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 Hippolytus of Rome, Origen and Cyprian of Carthage. In what are disputed writings, Hippolytus makes only a passing reference to Malachi 1:11, and in his accepted writings, he does not cite Malachi at all. He does nonetheless, provide some modest assistance to us in our analysis. Elsewhere in his writings against heresies, he shows, as Irenæus did, that what is “offered” to God at the Lord’s Supper is separate from the elements of the Lord’s Supper which are given to men. In the case of Origen, he understood by Malachi 1:11 that there are no more sacrifices but those offered on the altar of the heart, sacrifices of praise and of knowledge of the Word of God. In the case of Cyprian, when he expounds Malachi 1:11, he says that it is fulfilled in “the sacrifice of praise,” making no mention of the Lord’s Supper. Elsewhere in Cyprian’s writings, however, he explicitly states that “the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer” in the Lord’s Supper, and that in the Supper, the priest “offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father.” Rome uses these references to prove that Cyprian believed, taught and practiced Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass. As we noted in the enumeration of the traps in the Sacrifice Challenge, some of the Church Fathers used sacrificial terms when writing about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but context must be examined to determine how those terms are defined. As we shall see in Cyprian, he did not even believe that Jesus offered His own passion at the Last Supper, thus when Cyprian insists that we offer in the Lord’s Supper what Jesus offered at the Last Supper, he is not insisting that we offer Christ’s passion at all. Cyprian also used the term “sacrifice” to mean “commemoration,” and believed that the bread and wine were merely figures of what Christ would offer on the cross the following afternoon. Once Cyprian is allowed to define his own terms, all of the teeth of Rome’s Sacrifice of the Mass are fully extracted from the mouth of Cyprian.
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (170–235 A.D.)
In a disputed writing by a pseudo-Hippolytus, there is a brief reference which may be of some interest to us, and we will mention it here because it is typically grouped with Hippolytus’ accepted writings. In his apocalyptic treatise, On the End of the World, he is viewing the apocalypse through the lens of Daniel, and in the process makes note that “incense and oblation” will cease. He does not identify the incense and the oblation for us, but based on Daniel 9:27—”he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”—this pseudo Hippolytus believed that they would come to an end. In the process of his exposition, he also makes mention of the Lord’s Supper—”holy body and blood of Christ”—and merely states that “these will not be shown in those days”:
“And the churches, too, will wail with a mighty lamentation, because neither ‘
oblation nor incense’is attended to, nor a service acceptable to God; but the sanctuaries of the churches will become like a garden-watcher’s hut, and the holy body and blood of Christ will not be shown in those days. The public service of God shall be extinguished, psalmody shall cease, the reading of the Scriptures shall not be heard;” (Hippolytus, On the End of the World, chapter 34)
The reason we see this as a reference to Malachi 1:11 is that this pseudo Hippolytus cites Daniel 9:27 earlier in the treatise (chapter 21), and when he does so, he uses the words, “sacrifice and libation will be removed.” But when he cites the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27, he says instead the “oblation and incense” will cease, which is the language of Malachi 1:11. It seems that this pseudo Hippolytus believed that the sacrifice of the New Covenant (Malachi 1:11) would cease based on his reading of Daniel 9:27.
We find this particular citation of some special interest because a reference is made to the Lord’s Supper in such close proximity to a reference to the end of incense and oblation. It is notable because when there is a mention of “oblation” and “incense” it is in reference to what is offered to God, namely, “a service acceptable” to Him. “Psalmody,” apparently, is the sacrifice that “shall cease.” But when mention is made of the “body and blood of Christ” it is in reference to the elements being displayed to men. Because Hippolytus was discipled by Irenæus, this curious alignment of their phraseology is quite significant. As we noted last week, Irenæus identified the tithe offering as a sacrifice of praise and called it the sacrifice of the New Covenant, along with the fruit of our lips giving praise in accordance with Hebrews 13:15. In his description of the Lord’s Supper, it was only after the “oblation” of the New Covenant was over that Irenæus then invoked the Holy Spirit that He might “exhibit” Christ’s sacrifice through the symbols of the bread and wine, thus showing the elements of the Lord’s Supper were not part of the New Covenant oblation. If the above citation is legitimately from Hippolytus, he learned from his master well. He had the “incense and oblation” as the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Then when that oblation was over, the Lord’s body and blood was exhibited, or in this case, “shown” to those gathered. In other words the oblation of the New Covenant was separated from the elements of the Lord’s Supper in Hippolytus as it was in Irenæus. In the end times, says this pseudo Hippolytus, the “incense and oblation” would end, and the Lord’s body and blood would no longer be shown, suggesting that in Hippolytus’ day, the practice of Irenæus was still in use. That said, there is very little else we can extract from this rather oblique reference to Malachi 1:11.
To this we can add, from his accepted works, Hippolytus’ references to an illegitimate Eucharist as celebrated by Marcus the heretic. In this case, Marcus was attempting to perform a Eucharistic miracle after the words of invocation. As Irenæus before him, Hippolytus had the “oblation” performed prior to, not during, the Lord’s Supper. In these two citations, the Eucharistic (thanksgiving) prayer is “offered” before the Holy Spirit is invoked, which as we noted last week, is the wrong order if Rome desires to find her Sacrifice of the Mass in the Early Church:
“A certain other teacher among them, Marcus, an adept in sorcery, carrying on operations partly by sleight of hand and partly by demons, deceived many from time to time. This (heretic) alleged that there resided in him the mightiest power from invisible and unnameable places. And very often, taking the Cup, as if offering up the thanksgiving prayer, and prolonging to a greater length than usual the word of invocation, he would cause the appearance of a purple, and sometimes of a red mixture, so that his dupes imagined that a certain Grace descended and communicated to the potion a blood-red potency.” (Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, chapter 34)
“And this (Marcus), infusing (the aforesaid) mixture into a smaller cup, was in the habit of delivering it to a woman to offer up the thanksgiving prayer, while he himself stood by, and held (in his hand) another empty (chalice) larger than that. And after his female dupe had pronounced the sentence of Consecration, having received (the cup from her), he proceeded to infuse (its contents) into the larger (chalice), and, pouring them frequently from one cup to the other…” (Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, chapter 35)
Both times that Hippolytus relates the profane orchestrations of Marcus, the prayer is what is “offered,” not the body and blood. After the prayer is offered, the words of consecration are stated, and from that point the primary objective of Marcus is to display the transformed elements to those gathered. What is notable in both of these citations is that Hippolytus was neither criticizing the order of service nor that in his profanity Marcus had illegitimately placed the “offering” prior to the words of consecration or the invocation. Rather, he was criticizing Marcus’ misuse of a legitimate rite of the Church. If Marcus had been guilty of reversing the order of service (that is, to place the “offering” prior to the words of consecration instead of after), it seems to have escaped Hippolytus entirely.
Whatever else Hippolytus believed, it appears that he considered it quite normal, as Irenæus did before him, to make the “offering” of the New Covenant first, and then after the offering of the New Covenant was over, to proceed with the Lord’s Supper, which effectively separates the elements of the Lord’s Supper from the thanksgiving offering.
ORIGEN (184 – 253)
When Origen cited Malachi 1:11, he explicitly acknowledged that the “place” of the new sacrifices was the altar of the heart. When speaking of the wells Abraham dug, by which he means “the Scriptures of the Old Testament,” he explained that those wells testify of a new sacrifice offered by the Gentiles:
“He opened, therefore, the wells and taught us, that we might not seek God in some one place, but might know that ‘sacrifice is offered to his name in every land.’ [Malachi 1:11] For it is now that time ‘when the true worshippers worship the Father’ neither in Jerusalem nor on mount Garizim, ‘but in spirit and truth.’ [John 4:20-23] God, therefore, dwells neither in a place nor in a land, but he dwells in the heart. And if you are seeking the place of God, a pure heart is his place. For he says that he will dwell in this place when he says through the prophet: ‘I will dwell in them and walk in them; and they shall be my people and I will be their God,’ says the Lord.’ [2 Corinthians 6:16, Leviticus 26:12]” (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily XIII, 3)
He continues in his Homilies on Exodus to restate that the place of sacrifices is now the heart, and what is offered there is, as we noted with Tertullian last week, simple prayer from a pure conscience:
“Let that soul which will not give ‘sleep to its eyes’ nor ‘sleep to its eyelids’ nor ‘rest to its hours, ‘until it find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob,’ [Psalms 132:4-5] let that soul, I say, have further in itself also an immovable altar on which it may offer sacrifices of prayers and victims of mercy to God, on which it may sacrifice pride as a bull with the knife of temperance, on which it may slay wrath as a ram and offer all luxury and lust like he-goats and kids. But let him know how to separate for the priests even from these ‘the right arm’ and ‘the small breast’ and the jaws, that is, good works and works of the right hand (for let him preserve nothing evil); the whole small breast, which is an upright heart and a mind dedicated to God and jaws for speaking the word of God.” (Origen, Homilies on Exodus, Homily IX. 4)
The incense we now offer is prayer, said Origen, and the lifting of one’s hands is the evening sacrifice:
“If there is, therefore, anyone of you in whom there is now no odor of sin, but an odor of justice, the sweetness of mercy, if anyone, by praying ‘without ceasing’ [1 Thessalonians 5.17] always offers incense to the Lord and says, ‘Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice,’ [Psalms 140:2] this man has married Cetura [Abraham’s wife, c.f., Genesis 25:1]. (Homilies on Genesis, Homily XI, 2)
Revisiting Malachi in a peripheral manner, Origen again restates that we cannot offer corporeal sacrifices in a fleshly manner, but rather offer spiritual sacrifices, spiritually:
“For he knew that at some future time the Gentiles would offer good counsel with Moses, that they would bring a good and spiritual understanding to the Law of God. And he knew that the Law would hear them and do all things as they say. ‘For the Law cannot be effective,” as the Jews affirm, because ‘the Law is weak in the flesh,’ [Romans 8:3] that is, in the letter, and can accomplish nothing according to the letter, ‘for the Law brought nothing to perfection.’ [Hebrews 7:19] In accordance with this counsel, however, which we offer to the Law, all things can come about spiritually. Sacrifices which cannot now be offered in a fleshly manner can be offered spiritually; and the law of leprosy which cannot be kept according to the letter can be spiritually observed.” (Origen, Homilies on Exodus, Homily XI, 6)
Lest anyone think that Origen by this means we offer the Lord’s Supper as our “spiritual sacrifice” of praise on the “spiritual altar” of the Roman Mass, offering the “spiritual sacrifice” of Christ’s transubstantiated flesh, Origen rules that out when he explicitly denies that we offer a Passover Sacrifice on an altar:
“But if you wish to be taught how the Law is dead, look and see. Where now are the sacrifices? Where now is the altar? Where is the temple? Where are the purifications? Where is the celebration of the Passover? Is not the Law dead in all these things? Or let those friends and defenders of the letter keep the letter of the Law if they can.” (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily VI, 3)
We conclude this section on Origen by citing his work, Against Celsus, in which he notes that those who have been purified by the Word are invited to the mysteries, not to offer a sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper, but rather to offer a sacrifice of praise with uplifted hands:
“And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. … we say, ‘Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and by reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say, ‘The lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,’ let him come to us;” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book III, chapters 59-60)
To Origen, as with Tertullian, the sacrifice of the new covenant was prayer from a pure conscience, not Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass.
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200 – 258 A.D.)
Cyprian did not see Malachi 1:11 fulfilled in the Roman Catholic Mass, but before we begin with Cyprian’s interpretation of Malachi, we must first highlight a rather significant indiscretion in his life, the effects of which we must take into account in any analysis of his works. Cyprian’s indiscretion is that too soon after his conversion he took the office of a Metropolitan Bishop. His biographer, Pontius the Deacon, does as much as he can to gloss over the indiscretion, but the Scriptural prohibition against what Cyprian did is quite clear:
“A bishop then must be … Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:2-6)
Pontius the Deacon knew that Cyprian’s immediate installation as Metropolitan Bishop was unconventional in the extreme, and not only unconventional but also sinful. In order to rationalize Cyprian’s disobedience, Pontius put forward the fact that Cyprian was so exceptional that 1 Timothy 3:6 simply did not apply:
“The apostle’s epistle says [1 Timothy 3:6] that novices should be passed over, lest by the stupor of heathenism that yet clings to their unconfirmed minds, their untaught inexperience should in any respect sin against God. He first, and I think he alone, furnished an illustration that greater progress is made by faith than by time.” (Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, chapter 3)
1 Timothy 3:6 is true, as far as it goes, sayeth Pontius. It just did not go as far as Cyprian of Carthage. It seems that Cyprian loved the truth so much that he could not be compelled to abide by it. Thus, when we read Cyprian, we must understand that we are reading the words of a grown man who, spiritually, was but a child.
That said, in Treatise 12, of Book I of his Testimonies Against the Jews, Cyprian identifies “praise” as the sacrifice prophesied in Malachi. Here is his only reference to Malachi 1:11 from Chapter 16:
“In Isaiah: ‘For what purpose to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? Says the Lord: I am full; I will not have the burnt sacrifices of rams, and fat of lambs, and blood of bulls and goats. For who has required these things from your hands? ‘ [Isaiah 1:11-12] Also in the forty-ninth Psalm: ‘I will not eat the flesh of bulls, nor drink the blood of goats. Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver you: and you shall glorify me.’ [Psalms 50:13-14] In the same Psalm, moreover: ‘The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: therein is the way in which I will show him the salvation of God.’ [Psalms 50:23] In the fourth Psalm too: ‘Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord.’ [Psalms 4:5] Likewise in Malachi: ‘I have no pleasure concerning you, says the Lord, and I will not have an accepted offering from your hands. Because from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place odours of incense are offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice, because great is my name among the nations, says the Lord.’ [Malachi 1:10-11]” (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Testimonies Against the Jews, Book I, chapter 16)
It is notable here that Cyprian identifies praise as the “sacrifice of righteousness” (Psalms 4:5), the incense that is offered in Malachi 1:11, which is a “sacrifice of praise.” Old Testament sacrifices are over, and they have been replaced by a new one. This is the “pure sacrifice” and the “incense” of Malachi 1:11. It is to this that Cyprian seems to refer when he says elsewhere, “And I indeed, remembering you day and night, both when in the sacrifices I offer prayer with many” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 15, paragraph 1). And again in Epistle 57,
“[W]e express the faithful inclination of our love here also in our sacrifices and our prayers, not ceasing to give thanks to God the Father, and to Christ His Son our Lord; and as well to pray as to entreat, that He who is perfect, and makes perfect, will keep and perfect in you the glorious crown of your confession.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 57 , paragraph 4)
In his 63rd epistle, he instructs that lapsed presbyters who have participated in pagan sacrifices cannot, for obvious reasons, soon return to their former ministrations of “offering prayers” with a pure conscience:
“[H]ow does he think that his hand can be transferred to the sacrifice of God and the prayer of the Lord which has been captive to sacrilege and to crime, when in the sacred Scriptures God forbids the priests to approach to sacrifice even if they have been in lighter guilt …? … Those, therefore, who have brought grievous sins upon themselves, that is, who, by sacrificing to idols, have offered sacrilegious sacrifices, cannot claim to themselves the priesthood of God, nor make any prayer for their brethren in His sight.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 63 , paragraph 2)
Again in Epistle 67, the emphasis in the sacrifices is the that the priest may be “heard in the prayers which they make”:
“Having which things before our eyes, and solicitously and religiously considering them, we ought in the ordinations of priests to choose none but unstained and upright ministers, who, holily and worthily offering sacrifices to God, may be heard in the prayers which they make for the safety of the Lord’s people, since it is written, “God hears not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does His will, him He hears.” [John 9:31] On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God’s priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 67, paragraph 2)
Again in Epistle 68, the emphasis in the sacrifices appears to be on prayers from a pure conscience, offered to God “to whom with pure and unstained lips I ceaselessly offer sacrifices, not only in peace, but in persecution” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 68, paragraph 9). Cyprian’s interpretation of Malachi 1:11 is that the “incense” and “sacrifice” of the New Covenant is a “sacrifice of praise” in which “prayers” are offered to God from a pure conscience. He makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper in the context Malachi’s prophecy.
Nevertheless, Roman Catholics rely largely on Cyprian’s Epistle 62, To Cæcilius, on the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord, to make their case that he saw the Mass Sacrifice as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Here is the citation that Catholic Answers uses from Epistle 62 to show that Cyprian taught the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass:
“If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ” (Letters 62:14 [A.D. 253]). (Catholic Answers, The Sacrifice of the Mass)
The context of Epistle 62 is that Cyprian has heard that some Christians—in order to avoid detection in a time of persecution–were using water instead of wine in the Lord’s Supper. In paragraph 15, he wrote,
“But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; … Therefore thus the brotherhood is beginning even to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions, by learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His blood-shedding.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 15)
As Schaff notes here, some surviving texts of the Epistle read, “lest in the morning hours, through the flavour of the wine, its smell should be recognised by its fragrant odour by the perception of unbelievers, and he should be known to be a Christian.” In either reading, the gist of his objection is that Christians were using water so that the wine on their lips might not betray them to the Roman persecutors.
To Cyprian, this practice was the equivalent of being ashamed of Christ before men. “But how can we shed our blood for Christ, who blush to drink the blood of Christ?” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 15). To counter this practice, he admonishes Cæcilius that if we wish to commemorate Christ’s passion with integrity, we should commemorate His passion in the way He instituted it—with wine, not water:
“Wherefore, if we wish to walk in the light of Christ, let us not depart from His precepts and monitions, giving thanks that, while He instructs for the future what we ought to do, He pardons for the past wherein we in our simplicity have erred. … Therefore it befits our religion … to keep the truth of the Lord’s tradition, and on the warning of the Lord, to correct that which seems to be erroneous; … that we keep what He admonished us; that we observe what He taught; that we do what He did.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 18-19)
That this is his constant theme throughout the letter can be easily demonstrated. His burden was to get people back to using wine instead of water at the Lord’s Supper, even if it put them at risk of martyrdom:
- We must adhere to “that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did,” what He “did and taught” (paragraph 1).
- “[I]n offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed” (paragraph 2).
- ” ‘Wherefore are Your garments red, and Your apparel as from the treading of the wine-press full and well trodden?’ [Isaiah 63:2] Can water make garments red? Or is it water in the wine-press which is trodden by the feet, or pressed out by the press?” (paragraph 7).
- “As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and of His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did. … that … there be no departure from what Christ both taught and did” (paragraph 17).
- It is an error “not to do the same that the Lord did” (paragraph 18).
- “[T]hat we observe what He taught; that we do what He did” (paragraph 19).
In sum, Jesus used wine, and so must we. Our readers are encouraged to read the entire epistle to get this general theme from Cyprian himself. It is only 19 paragraphs and can be read in just a few minutes. When read in the context of adhering to the form and manner of what Christ instituted, the citation that Catholic Answers uses to justify the Sacrifice of the Mass takes on quite a different meaning. Cyprian was not writing to insist that bishops serve “in the person of Christ” to offer His passion to the Father, but rather that if we are going to do as Christ commanded and “imitate what Christ did,” then commemorating His Passion in the way Jesus taught us is our only option:
“For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered. But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed;” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraphs 14-15)
In this context, the emphasis of Cyprian’s Epistle 62 shifts from preaching that the Mass must be sacrificed to God for our sins, to preaching that we must celebrate the Lord’s Supper the way Jesus instituted it. What Jesus used at the Lord’s Supper was wine, and therefore it is wrong to attempt to commemorate Christ’s Passion using water.
We agree that Cyprian used sacrificial terms to make his point, but the reference to the offering of Christ’s Passion appears to be a polemical one rather than a theological one, i.e., potential martyrs are being “kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions” because they have not properly offered the passion of Christ (wine) in the Lord’s Supper. As we noted in the introduction to this article, Cyprian explicitly states that “the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer” (Epistle 62, paragraphs 17) and that in the Lord’s Supper, the priest “offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father” (Epistle 62, paragraphs 14). If context and hermeneutics did not matter, these alone could settle the matter for Roman Catholics, and we could fold up our tent and move on to the next Church Father. But context and hermeneutics matter.
Cyprian, as we shall demonstrate, does not use the term “sacrifice” the way Rome does, and when we examine Cyprian’s use of the term, his view of the Lord’s Supper is not seen as Rome’s Mass Sacrifice, but rather a commemoration in which the bread and wine are used for the sole purpose of stimulating our memories of the Passion of Christ.
To demonstrate this, we will show from Cyprian himself, that he believed the following:
- that the Lord’s Supper was a “sacrifice,” but that he used the term “sacrifice” to mean “commemoration of a sacrifice,” not a propitiatory sacrifice as Rome does.
- that we should “offer” at the Lord’s Supper what Jesus “offered” at the Last Supper, and what Jesus “offered” was not His body and blood, as Rome teaches.
- that the elements of the Lord’s Supper served only as sensible figures that simulate our memories by what they signify, which Rome denies.
We believe that because he was but a novice when he was unlawfully made a metropolitan bishop, Cyprian ended up manifesting the very error to which Pontius thought he was immune: “The stupor of heathenism that yet clung to his unconfirmed mind.” Cyprian was raised as a pagan, and because of this, he did not understand the need to differentiate between sacrifices of his youth, and the commemoration of a sacrifice, as practiced in the Church. They were all sacrifices to him. Yet as we analyze him in “the stupor” of his “unconfirmed mind,” a little hermeneutics will go a long way and we will find that even in his careless use of language he managed to differentiate between the Lord’s Supper and Malachi’s oblation of the New Covenant.
By “sacrifice,” Cyprian meant “commemoration”
As we noted in a sidebar last week, the Early Church recognized that providing for the poor was a sweet-smelling incense, a “sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God” in accordance with Philippians 4:16-18. Cyprian understood this in the same way, and when charitable gifts were sent to those in captivity, the recipients were instructed to “remember” the labors of those who had sent the gifts, and “present them in your sacrifices and prayers”:
“But that you may have in mind in your prayers our brethren and sisters who have laboured so promptly and liberally for this needful work, that they may always labour; and that in return for their good work you may present them in your sacrifices and prayers, I have subjoined the names of each one; and moreover also I have added the names of my colleagues and fellow priests, who themselves also, as they were present, contributed some little according to their power, in their own names and the name of their people. And besides our own amount, I have intimated and sent their small sums, all of whom, in conformity with the claims of faith and charity, you ought to remember in your supplications and prayers.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 59, paragraph 4)
In this case, the efforts of those who “laboured so promptly” to provide for their needs are to be presented “in your sacrifices and prayers,” and “remember[ed] in your supplications and prayers.” Here Cyprian shows that by “presenting” the labour of the people who had “sacrificed” for their needs, they were in fact “remembering” their sacrifice, not actually “sacrificing” them.
