (as they say)” than we are authorized to judge angels right now on the grounds that in “kairos” time, I’m already in heaven; or to say that in “kairos” time, all enemies are already under His feet. “For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.” (Hebrews 2:8).
Of course, there is also the additional issue of whether “kairos” time really “recapitulates the entire past as well as contains the entire future”. More on that later, too, I suppose.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said to Maria ” You are exactly right, there is no re sacrificing of the Lord in the elements. It’s impossible. He is Risen.” Bob, if you believe this, why do you defend the Catholic Mass? According to Trent, it is a real and true sacrifice for sins. I once had a friend said his Priest said it wasn’t. And i said ask him about the word sacrifcium. And he said his Priest never said another word about it. The truth Bob, is that the Catholic church anathematizes anyone who will not says it is a real sacrifice. Be sure, the Catholic Mass is the re breaking of the Lord’s body which is efficacious. Bryan Cross has confirmed this to me, not that I needed it. I have read Trent’s cannons many times. Now to you story of where the Buffalo roam, you said ” both sides quibble and quote the bible to trump each other. Its happening on this blog between Walt and Kevin.” Couple things on this. When Jesus said ” that they be one” in John, he didn’t mean at the expense of the Gospel. Jesus said he came to bring the sword, when it comes to truth. There are no negotiable when it comes to the gospel. Here is the other thing to understand. And Horton makes a good point. Its better with the bible in the hands of people with there being the negative residue of error, than to take it away from the people as Rome did, and we saw the result of that, a false church. Why? Because the word is perspicuous and God doesn’t hide his truth from his people. Walt and I can differ on many things, but we agree on the Gospel of Christ. Protestants disagree on Baptism, church government, form of worship, etc. And for some these are non negotiables. It doesn’t matter. A person isn’t saved by his view on these things. The hinge is the gospel. Luther said the church stands and falls on the gospel. I share more in common with Walt than I ever will with Roman Catholics. In the Protestant world we call it Iron sharpening Iron. Its Pollyannish to think any group of people have no error in their theology. For instance i think the Scottish Reformers were about as good as it gets. But were they perfect in theology, no. I would much rather belong to Protestantism with the bible in my hand and much decent, than Roman Catholicism without the bible in my hand. Because the Word is were I find the words of eternal life. Thanks K
Kelvin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,
” Be sure, the Catholic Mass is the re breaking of the Lord’s body which is efficacious. Bryan Cross has confirmed this to me, not that I needed it. I have read Trent’s cannons many times. ”
Do you really believe the Mass is efficacious? Do you know what the word means?
Neither Bryan Cross nor Trent have ever told you the Mass is a re-breaking of the Lord’s Body. You are either making it up or having an acid flashback from your dope daze/days.
KEVIN–
You said: ” In the Protestant world we call it Iron sharpening Iron.”
Iron only sharpens iron when it is used correctly. When used as a bludgeon, it only causes damage and ruins the edge.
Bob, we’re big boys, we can take it.
KEVIN–
In the words of Roy P. Mercer “How big a boy are you?”
Ck said to Eric ” God owes you salvation, He promised to you.” Why must you make a believer feel guilty that he is a child of the promise as scripture teaches? CK, you really have problems with the biblical teaching of election. Dont you like free gifts? Salvation is a gift. When you get a gift from someone, do you complain your neighbor didnt get one, or are you thankful? Salvation is a gift by his grace. We cant earn it and we dont deserve it.
Me and well over a billion christians have a problem with your enterpretation of election. I’m not making anyone feel guilty or at least that’s not my intent.
We live our life according to His teachings and we will be judged according to how we live our faith. That is why we must persevere until the end.
CK, its not my doctrine of election. Its a biblical doctrine, If you think about the word for a moment, and you read Ephesians 1, Romans 8, etc. You’ll get it. The fact that 1 billion people believe anything is meaningless. Mathew 7 says narrow is the gate into heaven and there are few that find it. Election. So that means there are 1 billion lost people in the synagog of Satan. And lastly, if you are going to be judged on your justification before God based on what you do, the bible is clear, you cant enter. ” And Israel pursuing a law of righteouness did not arrive at it. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if were by works.” Proceed at your own risk.
CK said” we will be judged by how we live our life” This is classic Roman Catholic theology, God is going to weigh up the bads and the goods in the end, and if the goods outweigh the bads your in, and if the bads outweigh the goods, your done. CK, how do reconcile that with this verse in Romans 6:23. The wages of sin is death but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord. The answer Rome cant reconcile its gospel with the bible. You cant earn a free gift, or it is no longer a gift, but a reward. God will reward our works at judgment, but not with salvation. Salvation only comes by faith alone in Christ alone.