Let us now turn to Cyprian’s view of martyrs. To no one’s surprise, Cyprian believed that the martyrs were secure in heaven. He believed that martyrs went from passion directly to glory: “Oh blessed prison, which sends the men of God to heaven!” (Epistle 80, paragraph 1). He believed that martyrs were already crowned in glory (Epistle 8, paragraph 1). He believed that “The scourge … could not conquer invincible faith,” and the blood that flowed from the martyrs could “subdue the flames of Gehenna” itself” (Epistle 8, paragraph 1). He believed that hell had no power over the martyrs: “Against His confessors and Martyrs the heat of hell could have no power” (Epistle 80, paragraph 3). He believed that the death of the martyrs was immediately consummated in immortality: “Precious is the death which has bought immortality at the cost of its blood, which has received the consummation of its virtues.” (Epistle 8, paragraph 1). He believed that to become a martyr is to “become of noble rank in the celestial heraldry!” (Epistle 33, paragraph 3) Martyrs, in Cyprian’s estimation, were immediately welcomed to glory, and are secure from the judgment of God:
“What now must be the vigour, beloved brethren, of your victorious consciousness, what the loftiness of your mind, what exultation in feeling, what triumph in your breast, that every one of you stands near to the promised reward of God, are secure from the judgment of God, walk in the mines with a body captive indeed, but with a heart reigning, that you know Christ is present with you, rejoicing in the endurance of His servants, who are ascending by His footsteps and in His paths to the eternal kingdoms!” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 76, paragraph 7)
That Cyprian believed martyrs were in glory, crowned in heaven, safe from the punishments of hell and secure from the judgment of God should not surprise anyone. Nor does it surprise us. Roman Catholicism, too, believes that martyrs are fully justified in their martyrdom. Dr. Ludwig Ott explains in The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is an insult to pray for a martyr, for he is already safe in glory:
[Martyrdom] confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: ‘It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers’ (Sermo 159 I.)”
What is surprising is not that Cyprian believed martyrs were in heaven. What is surprising is that Cyprian continued offering sacrifices for them annually. As we shall see, however, he offered sacrifices for them, not to propitiate sins but to commemorate the day that they offered their bodies as living sacrifices in accordance with Romans 12:1:
“Laurentius and Egnatius, who themselves also were once warring in the camps of the world, but were true and spiritual soldiers of God, casting down the devil by the confession of Christ, merited palms and crowns from the Lord by their illustrious passion. We always offer sacrifices for them, as you remember, as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs in the annual commemoration.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 33, paragraph 3)
Again in another epistle, Cyprian notes that oblations and sacrifices are “offered” for martyrs on the “days on which they depart”:
“Finally, also, take note of their days on which they depart, that we may celebrate their commemoration among the memorials of the martyrs, although Tertullus, our most faithful and devoted brother, who, in addition to the other solicitude and care which he shows to the brethren in all service of labour, is not wanting besides in that respect in any care of their bodies, has written, and does write and intimate to me the days, in which our blessed brethren in prison pass by the gate of a glorious death to their immortality; and there are celebrated here by us oblations and sacrifices for their commemorations, which things, with the Lord’s protection, we shall soon celebrate with you.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 36, paragraph 2)
If Cyprian believed martyrs to be safe in heaven and secure from God’s judgment, why does he continue to “offer sacrifices for them” on the day of their departing? The answer is simply that Cyprian understood “sacrifice” to mean a “commemoration” and a “memorial” of a sacrifice, nothing more. It certainly had no propitiatory value—what martyr could possibly need more propitiation? Apart from remembering them, there was no other need to “offer sacrifices” for the martyrs.
Further, Cyprian believed that by commemorating the martyrs, he was stimulating the faith of the living by reminding them of the great example of those who had gone before. Consider for example, the illustrious cases of the female martyrs. Cyprian thought they were a great example to other women:
“Blessed women also, who are established with you in the same glory of confession, who, maintaining the Lord’s faith, and braver than their sex, not only themselves are near to the crown of glory, but have afforded an example to other women by their constancy!” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 80, paragraph 3)
What therefore should we do in the case of such an illustrious example? Cyprian provides the answer: we should “offer sacrifices” in their memory, so that the departed heroes may be “offered up” by way of encouragement and instruction to the living:
“But I and my colleagues, and all the brotherhood, send this letter to you in the stead of us, dearest brother; and setting forth to you by our letter our joy, we express the faithful inclination of our love here also in our sacrifices and our prayers, not ceasing to give thanks to God the Father, and to Christ His Son our Lord; and as well to pray as to entreat, that He who is perfect, and makes perfect, will keep and perfect in you the glorious crown of your confession, who perchance has called you back for this purpose, that your glory should not be hidden, if the martyrdom of your confession should be consummated away from home. For the victim which affords an example to the brotherhood both of courage and of faith, ought to be offered up when the brethren are present.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 57, paragraph 4)
If martyrs are secure in heaven and safe from God’s judgment, yet Cyprian “offers sacrifices” for them to commemorate their passion in the “annual commemoration,” and “offered up” their suffering as examples and as encouragement to the flock, there is simply no justification for taking Cyprian in any other way when he speaks in precisely the same terms of Christ and His passion. When gifts are sent to those in prison, those gifts are a “sacrifice of praise,” and the people who sent them are “presented” in the sacrifices that their labor may be remembered. When martyrs are killed, their passion is “offered up” annually on the date of their death as a way of remembering their courage and faith. Just so, in the case of Jesus’ passion, it is “offered up” in the Lord’s Supper—which is to say that it is celebrated as a commemoration, not as a propitiatory sacrifice. When we understand that Cyprian used the term “sacrifice” to mean “commemoration,” his claim that “we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices” is made clear—for he used the same language to “remember” those who had sent gifts, and to “remember” those who had died for their faith. And, returning now to the matter of offering water instead of wine at the Lord’s Supper, it is because we remember Christ’s passion that wine must be used. Otherwise we are not “commemorating” Him:
“For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 14)
“And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For Scripture says, ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lord’s death till He come.’ [1 Corinthians 11:26] As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and of His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 17)
As evidenced by his own writings, Cyprian understood “sacrifice” to mean “commemoration,” so when he says, “the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer,” it is plain that he means, “it is the Lord’s Passion that we commemorate.” And when he says, “and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered,” his meaning is clear: we do not truly commemorate the Lord’s death when we use water instead of wine at the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus did not offer His Passion to His Father until Calvary
When we say that Cyprian “offered up the Lord’s Passion” in the same way that he “offered up the passion” of the martyrs, and “presented the labours” of those who had sent gifts—which is to say that he merely commemorated it—the Roman Catholic might well argue that if Cyprian said that we offer up the Lord’s Passion in the Lord’s Supper, then that is simply what Cyprian meant. Having found what he wanted to find in Cyprian, the Roman Catholic might well conclude his analysis and move on. But as we addressed in our series on baptismal regeneration in the early church, if Roman Catholics were to take that same approach with Cyprian on baptism, they would have two sacraments of regeneration instead of one. But Cyprian is not so easily understood, and even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia warns against taking his statements on their face. He was, after all, but a child:
“We have always to remember that his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted, and that he had no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian. He evidently knew no Greek, and probably was not acquainted with the translation of Irenaeus.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage)
Cyprian is a bit of a problem to Rome.
But within his writings we can see evidence that he knew that Christ was not offering His Passion to His Father at the Last Supper. Cyprian makes this clear when he says that neither we, nor the apostles, could possibly drink the blood of Christ until after the crucifixion. Here again in Epistle 62, Cyprian makes the case that we must use wine instead of water, and the grapes that are used to make the wine tell us something important about the sacrament: just as we cannot drink wine until after the grapes are trampled upon and pressed down, just so, we cannot drink Christ’s blood until after He Himself had been trampled upon and pressed down, and until after He had Himself drunk from the cup which His Father would give Him to drink:
“Assuredly, therefore, mention is made of wine, that the Lord’s blood may be understood, and that which was afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord might be foretold by the prophets who announced it. The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7)
Jesus, of course, was not “trampled upon and pressed” until the afternoon following the Supper. If we cannot drink of Christ’s blood until after He has been trampled upon and pressed down, then neither could the apostles. And if we could not drink the cup unless Christ “had first drunk the cup” (and Christ did not drink the cup until Calvary (Matthew 20:22-23, Mark 10:38-39, Matthew 26:39-42)) then neither could the apostles. And if the apostles did not drink of Christ’s blood until after the crucifixion, then Christ did not offer His blood in Last Supper. And if we are to “offer” what Christ Himself “offered,” then in Cyprian, Christ “offered” bread and wine as symbols, and therefore so should we.
Thus when Cyprian relates that Jesus gave the cup to his apostles “on the eve of His Passion” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 9)—before He had been trampled upon and pressed down—Cyprian is acknowledging that the blood that they must drink would not be given to them until the cross. Cyprian confirms this view in his Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer in which he speaks of washing away our sins with his blood on Friday at Calvary, not on Thursday in Jerusalem:
“And from the sixth hour to the ninth, the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins by His blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then accomplished His victory by His passion.” (Treatise IV, on the Lord’s Prayer, paragraph 34)
When we contrast this with the Roman Catholic view that Christ took away our sins on Thursday at the Last Supper, we see that Cyprian does not agree with Rome at all. Listen to what Rome teaches about Christ’s sacrifice for our sins:
“ON HOLY THURSDAY Christ brought the Old Law to an end, He TOOK AWAY SIN” (Maurice De La Taille, S. J., The Mystery of Faith, Regarding The Most August Sacrament And Sacrifice Of The Body And Blood Of Christ, chapter 3, emphasis in original)
Cyprian did not believe that our sins were taken away on Thursday at the Supper. He believed they were taken away on Friday at the Cross. Just so, he knew that Christ’s blood could neither be offered to His Father, nor to His disciples, until He could offer His actual blood at the cross. All he had done on Thursday was to institute a memorial of his death. Therefore, as we shall see momentarily, Cyprian knew that what Jesus “offered” at the Lord’s Supper, was merely symbolic of what He was about to do.
The elements of the Lord’s Supper were not “transubstantiated”
Roman Catholic apologists make much of Cyprian’s language that we offer “the Lord’s passion” in the Lord’s Supper, but such a reading must turn a blind eye to Cyprian’s writing style. As we shall see, when Cyprian refers to “the cup of the blood” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 6), his writing style must be taken into account as well. If, as we have shown above, Cyprian said that Jesus offered the cup of His blood to the apostles on Thursday evening, but that they could not drink of His blood until after He had been trampled down and pressed, the reasonable meaning of Cyprian is that he understood the bread and wine to be symbolic of Christ’s actual death. He did not believe they were really His body and blood.
We can see this in the way Cyprian so freely appropriated the language of symbolism when discussing the Lord’s Supper and Calvary. He renders Jeremiah 11:19 (i.e., “Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof”) as “Come, let us cast the tree into His bread” (see the Septuagint here) to have it prophesy how “the Jews would fasten Christ [bread] to the Cross” (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Book 2, chapters 15 and 20). Significantly, as the Catholic Encyclopedia noted for us above, Cyprian may have had “no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian,” and Tertullian took this same passage to have bread to represent Jesus’ body figuratively:
“This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, ‘Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,”‘ [Jeremiah 11:19] that is, His body. For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. ” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, chapter 19)
Likewise, when Cyprian is discussing the Last Supper, when Jesus utters the words, “This is My body,” and “This is My blood,” Cyprian freely acknowledges the symbolism of the language:
“Besides even the Lord’s sacrifices themselves declare that Christian unanimity is linked together with itself by a firm and inseparable charity, For when the Lord calls bread, which is combined by the union of many grains, His body, He indicates our people whom He bore as being united; and when He calls the wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and collected together, His blood, He also signifies our flock linked together by the mingling of a united multitude.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75, paragraph 6)
Here Cyprian takes “This is My body” and “This is My blood” to signify something figuratively, it is evidence that he recognized Jesus’ language as symbolic and figurative at exactly the moment that Rome needs it to be literal. Quite telling indeed that when Christ Himself utters the words of consecration, Cyprian himself understood Him figuratively! When such men as Tertullian and Cyprian freely have Jesus figuratively turning His body into bread, or figuratively turning bread and wine into “our people” and “our flock,” it is a sure indication that they also took Him to turn bread into His body the same way: figuratively.
To that end, let us return again to Epistle 62 to see how Cyprian saw the elements of the Lord’s supper. Note how consistently he explains that bread and wine are figures for Christ’s passion that “appear” to be His body and blood, that the bread and wine might “show forth,” “express” and be “redolent” (strongly reminiscent or suggestive) of what they signify. Even what Jesus called “His blood,” was in fact “that wine”:
“neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth.” (paragraph 2)
“Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord.” (paragraph 3)
“Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon … declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted.” (paragraph 5)
“In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood” (paragraph 9)
“Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup” (paragraph 9)
“water by itself cannot express the blood of Christ.” (paragraph 11)
“in the wine is showed the blood of Christ” (paragraph 13)
“the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one,” (paragraph 13)
“…lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Paragraph 15)
To Cyprian, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper were figures and symbols intended to “appear” to be, and to “express,” and “to show” and be “redolent” of the Lord’s Passion.
We conclude this section on Cyprian first by reminding our readers that when Cyprian cited Malachi 1:11 on the “incense” and “pure offering” of the New Covenant, he quite remarkably omitted any reference to the Lord’s Supper, but instead insisted that Malachi 1:11 was referring to a “sacrifice of praise.” Second, we note two other occasions in which Cyprian described other “sacrifices” that were superior to the “sacrifice” of the Lord’s Supper—to wit, our prayers with a pure conscience, and the prayers of the martyrs.
In Treatise IV on the Lord’s Prayer, Cyprian wrote that “the greater sacrifice” is the prayer of someone who comes before Him with a pure conscience:
“For God commands us to be peacemakers, and in agreement, and of one mind in His house; and such as He makes us by a second birth, such He wishes us when new-born to continue, that we who have begun to be sons of God may abide in God’s peace, and that, having one spirit, we should also have one heart and one mind. Thus God does not receive the sacrifice of a person who is in disagreement, but commands him to go back from the altar and first be reconciled to his brother, that so God also may be appeased by the prayers of a peace-maker. Our peace and brotherly agreement is the greater sacrifice to God—and a people united in one in the unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Treatise IV, on the Lord’s Prayer, paragraph 23)
Then in Epistle 76, written to the those who were condemned to die for their faith, Cyprian reminded them that even compared to “celebrating the divine sacrifices,” it was their “broken spirit,” their “contrite heart” and their “bodies a living sacrifice,” which “especially pleases God”:
“But there cannot be felt any loss of either religion or faith, most beloved brethren, in the fact that now there is given no opportunity there to God’s priests for offering and celebrating the divine sacrifices; yea, you celebrate and offer a sacrifice to God equally precious and glorious, and that will greatly profit you for the retribution of heavenly rewards, since the sacred Scripture speaks, saying, ‘The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise.’ You offer this sacrifice to God; you celebrate this sacrifice without intermission day and night, being made victims to God, and exhibiting yourselves as holy and unspotted offerings, as the apostle exhorts and says, ‘I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. And be not conformed to this world; but be you transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.’ [Romans 12:1-2] For this it is which especially pleases God” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 76, paragraphs 3-4)
If Cyprian believed that the Lord’s Supper was truly a sacrifice of Christ’s Passion, he certainly undermines his case by saying that prayer from a pure conscience is “the greater sacrifice” and the “living sacrifices” of the martyrs were “especially pleasing to God” vis-à-vis the “divine sacrifices.” However, if he believed that the “sacrifice of praise” was the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11—as he plainly taught—then these words are consistent with his writings.
Cyprian, as we have noted above, was but a child and had not yet learned to distinguish between a “sacrifice” as he understood the term from his pagan youth, and a “commemoration of a sacrifice” as he learned it from the Scriptures. We agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia that he must be read with the understanding that “his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted.”
Nevertheless, a diligent analysis of his expansive works reveals a great deal about him. What do we know from his works? Despite the overtly sacrificial tones he used to described the Lord’s Supper, he nonetheless failed to mention the Lord’s Supper when explaining the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. When he did describe the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, he used the same sacrificial terms as he did for annual commemoration of the martyrs, or in remembrance those who provided for the needs of the poor. When describing what Jesus “offered” at the Last Supper, his focus is not on repeating Jesus’ sacrifice but on using wine, as Jesus did, rather than water. When describing the elements of the Lord’s Supper, he acknowledged that Christ could not offer blood to his followers until after the Cross, and therefore what was “offered” at the Lord’s Supper was not actually His blood. He used highly figurative language to explain that the bread and wine “show forth,” “express the figure,” “appear” to be and are “redolent” of what they signify. When discussing the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper, Cyprian insisted that Jesus took away our sins on Friday at the Cross, not on Thursday at the Lord’s Supper. But when he discussed prayer, he used superlative language to describe the sacrifice prayer from a pure conscience (i.e., “the greater sacrifice” and “this it is which especially pleases God.”)
As the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, Tertullian was Hippolytus’ most significant extra-Scriptural influence, and it was Tertullian who insisted that “simple prayer from a pure conscience” was the true sacrifice of the New Covenant, the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. This was Origen’s conclusion as well. Cyprian certainly took the episcopate too soon, and in his haste failed to leave behind the sacrificial overtones of his pagan roots. Nevertheless, once his words are examined more closely, we see that he is not the great supporter of Rome’s Mass Sacrifice as Rome makes him out to be.
We will continue the series next week with Lactantius and the Council of Nicæa.
Tim, you wrote:
“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.”
It is an interesting argument that the Jesuit (according to Jim I guess…and I assume he has taken the Jesuit oath) Scott Hahn makes regarding his claim that the Apostles and Early Church Fathers did not have the Scriptures until the Pope ordered them compiled in 380AD and they were completed and approved by Rome in 382AD….or was it 378AD and 380AD?
I found this online entitled “The Papacy In History And Propehcy”:
“AD 378 The emperors Gratian and Valentinian II empowered the metropolitans to judge the inferior clergy and the bishop of Rome to judge the metropolitans of the Western Empire.
AD 380 Catholicism was introduced as the religion of the Roman world by edict of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I.
End of 4th century Rome introduced images into churches. The bones of martyrs were also hawked about as relics, the tombs of saints became the resort of pilgrims, whilst monks and hermits infested the country. Pagan festivals, slightly disguised, were adopted into Christian worship and the homage offered anciently to the gods was transferred to martyrs. The smoke of incense and the blaze of tapers filled the churches and the clergy appeared in gorgeous robes, crosiers, mitres and jewels.”
If Scott Hahn claims that the bible did not exist until 380AD (or 382AD) and therefore the Apostles and Early Church Fathers could not have quoted the Scriptures like you are doing above because they did not exist, how can you prove that the Early Church did not understand the Eucharist and the Mass as he claims…since no Scriptures exist.
His claim on these dates must link to Jerome and his 380AD Latin Vulgate. “A Latin translation of both Old and New Testaments was produced in 380 AD by Jerome and was known as the “Vulgate” Bible. This became the standard Bible for the Roman Catholic Church.”
However, if the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers only read the Latin Vulgate AFTER Jerome completed it, then how did the Apostles and Fathers base their opinion on Scripture that you reference above IF THEY DID NOT HAVE THE SCRIPTURES UNTIL JEROME and ROME APPROVED THEM?
Please answer this question if you have time as Scott Hahn is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, and obviously you cannot quote Scripture as you have done above knowing that the Bible did not exist until 380AD with Jerome.
Is it possible that the Apostles and Early church had oral testimony and epistles in Greek BEFORE Rome approved the Bible with Jerome? This would really conflict with Scott Hahn’s entire thesis about what the Early Church Fathers could know about Scripture if they actually say the Epistles rather than having to wait for Jerome and Rome to approve the Bible.
Walt,
“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,”
Before Catholicism came on the scene? Do you mean before Pentecost Sunday?
You know Walt, I have often wondered why Tim didn’t take his wacky 350 A.D. theory over to Nick when Nick was talking about the prophecy of Daniel 2.
You know, Nick’s theory kinda agrees with Tim. Yeah, he says that it was later in the 4th century that Christianity ( Catholicism ) really kicked off according to the prophecy.
Jim, you wondered,
You needn’t wonder much longer.
Tim
Tim, Hahn says the bible didnt exist until 380. Yet there are over 600 references in Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, turtullian from 1 Corinthians. I hva been looking, and I dont seem to see a Reformed retort to Hahn’s book. Have you considered doing an article? Also its my understanding that John compliled all the books of the NT by 90 AD? Is this your understanding? Thanks k
Tim, you quoted CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200 – 258 A.D.):
“The apostle’s epistle says [1 Timothy 3:6] that novices should be passed over, lest by the stupor of heathenism that yet clings to their unconfirmed minds, their untaught inexperience should in any respect sin against God. He first, and I think he alone, furnished an illustration that greater progress is made by faith than by time.” (Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, chapter 3)
I’m really confused now. How could Cyprian quote 1Tim.3:6 when the Bible was not even written yet by Jerome and approved by the Catholic Church?
Scott Hahn says that it is almost laughable for Protestants to use bible references with the Early Church Fathers and the Apostles because nobody had the bible until 380AD to quote.
Everything prior to 380AD was sacred tradition and the definition of the Mass and the Eucharist was clearly established by “ALL” the Church Fathers. Hmmm.
This all must be a Protestant conspiracy to take away the Sacred Tradition Rome and Scott Hahn has outlined for the first 380 years until Jerome’s Bible was finished. Sounds really scary to me as I start to think about these Scholars who are quoting the Bible to prove what is defined in the first, second, third and fourth (301-400AD) centuries.
Here was my quote last week after watching his TV program on EWTN where the brilliant Scott Hahn argues:
“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.”
Again, this is fascinating. These Early Church Fathers and Apostles could not have quoted any Bible because the manuscripts were not compiled until Jerome 380 and approved by the infallible (his words not mine) Roman Bishops in 382.
Now we know Jim, CK, Bob, etc. all support blindly Scott Hahn’s outrageous claims that until the Bible was approved until 382AD and these poor saps in the Early Church were NEVER going to interpret Scripture with Scripture as it did not exist, and so without the Bible, EVERYONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT AND UNITED (according to Hahn) that the Word was not the bible, but it was the Eucharist…as they never had the written word.
Jim, did you know Hahn wrote an autobography at 35. Now thats some ego huh? Since his only accomplishment was leaving Christianity for thecSynagogg. K
As I said last week:
“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 entire thesis these guys are making is that all your quoting of Scripture Tim is deceptive because none of the Apostles or Early Church Fathers had the Bible until 382AD.
Please tell me why you are quoting Scripture to argue what the Early Church Fathers meant when they never even had the Bible until 382AD!
For the first 4 centuries ALL the Early Church Fathers were in total unity that the Eucharist was called and meant the New Testament and the Word of God.
Please Tim, why did you quote these verses?
“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)
They never existed until 382AD as we are told by Scott Hahn and Mike Aquillina, Jim, Bob, CK, etc. etc. etc.
How can 1 billion Catholics be wrong, and your claims that the Early Church Fathers and Apostles had access to the written word of God during the first 400 years before Jerome’s Bible?
It finally just hit me. When Jim wanted to know if I thought Scott Hahn was a Jesuit in his typical stupid comments, my initial response was now, “he is ignorant”. I listened to his video twice, and watched his TV program on the Eucharist being the New Testament, and this claim that ALL the Early Church Fathers and Apostles were united in this view because they had no written Bible until 380 and 382AD….and thought…this guy is ignorant.
With Jim’s question about him being a Jesuit, and then pondering upon his video I watched twice last Sunday, I don’t know what to think about Hahn. His claims are so out of touch with reality, and so focused on all this Papal Bishop infallibility that it is really worrisome. I cannot say how much I’m glad he rejected Protestantism and especially left the Presbyterian ministry for Rome. Guys with this much mental instability really need to be teaching Romish doctrines for sure, and helping really to develop them.
When I was a boy I never was taught that the Eucharist is the New Testament and the Word of God. I had no idea of this doctrine ALL taught by the Early Church Fathers. It was a shock to me last week, and is an even greater shock to me this week thinking about it the past week. It seems he is insane like Jim, Bob and CK in many of their views, but I don’t know. Maybe it is Satanism that has possessed him.
When you watch his video he definitely says he is somewhat obsessed in talking and talking without stopping (as his students will admit), but maybe it is a Satanic possession of his mind and body?
In regard to the Pope, I saw on Bloomberg TV yesterday a news headline that said something like, “Millions are gathers for the rock star Pope who has arrived to the Philippines.”
Look at Scott Hahn website and listen to him talk and quote the Pope’s. As a young boy I was so infatuated with the Pope, and yet I was so blind and stupid. Today billions worship him, Mary, the Eucharist, statutes, relics, images, miracles, etc. etc. etc. The whole Catholic religion has gone insane. Just watch the “hopeful” Jesuit adherent Scott Hahn.
Jim and Bob, if you have not sworn Scott into the ranks, please get that done ASAP. You are going to want him out there on the front lines at Stupidville University (aka Steubenville University) where he is a Professor.
Tim wrote:
“As we noted in a sidebar last week, the Early Church recognized that providing for the poor was a sweet-smelling incense, a “sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God” in accordance with Philippians 4:16-18.”
This is not possible unfortunately. The Early Church did not have the Bible until 380/382AD so they could not have possibly understood the meaning to be in accordance with Phil.4:16-18.
Rather, they understood it according to ONLY Scott Hahn’s interpretation of sacred tradition and his historical research.
Tim wrote:
“As we shall see, however, he offered sacrifices for them, not to propitiate sins but to commemorate the day that they offered their bodies as living sacrifices in accordance with Romans 12:1:”
Again, impossible. The Bible did not exist until 380/382AD according to Scott Hahn. The Eucharist means the New Testament and the Word of God. Get it straight.
Walt,
Scott says the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the New testament and the NT Books are called the “New Testament” as shorthand for “the books that were read at the New Testament sacrifice”.
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
Scott says the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the New testament and the NT Books are called the “New Testament” as shorthand for “the books that were read at the New Testament sacrifice”.”
Thanks Jim. I know he says that the Eucharist is the New Testament in 2012. It seems (and I will be watching his program today at 5:30pm to get second part of his series on his new book) in 2013-14 that he also claims that the Eucharist is the Word of God. Which I guess makes sense if he believes the Eucharist is the New Testament, and the New Testament is the Word of God (in terms of the books) then obviously in his view the Eucharist is the New Testament, is the Word and is Christ in the flesh. Yes?
He claims that all the early church fathers taught this view for the first 4 centuries until the Bible was completed by Jerome, and actually completed the 27 books of the New Testament under infallible Bishop authority. Do you know if this also is the orthodox Roman Catholic teaching?
He claims much of this came from the writings of your last Pope Ratzinger. Do you know if this is true?
My final comment.
It is interesting that my original concern was that I wanted to know where the Greek New Testament manuscripts went in the early church…vs. where Jerome took them toward Rome.
Now, it all makes sense to me much more clearly. Scott Hahn has brought me the light on the Romish position. Until the bible was completed in 380/382AD by Jerome with the infallible Bishops approval, the Early Church had nothing in writing called “the Bible” to base their views upon.
Therefore, using the Bible to reference what the Early Church was teaching is worthless…it did not exist in the first 382 years.
The only way to interpret the Early Church fathers is ONLY by sacred tradition as defined by Rome and Scott Hahn. Like he claims, this last book is really one of his best and most helpful for Protestants and Roman Catholics to see the light together.
Scott Hahn is the true Romish prophet of our generation, and likely hundreds of his students will testify, he is the only person who knows that ALL the Early Church Fathers were united in their teaching (before the bible came out in 380/282) that the Eucharist meant the New Testament and the Word of God.
Sacred Tradition from 1AD until 380/382AD was the only true teaching as proven by Hahn and Rome. This is their glory years. This is their chance to prove to the world what the Apostles taught and the Early Church taught.
Forget the Greek manuscripts and where they went. In fact, Hahn goes on to talk about how much error existed in the gospel record until the Vatican manuscripts.
It now makes sense to absolutely reject any of the Greek manuscripts in the time of the Apostles and the first 382 years of the Early Church. This is the time for sacred tradition, and oral tradition as defined by Rome and Hahn.
Watch these videos to understand his views (notice how he quotes Scriptures to define what he means the Apostles knew…even though in 2014 he rejects the Bible existed before 380AD):
“Scott Hahn- Where is the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Bible? October 15, 2011: Paschal Sacrifice- A Heavenly Banquet for Earthly Beggars” – 11 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ3goNXz8Jg
Tim, you might like the opening to the video as he claims all this is based upon the early church fathers teaching, and Pope Joseph Ratzinger.
and then this one:
“Dr. Scott Hahn: “The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass” The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass” at the July 27, 2012 Defending the Faith Conference here on campus in Steubenville, Ohio. – 24 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uL_IAJWvX0
(See 4:20+ and his explanation that according to the old testament [this is an error in my opinion] and Jewish belief [this is possible] that the Roman killing of Christ was merely a body execution…nothing more…not a sacrifice as it was outside the temple and all sacrifices took place in the temple).
Tim, he goes on to argue that [all] the Early Church Fathers teach him in his extensive study of them that they ask the question how a Roman bloody execution gets interpreted into a Sacrifice. Do you see this question with all your reading of the Fathers? From Hahn, this is the main thesis of the Fathers. See 10:40 in the video where he lists the key Father that gave him this question, then he says all church fathers in first, second, third and fourth centuries agreed.
(See 9:15+ as he asks the question…”if the Eucharist instituted by Christ on holy Thursday was just a meal, then his death on good Friday was just a roman execution. But if on the other hand and ONLY IF Jesus institution of the holy Eucharist was nothing less than the sacrifice of the new covenant passover then what was instituted on Thursday is precisely what is consummated on Friday. He did not loose his life on Friday if he already freely gave it to us by instituting the Eucharist as the passover of the new covenant on holy Thursday.”)
(See 15:56+ to see where he says in the first century each Sunday that the resurrected Lord comes to us in the Eucharist, and in the mass most perfectly done on earth as in heaven.)
(See in 19:00+ that the blood is the cup of the new testament that he says clearly that the New Testament is the Eucharist at 20:18 and that many in the room never contributed any books to the 27 New Testament books written, so the New Testament cannot mean the Scriptures…arguing Christ says “do this” in remembrance of me, not “write this”.)
Conclusion by Hahn: The new testament was a sacrament long before it ever became a document…according to the document. (everyone is laughing!) He gives credit now to Professor Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope that taught him, just like the Fathers did, this teaching.
(See 22:03 where he conflicts with his other statements in 2014 arguing the Bible did not exist until 380/382. He says the Apostles preached the gospel before the New Testament books were started for at least 10, 15 or maybe 20 years later after Christ death and they were not really completed to the end of the first century [this I agree with]. He then says that these books were never referred to as the New Testament until the second half of the second century. He says these are the earliest references documented to these books being called a New Testament.)
I now see what he is saying. See 22:00+
His thesis in July 2012 is that the Eucharist is the New Testament in the second half of the first century. Then in the second half of the second century the books are referred to as the New Testament. The link is their liturgical link to one another…thus…the New Testament is a sacrament long before it becomes a document. It also answers the question that Protestants ask Catholics…where in the new testament do you find the sacrifice of the mass?…and the sacrifice of the mass IS THE NEW TESTAMENT according to the new Testament. (laughter in audience). End of video.
Interesting argument…sorry for the long post.
Walt,
No problem on the long post. There is a large amount of data to sift through, so I understand why the comments can get long. You wrote,
Yes, I did notice that. I’m not through with the video yet, but it is an interesting argument.
The problem is found in some explicit rejections by the fathers of Hahn’s thinking (i.e., Aphrahat the Persian Sage, who wrote, “our great day is Friday” (not Thursday?) (Demonstration 12, chapter 12), and the implicit ones like Cyprian (above, “…neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed…” (Epistle 62, paragraph 7), “‘… and my people shall drink;’ [Isaiah 48:21] which is fulfilled in the Gospel, when Christ, who is the Rock, is cloven by a stroke of the spear in His passion” (Epistle 62, paragraph 7), “…the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins by His blood” (Treatise IV, paragraph 34)).
Your question (and Scott’s claim) is worthy of more than I can write in the comment box, but what it comes down to is this: his statement “if the Eucharist instituted by Christ on holy Thursday was just a meal, then his death on good Friday was just a roman execution.”
But is that a valid syllogism? What about when Mary poured precious ointment on Jesus’ head in Matthew 26:12 and John 12:7?
Ignatius of Antioch took this to signify that Jesus would breathe immortality into the Church by oil:
Here Ignatius assigns to the oil a life-giving quality. Perhaps it is confirmation, not baptism, that brings about regeneration.
So let us make Hahn’s argument: If the anointing of Jesus was just one woman’s personal expression of devotion to Christ, then Jesus’ death was just one man’s departure from the earth. But if Jesus’ death truly accomplished the salvation of the world, then Mary’s anointing is when the effects of His death were truly signified. If by dying Jesus destroyed death, then when He instituted the sacrament of anointing, He must have recognized that what was instituted in Jerusalem is precisely what is consummated at His death. Thus, Jesus instituted anointing as the sacrament by which the merits of His death are applied for the purpose of regeneration. And institute the sacrament of regeneration by oil is just what He did when he said,
If telling about Mary’s anointing of Jesus is just a memorial, then Jesus’ death was just one man’s passage from life to death.
I am being facetious in my reasoning, but in substance my reasoning to arrive at the sacrament of anointing is just a specious as Hahn’s reasoning to arrive at the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you wrote about Scott Hahn’s main point:
“his statement “if the Eucharist instituted by Christ on holy Thursday was just a meal, then his death on good Friday was just a roman execution.”
and then you said:
“I am being facetious in my reasoning, but in substance my reasoning to arrive at the sacrament of anointing is just a specious as Hahn’s reasoning to arrive at the Sacrifice of the Mass.”
Yes, I agree his logical argument that changed his life completely from rejecting Protestantism to accepting Roman Catholicism on the sacrifice of the mass is illogical in the way he hinges his faith upon it. Your analogy can be equally applied and reach a same conclusion with equally bad results.
When I first heard his story, and that Ratzinger and the Early Church fathers were all in agreement on this main point that changed him, I wanted to look deeper into what he was “really” saying.
In my opinion, what he is “really” saying is that (seems to be surfacing in 2013-2014) the Scriptures were not fully compiled until 380/382AD (he seems to be a major believer in the infallible authority of the magisterum and the inerrant word of God) and without this authority “oral” sacred tradition was critical to the link between St. Peter and St. Jerome (e.g., Scripture), for example.
The early church is the only set of documents, allegedly, we have that has compiled this oral tradition that supports everything Rome teaches and believes linking right up to the time when the Scriptures were authoritatively approved by the Roman Bishops infallibly.
Notice how I quoted one of your quotes of Cyprian where he used the word “epistle” and you can be certain he had Paul’s epistle to Timothy (as your referenced).
However, if Scott Hahn is really such a magisterium devoted Catholic, and he despises denominationalism due to its interpretation of Sola Scriptura without any authoritative church government to speak of (as all these independents are a interpretive court unto themselves without any appeal process from their errors), I can see him (by necessity) looking to the Early Church Fathers for all his support of this “sacred tradition” window of the first 4 centuries (as he claims).
This idea that the sacrifice is the mass and the idea that the Eucharist is the New Testament and the Word of God is all fairy tail smoke and mirrors.
He is doing everything he can to broadly claim, with incredible passion and self proclaimed pious authority as a Roman Catholic apologist and professor of theology, that what he teaches about the “sacred tradition” period in the first 4 centuries is totally supported by Jerome’s Bible and the Church Fathers.
I don’t have his book to see how many Early Church fathers he sites that justify his claim that they all asked the same question, “if the Eucharist instituted by Christ on holy Thursday was just a meal, then his death on good Friday was just a roman execution.” but one day I will get it.
What I saw in tonight’s TV EWTN program by him on his new book is that he totally missed the wrong period of faithful church history. He should have focused on the Church of Scotland in the first and second reformation, and got away from the Early Church and the Romish sacred tradition once he “allegedly” mastered the bible as a Calvinist. These first 4 centuries really got him hooked on Rome as he argued with his own professor RC Sproul.
Now, he is influencing millions to jump into bed with Rome, and drawing even more Protestants to their demise. Sad.
Walt, I was thinking of Hahn’s claim that the Early Church all understood 1 Corinthians 5:7 they way he is describing it his video. 1 Corinthians 5:7 says,
Here is Peter of Alexandria’s (early 4th century) comment on it. Note that Jesus was made “victim” and a “sacrifice” after His arrest, not before:
That’s a pretty strong statement from an early source, saying that Jesus was made a victim at the Cross, and that it was at the Cross, not at the Last Supper, that the Passover ceased, “the true Passover being present.”
The way Hahn presents his case, you would never guess that such an opinion existed in the Fathers.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I just read there are over 36000 quotes by pre 325 fathers from NT writings. Are we to believe these didnt exist, but only the Eucharist? Thanks K
Tim, I don’t know if this quote from Ignatius can add to any support to the great point you made in your post, Ignatius to the Magnesians ” If then those who walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose thru Him and the day of his death which some men deny.”– a mystery whereby we attained unto belief.” k
Tim, did Jesus not say that wd find eternal life in the Scriptures. They testify of Him? Faith comes thru hearing, not seeing or eating. Hearing. The Eucharist wasnt the NT. I mean if that were the case then thd Apostles left the early fathers a loaf of bread, with no instruction?
Tim, Can you reconcile for me Cyprian’s consistent treatment here with Scriptures and when he went off the deep end being the catalyst to sacraments ex opere operato, his military secular injection of meaning, fully corrupting with pelagian defenition? Thx. P. S do you consider Scott Hahn a serious apologist. He seems to get everything wrong?
Kevin, I do consider Scott Hahn to be a serious apologist. Not because his arguments are logically consistent, but rather because he is so influential. Just think of the influence he had on Jason Stellman. His arguments certainly need to be addressed, and are worthy of a response.
About Cyprian can you give me a better understanding of what you meant by “his military secular injection of meaning”? I’m not sure what you mean by that.
It is sufficient to say for Cyprian that even Rome understands that Cyprian must be handled delicately. He makes a case for two-step regeneration by two different sacraments (one of which Rome does not recognize), and therefore no one is ever regenerated by baptism. It has to be baptism followed by laying on of hands (a separate sacrament). If that were so, then regeneration is not by baptism (otherwise baptism would have done it).
You may want to explore some of the links at That He Might Purify the Water (part 5) where Cyprian seems to waver on the whole baptismal regeneration theme. After all, he said, “Otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75, chapter 12)
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, thanks for your response. I will re read your link. It is my understanding from my reading thar Cyprian was the culprit in the change of understanding of a sacrament. He injected a connection with a military oath. I dont remember the details, but I remember reading Reformed apologist saying this was the literal change that took place from a sacrament being grace for the weak to merit for the strong, ex opere operato. Ill try to do more research. But for my mind Tim, this is huge, because sacraments became works for merit, undermining a life of faith. K
Tim, it is my understading from my readings that almost all books of the NT were being used well before the church put them in the binder. Can you confirm this ? Thx K. Another clear and well written article. Great job brother. K
Tim, Im really interested in your answere to Walt’s post. Hahn is just one in a long line of Romanist and the continual progression of the RC to recruit everyone back to Rome so we are all one big Eucharist. Collapsing is their method. The head into the body, the people into the church, one corporate Trinity. Collapsing caregories and typologies is the whole deal. The Roman Catholic church is Jesus Christ natural body, and over realized esachatology and ecclesiology. Hahn saying the written Word is was the Eucharist is just another chapter. I will be interested in your response. It seems to me, instead of the church being individual members working in one body, we corporately are one big Trinty. Thanks.
Kevin,
Thanks for teaching me Catholicism.
You said,
” The Roman Catholic church is Jesus Christ natural body, ”
WOW! And all this time I though the Church was Christ’s “Mystical Body”.
Tell me again about meriting grace in the Eucharist. Tell me your spin on ex opere operato. Tell me how I worship bread.
You are such a bozo! You misunderstand everything about the Church but think you are such an expert. Ha! You are always good for a guffaw.
Jim, your welcome, and thanks for the kind words. God bless.
Kevin,
Ding Dong!
You belched, “… the continual progression of the RC to recruit everyone back to Rome so we are all one big Eucharist…”.
Ever read St. Paul? How about Jesus’ High priestly Prayer?
Jim, excuse me, Roman Catholicism is a faulty view of the Trinity. We never breach the creator creature distinction. RC cant insert itself between the Word and the Spirit. We arent little tentacles of the Trinity. We become all He became to us, not what He is. Sorry Charlie, no tuna. Lol watching football today, Jim, do you get the games. K
Kevin,
Just an FYI for clarification. You said:
“We become all He became to us, not what He is. Sorry Charlie, no tuna. Lol watching football today, Jim, do you get the games. K”
There is no truly reformed person I know that engages on the Lord’s Day Sabbath in watching football. That is more of a Baptist and Roman Catholic tradition from my own personal experience in being both.
Tim, one more thing if I may. John never mentions the Lord’s supper and the Epistles have 4 verses. John says as many as receive Him have eternal life. Romans 10:9,10 say confessing and believing. It is a person that is offered through faith. Believing the Word, the words of Jesus saves a man. God created language and saves us thru hearing the word, not seeing. It seems to me that Hahn’s attempt to collapse is obviously an attempt to minimize the written word. I havent seen a Reformed response to his book yet. K
Doesnt Hebrews say that Christ’ sacrifice must be outside the camp?
Reformed Sabbath teaching (opposite roman catholic teaching). Out with the heathen celebration of the Superbowl and in with the Spirit of Christ…even though in the minds of many fanatics of football claiming is “game day” and not the “Lord’s Day”.
2dly, From all worldly recreations, though lawful on other days. It is not a day for carnal pleasures of any sort, more than for worldly employments. Our delights should be heavenly this day, not to please the flesh but the spirit; and sports, plays, and pastimes, are a gross profanation of the Sabbath, Isa. 57.13,14.
Now, this rest of the Sabbath from these must be,
(1.) A rest of the hands from them. The hands must rest, that the heart may be duly exercised.
(2.) A rest of the tongue. People should not give their orders for the week’s work on the Lord’s day, nor converse about their worldly business.
(3.) A rest of the head from thinking of it, and forming plans and contrivances about worldly affairs.
http://www.truecovenanter.com/sermons/bostoncommand4.html#III.
Pastimes, a rest of the tongue, a rest of the head, and a rest of the hands, as he makes his tenth post. Log, splinter.
The rest without holy exercise is not sufficient.
1. The Sabbath-rest resembles that of heaven, which is a rest without a rest, wherein the soul is most busy and active, serving the Lord without weariness.
2. If it were enough, we were obliged to sanctify the Sabbath no more than beasts, who only rest that day.
3. The rest enjoined is not commanded for itself, but for the holy exercises of the day.
Now, it is the whole day that is thus to be spent, i.e. the natural day. Not that people are bound to be in these exercises without intermission all the twenty-four hours; for God has not made the Sabbath to be a burden to man, but that we should continue God’s work as we do our own on other days, where we are allowed necessary rest and refreshment by sleep in the night.
What do the Covenaters have to say about leaving the altar if you know your brother has something against you. Please dont lecture me. I have told Tim, I will not address you here.
Kevin,
If you have specific charges against me I suggest you write to me privately and be very very specific with the charges. Your posts have made all sorts of wild, unfounded allegations against me that I ignore. If you want biblical justice, then be specific in your charges.
My position is clear. Your claim you are a reformed Christian and your teachings are reformed. When you make this claim, I have a right to correct your error if your comments are public by quoting from public reformed materials that counter your views.
Your doctrines are not reformed except for your views on salvation. Your church government is not reformed. Your form of worship is not reformed. Your Sabbath keeping is not reformed. What is reformed about you is your claims, not your practice.
I don’t worry much about Tim defending you or me. You can go to Tim all you want explaining your position against me as I don’t believe I will be booted from this blog. Much of my commentary is not directly, always related to his topics, but it allows me a brief window to blast away my covenanter reformed views, and paste what I think are faithful testimonies from church courts and Presbyterian ministers who I think are worthy of space on these pages.
Until I do get booted, bring your charges, but be very specific with direct quotes, in context, and support them with a biblical violation. If you can find any reformed minister who also supports your argument or court, I would include it as well.
I’ve done the same thing in two prior cases. One complaint I drafted was 80 pages of very specific detailed quotes of what was said, and extensive court and biblical arguments. The second was nearly as long. I’m aware of a soon to be released 500+ page document being finalized against a minister who went public with all sorts of unfounded and slanderous allegations. That will hit him privately first before it goes public.
If you are ready to hit me with charges, I suggest you do so with the reformed convictions you claim you possess and make sure they are accurate and well documented. Not the false claims and unfounded posts I’ve seen you make her about what I’ve said and teach. I will respond in due time.
I’m leaving the country tomorrow, and back on Friday to deal with your document once you hit me with it.
Walt, you are a hypocrite. Here is what scripture says, Mathew 5: 23 ” whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council, and whoever says you fool will be liable to the fire, so if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift and go be reconciled first to your brother.” I will be submitting no 80 page document for you to sit in judgment of. This says if you know, well you know. You are unrepentant. But I have promised not to bring it up here. And yet again today out of nowhere you chastise me with words from the Covenanters saying no pastime, rest head, mouth, etc, on the sabath, and yet you spent your day here posting ten times. You need a case of ingrown eyeballs. You impugn my charater to justify yourcsin. You say you can say anything you want without recourse here, that tells me allot. The site is all yours.
Jim,
You don’t support this organization do you?
http://www.marytown.com/content/militia-immaculata
I just saw them being interviewed on EWTN waiting for the program by Scott Hahn on his new book.
It really is pretty wild how they have these children worshiping Mary through this MaryTown concept.
Wow, I just saw this….you have to be kidding!
“Membership in the Militia means
complete dedication to the Kingdom
of God and to the salvation of souls
through Mary Immaculate.”
Pope John Paul II
Consuming the Word program on EWTN by Scott Hahn was interesting. Here is his basic premise.
When he was a Calvinist he was a sola scriptura, bible consuming passionate believer. He was very confuse because with sola scriptura he saw everyone interpreting the bible differently in the protestant churches and thousands of denominations. After reading the bible many times there was nothing in the scripture that said anything about using only sola scriptura without the teaching of the church. The teaching of the church was important to help with unity.
He then learned about how 1 billion Catholics over 2,000 years had complete unity in doctrine, worship, church government and practice that he became intrigued and begin to look into the the idea of sacred tradition. His study of the mass helped him build upon his Calvinism and sola scriptura to see the liturgical worship in the mass, and how it perfectly fit into the old testament – new testament correlation. His most important thing now in the RCC is the catechism which he says is the most significant document published in the history of the church.