Kelvin,
Is damnation also a free gift? Don’t you like all free gifts? Just as salvation has nothing to do with the saved, damnation is a done deal before the damned person ever sins. Like Jacob and Esau right?
No Jim damnation is the just recompensecfor sin. Eternal life is afree gift. Its all here in one verse. Romans 6:23 ” for the wages of sin is death ( wages are what you get for what you do, or CK’s, Jim, Bob’s justification), but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord” You cant earn it, its a gift.
Kelvin,
“The just recompense for sin” eh?
Where I come from, a man isn’t held responsible for something he couldn’t help doing.
Us reprobates never had the power or choice to do nothing but sin. We was programmed that a way.
We are being held responsible for doing what we was made to do. It’s like punishing a dog for having fleas.
This god you keep talking about had enuff grace to go around but was stingy with it. He parceled it out like Mr Scrooge. H gave it to the Jacobs but left us poor dumb Esaus in sin so he could pitch us in the fiery furnace “for his good pleasure”.
Be happy you get to be a Jacob and quit taunting us poor Esaus. Aint it bad enuff we got to go to hell without you gloating at us like a hyena?
Jim, said ” wher I come from a man isnt held responsible for something he cant help doing.” Man is a sinner by hereditary right, deal with it. You continued ” us reprobates dint have the power or choice to do anything” Thats correct Jim, you are starting to make sense. Whithout the supernatural work of the Spirit, you are dead in sins, without any posibility of coming to the truth of the Gospel. Rome tried to make the gospel acceptable to natural man. Impossible. You continued ” this God you have has enough grace but he is stingy with it” God doesnt givecsaving grace to everyone, He has mercy on some. My advice is the same one when the questioned how come the tower fell on those men. He said just be thankful it didnt fall on you. God burns 24/7 in wrath against sinners. We cant compare God to our relationships. For instance I saw a Catholic say salvation is like a human relationship, mutual cooperation and sacrifice. This is bunk. God loves unconditionally, his mercies never cease with his children. He saved us based on nothing we do, nothing, nothing. He has chosen his children, and sends the wicked to hell. But Maria said it today, believe the gospel and be saved.
Kevin and the Tim,
“But God has decreed everything. I agree with the Tim, Psalms is clear. The wicked have been created for the day of destruction. ”
I f God intended the end ( damnation ), He must have intended the means. ( sin ).
Thanks for the quote from the pope about mocking other peoples’ religion. I didn’t know this blog was a religion for anybody other than Kevin.
Kelvin,
If God decreed everything, why does He get mad at sinners? He decreed they would be “dead in trespass”, didn’t He?
He decreed the Fall which put everybody in to the Massa Damnata and made them Totally Depraved reprobates. As they are dead in sin and can only hate God, why does God punish them for what they have no say in?
Jim,
Maybe God decreed his responses ? If his responses belong to the things revealed, then maybe a decree to respond in certain ways is part of things secret. This would militate against any caprice you shamefully charge against our God.
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. – Deut.29:29
Eric W,
So God has a public revelation but a secret decree that says just the opposite.
God ain’t willing that none should be lost but wants all men saved and to come to the truth. He locked up all men in sin so He could have mercy on them all. Jesus shed his Blood for all men. That’s what my KJV Good Book tells me.
Now you tell me He gots hisself a secret decree that says this ain’t so.
I ain’t no rocket scientist but that sounds like a liar to me.
Jim,
So God has a public revelation but a secret decree that says just the opposite….I ain’t no rocket scientist but that sounds like a liar to me.
Response:
There’s something here you need to realize. You just undermined the foundational principles of Law-abrogation in God’s revelation. If instances of God’s public revelation always shows agreement with God’s will/motives/decrees (secret things), then every instance of Law-abrogation (within public revelation) shows opposition among the secret things of God.
All we can say is that God wills to reveal Law(s) to be done AND sometimes abrogates some of those Law(s). This only appears to make God a liar. See what I mean ? Before abrogation, sin was imputed to those who didn’t obey the Law(s), but after abrogation, sin is not imputed for lack of obedience.
Now tell us about the secret things of God that correspond to God binding with a Law(s), then abrogating. Binding and abrogating belong to public revelation.
Eric,
Drop the long winded gobbledygook.
The God of the Bible puts out a lot of “Thou shalt nots”.
All though the Book he lays out choices before men, choices to obey or disobey. Real choices.
When men obey, God rewards them. When they freely* disobey, He is displeased.
You god is an author of a book and men are characters with assigned roles, nothing more.
*Freely= the ability to do or not do something.
To say all men are evil and therefore freely act out that evil nature is playing word games.
Unless a man has the freedom to NOT do evil, he isn’t free and a just God would not hold him responsible for what he is compelled to do.