Now as a Catholic he does not see any real differences with his views as a former Calvinist protestant, but now he sees that he has fully deepened his understanding on how important the church is to developing unity of doctrine, worship, government and practice of the Christian faith.
————-
I can only say he should have studied the reformers a lot more thoroughly than the early church fathers if he wanted a true picture of TRUE unity and uniformity of the Christian church in history on doctrine, discipline, form of worship, form of church government and practice.
The Church of Scotland during its infancy in the first reformation (1560 to 1600) and in the second reformation (1638-1649) was a imperfect (but incredible) “snapshot” of how national churches during the millennium will operate, and the Nations of Scotland, England and Ireland is an imperfect picture of how nations will Covenant together during the millennium.
We detest denominationalism promoted by the Anabaptist sects and her modern day preachers. National churches and church court systems made up of sessions, presbyteries, synod’s and general assemblies is the future of the Christian Church of Jesus Christ.
It will NOT be baptist, independent, angelican, erastian, morman, roman catholic, russian or greek orthodox, adventist, pentecostal/evangelical/baptist, nor any derivation thereof.
It will be reformed and biblical in my opinion. Scott Hahn should have avoided looking at Rome for the Biblical picture he saw in the Scriptures, and looked at the Church of Scotland to see a true and faithful biblical picture of Christ’s church.
Some excellent definitions by Jim Dodson and the reformed catechism’s on the Lord’s Supper:
(Larger Catechism)
Q #168. What is the Lord’s supper?
A. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.
(Shorter Catechism)
Q #96. What is the Lord’s supper?
A. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.
_________________________
Question 1—What are the various names by which the Lord’s supper is known?
Answer—The Lord’s supper is peculiarly a sacrament of the New Testament, Luke 22:20; known variously by these several names: 1.) The Lord’s supper, which is a Scriptural and unexceptionable expression, 1 Cor. 11:20. It is called a supper because it was appointed immediately after eating the Passover, which was a feast always eaten at night, Ex. 12:18; Matt. 26:17, 26. It is called the Lord’s supper because Jesus Christ, the constituted head and king of Zion, is its author, 1 Cor. 11:23. 2.) It is called the Communion, 1 Cor. 10:16; because, in this ordinance, we hold communion with Christ and with one another, 1 John 1:3, 7. 3.) It is called the Feast, 1 Cor. 5:8. Although this term is not widely used amongst Protestants, it is a very proper usage because Gospel privileges and preparations are called by this name, Isa. 25:6; Matt. 22:2-4; Luke 14:16. It is a feast of remembrance, just as the Passover, at which we dedicate ourselves to the Lord anew, 1 Kings 8:65. 4.) It is called the Eucharist, or thanksgiving, for when Christ instituted this ordinance, he gave thanks, 1 Cor. 11:24; and when we are called to celebrate this ordinance, it is to be done with a testifying of our gratitude to God our Saviour, Phil. 2:11. 5.) It is called the Breaking of Bread, because this is one of the actions performed in its celebration, Acts 2:42. 6.) It is called Christ’s Testament, because it is one of the seals of the covenant of grace, 1 Cor. 11:25. 7.) It is called the Cup of Blessing, because by that which it signifies and seals, his redeeming blood, Christ blesses his people, 1 Cor. 10:16. 8.) It is called the Lord’s Table, 1 Cor. 10:21; from which we understand that it is most properly celebrated and received in the sitting posture, because this is most agreeable to the practice of our Lord and his apostles at the first institution, Matt. 26:20, 26.
Question 2—Is there, in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, a giving and receiving of bread and wine?
Answer—The sacramental actions, on the part of the administrator, consist in following the example of Christ, which He has set for his ministers, 1 Cor. 11:23-26. These actions are: 1.) He took the bread and the cup, Matt. 26:26-28. This action implies the Father’s designation of the Son to be the Saviour of His people, Isa. 42:6; Ps. 89:19. 2.) He blessed the bread and the wine in the cup, Mark 14:22, 23. By this action is implied the setting apart of the body of Christ for the mission appointed by the Father, Heb. 10:5; as well as the blood appointed for the redemption of His people, Zech. 9:11; Heb. 12:24. 3.) He broke the bread, Luke 22:19. By this action is implied the sufferings of the Son of God, and their necessity for the redemption of His people, Gal. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:24. 4.) He gave the bread and the cup to the disciples, Luke 22:19, 20. In this action is implied the free gift of God for life and salvation to sinners of mankind, Isa. 55:1-3.
The sacramental actions, on the part of the receivers, are these: 1.) They are seated around the table, Luke 22:14, 15. This action implies our having ceased from our own working, Mark 16:19. 2.) They take the bread and the cup into their hands, Luke 22:17. This action implies our receiving and resting upon Christ, upon the gift and grant which is made of Him in the Word, by virtue of which we have a right to receive Christ for our whole salvation, Acts 4:12. 3.) They eat the bread and drink the wine, 1 Cor. 11:26. This action implies our receiving and resting upon Christ by making a particular application to the soul of the promise of God in Christ, Acts 2:39; Gal. 2:20.
Question 3—What are the benefits held forth to worthy communicants?
Answer—Worthy communicants, whereby we understand true believers, are those who find no sufficiency in themselves but place all sufficiency in Christ, 2 Cor. 3:5. Such are made partakers of Christ’s body and blood, that is, His work and labor of love, which He accomplished in His person as Mediator, and is set forth as the true food of the soul, John 6:53. These are called Christ’s benefits because they are the result of His purchase, Tit. 2:14. The Father has given all things into His hands so that He might dispense them as He sees fit, John 3:35. Thus, worthy receivers receive all his benefits, because when Christ is received by faith, all good things are received with Him, 1 Cor. 3:21-23.
The benefits to be received are: 1.) Our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace, Matt. 26:26-28. All sincere believers ought to desire such growth, 1 Pet. 2:2. 2.) The confirmation of our union and communion with Christ, 1 Cor. 10:16. This union and communion is our mystical knitting together as the branches to the vine, John 15:5; or, as the body to the Head, Eph. 5:23, 30.
Additionally, it is the appointed means by which we testify and renew: 1.) Our thankfulness to God, 1 Cor. 11:24; particularly as the corporate body assembled for the purpose of worshipping God, Acts 20:7. 2.) Our engagement to be God’s, 1 Cor. 10:14-16, 21. 3.) Our mutual love and fellowship with each other as members of His mystical body, 1 Cor. 10:17; which implies a union and communion with one another, Rom. 12:5.
Mat 18:15ff “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
So if Kevin thinks Walt has sinned against him, and he doesn’t listen to him, which church will Walt not refuse to listen to?
Bob wrote:
“So if Kevin thinks Walt has sinned against him, and he doesn’t listen to him, which church will Walt not refuse to listen to?”
Bob, did you skip the entire process? I told Kevin how to bring his charges against me, but he prefers to go to Tim to get me booted off the site as it appears. I don’t think Tim is going to boot more for challenging Kevin’s deception that he is a reformed Christian, but who knows.
If I’m asked to leave for offending Kevin while he goes about ranting about all these sinful offenses I’ve caused him so be it. It won’t be the first blog I’ve been booted from defending reformed and covenanter doctrines.
Anyone who sits around on Sunday watching football and claims to be reformed is so far from reformed it is silly. That is evangelical roman catholic or pentecostal or Adventist as they took off yesterday, and all gathered for the game day today.
Walt, you continue to lie. I didnt go to Tim about anything. I came to you and told younwhat I had against you. And you attacked my character and were unrepentant. The today you chastise me for watching a football game on Sunday, citing me how we are not to do pastime, we must rest head, mouth, etc while your spendibg your whole day at this pastime, posting 15 times. Why dont you get the log out of your eye. I have been here for over a year and gone out of my way to be loving calling you brother. And you call me a heretic, anabaptist, etc. I believe the same gospel you do. We get it, you hate Prorestants that arent covenanters. Roman Catholics treat me better than you do.
Lastly, By unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about worldly employments or recreations. The Sabbath is profaned,
1. By carnal recreations, nowise necessary nor suitable to the work of the Sabbath; such as, all carnal pleasures, sports, plays, and pastimes, Isa. 58.13.
2. By following worldly employments on that day, working or going about ordinary business, except in cases of necessity and mercy, Matth. 24.20. Though, where real necessity or mercy is, it is an abuse of that day to forbear such things, as sometimes the Jews did, who being attacked on the Lord’s day, would not defend themselves.
3. By unnecessary thoughts or discourse about them; for that day is a day of rest for them every way; and we should never think of nor talk about them.
O let us be deeply humbled before the Lord under the sense of our profanations of the Sabbath! for who can plead innocent here? We are all guilty in some shape or other, and had need to flee to the atoning blood of Jesus for the expiation of this and all our other sins.
Hi, everyone – Tim and all who usually comment! I’m going to take a break from blogging, and reading/commenting, for about a week. I’ve been under the weather since new year’s.
Walt, I haven’t forgotten your reading recommendations and have created and printed out a Word document containing “A Short Account of the Old Presbyterian Dissenters.”
Cordially,
Maria
Maria wrote:
“Walt, I haven’t forgotten your reading recommendations and have created and printed out a Word document containing “A Short Account of the Old Presbyterian Dissenters.”
Tim can share with you my personal email address if you want to write me privately. I can help walk you through a couple things that might be helpful in you finding some excellent biblically reformed documents and other more simple materials that you can study at your leisure.
I would also be happy to introduce you to some of the ladies in our church who I’m sure would be happy to chat with you as well and share some excellent references.
Walt, thank you – please ask Tim to – and thank you, Tim, also.
I would love to be able to correspond with women of mature faith. And, please give your suggestions for reading. Have my WC by me, and am going to read Isaiah as my main food.
My prayers for you!
In His Name,
Maria
Maria,
I’m at the airport ready to board for my trip.
If Tim gets this note, and can email you my email address, I will be happy to send you a couple key suggested books. Let me know how much you like to read as I can give you a couple more simple books, or can suggest some weighty books. For example, Hugh Binning was one of the greatest reformers ever to live, and if you could read him it would be very profitable for you. Rutherford is another incredible reformer, but he is a bit hard to read. If you really want an incredible read on the struggles you are facing, read this sermon.
http://www.truecovenanter.com/sermons/kae_sermon_believer_sitting_under_christs_shadow.html
If you find some quiet time and read this it will bless your soul beyond your comprehension. It is incredible.
Let me know how heavy you want to read and give me a topic or two you are struggling with. I can be specific. I also have a basic reading list of books a friend of mine compiled that goes through all the FUNDAMENTALS by category and lists the top reformed books on those topics that is often helpful for people.
Yes, reading the WCF, Shorter and Larger Catechism, Form of Church Government, Directory For Public Worship are some great fundamental sources to read.
Scripture being always the primary standard for our study, but reading this subordinate standards will give you a new presupposition to approach the Scriptures as you read. The key to understanding Scripture is constant bible reading cover to cover so you begin to get the context in which God is speaking as the author.
Hope this helps. I hope you enjoy that sermon! It will encourage your heart and soul forever. It is one that you will not be without a dry eye very soon into it.
Walt.
Prove the allegations Kevin and be specific. Your claims are wildly unsubstantiated. You need to be specific where I called you a heretic. I posted what it means to “rest” that you seem to fail to read. Rest has nothing to do with lying around all day resting your mind, your hands in the sense that you are not suppose to be studying, reading, and discussing the Lord. You are suppose to rest from worldly employments and ignore engaging in worldly pleasures that are lawful on the other six days. They claim Spurgeon got up at 4am on the Sabbath and started his day of rest before he would preach, and certainly those of us who are not called to preach are not suppose to be sitting idly by throughout the Sabbath resting hands, mind and ears. Rather, we should be using it to learning Scripture, studying distinctions between heresies and true doctrine, studying prophecy and certainly guiding those who are ignorant, weak or backsliding.
Watching football and engaging in worldly pleasures is hypocritical coming from someone who claims to be reformed.
WALT–
You asked: “Bob, did you skip the entire process?”
Let me clarify:
If Kevin belongs to the Bethany Bible Church and Walt belongs to the Church of Scotland, which church does Kevin appeal to that Walt will submit to its authority–Bethany Bible or Church of Scotland?
KEVIN–
You said: “The Apostles could tell us God breathed scripture.”
Which books of the Holy Bible did the Apostles say were God breathed? List them please. I’ll bet Walt and Tim can. Both of them seem to be very knowledgeable about the early church.
Bob asked ” which books of the bible of the bible are God breathed” All of them. The Word came before the church. The written word can be reffered to as the Word because it teastifies in the Prophets and the Gospels, the Epistles to Christ, all of scripture testifies to Christ. Apostles and Prophets didnt canonize scripture. Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him, and in them we find eternal life. Faith comes thru HEARING, not eating, seeing, but hearing the word of God. 1 Peter 1:23 says we have been brought forth out of the word of God. The early church fathers before 325 cited thecNT writings 60000 times. Clement, Irenaeus, Turtullian cited 1 Corinthians 600 times. God made the world thru his Word, brought Abraham out of a moon worshiping family, Lazarus back from the dead, We are saved thru hearing the gospel. And isnt it ironic that Rome hides the word and comes up with a false gospel which cant save anyone. Thanks k
KEVIN–
That is not what you said and that is not what I asked.
You said: “The Apostles could tell us God breathed scripture.”
And I asked: “Which books of the Holy Bible did the Apostles say were God breathed? List them please.
The Apostles must have taught from Scripture. Paul told Timothy that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” Can you list the books that Paul taught from? You say “all of them”.
It’s a simple question. All you gotta do is copy and paste the list right here in the response box. Or if you can recite them from memory, that will work too.
Bob, I worded that wrongly. It should read the Apostles told us Scripture iscGod breathed. All of the books of my bible are written by the Holy Spirit. You agree with that dont you ? You believe that Scripture is not a matter of one’s interpretation, but divinely inspirired and infalible? You do know there was a working canon before the church put them in the binder. Early on the books were finished. Many think now they were finished very early, between 50 – 70. Hope this helps.
Different regions had different books they claimed to be inspired. The Apostles didn’t tell us which ones. The Holy Spirit guided a certain group of men from a particular Church to a decision which all christians submitted to.
Now Kevin if your history is correct that there was a settled canon before the catholic bishops agreed to them, then surely there was an official list of inspired books which everyone agreed to before then. Please provide evidence of that list.
Please provide a list.
CK, you wrote,
Which “certain” group was that? When did that group reach its decision? Was its decision infallible?
Thanks,
Tim
http://www.theopedia.com/Development_of_the_canon
some facts, Kevin.
CK, you have a faulty axion. The early church, no matter how you and I may disagree, wasnt Roman Catholic. The men who went to Nicea would have little in common with the Roman Catholic church today. The first 1500 years of the church wasnt Roman Catholic. And piece by piece Tim has used the early fathers to unequivocally debunk baptismal regeneration, real presence, sacrifice of bread for sins, Marian doctrines, justifction by merit, the Papacy. And he has done it with detailed percision. You dont see many Catholic apologists here, and the ones who have havent stayed long. Where are all the CCC guys? During Tim’s series on baptismal regeneration when Tim was attaking their arguments, complete silence. Lot of great material here. K god bless
CK, I never said there was a settled canon. I said Prophets c and Apostles didnt canonize scripture, or feel the need. I also said that a working canon was being used. Iow 27 books in the NT were already being used. Do want me to thank the church for putting them in a binder. Incidentally the early church isnt Roman Catholic. Calvin said if we weighed all evidence it would fall heavily on our side. The Word prexisted thd church. We dont say the courts wrote the constitution. God’s word is self authenticating by virtue of being from the mouth of God.
Maria, thanks for the link. I have read this before. CK and Bob as Cathokics do want us to say the church had juridiction over scripture, so they can elevate RC tradition as the sole interpreter of scripture. I dont bite. The Word created the church, not vice versa. K
okay, glad you’ve seen it. go to work!
got to rest and haven’t been.
God bless you, Kevin.
Maria, we are praying for you. Hope you have quick recovery and feel better. K
thank you, my brother!
KEVIN–
You said: “The truth is Popes and councils err and have erred gravely.”
I agree–all the way back to and including the early church.
But, councils were, and still are, the best way to combat heresy.
You also said: “Only if Joan of Arc could have been under the last Pope first, huh. ”
I disagree. If only Joan of Arc had not been captured by the English she was at war with.
You said: “Thats why we place the infallible Word of God as our only infallible source.”
I agree. You have read more than once me saying the Catholics shot themselves in the foot when they claimed Papal Infallibility. I wish there was an interpretive authority who was infallible so that we could all go to them to settle disputes once and for all. But there is not. There is no silver bullet. There is no great and powerful Grand Interpreter.
Bob, thanks for your response. ” I wish there was an infallible interpreter so we could all go to them to settle disputes once and for all.” Here is what I would say Bob about this. The Reformed all that is necessary for salvation can be understood from scripture. 1 John 2:27 says we have the Spirit as an anointing who teaches us everything. In fact it c says we have no need for a teacher. Now that verse isnt saying we dont listen to our teachers, but in the end it is the witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. See, My faith is completely in the Word. I can easily live with the differences that exist, no one’s theology is perfect. The non negotiables are the gospel, and idolatry. I dont need every qquestion answered. The bible says we now look as in a mirror, then face to face. I trust Christ alone for my salvation, and strive for holiness in my life. Thats it.
KEVIN–
You said: “I worded that wrongly. It should read the Apostles told us Scripture is God breathed. All of the books of my bible are written by the Holy Spirit. You agree with that dont you ?
I most certainly do.
You also said: “You believe that Scripture is not a matter of one’s interpretation, but divinely inspired and infallible?”
Yes, I do.
And you said again “You do know there was a working canon before the church put them in the binder. Early on the books were finished. Many think now they were finished very early, between 50 – 70.”
I agree with that also. But not all of the New Testament books had been written by 70 AD, though. The Scripture that Jesus was referring to that testified to Him was all from the Old Testament. All of the Apostles taught from the Old Testament.
Paul in particular taught from the Septuagint. When the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if Paul was telling the truth, they searched the Old Testament. There is no way possible that Paul could have taught from John’s epistles or from Revelation. They were written after Paul was executed. That is simply historical fact. But I seem to think you knew this already because you said to Maria:
“CK and Bob as Cathokics do want us to say the church had juridiction over scripture, so they can elevate RC tradition as the sole interpreter of scripture. I dont bite. The Word created the church, not vice versa.”
I think you have missed the motive, Klairvoyant Kevin. I agree that the Word of God being Jesus Christ created the Church. I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole interpreter of Scripture. But, history has shown without dispute that the canon of the New Testament was assembled by the Church from a number of different writings greater than 27 books. Someone had to make the decision what to keep and what to reject. It was the Church who made that decision whether you believe it was Roman or not. It is simply historical fact.
And so ? Where are you going this. I said the church put them in a binder. Scripture is God breathed, written by the Holy Spirit. It is thru the word that salvation is brought about. I dont buy the hot iron touch of the sacraments of Rome. I hold to the Reformed view of sacraments. I believe Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. I belidve in the Priesthood of the beluever. And I believe our works can play no role in our justification. Rome has a faulty view of James 2. If I were a Catholic I would go to Romans and Galatians and Epessians and study well the difference between law and gospel. The biggest errors, fatal, in Christian history has stemed from a mixture of law and gospel. All law can do nothing but to lead us to the gospel. Law is not faith, Paul says. Rome’s gospel of gracious merit is a violation of the biblical gospel. K
KEVIN–
You said: “My faith is completely in the Word. I can easily live with the differences that exist, no one’s theology is perfect. ”
Good for you. Obviously Walt would differ with you. See what I mean? Your cool with what you believe but Walt has a problem with it. Tim is certain he is right. But Jim has a problem with it. Calvinists are ok with OSAS, but Armenians think it heresy. Catholics are cool with what they believe but you have a problem with it. And on and on and on and on……….!
Bob, not exactly. There is only one doctrine that Luther said thecwhole church hinges on jbfa. It is a non negotiable. And incidentally Walt, Tim, Eric W, Maria, and I all agree on. It is under attack today by synergism, but we will never relent. Roman Catholicism is a different gospel. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, and it isnt close. You are correct though, we have differences. But we share in the doctrines of Soveriegn grace. I trust in the Word alone, and submit to my church which is elder run.
Bob said ” Calvinist believe in OSAS” Bob, thats the whole point of Romans 5:1, and 8:1, that for those who are in Christ, trusting al Christ alone for their salvation, there isnt any condemnation. Or reversed is there is justification. Paul says this gives us peace. This isnt presmumption, but assurance. Those who believe that their own deeds play in to their acceptance before God cant have the assurance the bible gives us. Romans 8″ who can bring a charge against God’s elect” It is God who justifies.” I would say this gift accompanies true salvation. K
Mathew 25 would disagree with you…
CK, you make a fatal error for your salvation if you think that Mathew 25 teaches by doing good to believers you merit salvation. Jesus is teaching in accordance with 1 John 4: 20 ” If anyone says they love their brother……. CK, you will have no excuse before God that you isolate Mathew 25 from the gospel. Your unwillingness to look at Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and understand how one is saved is a grave error. I get that you have bought the iron fire burns sacramental merit of Roman Catholicism. Even a casual understanding of Paul repudiates your gospel. Jesus is establishing the absolute requirements of the law in Mathew. He says unless your righteouness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter. He was Hebrew of Herews blameless before God’s law, yet he considered all of his righteouness as dung, not his sin, but his righteouness, and wanted to be found in anothers righteousness that come by faith alone in Christ alone. You have said you are working to become more just everyday and you havent gotten there, but here is what Paul says ” to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the UNGODLY, his faith is CREDITED as righteouness. K
Bob, I thought about this last night. Peter said flesh and and blood didn’t reveal Christ to him, but the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine if he were trusting in the magisterium of his day? We are to be always looking for those who bear bad fruit. And if we are trusting the bad fruit producer thinking its good fruit, thats bad for us. The Bereans were searching scripture to make sure Paul was teaching truth. So am I.
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, I thought about this last night. Peter said flesh and and blood didn’t reveal Christ to him, but the Holy Spirit.”
Actually what He said was “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” –Mat 16:17
Speaking of flesh and blood, what do you think physically happened at the transfiguration in Matthew 17:2?
Bob, I’m not sure I know what your asking. This is a theophany unlike any other. Please make your point, and i will either agree, or take issue Thanks K.
Kelvin!
Speaking of Peter, you said,
“Can you imagine if he were trusting in the magisterium of his day? ”
You nincompoop! PETER WAS THE MAGISTERIUM OF HIS DAY!
Jim, if you can refrain from the name calling I will be happy to address you. It just seems senseless to engage in discussion if you can’t address me as an adult. You can call me anything you want, but if you want me to engage you, you will have to stop calling me vile names. God bless you.
Timothy F. Kauffman
JANUARY 20, 2015 AT 8:45 AM
CK, you wrote,
“The Holy Spirit guided a certain group of men from a particular Church to a decision which all christians submitted to.”
Which “certain” group was that? When did that group reach its decision? Was its decision infallible?
Thanks,
Tim
Me – I happen to believe it’s the Catholic Church you don’t. What we do know is that it was a group of men who had the same belief system. They had the same faith tradition. The Vulgate was agreed to by by christians even if they had reservations ie Jerome. Don’t have time to look for dates. Councils are held to settle major disputes as they arise. It doesn’t mean something is not widely accepted or true until an official council says so. The decision was infallible and it only restated something that was always true ie. Hebrews was always inspired before and after a council. Same with the book of Wisdom, etc…
So Tim do believe the all the books in your bible are inspired? We’re the Reformers infallible in their decision to remove books from the bible?