Jim,
I told myself that it was impossible for you NOT to be a rocket scientist. Then you wrote…
Drop the long winded gobbledygook.
I was very wrong.
Jim, sin exists. Therefore God permited a place in his perfect will for sin. And it t b at sense He decreed it. Or else your saying God is arbitrary and isnt in controll. Here is how it goes in Romanism, For God so loved the world that He gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace, but not enough grace to keep all things in a state of sanctifying grace since He has not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them from losing the state of grace. Convuuted false religion. God bless, thanks for the discussion. K
you are so welcome sir.
Catholic Guys,
That bone-headed statement of Kevin’s above about Bryan Cross telling him the Mass is a re-breaking of Christ just goes to show this site is all BS.
Kevin is always trying to teach Catholicism to Catholics when he doesn’t know as much as a little child.
Jim, im sure you know the cannon of Trent anathematizes anyone who says it isnt a true and proper sacrifice. The word in the canon is sacrificium. And you are being disengenuis if you say a Roman Catholic doesnt come to the Mass to earn an increase in salvation. They speak of grace as if tgere can be an increase and diminuition of it, Here is what Luthercsaid ” God’s grace isnt divided up into bits and pieces, as are the gifts, but grace takes us up completely into God’s favor for the sake of Christ, our intercessor and mediator, so that the gifts may begin their work in us. Thus the believing soul by pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from ALL sin, safe from all hell, and endowed with the eternal righteouness, life, and salvation of its husband Christ. Thus he presents to himself a glorious bride, without spot or wrinlkle, cleansing her with thecwashing of the Word, that is, by faith in the Word of life, righteouness, and salvation. Thus he bethroths her unto himself, in faithfulness, in righteouness and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies (Hosea 11:19,20.
Kevin,
Don’t try to squirm out of it by more faloney baloney.
Bryan Cross never said Christ is broken in every Mass.
Admit it.
And don’t go on any more about the Council of Trent until you show us all where it says Christ is broken again in every Mass.
You are a windbag who shoots his mouth off without any evidence. You are nothing but hot air.
James, you are always welcome to go look up my exchange wit Bryan Cross on Called to the Synagog. He told me, you are correct the Mass sacrifice is a true and proper sacrifice. Trent says as much. The representation thing doesnt cut it. People ought to know it is an unbloody sacrifice that is efficacious. Which it really isnt, because scripture says without thecshedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins. And He is in his glorified state. The flesh that was sacrificed for our sin was not yet glorified. Hope you r well jim. K
Before I add something to the discussion about election, I want to affirm this: “let God be true and every man a liar.”
With that said, here are some thoughts about discussing election here and now. As all of you know, the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature. This is what we must do. Those who repent and trust in Him – that is, those who come to Him – He will never cast out. That is encouraging! Preach the Gospel. Hear the Gospel. If you hear and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord will never reject you!
For now, maybe we need to forget this topic, and know that the Lord will receive us if we come to Him in faith believing He is the Savior sent by the Father. Things are simple. Repent and believe in what Jesus did for us. And don’t let doubts torment you.
Maria said ” for now maybe we need to forget this topic” Hi Maria hope you are well. Can I ask why we wouldneed to forget such a rich and assuring doctrine as election? The resson I ask, is one big reason for the Reformation was Pastoral. To return the people to the clear assurance scripture offers to the believer. Rome had taken this from the peoplewith theit false doctrine of gracious merit, what I call grace sponsored salvation by works. Romans 5:1 says we have been justified by faith, and we posess present tense shalom. If you notice the Catholics here despise this doctrine and wish we would never bring it up. Why? Because then they wouldnt be able to smuggle their character into God’s work of grace. 1 John 5:13 says by faith we can know we posess eternal life. It isnt presumptive, but a guarantee that He who started a good work in us will perfect us. And 8:1 tells us there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ. Grazie mia sorrella sempre. K
Hi, Kevin, let me explain a little.
My concern is that Catholics hear the Gospel so that they can repent and believe it. Some people hear the doctrine of sovereign grace in election and fear – and are in despair – that they are “Esau” and God has rejected them, when they simply need to respond in faith and repentance. We were all once children of wrath, sons of disobedience, and I’m asking them to respond to God’s command to repent and believe.
I hope this is okay. My concern is: repent and believe and be assured of eternal life, and then understand this Biblical truth afterward.
Forgive me if I’m out of line. Perhaps Jim will let me know I need to go to confession? May the Lord open your eyes, Jim, to the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
God bless you, Kevin, and all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.
Maria
Maria, good point. No, you werent out of line. Your input is great. Yes they need to repent and believe. They must repent looking to their obedience to find favor with God. The exact thing they are taught the y need to do. God helps them to save themselves. But yes the gospel is simplicity, even a child can understand. God bless. K
God bless you, Kevin!