Thank you, CK. You wrote,
Yes, I assumed this. You continued,
That is why I asked. How do you know “what we do know” is true? How do you know they had the same belief system? How do you know they had the same faith tradition? If a Synod at Carthage determines that there are two sacraments of regeneration—baptism, and laying on of hands—neither of which works on its own (Seventh Council of Carthage, 258 A.D.), and another Synod at Rome codifies a canon of Scripture including what are known as the apocryphal books (Synod of Rome, 382 A.D.), how do you determine that the men at Carthage were not operating under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that the men in Rome were? Isn’t this the same dilemma faced by Protestants as they look at a collection of books and try to determine which ones are infallible, and which ones were just written by men of good intent? Aren’t you merely examining the councils and evaluating which ones agree with you, and then determining that those must be the infallible ones? Isn’t this the calumny so often assigned to Protestants?
Since only ecumenical councils are infallible (see Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility: Ecumenical Councils), and neither the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D. nor the Synod of Carthage in 258 A.D. were ecumenical, why would you choose one over the other as your source of truth?
Thanks,
Tim
CK said to me ” The Holy Spirit guided a certain group of men from a particular church to b a decision which all Christians submitted to” First of all the church received the books as authoritative that were aready authoritative, they didnt convey which were authoritative, or convey authority on them. For instance a church cant make comments on the character and nature of God, plan of salvation, genesis of creation, supernatural revelation. Scripture is authored by God. The apocrapha was not included in the OT. The NT books were already being used as authoritative. And lastly the church wasnt the Roman Catholic church. That came in the 4th century as the apostasy prophesized. You can see how it differs from the true church inevery way by reading ” The rise of Roman Catholicism by Tim Kauffman. God bless.
Who decided which OT books were inpired? Can you tell me when this was officially decided? Please provide the council which had authority to bind all believers and official list from that council.
CK,
don’t let Kelvin see this.
LOL. I laughed loud enough to wake my wife. Don’t let Kevin see it? That is Kevin!
CK said ” who decided the OT books were inspired” When God spoke them they were inspired. Again, I and not sure you get this because of what you were taught, the church doesn’t confer authority on, or to scripture. The church only received authoritative scripture. Its authority comes from being God’s Word, not because a church says what is and isn’t. Churches don’t tell us about the character of God, or the plan of salvation, or sacraments, or creation. Only God has provide that and its in his word. The council that provided the 66 books is the council of God. How does that work for you. Some 40 writers from all different backgrounds, from Kings to peasant fisherman, all in perfect harmony over no less than 1600 years into an infallible word. The world has seen nothing like it. Thats why we don’t go to churches, we go to the word for the doctrines of God. Tim, gave you a great post. I hope you think about what he said. Hope this helps. God bless.
Me – Kevin, someone with authority wrote the OT on scrolls and told the Jews it was inspired. The OT was not “closed” until after the death of Jesus. Many Jews thought the books removed by Luther were inspired. My question is which Jews had the authority to decide what is inspired.
Kevin said – Churches don’t tell us about the character of God, or the plan of salvation, or sacraments, or creation.
Me – In the Holy Bible, we read, “If I (St. Paul) am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great…” [1 Tim. 15-16]
You are right Kevin, your church does not…
CK said ” Kevin, someone with authority wrote the OT” Ya, in fact He is thrice Holy, and perfect. God! You trust in yourself and men, CK. You laugh at Calvin because he put all the focus on the soveriegn grace of God. Its hard to give God all the glory when you want to keep some for yourself. K
Nice non answer Kevin! God personally handed you the bible?
You rely on men such as Tim to tell you what books are inspired, what scripture means, but the most important man you rely on is you! Solo!
Calvin put the focus back on Calvin belief. That’s why he provided his followers a book (written by Calvin, a man!) on how to interpret scripture correctly (which you rely on). He did not support those who relied on sola Scriptura if they came up with different interpretation than him.
CK, you wrote,
That is the part of your epistemology that I don’t understand. You believe that the Synod of Rome (382 A.D) delivered a canon, but it was not an infallible Synod. It happens to agree with your view of the canon, so you accept its decree as true. But the Synod of Carthage in 258 A.D. said that regeneration is a two-step process including the “eighth sacrament” of laying on of hands. Because you do not believe that laying on of hands is a sacrament or is the means by which baptismal regeneration is completed, you reject the Synod of Carthage, as it was teaching something that you do not believe to be true.
In the end, you accept one council because it agrees with you, and reject another because it does not, and then claim that you are only submitting to the councils, when in fact you are submitting only to your own judgment. How is this different from what you accuse Protestants of doing?
Thanks,
Tim
CK said ” God personally handed you a bible” We are talking about who wrote the bible. And I have never questioned who the author was. The Word of God doesnt sit in the judgment or approval of men, its self authenicating because of who wrote it. As Tim has been trying to show you, it is hypocrisy to stand in judgment of Protestants using their fallible judgment to decide on bible, when you use your fallible judgment to pick and choose. You continued ” you trust men like Tim and most of all you trust yourself. I trust in Jesus Christ alone for my righteouness. When I read Mathew and see the perfect requirements of the law, and know I will stand before God someday, I only got one chance, and thats to crawl all up inside Jesus not putting any confidence in my merit or works, because no one can in anyway be justified before God by doing, being, loving. Yes, I trust men who God has shown me that search scripture with care and percision. But you are making the same judgments trusting your magisterium. How do you know that Catholic baptism justifies you, is a profession of biblical faith, wipes away original sin, infuses you with special juju, and pops popcorn? Hmm solo CK. Im going to do what Paul told the Philippians jailer, believe on Christ and I will be saved. Pretty perspicuous huh? Jesus said a child could understand it. Paul summed it up like this, ” the righteous shall live by faith. You have used your judgment to trust the sacraments of ” the new law” of the Roman church to merit your salvation. And you think that is the infallible way to finaljustification. But my judgment in
Bob, Hi, I felt like you deserved a heartfelt message about the differences in Protestantism and how I deal with this. Eric W and I just got of the phone, and we had a great discussion on how we are not to bind the consciences of other men. Our consciences should bound by the word of God. RC Sproul, great Reformed Pastor said this about his friend John MacArthr ” Let me tell you something about John MacArthur that I know, that if you can prove your position to John MacArthur from the pages of scripture, he will change in a heartbeat,cause I have never known a man who is sold out to building his theology on the basis of Scripture alone than my brother John.” And here is what MacArthur said ” But Luther said this, and I think it may be the true expression of his heart ” I say that God wants no compulsory service. I say it a hundred thousand times, God wants no compulsory service. No one ought to be compelled to believe, for the soul of man is an eternal thing above all that is temporal. Therefore, only by an eternal Word must it be governed and grasped, for it is simply insulting to govern God’s presence with human law or long custom. Neither the Pope, Bishop, nor any man has the right to decree a single syllable concerning a Christian man apart from his consent. All that comes to pass in the spirit of tyranny.” ” Luther abandoned his original lofty idealism where he contended for a Christianity of freedom and renounced force and living by the word and Spirit and backed up into the church perspective. Sadly he allowed, I think what he himself hated to take place. There is no greater tragedy, I don’t think, coming out of the Reformation than the fact that the true church got executed, got stomped out under massive weight of the state church system. The sad darkening of the Reformation light was secularizing of the church, they brought back in the very thing Constantine had brought in it, they tried to get rid of it. Sadly, modern Protestant Europe is as dark as old Catholic Europe.” Bob, it is for this reason, that even though I submit to my church and Pastor, I will not even let the Pastor of my church bind my conscience. Only the word of God. I always try to give grace and mercy to my Protestant brethren. I have received this grace and mercy from Tim, and this has meant more to me than any word he has ever written or uttered. Fo if we have not love, what we say is meaningless. God bless. I hopes this helps you understand the differences a bit. K
Gang,
This is exactly the issue I am hammering the Protestants on Beggars All, The Protestant Dilemma, Part 4, Ecumenical Councils, about;
Kevin wrote,
“Bob, it is for this reason, that even though I submit to my church and Pastor, I will not even let the Pastor of my church bind my conscience. Only the word of God.,,”.
Do you submit or don’t you?
C’mon over and weigh in.
The word of God according to Kevin! SOLO!
CK, finishing my post. I think it takes more faith to believe in the Roman Cathokic church than to simply trust Christ for salvation. The reason I say this is because the more I study the word of God, it is evident to me, none of Roman Catholicism is in it. It is a false religion contrary to biblical doctrine. I know why they call it the mystical body of Christ, because it cant be found in scripture. K
No Trinity, Jesus is not God, etc…?
So now you claim your not Christian?
CK, thanks for you response. No, for me it is a faulty view of the Trinity. No church can insert itself between the Word and the Spirit. Also, and I have said this before, churches dont connect people to God, Jesus Christ comes to us in the gospel by the agency of the Spirit when and how he chooses. The church is not the same as Jesus Christ in the world. No church owns God. Church arent extensions of incarnation. Tim handles this beutifully in a previous post about the false distinctions between kairos and chronos time. Jesus said all power and authority have been given ME inheaven and earth. I think the hot iron burns view of the sacraments and Priestcraft are a perversion of scripture. You continued ” so now you claim your not Christian, I said I dont believe the RC is the mystical body of Christ, but in describing itself that way the RC is foreign to scripture. We see no gigantic visible institution with 7 sacraments offering salvation ex oper operato at an altar thru Priestcraft. And Im thankful that the Reformers unpiled all that Rome piled on the cross, dismantled the eclessial machinery that developed in the church that was mostly pagan and human in orgin and content. They saved the Aposles and the early church from their hair splitting accademics, and returned us to the gospel. Thank God for the Reformation. K
OOPS! Here’s the link;
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.pt/2015/01/the-protestants-dilemma-review-part_19.html
Romans 14:1-5 ” Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purposes of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he meat eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls, and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make hi stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards everyday alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Jim we are to give grace to those who regard days differently. One Reformed might come home after church and eat lunch. One might take a nap. And yet another might watch the Super Bowl. We are not to bind the consciences of another believer. We are to confront believers on sin and violation of the word of God. But to things regarding how one treats a day or food we show mercy. God knows the heart of a man. K
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said to CK: “That is the part of your epistemology that I don’t understand…the Synod of Carthage in 258 A.D. said that regeneration is a two-step process including the “eighth sacrament” of laying on of hands.”
I thought the laying on of hands was considered a part of the sacrament, not the sacrament itself–such as anointing with oil.
Baptism includes the laying on of hands and anointing with oil.
Confirmation includes the laying on of hands and anointing with oil.
Holy Orders includes the laying on of hands and anointing with oil.
Anointing of the sick includes the laying on of hands.
Maybe what you are thinking, Tim, is on the same line of “oblation” and “sacrifice”. A completed oblation includes the several parts of the oblation. A completed sacrament includes the several parts of the sacrament.
CK, what does this scripture say to you ” that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, for with the heart a person believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation?
Kevin Failoni —
You said: We are not to bind the consciences of another believer. We are to confront believers on sin and violation of the word of God. But to things regarding how one treats a day or food we show mercy. God knows the heart of a man.”
That’s what I have said all along.
Bob, im not sure I follow?
In other words, I agree.
Bob, but don’t confuse that with our responsibility to share the gospel with someone in a false religion. I do not consider Roman Catholics to be believers. Because if you’re a good Catholic who follows “every word” of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church, you can’t be a Christian according to the word of God. It is a different gospel. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Catholics who are not trusting in Christ alone even through all that has been heaped on the cross of Christ. But I would tell them they are obligated to come out of that communion immediately. But, yes only God knows the souls of every man. Those comments I made are for those of us who share the same gospel. You, and CK, and Jim have come on here and told us that you are justified by faith plus works. Someone who knowingly goes to the sacrifice of the Mass to merit increase in grace, or believes you have to participate in the Sacraments of the ” New Law” to be saved isn’t a believer according to my bible. My responsibility to believers is different than those in a false church. When Trent anathematized the gospel of Christ it Rome fell under the anathema of Galatians 1:9. God bless.
Kelvin,
“Someone who knowingly goes to the sacrifice of the Mass to merit increase in grace, ”
Great! I never go to Mass to merit anything. I have told about 90 times grace is not merited via the sacraments.
But you obviously know more than me, You have been tutored by that expert, Johnny Mac after all.
Kevin,
You are doing a great job as a witness to Biblical truths. I think you expose RC pretensions at every turn. Even your faults can be overlooked sometimes ! Charity demands it in warfare!
————————–
You wrote:
Someone who knowingly goes to the sacrifice of the Mass to merit increase in grace, or believes you have to participate in the Sacraments of the ” New Law” to be saved isn’t a believer according to my bible.
Response:
Jim didn’t like a part of it, so I wanted to give you ammo. He may lie to you again.
———————
Trent, On justification:
….they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the CHURCH, faith cooperating with good works, INCREASE IN THAT JUSTICE received through the grace of Christ and are further justified
————————–
Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
————————–
Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, DOES NOT TRULY MERIT AN INCREASE OF GRACE, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.
———————–
Catechism of Pius X:
1 Q. Besides the Commandments of God what else must we observe?
A. Besides the Commandments of God we must also observe the Precepts of the Church.
————————–
Catechism of Pius X:
6 Q. Name the Precepts of the Church.
A. The Precepts of the Church are: 1. To HEAR MASS on all Sundays and on Holydays of obligation….
————————–
How funny ! Jim just admitted to not doing something that’s part of Catholic life. Poor Jim, but be careful Kevin. He will lie to save face.
KEVIN–
You said: “God knows the heart of a man.”
And then again you said: “But, yes only God knows the souls of every man.”
Yes! I agree!
BUT then you presume YOU know by saying: “Those comments I made are for those of us who share the same gospel. You, and CK, and Jim have come on here and told us that you are justified by faith plus works.”
(James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
James 2:20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.)
You continue: “Someone who knowingly goes to the sacrifice of the Mass to merit increase in grace, or believes you have to participate in the Sacraments of the ” New Law” to be saved isn’t a believer according to my bible.”
I just gave you four verses from YOUR bible that contradict your words, much less your own contradiction of yourself. You have stated many times that because you have faith alone in Christ alone, God will not hold you responsible for your actions.
Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds.
Ezekiel 18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
Romans 2:6ff (the righteous judgment of God,) who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Revelation 2:23 and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
I am certainly glad that it is the omniscient God who searches minds and hearts that will be my judge–the God who actually knows instead of one who only thinks he knows.
Bob said ” im certainly glad that the omniscient God who searches minds and hearts that will be ny judge.” Indeed He will. And everyman wil be without excuse because here is the part you missed ” no man will be justified by observing the law” ” if it is by grace it is no longer by works, or grace is NO longer grace” Here is what Clement of Rome said “They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not thru themselves or their own works, or righteous deeds which they wrought, but thru His will. And so we, having been called by his will in Jesus Christ, are not justified thru ourselves or thru our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but thru faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men from the beginning” The Reformers didnt have problem with merit, but the location of that merit. Your misunderstanding of the verses you gave as perscriptive instead of descriptive will be fatal. I suggest you listen a true bishop of Rome Clement, and most of all to Paul, who both tell us how men are justified before God. K
Tim,
As Kevin is kinda’ like your official spokesperson, wouldn’t you like him to get his fact straight? He does reflect on you, after all.
Would you please ( I am serious now, I am not being corny ) read this piece on grace and then explain to your cohort that Catholics do not merit in the Sacraments.
http://www.christianperfection.info/tta17.php
I have told him repeatedly on your blog that we merit by works but he persists in getting it wrong almost daily.
It is so painful to visit your site. Kevin is so #%*&&**#!
Jim, Catholics merit increase in the Mass. Historically, it is called ” The work of the people.” You do your level best and God gives you grace. Grace is simply the currency of exchange on the church merit system. I speak fo myself, I am nobody’s spokesman. But I suggest you learn your doctrine. K
Jim,
There are a couple ways to respond to your objection. One is, as Eric W has done, to show you that you that Roman Catholics seek “merit by works,” as you have said, and that one of those compulsory works is to go to Mass. Thus, you (as Rome claims) obtain merits by obedience, and one way to obey is to obey what is called the “new law” which includes “Holy Communion.” By Rome’s reckoning, you leave Mass with more merit than you had when you arrived, just as you have more merit on one side of the street than on the other, having helped an elderly woman to cross it.
But there is another way, and that is to consider the purpose of attending Mass in the first place—that the merits of Christ may be applied to and accumulated by the believer through the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe that is what Kevin was getting at, but he can clarify for himself if he needs to.
In any case, going to Mass to get more merits applied to you is indeed “doing” something in order to get more merit, in order to aid you in your (hopefully successful) journey toward heaven. So what do Catholics believe about the Mass? That by attending, they will merit an increase in grace:
You can research the matter further if you like, but this had the imprimatur of the Archbishop of St. Louis.
I think what you’re getting at is that in the Mass Christ’s merits are (allegedly) applied to you, while when doing good works, your own merits are applied to you. If that’s the distinction, then all you need to do is explain that in the Mass, we do not earn merits, but rather receive the merits of Christ, but that by adoring the Eucharist during Mass we earn merits, but the merits we get by eating the Eucharist are just (so you say) Someone Else’s merits received by us, but in any case—either by adoring the Eucharist to earn merit, or by taking the Eucharist to increase merit—we continue to accumulate merit toward heaven by going to Mass.
Is that the distinction you’re making? Perhaps instead of saying,
Kevin should say,
Feel free to let him know which one your prefer.
Tim
Tim, I can absolutely defer to your rewording of my statement. They accumulate merits which entitle them to increase in justice and grace. They merit increase. Grace is the means of exchange on the church merit system. K
Hey Jim!
There’s your loaded challenge like “Do you still beat your wife?”
Tim,
You are as dumb as Kevin. I must confess, I am surprised.
Jim, my only point was that Kevin speaks of accruing merit by attending Mass the same way the Roman Catholic priests do:
So instead of telling me how dumb I am—and it is quite possible that I am as dumb as a brick—why not explain why Nikolaus Gihr was dumb for saying that ““The celebration of the Mass by the priest and the participation of the faithful in this most sacred function have … not merely the power to obtain favors and blessings, but … also also to merit an increase of sanctifying grace and heavenly glory”? Was the archbishop of St. Louis also dumb for giving his imprimatur? If I quoted Nikolaus incorrectly, let me know.
In the meantime, Catholic clergy and lay people speak of going to Mass to accrue merit, and Rev. Gihr spoke of it in precisely the terms that Eric W did, and which you deny—namely as a good work we do, “like every other good work,” to increase merit.
Why should we defer to your view of the Sacrament vis-à-vis Rev. Gihr’s? I’m willing to stipulate that I am a slobbering incoherent fool who cannot rub two books together to form an idea, or two ideas together to form a hypothesis. Now that we have established that, why not just explain why we should take your word over that of the Archbishop of St. Louis? And remember—I already know I’m dumb. What I don’t know is why the Archbishop of St. Louis is dumb.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote to Jim:
In the meantime, Catholic clergy and lay people speak of going to Mass to accrue merit, and Rev. Gihr spoke of it in precisely the terms that Eric W did, and which you deny—namely as good work we do, “like very other good work,” to increase merit.
Rev. Gihr and I play Squash together on the weekends. We bounce ideas off one another.
Sorry, typo in my original citation. Rev. Gihr said, “like every other good work,” not “like very other good work.”
Tim
Jim, where did you go? The honorable Rev Gihr said you merit increase in sanctifying grace as I have been telling you all along. You got real silent. Lol
Eric W, thanks brother. K
KEVIN–
You said: “The Reformers didnt have problem with merit, but the location of that merit. ”
Please explain.
Bob, ” please explain ” The Catholic Catechism section 2006 is merit is defined as ” recompense owed” This is false doctrine. We owe God nothing. Christ paid it ALL on the cross. We are justified only and always by the righteouness of Christ, and nothing coming from ourselves, nothing. And this righteouness, Christ, is recieved by the instrument of faith alone. God credits Christ’s life and death on the cross as the full payment for all of our sins in justification. Romans 4:5, 2 Cor. 5:21, Romans 5:19, 1 Cor 1:30, Jeremiah 23. Rome says partly by faith and partly by works in justification. Romans 9:32-10:4 Paul is clear Rome’s formula will result in hell. Works can only be the result of saving faith and not the condition of justification. K
Kevin,
” We owe God nothing.”
I sure hope you meant to say, “God owes us nothing”.
But then, nothing surprises me about what you think.
Jim, we cant pay for our Jim, He paid it all. We cant earn it, and we dont deserve it. Its a free gift. We receive it with thanksgiving. And we live a life of holiness because He has commanded us to do so, not because we owe him for our sins. Jesus was delivered over for our sins and freed us from all the things we couldnt be freed of by the law of Moses. Acts 13:38. We are free in Christ, free. He offers us assurance and peace. Being one of the Elect is not a bad thing, but a good thing. Its called good news. Paul says rejoice in the Lord always, again I say rejoice. He says it twice. Christians should never worry about their salvation. He made a promise, and He dont break them. Its his job to get me home, and He’s never lost one, or will ever. K
KEVIN–
There is nothing you just said here that is not Catholic teaching, except the part that we can’t pay for our Jim. I don’t know what that means.
You said: “And we live a life of holiness because He has commanded us to do so, not because we owe him for our sins.”
Yes, that is Catholic teaching. Matthew 25 and the parables of the Master and his servants. We must serve him by giving increase to the Kingdom so that He will say to us “Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord” instead of
“You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. Cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
That is what merit is all about.
No Bob they are exatly opposite. You do and God gives you grace. God gives us grace and we do. They are diametrically opposed. We are justified before wd are sanctified, you are sanctified before you are justified. We are justified by nothing wrought in us by the Spirit but the imputed righteouness of Christ that comes thru faith alone in Christ alone. You are justified finally by accumulating inherent righteousness thru the sacraments of the new law. It is a works righteouness born out of love and merits and demerits. It aint the same. And why you and CK are trying to seek some ecumenical sameness I have no idea. You are incapable of accepting the righteouness that justifies a Christian by faith alone cant increase or decrease, its perfect, because it is Christ. He is our righteouness. ” The righteous shall live by faith. I dont obey God’s commands to merit increases of my salvation. Im as righteous positionally as ill ever be. I obey Him as my reasonable service of worship. He doesnt need my works, I dont need them, they are for my neighbor. And yes he will judge them and reward them, they are His works, but He wont reward them according to justification or salvation, He already did that on the cross. Its thru Jesus obedience and satisfaction of divine justice He earned salvation for me and offers it as a free gift. I simplyreceived it. K
Bob, ” cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness where there is weeping and knashing of teeth.” Thats why we run to the gospel. We are all unprofitable servants. Unless your righteouness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you shall not enter the kingdom. Jesus in Mathew set the standard of the Law, and you cant keep it. With man it is impossible. It is only possible thru our substitute. We trust in Him alone and not in our obedience, not one bit.