Maria, that should read they should repent, not looking to their obedience to find favor, or justification with God. Sorry.
Maria, did you see Bob’ s response to drop the talk about God’s election. Bob, gave you a big Amen. They think Reformed use that as an excuse to not obey God. Thats the view of an unregenerate heart. For us, our freedom and assurance frees us to obey God, the desire thd Spirit gives us. But a Pelagian mind cant process this. Calvin said ” its allot easier to love your neighbor when you know you arent obligated to do it. We obey from faith, but not to be accepted by God. They do it to gain God’s acceptance, we do it out of an unchangable acceptance we already posess. Two different gospels. Lets pray. K
Maria.
Yes dear, you need to get to Confession. And soon.
MARIA–
You said: “For now, maybe we need to forget this topic, and know that the Lord will receive us if we come to Him in faith believing He is the Savior sent by the Father. Things are simple. Repent and believe in what Jesus did for us. And don’t let doubts torment you.”
AMEN!
Maria,
So, if an Esau repents. he turns into a Jacob? Is that how it works?
According to Kevin, only the Jacobs are given the grace to repent.
When you were a Catholic, you worship bread, according to Tim and kelvin. Do you remember ever worshiping bread? What kind? Sourdough or pumperknickel? Did you genuflect whenever you walked past a bakery?
Well, it must be true because Tim and Kelvin wouldn’t make
some nonsense like that up, huh?
So, you used to worship a loaf of bread but now you traded that god in for one who makes men for hell.
Hmmmmmm?
Jim,
It’s difficult to talk to you when you’re being sarcastic, attacking people, be-dazzling us with your wit, and blaspheming. But I’ll try.
Right now, you don’t need to understand election, accept it, reject it, refute it – or anything like that. You need to repent and trust in Jesus alone.
Don’t evade the issue. Don’t dance in the aisles of Christian bookstores (which by the way, sell a lot of bad stuff). I used to tell the young man who was witnessing to me years ago, “Okay – but the Church [of Rome] says,” and he would answer that there is only one Gospel and we can’t change it. I resented this and ignored him. Then I got into major trouble, and his wife shared the Gospel with me in her own style. After she left, while I was alone with God, all I did was say, “Lord, I messed up my life, please fix it,” and He did. At the time my husband’s sister was very ill and I was saying a rosary for her each day. Gently, he weaned me away from this, and let me fall asleep just asking for Him to help her. Jesus said,
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Maria
Ms Maria,
( Lovely name. Too bad you don’t even call Mary “blessed” anymore ).
Anyway, you said,
“Repent and believe in what Jesus did for us. And don’t let doubts torment you.”
What did Jesus do for me? I don’t know if I am a Jacob or an Esau. And neither do you.
If I am an Esau, Jesus did not die for me.
You dumped the Catholic Church for Calvinism so own your new religion with pride. Quit talking like a Catholic.
Remember the sacred heart Devotion that Catholics have? You know, the one where Jesus pleads with all men to accept the grace he longs to pour out on them. His heart is a burning torch of love for every man, woman and child that ever lived. That Jesus of the Catholics would come and be crucified all over again for each and everyone of us.
Well, forget that Jesus. He is not yours. You have a new Jesus.
Your new Jesus passes most men over and saves only a few.
Jim wrote:
Remember the sacred heart Devotion that Catholics have?
Your new Jesus passes most men over and saves only a few.
Response:
I’m reminded of some words said during my home enthronement:
All recite with the priest the following prayer of thanksgiving:
Glory be to You, * O Sacred Heart of Jesus, * for the infinite mercy * You have bestowed upon the privileged members of this family. You h a v e chosen it * from thousands of others, * as a recipient of Your Love * and a sanctuary of reparation * wherein Your most loving heart * shall find consolation * for all the ingratitude of men. * How great, O Lord Jesus, * is the confusion * of this portion of Your faithful flock * as we accept the unmerited honor * of seeing You preside over our family! * Silently we adore You, * overjoyed to see You sharing * under the same roof * the toils, cares, and joys * of Your innocent children! * It is true * we are not worthy * that You should enter our humble abode, * but You have already reassured us, * when You revealed Your Sacred Heart to us, * teaching us to find in the wound of Your Sacred Side * the source of grace and life everlasting. * In this loving and trusting spirit * we give ourselves to You, * You who are unchanging life. * Remain with us, Most Sacred Heart, * for we feel an irresistible desire to love You and make You loved.
——————–
Take a close look…
1. bestowed upon the privileged members
2. You have chosen it from thousands of others
3. of this portion of Your faithful flock
4. we feel an irresistible desire
———————
Why in the world should Jim appeal to this devotion ? I know why…Jim is elect, the elect one who loves more than other elect ones. Maria is right. Repent and believe the Jesus of the Bible. He gives what He promises to give.
Eric W, that was a good post!
Kevin,
Thanks for the encouragement. My favorite is “we feel an irresistible desire”. Irresistible, really ?
That just goes to show ya, a Catholic by any other Protestant name is still a Catholic. 😀
BOB, you wrote:
That just goes to show ya, a Catholic by any other Protestant name is still a Catholic.
LOL…I never despise truths received under their magisterium. God, and special sins (I’m Calvinist after all), brought me to the mag. subjugation. I chewed food and spit many bones. I gagged on them before spitting.
For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged. – Prov. 28:2
Jim, I do call Mary blessed, with every believer, but I wouldn’t give her the glory due to God. She didn’t die for us. I know she suffered – a sword pierced her own heart – hard to imagine the pain!, but only Jesus bore the guilt of sin. He only is God and our Advocate and Mediator.
And I didn’t dump Catholicism for Reformed faith. Actually for a long time after the Lord drew me to Himself, I wouldn’t have even understood the concept of election. It’s not milk for babies.
I don’t talk like a Catholic, I don’t think. I’m just a Christian, a Bible believer. No new Jesus for me, just the One Who lived and died and rose again, and we love Him because He first loved us. Just Jesus of the Bible. A sacred heart? He is a whole Person, fully human and fully God. Don’t tell me I don’t know the one Who died for me, for us. This is Satan’s accusation. And I’ve suffered under it. Who hasn’t sometime lost their assurance, as Eric W said (I think it was Eric!).
But even if you say that I don’t have Jesus, just pretend I’m a donkey telling the truth – the Lord used a donkey to speak for Him. Repent and love the Lord, that’s His comman! And He can’t lie. Just tell Him you’re at the end of yourself and want Him. Cast your burden on Him. And when we go to Heaven and behold Him, and are like Him when we see Him, Mary will be there with all the believers from the beginning, since Adam!, and all the former things will be forgotten and never remembered. I want you to be there, and I believe He does!
Maria, one cannot miss the profundity and clarity of you post. I dobt that it can be better said. K
Maria,
You say you want Jesus. All of Him? Jesus is Head and Body. That Body is His Church, out of which you will never partake of Him in the Eucharist*.
Just wanting “a”Jesus might do for the short haul, like the vague Higher Power of a 12 Step group, but at some point you are going to ask yourself about that formless. faceless entity called Jesus.
Read the last sentences of Matthew and John’s Gospels.
Matthew says to obey everything Jesus taught.
John’s says everything was not written down.
You think you can simplify things down to “just Jesus”. Please notice, Kevin and I have very different concepts of Him.
Doctrine does indeed matter. If it doesn’t you had better check and see if you have Jesus or a concoction of your own imagination.
Kevin hates the Blessed Sacrament and belches blasphemies.
I bow down before Christ in the Blessed sacrament. One of us is right. One is one the road to hell. You can’t have it both ways.
Jim wrote to Maria,
I bow down before Christ in the Blessed sacrament. One of us is right. One is one the road to hell. You can’t have it both ways.
Response:
See everyone…Jim is the elect one who loves more than other elect ones. Jim is the road away from hell. Jim make your doctrine really attractive. Insert and promote yourself and stop playing games. It’s a short step from his “Body” to “Jim the member.” Listen to Jim. Isn’t that so ?
——————-
Maria,
Your greatest evil was leaving people like Jim. They will not let you forget how evil it was.
Maria,
One more thing;
I believe God loves you and desires your salvation more than even you do. I believe He sent His Son to pour out very drop of Blood for you and would have done it even if you were the only person on earth.
I believe that from the cross, with his dying breath, he gave you to his mother, to be her child. I believe Mary wants you in heaven more than you want to be there and loves you more than you love yourself. ( We can talk about just what Mary did for you on Calvary another time ).
I can say this because I believe the same for me, CK, Tim, Eric, Bob, Kelvin and everyone one on this blog and in the whole world. Walt too. I believe God speaks clearly from the perspicuous scriptures about His love for all men and His desire for them to come to Him, no hidden decrees, no fingers crossed behind His back, caveats.
Ask your new friend Kevin if God wants Maria Tatham in heaven. Ask Kevin, Eric, Walt or Tim if Jesus died for a woman named Maria Tatham rather than let her get the comeuppance for her sins.
Kevin will jump in with a long winded song and dance about Jesus dying for sinners but he won’t mention the sinner you are most interested in, yourself.
Ask Kevin if Maria Tatham’s name is written in the Lamb;s Book of Life.