Bob, it is imperative to remember that through Christ’s obedience and satisfaction of divine judgment HE earned salvation for us and gives it as a divine gift, from beginnibg to end. The medieval Roman church made a fatal error in misinterpreting scripture teaching this righteousness is accumulated thru the sacraments by ding them. They misunderstood justification and sank back into the errors of judaism. If you attend the Catholic church, God is calling you out of that idolatry and false gospel to his light. K
Bob, can I give you a must read. The Trinity foundation. Justification by faith: Romanism and Protestantism. It is simply the most simple c and clear comparison I have read. Maybe Tim can provide the link. I really hope you will read it. K
KEVIN–
But you said: “The Reformers didnt have problem with merit, but the location of that merit.”
What do you mean by location?
Bob, all the merits of our salvation are located in Jesus Christ, outside of us, nothing coming from ourselves. We are not justified by the work of the Holy Spirit in us, or our cooperation with grace, but by the obedience and satisfaction of divine judgment Christ provided thru his life and death on the cross, HE earned for us eternal salvation and gave it to us as a free gift, from beginning to end. You need only look at the cannons from Trent that Eric W provided above to see Rome got it wrong, fatally wrong. K
KEVIN–
You said: ” all the merits of our salvation are located in Jesus Christ, outside of us, nothing coming from ourselves.”
That’s a given. Here’s what Rome says:
2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. –Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Again you said: “You need only look at the cannons from Trent that Eric W provided above to see Rome got it wrong, fatally wrong. ”
After reading what the Roman catechism says, I don’t see it that way. “It is by the grace of God and not of ourselves, lest any man should boast.”
So, by Rome’s explanation, the Reformers location of merit agrees with Rome.
Bob ” 2008 so that merit of good works are is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, THEN TO THE FAITHFULL.” You dont merit your intitiation into grace, but you sure merit your continuance in it. Partly God, partly you. Here is what Paul says, “not of works” not of yourselves” ” to the one who does not work” if its by grace it is no longer by works” Here is what Jesus said when the rich young ruler tried to bring his grubby works. Get out! And then He said to the Apostles when they asked who can enter then. ” With man its IMPOSSIBLE, but withGOD all things are possible. I have read the Catholic Catechism 3 times, and the canons of Trent, and I can say through all the hair splitting on merit, Rome wants to smuggle its character into God’s work of grace. And God will say to every Roman Catholic the same thing he told the rich young ruler. There is only one way in, throwing ourselves on the mercy of God, trusting Christ alone. Its all a work of God. He calls, He regenerates, we repent and believe, he justifies us, sanctifies us, glorifies us. Its all a gift of God. We are just living out the miracle. In Jonah it says salvation is from the Lord. God bless.K
Bob said ” I dont see it that way” maybe you missed it there was a Reformation over it that dealt a fatal blow to Roman Catholicism and changed the course of church history. Just read ” On Christian Freedom ” by Luther. It is as true today as it was 500 years ago. ThecReformers rescued the Apostles and early church from a false gospel. If you dont see that, you might be living in a dream world. Thanks for the discussion today. K
KEVIN–
Looks like you’re getting famous over on By Ink or Blood.
Bob, Im a fool for Christ. Im honored. God bless Scott. He is a chamelion. He has tried everything, and ended up in Roman Catholicism. Stellman, Cross, they all have the same story, discontentment. Different denominatioons. God bless them all. He can say whatever he wants about me. I pray for all of them, even Jim who has called me every vile name. God has given me love for Catholics. Doesnt mean I want to hang out withthem, but I pray for all of them. K
Kevin,
“God has given me love for Catholics. Doesnt mean I want to hang out withthem, but I pray for all of them.”
You dumb $@**^%*&. Who wants to hang out with you?
KEVIN–
You said: “2008 so that merit of good works are is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, THEN TO THE FAITHFULL.” You dont merit your intitiation into grace, but you sure merit your continuance in it.”
Man, you are stiffnecked in your own prejudice. You stop quoting right there to make your point and you didn’t even consider the next sentence right after it like it wasn’t even there: “Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.”
Why do I even bother having a dialog with you? Don’t confuse you with the facts, your mind is made up.
And you said right after that: “I have read the Catholic Catechism 3 times, (yeah, right) and the canons of Trent, and I can say through all the hair splitting on merit, Rome wants to smuggle its character into God’s work of grace.”
You have proven my point. I’m not even Catholic and I can read what Rome teaches about merit. You just can’t handle that the reason “the Reformers didn’t have a problem with merit” (your words, not mine) is that it reflects a truth that is in common with Rome.
Bob, ” you are stiff necked in your own predudice” Ya right Bob, the Reformation didnt happen, and they werent stiffnecked about Trent’s canons on justification. Its just me. And Alice in Wonderland is coming over my house tonight. I would answer your post, but I cant say it better than EricW did todaynhighlighting all the canons of Trent and its false doctrine, or Tim’s post to Jim regarding my statement. Focus on Canon 32. K
Kevin,
Why did you feel the need omit that sentence? You have truth on your side (or so you say). Why use these tactics?
Omit what sentence?
Kevin,
CK is worried about what Kevin did or didn’t do. It’s evasion or subterfuge. You can’t be Balaam’s Ass, which means you can’t be God’s Ass. They judge the Ass first, then they eventually get to what the Ass said. By that time, the blog scroll is too full to even care. Isn’t that so ? CK, isn’t that so ? I teach my children:
Q. 12. Does God know all things?
A. Yes; nothing can be hid from God.
Learn from it.
Eric W,
I’m not judging you or Kevin but you all can call yourselves whatever you want.
CK, did I ever denybthat it says that man’s merit is attributed to God. No The holyvSpirit aids you as you seek merit by works. So what. Grace is the means of exchange on the church merit system. What part of nothing we do, not of any kind of works do you have a problem comprehending. Clement said not even deeds wrought in holiness of heart. We are not justified by anything wrought in by the Holy Spirit, nothing. We are justified by Christ’righteouness imputed to us. Read Clements statement I provided above to Bob if you dont want to take Paul’s word for it. I’ll make you a deal, after all your attacks above on this site and our motives. Go learn the Reformed position, and then if you decide against it good. But, its hard to discuss this when you get upset and refuse to read the articles here, or understand the Reformed position. CK, I say this in love, the Reformation happened for a good reason, and it would behove you to understand why, instead of getting mad and ipugning the character of those here. I dont care, you can do what you want. But your goal for ecumenical unity cant happen, our gospels are different. At some point you have to accept that and try to understand why. Either way, God bless you. Dont fault men for pointing out error, we are called to do this, and warn people, whether we are wrong or right. Thanks CK. Have a good evening. K
Nice catch BOB. As you know the purpose of this site is not to try to get to the truth of what Catholics believe. To them this is a game and they are willing to break the commandments (bear false witness) to “win”. The end justify the means. The beauty of judging yourself to be one of the elect. No need to follow God’s teachings! They are guaranteed heaven no matter what!
I’ve said it before, if they had the truth on their side they wouldn’t have to resort to these tactics.
Tim, before you go on asking for examples I’ll point to you using one quote from Augustine against the Eucharist and ignoring the other 10 or supporting the Catholic/Orthodox view. I guess I shouldn’t expect full disclosure from you when quoting Church Fathers etc… You do all this research but it’s hard to take you seriously because of your bigotry.
CK said ” they are guaranteed heaven no matter what” Welcome tothd grace of God. Giving us what we dont deserve. We cant earn it and we dont deserve it. Its a free gift Romans 6:23, 3:24. You dont have to work really, really hard for it. Christ thru His obedience satisfied divine justice and earned eternal life for us and gave it to us as a gift. Oh sweet exchange! That the sins of the many might be hid in the one, and the righteouness of the one abound to the many. He removed the wrath of God and reconciled us to God. Romans 5: 9-10. He forgave all our sins and freed us from ALL things Acts 13:38. Halelugah! Is it any wonder its called the good news. K
CK, when you provided me with some references from Augustine that “proved” his belief in the real presence, I responded,
That was on November 27. I will get to them. Taking one’s time to look at the data is hardly the character flaw you make it out to be. You may have noticed, however, that I am in the middle of a rather lengthy, detailed series on the Sacrifice Challenge, which has to do with the interpretation of Malachi 1:11 during the period before Augustine was born. It will be a while before I’m even finished with that. Suppose I were to abandon the Sacrifice Challenge to answer your question on Augustine. Would that mean that I was unable to answer it? Or suppose I were to abandon your question on Augustine to answer Jim’s question on Nick’s take on Daniel 2. Would that mean that I was avoiding the question? Or suppose I were to abandon Jim’s question to pursue Nick’s question on Romans 4. Would that mean that I was unable to answer it? Or if I were to abandon Nick’s question on Romans 4 to answer Bob’s question on the denomination of the true Church during the medieval Roman persecution. Would that mean that I was unable to answer it? I obviously cannot answer any of these questions simultaneously without diverting my attention from the others, and I will get to them all in time. But I cannot answer them all at once, and this is also my blog, and I set the agenda. You will simply have to be patient. Perhaps while you are waiting, you can answer my questions on how you know with certainty which councils are ecumenical and why you trust one regional synod (Rome, 382 A.D.) over another (Carthage, 258 A.D.), all based on nothing but your own personal opinion—the very charge you lay at the feet of Protestants. You may take your time with that one, of course. It’s not an easy question to answer, and it’s ok to take your time.
In any case, since you are interested in examples of people intentionally leaving out information to mislead, here is Pope Benedict speaking of how important it is to kneel on Sunday during Mass;
And then to support Rome’s practice of rising from our knees during the Mass after kneeling, he adds this historical whopper:
But here is 20th Canon from Nicæa:
Why do you suppose Pope Benedict left out that part about kneeling on Sunday being forbidden in the Early Church? Is it possible that such a reading of Nicæa was inconsistent with his beliefs on kneeling, and therefore he thought he needed to leave it out? Was he being deceptive?
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Tim
I said support not prove.
CK, you said, “prove without a doubt.” See your comments here:
CK wrote on 11/27/2014 at 10:41 PM (central time):
You can see your original comments here:
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/10/26/if-the-light-that-is-in-thee-be-darkness/
Thanks,
Tim
Tim I was referring to my most recent post. It does prove to me that the early church also believed in the real presence.
My additional evidence is that the Coptics, Eastern Orthodox etc believe in the real presence . They split from the church over a thousand years ago and the real presence was not in dispute. You may know of some writting that addresses the disagreement in the real presence between the fathers. You would think this would of been a major point of disagreement. I would be interested in reading about it.
CK,
It is an interesting question. Belief in the mystical presence predated the 11th century, and therefore there is no disagreement between the east and the west on the mystical presence. But Eucharistic Adoration originated after the split, so there is significant disagreement on that between east and west. For example, see this article by an Eastern Orthodox theologian: The Error of Eucharistic Adoration. He writes,
He goes on to say that the Eastern Orthodox’s eucharistic focus is not on transubstantiation but on the presence of Christ:
Since the origin of our discussion (mine with you) was on Pope Paul VI citing Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms in Mysterium Fidei to support Eucharistic Adoration, isn’t it interesting that Eucharistic Adoration is disputed in Eastern Orthodoxy. Why would that be the case if Eucharistic Adoration preceded the split as you believe it did?
By the way, he cites Exodus 20:4–5, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image…,” applies it to Eucharistic Adoration and calls it idolatry.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, here is Tim said Jim, ” as Eric W has show that Catholics seek merit by works.” Trent says ” converted to their own justification” You cooperate with grace to be justified. The Canons say it is partly YOU and partly God. Iow God helps you save yourself. You do your level best and God gives you grace. But Clement of Rome says not even works wrought in holiness justify us, read his statement on justification I provided you. He is the bishop of Rome. He wasnt Roman Catholic. Paul says not of yourself, not of works Ephesians 2:8. There is no way to reconcile that with any system of merit of cooporation. If God gave grace as a response to an action or ability it woudnt be a gift, but a reward. Salvation is a gift. And only received by faith. Thx
Eric W, how is your squash game? Next time Im in St Louis to see my family, im going to pay the archbishop a visit to thank him for agreeing with my description of meriting increase. Tim, Im glad you cant rub two books together because you found the one with the quote from the Archbishop of my hometown. God bless
KEVIN–
You kinda said somewhat: “Bob, here is Tim said Jim, ” as Eric W has show that Catholics seek merit by works.” Trent says ” converted to their own justification” You cooperate with grace to be justified.”
Yes, that is what the bible says “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” And here is what the Catechism says:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
You said: “There is no way to reconcile that with any system of merit of cooporation. If God gave grace as a response to an action or ability it woudnt be a gift, but a reward.”
Who taught you that? The Bible speaks many times of reward:
Mat 5:12 “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Mat 6:4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
Mat 6:6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
Mat 6:18 “so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
Mat 10:41“He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.”
Mat 10:42 “And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.”
Mat 16:27 “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.”
Mar 9:41“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
Luk 6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven,
For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
Luk 6:35 “But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.
1Co 3:8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
1Co 3:14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
Col 3:24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.
Heb 10:35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.
CKBOB, who taught you that”. The bible teaches about reward. “The bible never teaches that grace is a reward as a response to an action or ability. Grace can only come APART from doing. It is demerited favor. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Grace in Catholicism is the means of exchange on the church merit system. You do your level best and God gives you grace. If its by works its no longer by grace. Grace is unmerited or demerited favor. Its free. You dont b ave to work really, really hard for it. How do you stay in that church. God bless.., thanks for your response.
I would love to see one place in the Bible where FINAL JUSTIFICATION is based of anything but works.
Forget initial justification for a minute.
And I would like to see where the bible teaches a final justification or salvation on the installment plan? Justification is always past tense in scripture, always.
KEVIN–
You said: Bob, ” cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness where there is weeping and knashing of teeth.” Thats why we run to the gospel. We are all unprofitable servants.”
But that is not what Matthew 25 says. When you are justified you belong in the Kingdom of Heaven, right? Matthew 25 starts off with:
“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to…”
Then in verse 14 Jesus says “For the kingdom of heaven is like… ”
Then in verse 34 He says “Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…”
Inherit the kingdom by doing what? Jesus tells you in the very next verses:
Matthew 35 ff “for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
Look here what Paul said:
Galatians 6:2 ff “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load. Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.”
Looks like another reward to me.
Bob, ” then the RIGHTEOUS shall say” need I say any more. These verses are descriptive of a believer. They arent teaching on justification. Paul teaches on justification. And Rome’s view of James 2 is wrong. What is he addressing. Someone who SAYS they have faith. True faith is demonstrated by its works, but this is not justification before God, but how faith is demonstrated to men. ” ill show YOU my faith by my works. Before God we are ever and only justified by faithapart from any works or anything coming from ourselves. You can continuevto close your eyes to the books on justification by Paul if you want. What does it mean when Paul says if its by works it is NO longer by grace? And dont tell me thats initial justification. The bible doesnt teach justificatiin on the instalment plan. If its by works it is no longer by grace from beginning to end. K
So Kevin, how much work must one do to demonstrate true faith and how do you know? Chapter and verse please.
Feed/ clothe the poor once in a while? Do you belive in once fed always fed? Forgive your brother once, twice or more? You’ve told me before you don’t need to forgive to be saved, though the Word of God says otherwise. If it’s a sign of true faith you would think it would be important to forgive.
CK, listen to what you are saying. You can only assimilate justification in your mind as ” doing the comandments. You and DeMaria are the most deeply imbeded Catholics I have seen. ” Once fed always fed” You believe your justice is realated to how many times you feed someone” How are you different from a pharisee? CK, I have noticed after all this time blogging you completely believe in justiflication by works. You are fixated on Mathew and believe your justification is directly tied to your works. But the gospel is the exact opposite. Paul says God justifies an UNGODLY man by faith, APART from works, by counting his FAITH for righteouness. Do you just ignore these verses that teach specifically on justification. Jesus is teaching the law in Mathew. And he sets it so high, perfection, that no one can keep it. The law, all law can only lead a man to faith because we see we cant keep it. Paul says law isnt faith. Who said its not important to forgive, but we arent JUSTIFIED by forgiving. Have you forgiven everyone perfectly in your life? CK, why do you go to Mathew and James and ignore Paul’s teaching given to him by Jesus himself so we can know how to be justified? Did you go to your English class to learn math? I dont get it. K
Kevin you said true faith is demonstraded by good works. I’m just asking you what kind and how much work proves true faith.
I’m not ignoring Paul. He tells also us to work out our salvation. Btw, all of the New Testament is the Word of God not just what Paul wrote.
Kevin why do you go to Paul and ignore what James, Mathew, Peter, John, Luke and I almost forgot much of Paul wrote?
Bob said ” looks like reward to me” in reference to Galatians 6:7. Indeed God will reward His works, but not with grace. God doesnt give us grace as a result of an action of ability. Paulisnt abandoning the doctrine of jbfa here. The whole book of Galatians is how works and hearing by faith are opposed in justification. Sorry Bob all you got is James 2, and you misinterpret that. But hey good luck in trying to merit your salvation. It didnt turn out to good for the Jews in Romans 9:32-10:4. They went to hell. God bless, thanks for the talk.
Tim,
I saw your defense of kelvin’s nonsense about meriting via the Sacraments and am more convinced than ever you know no more than he does. I used to think you were the smart one and Kelvin the pretty one. Now I know better.
Kevin said above, “Indeed God will reward His works, but not with grace. ”
Show me again how little you know by explaining to Kelvin just what grace is according to Catholic teaching. What does God reward with? Coupons, gift certificates, complimentary bottle of shampoo with every 10 purchases, what?
Jim, Before moving on to coupons, what do you suppose Rev. Gihr meant when he said,
After all, he was explaining the Mass dogmatically, liturgically and ascetically.
Thanks,
Tim
CK–
You told Tim: “But there’s only one truth. BOB and I (mostly BOB) have shown you SEVERAL quotes from Austine and other fathers that prove without a doubt they believed in the real presence.”
I don’t doubt it at all. Neither do the Lutherans or the Eastern Orthodox, nor do some of my kin from the Church of Christ.
But you and I know that Tim will be able to put his spin on what the Fathers say to make it look like they didn’t. Just be patient. He needs a lot of time to do it.
Tim realizes that he needs to change history to push his view. That’s a tall order.
CK, Tim isnt changing history, he is shining the light on it, and its evident that the early church wasnt Roman Catholic. In fact its a tall order to believe that it was anything close. Tim uses an interesting approach foriegn to you, evidence. Incidentally if you ever decide to read Tim’s articles you will see he doesnt give his view, he operates in facts, another thing not customary with Catholics. Calvin, the most brilliant theologian, rightly found the early church evidence fell heavily on thd Protestant side. You have to go no furthervtha Clement of Rome and his statement on justification, comparedto the RC statement at Trent. Diametrically oposed. K
CK and Bob,
Do you believe Tim was raised Catholic? Sometimes I wonder.
And what about his wacky 350 A.D. theory? You know, the one that flies in the face of the Fathers.
Are you guys converts or cradle Catholics?
If cradle, maybe we should ask Tim to explain the Romish innovations of salt and pepper cords, blue sweaters, nuns hitting kids with rulers, holy cards, annual spaghetti dinners, May crownings, spiritual bouquets, or the scariest one of all, Novenas to St. Jude. I mean, Judas was a bad guy wasn’t he? He betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silverware, right? When did Catholics start to worship him?
These Romish innovations were all introduced after 350 A.D. right?
( I bet Kelvin jumps in and answers with 6 posts before Tim even sees my question ).
And yes, I lurked the other day and saw the link to Ink and Blood. Great comments about Balony Falloni indeed.
Jim, the Archbishop of St Louis said merit increase of sanctifying grace. Lets be frank and quit beating around the bush. You, CK, Bob are working your way to heaven in that system.
JIM–
You said: ” I would love to see one place in the Bible where FINAL JUSTIFICATION is based of anything but works.
Forget initial justification for a minute.”
Are you talking about glorification? Or as Catholics call it, attaining the Beatific Vision?
CK,
If Tim were to attend a few Masses and listen to the words the priest uses, he might get it.
And what about Dr. Tim getting into Augustine’s “transitional” head?
“Augustine is transitional, by which I mean that he was trying to understand what was currently happening in the church and reconcile it with the preceding 300 years, and therefore he occasionally ends up wavering between multiple positions.”
Jim,
Augustine himself acknowledged that it was a period of transition:
As I wrote in What the Fathers Feared Most, Augustine was afraid that what was about to happen, was about to happen.
Yes, its was a period of transition, and Augustine was caught in the middle of it.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, the post to CK on the East and their view of Eucharistic adoration as being idolatry is very interesting. Thanks for that.
Tim said – He goes on to say that the Eastern Orthodox’s eucharistic focus is not on transubstantiation but on the presence of Christ:
“Eastern Orthodoxy’s Eucharistic focus is not on the change in the elements, but on the presence of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the mystery of faith encountered in the ancient liturgy.”
Since the origin of our discussion (mine with you) was on Pope Paul VI citing Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms in Mysterium Fidei to support Eucharistic Adoration, isn’t it interesting that Eucharistic Adoration is disputed in Eastern Orthodoxy. Why would that be the case if Eucharistic Adoration preceded the split as you believe it did?
By the way, he cites Exodus 20:4–5, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image…,” applies it to Eucharistic Adoration and calls it idolatry.
Thanks,
Tim
Me – Tim, I agree that the Adoration of the Eucharist outside the Liturgy is not ancient and the some Orthodox take issue with it. They believe it should be consumed during the liturgy and not exposed.
What I am saying is that the Eastern and Oriental Churches believe in the “real presence”. It “becomes” the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The substance changes but the accidents stay the same. And yes, they adore the Eucharist.
Tim quoted – “Eastern Orthodoxy’s Eucharistic focus is not on the change in the elements, but on the presence of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the mystery of faith encountered in the ancient liturgy.”
Me – Tim the question is not whether or not their focus is on the change of the elements, but rather on the fact that they believe the elements change as did the Early Fathers!! What do those elements change to?
Btw, there are many Orthodox Churches that do adore the Eucharist during the Liturgy.
Thanks
Tim said – In any case, since you are interested in examples of people intentionally leaving out information to mislead, here is Pope Benedict speaking of how important it is to kneel on Sunday during Mass;
“Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 194)
“a faith and liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 194)
And then to support Rome’s practice of rising from our knees during the Mass after kneeling, he adds this historical whopper:
“The twentieth canon of Nicæa decrees that Christians should stand, not kneel, during Eastertide” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 192).
But here is 20th Canon from Nicæa:
“Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost [Eastertide], this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.”
Why do you suppose Pope Benedict left out that part about kneeling on Sunday being forbidden in the Early Church? Is it possible that such a reading of Nicæa was inconsistent with his beliefs on kneeling, and therefore he thought he needed to leave it out? Was he being deceptive?
Me – Assuming this is a true representation (a big if), then it is deceptive. If he was aware that he was being deceptive then that would make him a liar. So what’s your point? Popes can deceive and so can you? Be better than the Pope!! 🙂
Btw, I’m not claiming a character flaw because you haven’t addressed Augustine’s quotes. Frankly, I don’t know how you keep up as much as you do. It’s impressive.
What I do question is how you can come to your conclusion about Augustine’s belief in the Eucharist without having addressed his comments that seem to support the Catholic view. Surely you were aware of them.