Kevin will tell you about how comforting the doctrine of election is. Ask him about Calvin saying God gives a false faith to some of the reprobate to give them a false assurance for a time.
If you believe God loves all men and that Jesus died for all men and gives the grace to repent to all men, you believe in the Catholic Jesus. The Calvinist Jesus does not love all men nor does he desire their salvation.
There are indeedProtestants who believe Jesus loves all men, that he died for all and calls all to repentance. But that is because in the 1600s some Protestants dumped Calvinism and adopted the Jesus as taught by the Jesuits. They just didn’t come all the way home to the Church. Ask Kevin about this. Have you noticed how he keeps accusing Protestant Bob of being a quasi-Catholic? That is because Bob believes Jesus loves all men. Bot is not a Calvinist.
In the 1600s the cold religion of Calvinism was threatening France with it’s horrible doctrine of election and reprobation to hell. God didn’t raise up a mighty theologian to refute the Calvinists. Rather, Jesus appeared to a nun in a convent and showed her his heart ablaze with love for all sinners.
Click on some sites about the Sacred Heart or the Divine Mercy. Run from the lies of the Calvinists who tell you Jesus died for sinners but won’t say if Jesus died for a woman named Maria Tatham .
And yes Maria, if you have abandoned your faith and have been neglecting the Sacraments, been dallying with heresy and not being an obedient daughter of the Church, Confession is the antidote.
Jim wrote to Maria,
And yes Maria, if you have abandoned your faith and have been neglecting the Sacraments, been dallying with heresy and not being an obedient daughter of the Church, Confession is the antidote.
Response:
And yes Maria, if you have abandoned your faith and have been neglecting the Sacraments [ based on private judgment], been dallying with heresy [based on private judgment] and not being an obedient daughter of the Church [ based on private judgment], Confession is the antidote.
———————–
Maria,
we make confession by examining our conscience. We examine and conclude by private judgment. Get ready for another private judgement after death. It will be just you and Jesus at that judgment. Secrets of the heart will not hide.
———————–
Jim,
are you ready to give the antidote against private judgment? I speak the truth in love. Use the PJ ladder, then kick it away. Isn’t that so ?
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said: ” Maybe you, CK, Matthew, Debbie, Scott (or even Bob) could tell me how many infallible papal statements have been issued in the History of the Catholic Church. Since I have no doubt that you would all agree on the number and titles of Infallible papal statements, you would be able to prove once and for all that infallibility works.
The floor is yours”
How many infallible papal statements? Let me be vague. The answer is between one and a few more.
Both Catholics and Protestants believe in the infallibility of the cannoned Scripture called the Holy Bible–in particular the 66 undisputed books. It is too bad that not all of what Christ taught was written down. (John 21:25)
Which leads me to believe that either what Christ’s unwritten witness was preserved in Tradition, or that it was lost forever. My vote is in favour of Tradition. And I would hope that very Tradition would be preserved infallibly as well.
The alternative would be that a very large portion of Christ’s witness is lost, never to be recovered. That, to me, is a very sad scenario.
I yield the floor.
Bob,
Tim’s is what we call a “gotcha” question.
Sort of like the classic, “Have you stopped beating your wife”.
He has something up his sleeve if I know our Tim.
Bob, you yielded the floor, and I’ll take it up just very briefly to say that God’s Word is sufficient, and that all through it are testimonies to its perfections. Read Psalm 19 and 119 to begin with, and remember Jesus’ praying for the Father to sanctify us through the truth, and that He said, “Thy Word is truth.” Why should we want more than perfection, than truth?
I checked yesterday about infallible pronouncements at the website U.S. Catholic, in the article “Is there a list of infallible teachings?”
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings
Here is a quote:
“There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).”
Got to leave the discussion for now,
Maria
Maria, just so you know, Tim has a great article siting the 100 diferent Catholic fallible opinions about how many papal infalible statements there are. There are as many opinions as shoes, every body has a pair. The only thing Roman Catholicism is infalible at is being falible. One example. In the 1400′ one Pope condemned Joan of Arc and had her burned, some years later another Pope pardoned her, and some years later a third Pope made her a saint. Infalibility on disply.
MARIA–
It is also interesting to note what the article said right after that:
“But neither of these was earth-shattering to Roman Catholics, because these beliefs had been nurtured through devotion, prayer, and local teaching for centuries before becoming official papal teaching.”
KEVIN–
You said: “In the 1400′ one Pope condemned Joan of Arc and had her burned, some years later another Pope pardoned her, and some years later a third Pope made her a saint. Infalibility on disply.”
You might want to get your history correct before you run your mouth.
“In the spring of 1429, in obedience to what she said was the command of God, Joan inspired the Dauphin’s armies in a series of stunning military victories which lifted the siege of Orleans and destroyed a large percentage of the remaining English forces at the battle of Patay, reversing the course of the Hundred Years’ War. The Dauphin – Charles VII – was crowned a few months later at Reims.
However, a series of military setbacks eventually led to her capture. First, there was a reversal before the gates of Paris in September of that same year. Then in the Spring of 1430, she was captured in a minor action near Compiègne by the Burgundians, a faction led by the Duke of Burgundy who was allied with the English.
The Burgundians delivered her to the English in exchange for 10,000 livres. In December of that same year, she was transferred to Rouen, the military headquarters and administrative capital in France of King Henry VI of England, and placed on trial for heresy before a Church court headed by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, a supporter of the English.”–Wikipedia
“Twenty-five years after her execution, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, debunked the charges against her, pronounced her innocent, and declared her a martyr.”–Wikipedia
The Pope did not condemn Joan of Arc, the Church court headed by Bishop Pierre Cauchon did. And a court authorized by Pope Callixtus III reversed Cauchon’s decision.
Bob, ” run my mouth” you just confirmed my post. All at the hands of the Papacy. Within 100 years from heretic to saint. I know development of doctrine. K
MARIA–
You quoted: “Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Things “to come” for “eternity”. Because He lives forever, according to the priesthood order of Melchizidek, his actions 2000 years ago can be and are applied to us today, and tomorrow, and forever.
You and I did not sin 2000 years ago because we did not live back then. That one moment in time when God became flesh and dwelt among us, Jesus made one final sacrifice for all people. That one sacrifice applied to everyone living at the time, to all who died before–all the way back to Adam, and to everyone who lives afterwards till the last person is conceived.
As our Eternal High Priest, Christ offers for us eternally. He offered for your past sins, He offers for your current sins, and He will offer for your sins that you have not yet committed.
Eternal is a great word, isn’t it?
Yes, it is!
Maria, Bob is trying to confuse you. Yes Christ is applying his perfect sacrifice for us at his altar in heaven. He just isnt doing it ex opere operato on the instalment plan. See they do the Mass and they merit increase in grace and justice. But we know that Christ accomplished eternal redemption once and for all, and now he interceedes with his perfect sacrifice for us continually. We dont earn this. Its all a free gift. We are forgiven for sins past present and future, even though he is applying it as we confess. A great book is by Murray, Redemption, accomplished and applied. Nothing can separate us from the love of God my dear Italian sister. Niente k
si, niente!
Grazie! Talk to you later, Lord willing, Kevin!
Kevin,
I thought you were married.
Christ’s sacrifice is a blanket across history. Acts 13:39 ” and thru Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which they could not be freed thru the Law of Moses. He put sin away, past present and future. We are free. Amen
Tim, thank you for explaining the distinctions between oblation and sacrifice, and chronos and kairos. I think I grasp these enough that it’s truly helpful. It sounds like mere human beings can’t do things in kairos.
By the way, I went to the Baltimore Catechism page and looked at the sacrifice of the Mass, and they quoted Malachi 1 there.
Have a good weekend!
God bless you!
Maria
Tim, thanks for your post to Maria on the Mass. I hope Jim, CK, Bob read it. They always acuse me of wrongfully stating that the Mass is a re sacrifice, sacrificium. You post was succinctly explained.
You are lying in your damage control Kevin.
You said Bryan Cross and Trent claim Christ is broken in every Mass. I asked you to back it up. Now you are trying to obfuscate by saying Catholics say the Mass is a sacrifice. ( Which we do ).
You have been told dozens of times sacrifice does not mean Christ is broken. You are putting out a smoke screen again rather than admitting Bryan Cross never said the stupid thing you say he did.
You are lying.
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, ” run my mouth” you just confirmed my post. All at the hands of the Papacy. Within 100 years from heretic to saint. I know development of doctrine. K”
Wow! You really no absolutely nothing about the Catholic Church. Why am I not surprised?
Bob, the bishop in England put her on trial. She was convicted as a heretic and burned at the stake. 25 years later exonerated by Pope C. 1909 beatified. As I said heretic to saint. Papal infalibility. 3 different Popes with 3 different declarations. God bless
The Bishop of England was not Pope.
Bob, cmon, the Papacy claimed the power of both swords and claimedcto be God and king of the world. In his admnistration Luther said lie the greatest killing mahine ever. And your telling me the Bishop didnt act in behest of the Pope? Cmon Bob
Jim said to Maria ” if you believe Godgave grace to all men” Except in Catholicism He doesnt give them enough grace to get to heaven. Just enough to get them started, and the He sits on the sideline. And if you get there youbget tgere, and if you dont, you dont. Ill never forget a Catholic on CCC saying ” im becoming more just everyday, I havent got there yet, I got tobget there. Maria doesnt need your assurance Jim, she can go to Scripture and get it from God. It comes from thecWord and the Spirit, not thru the blessed sacrament. Thats a lie. K
Kevin,
Again the flim flam. You are avoiding what I said to maria about your God refusing to give grace to some men because he wants them in hell to show His justice.