Thanks, CK. Fair enough. You wrote,
Ok, let’s take a look at the citations you provided by Augustine. One at a time, and this is going to take a while. Augustine is transitional, by which I mean that he was trying to understand what was currently happening in the church and reconcile it with the preceding 300 years, and therefore he occasionally ends up wavering between multiple positions. Nevertheless, it is valuable to look at the context of what he said. Remember, our conversation started with your response to what I was saying about Paul VI’s use of Augustine in Mysterium Fidei, and what I was highlighting about Mysterium Fidei was that Augustine said:
And Paul VI used that sermon to support the statement that,
Augustine clearly did not believe that Jesus was asking us to drink the blood that flowed from Jesus’ side, but Paul VI used his sermons on Palms to say that Augustine really believed that we are to drink “the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side.” But Paul VI didn’t quote the parts of Augustine’s sermon that supported the Protestant view. And he said in paragraph 47 that the Fathers were all in agreement that we “should not pay attention to the senses, which report only the properties of bread and wine, but rather to the words of Christ.” And yet when Augustine was paying attention to the words of Christ (John 6) he understood them to mean, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” Perhaps in Mysterium Fidei Paul VI was being as deceptive as Benedict was in The Spirit of the Liturgy.
Anyway, let’s take a look at the first citation of the ten you provided on Augustine in your comment of January 7, 2015:
What we find in Sermon 227 is quite consistent with what we have seen in this series on the Early Church interpretation of Malachi 1:11—namely that prayer is the sacrifice we present to God, but once the words of consecration are spoken, the consecrated elements are presented to us as the Sacrifice of Christ. As I noted when we covered Irenæus, in part 4, he believed that the Lord’s Supper did not begin until the Oblation of the New Covenant was already over, and therefore the Lord’s Supper cannot be the Oblation of the New Covenant. Prayer and praise is the oblation of the New Covenant, and then, when the words of consecration are spoken, Christ’s sacrifice is exhibited to men. Note the order in which it happens: we offer a sacrifice of Praise to God, and then the words of Consecration are spoken, and then Christ’s sacrifice is presented to men under the symbols of bread and wine. As we shall see, by the end of the 4th century, a great deal of confusion entered in and people began to think that the consecrated elements—Christ’s Body and Blood—were the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, but Augustine does not completely succumb to that mistake here. Notice that once Jesus says the bread and wine are His body and blood, he presents them, not to His Father, but to his disciples, for as it turns out, the body and blood are to signify us (which we also saw in Cyprian of Carthage, this week):
Thus, the citation you cut and pasted from an apologetics web page cut Augustine’s citation one sentence too short. The bread and wine are the Body and Blood presented to us, not the Body and Blood sacrificed to God. To the degree that a sacrifice is offered in the Lord’s Supper, it is because in some way those consecrated elements signify Christ’s people, and that is what is offered. Recall that Cyprian said something quite similar—namely, that at the words of consecration, the bread and wine become us:
As I noted this week, it is interesting that at Jesus’ words of institution, the bread and wine become a figure for something—His people.
The significance is twofold. First, Augustine follows Irenæus here and has the prayers offered as our sacrifice to God, and then after the words of consecration, has God’s sacrifice for us displayed in the elements. Second, to the degree that the bread and wine are offered, it is us, not Christ, who are offered. Notice that Augustine says the bishop is “offering” before there is even a word of consecration spoken, and then when the word of consecration is spoken, Christ’s sacrifice is displayed to us, but is we, not Christ, who are the sacrifice that is presented to God, and it is our prayers, not Christ’s Body and Blood that is presented:
This idea of us (and our prayers and obedience being a sacrifice of praise per Hebrews 13:15 and Romans 12:1), rather than Christ being the sacrifice during the Lord’s Supper, is consistent with Augustine’s statement in City of God, Book X, chapter 6. Note that we (our prayers, praise, obedience, etc…) are the sacrifice in accordance with Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15:
Interesting, is it not, that the Sacrifice of the Altar, in Sermon 227 and City of God Book X, is us and our obedience and prayers presented to God, but when the words of consecration are spoken, Christ’s sacrifice is exhibited to us, but not offered to God. To the degree that the elements are offered to God, it is because they signify us, not Christ, for, as he said, “she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.”
There is much more that can be said about this, but I hope you see my point that the brief citation you provided gave the impression that Augustine supported Rome’s mass sacrifice. A closer reading suggests otherwise.
As we continue through the study in Malachi, we will find that as we approach the end of the 4th century, the the focus of the Lord’s Supper changes from praise, prayer and His people as a “living sacrifice” being presented as the Oblation of the New Covenant, to the transubstantiated elements being offered as the sacrifice. Augustine was trying to make sense of it all, and at least here avoids the error of presenting Christ’s body and blood as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, and instead insists that it is we, not Christ, who is presented therein.
You may not agree with my analysis, but I hope you can see that your citation from Sermon 227 does not “prove without a doubt” what you think it does.
Thanks,
Tim
Of course one must understand it spiritually! That’s catholic teaching. The disciples thought they were supposed to eat his arms etc… They didn’t understand the mystery.
So why does Austine tells us to worship something that’s symbolic? Isn’t that idolatry?
At your church do you offer sacrifices at the altar? I thought Kevin said that was a no no.
Augustine’s quote below for context.
8. O magnify the Lord our God Psalm 98:5. Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who has wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, who justifies the ungodly. Romans 4:5 …And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy. What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek ὑ ποπόδιον, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, You shall worship the Lord your God? Deuteronomy 6:13 Yet here it says, fall down before His footstool: and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, The earth is My footstool. I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, fall down before His footstool. I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool. In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing….But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
CK said to Tim, you offer sacrifices at the altar. I thought Kevin said you guys dont do that” I never said tgat CK. Dont act like you dont know whats beingvsaid here. We offer praise and thanksgiving at the Lord’s supper. But we dont offer Christ up again or oureselves as propitiation for our sin. You know this. The Mass is sacriledge, and if you participate your implicated, period. God bless. K
CK said ” of course one must understand it spiritually. This is Catholic teaching. That is not Roman Catholic teaching. Transubstantiation is Christ is substantially the bread of the supper and the Jesus wafer is to be worshiped as God. It is marched around in the streets and adored for hours on end in adoration chapels. This is what was done with the golden calf. Incidentally Catholics conveniently combine 2 commandments and leave out ” you shall have no graven images etc.. 4 verses in all the Epistles on the Lord’s supper and John never mentions it in his gospel, yet Catholics are fixated on it instead of faith alone in Christ alone. Why? Because they have believed the lie of the Roman church that they must do it and do it often to merit enough grace for heaven, and without it faith won’t suffice. Yet here is what Augustine said ” Let human merits, which perished with Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign in Christ.” And Calvin adds ” The worth of the act is not due to an action of the person who performs it.” CK, what you must understand, is to go do Mass is the greatest rejection of God’s provision for salvation there ever was. ” For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God ,not a result of works, so that no one will boast” If Salvation is a gift and not of works then what the Catholic church calls ” the work of the people ” to merit their salvation is a complete rejection of the gospel. And the very thing that roman catholics think will get them to heaven actually will forfeit their salvation. We must come to the Lord’s supper in faith as a gift, and reject the Roman Mass with every breath of our body. I pray you will consider the importance of tim’s work here telling us what the Early Fathers understood clearly from scripture. God bless K
Kevin,
It’s your lack of spirituality is what that keeps you from seeing the Eucharist for what it is. You are thinking carnally. Read Augustine above. It’s a sin not to worship it!
Btw one can believe it’s the body of Christ and not accept Transubstantiation such as the Greek Orthodox.
And Lutherans! Just ask BOB!
CK, your next citation from Augustine on January 7 was from sermon 234:
You may have seen my comments earlier to Bob, in which I provided Augustine’s insistence that “eat my flesh” and “drink My blood” in John 6 must be taken figuratively. Eating Jesus’ flesh is a figure for believing in Him. Drinking His blood is a figure for believing in Him. That will help us understand sermon 234. The sermon was preached during the Easter Octave, and the topic was Jesus’ resurrection. The question before them was whether we believe Jesus rose from the dead. To his audience, he says,
This is not remarkable, but what follows is quite interesting. Augustine contrasts his audience with the Jews, who by their unbelief have drunk Christ’s blood unto damnation, never having even partaken of the Sacrament:
When taken in the context of Augustine’s figurative interpretation of John 6 (i.e., “Believe, and you have eaten already. … For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.”), his reference to the Jews drinking blood unto condemnation by their unbelief in the resurrection (that is, not by taking communion unworthily, but simply by not believing in the resurrection), in the context of a sermon on the resurrection, lends itself to Augustine’s figurations rather that Paul VI’s anachronistic reading of him in Mysterium Fidei. See for example, Augustine as he waxes metaphorical about Christ’s flesh and blood as figures of belief and unbelief in Contra Faustum, Book XII:
None of this is determinative, of course—Augustine wrote so much. But if he says Jesus’ words in John 6 are to be taken figuratively, and that “this is My body” means the bread becomes us, for it is we who are offered to God therein, and the Jews drink Christ’s blood by their unbelief, and we drink Christ’s blood by our belief, and the testimony of the believing saints is the blood of Christ, and the ground (Israel) from which He sprang up is His flesh, then his words in Sermon 234, that “bread … which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body” are hardly able to carry the weight of your assertion that they “prove without doubt” that Augustine held to a Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper.
Thanks,
Tim
CK, your next citation from Augustine on January 7 was from sermon 272:
I respond simply by providing the actual sermon. If you read it, you will see that by “the bread is the body of Christ,” Augustine is referring to the Church, not to the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. He is expounding 1 Corinthians 12:27, “you are the Body of Christ,” as in, “So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27]”. He insists that Christ’s “real presence” is “seated at God’s right,” and that what is in the bread and wine symbolizes us, the body of Christ on earth. In other words, the bread is us: “When you received exorcism, you were ‘ground.’ When you were baptized, you were ‘leavened.’ When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were ‘baked.’ Be what you see; receive what you are.” The bread is a symbol. Here is the sermon to which you referred:
Thanks,
Tim
CK, your next citation of Augustine on January 7, 2015 was from his sermon on Psalms 33:
The citation you provided has been modified a little to take the figurative sting out of it. You can read the entire sermon online at the link provide below, if you like. In any case, the section you cited actually states:
I have highlighted the phrase “and in a manner,” because it was omitted from what you quoted. We must ask, “in what manner” did Christ carry himself, according to Augustine? It is easy to find out. In his work, the Harmony of the Gospels, Augustine notes that the synoptics all address Jesus’ statement, “This is My body,” but he notices that John omits this part. No matter, says Augustine, because John covered that matter in much more detail elsewhere:
But when was that other occasion that John addressed this with greater fullness? It was in John 6, and Augustine insisted that in John 6, Jesus was speaking figuratively:
If Augustine says John was speaking figuratively when he covered the matter of “This is My Body” much more fully than the synoptics did, then I must say that his words, “in a manner” are quite important in his exposition on Psalm 33. I don’t know any Protestants who disagree that Jesus “carried Himself in His own hands” at the Lord’s Supper when he said “This is my Body.” In a manner—a figurative manner—He did. That’s not just my opinion. It was Augustine’s, too.
Thanks,
Tim
CK, your next citation of Augustine on January 7, 2015 was from Letter 98:
The idea of Christ’s body and blood being sacrificed during the the Lord’s Supper was a novelty of the late 4th century. As I mentioned in a previous comment, Augustine was transitional in that he was born before the novelty was introduced, but came of age when the novel error was spreading throughout the world. This I freely grant. That said, it is important to notice Augustine’s language as he continues in the next sentence:
Notice that he said that “in a certain manner,” it is Christ’s body. What “manner” would that be? It would be a “figurative manner,” as I demonstrated in my previous comment, for Augustine himself so explained. I disagree with his theme in the letter, that is his view on baptismal regeneration, but even as he explains the efficacy of baptism, he gives us some understanding of the view of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Just as the baptized baby is called a “believer” even though he does not believe, so too is the Sacrament called the Lord’s body and blood:
Since we already have heard from Augustine in rather plain terms that “This is My body” is to be understood figuratively, and then he uses that as a way to explain to Boniface why a baptized baby is called a believer even though he does not yet believe, his sacrificial language in Letter 98 is hardly proves “without doubt” what you think it does.
Thanks,
Tim
CK, your next citation from Augustine on January 1, 2015 was from City of God, Book 10:
I would only commend to you a more careful reading of this very citation. Augustine says that the Church is Christ’s Body, and therefore she offers herself. Not Him. To see what he means by “offer herself,” I’ll take you back to Sermon 227:
When Augustine says we offer the Body of Christ to God at our weekly worship service, and uses 1 Corinthians 12:27 (“Now ye are the body of Christ”) to prove it, (see also Sermon 272), it imparts a rather different meaning to “the Church … learns to offer herself,” for Augustine says, “so you for your part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives.” This is consistent with our study thus far in Malachi 1:11—offering our faith, devotion and obedience to him as a “living sacrifice” according to Romans 12:1.
Where is Christ this whole time we are “offering the Body of Christ”? He is in heaven seated at His Father’s right hand:
With that in mind, I invite your attention to Chapter 3 of the Book 10 of City of God, which provides the context of your citation:
The the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning love, offered on the altar of our heart, is the sacrifice the Church offers to God when she learns to offer herself, through Him.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I’ll be busy the next few weeks. It’s my busy time at work. I’ll have to respond in small random bites.
Thanks
CK, your next citation of Augustine on January 7, 2015 as from his Questions on the Heptateuch:
Here he is referring to John 6, and as I noted in a previous comment, Augustine has already stated that he reads Christ’s exhortation in John 6 figuratively. The section you cited (3:57:4) is in a section of the Questions in which he is addressing the Scriptural occasions in which a thing is called what it signifies, even though it is not actually what it signifies. In the preceding paragraph he cited Genesis 41:26, “The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one,” and 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” Of these he states,
So the cattle and the corn were not years, but signified years. And the rock that followed them was not Christ, but signified Christ. Now when he proceeds in the following paragraph and mentions drinking the Blood of Christ, citing John 6, a verse upon which he has already explicitly said is to be taken figuratively, it is quite clear that Augustine is saying here in the Questions on the Heptateuch that the when Christians “are exhorted to drink” the Blood of Christ, he is saying that they are exhorted to drink something that signifies his blood, which in fact is a figure for believing on Jesus, for as Augustine has elsewhere said,
Therefore, your citation from Questions on the Heptateuch does not “prove without doubt” what you think it does.
Thanks,
Tim
CK, your next citation from Augustine on January 1, 2015 is from The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love:
Augustine is talking about sacrifices for the dead, and the sacrifices being offered as propitiation for their sins. That is is the case may be seen by his words from the same chapter:
Granted: Augustine in this chapter was talking about sacrifices to propitiate the sins of the departed. In this he was in error, “as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There is no other offering for sins.
The question then remains: what is the Sacrifice that is offered as a payment to atone for sins? When he says “Sacrifice of the Mediator” and “Sacrifice of the Altar” is he talking about sacrificing the real presence of Christ, His flesh and blood, in the Eucharist? Or is he talking about something else?
Before he ever gets to the discussion of paying for the sins of the dead in The Handbook, he identifies the various ways by which sin may be atoned:
Ok, so according to Augustine, alms, works of mercy, prayer, forgiveness, loving our enemies, etc… are the ways we propitiate God for our sins. This is granted for the sake of argument.
Now let’s look at Augustine’s view of the “true sacrifice” we offer, which as it turns out is, works of mercy, the man himself, our body, our love to God and to neighbor. We offer as a sacrifice “the congregation or community of the saints,” which is to say, the Church herself. This is the sacrifice of the Christian, the true sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Body of Christ—by which Augustine means the congregation of saints. Note that Augustine says that this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.” The sacrament of the altar is when the Church offers herself, not Christ, to the Father:
He calls this the Sacrifice of the Christian, the Sacrifice of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the True Sacrifice, which we offer to God, because we offer the “Body of Christ” as a sacrifice and the Body of Christ refers to us, not to transubstantiated bread. As he said in Sermon 272, it is the Church, not Jesus, that is put on the altar:
This is what Augustine is referring to when he says that the Mediator “designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him.” (Augustine, City of God, Book X, chapter 20). To Augustine, the sacrifice of the Christian, the Sacrifice of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the True Sacrifice which we offer to God is that which the Mediator designed as a daily sign … “To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.”
In fact, if you look at City of God, Book 10, chapter 19, the chapter immediately preceding the one where Augustine speaks of the supreme and true sacrifice that replaces all others, he says it is “purity of mind and holiness of will… prayer or praise … the very feelings we are expressing… in our heart we ought to present ourselves” for the sacrifice the Christian offers is “offering himself in sacrifice to God.” This, says Augustine, is the new sacrifice, for the Church imitates the Savior Who offered Himself, by offering herself.
Now, let’s go back to Chapter 110 of Augustine’s Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love. The sacrifice of the Mediator is to offer oneself. The sacrifice of the altar is to offer one’s works of mercy, love, obedience, forgiveness, alms and prayer. The sacrifice of the Church is to offer herself. The sacrifice of the Christian is to offer himself. “If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving!” And therefore it is your own mystery that you are offering.
Read the entirety of The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love, and you see that the only thing the Christian offers is his own life, soul, alms, prayer and works of mercy—and in the Sacrament of the Altar the Christian may offer those for the sins of the dead.
I think Augustine is grossly in error here, but he is trying desperately to unify what the Early Church believed and practiced for the first 300 years, with the nonsense that emerged toward the end of the 4th century—invoking the martyrs, sacrificing the Body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, etc… That said, when Augustine is allowed to define his own terms, and he is read in the context of his own works, your citation from chapter 110 of The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love does not “prove without doubt” that Augustine believed in the real presence of Christ sacrificed on the altar. No, it is us on the altar, not Jesus. To the degree that the “body of Christ is offered” the Body of Christ refers to the Church, who in imitation of her savior offers herself, not her savior, in propitiation for sins:
Yes, indeed, it is true that Augustine saw this as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, and explicitly states that the sacrifice of the New Covenant is the Body and Blood of Christ:
This is no surprise, since Augustine came along just after this new view of Malachi 1:11 began to be introduced. But Augustine goes on in the same sermon, and speaks of transubstantiation, but not in a way that supports Rome’s view, for the bread and wine are transubstantiated by faith, into us:
And that—our “devout and obedient lives”—is what is offered at the altar to pay for the sins of the dead in chapter 110 of The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love, not Jesus’ sufferings or His body and blood.
Again, I disagree strongly with what Augustine was saying and how he said it, but he most certainly was not speaking of offering Christ’s sufferings in the Mass.
Thanks,
Tim
kevin
JANUARY 23, 2015 AT 4:54 PM
Bob, ” then the RIGHTEOUS shall say” need I say any more. These verses are descriptive of a believer.
Yes they are. They are a picture of who is in the kingdom. But look a little closer at Matthew 25. Who is this person in the Kingdom?
Mat 25:28 ‘Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. ‘And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Really? This servant was in the kingdom and got what he had taken away and given to the righteous(they got their grace increased) and then, on top of that, the unprofitable servant got kicked out.
You feel you are justified? Then you better persevere or you will lose it.
Bob said to Kevin” you feel you are justified” No, I know I am justified. Its past tense. Romans 5:1, and it provides constant peace and rejoicing. God gave me the connector and I am hitched to the mercy wagon going to Zion. I aint fueling the engine. All the coal I am throwing in He gave me, its His coal, His engine, and He picks the passengers. Im enjoying the ride rejoicing always for the constant sunshine, even though there are bumps along the way, He doesnt throw me out of the box car, and we have enough coal to get to the deatination. For you, God gave you rope, if you decide to grab it, and you must pull yourself up the hill to get to the train as He sits back and watches. Everyday you have to have your rope tickened ( mass) to get to the train. So you do a rope dance to appease God, and He says ok here is more thickness. And at the end of your life if you accidentally cut the rope, ahh tough luck. Did I miss anything? God bless.
Yes Kelvin,
And your version of God holds the rope back from some folks to, huh?
By the way, don’t be so cocky about being hitched to that ol’ mercy wagon. Your God gives some poor suckers a temporary faith for a while, doesn’t h? He is quite the prankster.
IOW, just when you think you have a firm grip on that mercy rope the good Lord just may yank it free of your mucky fingers just so he can demonstrate his awesome justice. Sovereign gods do have a sense of humor, after all.
Then the joke will be on you, huh?
Do this in remembrance of me and not of yourselves, not of works are really tough concepts for those who say this ” just how much work does it take to prove your faith” When your earning your way to heaven things like election, sacrifice, justification become rather fuzzy. Not to those who trust in Christ alone ” our righteouness”
KEVIN–
You said: “No, I know I am justified. Its past tense. Romans 5:1, and it provides constant peace and rejoicing. God gave me the connector and I am hitched to the mercy wagon going to Zion. I aint fueling the engine. All the coal I am throwing in He gave me, its His coal, His engine, and He picks the passengers. Im enjoying the ride rejoicing always for the constant sunshine, even though there are bumps along the way, He doesnt throw me out of the box car, and we have enough coal to get to the deatination.”
Then why even go to church? Why do you even pray? Heaven has been handed to you on a silver platter. You don’t need to do anything God commanded. Just ride the train because he let you on. What do you expect to gain by going to church? Nothing! There is nothing more to gain. You have it all already. You can thank God and praise him from the shores of your favorite fishing hole on Sunday morning.
” Ahhhh….rest and relaxation, dwelling on God and His goodness on the Sabbath. It don’t get any better than that. Someday I’ll be able to do this on God’s golden shore forever….
well….looky there….I’ve got a bite! Maybe after this, I’ll go home and watch some football”.
I would imagine that’s what Paul taught in his lost letter to the Church at Philadelphia, right?
And Kevin’s coal train just keeps on chuggin’ along…..
KEVIN–
Wait a minute! You said: “All the coal I am throwing in He gave me,”
So you are cooperating with God! You are actually helping the train along by shoveling coal. It’s God’s coal, but you are doing the one doing the work with it.
How dare you be so……….Roman Catholic!
Bob, you dont get it, im not cooperating to merit my salvatiion, or grace, or justification. Its all a gift if God. This insnt true in Romanism. Grace is the currency of exchange on the church merit system. Your earning your way to heaven by smuggling your character into God’s work of grace. God will reject this. K
KEVIN–
Hey, I just read what you wrote about throwing in coal.
Your words not mine. I figured you meant something by it. Why did you say it if you didn’t mean it?
Bob,
Kevin has been justified. And if he perseveres to the end, he “will be justified.” Matthew 24: 13 and James 1:12 say so.
Bob sais” heaven has been handed to you on a silver platter” Exactly. But it came at a great price for my Lord. Thru his obedience he fulfilled divine justice, earned heaven for me and gave it to me as a gift oi n a silver platter. He has seated me in the heavenly places with Him, sealed in the Spirit, with an inheritance that will never pass away. Im adopted, an heir to the kingdom, transfered from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of light. Passed out of judgment and death into life. I go to church to receive the grace of God thru word and sacrament. Its all a free gift and it comes only by faith alone in Christ alone. The Catholic church has put barriers between man and his God. I pray and confess and obey, not to earn my salvation, thats already been payed for, but because God has comanded me to do so, and I walk with my Lord in the Spirit as I live in my new nature in pursuit of holiness, so my life will meet my position. K
Bob said ” what do you expdct to gain by going to church” This is Roman Catholic, justification is earned or merited by attending the church and doing its sacraments, wearing scapular, doing penance, earning one’s salvation. You continued ” You dont need to do anything God comanded.” This is typical RC accusations of antinomianism that Paul was accused of. He answered not with law, but morecgospel. And those with true faith desire to keep the comandments of God. Earning salvation by one’s works in Catholicism does guarantee a desire to obey God’s comandments. You continued ” there is nothing more to gain by going to church” Bob means, why go to church if your not going to earn your justification. I answer, to worship God and hear his word. You continue ” you have it all already” Yes indeed, Peter says we are a royal Priesthoo with and inheritance that will never pass away. You continued ” you can praise God from the shores of your favorite fishing hole” Yes indeed, I praise Him everywhere I am. You went on ” dwelling on God and His goodness on the Sabath” Hebrews says we even have a Sabath rest from our works. You went on ” thats what Paul meant in his letter to the Philidelphians.” paul said rejoice in the Lord always and repeated it again I say rejoice. I do this everyday. As I work out my salvation with fear and trembling, I remember for it is God who is at work in me, and I never lose my joy.You see Bob, joy is the abscence of fear. It brings peace. Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say rejoice. There is room on the train, its going to Zion. K
TIM–
You wrote to CK: “Paul VI’s use of Augustine in Mysterium Fidei, and what I was highlighting about Mysterium Fidei was that Augustine said:
“Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8, citing John 6)
And Paul VI used that sermon to support the statement that,
“…after the consecration they are the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side—and not just as a sign and by reason of the power of the sacrament, but in the very truth and reality of their substance and in what is proper to their nature.” (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 52)”
Even I can understand what is meant by these two authors. Augustine is explaining what Christ meant when He said “the words I am saying are spirit, the flesh profits nothing.” Augustine is saying that Christ is telling the crowd not to line up at the foot of the cross and actually eat his dead flesh and drink the blood that poured out of His body like a bunch of zombies on Night of the Living Dead.
And Paul VI is explaining that the “substance” of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, not the “accidents”, (spiritual, not carnal) is the same Christ that died on the Cross, not some symbolic depiction of Him, but His true, substantive Real Presence. He is describing it in terms of the doctrines of transubstantiation and of concomitance.
I’m a dumb Methodist and I can understand this. Tim, you have some sort of mental block that keeps you from understanding this–unless your motive is to deceive? Surely not……?
Bob,
My “mental block” is that I am attempting to read Augustine in context, not attempting to back fill Roman dogma into Augustine. If Augustine said the “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” passages of John 6 are figurative, then we ought to consider that in our evidence.
As I showed in my earlier comment to CK, Augustine understood “this is My body,” to refer to “the body of Christ,” which is to say, the Church, which is why he says,
This is figurative language for the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, and should be treated as such. For my part, and cannot see that Augustine’s comment on Psalms 98, which Paul VI cited, has anything to do with the later developments of transubstantiation and eucharistic adoration. You may, however, if you wish, continue to call me deceptive because I wish to take Augustine in context. I do not believe Paul VI took him in context, though.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
What I mean is the Great Assize where we are judged according to how we clothed the naked and fed the hungry, where a cup of water given in Jesus’ name merits eternal life.
great assize \ˈgrāt ə-ˈsīz\ : noun
: last judgment
Ah. You mean glorification.
Well, you know what Paul said:
Romans 8:30 “Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Like Kevin says, it’s all past tense. Once saved , always saved.
Just stick with Paul, though. Disregard what any of the rest of the Bible says, it won’t make any sense.
Bob, Paul got the gospel directly from Jesus. Everytime Jesus commends someone or heals someone He says your faith has healed you. Not your faith has set you off to merit your salvation ex opere operato. K
KEVIN–
“your faith has healed you. Not your faith has set you off to merit your salvation ex opere operato. ”
What’s healing got to do with salvation?
Bob said ” what does healing have to with salvation. ” Jesus said your faith HAS healed you. I’m no more saved today than I was the day I received Christ my righteousness, by faith. I was justified when I believed. The gas tank is full ( from the standpoint of being righteous before God). Christ’s righteousness has been applied to me. The question isn’t whether our good works are good, the question is whether they can merit eternal life. And the answer is, no they can’t. Why? Because God’s standard is perfection. And our works don’t meet than standard. No living man has ever been justified by the law except Jesus, who kept it perfectly, died on the cross, and earned eternal life for us. But Paul is clear to anyone who wants to mix their works, righteousness in with faith, Galatians 5:4 ” those who are trying to be justified by law” you have fallen from grace. You said ” so you are cooperating with God, your shoveling coal” Not to earn salvation. You are earning your salvation by your works. Paul condemns this. K
KEVIN–
You said: “I go to church to receive the grace of God thru word and sacrament. ”
Exactly! So do Methodists and so do Catholics.
You also said: “I pray and confess and obey, not to earn my salvation, thats already been payed for, but because God has comanded me to do so, and I walk with my Lord in the Spirit as I live in my new nature in pursuit of holiness.”
Yes! So do we. This gaga you spout about the “Catholic church has put barriers between man and his God” is absolute nonsense. What barriers? Who has been teaching you this stuff?
Bob, do you have to participate in the sacraments of the new law to be finally justfied?
KEVIN–
Are you talking about this new law?
John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
Yes, I am compelled to participate in the sacraments of this new law.
Why wouldn’t you? Don’t you want to obey Christ?
Bob, I get it you are justified by loving your brother. How you doing with that ? Unless your righteouness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you cant enter. Remember Paul was Hebrew of Hebrews, blameless before the law, and he considered his righteouness dung. Good luck being justified by loving your neighbor. K
Bob, thanks for your responses. I just heard a great picture of the difference between JBFA and the RC position. Its the difference someone thru his own efforts earning 20 dollars and going out and buying something and someone who was given the 20 dollars and goes out and buys something. Romans 6:23 ” For the wages of sin is death, but the “FREE GIFT” of God is eternal life they Jesus Christ our Lord. Its never to late to repent of your works that are trying to earn salvation Bob, and believe the gospel. I’m praying for you. K
Tim, that post to Bob on Augustine is game over. Can it be any clearer his view on the supper was Reformed. Awesome work Tim. Unfortunately like with justification Bob and CK can only see Roman. Had the Roman church followed in Augustine’s footsteps instead of Aquinas they would have avoided idolatry and semi pelagianism. But, Catholicism truly became the fulfilment of antichrist. K
TIM–
I’ll have to hand it to you. You sure have a funny perception of Augustine.
Sermon 227 was a good depiction between the Jews, who had Jesus’ Blood on their hands and don’t believe He was raised from the dead, and the Christians who believe Jesus’ resurrection. The Christian’s, therefore,recognized Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the sacrament, is for their salvation; whereas the Jews’ unbelief condemns them.
Sermon 272 is a beautiful depiction of Christ abiding in us and we abiding in Him. John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” One bread, one body. Makes all the sense in the world to me.
Bob said ” The Christian’s therefore recognized, Christ’s flesh and blood in the Sacrament is for their salvation” Sometimes it seems like Tim wastes his ink. He just went through 3 different highly detailed qoutescon Augustine that showed his view was Reformed, and you say the Christian’s realized that the sacrifice for their sins was transubstantiated bread. Amazing. I told Eric W on the phond today , apart from the supernatural work of salvation by God in the heart ofa Catholic, they can never accept the biblical/ early church view of the Supper, because the sacrifice of the Mass provides the grace to be earned for your salvation. If you couldnt go to the Mass to merit increase, you couldnt be saved. Therefore you can never reject transubstantiation or the bread as the sacrifice for your sin. Your only left with one other option, to reject the Mass and believe the gospel which is trusting in Christ’ death on the cross alone, and recognizing the Supper as the remembrance of a salvation you already posess by faith.But you are still in the process of earning it, and the Mass is your source of working for the merits. Bob, have you ever sat and wondered what Paul meant when he said in Ephesians 2:8 that the people who are saved by grace as a gift thru faith contribute nothing from themselves or their works? Nothing.
Thanks, Bob. I guess I can consider it an upgrade to go from “deceptive” to “funny.” In any case, we are not debating your interpretation of John 6, but rather Augustine’s view of John 6. Of John 6, Augustine said,
Sermon 227 was cited by CK to “prove without doubt” that Augustine believed in the real presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Yet on John 6, Augustine says that the meaning of it is that we offer ourselves to God as a sacrifice of praise (Romans 12:1) and at the same time “retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Book III, chapter 16)
So we read Sermon 227 and what do we find him to say?
I, too, find Sermon 227 to be a beautiful depiction of Christ abiding in us and we abiding in Him, per John 6, and Augustine thought John 6 was figurative. What I don’t find in Sermon 227 is “the body of Christ consumed.” Do you? If so, where?
Thanks,
Tim
Here is some interesting stuff I have found about Charles Wesley. Quotes from hymns he wrote are in bold.
We come with confidence to find
Thy special Presence here.
Wesley did not profess to explain how the Lord’s “special Presence” was thus found in the divine ordinance: he was content to accept the fact. “While Wesley evades any definition and commits himself to no theory, he has no doubts that the Sacraments are channels through which the grace of God flows . . . that the Sacramental Elements and action are God-ordained vehicles of His power. . . . His only evidence is the typical Methodist appeal to experience; and a joy, the glad and conscious communion with God, of which his Journals, as well as the Hymns, give record, are the only evidence he offers or needs”. Thus he inquires:
Who can say how bread and wine
God into man conveys?
How the bread His flesh imparts,
How the wine transmits His blood,
Fills His faithful people’s hearts
With all the life of God!
Wesley did not know how. To him it was an incomprehensible mystery, as it was also to the Angels that “round our altars bow”. But though the manner might be unknown, the grace
bestowed was sure and real:
Sure and real is the grace,
The manner be unknown;
Only meet us in Thy ways,
And perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers;
Lord, we ask for nothing more:
Thine to bless, ‘tis only ours
To wonder and adore.
Bob, the hot iron burns sacramentalism in Catholicism cant save you. It teaches you must do something to acrue enough grace for heaven. But the gospel says the opposite. God gives grace to the ungodly man who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. Jesus is both just and justifier of the ungodly. And it is received only and ever by faith alone. “For by grace we have been saved by faith, nit is not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works. Continuing to eat the death wafer is a lie. You cant get to heaven by earning your way in at the Catholic Mass. You can only get there by trusting in Him who justifies the ungodly. God bless
KEVIN–
You said: “Sometimes it seems like Tim wastes his ink.”
I agree.
You also said: “He just went through 3 different highly detailed qoutescon Augustine that showed his view was Reformed, and you say the Christian’s realized that the sacrifice for their sins was transubstantiated bread. Amazing. ”
No, what is amazing is that those are your words and not mine. What I said was “The Christian’s, therefore,recognized Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the sacrament, is for their salvation; whereas the Jews’ unbelief condemns them.” I said nothing about transubstantiated bread. I am using the same words as the Bible, and the Early Fathers.
And again you have said for the hundreth time: “Bob, have you ever sat and wondered what Paul meant when he said in Ephesians 2:8 that the people who are saved by grace as a gift thru faith contribute nothing from themselves or their works? Nothing.”
And have said for the hundreth time that the Bible says:
KJV –Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
NKJV–You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
NLT–So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.
NIV–You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
ESV–You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
HCSB–You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
NASB–You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
RSV–You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
ASV–Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
YLT–Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only;
DBY–Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works, and not on the principle of faith only.
WEB–Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
HNV–You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.
RVR60–Vosotros veis, pues, que el hombre es justificado por las obras, y no solamente por la fe.
VUL–videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo et non ex fide tantum
mGNT–ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον
TR–ὁρᾶτε τοίνυν ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον
δικαιόω
dikaioō dē-kī-o’-ō :verb
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
I know, I know, Kevin. You say “Sorry Bob all you got is James 2, and you misinterpret that. What is he addressing. Someone who SAYS they have faith.”
Yep and YOU are that someone. As much as you would like for Paul to have said faith alone, he didn’t. Your argument will never, ever get past James 2. Never.
KEVIN–
“You said: “Remember Paul was Hebrew of Hebrews, blameless before the law, and he considered his righteouness dung.”
Yes, Paul considered his righteousness dung because it was based on the Mosaic Law and not Christ’s fulfillment of it. That is what he meant by “Hebrew”.
Christ is the END of the law for righteouness to everyone who BELIEVES. 10:4 Jesus isnt a kinder, gentler Moses with an easier law. Galatians is about the antithesis between hearing by faith and WORKS. All works! Do a study on ” not that of youselves” Eph 2:8. That means you cant contribute anything to your justification. Get it. Works seeking justification are sin in the eyes of God. Justification in Paul is by faith apart from all works, love, being. Its by faith ALONE in Christ aloyne. You’ll have to find another answer for your one verse theology James 2. I suggest you start with Tim’s article on James 2. God bless K
Bob, here is what one of the first Bishops of Rome said. ” An so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not JUSTIFIED through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but thru faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to who be the glory forever and ever amen. Bob, remember the Virginia Slims comercial, you’ve come along way baby. Roman Catholicism has come along way baby, to a false gospel. Looks like Clement had a different take on James 2. K
CK said ” its your lack of spiritually that doesnt allow you to see what the Eucharist is” No,Ck its your abscence of saving faith that doesnt allow you to see what the Eucharist is. I see the Eucharist for what it is, a reminder of the one sacrifice that accomplished my salvation. It nourishes my faith because it reminds me of the body and blood the WAS shed for my sins. It is a denial of faith on your part, because it is distrust in the one SUFFICIENT sacrifice of Christ for your sins, and it is a constant work to earn grace for heaven, the very thing Paul says kept the the Jews from heaven. Catholics who believe the lie of Rome, that youmust go to the Roman trough to work for your keep to be accepted by God are most to be pitied. That one can go to a bloodless offering of the Lord again ( bread) for sins, and offer themselves to propititate their sins, are lost unbelief. Its those in John 6 that walked away, that took it literally, they were unbelievers. Hebrews is clear, without faith it is impossible to please Him. When Tim, Walt, Eric W walked away from the idol of the Mass and the Catholic church to trust Christ alonecas their head, angels rejoiced. And I am greatful. I believe Maria did also. Praise God. K
So you are sacrificing a reminder at the altar?
CK said ” so you are sacrificing a reminder at the altar” Are you serious with this statement. ” Do this in remembrance of Me” you “remember that don’t you” Keep burning off that temporal punishment for you and your dead relatives” You got to pay for those sins CK. What exactly did Christ do for you that you and Mary can’t do for yourself? He isn’t Jesus the lamb who takes away the sins of the world, He is Jesus who helps you and Mary take away your own sins. God bless. I can’t do this anymore. I believe in a savior who is risen and has paid ALL the debt and guilt of my sins. My savior is perfect and doesn’t need any help, He did it right the first time. All the best. K
Spiritual sacrifices. Offering praise and tganksgiving to God for what he has done. Offering a broken and contrire heart from the alar of our heart, since we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. And incidentally we dont just do this at thd Lord’s supper, but everyday. But here is the important distinction. We dont do it to merit our salvation. Christ did that alone and its offered by faith alone. Clement of Rome, if you read the quote I provided said we can look to no works wrought in holiness, wisdom, piety, nothing from ourselves to be justified before God. Here is what Paul said in Romans 8, ” it is God who justifies” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect.” Nobody can. And the he says this ” who FREELY gave us all things. Salvation isnt free in Roman Catholicism. You have to work really, really hard to earn more grace at its abominable Mass. And Paul said the gentiles who werent looking for righteouness found it because they pursued it by faith. And unfortunately the Jews who were trying to attain righteouness ( justification ) didnt find it because they pursued it by WORKS. All works are excluded from justification. It disqualifies onecfrom heaven to be justified in anyway by their works or merit. James was addressing someone who says they have faith. Iow a false faith. He says true faith is demonstrated by works. He uses Abraham with the offering of Issac as demonstrating his faith by his works. But Moses says Abraham was declared righteous 15 years before in Genesis 15:6. So when James says not by faith alone, he is referring to someonecwho says they have faith but have no works before men. Augustine said this, ” How was Abraham justified, what does the Apostle say ( Paul), Abraham was justified by faith. Paul and James dont contradict each other, go oi d works follow justification.” K
You keep saying faith alone…can you be saved if you don’t have works? If not it’s not faith alone.
CK, take a bible class. There is a university not far from you, in fact all the classes you will ever need is at ” Out of His Mouth University” Tim Kauffman’s the Professor. And there aint no tuition. Its free college. Verses, passages, chapters, books etc. Must be interpreted within its proper hermenutic. When James says ” if someone SAYS they have faith” This tells us he is addressing thosecwho say they have faith but have no works. True faith is evidenced by good works. This is what James is saying. And yes we arejustified by faith alone. I explained this to Bob and you. I will do I one more time. The Reformers faith as the only instrument that can receive Christ our justification and bring Him to the heart. Love cannot do this because love stretches out to neighbor and is always second in natural order. Only faith can recieve the perfect righteousness of Christ that justifies us. It all a work of God. Through faith we are united to Christ who justified us. It is not a process of the Holy Spirit wrought works in us. Thats sanctification. We dont separate justification and sanctification, but Paul rightly distinguished them. Trent’s gospel is false because they saw the righteouness that justilfies as partly Christ and partly man. So Rome wrongly sees sanctification prior to justification. Sanctification is justification in Rome. But Paul is crystal clear, God will reject those who look to their love and obedienceto be justified. I wont be explaining this any more to you. I know you love your works. K
James is talking about false faith? People were braging to James about having false faith? The whole passage doesn’t even make sense. If he’s talking about false faith. You are making up meanings.
CK,
In Ezekiel 33:31, the Lord says of Israel, “with their mouth they shew much love”:
Do you think the error of the Israelites was that they were professing to have a true love or that they were professing to have a false love?
Thanks,
Tim
You’re not comparing apples to apples. The Israelites show love with their mouth but not in their heart. Meaning they are pretending. Ezekiel doesn’t say they have love.
James gives us examples of people that DO have faith. He even says the Devils believe. James goes on to say that because they don’t have good works (charity) their faith can’t save them. It’s dead. He’s comparing faith with works with just faith. Both camps have faith, but only one has faith plus works.
CK,
The love they showed with their mouth—let’s say, they said they had love—was it true love or false love?
Thanks,
Tim
It’s not love. I can claim to be a bird. It doesn’t make me a false bird. I’m not a bird no matter what I say.
CK,
What does it mean when it says “for with their mouth they shew much love”? What are they showing? Much false love?
Thanks,
Tim
CK disagrees with Augustine again. ” How was Abraham justified, the Apostle tells us how Abe was justified, Abe was justified by faith, good works follow justification, Paul and Jamescdont contradict each other.” Clement of Rome ” And so we, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, our not justified thru ourselves or thru our wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but thru faith, whereby God justified all men frm the beginning.” You claim your Roman Catholicism was the early church and yet here is the pilar of the early catholic church and an early Bishop of Rome who deny your positions soundly, just like your position on the real presence. Hmmm. You see a trend here. False church Romanism. Idolatry and Merit worship. God bless
Tim – Granted: Augustine in this chapter was talking about sacrifices to propitiate the sins of the departed. In this he was in error, “as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There is no other offering for sins.
Me – LOL. Of course he got it wrong! I’m shocked you would come to this conclusion. So basically if I somehow convinced you that Augustine believed in the real presence it would not matter. You’d just say he was in error and move on! Tell me again why we are going through this exercise again?
So Augustine was too ignorant to understand Hebrews 9:27 (simple), but we are to trust him on complicated issues such as imputation and the real presence. Interesting.
Hey Kevin!!! You disagree with Augustine again!
CK said to Kevin ” Augustine was to ignorant to understand Heb 9:27 etc.” Augustine wrote Retractations at the end of his life recanting, give him credit for that. He changed his position on the Peter pebble verse. As Tim pointed out he was flat wrong on atoning or praying for dead people. It is appointed men death once then judgment. But Catholics seem to have to have a problem with the once concept in the bible. You know, one mediator, one sacrifice, one justification, one grace, one heaven. Augustine was influenced by his mother. Why is it interesting to agree on some theological points and disagree on others. You see CK we dont goo goo gaga accept anything a Father said. They were flawed men with flawed theologies. Augustine was on the right track, in many respects. But he wasnt totally exempt from the semi pelagian bug. And Aquinas corrupted pure doctrine because he wanted to make Aristotles dreams come true. He tied a Christian faith ethic to a pagan philosophy and perverted the gospel. Idolatry has always been the root of all sin. And Catholics are some of the biggest. And superstitious, wearing scapulars etc. Paul warns in 2 Cor. 11:3 not to follow the snake like Eve did and leave the pure simplicity and devotion to Christ. K
Everyone is flawed if they don’t agree with you. You go goo gaga over what the Protestant fathers said. What flawed theology did Calvin have? What about you? You all are mere men. Please list them.
CK,
You asked, “Tell me again why we are going through this exercise again?”
Because you cited Augustine to “prove without doubt” that he believed in the real presence. You did not cite Augustine to prove without doubt that he believed in sacrifices for the dead.
Thank you,
Tim
But to you it’s irrelevant what he believed since he’d just be in error if we somehow concluded he believed in the real presence. He’s just another dude that didn’t have the Holy Spirit guiding him to all truth, unlike you and Kevin
CK, said ” you are all flawed men” indeed we are, as were the Fathers, Calvin, etc. We all have fallibe judgments iformed by the Holy Spirit. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit by and with the Word of God. God’s word is perspicuous as to understand all we need to be saved. Not all of it is easy to understand. 1 John 2:27 tells me I have no need of a teacher, I have an anointing that teaches me all things and they are true. That doesnt mean we dont listen to our teachers, Pastors, but in the end I listen to the Spirit of God by and with the word. And yes men error in their theology. But as Tim has often said, you are left in the same position making fallible judgments on what your Magisterium has said, since no 2 Catholics can agree on what teachings are infalible. The biggest validity for me for the believer with the Spirit judging truth is scripture tells us to watch for false teachers and stay away from idols. That tells me I can understand scripture to make those determinations. K
Yep. SOLO Kevin. You should at least be honest about it. You are your own final authority. You you listen to your Pastor as long as you agree with him. SOLO Scriptura/Kevin.
CK, last week I asked of you,
Do you believe and practice solo-CK?
Thanks,
Tim
CK, yes when it comes to my salvation, I will be making that decision myself. When the Philipians jailer asked Paul what must I do to be saved, he wasnt thinking about his corporate badge. Its all a work of God. He predestinates, calls, regenerates, brings me to faith and repentance, justified, sanctified, glorified. And scripture says He has forgiven my iniquities and remembers my sins no more. No atoning in the Failoni household. He paid it all. Past, present and future. And the church sings the Amen! His word has given me guarded assurance. 1 John 5: 13 I have written these things to you who believe that you may know that you have eternal life. K
You can decide to be saved or not? You are all over the board today…
Hi Tim,
Thx for the extensive research particularly on Cyprian.
Clark has an interesting quote on the topic of the Lord’s Supper: ““If the Scripture says that the bread is the body, it does not say that the wine is the blood. What Jesus said, and the words Paul reports are, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood.’ Now, if one wish to insist on literal interpretation, it is not the wine but the cup, a silver vessel, that is—what? Not the blood of Christ, but the new testament in his blood. Hence a literal silver cup is literally the New Testament.”
Quoted here: https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/ghc-review-47-sanctification/