You are shifting to the Catholic God not giving enough grace to get men all the way to heaven as another smoke screen.
Ever hear of lying by omission?
Jim, can you tell me what it means in Psalms when it says the wicked have been created forvthe day of destruction? We Reforming types cant pick and choose the sciptures we like and dont like. Many are called and few are chosen. Narrow is the gate. Why wouldnt God sending men to hell show his justice? The wages of sin iscdeath. We are all sinners by hereditary right. We all deserve hell. Thatscthe starting place. We know that God causes all thinfs to work for to those who are called to his purpose. He doesnt call everybody to his purpose. Im trying to figure out why you are so bothered about God sending carnal men to hell. All men have turned their back on God, it says in Romans 1. We should be bothered only in thd sense of telling them the gospel. But God is as just as He is love. Hebrews says ” it is a teryfying thing to fall in the hands of the living God” Jim, his ways arent our ways. God bless you.
Our dear Catholic interlocutors, Jesus said ” So you too, when you have done all the things which are commanded of you, ” We are unworthy slaves, we have done only that which ought to have done.” An awful sacriledge came out of the medieval Roman church that one’s works could merit the grace of God, and works of superarogation were so meritorious they could go in a treasury to be imputed later. Listen to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 ” But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove in vain, but I labored more than all of them, yet NOT I but the grace of God with me. ” if its by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace. Maria so aptly put it, repent and believe, trusting nothing other than Christ alone.
Thank you for the many helpful comments – thank you Eric W and Kevin! If I forget someone, thank you too! Thank you for your kind attention, Bob! Thank you for having a genuine discussion, Jim!
This “donkey” is tired. Burdens off, heading for my stall. Even a donkey knows who owns her and her Master’s crib.
Isaiah 1
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth:
for the Lord hath spoken,
I have nourished and brought up children,
and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib:
but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
Bob,
Kevin is now messing up history as badly as he does religion. He thinks Joan of Arc died in England.
Jim I didn’t say she died in England. She died at the hands of the papacy. But then a pope pardoned her, then a pope testified her.At least their consistent with infallible declarations.
That should say beatified. 1909 I believe. Jim, my point is even on the vote of the Curia on Papal infalibility, it was a split vote. I have been looking for the Catholic’s responses to Tim’s questions on number of infallible statements made by Popes. The Apostles could tell us God breathed scripture. Certainly we should know when the Popes spoke ex cathedra. I mean if nobody knows the number, not even thd Popes, then hmmm.
kevin
January 17, 2015 at 11:26 am
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, cmon, the Papacy claimed the power of both swords and claimedcto be God and king of the world. In his admnistration Luther said lie the greatest killing mahine ever. And your telling me the Bishop didnt act in behest of the Pope? Cmon Bob”
See? You don’t know as much as you think you know about Catholicism. A bishop can act independently from the Pope in his own diocese. If his actions are not in line with the papacy, then an appeal can be made to the Vatican to override the action of the local bishop. Cmon Kevin. Do your research.
Bob, thanks for your response. You consistenly say ” you dont know as much about Catholicism as you think you know” How can Methodist stand in judgment about what I know about Catholicism. Respectfully Bob, I dont care what you think about what I know about Catholicism. Having said that, in a roundabout way you just confirmed my point. The Bishop just carried out the wishes of the Papacy. And you cant deny that under one Pope she was burnt as a heretic, 25 yeras latter pardoned by another Pope, and in 1909 beatified by another Pope. It reminds me of ths fisrt vote on Papal infalibility, it was a split vote. Bob, if you will take and honest look at the Papacy, you will see ths only thing it is infallible at over history is being fallible. Tim has asked for a list of infallible statements from the Rcs on this site. Nobody knows, not even their apologists can agree. The truth is Popes and councils err and have erred gravely. Only if Joan of Arc could have been under the last Pope first, huh. Thats why we place the infallible Word of God as our only infallible source. We look at the tradition of a church that elevated tradition above the Word, and we find many things not in the bible. Tim has oulined them well in his articles. God bless k
MARIA–
You said: “Thank you for your kind attention, Bob!”
And thank you for your courteous and cordial demeanour. It is refreshing in the light of the mudslinging that goes on here. Your technique draws much better dialogue.
May the Lord bless you and keep you; may His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you;
May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace.