The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2

August 1, 2020 Timothy F. Kauffman 752 Comments

*“Likewise, if someone makes an offering of cheese … “*
— *The Eucharistic Anaphora of Hippolytus* (215 A.D.)

We continue now with our series on the liturgical shift that occurred in the latter part of the 4th century, three hundred years after the Apostles. For three centuries, the Eucharist—which is to say, the tithe offering—was followed by an “Amen” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, at which point bread and wine were taken from the tithe offering and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. What was offered in the Eucharist was simply the unconsecrated first-fruits of the harvest and the grateful prayers of the saints. What was consumed in the Lord’s Supper was consecrated bread and wine. Unconsecrated food was offered as a tithe as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 and consecrated food was consumed as a memorial meal, in accordance with the instruction of Christ at His Last Supper. The Apostolic “Amen” separated those two liturgical events. But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. The academic community—men of every stripe—were puzzled and confounded by that sudden shift, and instead of acknowledging and discerning its significance, opted instead to bury it. The early liturgies have for centuries been handled in such a way—through editorializing, mistranslation, redaction and suppression—as to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, essentially combining two distinct liturgical events into one. The effect has been to hide the evidence and give the impression that the ancient Eucharistic prayer was actually the Consecration, suggesting that the ancient tithe offering was really a liturgical sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It was not.

Last week we analyzed the liturgy as depicted in the Didache (mid-1st century), Clement of Rome (mid-1st century) and Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.) and showed how the scholars and translators have handled the text so poorly. This week we pick up with the Eucharistic liturgies of Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), Irenæus of Lyons (189 A.D.) and Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.). It is tedious, dull, tiresome and boring. This is an extremely long post, and it is not easy reading, but it is important for the Christian to understand the origin and longevity of the lie. The academic propensity to corrupt the plain liturgy as expressed in the original writings is on full display, and the effort exerted by the scholars to suppress the truth is simply breathtaking. Through evidence tampering and sleight of hand the Eucharist is repeatedly collapsed into the Epiclesis to force the ancient writers to affirm an abominable sacrifice of which they knew nothing.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.)

That Justin Martyr held to the ancient apostolic liturgy is sufficiently evident from his own descriptions of it. The Dismissal of unbelievers is implied simply by his acknowledgement that only the baptized person “who believes that the things which we teach are true, and … is so living as Christ has enjoined” is allowed to participate in the Eucharist offerings (First Apology, 66). The offerings of “thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied” (First Apology, 13) were collected and brought to the bishop for the aid of the widow, orphan, the sick, the imprisoned and the stranger, and the bishop, “in a word takes care of all who are in need” (First Apology, 67). These offerings were not just the means by which “the wealthy among us help the needy” (First Apology, 67) but also constituted “the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God” as Malachi had prophesied (Dialogue with Trypho, 117), the “true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks” (Dialogue with Trypho, 118). Justin is abundantly clear on the substance of his offerings and the purpose for which they were offered. Thanks, praise to the Lord and providing for the needs of the poor, to the exclusion of any other offering. After all, if “prayers and giving of thanks … are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices” that the church can offer, then other things are not perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices—a remarkable thing to say if Justin truly believed the offering of the Church was Christ’s body and blood.

Justin indeed wrote that “the offering of fine flour” in the Old Testament “was a type of the bread of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho, 41), “the Eucharist of the bread and the cup” which Christ “enjoined us to offer” (Dialogue with Trypho, 117). Unlike the burnt offerings of the Jews, the Eucharist offering of the Christians was simply “to use it for ourselves and those who need” (First Apology, 13). It is as easy to establish a Eucharist offering in Justin Martyr as it is to establish that his Eucharist offering was the tithe of unconsecrated food prior to the Epiclesis.

That Justin’s Eucharist was separate from the Epiclesis is plainly obvious. After the people have gathered “that we may offer hearty prayers” (First Apology, 65), they “praise [God] to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied” (First Apology, 13). Bread and wine are then brought forward and the minister continues the thank offering, and “in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings” and “offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands” (First Apology, 65, 67). The Eucharist offering was simply an overflow of thanksgiving to God for what He had provided, particularly because by these provisions they could meet the needs of the poor: “the wealthy among us help the needy; … and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ” (First Apology, 65, 67). In response to this overflow of prayer and thanksgiving that is spoken over the abundant provisions from the Lord, “all the people present express their assent by saying Amen” (First Apology, 65, 67), as Paul prescribed (1 Corinthians 14:16).

Immediately after the “Amen,” the bread and wine are distributed to those present:

And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced (First Apology, 65)

As we have noted previously, it was common in the early liturgies to distribute the bread and wine prior to the consecration, and Justin describes it twice in that order: “the president … offers prayers and thanksgivings, … and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each” (First Apology, 67). Here, as in chapter 65, the bread is distributed immediately after the Amen.

By the time Justin actually mentions the Consecration, it is clear that it consists of a simple recitation of Christ’s words from the Scriptures spoken after the thanksgiving. Christians do not receive the bread and wine as “common bread and common drink,” but rather believe that after “the prayer of His word” is spoken over them, they become, Jesus’ flesh and blood. As Justin observes, this is what the Apostles delivered to us:

For the apostles … have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66)

Just as with the Gospels and the 1 Corinthians 11 accounts of the Supper, Justin’s account of the Eucharist—i.e., the thanksgiving—and the distribution—i.e., “Take, eat … take, drink”—precede the statement, “This is My body … this is My blood,” and in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, the “Amen” is spoken immediately after the Eucharist.

That the Consecration was spoken after the Eucharist is evident from how Justin describes the objects of the Consecration. Jesus’ words “this is My body” and “this is My blood” were to be spoken over food that had just been eucharisted:

“by the prayer of His word (δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) the eucharisted food (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν) … is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66; Migne PG, vol VI, cols 428-429).

If the Eucharist is gratitude pronounced over the food, and an Amen is spoken to complete the Eucharist, and the consecration is spoken over “Eucharisted food” (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν), then it is obvious not only that there is an Apostolic “Amen” between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, but also that the Eucharist offering was unconsecrated. Justin had not described a liturgical sacrifice of Consecrated food—Christ’s body and blood—to the Father. There was neither a “Consecration” in Justin’s Eucharist offering nor in his Eucharistic prayer, and as such, a liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood is impossible in Justin.

But that has not stopped the translators, who have been especially enthusiastic about inserting a Consecration into Justin’s Eucharist to give the appearance that Justin was offering consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist. To put it another way, the translators have attempted to collapse Justin’s Eucharist into his Epiclesis. Those creative historical revisions occur in the translations of chapters 13, 65 and 66 of his First Apology.

First Apology, Chapter 13

There is something Justin Martyr says in Chapter 13 of his First Apology that has caused some confusion among the scholars. They are not entirely sure what he meant. After writing that the best way to honor the Lord is by “prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied” and to use the harvest “for ourselves and those who need” (First Apology, 13), he then expanded upon the words and hymns that accompany the offering, using a cryptic phrase, “by word of processions”:

“and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by word of processions (διά λόγου πομπάς) and to send forth hymns (και ύμνους πέμπειν) for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons” (First Apology, 13; Migne, P.G. vol VI col 345).

Clearly, Justin was still talking about the first-fruits of the tithe offering. Listen to what he wrote: for all things wherewith we are supplied, for all the means of health, for the different kinds of things, for the changes of the seasons. It is the harvest time. It is a tithe offering. It is the first-fruits. It is the Eucharist offering. Such an offering is consistent with what we know about the early Eucharist. The cryptic phrase, “διά λόγου πομπάς” may be difficult to translate, but at the very least we can say he was still talking about the tithe offering of the harvest. That much is obvious. Because “λόγου” can mean “reason” or “logic,” and “πομπάς” can mean “processions,” the Latin translator rendered it accordingly, “rationalibus eum pompis et hymnis celebrare” (Migne P.G. vol VI, col 346-347) which translates roughly to “reasonable processions and hymns of celebration.” In view of the ancient offertory, this makes perfect sense. A procession would have been necessary for all the tithes of the first-fruits to be brought forward during a church service, making a “procession” perfectly “reasonable.” Although the Latin rendering is weak and actually misses the point, it is nevertheless understandable.

In reality, while “λόγου” can mean “reason” it is also used simply to describe any “speech” (1 Corinthians 2:1), “utterance” (Colossians 4:3) or “word” (Hebrew 13:22). And while “πομπάς” can mean “processions” in the sense of festival or celebration (e.g., Herodotus, the Histories, II.58), it can also refer to a “sending” as in “the sending of signs” (Plato, Republic, Response 383a). Since Justin’s repeated emphasis is the overflow of grateful words by all participants for the harvest and for all things provided to us by God (Dialogue with Trypho, 117, First Apology 13, 65 & 67), it is plainly obvious that by “διά λόγου πομπάς και ύμνους πέμπειν,” Justin meant that the Eucharist offering is accompanied by an overflow of grateful speech and hymns, as in “with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by processions of speech and sending forth hymns for our creation.” He is, after all, still talking about the harvest. The tithe. The Eucharist.

So what did the translators settle on? Unable to determine the meaning of the phrase διά λόγου πομπάς και ύμνους πέμπειν, Roman Catholic Migne (1857) assumed Justin’s “processions” must have been a reference to the administration of the consecrated Sacrament to the recipients, essentially collapsing Justin’s Eucharistic thank offering into his Epiclesis (Migne, P.G. vol VI, col 345 n83); and Protestant translators Marcus Dods and George Reith (1885) settled on what may very well be the worst possible translation imaginable, and assumed that by “word of processions” Justin must have been referring to the Consecration, the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, that is, the Invocation. And thus—against all evidence, without any support for it in the Justin’s original Greek, lacking the actual Greek word for invocation, without so much as a hint in the Latin translation and utterly out of historical and liturgical context, Dods and Reith collapsed Justin’s Eucharist into his Epiclesis and rendered the phrase, “with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns.” With such pitiful and uneducated guesses, Migne, Dods & Reith made it appear that Justin’s Eucharist, his thank offering, was actually a reference to the offering of Consecrated bread and wine to the Father through the Invocation.

First Apology, Chapters 65 – 66

We have emphasized the explicit order of Justin’s liturgy—the Eucharist, the Apostolic “Amen,” the Epiclesis—because the scholars have been so deliberately obtuse in their handling of it. Not only are the contents of the Eucharistic prayer and praise easily discernible (thanks, praise, the sending forth of words and hymns), but the chronological order is easily understood as well. Justin’s explicit language is that the Eucharistic prayer is pronounced over the tithe, and then the people say “Amen” after the Eucharistic prayer, and then the Consecration is pronounced over the “Eucharisted food” (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν). The food “over which the thanksgiving was pronounced” (First Apology, 65) becomes the body of Christ by being Consecrated by Jesus’ words (First Apology, 66). Justin’s Greek makes it plainly obvious that the Eucharist and the Consecration are two independent liturgical acts, separated by the intermediate Pauline “Amen.”

However, the translators have taken Justin’s plain language and attempted to collapse his Eucharist into his Epiclesis simply by assuming that Justin’s Eucharistic prayer was itself consecratory. The scholars know quite well how presumptuous that is. As Helmut Hoping, Roman Catholic Professor of Dogmatics and Liturgical Sciences on the Theological Faculty of the University of Freiburg, conceded in 2011,

A formal epiclesis as part of the Eucharistic Prayer is not verifiable with Justin. (My Body Given for You: History and Theology of the Eucharist (San Francisco: Ignatius Press (2019) trans from the original German (2011))

No, of course it is not. Justin repeatedly recites the substance of the bishop’s prayers, and there is simply no room for an epiclesis:

“and he … gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.” (First Apology, 65)

“and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;” (First Apology, 67)

Lacking an actual Epiclesis in Justin’s Eucharist prayer, the scholars have been ever eager to read one into it. Migne, for example, simply assumes that the consecratory “prayer of His word” must have been included in the Eucharistic prayer (Migne, P.G. vol 6, col 428, n83). The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia simply observes that the early writers did not really understand “the precise moment” of the Consecration as well as we do today, and claims (remarkably) that Justin’s “Amen” was obviously spoken “at the close of the great Prayer of Consecration in the liturgy” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Amen) even though it is plainly spoken after the great prayer of thanksgiving! There is no evidence at all that Justin believed the bishop’s words were consecratory, and there is plain evidence from the early writers, including Justin, that they knew exactly when the Consecration took place: after the Eucharist. Justin explicitly claimed (First Apology, 66) that it was Christ’s words that were consecratory, making no suggestion at all that Christ’s words were included in the bishop’s Eucharistic prayer, and explicitly stating that Christ’s words are spoken over food that had already been Eucharisted.

This, of course, is inconsistent with the medieval liturgy, requiring the scholars to correct Justin’s original Greek. Protestant scholars, Marcus Dods and George Reith (Church of Scotland), take Justin’s reference to the words of consecration being spoken over Eucharisted food (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν, eucharsitetheisan trophen), and render it as “blessed food,” making Justin refer to the Consecration when he had just made clear that he was referring to Eucharisted food that had not yet been consecrated. By this subtle and misleading translation, Justin’s liturgical order is shifted to make it appear that the Eucharistic prayer was itself the Consecration, collapsing his Eucharist into his Epiclesis, and giving the appearance of an offering of Consecrated bread and wine.

As bad as Dods’ and Reith’s translation is, it is by no means the worst. William A. Jurgens (Roman Catholic), in his 1970 translation, utterly butchered Justin’s Greek and translated the Greek “prayer of His word” as Jesus’ “Eucharistic prayer”:

“the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him … is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press (1970) 55)

Jurgens’ translation says that the Consecration is not “by the prayer of His word” as Justin claimed explicitly in Chapter 66, but rather “by the Eucharistic prayer” in the Chapter 65. To see just how far the translators have strayed from Justin’s original apostolic liturgy, note how different Dods, Reith and Jurgens are from the Greek in their English translations. Dods & Reith render the word “eucharisted” as “blessed” in English to give the appearance that the Consecration was intended by the Eucharist, and Jurgens simply adds a gratuitous “Eucharist” to give the appearance that Justin’s “eucharisted food” really means “food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer“:

Greek (c. 150 A.D.):
[ δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ]
[ εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν ] …
[είναι ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ και σάρκα και αίμα] (Migne, P.G. vol VI, cols 428-429)

Literal English:
[ by the prayer of His word ]
[ eucharisted food ] …
[ is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh]

Dods & Reith (1885):
the food which is blessed (εὐχαριστηθείσαν, eucharisted) by the prayer of His word (δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) … is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Jurgens (1970):
the food which has been made into the Eucharist (εὐχαριστηθείσαν, eucharisted) by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him (δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) … is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

It is not difficult to see where the translators have attempted to mislead. It is one thing to say (as Justin did), that “by the prayer of His Word, the Eucharisted food is the body and blood of Christ.” It is quite another to say (as Dods and Reith have), that “the food that is Eucharisted by the prayer of His Word becomes becomes the body and blood of Christ,” or (as Jurgens has) that food is “made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer”. It is a completely different liturgy, unsubstantiated by the Greek. In his native Greek tongue, Justin clearly delineates the elements of the apostolic liturgy: Eucharist, Amen, Consecration. In English, Dods, Reith and Jurgens conflate the Eucharist with the Consecration, and give the impression that the food is consecrated by the Eucharistic prayer. Because Justin elsewhere writes that “the Eucharist of the bread and the cup” is what we “offer” (Dialogue with Trypho, 117), the translators have thus created in Justin a liturgy of their own imagination—in which the body and blood of Christ are offered to the Father—a liturgy Justin did not describe, and of which he knew nothing.

In Justin, what is offered is a Eucharist of unconsecrated food, accompanied with prayers and hymns, followed by an “Amen”. What is afterward Consecrated is food that had just been “Eucharisted” prior to the “Amen,” as is plainly evident from his own account of it. It is impossible to conflate the two, though the translators have surely made repeated attempts to do so, collapsing Justin’s Eucharist into his Epiclesis, fraudulently creating the appearance of an ancient liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

Irenæus of Lyons (c. 189 A.D.)

That Irenæus held to the ancient apostolic liturgy may be deduced from his repeated references to it. In his descriptions, he says that we “offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things” as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 (Against Heresies, Book IV, 17.5), and makes clear repeatedly that the only sacrifice the Church offers to God is the tithe with gratitude. Christians “set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property” just “as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.1-2). The sacrifice of the Church is to help the poor, as taught in Proverbs 19:17, to feed the hungry and thirsty, as taught in Matthew 25:35, and to care for the needy as exemplified by Epaphroditus in Philippians 4:18 (Against Heresies, IV, 18.4,6). That was the Church’s Eucharist offering, according to Irenæus. He was as emphatic about it as he was repetitive.

He is also explicit in the words of Consecration that are used to bless the food for the meal. The Consecration occurs when “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God” (Against Heresies, Book V, 2.3), as in “This is My body” (Against Heresies, IV, 17.5). In Irenæus, the Eucharist preceded the Epiclesis, and was separate from it, as evidenced by his explanation that the minister “eucharists” the cup, and afterward pronounces an Epiclesis (Against Heresies, I, 13.2). Because Irenæus ordered the Eucharist prior to the Epiclesis, and included an Apostolic “Amen, which we pronounce in concert” in response to the Eucharist offering (Against Heresies, Book I, 14.1), it is clear that Irenæus followed the simple biblical order of the Scriptures: Eucharist, Amen, Consecration, Meal, separating the Eucharistic sacrifice from the Epiclesis. That, of course, makes a liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood impossible in Irenæus’ liturgy.

But that has not stopped the translators who have been especially enthusiastic about collapsing Irenæus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis, editing, mistranslating and dismissing Irenæus’ works until he finally complies with their late 4th century liturgy. Those creative historical revisions occur in Against Heresies, Books I, IV and V, and in Fragment 37.

Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 13

In his voluminous work against the heretics of his day, Irenæus observed that Marcus had “deceived many, and drawn them away after him” by imitating the Christian liturgy (Against Heresies, Book I, 13.2). He would offer the Eucharist (εὐχαριστείν, eucharistein), and afterward speak the Epiclesis (ὲπικλήσεως, epicliseos) (Migne, P.G. VII, 580)—also known as the Consecration, or literally the Invocation. Irenæus did not complain that Marcus had corrupted the order of the liturgy, but that he had imitated it:

Pretending to eucharist (εὐχαριστείν) cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως), he contrives to give them a purple and reddish color, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation (ὲπικλήσεως), and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. (Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 13, paragraph 2).

Clearly, the Eucharist preceded the Epiclesis, and it was at the Epiclesis (not the Eucharist) that the wine is said to become the blood of Christ. This is consistent with the Biblical liturgy in which thanks, or eucharist, is offered, and then a Consecration is spoken and the wine becomes the blood of Christ to us. The change occurs not by the Eucharist, but by the Epiclesis.

That of course is inconsistent with the medieval liturgy in which the Eucharist offering of Christ’s body and blood follows the Epiclesis. Because the scholars and translators cannot accept Irenæus’ depiction of the liturgy as written, “Pretending to eucharist (εὐχαριστείν)”, must instead be understood therefore to mean “Pretending to consecrate“, which is exactly how Roman Catholic Migne (1857) interprets it in his footnotes in reference to Irenæus’ Greek word, εὐχαριστείν, which plainly refers to the thanksgiving, not the consecration:

Consecrare, inquam, non gratias agere.
To consecrate, I say, not to give thanks. (Migne, P.G. VII, 579n).

Protestant translators Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut (1885) followed suit, intentionally mistranslating what Irenæus wrote to make him conform to the medieval liturgy, simply translating the Eucharist as if Irenæus had meant to refer to the Consecration:

Pretending to consecrate (εὐχαριστείν) cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως)… (Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 13, paragraph 2).

By such means, with a mere stroke of the pen—a footnote here, a translation error there—Roman Catholic and Protestant translators simply rewrote history to conform to their medieval constructs. By intentionally mistranslating “Eucharist” as “Consecrate,” they have combined the two into one, subverting Irenæus’ plain distinction between them. This has the effect of collapsing his Eucharist into his Epiclesis, creating the appearance of an offering of consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist, something neither Irenæus, nor even the heretic Marcus, had even imagined.

Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18

As noted above, the early Church in general, and Irenæus in particular, understood the Eucharist to be an offering of the first fruits of the harvest for the care of the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger. It was a sacrifice (Philippians 4:18, Hebrews 13:15-16) that fulfilled the Malachi 1:11 prophecy of a well pleasing sacrifice to be offered by the heathen. And, as Malachi states clearly, the Lord Himself summons that tithe to the storehouse:

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house… (Malachi 3:10)

That very tithe offering of created food—which was summoned by the Lord—was used by Irenæus to counter the claims of the gnostic heretics who taught that Jesus had not taken on a created body, had not suffered and died, and had not been raised from the dead. Such an unincarnate savior could not and would not save both body and soul together, but Jesus’ gratitude to His Father for created food was just the evidence Irenæus needed to overturn the Gnostics. Irenæus was quick to point out that Jesus, as a man, had hungered for food, and had promised to eat food again with us in the Kingdom, proving that Jesus was not spirit only, but both flesh and spirit. To Irenæus nothing testified of the union of flesh and spirit like Jesus’ use of created food to nourish His body:

Fasting forty days, like Moses and Elias, He afterwards hungered … in order that we may perceive that He was a real and substantial man — for it belongs to a man to suffer hunger when fasting; (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 21, 2).

For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit. (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 33, 1).

The fact that Jesus had thanked His Father for created food, had consumed created food throughout His life, and promised to eat created food again with us in Heaven, testified of the true union of flesh and spirit in the Incarnation. An unincarnate being does not need or eat food. Jesus did. Jesus was therefore incarnate. For this reason, a tithe of created food for the poor—which is to say, the Eucharist—militated against the gnostic denial of the union of flesh and spirit.

Further, as soon as the earthly bread is summoned as a tithe, it takes on a “heavenly reality,” because by being summoned it becomes suited for heavenly uses: feeding the poor and hungry. Such an offering is “heavenly” because it was offered as a tithe to the Lord on a heavenly altar, “for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.6).

Once that unconsecrated Eucharist offering was complete and the people recited “Amen” in unison (Against Heresies, Book I, 14.1), the words of Consecration were spoken over the bread and wine of the Eucharist (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5). At that moment it becomes the body and blood of Christ to us, “from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported” (Against Heresies, Book V, 2.3). And just as the unconsecrated bread becomes suited for heavenly purposes the moment it is summoned as a tithe before the Epiclesis, our bodies become suited for heaven when they consume consecrated bread after the Epiclesis.

In short, earthly bread testified of the union of flesh and spirit, and took on a heavenly reality the moment it was summoned by the Lord as a Eucharistic tithe offering, and once the tithe offering was over, some of the bread was consecrated to become a Eucharistic meal of Christ’s body and blood, which is exactly how Irenæus describes it:

For we offer to Him His own [food], announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons (έκκλησιν) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5)

It was a simple, apostolic liturgy in which unconsecrated bread was offered as a tithe in one liturgical act, becoming food for the poor, and then in a separate liturgical act some of that bread was consecrated, becoming the body of Christ to be consumed by believers in a memorial meal. There were two separate liturgical acts, and under no circumstances did Irenæus teach or even suggest that the Church had offered as its “well-pleasing sacrifice” an oblation of consecrated bread and wine—the flesh and blood of Christ—to the Father.

But such a liturgy in which the bread takes a new reality at the tithe offering was wholly inconsistent with the novel medieval liturgy in which the bread was supposed to take on a new reality at the Consecration. An ancient liturgy so different from the medieval one could not be allowed to stand, so the translators got to work to correct Irenæus. The only way to do that was to combine the two changes into one: instead of earthly bread taking on a heavenly reality at the tithe offering (the Eucharist), and then that earthly and heavenly bread becoming the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration (the Epiclesis), the two liturgical acts were combined into one such that the change into heavenly bread and the change into the body of Christ were conflated, becoming a single event. Or to put it more succinctly, the Eucharist was collapsed into the Epiclesis.

Roman Catholic Migne (1857), for example, believed “the Eucharist” is supposed to refer to the consecrated bread and wine of the Supper, and that the “heavenly reality” of the bread must become present not at the moment it was tithed, but rather at the moment it was consecrated. To resolve the problem, Migne simply added a footnote to Irenæus’ Greek, indicating that by “έκκλησιν (ecclisin) του Θεού” which means “summons of God” in reference to the tithe, Irenæus must really have meant “επικλυσιν (epiclisin) του Θεού,” meaning “invocation of God” in reference to the Consecration (Migne, PG, VII, 1028n). Such a reading “corrects” Irenæus to bring his liturgy into conformity with the later medieval offering. Once the bread is said to be changed at the invocation instead of at the tithe, Irenæus’ offering can easily be made to appear as if it was really an oblation of consecrated bread and wine, a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ:

For we offer to Him His own [Son], announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons (έκκλησιν) invocation (επικλυσιν) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; … (Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18.5)

And thus, with a stroke of the pen, Migne changed Irenæus’ Greek and overturned his Apostolic liturgy. By that modest editorial change, Irenæus was brought back into alignment with the medieval liturgy, and now the bread was alleged to be turned into the Eucharist, taking on a “heavenly reality,” at the Consecration.

Protestants for their part have been largely complicit in the historical revision. William Wigan Harvey (1857), for example, in his examination of Irenæus, concluded that a later Latin translation ought to be used to correct Irenæus’ original Greek, and thus, where Irenæus wrote “έκκλησιν (ecclisin)” he must really have meant “επικλυσιν (epiclisin)”:

επικλυσιν is evidently the reading followed by the [Latin] translator, and is that which the sense requires. (Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n-206)

What makes Harvey’s statement so egregious is that it is widely understood in the academic community that the translator who originally rendered Irenæus in Latin was known to be incompetent. As Schaff’s series on the Ante-Nicene Fathers acknowledges,

Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. … And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. … Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task…. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, vol. I, Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 1885, Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies, (Repr., New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1903), 312 )

It is bad enough that Irenæus’ original Greek was rejected in favor of a later Latin translation, but worse still that the Latin translation was itself barbaric. Why correct Irenæus’ Greek with a Latin version known to be inferior? Quite telling indeed.

The result of the unconscionable tampering with Irenæus’ Greek is the collapse of Irenæus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis, giving the false impression that the ancient Church instituted the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood to the Father.

Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2

Irenæus’ simple liturgy is apparent to anyone willing to give his works an objective reading, and there is no doubt that he distinguished the Eucharist from the Epiclesis. The bread becomes the Eucharist, taking on a heavenly reality, at the moment of the tithe offering, and the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ at the moment of Invocation, the Consecration, the Epiclesis. It was the Apostolic liturgy reflected in the Scriptures, and Irenæus wrote plainly of it. As noted in the previous section, common bread becomes the Eucharist “when it receives the summons of God” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5), and as Irenæus describes later, the Eucharist then becomes the body of Christ “[w]hen … the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God” (Against Heresies, Book V, 2.3). The Eucharist, and the Epiclesis, as we have seen already in Irenæus, are two distinct liturgical steps.

Such a liturgy in which the bread becomes the Eucharist at the tithe offering, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ at the Consecration, is wholly at odds with the medieval liturgy in which the bread is alleged to become the Eucharist at the moment of Consecration. As such, Irenæus must be retranslated to conform to the later novelty, to give the appearance that the bread and wine actually become the Eucharist the moment Christ’s words are spoken over them. Protestant translators Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut (1885) therefore render Irenæus in just this way, relying again on a Latin translation known to be barbaric. Under the erroneous rendering, the bread and wine are alleged to become the Eucharist at the Consecration:

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, … the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made… (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2, paragraph 3).

But Irenæus’ original Greek says something entirely different. In his native tongue, Irenæus said rather, at the Consecration, “the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.” Yes, under the original reading, it is clear that the bread was already the Eucharist before the Consecration, which is consistent with the Apostolic liturgy in which a Eucharist precedes the words of institution, “This is My body, this is My blood.” But such a reading is inconsistent with the medieval liturgy that would come later, and so the translators deferred again to the “barbarous” Latin. The editor, however, acknowledges the truth, adding a discreet footnote beneath Roberts’ and Rambaut’s English rendering of the Latin to explain what the academic community already knows full well—namely, that the Latin version was known to be unfaithful to the Greek!

The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give, “… the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.” (Schaff, Phillip, Ante-Nicæan Fathers, vol I, note 4462)

How indeed could the bread become the Eucharist at the tithe, and the Eucharist become the body of Christ at the Invocation (as Irenæus wrote in Greek) if the Invocation is alleged to turn the bread into the Eucharist (as the translators have represented him in Latin and English)? Answering that question is simple if one understands the Apostolic liturgy, the early Church’s embrace of it, and the later attempts to revise history. It is clear that in Irenæus, the bread was already the Eucharist before the Consecration, consistent with the Apostolic liturgy. By alleging instead that the bread becomes both the Eucharist and the body of Christ at the Invocation, the scholars and translators effectively combined two distinct liturgical steps into one, collapsing Irenæus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis, and creating the impression that the Eucharist of the early church was an offering of consecrated bread and wine, an oblation of the body and blood of Christ to the Father.

Fragment 37

It is evident from Irenæus’ own words that he believed the Eucharist was an offering of created food (Against Heresies, Book IV, 17.5), and that the Eucharist preceded the Epiclesis (Against Heresies, Book I, 13.2) and that the bread became the Eucharist at the tithe offering (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5) and that the Eucharist became the body of Christ at the Consecration (Against Heresies, Book V, 2.3). It is also evident that he included a liturgical “Amen” after the Eucharist in accordance with the Apostolic instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:16 (Against Heresies, Book I, 14.2). The written record is clear on these points, despite the many efforts by scholars, translators and historians to obscure it. Because the Eucharist offering was sealed with an “Amen,” and the Epiclesis was spoken after the offering was complete, it is manifestly evident in Irenæus that the oblation of the Church preceded the Epiclesis, and that the oblation was not an offering of consecrated bread and wine. And thus, Irenæus did not teach a liturgical oblation of the body and blood of Christ.

It may also be deduced in several ways that Irenæus did not believe the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration. He demonstrates this in at least three ways.

First, he alternates freely between the decomposition and non-decomposition of our bodies at death after eating the consecrated bread. He explains the significance of offering the unconsecrated Eucharist “in well-grounded hope” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.4), and receiving the consecrated Eucharist with “the hope of the resurrection to eternity” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5). In doing so, he says that our bodies “are no longer corruptible,” having received the body and blood of Christ. But he refers elsewhere to a kernel of wheat, which is sown in the earth and then “rises with manifold increase” when it is called forth by the Spirit of God, and compares it to our bodies, being nourished with the body and blood of Christ which, buried in the ground, “shall rise at their appointed time” when called forth by the Word of God. Here he compares the seed “becoming decomposed” in the ground before germinating, and our bodies “suffering decomposition there” before rising (Against Heresies, Book V, 2.3). Irenæus obviously did not believe the consecrated Eucharist actually prevented decomposition. Irenæus’ figurative language is thereby revealed to us in his application of the construct of decomposition and incorruptibility. His focus was on the hope of the offeror of the tithe and of the recipient of the Supper rather than on the substance of the consecrated bread. Otherwise, his claim that our bodies “are no longer corruptible” after receiving the Lord’s Supper (Book IV, 18.5) cannot be reconciled with his acknowledgement that our bodies indeed “suffer decomposition there” after receiving the Lord’s Supper (Book V, 2.3).

Second, he wrote that the bread becomes suited for heavenly use when set aside as a tithe “in faith without hypocrisy” (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5), and that our bodies become suited for heaven when they receive the consecrated bread in the same way: in faith without hypocrisy. His figurative language is revealed to us in his application of the construct of faith as the means of both bread and body becoming suited for heaven. His focus was on the faith of the giver of the unconsecrated tithe, and the faith of the recipient of the consecrated bread, rather than the substance of the bread itself.

Third, Irenæus insisted that the Christian is not to bend the knee on the Lord’s Day (Fragment 7), which is an odd proscription indeed if he truly believed Jesus Christ was present in the consecrated bread. Since Christians have celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Sundays since Apostolic times, a man who believed Christ was truly present in the bread ought rather have required kneeling on Sundays than forbidden it. Clearly, he believed in the symbolic view of the Supper. Besides, the arguments historically brought forward from Irenæus to support a literal view of the Consecrated bread are based on editorial redactions of Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 5, which redactions we have above shown to be fraudulent.

In a word, then, Irenæus’ liturgy was Protestant. The oblation was the tithe offering prior to the Epiclesis, and the Supper after the Epiclesis only symbolized Christ’s body and blood and was not offered as a sacrifice. And this is precisely how Irenæus’ liturgy is reflected in Fragment 37:

“And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Irenæus, Fragment 37)

It is sufficiently evident that Fragment 37 refers to the offering as “the Eucharist” before the Invocation, and further that the bread and wine were still antitypical, or symbolic, even after the Invocation. “The cup of blessing” quite obviously refers to the “eucharisted” cup of unconsecrated wine as depicted in Luke 22:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:16, and is an offering of created food from the harvest just as reflected in Against Heresies Book IV, chapter 17.5. What is more, the word rendered “perfected” in English is actually “τελέσαντες” (telésantes) in the original Greek (Migne, P.G., col. 1253), meaning “completed,” indicating that the Eucharist offering was complete before the Consecration even occurred. What is more, the phrase “that He may exhibit this sacrifice,” initially suggests that the consecrated bread and wine are “this sacrifice” referring to a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine that is “exhibited” for the edification of the faithful. But the original Geek is not “αυτή θυσίαν” which is “this sacrifice,” but rather “την θυσιαν” which is “the sacrifice,” referring to “the sacrifice” on the Cross, not to “this sacrifice” on the table; and further, the word “exhibit” is translated from the Greek word, “αποφηνη” (apophene), from which we derive the English word, “apophenia,” which is the propensity to form a mental connection between two unrelated things or events—in this case, consecrated bread and Jesus’ broken body on the cross. In other words, rather than invoking the Holy Spirit to “exhibit” “this” sacrifice of the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the bread and wine of the Eucharist so that He may form in the mind of the recipient a mental connection between the consecrated bread and wine and the crucified flesh and blood of Christ. In short, the Eucharistic liturgy depicted in Fragment 37 is the same as that reflected throughout Against Heresies, and is perfectly consistent with the studious liturgical mind of Irenæus.

Nevertheless, after Fragment 37 was discovered by Christoph Matthäus Pfaff and published in 1713, it was immediately criticized by the scholars and ultimately dismissed by Adolf von Harnack (1900) as a forgery. Among other objections, the Fragment plainly indicated an ancient view of the Lord’s Supper that was essentially Protestant, which the scholars could not entertain. No proof of forgery was ever presented, and Pfaff denied the charges until his death. Harnack, the chief exponent of the allegations, was only able to support the charges by assaulting Pfaff’s character and by contrasting the fragment with the received wisdom on Irenæus, which “wisdom” itself is now known to be fraudulent, as we have shown here.

The objections essentially came down to two issues that were fundamentally problematic to the narrative academia had been constructing on Irenæus for centuries: namely, that the fragment used symbolic language, “αντιτυπον, antitype” (Migne, P.G. vol 7, col 1253) to describe the elements of the Lord’s Supper even after they were consecrated, and the fragment placed the Eucharist offering prior to the Epiclesis:

In the fragment the Eucharistic elements are called αντιτυπον; Neither Irenæus nor any other father used this expression in that age in relation to the elements.

The fragment separates the Eucharistic oblation from the Consecration, whereas Irenæus did not. (von Harnack, A., Die Pfaff’schen Irenäus-Fragmente als fälschungen Pfaffs Nachgewiesen, J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1900) 9, 52)

These two objections are so easily overturned that it is remarkable they were even raised in the first place.

First, in a contemporary manuscript, the term “antitype” is used to contrast the copy with the original, showing that the use of the term in that sense was being used in patristic literature:

“No one then who corrupts the copy (ἀντίτυπον), shall partake of the original (αυθεντικον)” (2 Clement 14, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol ix, Menzies, Allan, D.D., ed (New York: The Christian Literature Company (1896) 255)

What is more, Irenæus’ own disciple, Hippolytus, is known to have used the term “antitype” in reference to the bread and wine after the Consecration (Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta VeronensiaLatina, Hauler, D., trans (Lipsiae: in Aedibus B. G. Teubneri (1900) 117). Beside this, as noted above, once Irenæus is allowed to speak for himself and his discourse on the heavenly reality in the bread at the tithe offering is translated honestly (Against Heresies, Book IV, 18.5), his language on the Supper is plainly seen to be symbolic. If contemporaries used the term antitype to refer to the symbol, and Irenæus himself understood the consecrated elements to be symbolic, and Irenæus’ own disciple actually used the term antitype to refer to the consecrated elements, it is hardly disqualifying that Fragment 37 calls the consecrated elements antitypical.

Second, as we have shown above, Irenæus plainly separated the Eucharist oblation from the Consecration, and it was not Irenæus, but rather his translators, interpreters and redactors who have since attempted to represent Irenæus as combining them.

In short, two of the most significant academic objections to Fragment 37 are based on errors and intentional misrepresentations that are easily dismissed.

Therefore, whatever objections have been raised against Pfaff and his discovery of Fragment 37, Irenæus’ liturgy and depiction of the Lord’s Supper in that fragment rather lend proof to its authenticity than to its forgery. The attempts by the scholars to suppress the Fragment are not because the fragment is inconsistent with Irenæus, but rather because it is inconsistent with their creative and illicit attempts to collapse Irenæus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis. The Fragment itself is entirely consistent with Irenæus’ liturgy and his view of the Eucharist tithe offering as the fulfillment of the Malachi prophecy, an offering that was separate from, and prior to, the Epiclesis.

Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.)

Irenæus’ most famous disciple, Hippolytus of Rome, followed in his master’s footsteps, producing his own expansive work, Refutation of All Heresies, inspired by, and in some places based upon, Irenæus’ work, Against Heresies. Hippolytus helpfully recapitulated and confirmed Irenæus’ description of heretic Marcus’ imitation of the “usual” Christian liturgy. In so doing, he represented the Eucharist as separate from and prior to the Epiclesis:

And very often, taking the Cup, as if offering up the Eucharistic prayer (εὐχαριστών, euchariston), and prolonging to a greater length than usual the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως, epicliseos)… (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 6, chapter 34) [J. H. MacMahon, trans (1886)] Migne, P.G., XVI, 3258).

Hippolytus also recapitulated Irenæus’ liturgical “Amen” which “we simultaneously utter” (Refutation of All Heresies, Book 6, chapter 37). As Paul dictated, that “Amen,” was to occur immediately after the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 14:16), and has the effect of separating the Eucharist offering from the Epiclesis.

Thus, it is clear that Hippolytus had access to Irenæus’ original works in Greek, had been taught by him, and had adopted Irenæus’ liturgy as his own. Hippolytus makes no efforts to correct Irenæus or to reorder the liturgy. A Eucharist, an Amen, a Consecration and a Meal. It was the biblical liturgy handed down from the Apostles.

However, the academic community has attempted by various means to collapse Hippolytus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis, or when that is not possible, to strike from the record the evidence of his Apostolic liturgy altogether. The scholastic attempts to suppress Hippolytus’ liturgy, or to collapse it, occur in their clumsy handling of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (the Anaphora), and his Fragment on Proverbs 9.

The Apostolic Tradition (Anaphora)

As with Irenæus’ Against Heresies, the original Greek of Hippolytus’ Anaphora is long lost, but the Verona Latin fragments helpfully preserve not only the Latin translation but also the Latin transliteration of the original Greek. There are other translations—Sahidic and Arabic—that are incomplete or poorly translated and transmitted. There is also a complete Ethiopic translation but it is not considered reliable as it is not based on the original Greek. However, even with the imperfections in the evidence, one may still discern in Hippolytus a conviction that the Eucharist was separate from the Epiclesis and that he did not offer a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper.

As noted in our previous post, Hippolytus freely acknowledged in the Anaphora that the Eucharist oblation of the Early Church was the tithe offering, as attested by his instruction that new converts were to bring their own Eucharistic oblation with them on the day of their baptism, and then “offer to the bishop the firstfruits of the fruits of the first harvest … which [the Lord has] given to us as food … for the pleasure and nourishment of men and all animals.” (Hippolytus, Anaphora, 20, 30) [c. 250 A.D.]). Such a Eucharist offering included “the grape, fig, pomegranate, olive, pear, apple, blackberry, peach, cherry, almond, and plum” (Hippolytus, Anaphora, 32), and might as well include “an offering of oil” or “an offering of cheese and olives” (Hippolytus, Anaphora, 5, 6) and “milk and honey” and “water” (Anaphora, 21). To the degree that some of the offerings included bread, wine, water, milk and honey, and in view of the fact that this particular Eucharist offering was their first, the bishop was instructed to make the offering a teaching moment, and would allow the newly initiated to partake of a portion of several of the items before they were consecrated. After the offering, but before the Consecration, the new convert was given basic instruction in the Scriptural symbolism of bread, wine, milk, honey and water: “The bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving” (Anaphora, 21). But it was still just a Eucharistic initiation banquet following a baptismal rite, and was not yet a meal of consecrated bread and wine, and certainly was no meal of consecrated milk, honey and water.

A Eucharist offering of olives, cheese, oil, milk, honey, bread, wine, water and blackberries is, quite obviously, not the Lord’s Supper, but it is easily understood if one first grasps what the Eucharist actually was to the early Church: a thank offering, a tithe of the first-fruits of the harvest for the poor, in which only the initiated were allowed to participate. The newly baptized had much left to learn, and that learning continued on the day of their baptism, the bishop taking every opportunity to instruct the novices, including how the symbols of bread, wine, milk, honey and water are used in the Scriptures. Knowledge of the initiation rite of a new convert is easily discerned from the historical data, if one is willing to read it. It is a Eucharistic baptismal rite, not a modified Lord’s Supper.

But an oblation of milk, cheese and honey was a bridge too far for Katharine E. Harmon at Marian University in Indianapolis, Indiana (2015), and she simply could not understand the Eucharist outside of the medieval construct of an offering of consecrated bread and wine, a liturgical offering of the body and blood of Christ. She therefore encouraged her students, on the one hand, to contemplate the oddities of “the ancient Church’s Eucharistic theology” and the symbolic implications of the various “foodstuffs” that were offered, but on the other hand, took “an oath to use a heavy black marker to ‘x’ out ruthlessly all references to Hippolytus in text books of liturgical history” (The So-Called Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, 2015).

Roman Catholic Burton Scott Easton (1934), similarly puzzled by the presence of food other than bread and wine in Hippolytus’ Eucharist offering, was unable to grasp the significance of that offering as a tithe, and the bishop taking the opportunity to provide instructions on the use of symbols in the Scriptures. He therefore dismissed Hippolytus’ descriptions as a passing fancy from an earlier age. Glossing over the evidence from history and relegating it to Hippolytus’ “exaggerated” but otherwise misplaced reverence for the past, he looked with relief toward a novel medieval Eucharist that would include only consecrated bread and wine:

This blessing at the eucharist of food other than the bread and wine is a remnant of the primitive custom when the rite included a meal; … Perhaps only Hippolytus’s exaggerated reverence for the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon disappeared. (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Easton, Burton Scott, trans (Cambridge University Press, 1934) 74).

Such is the sorry condition of modern studies of the ancient liturgies. Just as we saw with Harnack’s rejection of Irenæus’ Fragment 37, Harmon and Easton could not evaluate Hippolytus’ ancient Eucharist except through the lens of that later medieval novelty. They rejected it for similar reasons. Unable to extract herself from the medieval corner into which she had painted herself, Professor Harmon painted her students into an even smaller one, instructing them either to interpret the ancient evidence through a medieval lens, or to join her in her ruthless effort to remove Hippolytus’ liturgy from the historical record (Harmon, 2015). Meanwhile, Easton, unable to think through the evidence before him, simply assumed that Hippolytus must have been exaggerating, and dismissed the ancient evidence.

But that was not Easton’s only mistake in his assessment of Hippolytus’ Eucharist offering. Because he could not understand the difference between a Eucharist offering and catechetical rite and the Lord’s Supper in Hippolytus, Easton simply combined Hippolytus’ references to them and did so in a way that showed his utter disregard for the evidence. To showcase the sheer magnitude of his error we will need to spend a few minutes exploring the initiation ritual for believers on the day of their baptism. As we have noted, new converts were not allowed to participate in a Eucharist offering until they were baptized, and thus the Eucharist was offered immediately after the catechumens emerged from the water, but obviously before the Epiclesis was spoken over the Eucharist for the Lord’s Supper. Here is how Hipploytus describes it:

Afterward, when they have come up out of the water … Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall give thanks (gratias agat) for the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him, and the milk and honey mixed together [for] the sweetness of his Word, softening the bitter heart;… and water also for an oblation as a sign of the baptism… (Anaphora, 21; Hauler, 112)

While the bread is here called “the symbol of the Body of Christ” and the wine “the symbol of the Blood,” it is clearly not the Lord’s Supper because the symbolic meaning of the milk, honey and water is also described to the neophyte, as was the symbolic meaning of the oil, cheese and olives to the congregation during the offering. The whole eucharistic offering is used as an opportunity to instruct the newly initiated and the rest of the congregation in the symbolism of the Scriptures. This instruction is given to the assembly as the bishop gives thanks for each item. It is not the Consecration. It is not the Lord’s Supper. It is an illustration given during the Eucharist offering, as is abundantly evident from the bishop’s instruction when oil, cheese and olives are also offered:

Then the deacons shall present the oblation to him, and he shall lay his hand upon it, and give thanks (gratias agens ), with the entire council of elders, saying: ‘…we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you (gratias tibi agentes), who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests. … If someone makes an offering of oil, the bishop shall give thanks (gratias referat) in the same manner as for the oblation of the bread and wine. He does not give thanks with the same words, but quite similar, saying, ‘Sanctify this oil, God, as you give holiness to all who are anointed and receive it, as you anointed kings, priests, and prophets, so that it may give strength to all who taste it, and health to all who use it.’ Likewise, if someone makes an offering of cheese and olives, the bishop shall say, ‘Sanctify this brought-together milk, just as you also bring us together in your love. Let this fruit not leave your sweetness, this olive which is a symbol of your abundance, which you made to flow from the tree, for life to those who hope in you.’ (Anaphora, 5-6; Hauler, 106-108)

Indeed, bread is known to be a symbol of the body of Christ. Wine is known to be a symbol of the blood of Christ. And oil is a symbol of strength and health. And cheese is a symbol of God bringing His people together. And olives are “a symbol of your abundance.” Clearly, as the bishop is offering the Eucharist, he is instructing all present on the symbolic significance of each item and our gratitude to the Lord for saving and uniting His people, similarly to the Eucharist offering in the Didache 9-10 as we saw in our previous installment. But he is still only “giving thanks” (gratias agentes). He is still only offering the Eucharist.

Gratias agat, is Latin for “giving gratitude” or “thanksgiving,” and thus the oblation brought by the deacon and offered by the bishop still has not yet been consecrated, for the Holy Spirit has not yet been asked to change the food into a spiritual meal for the recipients. It is a solemn, catechetical initiation meal after the convert’s very first oblation, or tithe offering. But it has not yet been consecrated, and the bishop, while performing the tithe offering, has merely instructed the neophyte on the symbolic significance of each item offered—the bread, the water, the milk, honey and wine. The bread and wine would very soon be consecrated for use in the Supper, and the neophyte is told of its meaning. But it is not the Supper yet. This is the convert’s very first oblation. His very first Eucharist.

Following the Eucharistic oblation, Hippolytus then proceeds with the Epiclesis, the Consecration, the Invocation—the request that by the Holy Spirit, God would make the bread and wine into a spiritual meal to the communicants:

And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your Holy Church. In their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy Spirit… (Anaphora, 4)

This is Hippolytus’ Epiclesis, the point in the liturgy when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the bread and wine to change them into the body and blood of Christ. When Hippolytus then refers to Consecrated bread and wine, he shifts from his Eucharistic language (gratias agat) and begins to use the Consecratory language of blessing or consecration (benediction):

All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned. Having blessed (benedicens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for … [you] will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought. (Anaphora, 36-38; Hauler, 117))

Having moved past “gratias agat” or “thanksgiving” in reference to the Eucharist, Hippolytus has now shifted to “benedicens,” or “blessing” in reference to the Epiclesis. Hippolytus did not say, “Having eucharisted (gratias agens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ,” but rather, “Having blessed (benedicens) the cup…”. The Eucharist (gratias agens) was first, and the Epiclesis (benedicens) came after. They were, as is abundantly obvious, two separate liturgical acts.

We have walked through what can be known of Hippolytus’ liturgy—the day of the convert’s baptism, the instructions to the bishop on the first day he performs the oblation, the instructions to the initiate on the day of his first tithe offering, and the instructions to the congregation on the symbolic meaning of the first-fruits of the harvest, the Eucharist, the Invocation and the change in his terminology—in order to display the tremendous semantic difference between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis in Hippolytus. It is very hard to miss.

But Easton, his view clouded by the medieval Eucharist offering of Christ’s body and blood, could not differentiate between a Eucharist offering and catechetical meal of bread, water, milk, honey and wine as an initiation rite for the newly baptized, and a Eucharistic meal of consecrated bread and wine as a sacrament. So he simply collapsed Hippolytus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis. He did this in two ways: when Hippolytus has clearly referred to the Eucharist, Easton loads “gratias agat” with Consecratory meaning as if the “gratias agat” had the effect of changing the bread and wine; then, when Hippolytus has clearly referred to the Epiclesis by which Hippolytus clearly has invoked the Spirit to change the bread and wine, Easton loads the “benedicens” with the language of “thanksgiving.”

In the first case, in which the bishop merely gives thanks (gratias) for bread which is symbolic but has not yet been consecrated, Easton’s gratuitous translation assumes that the Thanksgiving (gratias) was itself the Consecration by which the bread is changed into the body of Christ:

CORRECT: “The bishop shall give thanks (gratias agat) for the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ.” (Anaphora, 21; Hauler, 112)

EASTON: “by thanksgiving he shall make the bread into an image of the body of Christ” (Easton, 48)

Here, at the moment Hippolytus is clearly referring to the Eucharist before the Epiclesis, Easton simply assumes that the Eucharist itself was the Epiclesis.

In the second case, in which Hippolytus clearly refers to that which has been blessed (benedicens), or Consecrated, Easton’s gratuitous translation assumes that the Consecration (benedicens) was itself the Thanksgiving:

CORRECT: “Having blessed (benedicens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it…” (Hauler, 117)

EASTON: “The cup, when thou hast given thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the image of the blood of Christ. Therefore let none of it be spilled… (Easton, 60)

Here, at the moment Hippolytus is referring to the Epiclesis after the Eucharist, Easton simply assumes he must have been referring to the Eucharist.

So deeply ingrained in the medieval mind is the unity of the Eucharist and the Epiclesis that Easton could not help but assume Hippolytus was referring to the Epiclesis when he was actually referring to the Eucharist. Likewise, Easton assumed Hippolytus must have been referring to the Eucharist when in fact he was referring to the Epiclesis. Thus did Easton collapse Hippolytus’ Eucharistic tithe offering and initiation rite of the newly baptized into the Epiclesis of the Lord’s Supper to give the appearance that they were one and the same. The fraudulent translation yields up a medieval Eucharist offering that is made into the body and blood of Christ by the thanksgiving, instead of the ancient Eucharist offering followed by an Epiclesis intended to change the significance of the bread for the Supper.

In sum, Easton (1934) and Harmon (2015) together showed remarkable (and clearly insurmountable) ignorance in their handling of the ancient tithe offering and initiation rite. Unable to examine the evidence at face value, they both evaluated it in the darkness of the medieval Roman mass sacrifice. Both assumed Hippolytus simply must not have understood the Apostolic liturgy, or that he was exaggerating an ancient, but long since abandoned practice, and both therefore used the later novelty as an interpretive lens through which Hippolytus could be understood, or as it turns out, dismissed. That is how the scholars and translators have recklessly and irresponsibly handled the evidence, redacting, correcting and editing the ancient writers to make them conform to a medieval liturgy that was still more than a century away at the time Hippolytus was writing his Anaphora.

Fragment on Proverbs 9

It is clear enough that Hippolytus differentiated between the tithe and the consecration—between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis—and it is clear from his liturgy that bread and wine from the tithe oblation were afterward consecrated and used for the Supper. We note that Hippolytus did not instruct the novice to take care to avoid spilling bread, wine, milk, water or honey after the Eucharist oblation and the initiation rite, but only advised the recipient to be careful not to spill the bread and wine after the Consecration. There was a connection between the two, because the Supper always followed the Eucharist, but they were separate liturgical acts. It is impossible to read Hippolytus and conclude either that he had Consecrated the bread and wine by giving thanks for it or that he had given thanks for it by Consecrating it. His Eucharist and his Epiclesis were clearly two different things that cannot be combined. But that has not kept the translators from trying.

In his commentary on Proverbs 9:1-2, Hippolytus took note that wisdom has furnished her table, and made a connection between the table of wisdom and the table of the Lord, since Proverbs 9:2 refers to “bread” and “mixed wine”:

Wisdom hath builded her house … she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. … Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. (Proverbs 9:1-2,5)

Hippolytus could not read that without thinking of the Lord’s Supper immediately following the Eucharist offering, and his thought process is not difficult to follow. His understanding of the Eucharist as a tithe offering is clear enough not only from his own Anaphora, described above, but also from the fact that he was trained by no less than Irenæus of Lyons. According to their liturgy, the first fruits of the harvest—including freshly baked bread and newly mingled wine—were offered as a tithe oblation for the widow, the orphan, the stranger and the poor. From that oblation, bread and wine were taken to be used for the Supper. Thus, just as Wisdom had furnished her table with bread and mingled wine, so, too, had Christ furnished His table with His own body and blood. It was a memorial meal of Christ’s body and blood, and it occurred immediately after the first-fruits offering. And that is exactly how Hippolytus expressed himself: “‘And she has furnished her table:’ that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity;” the rest we provide in interlinear form to make an important point. Hippolytus continued:

it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood—
και το τιμιον και αχραντον αυτου σωμα και αιμα

as on the mystical and divine table
απερ εν τη μυστικη και θεια τραπεζη

every day have been performed the sacrifices—
καθ εκαστην επιτελουνται θυομενα

as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable
εις αναμνησιν της αειμνηστου και πρωτγς εκεινης

table of the spiritual divine supper
τραπεζης του μυστικου θειου δειπνου.
(Second Fragment on Proverbs 9, Migne vol X, col 628)

We provide the interlinear Greek to make an important point about the historial, contextual and literary license taken by the translators. The Greek “απερ, aper” can mean “which” as a relative pronoun, or it can mean “as” or “like”, as an adverb used in a comparative analysis. Its correct translation of course is determined by context. By way of example, Hippolytus uses the term to say “as Daniel said” (απερ λεγει Δανιηλ (Migne, PG, vol X, 748) in On Christ and Antichrist, paragraph 25. In that context, “as” is the only possible rendering because Hippolytus is comparing something Daniel wrote in chapter 2 to something different that he wrote in chapter 7. Clearly, απερ can be used to say “as” or “like.”

In the context of Proverbs 9, it is again used in comparison, to say, “‘she has furnished her table’ refers to Christ’s body and blood, just as (απερ),” for example, “when we consecrate the bread and wine for the Supper after the tithe offerings.” Such is Hippolytus’ meaning here, as is corroborated by Hippolytus’ Anaphora (in which the bread and wine are offered with milk and honey in the tithe and then consecrated to become the body and blood of Christ for the Supper), and Irenæus’ Against Heresies (in which the bread becomes the Eucharist when it is tithed, and then becomes the body of Christ when it is consecrated). This same nexus of Eucharist offering and Memorial meal is also seen in Eusebius’ Proof of the Gospel, when he describes the Eucharist we bring to the Lord “when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice” but the memorial meal is not the sacrifice (Proof of the Gospel, Book I, chapter 10). This is not difficult to understand. Jesus’ body and blood is on the sacred divine table every day that the sacrifices have been offered because every time the tithe is offered, we take some of the bread and wine and consecrate it for a meal. But Jesus’ body and blood is not what is sacrificed. The ancient liturgy is quite clear on this, as is Hippolytus’ description of it in the Fragment under review.

But the scholars and translators would not have it so. Because Hippolytus’ liturgy is so foreign to the medieval liturgy in which Christ’s body and blood are offered in the Eucharist, Hippolytus must be translated in such a way as to force him to comport with the later novelty. As such—against all logic, and without consideration of his own explicit liturgy in his Anaphora, ignoring is own depiction of a Eucharist offering followed by an Epiclesis in his Refutation of All Heresies, and dismissing his teacher’s plain expressions of a tithe offering prior to the Consecration in Against Heresies—the translator collapsed Hippolytus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis. That is to say, he rendered απερ as a relative pronoun referring to Christ’s body and blood being sacrificed daily, instead of as an adverb comparing “she hath also furnished her table” to the presence of consecrated bread and wine on the table after the offerings had been performed. The commentary on Proverbs 9 is thus rendered as if consecrated bread and wine were offered, and it was the body and blood of Christ that had been daily sacrificed:

it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (The Extant Work and Fragments of Hippolytus, Book I, S.D.F. Salmond, trans., (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886))

A cursory review of the Greek interlinear shows just what a stretch that translation is. Only by rejecting the actual language of Hippolytus in his Anaphora, only by ignoring the plain order of Hippolytus’ liturgy as reflected in his Refutation of All Heresies, only by denying the plain order of the liturgy as reflected in writings of the early Church, can a translator read Hippolytus’ commentary on Proverbs 9 and conclude that he believed Christ’s body and blood was what was sacrificed daily. The early Church is abundantly clear on what was sacrificed, but because the veil of ignorance is so impenetrable, and because the temptation to conform the ancient liturgy to the medieval one is so strong, the translator reads Hippolytus’ commentary and assumes that he must have meant that the consecrated bread and wine were sacrificed. That assumption has the effect of collapsing Hippolytus’ Eucharist into his Epiclesis, despite the mountain of evidence that stands in the way of such an interpretation.

We will continue this series in our next post as we analyze the rewriting of the liturgies of Tertullian of Carthage (208 A.D.), Origen of Alexandria (248 A.D.) and Firmilian of Cæsarea (256 A.D.). We will show how the translators, historians, and apologists—by footnotes, misreadings, and anachronism—have rewritten and reinterpreted the ancient writers to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, forcing upon them retroactively a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper.

752 thoughts on “The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2”

Kevin Failoni says:

August 1, 2020 at 7:15 pm

What an undertaking. Just amazing. I will probably sleep well tonight Tim it took me so long to read it. But the detail and how you weave thru the consistency through these fathers of the order the Eucharist tithe offering, the Amen, then the consecration for the Lord’s supper. It is so helpful to see how these historians both Catholic and Protestant perverted and inverted 2 separate acts separated by the Amen. By collapsing them they were able to make the consecrated bread and wine the offering to God, when they were really offered to men. For the offering and sacrifices had happened in the Eucharist. Amen. Then consecration and supper. The elements were clearly symbols. I pray people will read this. Very well done as always. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 1, 2020 at 10:24 pm

Timothy–
Sorry, but some of this is repetitive–just bear with me.
You maintain the eucharist offering is separate and prior to the epiclesis and that the scriptures and the early church understood it that way. And that in the fourth century the Roman Church “collapsed” the epiclesis into the eucharist to basically re-sacrifice the body and blood of Christ to the Father over and over and over again. And a way the Church did that was to move the AMEN from after the tithe offering (eucharist) to after the consecration (epiclesis). You also maintain that the AMEN divides the two individual rites because the AMEN signals the end of the preceding rite.
I maintain that the Mass used today is still in that ancient sequence you describe–the offertory thanksgiving is still separated by AMEN and prior to the consecration.
Here is the proof:
https://www.universalis.com/static/mass/orderofmass.htm

1.) Offertory and Prayer over the Gifts–AMEN

2.)Thanksgiving (eucharist):
The Priest says “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.”
And we respond “It is right and just.”
The Priest prays It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Christ our Lord…To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you…Therefore, Lord, we pray, graciously accept this oblation of our service, that of your whole family; order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen.
Through Christ our Lord. AMEN.

3.) Consecration (epiclesis):
The priest then prays “Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you.
In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.

(Notice that these words of consecration are in the sequence that is a combination of Matthew’s and Luke’s account of the Last Supper.)

After the words of Consecration the priest continues praying and concludes with “In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
Through Christ our Lord. AMEN.”

You can clearly see the sequence:
Offertory–AMEN and finished.
Eucharist–AMEN and finished.
Consecration–AMEN and finished.
There it is, the Mass in a three part performance with a final AMEN ending each part.
The eucharistic liturgy concludes with a doxology of:
“Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.”
And we respond with AMEN.

4.) Communion meal

Timothy, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Mass sequence is just as you say it ought to be–the Eucharist is separate and prior to the Consecration–separated by AMEN. You have deliberately misrepresented the sequence of the Catholic Mass to your readers by emphasizing an AMEN by calling it the “Apostolic Amen” as if it was the only AMEN in the ancient liturgy. You have yet to prove that the AMEN mentioned in 1 COR 14:16 is the AMEN directly after the Eucharist of the liturgy. It simply cannot be gleaned from the context of that part of Paul’s epistle since Paul’s teaching was about spiritual gifts, in particular the speaking of tongues. The point of the teaching is that the Church is not edified if they can’t understand what you’re saying.
I don’t doubt that you say historians and apologists have deliberately distorted the writings to make them say what they wanted them to say. And as far as I can see, you do it with this blog, too. The liturgy we use in our local parish church today is the same as the one I have cited above for reference. And we include the Dismissal of the Catechumens as well.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 1, 2020 at 10:31 pm
  
  Nick,
  
  Don’t take this personally, but one of the reasons I’m not interested in interacting with you is that you don’t pay attention.
  
  I have never claimed “that in the fourth century the Roman Church “collapsed” the epiclesis into the eucharist to basically re-sacrifice the body and blood of Christ to the Father over and over and over again”.
  
  If you have any evidence that I have ever claimed such a thing, please provide it and I’ll be happy to interact with you.
  
  Reply
Ayo says:

August 2, 2020 at 1:05 am

Tim,

I’m not even sure if you’ll see this, but I just want to personally thank you for the work that you’ve done here. I’m 20 years old and have been studying apologetics since I was 13, and I recently have seen a larger presence of Roman Catholics in online apologetics communities trying to push their doctrine. Even beloved teachers that I’ve listened to online for a good while now have come out and changed their minds on issues like baptismal regeneration because they think that the early church Fathers believed it. I just completed your six part series on this topic from 2014 and I’m floored over how well you laid out and presented your arguments by studying the actual context of each father. I want to genuinely thank you as you’ve emboldened my faith and confidence in the finished work of Christ at the cross.

If it’s not too much trouble, I didn’t have a few quick questions after changing with the series that I was hoping you could give me your thoughts on:
1. What is your personal view as to what the water is in John 3:5?
2. Does Christ’s promise to guide the disciples into all truth impact the validity of the Nicene Creed? (aka why would God allow baptismal regeneration to be promoted via the creed?)

Thank you.

Ayo

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 6, 2020 at 4:35 pm
  
  Ayo,
  
  Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, I have watched as respected men continue to capitulate, and the Presumption of Apostolic Continuity is almost always the culprit. More on that in a separate thread. You asked,
  
  What is your personal view as to what the water is in John 3:5?
  
  I believe the “water” of John 3:5 is a reference to natural birth, something you have probably heard before.
  
  You also asked,
  
  “Does Christ’s promise to guide the disciples into all truth impact the validity of the Nicene Creed? (aka why would God allow baptismal regeneration to be promoted via the creed?)”
  
  Jesus’ promise to guide the disciples into all truth is simply a reference to the Scriptures, not to church councils. Jesus said
  
  “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)
  
  This is why we know the disciples could remember things that happened years earlier.
  
  He also said,
  
  “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)
  
  This is how we know the disciples could prophesy of things to come as Paul in 2 Thessalonians and John in the Apocalypse. I don’t believe the Councils were the “all truth” into which the Comforter was to guide us.
  
  That said, I don’t believe the earliest version of the Nicene creed mentioned baptismal regeneration. To which version of the Nicene creed do you refer when you ask whether God would permit “baptismal regeneration to be promoted via the creed”?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Tim
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 2, 2020 at 1:28 pm

Tim, you must have like me, considered how sinister it was to pervert the Eucharist offering of bread and various foods along with praise etc. into the Eucharist becoming the consecrated bread ( transubstantiated bread) which becomes Christ’s physical body, blood, soul, divinity then for the purpose of a propitiatory sacrifice for sins. What God intended in faith eventually turned into merit etc. God ordained for all this to happen. As you outlined the men both Catholic and Protestant who were complicit in some way in their interpretation of misunderstanding , it doesnt escape me the negative eventualities of this led to false religion. Imho this is the most fatal takeaway. K

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 2, 2020 at 6:36 pm
  
  Yes, the perversion of the Eucharist offering was a necessary development in the eventual rise of the Eucharistic image, which, as you know, is the Image of the Beast of Revelation 13. None of that would have been possible unless people were first convinced that the consecrated bread really was Christ Himself.
  
  In the early church, the consecrated elements were universally held to be figuratively, symbolically, antitypically the body and blood of Christ. When the Epiclesis began to occur before the Eucharist, the sacrificial offering of Christ’s body and blood came to be perceived as propitiatory, and if propitiatory, then really Christ’s flesh and blood. And if so, then really His soul and divinity. And if so, then really an object of adoration.
  
  I have mentioned before that the late 4th century rise of Roman Catholicism is the “falling away” Paul had foreseen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and the Presumption of Apostolic Continuity (PAC) is the “strong delusion” he mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, which delusion causes men to believe the lie.
  
  When you see how far educated men were willing to go to reinterpret and rewrite the early writings in the light of the medieval liturgy, it is easy to see just how strong that delusion is. The PAC is the reason the early writings had to be reinterpreted to begin with because it was so hard to believe that such a vast apostasy could have occurred in the late 300s. And so the PAC kicked in and otherwise intelligent men assumed that what was happening at the end of the 4th century must have been what had been received from the Apostles themselves. And so they started rewriting the first 300 years to fabricate that continuity so they could assure themselves that what they were believing was Apostolic.
  
  But of course, they could not have resisted the delusion. A strong delusion from the Lord is as impossible to resist as His grace is. The Apostasy could not have been avoided.
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 2, 2020 at 6:58 pm
    
    Absolutely
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 2, 2020 at 4:13 pm

Ok, then. It seems to me you meant it.
You said: “What was once the Eucharistic tithe offering of gratitude for the harvest before the Consecration became a Eucharistic OFFERING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST for sins after the Consecration.”
and
“However, a liturgical thank offering of bread, wine, cheese, oil, olives, pomegranates and figs before the Epiclesis cannot possibly be mistaken for the much later liturgical SACRIFICE OF CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD.”
and
“The former describes the “Eucharistic sacrifice” of the early Church, while the latter describes the superstitious, medieval, abominable “EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE” that arose late in the 4th century.”
and
“But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical SACRIFICE OF CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD.”
If not basically re-sacrificing Christ, then what did you mean by that?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 2, 2020 at 6:09 pm
  
  Not sure what your point is, Nick. Are you saying the Roman Catholic mass is not a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood?
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    August 2, 2020 at 11:12 pm
    
    You portray it as an abomination. It is a present day presentation of the 2000-year-old, once and for all time, sacrifice of Christ which is the propitiation for all sins. Our gifts of tithes, bread, wine, and our very lives baptized into His death and purified are offered through, with, and in Christ Jesus who is real and substantially present. It is not a re-sacrifice by crucifying Him over and over and over again with each and every Mass. It is how the Church applies the shed Blood of the crucifixion 2000 years later. Just because Christ was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, doesn’t reverse the crucifixion. That one time sacrifice is as good today as it was then. That is why Christ is considered the Eternal Victim. And His flesh still has the scars to prove it.
    And as much as you would deny it, according to your evidence so far, the liturgy of the Mass today is still in the same sequence as it was in the ancient liturgy, unchanged since the 1st century.
    
    Reply
Summa Autistica says:

August 2, 2020 at 10:14 pm

Thanks for your work on this. I’ve been following this series (and the podcasts before it) with great interest.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 3, 2020 at 7:55 am

Nick, I read your post to Tim. It sounds like to me you are really trying to convince yourself thatt of the mass in view of the utter light Tim has shined on its fraudulent history. Incidentally, you keep saying that it’s a representation of the sacrifice 2000 years ago, but the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone that denies it is a real, true and proper sacrifice for sins. Despite being unbloody, each time it is done it is your sacrifice for your sins along with your own propitiatory contribution. It denies the finished work of Christ on the cross. As you can see by Tim’s eloquent detailed work the Eucharist was simply the tithe of foods and the praise of the Lord and giving Thanksgiving. Then the supper is where bread and wine are given to MEN as the body and blood as a reminder of the cross. That’s it. It was never meant to be a sacrifice but a memorial in faith of the finished sacrifice of Christ. The elements were SYMBOLS. Tim has written much on type and anti type. Excellent work. I hope you read the series on baptismal regeneration here also. K

Reply
Betty says:

August 3, 2020 at 1:06 pm

In Irenaeus fragment 37 would you agree with Irenæus that “the receivers of these anti types may obtain remission of sins and life eternal”? I don’t understand how receiving symbolic bread would provide remission of sins and eternal life.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 3, 2020 at 1:44 pm
  
  Thank you, Betty. May I first inquire as to your position on the Fragment? Is it your opinion that the Fragment is authentic but “antitype” here does not mean “symbolic”? Or is it rather that “antitype” means symbolic, but the Fragment itself is not authentic?
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 3, 2020 at 6:58 pm

Kevin–
You said “Incidentally, you keep saying that it’s a representation of the sacrifice 2000 years ago, but the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone that denies it is a real, true and proper sacrifice for sins… It denies the finished work of Christ on the cross.
It does no such thing. It IS the finished work of Christ applied today. The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago is a real, true and proper sacrifice for sins–as good now as it was 2000 years ago. And if you say it isn’t, then you are under anathema. What we present in the Mass is that 2000-year-old sacrifice. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You also said: “As you can see by Tim’s eloquent detailed work the Eucharist was simply the tithe of foods and the praise of the Lord and giving Thanksgiving.”
Yes, the offertory and thanksgiving is still a big part of the liturgy.
And you added “Then the supper is where bread and wine are given to MEN as the body and blood as a reminder of the cross.”
And it still is.
And finally you said “It was never meant to be a sacrifice but a memorial in faith of the finished sacrifice of Christ. The elements were SYMBOLS. ”
The whole liturgy is meant as an oblation of thanks and praise where the elements of bread and wine are the SYMBOLS of the Body and Blood of Christ who is truly present, so that our sacrifice of tithes and our very lives offered through, with, and in Him, are pure, acceptable, and pleasing to the Father. And, yes, we do it in memory of Him.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 3, 2020 at 7:16 pm

” it is the finished work of Christ applied today” no, its salvation on the installment plan. In Christianity the cross is a blanket across history covering all sins. The example in Hebrews is Christ offered himse ONCE just like men die ONCE. The example of men dying once should be instructive to you since it happens in time at a moment. There is no continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. Remember he said It is finished! In fact he sat down at the right hand of God because he accomplished the salvation of Christians. Tim has shown you here that the Catholic mass is a perversion of the Lord’s supper by providing shocking proof from scripture and early church history. ” the whole liturgy is meant as an oblation……. ” deceptive Nick. You left out the part where it is a propitiatory sacrifice for your sins and you contribute your own propitiatory sacrifice of yourself as if you can qualify to satisfy God for your sins. Nick we are done. You are obtuse about this in that you participate in the mass and think Tim is supporting y ou or position. He’s not . We get it you’re Roman Catholic. K

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 4, 2020 at 3:36 pm
  
  It’s been a pleasure Kevin.
  May God bless.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 3, 2020 at 8:56 pm

Timothy, thanks for your response. I didn’t question the authenticity of the fragment or the meaning of the word antitypes. I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”. Kevin mentioned “a propitiatory sacrifice for sin” so it just seems to be very confusing.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 4, 2020 at 7:09 am
  
  Thank you, Betty. A very interesting question. The Latin (upon which the English rendering is based) includes the term “consequantur” which is rendered as “obtain” in English, as in “in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
  
  However, that term is not present in the greek, which reads, literally,
  
  “ινα οι μεταλαβοντες τουτων των αντιτυπων,”
  “the recipients of these copies,
  
  της αφεσεως των αμαρτιων και και της ζωης αιωνιου
  of the remission of sins and of eternal life”
  
  There is no mention of the “attaining” of eternal life by the receiving of the symbols.
  
  Because the operative term in the preceding phrase is αποφηνη or apophene, the forming of a mental connection between otherwise unrelated objects, Hippolytus’ invocation of the Holy Spirit is thus intended to accomplish something very simple: that the Holy Spirit would form in the mind of the recipient a connection between Jesus’ death, as signified by the bread and cup, and the remission of sins and eternal life. It is interesting that the term “apophene” is also used in Polyobius’ Library of History (29.2.3) to describe an exchange of hostages. In that context, the individuals as hostages signified the other party’s pledge of compliance with a treaty. The basis of a hostage exchange was the formation of a mental connection between the hostages and what they signified. To harm the hostages was to start a war, and to start a war was to harm the hostages. Everyone was therefore equally interested in the health and well being of the hostages, and therefore kept the peace.
  
  As such, you can probably see why Hippolytus would ask the Holy Spirit to help the recipients to relate Christ’s death and remission of sins and eternal life. There does not appear to be, in the Greek, so much as the “attainment” of remission of sins and eternal life as the understanding that remission of sins and eternal life is what Jesus’ death accomplished.
  
  You may find it interesting as well that Irenæus elsewhere writes of the Israelites in the Old Testament being saved by belief in Jesus Christ:
  
  “And Paul likewise declares, “And so all Israel shall be saved;” but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus. Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 2, paragraph 8)
  
  Irenæus insists that the OT Jews were saved in the same way the NT Christians are: by faith. In this case, their faith was by looking upon a serpent (Numbers 21:8) as the NT Christians’ faith was by looking upon Christ “lifted up” (John 3:14-15). In the OT, that faith could only have been stimulated by looking upon a symbol of Christ, and not the reality of Christ, and forming in their minds a connection between otherwise unrelated things.
  
  Irenæus thus shows that he believed it is the faith in what the symbols suggest to our senses, and not the symbols themselves, that saves.
  
  The OT Jews beheld a symbol of Christ (the serpent) and believed with their minds what the symbol suggested to their senses unto salvation. The NT Christians are asked to look upon bread and wine—symbols of Christ’s passion—and believe with their minds what the symbols suggest to their senses: that Jesus’ death was for the remission of sins and eternal life to the believer.
  
  It’s an interesting point, and I appreciate you raising it.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    August 5, 2020 at 7:35 am
    
    Timothy, you mentioned a barbaric translation of Irenaeus’s Greek into Latin but then give a rather barbaric translation of Irenæus into English which actually makes no sense except to open the discussion to wild speculation. Take for example Kevin’s comment “I think that Irenæus means”. I personally think most people mean what they write. While I find your articles very interesting there seems to be a tremendous amount of unfounded speculation, beginning with your “Apostolic Amen” from 1 Cor 14:16. I read multiple Bible commentaries on that verse and only one commentator mentioned it might be related to the liturgy. I don’t have a computer, could you display 1 Cor 14 so we can all look at the context together. I know Nick challenged you on this issue before.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      August 5, 2020 at 9:44 am
      
      Thank you, Betty. The Latin translation of Irenæus’ Greek was barbaric. The translators acknowledge this. The English translation I provided is from the New Advent page, which draws from Schaff’s series on the Ante-nicene Fathers, which acknowledges that it uses an English translation from the barbarous Latin. If the Latin translation is barbaric, a faithful English translation from the Latin will be barbaric as well. The Latin included the word “consequantur” (obtain) not represented in the Greek. The editors, as I have noted, acknowledge that an English rendering, based on the Latin, does not capture the essence of the original Greek, which is why the editors added the footnote, “The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give…” something other than what the English shows.
      
      As my article was about the distinction between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, which both the Greek and Latin convey, I left it at that, while highlighting simply that “telesantes” means complete and what is translated as “this sacrifice” in the Latin is actually “the sacrifice” in the Greek. You asked about something in addition and I provided it. I’m not sure where the “wild” speculation is.
      
      You wrote, “I personally think most people mean what they write.”
      
      Of course they do. But Irenæus wrote in Greek, not Latin. Do you think we should not base our understanding of Irenæus upon what he actually wrote in Greek? Or do you think we should defer instead to a Latin translation of what he wrote?
      
      You observed,
      
      “While I find your articles very interesting there seems to be a tremendous amount of unfounded speculation, beginning with your “Apostolic Amen” from 1 Cor 14:16.”
      
      Jesus eucharisted before the Last Supper.
      He said we should do the same in memory of Him.
      Paul says there is an “Amen” after the eucharist (1 Cor 14:16) “in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:19) when “the whole church be come together into one place” (1 Corinthians 14:26).
      
      Therefore there is a point during a church gathering when people eucharist and Paul’s instruction is that the eucharist be in the common tongue so everyone can say Amen to it.
      
      For some reason, the Catholic encyclopedia interprets the Amen of 1 Corinthians 14:16 as “the customary Amen” which is liturgical and is spoken after the Eucharistic prayers, which the Catholic Encyclopedia interprets as the prayer of Consecration. What is more, the Catholic encyclopedia thinks this is the only Amen that can be traced to antiquity, and what is more, the other Amens in the liturgy “can easily be shown to be relatively late additions”.
      
      So we are only addressing one Amen, and for some reason, everyone seems to think it goes after the Eucharist.
      
      The Didache has the Amen after the Thanksgiving.
      Justin has the Amen after the Thanksgiving
      Irenæus and Hippolytus both refer to the Amen we all speak together in unison, and for some reason the folks at New Advent think that Amen is the one Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14:16, the one said right after the Eucharist.
      Cornelius of Rome refers to an Amen spoken after the Eucharist
      Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of an Amen after the Eucharist
      Athanasius of Alexandria speaks of the thanksgiving sacrifice “when all men in common send up a song of praise and say, Amen”
      
      Now, if you had only one Amen to use when everyone comes together in the church, where would you place it in the liturgy? Would you put it after the Eucharist? On what basis would you do so? Can you think of any Scriptural basis for a liturgical Amen immediately following the Eucharist? On what basis do you think Justin, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Cornelius, Dionysius and Athanasius all seem to think there ought to be one there. Do think that it might be because of unwritten tradition—something that perhaps was not revealed to us in the Scriptures, but came into use eventually as part of the deposit of faith? Where do you think they got the idea to have an Amen after the Eucharist? Is it perhaps an Apostolic tradition? In what way do you think I have engaged in “unfounded speculation” related to the liturgical Amen? Do think all the others I mentioned above are also engaging in “unfounded speculation”?
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 5, 2020 at 11:53 am
        
        Timothy you did not address the issue that your English translation of the Greek makes no sense and you continue to refuse to post 1 Cor 14. Why? Of course it is pure speculation as to rather the Amen is referring to a liturgical Amen, and as Nick pointed out to you there appears to be more then one Amen in Justin’s account. No doubt about it the Catholic encyclopedia is also purely speculating as to rather Paul is referring to the liturgical Amen. The Fathers never say, “oh by the way, this Amen is the one Paul is referring to in 1 Cor 14:16.” To be honest I am so impressed by your knowledge of the Ancient Greek, I would love to read a translation of Irenæus you could provide on all his comments dealing with the Eucharist. It would be amazing as from what I gather you do not feel we can trust the current translations. Or do you know of any translations from the original Greek?
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        August 5, 2020 at 1:16 pm
        
        “you continue to refuse to post 1 Cor 14. Why?”
        
        Because you “don’t have a computer.” You wouldn’t be able to read it anyway. Of course, there are paper copies of the bible available in most places. I’m sure readers here can probably access a hard copy, even if they “don’t have a computer.”
Kevin Failoni says:

August 3, 2020 at 9:47 pm

Hi Betty. I did not mention a propitiatory sacrifice in connection with ” may obtain remission of sins and eternal life.” It seems like you are making that connection. Thx

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 4, 2020 at 6:16 am
  
  Thanks Kevin. Then I would assume from your clarification that you would agree what Irenæus was writing in fragment 37 was heretical. When you receive communion in your service you don’t receive it so you “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life” do you? That seems to be what Catholics claim. It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus which sprouted in the fourth century as described by Tim, would you agree?
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 4, 2020 at 7:23 am

Betty said ” when you receive communion in your service you dont receive it so you ” may obtain remission of sin for eternal life” that’s right grace isnt a tool to merit Gods forgiveness by doing the act of communion in my communion. Is it in yours? ” it would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Iranaeus which sprouted in the 4th century as described by Tim would you agree?” Adtually Tim’s article proves Iranaeus was in the Protestant main stream and “the seeds of heresy” were planted through the perverted interpretations by Roman Catholic and Protestant historians. I believe Gregory of Nyssa late 4th century was the first Bishop to offer Christ again in the Supper unfortunately. Incidentally, I think that Iranaeus means we obtain remission of sins for eternal life by believing the bread and wine represent Christ’s body and blood because of our faith in the cross. The one time offering in time never to be repeated for continued is a blanket across history covering all sin past present future because Hebrews 10:14 says it perfected us and Hebrews 9 says it put sin away. Its and assurance to Gods elect of their salvation and as Hebrews says the next time he comes for his people it wont be for sins but to gather his own. Of course if your view is Iranaeus is saying you must do this to get that there can be no assurance. Thx k

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 4, 2020 at 7:38 am

Tim, I feel like I should send you money because I’ve received a seminary degree here. Thank you so much for Out of His mouth which God has used in my life to arm me with the truth. Excellent explanation to Betty. I’m so blessed to learn here. K

Reply
Betty says:

August 4, 2020 at 9:32 am

Tim could you give us the correct translation of the Irenæus passage in question since apparently you do not accept the one you provided previously in your article. There appears to be a reluctance on your and Kevin’s part to acknowledge Irenæus may have been teaching heresy and yet we know from scripture that heresies entered into the Church community very early. Also Kevin the historians could not have planted the seeds of heresy because the heresy was in existence before they wrote, correct?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 4, 2020 at 10:40 am
  
  Betty, you wrote,
  
  “There appears to be a reluctance on your and Kevin’s part to acknowledge Irenæus may have been teaching heresy and yet we know from scripture that heresies entered into the Church community very early.”
  
  Can you tell me what, precisely, the heresy is that you believe Irenæus taught? I have shown you that Irenæus did not believe he was offering consecrated bread and wine, and that the Greek does not support eating symbols for the remission of sins and eternal life. The article is limited in scope to the propensity of the Historians to collapse the Eucharist of the ancient writers into their Epiclesis to make them appear to be one, and so the article limited its scope accordingly.
  
  Your question, however, suggests to me that you believe Irenæus was a heretic anyway. Can you tell me the basis for that conviction?
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 4, 2020 at 11:05 am

” also Kevin the historians could not have planted the seeds of heresy because the heresy was in existence before they wrote, correct.” Yes I believe that. They were just the necessary tools of the perpetuation of the apostasy. . God ordained that the apostasy would rise up within the church in 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul identifies that apostasy in connection with ” the man of lawlessness” who exalts himself in the church in the place of God. I wonder who that could be Betty? Anyone you know usurping to himself, from God , the title of Holy Father, head of the church, vicar of the son of God. It’s a layup. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 in fact Betty says those who are perishing are those that believe this falsehood and did not receive the truth to be saved. They followed the man of lawlessness. I believe Revelations describe him having a gold cup in his hand adorned in sacralet and purple. Ring a bell? That’s why I consider those who put their faith in the Pope as their head and do penance and live the gospel as those under that delusion. I’m glad you are here. God’s scripture and truth are foremost in the mind of the Author of these articles. I hope you read all of them. Imho there is no greater source that God has provided for Roman Catholics to see Chrietianity of the bible. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 5, 2020 at 8:00 am

Betty, here is what Paul said in Romans 1:16 ” I’m not ashamed of the gospel, it is the power of God FOR salvation to everyone who believes” 17″ for in it the righteousness of God is revealed form faith to faith” so with all due respect there was not any wild speculation in my interpretation of ” in order for the receivers of these anti types to obtain remission of sin and eternal life” as you can see actor Paul that believing the gospel is the powerof God for salvation. Those that receive the anti types believing that they are the body and blood of Christ are those who believe the gospel. And those that believe the gospel have obtained remission of sins and erranal life. 1Peter 1:9″ obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” as you can see Peter and Paul agree its faith in the gospel that results in the salvation of our souls. Tim’s interpretation of that statement is in accord with Peter and Paul. The ” wild speculation” seems your view of do this to get that. Thx k

Reply
Betty says:

August 5, 2020 at 8:29 am

Kevin, print 1 Cor 14 and let the viewers see if the initial premise of this entire series is not “wild speculation”. And remember I believe almost all Christians believe we are saved by faith, but most do not believe we are saved by faith alone.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 5, 2020 at 10:38 am
  
  Betty,
  
  I believe almost all Christians believe we are saved by faith, but most do not believe we are saved by faith alone.
  
  To claim that faith is required, but not sufficient, for salvation, all scriptures that state salvation by faith must implicitly imply works, an ‘Argument from Silence’ (like the Argument from Silence that the pre-4th century church writers collapsed the Epiclesis into the Eucharist).
  
  By Occam’s Razor, faith is only required (because it is the only requirement given). The burden of proof is showing a scripture that explicitly states that salvation requires both faith and works. James 2 is usually cited.
  
  As previously stated, the biblical order is faith (for salvation), baptism (for Holy Spirit), and works. Unless James contradicts Jesus and Paul, works come after faith and baptism.
  
  Per James 2, if you claim to have faith, but have no works, then your claim is empty: you are not saved. You still have faith, but that faith does not save. Similarly, demons have faith, but their faith does not save either. Faith not accompanied by deed is proof of faith that does not save.
  
  In James 2:18, someone challenges James saying that they have deeds. James challenges them to show their faith without showing deeds. They can’t. Actions are the only way to show faith. Actions divide faiths that do (sheep) or do not (goats) save.
  
  Works are obedience to God. One cannot be obedient to God until one is saved. The first act of obedience is faith, which saves. The second is baptism, when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell on a person. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a dirty, unredeemed person and it is the presence of the Holy Spirit that produces works, so they must be saved prior to works! You know a person has the Holy Spirit (that is, faith/salvation) by their works.
  
  James cannot be saying that works are required for salvation because faith and works are separated by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. You can’t collapse works into faith. James never mentions merit for salvation, which is required to satisfy the burden of proof.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 5, 2020 at 9:49 am

And remember I believe almost all Christians believe we are saved by faith, but most dont believe that we are saved by faith alone” allot to unpack in that statement. 1st of all, you have know idea what ” most people believe” because you aren’t God, but your reference is probably to Roman Catholics. And if that is the case then yes. The Catholic church teaches there is a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance ( justification/ salvation) of God. Grace in Catholicism is a TOOL to merit the merits of God. I call it salvation on the installment plan. Partly you and partly God. It isnt the gospel. But grace in scripture is unmerited favor. They aren’t the same. We are told to repent and believe the gospel. Catholics are taught to do penance and live the gospel. But scripture is clear the gospel is about a past event ,what Christ did for his people. Its call news. News is about something that already took place. It is simply believed. You said ” most dont believe we are saved by faith alone” Paul did. Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been saved through faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not a result of works” my 5 year old neighbor understands what faith gift, and nothing coming from you or your imperfect works means. Incidentally, there are Christians in the Catholic church but they would have to be bad Catholics. Imho you cant believe what Rome teaches and be a Christian. J C Ryle put it best ” Romanism in perfection is a gigantic system of Church worship, Sacrament worship, Mary worship, image worship, in one word a huge organized idolatry.” Never was a truer word spoken. Idolatry has manifested itself nowhere as decidedly as Catholicism.

Reply
Betty says:

August 5, 2020 at 6:20 pm

Kevin, a lot to say but the Pew research group did a survey of American Protestants in 2017 and found that 52 percent believed we are saved by faith and works. Now I assume you are aware none of the churches that trace their beginnings to the apostolic church , mostly Catholic and orthodox but there are others all agree we are saved by faith and works. And what was that about Martin Luther and faith alone? I think he called James an “epistle of straw”.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 5, 2020 at 9:04 pm

Well good Betty I see your reading your Pew bible. ” mostly Catholic and Orthodox but there others all agree we are saved by faith and works” what was that verse in Mathew 7 enter by the narrow gate for wide is the road to destruction and many go thereby. Faith alone in Christ justifies. Luther said the whole church hinged on this one truth. K

Reply
Betty says:

August 5, 2020 at 9:38 pm

And I am so glad Kevin that you acknowledge the founder of the human tradition the Bible warns us about, Martin Luther. I hope you will at least acknowledge the fact that most Christians don’t believe that we are saved by faith alone. Now I agree that doesn’t mean the majority is right,

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 5, 2020 at 9:54 pm

” Unless I’m convinced by scripture and by plain reason and not by popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against my conscience is neither right nor safe . I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” Martin Luther. Betty my conscience is bound by the Word of God only. Best K

Reply
Betty says:

August 6, 2020 at 7:28 am

Timothy, since I am posting using my phone and don’t have a computer it Is difficult for me to transfer long passages, hence my request for you to post 1 Cor 14. I was surprised when you did not post it in your original article of this series on the “Apostolic Amen” to provide context. And then when I read the passages and the biblical commentaries on that verse I understood why. It is pretty wild speculation on your part and the Catholic encyclopedia . You might be right but when you ignored Nick’s challenges on the matter it appeared there was a conscious effort on your part not to discuss the matter. Does’t completely shoot down your theory of apostasy at the end of the fourth century and either evil or incompetent historians both Catholic and Protestant over the centuries but I would have thought you would have at least posted 1 Cor 14 for background for your readers.

Reply
Betty says:

August 6, 2020 at 9:00 am

I was interested in the Latin translation of Irenæus from the Greek being described as barbaric. Was this the consensus of scholars or one scholars opinion? As you pointed out by your example the English translation of the Greek makes no sense so it does seem pretty pompous for some later day scholar to decide the poor Latin translator was barbaric. And of course you have suggested translators have been either deceptive or incompetent in your opinion all along.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 6, 2020 at 10:37 am

Betty, have you stopped and considered the overall proof and point of Tim’s last few articles, namely that there was no sacrifice of bread and wine to God in the supper, and there was no sacrifice of Christ for sins in the early church or the bible in the supper. In fact the sacrifices of praise, Thanksgiving, food for the poor etc. were in the Eucharist which ended with Amen! . Since in our discussion you are into polls, how does, it never existed work for you. How would we make that poll Betty for Pew, 100% no sacrifice of bread and wine nor Christ for sins in the Eucharist or the supper. 0 percent there was. Or as you so aptly put it ” I hope that you will acknowledge that most ( all) Christians in the early ” didnt believe in the sacrifice of bread and wine ( Christ’s body and blood) for sins in the Lord’s supper?! Just like Paul told the Phillipians jailer when asked ” what must I do to be saved?” and Paul answered “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” notice there is no statement by Paul to the jailer run down to the local RC and sign up for RCIA so you can then you can in one year be justified and start your process of meriting your salvation at the mass, just like there is no sacrifice of Christ at the table. What do Paul and Tim have in common? They both disproved Roman Catholic doctrine. That’s a good thing. Thx K

Reply
Betty says:

August 6, 2020 at 10:07 pm

Thanks Kevin. Remember the argument from silence? 100 percent no denial of the sacrifice of bread and wine nor Christ for sins in the Eucharist or the supper! Now would you like to compare quotes from each Church Father that support the doctrine of the real presence with those quotes that deny it? And a Church that places it’s emphasis on Faith rather then Love just hasn’t gotten the Gospel message. 1 Cor 13:13.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 6:46 am

” and a church that places it’s emphasis on faith rather than love just hasn’t gotten the gospel message” wow, you quote me a verse on judgement as proof of the gospel?! 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paulmsays this is the gospel Betty. Read it. Mark 1:15 Jesus says repent and BELIEVE in the GOSPEL. As you can see Betty Jesus says the gospel is told and believed, not done. We are saved by believing in the gospel. Incidentally Betty true believers have already passed out of judgement. John 5:24 ” truly truly I tell you whoever HEARS my word and BELIEVES him who sent me HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and WILL NOT BE JUDGED but has passed over from death to life.” Did you get that Betty Jesus said true believers will not be judged. You dont have this promise in the RC Betty. Run from that synagogue as fast as possible. What an awful false religion you are in Betty where grace is a tool for meriting your salvation and instead of repenting and believing the gospel as scripture teaches Catholics do penance and live the gospel. So sad. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by love or justified by love. When the Phillipians jailer asked Paul ” what must I do to be saved?” Paul said believe on the Lord and you will be saved. Only the Spirit of God Dan open your heart to reject the meritorious sacraments to embrace the gospel of scripture alone. I will pray God will remove the delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 from your eyes so you fan see the truth about the gospel and thru Tim’s articles you can see the utter making of a false religion thru the perversion of the Eucharist and the Amen and the Lord’s supper. What is a memorial commemoration of a faith we already possess became a sacrifice and a tool for earning ones salvation. Sincerely Kevin.

Reply
Betty says:

August 7, 2020 at 7:38 am

Should I listen to Kevin or the Holy Spirit? James 2:24 “you see then that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”.
1 Cor 13:13 “And now abide faith, hope and love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Kevin as I reminded you Catholics and the majority of Protestants in the United States all agree with you we are saved by faith, but not by faith alone. Are those Protestants that don’t believe in your human tradition “faith alone” also not Christians as you said of good Catholics? Try to put your emphasis on Love Kevin and I think you will be a much happier person.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 8:28 am

Betty, you do understand that Mathew 7 confirms your polls that the path to destruction is WIDE and MANY go thereby. Those who believe salvation is by faith plus works are not trusting Christ alone for their salvation and according to Paul are not saved. Romans 11:6 ” if it’s by works it is NO LONGER by grace” I notice you completely ignored John 5:24 where the scripture is clear Betty that those who simply hear and believe WILL NOT BE JUDGED. Could it be any clearer Betty. Exactly what part of will not be judged of the hearers and believers dont you get? That doesnt square with your church saying there is a final justification at judgement based on the life lived. So let’s review. Paul says we are saved by faith apart from ourselves and our works, Rome says we are saved because of our works in some way. Jesus says hearers and believers are NOT JUDGED, Rome says there is a final justification based on the life lived at judgement. The bible says the Lord’s supper is a memorial supper at a table, Rome says it is a sacrifice on an altar. The bible says repent and believe the gospel, Rime says do penance and live the gospel. As I’ve said before Betty, read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 8:52 am

Betty said ” try to put your emphasis on love Kevin you’ll be much happier” trust me Betty I am a happy person. God has blessed me with a wife who loves me, and more money than I can spend. I’m grateful. But none of that means anything in light of the purity and truth of the gospel. There can be nothing more unloving than letting friends or family perish in a false religion without telling them the truth. And as Tim has so many times pointed out the falling away in 2:3 2 Thessalonians and the delusion of verse 11 Roman Catholics are under the apostasy of the man of sin who lifted himself up in the church and took with him, 2 Thessalonians says, who believed the lie and did not believe the truth to be saved. The Westminster Confession clearly said the Papacy was the antichrist, there could be no other who embodied antichrist more. The Pope has usurped the place of the father, son and holy spirit. He claims the titles of Holy Father, head of the church, and vicar of the Son of God. And you are following antichrist and his idol the death wafer. You finished ” should I listen to you or the Holy Spirit” you should listen to the holy spirit of scripture who works by and with the word of God. Unfortunately you are listening to the Pope and his false religion since Catholicism is a false Christianity and a front for the kingdom of Satan. Frankly you are in Satan’s church, not Christ’s. I’ve said enough. K

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 7, 2020 at 10:06 am

Betty,

Many verses explicitly state that salvation requires belief, sometimes explicitly stating that works do not save. For example:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. [Ephesians 2:8-9]”

So also do Mark 1:15 and 16:16, John 3:16 and 5:24, Romans 1:16-17, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and 1 Peter 1:9. Some are directly out of the mouth of Jesus. Nor are these the only verses that speak of salvation that comes from faith. Let’s examine two more:

“…know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. [Galatians 2:16]”

…and…

“You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? [James 2:20-25]”

Do these contradict each other? Of course not. James 2:14-26 is summarized in the tautology: ‘if you don’t live your faith, your faith is not living, but dead‘. The difference between living and dead faith is the nature of that faith, not the deeds. To say that deeds are different between living and dead faith is tautological (i.e. circular reasoning) not prescriptive.

Most Christians agree that you need faith and works to be saved because, without works, you are not saved because you have no faith. This is descriptive, not prescriptive. It isn’t the works that save, but faith. It is impossible to have good works without living faith. Works are the causal result of faith and no amount of works (from least to the most) merits salvation.

Abraham had faith and works. They worked together. But, Abraham believed God, and that belief was credited to him as righteousness: his belief. By what he did, we could see his faith, the belief that led to righteousness.

Rahab was considered righteous, even as she proved herself a sexually immoral liar. Under the Law, her sinful works would have condemned her. But, she was considered righteous for her belief—as demonstrated by saving the spies. Her faith was living because she lived it. Had she not saved them, she would have demonstrated a dead faith (James 2:14-17). A dead faith is one that does not save (James 2:18-19).

“Should I listen to Kevin or the Holy Spirit?” James 2:24.

1 Cor 13:13 is not about salvation and love being the greatest doesn’t show salvation requires works. Pew is not scripture. James 2:24 is a single verse taken badly out of context. Unless I missed something scanning back through the threads, this is the entire argument. It’s a house of cards.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Kevin Failoni says:
  
  August 7, 2020 at 12:14 pm
  
  Good stuff DR
  
  Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 7, 2020 at 11:00 am

Regarding the Pew poll, here it is: link.

The poll was restricted to Western Europe, so it necessarily excludes the large body of American Protestants, which other polls have shown have substantially more Bible knowledge. Pew acknowledges that the large body of Anglicans are not strictly Protestant—distorting the results. Moreover, among Protestants in Europe, only one country has greater than 9% (!!) weekly church attendance. So 90% of the Protestants who don’t even attend church mostly think that faith and works are both required. I’m shocked that they are so ignorant!

As if this were not bad enough, these were the options: (1) “Both good deeds and faith in God are necessary to get into heaven”; (2) “Faith in God alone is needed (sola fide) to get into heaven”; (3) “Other”.

Consider these choices:

1) Faith in God alone is needed for salvation
2) Faith and works are necessary for salvation (descriptive)
3) Faith and works are required for salvation (prescriptive)

Of these #1 and #2 are tautologically equivalent. #3 is the RCC position. But in the Pew poll, there is no way to distinguish between #2 and #3. The difference between the Protestant position (#1 and #2) and the RCC position (#3) is that the latter relies on prescription of works and circular reasoning while the former relies on description of works and no circular reasoning.

It’s a very bad poll. Cite scripture next time.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 12:08 pm

Derek said ” it is impossible to have living faith without works” this is absolutely true. The apostle James says as much. But often times Proestants get into discussions with Catholics about the nature of faith and works ( I’m guilty) but truthfully that isnt the core issue. Why? Because the Roman Catholic church teaches grace is a tool to merit justice and grace through the church sacramental system. The core difference then is the sufficiency of faith to save alone. There is a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God in Catholicism. The whole meritorious sacrament system revolves around that. It’s a gospel of gracious merit, not the gospel of scripture which is simply told and believed.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 7, 2020 at 1:38 pm
  
  “The core difference then is the sufficiency of faith to save alone.”
  
  The Protestant believes that the Holy Spirit enables one to do good works. This especially emphasized in the Calvinist Reformed traditions on sanctification. The RCC requires that works—obedience, confession, penance, and sacraments—are human efforts required to attain righteousness. In denying the sufficiency of faith and the source of works, it denies the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus stated in Matthew 12:31-23:
  
  “And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 7, 2020 at 2:12 pm
    
    ” in denying the sufficiency of faith and the source of works , it denies the holy spirit.” That’s right. Incidentally one of the Pope’s titles is vicar of the Son of God, usurping that title from the Holy Spirit the 3rd person of the trinity.
    
    Reply
Betty says:

August 7, 2020 at 1:09 pm

Derek, the poll I was referring to was in an article entitled U.S. Protestants are not defined by Reformation Era controversies 500 years later, put out by the Pew Research Center, Aug 31, 2017. I think Kevin summed it up very nicely, is it more important to believe the gospel or live the gospel.? To redefine faith and say you don’t have true faith unless you have good works just undermines your argument that we are saved by faith alone. Now Derek would you say Protestants that deny the Faith alone doctrine are not Christians? Who should settle this argument since we both can cite biblical passages that support our positions? You say “It is impossible to have good works without living faith”. Seriously? So nonChristians are not capable of good works?

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 2:21 pm

” I think Kevin put it nicely is it important to believe the gospel or life the gospel” but Jesus told us the answer in Mark 1:15″ repent and believe in the gospel” its told and believed in , not lived. The gospel does not include spirit led works. The gospel is a set of propositions which are Christ died for sins, buried, raised on the 3rd day. You know how we know that’s the gospel. Paul tells us that in 1 Corinthians 15 that’s the gospel. Its news. News is about something that happened, namely what Christ did for his people. Do penance and live the gospel isnt the gospel. Jerome, because he was awful at Greek, interpreted repentance as do penance. They ain’t the same. K

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 7, 2020 at 3:27 pm

Betty,

“To redefine faith and say you don’t have true faith unless you have good works just undermines your argument that we are saved by faith alone.”

It is a tautological restatement, not a redefinition. A dead faith is a not living faith (no works). A living faith is a faith that is lived (works). It is saying the same thing two different ways. Tautology.

When I say “living faith requires good works”, you hear “faith requires performing good works [to be saved].” This is prescriptive, something you must do. But I am saying that “living faith necessarily results in good works.” This is descriptive, something that will happen.

“You say “It is impossible to have good works without living faith”.

James’ tautology requires this. By definition, a dead faith means not doing good works, so a living faith means doing good works. A dead faith doing good works is a logical contradiction. Does one who performs wondrous miracles—even healing the sick—do good works (e.g. Exodus 7:11; James 2:18-19; Revelation 16:14)?

“So non-Christians are not capable of good works?”

Correct. Good works can only be done in obedience to God. For example, non-Christians and Christians with unrepented sin must both leave during the Dismissal because the Eucharist tithes are only good works if they are done in obedience to God, even though the act itself remains unchanged. Moreover, “Without faith no one can please God” (Hebrews 11:6). It always comes down to the primacy of faith.

“Who should settle this argument since we both can cite biblical passages that support our positions?”

No one. Your duty is to follow scripture regardless of anything anyone ever says to you (see: 1 Kings 13). If you are set on rejecting the gospel, the argument doesn’t matter.

Peace,
DR

Reply
Betty says:

August 7, 2020 at 6:05 pm

Thanks Derek for your answers, before I respond Kevin I assume you agree with all the points Derek made?

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 7, 2020 at 6:16 pm

Yes I think DR is precisely right. That’s why Paul says we are saved grace thru faith with NOTHING coming from ourselves or are works Ephessians2:8 . He then says right after that that we are saved unto good works. Paul calls it our reasonable service of worship. But we dont participate in our salvation by our works. Derek did an excellent job of explaining the relationship between works and faith. Now consider the Roman Catholic doctrine which says one participates in his salvation by our works. Grace becomes the means of exchange on the Roman merit system. Grace is a tool to merit salvation. In Christianity God saves us , in Catholicism God helps you save yourself.

Reply
Betty says:

August 9, 2020 at 9:38 pm

So Kevin and Derek would you agree or disagree that God is loving and just? I know you both believe we can only be saved by faith, and Derek has stated based on his interpretation of scripture that all NonChristians are incapable of good works so I would have to assume you believe that all NonChristians are headed toward eternal damnation, am I correct? And of course Kevin has decided based on his interpretation of scripture that good Catholics are not Christian so am I to assume you both agree all good Catholics are damned as well? I just don’t want to misrepresent either of you.
Also are you both working out “your salvation with fear and trembling”? Do you both “do all things without complaining and disputing THAT YOU MAY BECOME blameless and harmless, children of God without fault? Have you ever watched or listened to a debate from a member of the Church of Christ and a Baptist over the necessity of baptism. Now if you have and you are honest with yourself you will admit in most cases both sides will do a wonderful job defending their position. Both sides will direct attention to those verses that support their position and downplay those positions that don’t. Very interesting.
Now Christ prayed for his disciples and also “for those who will believe in Me through their word That they all may be one, as You Father are in me”. How has Church unity worked out with Martin Luther’s other Sola, Sola Scriptura? Derek, did I misunderstand you that you would only accept your own private interpretation of Scripture?

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 9, 2020 at 10:54 pm

Betty–
With all the repetitive words that have been spoken, I seem to think that DR and Kevin believe that Catholics do not have faith but only have works. Do you agree?

Reply
1. Kevin Failoni says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 6:39 am
  
  Betty and or Nick ” I seem to think that DR and Kevin believe Catholics do not have faith but only have works” I dont speak for DR, but I believe that Scripture clearly teaches that Roman Catholicism is antichrist. The WCF said the papacy is antichrist. If that’s the case, and I believe no other conclusion can be drawn from the scriptures, then those in the Roman Catholic church that assent to its doctrine are not Christians. Because to assent to Roman Catholic church is to engage in idolatry, worshipping the false god of the mass , and to engage in a system of meritorious sacraments which are anti gospel of scripture. It is truly a death wafer Revelation 13: 15 ” and it was given to him ( other beast) to give breadth to the image of the beast, so that the image of beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and free men and the slaves, to be given a mark of their right hand and forhead” So Betty and Nick, do you worship the Roman death wafer that has spoken, bled, and caused men to be killed for failing to bow to it and to receive the mark of the beast?! Do you participate th RC meritorious salvation system? As I have been clear Catholicism is a false Christianity, a front for the kingdom of Satan. And those caught up in its web are not Christians, but anti Christians. Thanks for engaging. K
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 10, 2020 at 4:46 am

I totally agree Nick. That’s why I pointed out previously that as far as I know all Christians agree that we are saved by faith, just not faith alone. And because we feel we need to participate in our salvation and live the Gospel that means we are not Christians and should be punished with eternal damnation. And of course Kevin , and I hope I am not misunderstanding him , seems to believe that the Gospel is just faith alone to be saved without emphasis that love is greater then faith in the scriptures. At least I never see him stressing passage 1 Cor 13:13. In fact Derek said “1 Cor 13:13 is not about salvation”. I am not sure why the Holy Spirit included that passage in the scriptures if it’s not about salvation.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 10, 2020 at 4:57 am

” I know you both believe that we can only be saved by faith right” Romans 4:16 ” Therefore it is of faiith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that which is of the law, but to that which also is of the faith of Abraham” if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it they will have to be saved by faith alone. ” Kevin has decided from his interpretation of scripture that all good Catholics are damned as well” Mark 10:18 ” Why do you call me good” Jesus answered. NO ONE IS GOOD EXCEPT GOD ALONE! Repent of you goodness Betty and the idolatry of the mass and believe the gospel of scripture so as to be saved.

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 10, 2020 at 10:24 am

“Now Derek would you say Protestants that deny the Faith alone doctrine are not Christians? “

Nominally, ‘Christian’ is just a label. Semantics.

“DR and Kevin believe that Catholics do not have faith but only have works.”

You have both or neither. By James’ definition, works identify living faith and are absent in a dead faith. Having one without the other is impossible (by logical deduction).

“all NonChristians are incapable of good works so I would have to assume you believe that all NonChristians are headed toward eternal damnation, am I correct?”

Anyone with a living faith has good works and salvation. This may include nominal non-Christians with faith demonstrated in their works, for God judges the hearts of all men (1 Samuel 16:7).

“I to assume you both agree all good Catholics are damned as well?”

If a Catholic or Protestant, knowing exactly what it takes to be saved, rejects those terms, then God grants their request. The Lord does not force eternal life upon those who do not choose it.

“Both sides will direct attention to those verses that support their position and downplay those positions that don’t. [..] How has Church unity worked out with Martin Luther’s other Sola, Sola Scriptura?”

This is a common fallacy. Disagreement does not disprove objective truth. Unanimity does not establish it. Your duty to God transcends contingencies, ignorance, and other authorities (e.g. 1 King 13).

“Derek, did I misunderstand you that you would only accept your own private interpretation of Scripture?”

Yes, you misunderstood. It is transcendent, not private. See the previous paragraph and this essay by Catholic John C. Wright. For example, ‘Right Reason’ (as Wright puts it) is not a private matter, but your duty to it is individual: you are not excused from its duty because some authority tells you to do or not do it.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 12:23 pm
  
  DR says “The Lord does not force eternal life upon those who do not choose it.”
  
  Really? That’s mighty un-Calvinist of you.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 10, 2020 at 12:46 pm
    
    Correct
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 10, 2020 at 11:16 am

I have never said that Christians dont have good works. On the contrary true faith is demonstrated in works. What I deny is that those works in any way merit salvation, the merits of Christ. I assume you and Nick know this difference fully. As per our discussion I also assume that you fully comply with your churches system of salvation summited in your mass. So for me the issue isnt the relationship of faith to works, the issue is you both dont believe we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone. My friend Mark,who God saved out of the Catholic church 10 years ago, told me its allot like Mormonism, in that when you are taught from youth that your salvation must come from the Catholic church, it becomes a false security blanket. John MacArthur once heard a priest say we are all on a journey to perfection. MacArthur said if we are all on a journey to perfection that ain’t good news. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 10, 2020 at 12:15 pm

Betty–
It also seems to me that Kevin insists that his opinion of the Catholic faith is what is true instead of what is actually true. And DR seems to believe that good works are the RESULT of faith. The bible says works COMPLETE faith. What kind of works result from an incomplete faith?
It is interesting how Luther adding that one little word “alone” causes it to magically appear in the Protestant interpretation of all scripture concerning faith. The only place that I can find in my bible where the word “alone” is used in conjunction with “faith” is in James 2 where the Holy Spirit specifically, expressly, and undeniably condemns justification by faith alone. The bible says it in the Greek. It says it in the Latin. And it says it in English. And yet Protestants deny the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit in the bible by “qualifying” their interpretation to make the bible mean something it doesn’t.
The bible says that God will render to every man according to his WORKS: to those who by patience in WELL-DOING seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will reward eternal life; but for those who are factious and DO NOT OBEY the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
John 3:36 says “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will NOT see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
You see obedience is not a result of faith, it completes it.
One can call a redefinition a tautological restatement.
One can call it descriptive or prescriptive.
One can write a thousand word essay to excuse one’s errant interpretation or even create an entire website in defense of “salvation by faith ALONE”. But it doesn’t change the clear fact that Holy Scripture condemns it. It always has and it always will. Maybe finding a redacted version of the bible will help Protestants feel better about their dogma of Sola Fide.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 2:21 pm
  
  “The only place that I can find in my bible where the word “alone” is used in conjunction with “faith” is in James 2 where the Holy Spirit specifically, expressly, and undeniably condemns justification by faith alone. [..] And yet Protestants deny the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit”
  
  Cherry-picking a single verse out of its context results in error (see here).
  
  “John 3:36 says “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will NOT see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
  
  Yes, belief (living faith) stands opposed to disobedience. Yes, “works” are “obedience to God.” I’ve repeatedly stated this: a living faith is shown by its works (obedience) and a dead faith has no works (disobedience). John 3:36 is equivalent to James 2: if you have no belief (dead faith), you are disobedient (no works).
  
  The issue is not the relationship between faith and works, but that works do not merit salvation. If you could merit salvation by your works, then it would be possible to have faith (“believes the Son”) while simultaneously being disobedient (“does not obey the Son”). This directly logically contradicts John 3:36. Moreover, John 3:36 must be viewed with its preceding context:
  
  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
  
  Reply
2. Betty says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 10:32 pm
  
  Amen! I actually am quite amazed how our Protestant brethren can understand the book of Revelation, and be absolutely sure about which “amen” the apostle Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 14, but yet when faced with “This is my body” and “not by faith alone” they have to explain why Christ and Paul did not mean what they said. Now if a living faith requires works then common sense tells us it is not by faith alone. Now rather those works work with our faith to merit salvation is another issue , but not sure how the Bible could be much clearer we are not saved by faith alone, or faith without works which James clearly tells us is a dead faith. Lots to cover and was driving for 10 hours today . Did want to know if Kevin’s interpretations of scripture are also trsnsendent!
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 11, 2020 at 4:56 am
    
    ” but faced with this this is my body” but Jesus is clear Betty in John 6:63 it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I speak to you are Spirit. Christ has called us to a spiritual relationship with him, not a physical one. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood were metaphors for coming and believing. In fact the unbelievers that took him literally walked away from him. ” not by faith alone” Paul never said not by faith alone. You have ascribed words to him he never said. But he did say clearly in Ephessians 2:8 that salvation was a gift of grace that doesnt come from ourselves or our works. Can it be any clearer. That put works in one spot, as that which justifies our faith before men, not us before God. And yes transcendent. Salvation is a supernatural work of God. K
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 10, 2020 at 12:36 pm

“What I deny is that those works in any way merit salvation, the merits of Christ. I assume you and Nick know this difference fully.”
Sure. Here’s an analogy:
Christ’s merits are an endless bank account of salvation.
When we are baptized into Christ, we basically are put on the signature card of His bank account. Our faithful works of love and obedience draw upon that endless supply of salvation.
Yes, that is good news.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 10, 2020 at 1:29 pm

” Christ’s merits are and endless bank account of salvation …… Our faithful works of love and obedience draw upon that endless supply of vsalvation” ya, that’s what I said salvation on the installment plan. And how is that a gift?! Ephessians 2:8. Protestants understand that all of merits of Christ are offered to us as a gift of his grace and that can only be received by faith ALONE! Romans 11:6″ if it’s by works it is no longer of grace” Read Galations 5:1-4 and what Paul says about those who would add any work to faith to be saved. He says those that do are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace. The highest work circumcision, the judaizers ( that would be modern day Catholics) tried to add to faith and Paul says they’ve fallen from grace. Sounds like to me ” you’re taken off the signature card of his account” The rich young ruler tried to bring his works resume to Christ, Christ rejected him. The Jews in Romans 10:1 -4 tried to do the same and Paul prayed for their salvation. And Nick and Betty will receive the same unless you repent of that system and idol and ” believe IN the GOSPEL!” Jesus own words. Christians aren’t put on the signature card of Christ in order to merit the rest of his merits. The receive Christ by faith alone for he has fulfilled all righteousness in our place and offers it to us as a gift. ” for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” Romans 6:23. Can it be any clearer, it’s a free gift, we dont deserve it nor can we earn it. God has to convince you of that. K

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

August 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment.

You said:
“You have both or neither. By James’ definition, works identify living faith and are absent in a dead faith. Having one without the other is impossible (by logical deduction).”
Right you are. Now, that’s a living process. How do you square it with salvation as a one-shot deal “forensic declaration”?
God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 4:09 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “Right you are.”
  
  Up-thread Betty mocked the idea that only Christians can perform good works, so I’ll respond to you specifically.
  
  “Now, that’s a living process. How do you square it with salvation as a one-shot deal “forensic declaration”?”
  
  As I pointed out, if salvation was based on merit, then any bad work (disobedience) would—by John 3:36—be proof that you had no faith: not poor faith, but no faith at all. John 3:36 leaves no room for error: not obeying means you are subject to death and God’s wrath. Under the ‘curse of the Law’, a single sin condemns.
  
  John 3:36 doesn’t contrast belief with lack of belief. It contrasts belief with disobedience. How can this be since—per John 3:16—belief leads to eternal life? John 3:36 shows that belief is obedience, just as disbelief is disobedience: disobedience (ἀπειθέω) has the dual meaning to willfully refuse to believe and refuse to obey.
  
  The sacramental system decouples faith and works. But they can’t be separated. You can’t merit a faith that saves by doing prescribed works: if you already have saving faith, you by definition already have works (e.g. John 3:36). Your deeds are performed because you are faithful.
  
  “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. [James 2:24]”
  
  Faith and works are inseparable: both or none. Righteous or not. But—most importantly—you are already righteous when you do your works, not because you are doing them, but because you first believe. You show your (existing) faith by your deeds (e.g. James 2:18). If you didn’t believe, you wouldn’t have been obedient.
  
  Peace
  DR
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 10, 2020 at 3:37 pm

Phil said ” right you are. Now that’s a living process” the word for faith is pistis. It doesnt not mean a living process. Faith is not sanctification . Justification, how we are found righteous and accepted in the eyes of God, in scripture is always past tense and it’s by faith alone. Roman’s 5:1 therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God.” Notice we aren’t in a seize fire with God, we have been aorist past tense justified and we have shalom. In Catholicism they confuse justification ( by which a Christian is counted right before God solely based on the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer by faith ) with regeneration and sanctification. So the in us is confused with the for us. Rome sees justification as the sanctification process. But Paul is clear we wre justified freely by his grace not cooperating with his grace as it is taught in Rome. Romans 3:24 ” being JUSTIFIED as a GIFT by his grace” Faith is simply the instrument that receives Christ our justification and brings him to the heart, it is not a process. Yes as DR said faith is justified by its works just as wisdom is justified in her children the scripture says.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 10, 2020 at 4:41 pm

DR you said” that belief is obedience” but you did not say belief means obedience right? Because Jesus did say in John 6 to the Jews ” this is the work of God that you believe…..” but belief and obedience aren’t the same thing. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 10, 2020 at 5:06 pm
  
  That is correct.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 11, 2020 at 6:25 am

Kevin , obviously I was pretty tired last night when I suggested Paul said “not by faith alone”. I also misspelt transcendent . So is your interpretation of scripture also transcendent like Derek or private? Now in John 6:63 do you believe Christ is referring to His flesh when He says “the flesh profits nothing”? And did the disciples that left Christ leave Him before or after this verse since you apparently believe it was an attempt by Christ to take back what he said about eating his flesh. And Kevin I am sure you were aware that for those that were listening to Christ to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood was not a metaphor for coming and believing. Metaphorically it meant to harm someone . Right?

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 11, 2020 at 8:44 am
  
  “So is your interpretation of scripture also transcendent like Derek or private?”
  
  Did you read the essay I posted from Catholic John C. Wright? God’s Word is transcendent. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is not subject to the dictates of humans. It is not subject to argument. It stands universal.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    August 11, 2020 at 5:44 pm
    
    Derek I have enough trouble reading all these posts but will try to read the article you cited as soon as I get s little more time. While I will agree God’s word is transcendent your interpretation is not. Since man is interpreting God’s word it is a matter of interpretation, it is subject to the dictates of humans, and it is subject to argument. Why do we have, how many Protestant denominations are there currently now? By the way, which denomination do you currently follow?
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 11, 2020 at 8:57 pm
      
      Betty said, ” since man is interpreting God’s word it is a matter of interpretation, it is the subject of dictates of humans” and yet John admonishes his congregation to do the very thing you condemn Betty 1 John 2:27″ as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and as it has taught you, abide in Him” aren’t you glad Betty I have the word of God to tell me, as John did his people, I have the Spirit that scripture says convicts men of sin and leads them in all truth. Otherwise I might have just blindly trusted some synagogue and their claim to be an infallible arbiter of the truth. Praise God for deutimus the name for the Spirit dynamite! Praise God that God gave his word to his people. Your church kept the bible from it’s people for centuries. They did their masses in Latin. The Roman Catholic church chased down William Tyndale and killed him for the crime of translating the bible into English. Why would your church want to keep the word from people and even kill those who printed it. I’ll tell you why. Because of 1 John 2:27! Because of a verse like Matthew 24:23 ” at that time if anyone says to you, ” look here is the Christ messiah” There he is ” do not believe it. Sorry Betty, you church makes that claim to be Christ’s historic body on earth. And because I have my bible and because the word admonishes me that in the end I have no need for anyone to teach me, I can measure Rome’s claims against scripture and see it is antichrist with a false gospel. K
      
      Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 11, 2020 at 7:43 am

” so is your interpretation of scripture transcendent like Derek or private?” What is your point? Obviously God is transcendent yet imminent in that he communicates with us through his Spirit by and with the word of God. In fact Betty when John says this to his congregation what does this mean to you?! 1 John 2:27 ” As for you, the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him” ” in John 63 do you believe that Christ is referring to his flesh” I think Christ is saying he calls us to a spiritual relationship with Him not a fleshly one. Paul says this in 2 Corinthians 5:16 ” therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh, even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet we know him in this way NO LONGER.”did the disciples that left Christ leave him before or after this verse since you apparently believe it was an attempt to take back what he said about eating his flesh” well if he has to say the flesh profits nothing ( something you would need to hear also) then he must be correcting their literal interpretation of what he said and explaining to them what I said to you is spiritual words. You see Betty the book of John is not a metaphysical essay as your sophists say, but plainly and clearly saying unless someone comes and believes in Him they aren’t worthy of eternal life. Incidentally, the context of John 6 is easily summed up in verse 40 ” for this is the will of my father, that everyone who behold the Son and BELIEVES in Him will have eternal life and I myself will raise him up on the last day” so clear, perspicuos, so easy to understand. And look at the direct result. You come believe you have eternal life and he promised to raise you up for simply believing. Yet your synagogue turns this into some continuous eating of Christ’s flesh to merit salvation. What a perversion.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 11, 2020 at 11:21 pm
  
  Kevin, you asked what was the point of asking if your interpretation of scripture was private or transcendent as Derek claimed. Obviously it was to show that his claim was nonsense. I’ve lost count how many Protestants have told me they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit. But 1 John 2:27 is interesting and I will look at the commentaries. As I remember some in the Church are designated teachers so such a verse seems to undercut such an office.
  Now Kevin you say that you think Christ is calling us in John 6:63 to a spiritual relationship with him, not a fleshy relationship. So can we assume you believe the flesh in John 6:63 is Christ’s flesh? Who else’s flesh would Christ be referring to? The 2 Cor 5:16 of course can be easily explained by the fact that Christ is no longer walking on the earth. Augustine makes a similar comment but when you look at all of his comments it is obvious that he believed in the real presence as did his mentor St Ambrose. As I mentioned I don’t have a computer but anyone can look up the quotes by simply googling the saints name and real presence.
  Kevin you say that John 6 “is easily summed up in verse 40”, and then we hear again that we are saved by faith which we all agree with. But a summary is given at the end, not midway. Why didn’t Christ end the discussion there if his point was salvation by faith. How many times did he tell them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood? And how do you explain that no one seemed to think he was speaking metaphorically even the disciples that stayed with him. In fact why would Christ ask those that stayed “Do you also want to go away? If He according to your analysis had cleared up their misconception .
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 12, 2020 at 7:27 am
    
    Betty ” I’ve lost count how many Protestant have told me they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit” what a cloud of witnesses you’ve been able to hear from. I’m not sure what’s bothering you about that. Christians have the Spirit of God in their heart why wouldn’t they listen to Him with and by the Word of God. He’s God. Despite what you’ve been told about the Pope being the vicar of the son of God, the Spirit is the vicar. You’ve put your faith in the wrong head. ” but a summary is given in the end not midway. how many times did they tell them to eat his flesh and drink his blood” Betty, I know you have been taught that you get to purgatory by physically drinking his blood and eating his flesh, but dont you see by taking him literally you are making the same mistake of the people he had to correct. He says you didnt understand me, my words are Spirit . His WORDS are Spirit. We are saved simply be coming and believing his words. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood Jesus says in verse 40 is believing his words about who he is and what he did for us. In fact he repeats what this means in verse 35, 40, 47. Physically eating flesh and drinking blood was prohibited with the Jews. Betty Catholics make the same mistake as the people who took him literally and didnt spiritually appraise his words. It’s ironic you talk about the summary because Jesus in his summary crushes your assertion. He says in 63 my words are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing, Rhe Spirit gives life. The words I have spoken are Spirit and life. How much clearer can it be Betty. K
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      August 12, 2020 at 12:56 pm
      
      Kevin says: “I know you have been taught that you get to purgatory by physically drinking his blood and eating his flesh, but don’t you see by taking him literally you are making the same mistake of the people he had to correct… Physically eating flesh and drinking blood was prohibited with the Jews.”
      
      And it still is prohibited with Catholics. Now you are being obtuse. You know good and well Catholics don’t consume physical human flesh and blood. You’re trolling.
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 12, 2020 at 1:30 pm
        
        John 6 is 2 years before the institution of the Lord’s supper. Wrong place , wrong time. In verse 63 Jesus uses the word sarx for flesh, a completely different word that he uses for his body soma in communion. Catholics interpret this to say you receive eternal life through eating his flesh and drinking his blood failing to realize that the Lord’s table is for people who are already believers therefore this passage isnt about the Lord’s supper. In fact the Lord’s supper was so foremost in John’s mind that he’s the only gospel to NOT give an account of the Lord’s supper.
      2. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 13, 2020 at 9:44 am
        
        Nick 1 Corinthians 10:14 ” My dearly beloved flee from Idolatry!” J C Ryle ” Romnanism is a gigantic system of sacrament worship, Mary worship, saint worship, image worship, relic worship, and priest worship! In one word, Rimanism is a huge organized idolatry!” Ryle had it pegged. Never was a truer word spoken. K
Kevin Failoni says:

August 11, 2020 at 9:08 am

Derek, can you give me your take on 1 John 2:27?! I think John is saying in the end we have the Spirit to guide us by and with the word. It doesnt mean we dont listen to our Pastors teachers etc. But at the end of the day this verse says we have no need of anyone to teach us in the sense we are to trust the Spirit and the word. Only God’s word can bind our conscience when its said and done. For instance Jesus says if someone comes to you and says I am the Christ dont believe him. Also the Bereans questioned what Paul was saying. Thx K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 13, 2020 at 8:25 am
  
  “See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life. [1 John 2:24-25]”
  
  Having heard the gospel, received it, and retained it, you will remain in the Son and Father and have eternal life. It is completed and assured. You can do nothing more for salvation, but you are not done learning:
  
  “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. [..] The anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. [1 John 2:20,27]”
  
  The teachings, arguments, and interpretations of men guide us, but God’s Word—in all its manifestations—is the final authority. The Spirit within is wholly sufficient. How could the power of God be lacking in any way or the Spirit’s teaching insufficient?
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 13, 2020 at 9:24 am
    
    DR Thanks for the confirmation. Well said!
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 11, 2020 at 11:33 am

DR says: “Faith and works are inseparable: both or none. ”
Exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! There is no such thing as “faith alone” in Christianity.
Council of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 13, 2020 at 10:56 am
  
  “There is no such thing as “faith alone” in Christianity.”
  
  See this comment.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

August 11, 2020 at 5:49 pm

Him Derek,
Thank you for your comment and dealing “specifically” with my question. I like to deal only with one point at a time for clarity and logic. I am interested in understanding better your position in order to present it correctly and I hope you feel the same way. This extra effort is worth for me because I don’t like anybody misrepresenting my beliefs anymore than I think you do. Now let me try to put my question in perspective.

You said:
“Now, that’s a living process. How do you square it with salvation as a one-shot deal “forensic declaration”?”
“But they can’t be separated” (faith and works) … Your deeds are performed because you are faithful.”
Again, right you are. I have not said anything different, I have no problem with your statement, and I don’t see a conflict between John 3:16 and John 3:36 as you appeared to have thought I might have had. The issue had been FAITH ALONE all along and we had agreed that works, love, obedience, etc. are different from faith but that they cannot be logically separated from faith itself.

You quoted this Scripture passage:
“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. [James 2:24]”
In context it is clear that “a person is considered righteous” by God. That’s what most people understand for justification and that is what I meant by “forensic declaration”. Are you in agreement with me on that or not? or may be you think that it is not a “one-shot deal”. You tell me.

Then you went on:
“You show your (existing) faith by your deeds (e.g. James 2:18). If you didn’t believe, you wouldn’t have been obedient.”
Now here you are talking about “(existing) faith” which I interpreted as a “living process” since we can only exist and show our deeds “one day at a time”. You did not specifically answer that question. I don’t know if you mean that for you “saving” faith and “existing” faith are one and the same or are they different. And how do they relate to our works. Will you clarify that for me? Thank you.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 13, 2020 at 10:45 am
  
  “I like to deal only with one point at a time for clarity and logic. “
  
  God bless you for this. It is refreshing.
  
  I don’t know if you mean that for you “saving” faith and “existing” faith are one and the same or are they different.”
  
  The same. Faith means action-oriented belief and trust. I call it ‘living faith’ to contrast it with ‘dead faith’, because one can have belief and trust in many things, not just Christ. One can abstractly believe in Christ and this still be dead. I call it ‘existing faith’ to contrast it with ‘earned faith’, because one just is (descriptive) and the other is not (prescriptive). I say ‘saving faith’ to incorporate both ‘living’ and ‘existing’ concepts and to contrast it with ‘no faith.’ It’s just nuance on the same concept.
  
  “And how do they relate to our works. Will you clarify that for me?
  
  I think I do below, but as Kevin notes, the issue isn’t the relationship between faith and works. It is the denial that you are “saved by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone.”
  
  “…we had agreed that works, love, obedience, etc. are different from faith but that they cannot be logically separated from faith itself.”
  
  Yes, this was clarified above. Though inseparable, they are different and their differences are everything. Faith has a specific, explicit role in salvation:
  
  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. [Ephesians 2:8-9]”
  
  There can be no self-made, works-based salvation. Salvation—through faith—is a gift from God. How you understand “righteous”, “sanctified”, or “justified” can in no way undermine this. So…
  
  “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. [James 2:24]”
  
  …you are righteous by faith and works and you are saved by grace through faith not by your works. How can this be?
  
  “The issue had been FAITH ALONE all along”
  
  Like Jesus (John 5:19), ones works are not their own, but rather a product of the Spirit that dwells within. One is saved by grace through faith, receives the Holy Spirit (w/ baptism and laying on of hands), and lives and learns by the Spirit (1 John 2). Works—and thus, righteousness—are not from self, but a product of the Spirit as unmerited grace through faith.
  
  “FAITH ALONE” is not ‘only faith exists [absent works]’. That’s an absurd take. Rather, faith alone is sufficient for salvation by grace. There are no conditions. The mere existence of any works sufficiently reflects faith and salvation.
  
  By merit, the lack of self works invalidates faith and condemns: dead faith by single misdeed. But if works come from the Spirit, then righteousness (i.e. perfection) cannot be based on any set of works, for the Spirit is always Holy. Logically, salvation excludes considering the quantity or quality of works:
  
  “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. [Hebrews 10:14]”
  
  There it is again! You are perfect, yet you are being made Holy. You are righteous—justified—but the Spirit within is making you holy. Salvation is complete, but learning— sanctification—never ends (1 John 2). Justification is imputed (i.e. ‘one-shot’).
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 13, 2020 at 1:12 pm
    
    DR said ” the mere existence of any works sufficiently reflects faith and salvation” this is right. Our faith is justified by our works and merely our reasonable service of worship. But when Aquinas said that a man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way, instead of just the goodness of God it led to a false gospel.
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 13, 2020 at 11:16 am

DR–
Nice wordplay. The Catholic Church would agree with your reasoning. Concerning faith, though, if the word “alone” was left out, there would be no misunderstanding, wouldn’t you say?
Salvation by Grace alone–yes.
Salvation by Christ alone–yes.
Faith working through love–yes.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 13, 2020 at 11:29 am
  
  Nick,
  
  I don’t understand your point. If the Catholic Church agrees with my reasoning, then it must agree that “alone” is implied, as in:
  
  “You are saved by grace [alone] thru faith [alone] in Christ [alone]”
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    August 13, 2020 at 3:51 pm
    
    Implied by whom? It agrees with your reasoning, not your conclusion. Nowhere in your reasoning is faith alone.
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 13, 2020 at 11:35 am

Faith working thru love -yes” well there we have it dont we. We had a reformation over this. You think we want to throw away 500 years of martyrdom to come to an agreement over what scripture doesn’t teach. Benedict on the birthday of Martin Luther some years ago said, we can all agree with Luther that we are justified by faith ( sounds good huh keep listening) as it is formed in love. Sorry Charlie, in Galatians 2:5 Paul wouldn’t relent, nothing added to faith to justify a man. He confronted Peter over this. Scripture says ” Abraham believed God and he was counted righteous.” No works, no love, no you, no meritorious sacraments. He simply believed the promise and he was righteous before God. Unfortunately, at the Council of Trent Rome condemned justification by faith alone and therefore affirmed they are anti gospel and antichrist. There is no negotiation on this. Luther said the church rises and falls on the hinge of jbfa. As I’ve said the scripture doesnt teach that there is a virtue attached to faith that merits the justification or salvation or acceptance of God. No deal. Roman’s 4:16 is clear if a person wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 13, 2020 at 12:27 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  As you look at the commentaries for 1 John 2, consider Galatians 2 as well. There Paul goes to confront the Apostles in response to revelation and he presents the gospel to the Apostles.
  
  Can you imagine: (1) opposing the original Apostles in response to the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit? (2) presenting the gospel to those who it was originally and personally given to by Christ himself? (3) directly confronting “Keys to the Kingdom” Peter? (4) telling Peter that he was put in charge of the Jews while Paul was put in charge of the Gentiles? (5) telling the Apostles that justification is by grace and faith, not works?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    August 13, 2020 at 3:42 pm
    
    Kevin says : “Faith working thru love -yes” well there we have it dont we. We had a reformation over this. You think we want to throw away 500 years of martyrdom to come to an agreement over what scripture doesn’t teach.”
    
    Scripture doesn’t teach???? Oh, that’s right. You have a redacted bible. Here is what is in the unabridged Catholic Word of God:
    Gal 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith WORKING THROUGH LOVE.”
    I suppose your Protestant bible says:
    Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith ALONE.
    
    And you said: “Roman’s 4:16 is clear if a person wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone.”
    
    Wow, your Protestant bible IS REALLY different than the unabridged Catholic Word of God. Our bible says:
    Romans 4:16 “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants–not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,”
    Nowhere in that text does the word “alone” appear.
    And look what that text actually says–“guaranteed to ALL his descendants” not only to
    1) the adherents of the law
    but also
    2) those who share the faith of Abraham.
    
    Yes, there we have it, don’t we. Your Lutheran bible is exactly that–written by Luther. 500 years of martyrdom because you have a bible that’s only 500 years old.
    Now the only question is whose bible is the real Word of God. Is it the one written by Luther or the one written by the Holy Spirit?
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 13, 2020 at 5:26 pm
      
      Nick, you obviously are ignorant of the fact that Rome didnt have a formal position on the canon until Trent. So your ” Lutheran bible” schtick is laughable. Incidentally, you obviously also dont know that the Duetercanonicals were added at Trent. From early on the 66 books of inspired scripture were accepted. Take a class K
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        August 14, 2020 at 12:12 pm
        
        You missed the point completely. Nobody said anything about the Deuterocanonicals. Did you even…well…never mind.
  2. Betty says:
    
    August 13, 2020 at 9:37 pm
    
    Derek I thought your comment to Phil about sticking with one topic “It is refreshing “ somewhat condescending and then you post the above., To start with unlike Paul you have not been given direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Then you jump off topic to a question of Peter’s primacy before finishing with a straw man argument suggesting that Paul and the apostles did not see eye to eye on the Faith alone question. Again you and Kevin simply ignore those verses that indicate we are not saved by faith alone, and provide statements we are saved by faith which all Christians believe
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 14, 2020 at 6:40 am
      
      Bettty ” Again you and Kevin simply ignore those verses that indicate we are no saved by faith alone, and provide statements we are saved by faith which all Christians believe.” Those verse cant mean ( prescriptive) what you or your church think they mean. Why? Because Ephessians 2:8 Paul explicitly says salvation DOES NOT come from our works or ourselves. I’m not sure what part of you cant have anything to do with it you are having problems with Betty?! You do understand that this is what partly the Reformation was fought over. You do understand the your church hunted down the Reformers and killed them over this. It separates the true gospel from a false gospel which cannot save. Paul is clear if you want to be justified by the law in any way you will be judged by the law. Paul says we are justified FREELY by his grace not COOPERATING with his grace.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 14, 2020 at 12:48 pm
        
        Kevin you are aware are you not that Paul when speaking of works is focusing on the works involving obedience to the Laws of Moses of the Old Covenant. And that he is not focusing on charitable works and works of obedience as discussed in James when he speaks of Abraham obeying God and tell us we are not saved by faith without works. And explain to me if you are working out your salvation with “fear and trembling”. I asked before but I don’t believe you responded unless I missed it.
      2. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 14, 2020 at 2:57 pm
        
        “…that Paul when speaking of works is focusing on the works involving obedience to the Laws of Moses of the Old Covenant. And that he is not focusing on charitable works and works of obedience as discussed in James…”
        
        Charitable works and obedience are part of the Law of Moses.
        
        Nonetheless, Ephesians 2:8-9, says:
        
        “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
        
        The Gentiles were not eligible to participate in the Covenant of Moses (v11-12), so it makes no sense to forbid them from boasting about their works of Law, because they never had any and never could.
        
        If the Gentiles were not permitted to boast of their works of the Law (v8-9) because they were not Covenant Jews (v11), then this implies that the Jews were permitted to boast of their works of Law. But this would contradict the whole thesis that Romans is only referring to the Mosaic Law and contradict that faith “is not from yourselves.”
        
        Nonetheless, let’s rewrite scripture:
        
        “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works of the Law, so that no one can boast.”
        
        This implies that you can’t boast when you do works of Law, but you can boast when you do other works. This contradicts “and this is not from yourselves”. Therefore, either (1) works refers to all of them; or (2) works refers only to works of the Law and all other works do not come from self (i.e. are works of the Spirit).
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      August 14, 2020 at 9:17 am
      
      Betty,
      
      “I thought your comment to Phil about sticking with one topic “It is refreshing “ somewhat condescending and then you post the above.”
      
      Phil’s attitude is one that is rare in internet discussions. For that I have genuine appreciation. I won’t apologize for that. I attempt to directly answer his questions.
      
      “I’ve lost count how many Protestant have told me they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit [..] To start with unlike Paul you have not been given direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.”
      
      Your church places human authority over the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:29). In these two comments, you’ve made clear that you don’t believe that the Spirit both dwells fully within every Christian (Colossians 2:9-10) and sufficiently guides and teaches them (1 Peter 2; Galatians 2). As these comments indicate, when there is a conflict between the leading of the Spirit and your church, you choose your church.
      
      Rejection of the Spirit means there is a fundamental roadblock between us. So, rather than responding to your comment, here is the gospel:
      
      Believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), that Jesus is Lord, that we received eternal life by grace through faith in Christ alone (John 3:16), and that none of your works can ever add to your salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). Then, be baptized by similarly professing Christians (if you can’t find one, contact one of us) and receive the Spirit, as promised by Jesus.
      
      Go with God,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 14, 2020 at 11:09 pm
        
        Derek, imagine if every Christian with the full indwelling of the Holy Sprit had been asked to discern the New Testament canon list? In fact if Sola Scriptura was in the Lord’s plan, why didn’t Christ or one of the apostles leave us a canon list.? So Derek is it the Protestants that accept Faith alone or those that deny it that are fully indweled by the Holy Spirit as well as guided and taught by the same Spirit.? Or would you say both groups?
Phil Sanz says:

August 13, 2020 at 4:17 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment and the explanation of your understanding of “living/existing” faith. I don’t understand what you mean by “earned” faith but I will let it go as just being “dead” faith, which is fine.

You said:
“There can be no self-made, works-based salvation. Salvation—through faith—is a gift from God. How you understand “righteous”, “sanctified”, or “justified” can in no way undermine this.”

You are right. Understanding those concepts correctly does not undermine the fact that salvation is a gift from God and that it is never merited. I have never said that. However they are very important in understanding each other’s beliefs. The Scripture quotes that you presented are only a feeble support of the OSAS belief. This is only a human tradition based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture. Paul says in Philippians 1:1 “To all the SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” (emphasis mine) “I know that this WILL TURN OUT for my SALVATION through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 1:18) and later very emphatically on (Philippians 2:12) “WORK OUT your own SALVATION with fear and trembling;” Here SALVATION is clearly presented not as something already completed in the past but something in the present and future. This was done to believers already justified. These quotes clearly conflict with the idea that OSAS. Can you explain your interpretation of those passages to me? Thank you.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 14, 2020 at 11:56 am
  
  Phil,
  
  “The Scripture quotes that you presented are only a feeble support of the OSAS belief. “
  
  So what? I never said “once saved, always saved.” I said:
  
  “You are saved by grace [alone] thru faith [alone] in Christ [alone]”
  
  For this claim, the cited scriptures agree (often quite explicitly and directly excluding works): Mark 1:15,16:16; John 3:16,5:24; Rom 1:16-17,3:24-31,4:16,5:1,11:6; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Gal 2,5:1-4; Eph 1:13, 2:8-9; Phil 3; Heb 10:14; James 2; 1 Peter 1:9; 1 John 2. The list is not exhaustive.
  
  “Can you explain your interpretation of those passages to me?”
  
  I admit astonishment at your request. Did you read Philippians? Did you cherry pick those verses? Or maybe one needs the Holy Spirit to even begin to apprehend God’s Word. I am perplexed.
  
  Read the full sentence in Philippians 1:
  
  “Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that through your prayer and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, this will result in my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be put to shame in any way, but with all boldness, now as always, Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death.”
  
  The answer to your question is right there. In Phil 1, Paul dives into an impassioned discussion about his imprisonment and suffering and how it advances the gospel (v12-17). The suffering doesn’t matter, because the gospel is proclaimed (v18). Paul rejoices because Christ delivers him from those sufferings (v19) through life or martyrdom (v20-26). It will magnify Christ and the church either way.
  
  Read the full sentence in Philippians 2:
  
  “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, continue to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is working in you both to want to do, and to do, his good pleasure.”
  
  The answer to your question is right there. In those who are saved, God is working. The in-works of God produce the out-works. In fear and trembling, we must submit to the Spirit to do his pleasure (the out-works). Of, κατεργάζομαι, Strong’s concurs:
  
  “From kata and ergazomai; to work fully, i.e. Accomplish; by implication, to finish, fashion — cause, to (deed), perform, work (out). “
  
  We do not work for or figure out our salvation. We fully perform our salvation by obedience to the Holy Spirit working within us. You can’t perform, fully work out, or finish that which you do not already have (Hebrews 10:14).
  
  Echoing Philippians 1, Paul says of works and faith in Philippians 3:
  
  “For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
  
  Those works? Animal excrement. Only righteousness from faith in Christ matters. Works are an out-working of that faith and the in-working of God that continues until the day you die or Christ returns.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 14, 2020 at 4:42 pm
    
    Phil, its interesting to note in Phillipians 3 that Paul considers his righteousness as dung. He has 2 columns. His righteousness and the other column is the righteousness that comes by faith. Paul says he considers all he did dung to obtain the righteousness that only comes by faith. My righteousness isnt derived from His, it is His righteousness. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 ” it says God made Christ to be sin that we become the righteousness of God in Him. Notice he doesnt say we become righteous, but ” the righteousness of God” Derek and me are no less righteous today than when we die. From the epistle of Diognetus ” Oh sweet exchange, oh the incomprehensible work of God, Oh the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of the many should be hidden in the one righteous person, while the righteousness of One should justify many sinners” k
    
    Reply
  2. Betty says:
    
    August 15, 2020 at 11:44 am
    
    “ righteousness that comes from The Law”. We are no longer bound by the Mosaic law of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ! I’m not sure what you think the “animal excrement” is but it surely isn’t charitable works or obeying God’s commandments. Aren’t those the works that James is speaking of when he says we are not saved by “Faith alone”. And yes we should not boast because we all agree it is God working through us. Actually I can’t tell there is a whole lot of difference between our views, except you apparently do not feel we deserve any merit in as Paul says “to Work out our salvation in fear and trembling”. Note WORK OUT OUR SALVATION. Why do we need to WORK out our salvation if God is doing it all? And why fear and trembling it we expect God to do it all? I can see why Phil thought you believed OSAS, it’s a natural assumption since we know God is faithful. The fear and trembling however is because we may not be able to work out our salvation, right?
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 15, 2020 at 12:52 pm
      
      Derek ” except you don’t think you deserve any merit” just to let you know Betty once said that she did a perfect act of love from a pure motive”we have to remember Catholics are meriting the merits of Christ. Salvation isn’t a gift in the Roman Catholic church, but its earned on the installment plan. Here is how it works. You do and God gives you grace. The more you do the more God gives you grace. But of course you never get enough grace and justice for heaven so you have to go to purgatory to get things worked out if you’ve been a good Catholic. And you could always buy some more forgiveness/ merits from the treasury of merit or indigenes because hey there are some super saints in Rome that had so many merits they could sell / give you a few. So the gift Paul talks about you merit it and hey you can really never really possess it because that free gift isnt really free and really isnt a gift. But Derek, Betty says there isnt much difference in what we believe. Sure k
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 16, 2020 at 5:33 am
        
        Kevin, you I believe are mixing me up with someone else. I never said I “ did a perfect act of love from a pure motive”. I’m not sure where that statement came from ! Could you show us? Or did you just make it up?
Kevin Failoni says:

August 13, 2020 at 5:39 pm

” scripture doesnt teach?” That’s right , scripture never teaches we are saved or justified by faith formed in love. Justification is ALWAYS past tense in scripture and by faith alone . We are justified by faith, justified by his blood and righteousness, nothing to do with us. We are saved UNTO good works. Works are produced by true faith but are never the grounds for our acceptance before God, not even spirit led works. Galatians 2:16 no one will be justified by the law works. Romans 3 says we are justified as a gift apart from anything we do. Ephessians 2:8 says saved as a gift, thru faith, with nothing coming from us or our works. That eliminates you completely. In your church it’s part you part God as justification in Rome is sanctification process. False gospel. Best k

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 5:51 am
  
  I think using a little common sense one could understand why Satan would want us to believe our good works have nothing to do with our salvation . What is it that James says when stressing the need for works about even the devil believes. It’s a little like Martin Luther’s other Sola, Scriptura. Christ prays for unity and what do we get. Kevin and Derek argueing from their Private Interpretation from the Bible that we don’t need treachers and that Protestants with opposing views on the scriptures are all full of the Holy Spirit and are being guided by the Holy Spirit.
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 13, 2020 at 7:03 pm

Phil, the reformed view of eternal security is called perseverance of the saints. Listen to Ephessians 1: 13 ” In Him, you also, after listening to the message of the truth, the gospel of your salvation ( notice its told, heard, and believed and is called the gospel of your salvation meaning by believing it you are saved) having also believed , you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge or our inheritance” notice we hear the message,, believe it, and we are sealed in the Spirit being already given an inheritance. Now in regards to the verse in Phillipians you mentioned to Derek Paul starts My beloved. He’s talking to believers. He tell us as we go though sanctification we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling for God is at work in us. We have the Spirit of promise, we have been sealed in Him, we have our inheritance, now we are to get our sanctification done as God is sanctifying us through his Word. What he is not saying is do this and you get this. Why? Because in the context of Paul he has told us true saved believers are sealed in the Spirit, adopted, already in possession of an inheritance. He also tells us in Ephessians 2:8 that our salvation frommstart to finish is a gift thru faith with nothing coming from ourselves or our works. Nothing. In fact saved is in the aorist past. Our works are not meritorious in salvation. So the command from Paul is simply a statement of working out what God is working in, our sanctification. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 6:22 am
  
  Kevin I guess you still can’t see the argument. Why if it was all up to God would we have “fear and trembling” as we work out our salvation? Where does this fear and trembling come from? Are you afraid you don’t really have “saving faith”. Is your fear that God will be unfaithful? Any Catholic would have no problem relating to Paul’s message as we work out our salvation because we know we can be unfaithful. But if Paul believed as you do he should have written “work out your salvation with peace and tranquility” for God is at work in us. I think your apparent inability to recognize how that verse undermines your theology is clearly displayed .
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 14, 2020 at 2:08 pm

Betty, obviously you are unaware that everytime Paul mentions the law he is talking about the WHOLE law! Sometimes he says works, sometimes he says works of law, sometimes he says law. He and James say to violate one part is to violate the WHOLE law. The law can only condemn a man. We are lawbreakers. Paul is clear in Romans 3 we are justified APART from the law. FREELY by his Grace. Your church teaches that Jesus was a softer Moses with an easier law of love and heartfelt surrender. The gospel in Rome is the enablement to become righteous by obedience not realizing that Christ lived the law in our place fulfilled all righteouness and offers us salvation as a gift by faith. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 6:39 am
  
  James verse 19 “you believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble”. Part of Janes discussion of how we are not saved by faith alone. Kevin what part of the Gospel do the demons not believe?
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 16, 2020 at 7:14 am
    
    Betty, Galatians 3:6″ Even as Abe believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness” Abraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous. You see any of your filthy rag works there Isaiah 64:6. No you dont. No merit, no works. James is simply saying our faith is demonstrated in our works. What he isnt saying is works merit salvation. Augustine said ” how was Abraham justified. What does the Apostle ( Paul) say, Abraham was justified by faith. Good works follow justification. Paul and James dont contradict each other. Augustine ” in many ways Augustine would have made a great reformer. Unfortunately he was a Roman Roman Catholic. K
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 16, 2020 at 11:48 am
      
      Thank you Kevin for acknowledging that Augustine was a Catholic! Just as with the scriptures it’s amazing how many Protestants will take Augustine’writings and twist them to try and make a case he did not believe Catholic doctrine. Yes, James said “Abraham believed God , and it was counted to him as righteousness “ but you left out the verse in the same discussion “Was not Abraham our father Justified By Works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar”. James goes on to say his faith “was completed by his works”. No works, what do you have? An incomplete faith! And how does James finish his discussion of Abraham? “You see that a person is justified BY WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!! And what is the very next verse? “and in the same way was not Rahab the prostitute justified by works”.
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 16, 2020 at 1:05 pm
        
        ” thanks for acknowledging that Augustine was Catholic” that was not to say that Agustine wouldn’t deny much of the Roman Catholic doctrine. He didnt believe in real presence. He certainly didnt have Rome’s view on James and Paul as I just showed you. ” protestants will take Augustine’s words and twist them” or the other option is Protestants are rightly dividing his words” I’ll go with number 2. You continued ” was not Abe justified by works when he offered up Isaac” of course he was justified before men in that his obedience demonstrated he had faith” no Protestant would deny that. ” wisdom is justified in her words” scripture says. But before God as James said he believed and counted righteous” notice it doesnt say he was going to be made inherently righteous. Like I said Rome confuses justification with sanctification, a fatal error rejection that we are saved by face alone thru faith alone in Christ alone! ” you see that Abe was justified by works and not by faith alone” again you Catholics context context. He is discussing a living faith with a dead faith. Augustine had it right, the apostle Paul said we are justified by faith. Good works follow justification. But again you and Nick and Phil cannot and will not address Ephessians 2:8, because you dont have an answer. Paul clearly says we are saved by faith as a gift apart from ourselves or our works. Sorry Betty you cant participate in your salvation by your smoking works. You can go to your synagog and merit all day long at that mass, but unless you repent and believe in the gospel OF SCRIPTURE, you will end up in the same place with all the popes, priests, and nuns who did the same. Hell Best Kevin.
  2. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 16, 2020 at 9:11 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “what part of the Gospel do the demons not believe?”
    
    The entire gospel. This…
    
    “Even the demons believe that [God is one] and tremble”
    
    …is an acknowledgment that the Demons believe the Shema Yisrael:
    
    “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one [Deut. 6:4]”
    
    The Shema recognizes the unique sovereignty of God, which all demons must acknowledge. It is the reason for their fear and trembling.
    
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 16, 2020 at 11:17 am
      
      Derek, is not God is one part of the Gospel? The demons don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I don’t think so. Why would James even mention the fact that the devils believe if he was not stressing by itself faith is not enough. Interesting that the devils have fear and trembling just as we Christians while we work out our salvation. In fact let’s put aside the fear and trembling, why would Paul even mention “Work out our Salvation” if he did not mean it. Paul and the Holy Spirit say “work out our salvation” and Kevin and Derek say we don’t have to work out our salvation. Who should I believe?
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 16, 2020 at 12:22 pm
        
        ” Betty ” and Kevin and Derek say we dont have to work out our salvation” of course you Catholic judaizers have to forget the context of the passage which Derek has shown you to say Paul meant you have to work out for your salvation. But what none of you can address is how these verse are interpreted in light of ALL of what Paul said. Ephessians 2:8 we HAVE BERN saved as a gift by his grade thrunfaith with nothing coming from ourselves or our works. Scripture doesnt contradict itself, so half verse you are pounding about sanctification isnt saying what you think it says. I understand you position, after all you wre a Roman Catholic and you are here trying to defend it’s gospel of gracious merit. Too bad that isnt the gospel of scripture which is clearly set out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Jesus says its told and believed. In our sanctification we work out what God works in with serious awe of God. K
Kevin Failoni says:

August 14, 2020 at 3:10 pm

Betty, you ask me if I’m working out me salvation with fear and trembling. But before you said to Derek you and Kevin ignore the verse that say we aren’t saved by faith alone. So if it were up to Betty ,Kevin and Derek should read that verse ” work out for your salvation with fear and trembling ” but let’s look at that verse. He starts with My beloved! He is speaking to Christians. He then says your salvation. Of course Paul acknowledges what he has said in other verses by faith alone we possess justification and salvation which can never change because it’s based on Christ’s righteousness alone imputed to us by faith. Then of course we are to take our sanctification very seriously in the awe of the Lord. In reformed theology we believe the grace we receive will get us to the end. But it never changes our status with God Colossians 2:13-14. I hope you will look at that verse carefully. We are not in a cease fire with God, but we are friends adopted sealed in the Spirit already in possession of our inheritance. We are reconciled Romans 5, justified, and Romans 5:10 says we will be saved by HIS life, not ours. If we were not already righteous in the eyes of God,, the Paul could never say we are seated with Him in the heavenlies. God cannot sit unrighteous person in heaven.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

August 14, 2020 at 9:50 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment and the answer to my request. Kevin believes in OSAS and had said to Betty that you two believed the same. I don’t necessarily believe him and I understand that you may or may not agree on OSAS. If you don’t, what is your understanding of what comes after “once saved …”? Please, indulge me and explain how you see it. Thank you.

You said:
“I said … Christ return.”

I am familiar with the Bible verses you quoted and I don’t think that they support FAITH ALONE. You are now discussing that with Nick and he is doing a superb job answering your questions specifically in regards to that. In our discussion, we were focusing on the fact that salvation in the Bible is not “always a past event”. I think that we agree that salvation is a transcendent gift from God. The difference between our positions comes from our different interpretations of what that salvation means in our time/space limited human lives. I believe that God saved me from the slavery of sin (through Christ) and that through the Holy Spirit gives me enough graces to keep that freedom (perseverance). Sometimes, unfortunately, we do not do it as Paul told Timothy (1 Tim 1:19). When perseverance is broken, whose fault is it and when did it happen? In either case, it has to be our fault, regardless if it is now (as I believe) or that it is just a sign that we were never saved to begin with.

You also said above:
“We do not work for or figure out our salvation. We fully perform our salvation by obedience to the Holy Spirit working within us. You can’t perform, fully work out, or finish that which you do not already have (Hebrews 10:14).”
Forget for a moment what you think Catholics say. “We do not work for our salvation nor figure out we have received the assurance of it.” We are saved but, being sinners, we are capable of losing it through our fault. For example, I am going to pick the quote that Kevin thinks is “the complete gospel” and that nothing else is necessary (1 Cor 15:1-4). It just have to be preached, accepted, and believed (in your heart), and then you get the assurance of salvation and perseverance in good works at once. Am I right so far? Then, with that in mind, I am going to ask you, why did Paul tell them “unless you believed in vain” in the same breath (1Cor 15:2)?

God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 15, 2020 at 9:28 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  I’m Anabaptist, not Protestant. Both Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants murdered thousands of my ethnic group, perhaps even some of my ancestors. I’m sure I disagree with Kevin (and Tim) on quite a few things, but that we agree on what is of first importance (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
  
  “If you don’t [agree on OSAS], what is your understanding of what comes after “once saved …”? Please, indulge me and explain how you see it.”
  
  I don’t know. The Bible is unclear (to me) and the Holy Spirit has not revealed it (to me). I don’t think I need to (or am supposed to) know. Salvation is a matter between individual and God. My job is to present the gospel, not save or condemn.
  
  Maybe salvation can be lost if one abandons their faith—breaking the seal by determined rejection. Since faith alone saves, only the lack of faith can condemn (John 3:36). Salvation cannot be lost due to the quality or quantity of one’s works: if it can’t be gained by merit, it can’t be lost by demerit.
  
  I think Kevin would say that once saved, the Holy Spirit will prevent you from losing your faith. Perhaps he is right, but it would be better to live life such that this never becomes an issue.
  
  “You are now discussing that with Nick and he is doing a superb job answering your questions specifically in regards to that.”
  
  I don’t know what you mean. I’ve directed only a few very short comments at Nick, and found his responses…unhelpful. If you wish to engage me by reiterating his points in an approachable way, please do, otherwise consider that I’ve rejected those as irrelevant and/or obviously wrong and I won’t be responding to them.
  
  “we were focusing on the fact that salvation in the Bible is not “always a past event””
  
  We were? Kevin said justification is always past tense. A word study would prove him right or wrong and I have not seen the claim refuted. Wouldn’t you agree?
  
  “The difference between our positions comes from our different interpretations of what that salvation means in our time/space limited human lives. I believe that God saved me from the slavery of sin (through Christ) and that through the Holy Spirit gives me enough graces to keep that freedom (perseverance).”
  
  We Anabaptists are non-creedal and do not go much for named doctrines or buzzwords. We read the scripture and do what it tells us to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What you wrote is foreign (e.g. space-time; graces; freedom=perseverance).
  
  “When perseverance is broken, whose fault is it and when did it happen? In either case, it has to be our fault, regardless if it is now (as I believe) or that it is just a sign that we were never saved to begin with.”
  
  Again, I don’t understand what you are talking about. Sin is always the fault of the one who sins and the sinner must repent. But what does this have to do with what we were talking about?
  
  “We are saved but, being sinners, we are capable of losing it through our fault.”
  
  That does not follow logically from what you were saying or what we were discussing. Indeed, as pointed out above, it is specifically not that. If you want to make this sort of claim, you’re going to have to defend it.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 16, 2020 at 5:56 am
    
    Derek, I consider myself reformed and I’m sure we do disagree on things, but we do agree that the Reformers did not shake some of the dregs of Rome and did to the Anabaptists what Rome did to them. I do not believe that civil government was supposed to enforce orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
    
    Reply
  2. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 16, 2020 at 7:59 am
    
    DR , ” I think Kevin would say that once save, the Holy Spirit will prevent you from losing your faith.” Ya I believe in effectual grace. IOW it’s not that a believer cant resist God’s grace, not that the Spirit drags us along screaming and kicking, but God’s grace is effectual in his elect. Iow we no longer have hearts of stone but hearts flesh. DR, plug in to Google TULIP and reformed theology irresistible grace by RC Sproul. It’s a one page awesome summary of this. I’m obviously a monergist. Scripture says me are dead in their sins, ignorant in unbelief, children of wrath by hereditary right thru Adam Roman’s 5. The Spirit regenerates us to belief. Ezekiel 33 God says I will give you a new heart, I will remove the yesrt of Stone and replace it with a heart of flesh. Jeremiah 33 I will write my law on your hearts, I will be your God. Hebrews 8:12 I will forgive their sins and remember them no more. That’s allot of I wills before one act of Obedience. K
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 14, 2020 at 10:52 pm

Phil, this whole discussion has been extremely cordial as it should be. Why would say a complete untruth to Derek. I have never said that Derek believes in once saved always saved. I don’t even know Derek except I would identify him here as a brother in the Lord. I have never used that term ever in my life. You and Betty use that term. I’m not sure why you would say that except to pit me against Derek. I do believe in the eternal security of a believer. Incidentally, the issue isn’t whether someone can lose their salvation, the question is whether they were ever saved. God’s elect are God’s elect. Jesus says he loses none of his sheep. Ephessians 1: 4 ” just as He chose us in Him( Christ) BEFORE TIME BEGAN, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He PREDESTINED us to the adoption as sons thru Chist according to the kind intention of His will.” Sorry Phil Protestants aren’t going to agree with your church where you can never know you are saved, and where a mortal sin ( of course no Catholic leader can tell what sins are mortal) will throw you out, at which time you have to go to the second plank of salvation. Let me tell you what Derek and I agree on, a person repents and believes the gospel not do penance and live the gospel. Please in the future do not say I said something I didn’t say. Thx K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 17, 2020 at 7:41 am
  
  Kevin seriously? As I pointed out you made a comment you attributed to me that I never said and when I challenged you no response or apology. Oh well. Now why would anyone want to pit you against Derek.? You both claim you are full of the Holy Spirit and being taught by the Spirit and both agree you don’t agree on everything. Now is that your fault or the Holy Spirit? And of course TULIP and reformed theology, a human tradition of interpreting the Bible is not found in the Bible. Could you give us a historical background of this teaching? Now you say our works are not meritous , and that believers will not be judged. So explain the parable of the judgement of the sheep and the goats. ( Actually I’m sure you will have an explanation why there really is no judgement of the sheep despite what we read ) and Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory, and then He will reward each person according to what they have done.” Meritorious works?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 9:08 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “Now is that your fault or the Holy Spirit? “
    
    Neither. As per 1 Corinthians 12, we have different callings. I’m responsible for fulfilling my calling, he is responsible for fulfilling his. The demands and gifts the Holy Spirit places on each of us are unique to us (v4-7). In our uniqueness and differences we have unity in that which is essential (1 Corinthians 15).
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 17, 2020 at 9:34 am
      
      And all God’s people said Amen.
      
      Reply
  2. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 9:20 am
    
    Betty ” you both claim you are full of the Holy Spirit” well because He’s a person you dont get half of Him, He dwells in my heart, all of Him . And yes believers in the gospel of scripture have the Spirit in their heart. Paul says Christ in me the hope of glory.” Colossians 1:27, Romans 8:9″ in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” duetemos dynamite. It’s why John told his congregation that they have no need of a teacher but they have the anointing and it’s TRUE. 1 John 2:27. The Spirit teaches a believer by and with the word. ” you said, and both dont agree on evrything” cmon this is simple, we are sinners and we aren’t God, that doesnt mean that God doesnt teach us his truth through his Word and Spirit, or that God doesnt intend for us to understand the scripture. He gave us his word and his Spirit to understand all things pertaining to life and Godliness. 2 Peter 2:3 we are complete lacking in nothing, ” his divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life thru our knowledge of Himwho called us by his own glory and goodness.” So you can see Betty we are well equipped. Even though Derek and I have disagreements we are linked in the gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. However if you do not believe the gospel of scripture you dont have the Spirit. “Reformed theology a human tradition” Betty you will be surprised to know the many reformed confessions of the Reformation were extremely uniform. And the Irony is they were in response to the Roman Catholic beast where superstition and idolatry and works righteousness won the day. Most Catholics dont understand the utter condition of the Roman Catholic church at that time. Fractured and carnal and ignorant. You had priests walking around in Robescand hats that couldnt tell you 1 of the 10 commandments. Your church is human institution becoming more human every day. ” TULIP isnt found in the bible” how would you know, you couldnt even tell me what the letters stand for. That was an ignorant statement. I indeed believe the principles wre taught by scripture. Total depravity of man. Unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. I’ll be happy to explain them to you any time. You said ” now you say works are not meritorious ” I didnt say that, Paul did. Ephessians 2:8 should make you want to exit your synagogue immediately. You said ” so believers will not be judged” again I didnt say that but John 5:24 says exactly that. Those who have believed have passed out of judgement from death to life. Read it. Notice a pattern here. ” so explain the judgement of the sherp and the goats.” Seriously this needs to be explained to you. 2 groups, those who believe the true gospel and the other group is Roman Catholics following the synagogue. Finally Betty, this important to understand, There will be a judgement for believers in terms of God rewarding our works, but not as a test for salvation. That’s already been won at the cross and John is clear in 5:24 believers have passed OUT of judgement. When I get their I’m pleading one thing Christ’s works, my faith is in his righteousness alone. I once heard a priest say we are all on a long journey to perfection. I said to myself well buddy if you’re on a long journey to perfection that ain’t good news. K
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      August 17, 2020 at 10:25 am
      
      Kevin,
      
      “Betty you will be surprised to know the many reformed confessions of the Reformation were extremely uniform.”
      
      And it is remarkable how similar the Baptists and Anabaptists are in much of their basic theology, despite their independent development.
      
      “However if you do not believe the gospel of scripture you dont have the Spirit.”
      
      Anabaptists rebaptize Catholics and Protestants (who were baptized as children) that give a profession of faith in the gospel. We lay on hands for them to receive the Holy Spirit.
      
      The Catholic obsession with biblical canon and tradition can only be explained by the lack of the Holy Spirit:
      
      “The Catholic wishes to obfuscate the circularity, while the Protestant states it outright and honestly. For the Protestant, it’s okay if (1) biblical inspiration and infallibility are unproven articles of belief; and (2) there is no centralized human authority. Why? The Holy Spirit can reveal the truth. This is not so for the Catholic. If the inspiration of the Bible is not established by deductively reasoned acceptance (and it can’t be), then the Church’s authority is based on dogma, that is, blind faith and unreasoned acceptance. The Catholic does not accept that the Holy Spirit alone is required: it requires a human ruling body. This is why the circular reasoning charge is so serious.”
      
      …and…
      
      “Christianity is not a book and never has been. It is the content of the writing, not the fact that it is written. The book contains the words of God, but it is the believers who spread God’s word. We are first and foremost the God’s messengers (evangelicals) called to make disciples.”
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 17, 2020 at 10:59 am
        
        DR, well said about the uniformity of all those confessions. I’m kinda of a believers baptism guy. I feel if Jesus went down In the Jordan, well speaks for itself. The reformed believe infant baptism is God bringing that child into the Covenant family, although in no way does that assure that kid will have faith. Personally I go back and forth. I sort of think the reformed are somewhat hypocritical here, that infant baptism violates their principle explicitly set out in scripture or by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from scripture. Dont the Anabaptists believe baptism is necessary for salvation? I’m not sure. Of course the thief on the cross and the Phillipians jailer and the apostles weren’t baptized. K
      2. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 17, 2020 at 11:15 am
        
        “Dont the Anabaptists believe baptism is necessary for salvation? I’m not sure.”
        
        Yes, but only if they refuse to be baptized. But such a person would not have been saved because they didn’t have faith in the first place.
        
        In their calling, the Anbaptists emphasize the Sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon, Jesus makes clear that intent matters. If one makes a profession of faith but cannot be baptized, they are still saved because of their intent. It is their words that save them, not their actions. The Lord knows that they would have been baptized if they could have been.
        
        After a profession of faith, we take time to teach the converts to ensure that they know what they are professing and to verify that their profession is valid. Only then can they be baptized. Especially with children, it is not always immediate. It is important not to baptize in vain and thus give people a false assurance of salvation!
      3. Betty says:
        
        August 17, 2020 at 12:26 pm
        
        Derek, your comment that “The Catholic obsession with biblical canon and tradition can only be explained by the lack of the Holy Spirit” is just verification that you din’t know your bible and an overall blindness as to how the New Testament canon question was settled. You of course know that oral tradition is spoken of in the Bible and just as there is no verse for we are saved by faith alone, there is no verse that tells us all the oral tradition was written down. As far as the canon I read a Catholic apologist challenge a Protestant as to which inspired writer left a canon list? Seriously Christ desired we follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but did not leave a canon list? I believe the first correct canon list was by St Athanasius in 325. No need for a canon list because Christ left us an authoritative teaching church. Why does your blind faith accept a canon list from what you deam to be an apostate Church? It makes absolutely no sense! And as far as spreading God’s word please just hand out Bibles and don’t say a word. Then you will know for sure you are only spreading God’s word and not your interpretation of His word.
  3. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 9:36 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “So explain the parable of the judgement of the sheep and the goats.”
    
    I have already done so up-thread.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 17, 2020 at 11:22 am
      
      You both need to reread the parable of the goats and sheep. They were not separated because the sheep believed and the goats didn’t. They were separated because the sheep participated in charitable acts and the goats didn’t.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 17, 2020 at 11:56 am
        
        Betty,
        
        “You both need to reread the parable of the goats and sheep.”
        
        It is not a parable. It’s a description of what happens when Christ returns to earth.
        
        “They were not separated because the sheep believed and the goats didn’t. They were separated because the sheep participated in charitable acts and the goats didn’t.”
        
        You are wrong:
        
        “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
        
        All the nations are split into two groups: a pure group (white sheep) and an evil group (black goats), representing believers and unbelievers. There is no third category for “believers with not enough good works.” Jesus said:
        
        “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. [Matthew 12:37]”
        
        Peace,
        DR
Kevin Failoni says:

August 14, 2020 at 11:17 pm

Phil said I’m going to pick the quote that Kevin thinks is complete gospel, and that nothing else is necsessary.” Phil it’s not a quote, its scripture 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. And Phil it’s not that I think it’s the complete gospel, Paul says ” the gospel that I preached to you” Paul says this is the gospel and it’s preached and believed. Sorry Phil you can’t say ” and nothing else is required” Paul says it was told to you, you received it, and you stand in it. You continued ” and then you get the assurance of salvation” oh that’s such a terrible thing isn’t it Phil that a believer can have peace, joy, and assurance that his salvation is sealed in the Spirit and assured. I’m sure you prefer presumption what the Roman Synagog you attend tells their people. Awful. Listen to John 1 John 5:13 ” the things i have been written to you who BELIEVE in the Son that you may KNOW that you have eternal life” how does anyone stay in that synagog Phil. John told his congregation that if you simply believe in the Son you can be certain you have eternal life. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 15, 2020 at 7:49 am

Galatians 3:22-26 ” But the scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came , we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become our Tudor to lead us to Christ, so that we justified by faith. But now faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For all of you are sons through faith in Christ Jesus. 7 times in these few verses of Galations Paul mentions FAITH ALONE as means though which we receive the promise of eternal life. The law ( which includes anything we do, obedience, law etc.) can only condemn us and lead us to faith the alone instrument to receive Christ our righteousness. Faith is so important that Hebrews says without it you cannot please God. We are no longer under a tutor. Those trusting in Christ ALONE for their salvation are freed from the curse of the law. But those who are trying to be justified by their works in some way ( Roman Catholics) are under the curse of the law. Betty, Phil, Nick, repent of your perceived goodness and believe in the gospel ALONE so as to be saved. God bless K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 15, 2020 at 8:41 am

Betty, could you please help us find the OT infallible teaching office? I cant seem to find a home office that infallibly interprets the bible for OT saints?! Since you don’t think that believers with the Holy Spirit can identify the canon of scripture or understand Paul, maybe you can bvb explain how OT saints were expected to comprehend God’s word without a Pope and an infallible teaching office?! I’ll wait for your office. And what do you think John saying in 1 John 2:27 to his congregation. ” As for you, the anointing which YOU received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as His anointing teaches you all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him.” Betty what is John saying that Christian’s have received an anointing that teaches them all true things, and that they have no need of a teacher? Thanks k

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 15, 2020 at 2:46 pm

Betty said ” I’m not sure what works you find are animal excrement” Betty, Paul is comparing his righteousness ( what he has done) with the perfect righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us by faith. Listen to Roman’s 5:19 ” for as thru the one man’s disobedience ( Adam, we are all sinners by hereditary right, we sin) the made were made sinners ( the word for made here means constituted), even so thru the obedience of the one ( Christ’s active and passive obedience) the many will be made righteous.” This is imputation. That’s why when Abe believed God God counted him righteous. One final verse 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Christ sin that we become the “righteousness of God” in Him. Notice Paul doesnt say we become inherently righteous, but we become the righteousness of God by faith alone. That’s why Derek cited you Hebrews 10:14 which says all those of faith have been perfected by one offering never to be repeated or continued. You can see why faith is so important Hebrews 11, because only the instrument of faith can bring Christ our righteousness to our heart. Was it Paul Bunyon that was walking thru a field and looked up into heaven and said there my righteousness lie. K

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

August 15, 2020 at 8:30 pm

Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comments. I asked Derek about OSAS because I don’t know where he stands on it. I know your position on it from our previous discussions on Brian C’s blog. I asked him about 1 Cor 15:2 and you sidestepped the real problem there, namely that he is telling them that they are “saved (past tense) IF (conditional conjunction) you hold fast (present tense) that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain” (emphasis mine). Is Paul contradicting himself?

Then you brought up 1 John 5:13 which tells us that being saved means that we “have eternal life” and I have no problem with that. However, it does not say that we cannot lose it. In fact a few verses later in 1 John 5:16 tells us that a brother may commit a sin “leading to death.” Can you explain that to me?

You also brought up Galatians 3:22-26 stating that FAITH ALONE is quoted 7 times. The truth is that you lose there by a score of FAITH (7) ALONE (0).

God bless you.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 15, 2020 at 9:32 pm

Hi Phil, you are cherry picking on 1 Corinthians 15:2. Let’s look in context starting in verse 1 ” ” the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which you stand, by which you are saved.” Paul preached the gospel to them they received it. They stand in it. And he tells them by it (the gospel) alone they are saved. No works. Continuing ” if you hold fast the word which I preached you” this is what faith is Phil the firm and constant assent to the Word of God Phil. IOW Paul is saying if you have true faith. You continued 1 John 5:13 ” being save means that we have eternal life” no, he says we can KNOW we eternal life. Your church calls eternal security presumption. Absurd to keep assurance from their people. The irony imho is actually with the Roman Catholic church they can’t have assurance with as gospel of gracious merit. That isn’t a gift. But with John his congregation be have That assurance. Incidentally I’ve never used the words OSAS. But I believe innthe Reformed view of perseverance of the Saints which is eternal security for God’s elect. Now Galations 3 ” you said The truth is that you lose there by a score of FAITH 7 ALONE 0.” On the contrary you lose, the word FAITH IS ALONE 7 in those passages FAITH NOT ALONE 0. What’s amusing about your statement is the whole passage and book is about justification by faith alone apart from works. I’m still praying for you Phil that God will convict you of that Synagog and it’s meritorious sacraments and bring you to repentance and belief of the gospel of scripture. In either event I enjoy our back and forths. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 18, 2020 at 6:28 am
  
  Actually Kevin what is amusing is how often you will throw in that word alone when discussing Paul’s comments and the word is never used. I think you have gotten so convinced in your belief that you don’t really realize you are doing it. It’s just like Derek seeing white sheep and black goats or trying to argue a verse in scripture by adding words that are not there. Isn’t there a warning in the book of Revelation about doing such things?
  
  Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 15, 2020 at 10:26 pm

Phil,

“…you are cherry picking…”

So far, we have seen cherry picking from (at least) John 3:36, 1 Corinthians 15:2, James 2:24, Galations 3, Philippians 1:18, and Philippians 2:12. In Philippians, the cherry-picking didn’t even include the whole sentence! In each case, reading the entire chapter or letter invalidates or reverses the cherry-picked claim.

Why even bother going through the song and dance?

“Your church calls eternal security presumption”

Is this true? You don’t know if you are saved?

Sincerely,
DR

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 16, 2020 at 6:14 am

DR, I think you may have meant that last statement for me since I said it. Yes in Rome you can never know you are saved. If you commit a mortal sin ( which no Catholic leader can give you a list of what are the mortal sins ) you are thrown out, lose all your grace, then you must do penance. Its called the second plank of salvation. Back on the treadmill to perfection by meriting grace and justice thru the mass mainly, but you can do 10k masses and never have enough grace for heaven. You have to go to purgatory to get things worked out if you’ve been a good Catholic. Rome teaches their people to know you are saved 1 John 5:13 is really you cant know. It’s called presumption. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 8:48 am
  
  “I think you may have meant that last statement for me since I said it. “
  
  I hoped Phil would respond to your points: explain why nearly every argument is (easily refuted) cherry-picking and whether he knows he is saved or not.
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 16, 2020 at 9:42 am
    
    DR, scripture says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The reason Catholics take such offense to assurance of salvation, eternal security, or as John says you can know you have eternal life 1 John 5:13, is because in their system they cant have that. They are taught that is presumptuous. And if you think about it for them it is. Why? Because how can you have security in your salvation when you are partly responsible for it. Rome confuses the for us with the in us, therefore regeneration and sanctification are part of the justification process. The gospel in Rome is the enablement to obtain salvation by obedience, not realizing that Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness and offers it to us as a gift. Christians believe God alone saves them, Catholics believe God helps them save themselves. Of course they always appeal to James, not understanding what he says. If you get a chance to read Tim’s articles on justification they are excellent. The other article is The rise of Roman Catholicism. Your brother K
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 16, 2020 at 6:27 am

DR, incidentally, in Roman Catholicism the bible is considered a dead letter that is only brought to life through the Pope and the infallible teaching office of the church. The irony is that Rome has only ” infallibility” interpreted less than an 10 verses of the bible. Boy that infallible teaching office really helping Catholics huh?! Lol That’s why all these Catholics are here trying to figure out scripture. But the majority of them try to use the bible to defend the very church than cant give them assurance nor provide them with what they assume is infallible teaching. Or maybe because they cant locate themselves in God’s kingdom in that Synagog, they are sincerely searching for hope. Derek, imho Tim is the greatest writer on the Catholic church I’ve ever encountered. I’ve been here some years learning. It’s like a seminary degree. Roman Catholicism is a false Christianity, a front for the kingdommof Satan, and nothing more that a recapitulation of the sacrifices of the OT. Best K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 18, 2020 at 6:53 am
  
  Kevin, I really am having trouble figuring you out. You claim you have the Holy Spirit, I believe you interpret that passage from John that you din’t need teachers and that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and yet you seem to consider Mr Kauffman as a great teacher. I thought you had the Holy Spirit, what more do you need? Actually I too am taken back by how prolific Timothy is but disturbed that he has not been able to provide a sensible English translation of that passage from Irenæus where he was not satisfied with the English from Latin translation. I think you posted that Tim was self taught. Is it possible we may have a case of the blind leading the blind. I would love to learn more about his credentials
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 18, 2020 at 7:53 am
    
    Hi Betty, I’m really having trouble figuring you out” ok, let me address your points. ” you claim to have the Holy Spirit” you’ve said this a few times, do you not believe Christians possess the Spirit of God who teaches believers in his word? Scripture is pretty clear Betty, Christ left us his word and sent us his Spirit. ” I believe you interpret that verse in John that you didnt need teachers and that you have the Spirit and yet you seem to consider Mr Kauffman as a great teacher” that’s what John 1:27 says, John tells his congregation the have an anointing, they have no need for anyone to teach them, and what the anointing teaches us is true. God’s word is clear in most cases. Of course John isnt implying not listening to our pastors or teachers because he is teaching them in 1st John. I’m sure what he is saying in the end only the word with the Spirit can bind a man’s conscience. From our past exchanges you ceeded the Catholic church to bind your conscience. For me it’s the Spirit and word. As far as Tim is concerned, to the extent he supports his work with scripture I do consider him a gifted teacher. ” I think you posted Tim is self taught” I’m not sure I put it that way, but I believe Tim has said he has no formal theological education. But it is immaterial, because at the end of the day whether you are John MacArthur or Tim Kauffman or Kevin Failoni or you we have to prove our position from scripture. ” is it possible that we have a case of the blind leading the blind.” Its possible. But each person needs to be convinced in his heart by scripture. As I said, at the end of the day we all have to answer the same question, according to whom? I choose the bible. Thanks Betty have a good day. K
    
    Reply
Phil says:

August 16, 2020 at 4:49 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment and I am sorry for anything that was not clear enough in my statements, I will be glad to clarify any of them, now that I have a better understanding of your faith tradition. I have dealt with Kevin many times in the past and he has a tendency to misrepresent my beliefs. To avoid this problem I am going to try and make my statements in a more “approachable way” and to deal only with you. I will use only Scripture and logic. I am interested in your opinion and not in misrepresenting it. I hope you feel the same way.

You said:
“I’m Anabaptist, … but it would be better to live life such that this never becomes an issue. “Thanks for the background. I am a craddle Catholic open to other beliefs and I am glad to hear that the Holy Spirit is moving you to preach the gospel. That should be an encouragement to grow in your faith and learn more about the word of God. I respect your wish to avoid the issue at this time with the possibility of “having believed in vain” (1 Cor 15:2). I understand that as long as you live the gospel then the issue becomes moot. But why do you think that Paul said that to the Corinthians who were already saved?.

I said:
“we were focusing on the fact that SALVATION in the Bible is not “always a past event”” (emphasis mine and the “we” here being Kevin and I).
And you said:
“Kevin said JUSTIFICATION is always past tense.
Derek, do you see the disconnect between the two statements?

Here are some NT passages in support of my statement above. I invite you to do a word study of Matthew 10:22 & 24:13, Mark 8:35 & 13:13, Acts 15:11 Rom 5:9-10 & 13:11, 1 Cor 3:15 & 5:5, 1 Pet 1:5, Hebrews 9:28, Oh! And don’t forget Philippians 2:12. I emphasized certain words to pinpoint the strength of the argument and the area to be addressed, without excluding any other, just for simplicity and to avoid going all over the place. This is not “cherry picking and I invite you to do the same. If necessary, feel free to bring up not just the chapter, or the whole letter, but the whole Bible. Just make it relevant, and not gratuitous.

Your argument on Philippians 2:12 was:
“The answer to your question is right there. In those who are saved, God is working. The in-works of God produce the out-works. In fear and trembling, we must submit to the Spirit to do his pleasure (the out-works).”
Right you are, and we do those out-works in the present time and not in the past, which was my point.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 10:01 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “I respect your wish to avoid the issue at this time with the possibility of “having believed in vain” I understand that as long as you live the gospel then the issue becomes moot. But why do you think that Paul said that to the Corinthians who were already saved?”
  
  You tried sneaking works-based salvation in there (‘as long as you live the gospel‘ ), but that begs the question. Paul doesn’t say “unless you believe in vain”:
  
  “…the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain. [RSV Catholic Edition]”
  
  Whether this ambiguous phrase means (1) ‘once believed, but no longer’, (2) ‘never believed’, or (3) ‘believed the wrong belief (i.e. in vain; no purpose)’, it can’t mean (4) ‘believes right now, but didn’t do required works.’ The latter is only possible if you beg the question.
  
  Paulexplicitly contrasts those who believe and are being saved with those who do not believe and are not being saved. The former held firm to the message that was heard, while the latter did not (obviously, or else they’d be in the first group). And in case it wasn’t obvious that it was about belief and not works, he reviews the essentials of that believed heard message (which conspicuously lack works):
  
  “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.”
  
  As before, cherry-picking a single verse results in error that is exposed by context.
  
  “do you see the disconnect between the two statements? “
  
  No. Justification includes the remission of sins and justification is always past tense.
  
  “I invite you to do a word study”
  
  To what end? Salvation is not always past tense, because you have to become saved at some point, and while the remission of sin (i.e. justification) is instantaneous and complete, salvation isn’t fully complete until we are saved from death by resurrecting to new bodies at the return of Christ.
  
  “Right you are, and we do those out-works in the present time and not in the past, which was my point.”
  
  No, you said that salvation is in the present time and not in the past…
  
  “Here SALVATION is clearly presented not as something already completed in the past but something in the present and future. This was done to believers already justified. “
  
  …to which I responded by citing the full sentence, a parallel in Hebrews, a Greek word definition from Strong’s, and an argument in order to show why your conclusion was flawed. You’ve confused salvation with works because you (continue to) cherry-picked the verse. Moreover, your argument is self-refuting: as per the link above, since those believers were already justified (in the past), they were already saved (in the past).
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 16, 2020 at 6:03 pm

Phil said ” I have dealt with Kevin before and he has a tendency to misrepresent my beliefs” then ” I am a cradle Catholic open to other beliefs” that’s not been my experience with you. You are an ardent defender of Roman Catholic doctrine. So it must take one to know one when you say I misrepresent your beliefs. Because from my experience with you, and you are always polite, you just misrepresented yourself . K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 16, 2020 at 6:19 pm

Derek, Phil said to you. ” right and we do those outworks in present time not in the past. Catholics do not believe justification is a past event even though it’s always past in scripture Roman’s 5:1, 5:9, 3:28, 4:2, 1 Corinthians 1:29 ” so that no man may boast before God” Genesis 15:6, Galatians 2:16, 3:6. Catholics believe justification is the process of sanctification. They participate in their justification, and therefore their salvation is dependent on them. The righteousness they accumulate inherently thru their meritorious sacraments is culminated in a final justification/ salvation based on the life lived Derek. But again justification in scripture is ALWAYS aorist past tense. Roman’s 8:1 ” there is now no condemnation for those in Christ” the word for condemnation in 8:1 is the same word for justification daikaiou. It means to count righteous. So we can say that verse there is now justification for those in Christ. That’s ” in time” k

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 16, 2020 at 8:18 pm

Derek, the whole book of Galatians is Paul refuting the Catholics here claims that post justification works of righteousness are necessary for final salvation. As you have aptly explained our works justify we have true faith. Incidentally the reformed dont believe faith is a condition for salvation but it is simply the instrument that apprehends Christ our righteousness. If you get a chance to pull up Tim’s message on YouTube I believe called justified in your words. He goes over Mathew 12. Amazing teaching. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 16, 2020 at 10:10 pm
  
  “If you get a chance to pull up Tim’s message on YouTube I believe called justified in your words. He goes over Mathew 12. Amazing teaching.”
  
  I’ve watched it before. I’ll give it another listen.
  
  Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 16, 2020 at 11:21 pm

Betty,

“is not God is one part of the Gospel?

The Shema is not the Gospel, it is the Law.

“The demons don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God?”

See 1 John 4:1-3, but this is the wrong question. If James is talking about faith and works apart from the Law as you claim, then why did he cite having faith in the greatest tenant of the Law? Your argument fails utterly. For example:

“Show me your faith [in the Law] without deeds, and I will show you my faith [in the Law] by my deeds. You believe [in the Law]. Good! Even the demons believe [in the Law]—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith [in the Law] without deeds is useless”

For those under the New Covenant, this logic is absurd. For those under the Mosaic Covenant, faith indeed had to be accompanied by deeds. Are you arguing that the audience of Hebrews are Jews under the Mosaic Covenant and that this teaching does not apply to Gentiles?

“We are no longer bound by the Mosaic law of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ! “

Gentiles are not “no longer bound by the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant“, because they are not Jews. They never were bound by it. Unless you convert to Judaism—which Paul strongly warns against doing—the Old Covenant is utterly irrelevant.

Why would James even mention the fact that the devils believe if he was not stressing by itself faith is not enough.

Why indeed. I’ve already explained that.

“Interesting that the devils have fear and trembling just as we Christians while we work out our salvation. In fact let’s put aside the fear and trembling”

No, let’s not. This is a perceptive point. All Christians should perform works because God is sovereign and Jesus is their Lord. It’s not because of salvation, it’s because of obedience. You do works because of who your master is, not because of what he does for you. Demons also tremble because God is sovereign, just as disobeying your master should cause you to tremble.

“why would Paul even mention “Work out our Salvation” if he did not mean it.”

I answered your question already in my response to Phil.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 18, 2020 at 6:05 am
  
  Derek, Not sure why some responses don’t allow a response but wanted to challenge some of your comments on the judgement of the sheep and goats. First you say it is not a parable, Most of the commentaries I read on the internet classify it as a parable and I would say that unless you believe Christ will actually be coming back to judge sheep and goats that’s probably a reasonable classification. Then you say the sheep are white, the goats are black. Not sure where that came from as my Bible does not mention color. Not sure why that was thrown in. And then you claim they were separated over belief although there is no mention of faith or belief in the passage. Those who were apparently saved had performed good works. Those that were damned had not. What I thought was funny was on the internet those who promote faith alone in their commentaries did the exact same thing you did. Now when you look at James comments and this passage it’s pretty obvious that works do play a role in our salvation. But the faith only crowd says that can’t be true because it would contradict scripture. It doesn’t contradict James!
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 5:49 am

Derek said ” gentiles were never bound to the law” true but they are accountable to it. Romans 3:19 ALL the world are under sin and accountable to God. Look at Sodom and Gomorah. We are all sinners by hereditary right thru Adam and we sin and because of that we die Romans 5. The law is bad for all men because it requires perfection and we all break it, and as Paul says we are all shut up under sin. But you probably already know this. Praise God that when we look at the law we see our sin and can run to the gospel as a gift. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 17, 2020 at 8:43 am
  
  “” gentiles were never bound to the law” true but they are accountable to it. Romans 3:19 ALL the world are under sin and accountable to God. “
  
  Under sin and accountable to God, yes. Under the Law of the Covenant and accountable to Law, no. A covenant is an agreement between two parties to do certain things in exchange for certain other things. It binds both parties when they agree to it, but it can only bind the parties who agree to it. The Law is a curse from which we are saved (Galatians 3:10–13).
  
  Jesus said, as Tim noted in his video:
  
  “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. [Matthew 12:37]”
  
  What examples did Jesus give of this? Queen of Sheba (a Gentile). The Ninevites (a Gentile people). What examples did James give? Abraham (pre-Law). Rahab (a Gentile). Why did they pick these examples? None were justified by doing works of the Law, for they obeyed God apart from the Law. Abraham was justified by his words…
  
  “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”
  
  …and Rahab was justified “in the same way” as Abraham. Where did James learn that all men would be justified by their words? It was from Jesus.
  
  How do we know the words of the Ninevites? Because they repented. How do we know the words of the Queen of Sheba Because she listened to Solomon. How do we know the words of Abraham? Because he attempted to sacrifice his son. How do we know the words of Rahab? Because she saved the spies. In each case, (1) their words were accompanied an action; (2) they were justified on the day they heard; (3) on the last day they will be judged by their words. What can’t be said is that any of them were justified by works of the Law.
  
  James cites as examples the Shema, charitable works, and obedience. Betty says these are part of the New Covenant. But these are all central features of the Old Covenant. She says:
  
  “I’m not sure what you think the “animal excrement” is but it surely isn’t charitable works or obeying God’s commandments. Aren’t those the works that James is speaking of when he says we are not saved by “Faith alone””
  
  Of course doing works of the Law are “good things” an an objective sense. They demonstrate our faith. But they count for nothing: they are animal excrement. We will all be judged by our words.
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 9:32 am
    
    “The law is a curse from which we are saved” Galatians 3: 10-13. Amen to that. Cursed is anyone that hangeth on a tree” Forever grateful Jesus became that curse for us. K
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 12:36 pm

Derek said ” there is no category category for believers with not enough good works” hilarious. I love this line. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 12:54 pm

Betty said ” it absolutely makes no sense” just trust the Pope and the infallible teaching church” what if I read my bible and find out that that Pope and his church is antichrist Betty? Who can I turn too? You see Betty we all need to answer the same question, according to whom? Catholics start with the axiom the RCC is Christ’s true church because they told me so. That’s circular. Protestants start with the Axiom that the bible is the only infallible authority on life , faith, and morals and I arrive at not only the gospel, but that Rome is antichrist. The WCF said there can be no other that embodies antichrist that the Papacy. I can prove from scripture that it is antichrist. Jesus said ” if someone comes to YOU and says I am the Messiah, the Christ, DONT believe him. ” and that’s exactly what your church claims that it is Jesus Christ’s natural and historical body on earth. But the church is not the same as Jesus in the world. Jesus doesnt dwell in buildings anymore, but in the hearts of his people. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of believers. As Tim has so well documented Jesus doesnt have an earthly kingdom right now, but is the Bishop of his church from heaven. “My kingdom is not of this world” doesnt mean that God isnt in the world, but he doesnt have a home office in Rome.

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 17, 2020 at 1:12 pm

Betty,

Did you read my linked post?

“…how the New Testament canon question was settled…”

That begs the question.

“As far as the canon I read a Catholic apologist challenge a Protestant as to which inspired writer left a canon list?”

That also begs the question. No Protestant should agree to a stacked challenge that requires acceptance of circular reasoning.

“Seriously Christ desired we follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but did not leave a canon list?”

Again, that begs the question. Christ sent the Spirit, not a canon.

“I believe the first correct canon list was by St Athanasius in 325.”

Now that is elite level question begging.

“No need for a canon list because Christ left us an authoritative teaching church.”

Christ sent the Spirit to teach.

“Why does your blind faith accept a canon list from what you deam to be an apostate Church?”

Faith is not blind and I don’t.

“And as far as spreading God’s word please just hand out Bibles and don’t say a word.”

This begs the question. Christ sent the Spirit, not a Biblical canon. The message of Christ spreads primarily through his followers.

You need to do as Tim Staples did and admit that your view is circular reasoning:

“So weak are the biblical attempts at an answer that often the Protestant response just turns the [circular] argument against the Catholic. “How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular.””

Peace,
DR

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 1:20 pm

Betty said to Derek ” why does your blind faith accept a canon from a church you deem apostate” Betty obviously isnt aware that the Roman Catholic church didn’t have a formal canon until Trent. So much for ” accept a canon from a church …” I’m sure Derek puts his trust in the 66 books of the bible because they are self attesting and God breathed, not because your church put its stamp on them. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 17, 2020 at 1:46 pm
  
  ” I’m sure Derek puts his trust in the 66 books of the bible because they are self attesting and God breathed, not because your church put its stamp on them.”
  
  That’s correct, but incomplete.
  
  I agreed that Catholic Tyler Graham could use of his canon in any arguments made. I’ll agree to accept fewer books of canon when arguing with those who reject the pseudepigraphical books. I’ve never run into any situation where this impeded my argument.
  
  The RCC’s historical errors (re: sacred tradition) go back even further and are far more critical, as <a href="https://derekramsey.com/2018/12/15/sacred-tradition-of-old-testament/"Tim Staples unwittingly demonstrated.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 1:49 pm
    
    Apologies. The link is here.
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 17, 2020 at 2:00 pm
      
      Thanks I’ll check it out.
      
      Reply
  2. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 17, 2020 at 2:37 pm
    
    A really interesting read DR thanks. K
    
    Reply
2. Betty says:
  
  August 19, 2020 at 2:10 pm
  
  That’s even better Kevin, now you admit you are following a New Testament canon from the council of Trent. Actually you know the Church , ie the Catholic Church , was resolving the canonicity question at about the same time you and Timothy claim the Church was falling into apostasy. You mentioned Augustine was a Roman Catholic, you might want to review his quote as to how he came to the scriptures through the Catholic Church and his comments on how the Church was trying to resolve the debate.
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 19, 2020 at 3:09 pm
    
    Betty, the NT canon didnt come from Trent. Trent acknowledged formally a canon at Trent for the 1st time . Incidentally they added the Duetercanonicals at Trent. They were never considered sacred scripture. There was a general acceptance of the 27 NT books early on in the church and the OT was established already. The OT Jews didnt need some main office to put the OT scriptures in a binder for them. They understood what they were. ” you and Timothy claim the church was falling into the apostasy” fallen. Late 4th century 2 Thessalonians 2. and many other scriptures, and yes either he or I could prove it from scripture. In fact the WCF and many others, I believe the London Baptist, and the book of Concord acknowledged the Catholic church as apostate. The reformed were literally prohibited from fellowshipoing of marrying Romanists. I wouldn’t fellowship with a Roman Catholic. ” you might want to review Augustine’s quote” why, I’ve read it a hundred times, it’s clear. Finally ” how he came to the scriptures through the catholic church” He came to the scriptures through the prophets and the Apostles, the same way we all did. They existed before the rise of Roman Catholicism. K
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 20, 2020 at 7:45 am
      
      The Deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint which was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures when translators provided by the chief priest of Jerusalem were provided for Ptomy for the Library in Alexandria . My understanding since the translation was Greek and not Hebrew this was the Old Testament used by the early Christians. The Protestant tradition appears to follow a decision made by the Hebrews later to define their canon but if you want to follow the early Christian Church which accepted the Septuagint stick with the Catholic Bible. And to say the deuterocanonicals “were never considered part of sacred scripture” is a false statement.
      Your statement “There was a general acceptance of the 27 NT Books early on in the church and the OT was established already”. Yes the OT was established , in the early Church they were using the Septuagint translation which included the deuterocanonical books. It appears the early Christian writers discussed more about their uncertainty about the New Testament canon then the Old Testament canon. While the four gospels appear to have been generally accepted a number of the epistles and the book of Revelation were questioned, right Kevin? And by the way, if the OT Jews had had a “main office to put the OT scriptures in a binder” we wouldn’t be having this argument about the deuterocanonicals. Fortunately even Protestants agree with the decision made by the Catholic Church over the New Testament canon.
      So Kevin you have read Augustine’s quote a hundred times. As I mentioned I don’t have a computer. Would you mind posting them where he speaks of the Catholic Church and the scriptures and where he talks about the selection process. You ask “Why?”. I am sure you know why and I don’t think you will post those quotes. Too obvious the role of the Catholic Church in determining the Scriptures and that even at Augustine’s era there was still some questioning of the NT canon
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 20, 2020 at 8:35 am
        
        ” the book of Revelation were questioned, right Kevin?” And we know why you ask this question since revelation mentions the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold gup full of abominations and unclean things of her immorality. Her name scrolled on her head is BABYLON THE GREAT. those are you school colors at the RC. Gold cup in the hand, drunk with the blood of the saints. We know your church was a killing machine. Revelations goes on to say that those who the beast of the earth breathes life into an image that is caused to bleed and speak and caused all those who do not worship the image to be killed. Can you think of any image like that Betty?! The death wafer of Rome. K
      2. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 20, 2020 at 11:24 am
        
        Betty, it’s very simple. How do we know the 66 books of the English bible are the inherent infallible word of God? Since Moses the men who wrote those books knew they were writing scripture. The community of the faithful accepted them as holy scripture because the Spirit confirmed this. The early church simply listed them, and when they had discussions on jude etc. It was decided they indeed met the requirements of scripture. Incidentally, the early church was catholic meaning universal, not Roman Catholic Roman being specific. Dont confuse the early catholic church with antichrist Roman Catholicism which is a false Christianity and a front for the kingdom of Satan. This whole site has proved that presupposition imho. As far as Augustine I simply cited his view on Paul and James together. It comports with the Protestant view. You will find a number quotes from Augustine here which Tim does well to explain in context. Best K
      3. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 21, 2020 at 3:42 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “The Deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint [..] in the early Church they were using the Septuagint translation which included the deuterocanonical books.”
        
        The evidence weighs against that. You cannot infer it from the 4th and 5th century codices we have. There is no proof that there ever was a single unified Septuagint composition that included the deuterocanonicals. The evidence from various 1st and 2nd century writers (e.g. Philo and Josephus) suggests that it only included the Pharisee’s canon (see below).
        
        “My understanding since the translation was Greek and not Hebrew this was the Old Testament used by the early Christians.”
        
        The early Christians used a Septuagint without the deuterocanonicals or else one with different compositions than the one later selected by the RCC. We know this, because existing codices differ. Early Christians may have had access to the deuterocanonical books, but not necessarily as part of the LXX.
        
        “Yes the OT was established”
        
        No it wasn’t. During the life of Jesus, there were at least three different canons among the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Greek-speaking Jewish Disapora, perhaps many more. However, as Timothy Lim states…
        
        “By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees.”
        
        Jesus and Paul were both in agreement with the Pharisees on canon. Jesus explicitly took sides on the canon debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
        
        All this matters because the RCC relies on a sacred tradition that is historical fiction (See this article)…. well, unless all existing evidence automatically supports the RC position.
        
        Peace,
        DR
Phil Sanz says:

August 17, 2020 at 8:32 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment. You missed the “disconnect”. I was talking about “salvation” and you quoted Kevin on “justification”. Sorry Charley, but that sounds to me just like “one beating the air” 1 Cor 9:26. We have more things in common in our beliefs than things that divide us. I like to think that it is more important to move forward than to return to the divisions of the past.

You said:
“I respect your …
Whether this ambiguous phrase means (1) ‘once believed, but no longer’, (2) ‘never believed’, or (3) ‘believed the wrong belief (i.e. in vain; no purpose)’, it can’t mean (4) ‘believes right now, but didn’t do required works.’ The latter is only possible if you beg the question. The point is (4)
Paul explicitly contrasts those who believe and are being saved with those who do not believe and are not being saved. The former held firm to the message that was heard, while the latter did not (obviously, or else they’d be in the first group). And in case it wasn’t obvious that it was about belief and not works, he reviews the essentials of that believed heard message (which conspicuously lack works):”

Your exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 is wrong. It is not (1), (2), nor (3) because he is not criticizing them but commending them “in which you STAND”: they believed, and they continue to believe; and they are saved. Then, “the point is (4)”: “believers right now”. Correct. The words “but didn’t do required works” are an unnecessary addition and make no sense. You added them. I did not, because I was not talking about works but about belief “IF you hold IT (the gospel) FAST”. He is clearly encouraging them (present) to continue (future, persevere) holding the gospel. But what happens IF they don’t? He tells them ”you BELIEVED in vain”, their faith is no longer “living” faith. Did they lose it or they never had it? That’s the issue that you did not want to discuss now because you were not sure. I respect that and if you change your mind just let me know and we will get into it. I was not dodging it, you are; which is OK with me.

Then you went on:
“that Christ died … you said that salvation is in the present time and not in the past”
Who is cherry picking? You are talking apples and oranges. Or shall I say “cherries” and berries? Look again at the context and Paul’s words to the Philippians.
In your own words: “Salvation is not always past tense, because you have to become saved at some point, and while the remission of sin (i.e. justification) is instantaneous and complete, salvation isn’t fully complete until we are saved from death by resurrecting to new bodies at the return of Christ.” Amen to that.

And Kevin’s words:
“JUSTIFICATION IS ALWAYS PAST TENSE” (emphasis yours) I never said anything different and since you brought it up again: YES, YES, YES. I agree. I hope that’s clear enough for you to accept it and leave it alone.

And finally:
“Here SALVATION … were already saved (in the past).”
And my answer to you still is the same as it was before. If you have a problem with the “in-works” of God “producing the out-works” of us (those are your words) let me know and may be I can explain it in a different way.

Peace to you, too.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 19, 2020 at 1:49 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “You missed the “disconnect”. I was talking about “salvation” and you quoted Kevin on “justification”. [..] We have more things in common in our beliefs than things that divide us.”
  
  What disconnect did I miss? Salvation is completed and ongoing: our sins are forgiven, but Christ has not returned. We have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. But justification—which the RCC explicitly states includes the remission of sins—is always past tense. The only disconnect is the RCC’s incoherent position that justification is based on past, present, and future works. In our commonality, I praise God for your heresy to the RCC.
  
  ” I like to think that it is more important to move forward than to return to the divisions of the past.”
  
  What does the RCC offer that I do not already have?
  
  Did you know that there are many traditional Catholics who long for a return of RCC rule? They long for the days when men like myself were murdered for our beliefs (along with homosexuals, atheists, and adulterers). I will not be baited by the allure of false religion and false unity. These divisions are real. They can only be bridged by conversion, not conversation alone. I wish it was otherwise, but it isn’t.
  
  “He is clearly encouraging them (present) to continue (future, persevere) holding the gospel. But what happens IF they don’t? He tells them ”you BELIEVED in vain”, their faith is no longer “living” faith.”
  
  Grammatically, the ambiguous (see below) phrase “you have believed in vain” can mean one of the following: (1) ‘once believed, but no longer’, (2) ‘never believed’, or (3) ‘believed the wrong belief (i.e. in vain; no purpose)’. It can’t mean (4) ‘believes right now, but didn’t do required works.’
  
  You are confused when you say (4) is “believers right now”. It makes no sense to say “…unless you are believers right now.”
  
  You have mixed up your word tenses/senses and created an incoherent argument. You are reading the text as if it says “Otherwise, you will have believed in vain.”, but it is not a ‘future perfect’, it is ‘aorist indicative active’ (which indicates past action).
  
  Paul is contrasting two things: standing firm in what you first heard and not standing firm in what you first heard (i.e. believed in vain). The former are believers, the latter are not. The only question is whether the latter group first believed and then fell away, never truly believed in the first place, or believed the wrong thing (perhaps mistakenly, perhaps intentionally). Paul doesn’t say, and it probably doesn’t matter.
  
  “I was not dodging it, you are; which is OK with me. “
  
  I don’t need to come to a conclusion on a doctrinal issue in order to expose grammatical and logical errors. I can also discuss details, so long as you don’t expect me to tell you—with authority—what the correct doctrine is. That’s different from dodging.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Phil Sanz says:
    
    August 19, 2020 at 8:46 pm
    
    Hi Derek,
    Thank for your comment. I am not intent in converting you. Conversion can only be “in-worked” by the Spirit. I was only exposing “grammatical and logical errors”. I don’t want to misinterpret your beliefs. I had only asked for your sincere opinion (if you want to give it) and, in return, I pledge to do the same for you.
    You said:
    “You missed the “disconnect” … but it isn’t”.
    The “disconnect” was bringing up JUSTIFICATION when I was talking about SALVATION. As I had said: “ I was talking about “salvation” and you quoted Kevin on “justification”. That’s a “disconnect”, and a small mistake, but a fact. I agree with the rest of your argument (a communality). Except for the inclusion of future “sins”, which implies either a “carte blanche” to sin or holding God responsible for any new sin. Justification is always a present or past event but never a future event. That would be prophecy, “not a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2Peter 1:20) or predetermination (which abolishes our free will).
    
    In re. to 1 Cor 15:2 you added:
    “He is clearly … doesn’t matter.”
    Let me clarify what I said. Paul is encouraging them to “hold fast” (with a conditioning IF) and a real possibility of future failure. As I told you he never said that they did not believe. On the contrary, he just finished telling them “in which you stand”. Why did Paul tell them to (continue to) HOLD FAST? Because it MATTERED for them to be “vigilant” (1 Peter 5:8) and not to take perseverance for granted.
    
    You concluded with:
    “I don’t need … from dodging.
    When you talk about “doctrinal corruption” (to Betty) in the Church aren’t you passing judgment on doctrine?
    
    Peace.
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      August 19, 2020 at 11:06 pm
      
      Phil,
      
      I take your point regarding the disconnect between salvation and justification and I think I’m ready to move on. I see Kevin has taken issue with your statement, so perhaps I’ll weigh in on a later comment.
      
      “Why did Paul tell them to (continue to) HOLD FAST? Because it MATTERED for them to be “vigilant” (1 Peter 5:8) and not to take perseverance for granted.”
      
      I have been focused on the third part of that sentence (“unless…”), rather than the second part (“if…”) for a reason. One cannot understand the “if…” without understanding the “unless…” precisely because the tense of the verb (“have believed”) is not future perfect (“will have believed”):
      
      “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, [but if you don’t hold firmly, then] you [will] have believed in vain.”
      
      But—due to the tense—that is not a valid interpretation. The third part indicates a single, discreet past action (aorist indicative), not an action that occurred over time, is occurring now, or will occur conditional on the second part. This demonstrates what I am saying:
      
      “(1) By this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you; OR ELSE (2) you have believed in vain.”
      
      It is an either-or and the “if” is a weak conditional, more of a clarifier. Consider this interesting translation:
      
      “…and by which you are being made whole if you hold on firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you believed without giving it due consideration. [REV]”
      
      You are saved by holding firmly to the gospel (i.e. you have salvation by grace through faith) or else you once in the past believed in vain.
      
      The example translation aside, this is still ambiguous. It allows for the range of understandings that I gave in my previous comment. But it specifically excludes the possibility that believing in vain is a product of not standing firm now or in the future. Whatever else you might say, it means, by logical necessity, that this is not a threat of loss of salvation for not standing firm. If you want to make that argument, you have to look elsewhere.
      
      “When you talk about “doctrinal corruption” (to Betty) in the Church aren’t you passing judgment on doctrine? “
      
      Yes. There is a difference between not having answers to a particular issue and having no answers to anything at all. I’m not God, so I don’t know everything, and I can be wrong, but there are things I do know. Not taking a position on something is not dodging, nor does it mean I can’t have an opinion.
      
      Like James 2, the Sheep and Goats is a major source of doctrinal corruption, touching issues of Christology, soteriology, eschatology (e.g. death, hell, and purgatory), in part due to its Hebraisms.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 19, 2020 at 11:23 pm
        
        Out of many different translations of this verse, I like the REV translation a lot, but it is quite presumptive, though I suppose all translations are presumptive.
        
        “…by which you are being made whole if you hold on firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you believed without giving it due consideration.”
        
        If you use “are being saved” rather than “are saved”, then the answer to “How does holding firmly to the gospel mean you are being saved?” seems to be one of sanctification: you are being made whole by being faithful. Protestants and Catholics agree on this much, right?
        
        The latter part presumes one of the three options I listed, rather than leaving it ambiguous (and misleading).
      2. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 19, 2020 at 11:31 pm
        
        Here is another interesting translation (from the Aramaic Peshita) from the Lamsa Bible:
        
        “By which also you are saved if you keep in remembrance that very word which I have preached to you, and if your conversion has not been in vain.”
        
        IMO, that one is worth meditating on for a while.
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 8:51 pm

Phil said to Derek ” Paul explicitly contrasts those who believe and are being saved and those and those who do not believe and are not being saved” you absolutely got this wrong. Phil! Paul says he preached it, they received it, they stand in it, and then, watch, they are saved by it. Saved I’d aorist past tense. You say ” are being saved” nice try, you attempted to change the tense and therefore the meaning. I’ll simplify the rest of that verse. Paul simply says unless you really didnt believe. That’s what it means to believe in vain or to not hold fast. K

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 17, 2020 at 11:10 pm
  
  Kevin,
  
  You’ve misattributed my comment to Phil. In 1 Corinthians 15:2, the word sōzesthe (σῴζεσθε) is translated as “you are saved” or “you are being saved.” For sake of argument, I went with the latter because I can still make the argument, even assuming the most Catholic interpretation possible.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 17, 2020 at 11:35 pm

DR, wow, I apologize. You are right. Did not know there were 2 ways to translate that. I see how you can make your argument. Thanks k

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 18, 2020 at 11:02 am

Betty,

“what is amusing is how often [Kevin] will throw in that word alone when discussing Paul’s comments and the word is never used.”

This has been explained in multiple, easy-to-understand ways. I don’t think it has been summarized yet, so I’ll do it here.

First, as Jesus explicitly said that everyone will be judged by their words, so too does Paul associate salvation with words. When Paul mentions faith, he accompanies this with words like ‘gospel’, ‘heard’, ‘message’, ‘taught’, ‘believed’, etc. Faith is belief, and belief is of words. It is words—alone—by which you are saved or condemned.

Second, when Paul mentions salvation, time and again it is faith alone that is mentioned. Not the words “faith alone”, but “faith” alone—by itself. No other conditions are placed upon salvation. He doesn’t use the word alone, because it is implied and unnecessary. This is just basic language comprehension: even children understand this. It would be like saying “Go clean your room!” and them retorting “But you didn’t say NOW!” It is willfully obstinate and disobedient.

Third, Paul contrasts faith and works in the context of grace and salvation, explicitly stating that faith does not involve works.

The supposed counter to these is James. But James gives the relationship between faith and works by immediately preceding “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” by saying Abraham was righteous because of his belief—his words. Faith and works are correlated, but works are not the cause of righteousness: righteousness causes works. Any other view is contradictory.

One is righteous by their faith—their words. From righteousness comes works, so one has both righteousness and works. Inversely, if they were not righteous, they would not have works. Therefore, one cannot be righteous if they have faith alone, but rather they are righteous only if they also have works. But, as with Abraham, faith alone causes righteousness. See how I used “faith alone” in two different ways there? Your argument relies on a fallacious equivocation on “faith alone”.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 18, 2020 at 12:35 pm
  
  DR says: “Abraham was justified by his WORDS…
  ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’
  …and Rahab was justified “in the same way” as Abraham. Where did James learn that all men would be justified by their WORDS? It was from Jesus.”
  
  DR, why have you deliberately changed the reading of James? James clearly says WORKS not WORDS.
  
  Jas 2:21ff Was not Abraham our father justified by WORKS, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his WORKS, and faith was completed by WORKS, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
  You see that a man is justified by WORKS and not by faith alone.
  Nowhere in that text does James say ANYTHING about “all men would be justified by their WORDS”.
  And James goes on to mention Rahab:
  Jas 2:25ff And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by WORKS when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from WORKS is dead.
  
  James is saying they were justified by what they DID, not what they SAID.
  
  You also said “Faith and works are correlated, but works are not the cause of righteousness: righteousness causes works. Any other view is contradictory.”
  
  But that is not what James said. “…Faith was completed by WORKS, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
  Faith completed by works is reckoned as righteousness.
  
  You need to clean the JBFA off your glasses so you can read the bible for what it says and not what you think it ought to say. You say the word “alone” is implied with faith, but it is implied only by those who believe it SHOULD be. You can twist and turn the meaning as much as you want. Obviously it is not biblical.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 18, 2020 at 3:04 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    Before I post my reply, I have two questions:
    
    When James mentions works, is he referring to (1) works of the Law, (2) works apart from the Law, or (3) both?
    
    Is James written to (1) Jews, (2) Gentiles, or (3) both?
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      August 18, 2020 at 4:29 pm
      
      DR asked “Is James written to (1) Jews, (2) Gentiles, or (3) both?”
      
      Obviously you meant those outside the Law when you said: “What examples did James give? Abraham (pre-Law). Rahab (a Gentile). Why did they pick these examples? None were justified by doing works of the Law, for they obeyed God apart from the Law.”
      
      But Jesus said this:
      Mat 21:28ff “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went.
      And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.
      Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”
      Why? Because they repented. They changed their actions. They were justified by what they DID, not what they SAID. The will of the Father is for everyone–the Jew and the Greek.
      Jesus said: Mat 21:43 “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation PRODUCING the fruits of it.”
      You see that the Kingdom will be taken away from those who just profess the will of God and given to those who actually obey God.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 18, 2020 at 9:42 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        You didn’t answer my questions.
        
        Peace,
        DR
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        August 19, 2020 at 12:26 pm
        
        You already answered your own questions. I just pointed that out.
Derek Ramsey says:

August 18, 2020 at 1:33 pm

Betty,

“Not sure why some responses don’t allow a response”

It is a WordPress thing. You can’t indent threads indefinitely. You have to scroll up and find the first reply link and reply to that instead. Or start a new thread down below.

“First you say it is not a parable, Most of the commentaries I read on the internet classify it as a parable and I would say that unless you believe Christ will actually be coming back to judge sheep and goats that’s probably a reasonable classification.”

A parable is a story or illustration, but this is neither. Jesus is answering the question:

“As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? [Matthew 24:3]”

The fact that most commentators say this is a parable should clue you off to the doctrinal corruption, just as with the Eucharist. Many people don’t believe Jesus is actually returning. Moreover, they don’t believe him when he says he will separate the nations at that time for judgment. Since this involves people who go straight from living into final judgment, it necessarily invalidates the doctrine of purgatory. So commentators…get creative.

At final judgment there are two kinds of people: the pure sheep and the wicked goats (see: Ezekiel 20:34-38; 34:11-24). The division is between believers and unbelievers (see my link below). The goat has long been associated with evil (e.g. Leviticus 16:8; Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15; Isaiah 14:9; Zechariah 10:3). See the NET translation of Leviticus 16:8 for a detailed discussion in the footnote on the goat-demon Azazel. The association of goats with the occult is an ancient one that spans multiple cultures and continues through modern times (e.g. Baphomet).

“Then you say the sheep are white, the goats are black.”

Because of course they were! The audience would have immediately known this because this is basic Ancient Near East Culture 101 (e.g. Song of Solomon 1:5,6:5). In making the metaphor more graphic to the listeners, Jesus was able to say a lot without using words.

“Not sure why that was thrown in.”

When a shepherd separated his flock, he could do so by color. Similarly, Jesus will easily separate the righteous from the unrighteous. The separation between those who are saved and those who are destroyed will be a binary decision. This is an essential point that was obvious to the original audience. It is obvious to us too, because Jesus told us that people are judged on their words, on whether or not they have faith. There is no third category for believers who did not do enough works.

“And then you claim they were separated over belief although there is no mention of faith or belief in the passage.”

Implication and context (e.g. Matthew 12:37). Unsurprisingly, Jesus non-literally illustrated a metaphor using a culturally relevant figure of speech.

“Those who were apparently saved had performed good works. Those that were damned had not. What I thought was funny was on the internet those who promote faith alone in their commentaries did the exact same thing you did. Now when you look at James comments and this passage it’s pretty obvious that works do play a role in our salvation. But the faith only crowd says that can’t be true because it would contradict scripture. It doesn’t contradict James!”

You’ve put the cart before the horse. See this comment.

Peace,
DR

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 19, 2020 at 8:09 am

” and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes , having made and example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter.” 2 Peter 2:6 Peter holds up Sodom and Gommorah as being condemned for lawless behavior. As ive said before Paul always talks about the law as a whole. Sometimes he says works, sometimes law, sometimes works of the law. Paul is clear all men Jew and Gentile are shut up under sin because we’ve all broken God’s law. That’s why law can only condemn men. But by faith in the gospel the law becomes our friend. God writes his law on our hearts and it becomes the ruler of gratitude. James uses Abraham offering up Issac on the alter as the demonstration of his faith. This was 30 years after his justification in Genesisc 15:6. So James cant be talking about the same justification as Paul. Just like prophecy isnt fulfilled immediately so Abe’s works demonstrated 30 years after he believed God his faith by his works and in that way his faith was justified.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 19, 2020 at 9:33 am
  
  Kevin,
  
  Did you write this comment in response to my comment? I actually agree with you.
  
  What the likes of Betty, Nick, and other Catholics have done is paint themselves into a corner on this issue. They don’t believe as we do, and if you follow their viewpoint on James to its logical conclusion, it is incoherent. I’ve been playing a bit of ‘devil’s advocate’ in order to force them to think about the (lack of) logic behind their view.
  
  “Paul is clear all men Jew and Gentile are shut up under sin because we’ve all broken God’s law. “</blockquote
  
  God's law is transcendent. It goes beyond covenants that bind specific groups in specific ways.
  
  “This was 30 years after his justification in Genesis 15:6.”
  
  This is point only reinforces the proof.
  
  God made a Covenant with Abraham and promised him a son from which nations would come. Abraham believed God and was justified from that moment: he was right (i.e. correct) to believe God. But, he was not yet made right(i.e. proven correct): this faith—trust— Abraham placed in the Covenant with God was not fulfilled (i.e. made complete). It was still just a promise until Abraham obeyed God and attempted to sacrifice his son and God stopped him. It was the act of God stopping Abraham that fulfilled the Covenant’s promise, not Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son! And Abraham was made right (i.e. proven correct): his faith (for an heir) was not misplaced.
  
  In the same way, Rahab put her trust into God’s people. Her trust was justified (proven correct) when she let the spies go and as a result preserved her own life.
  
  You see, a person is justified (in their faith) by what they do, not only by what they believe. By and through your actions, God proves faithful to the trust you have placed in him.
  
  Both Abraham and Rahab took risks. Their belief was tested to the extreme, against all odds. But they prevailed because they stood firm in that trust. Their faith was, indeed, fully justified.
  
  But what about the demons? Why does their faith make them tremble? When their faith in God is finally fulfilled, what happens to them?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 19, 2020 at 10:48 am
    
    DR like always very well said. The Catholics cant get past this verse ” Abe believed God and he was counted righteous” do we see any works or merit there. No. Of course Aquinas made a fatal error saying that a man was predestined to glory by his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. But for a Roman Catholic it’s hard to comprehend justification being complete at the time of belief, because there is a final justification based on the life lived in Rome. The process of sanctification is justification in Rome . We see many of the Protestants buying the RC lies like John Piper. But this has attempted to raise its head through the life of the church. Paul settled the matter when he confronted Peter and they agreed they were preaching the same gospel. 2:5 Paul would not relent. Of Course the Catholics here continually go to James without understanding context. Augustine said this ” How was Abraham justified. What does the apostle say? ( Paul) Abraham was justified by faith. Good works follow justification. Paul and James dont contradict each other” how clear can it be. But as I said Rome teaches that there is a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. You get there by your merit in some way. So Jesus is a softer Moses with and easier law of love and heartfelt surrender. They saw the gospel as the enablement to become righteous by obedience, not understanding that Christ lived the law in our place, fulfilled all righteousness, and offers us forgiveness and his perfect righteousness thru the gospel by faith as a gift. He fulfilled the law. Of course God’s moral law is his law. And by the Spirit we can obey it, but we are dead to it and we friends of God as Tim has said, not in some cease fire. K
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 19, 2020 at 10:49 am
      
      DR, yes I wrote that in response to your interchange with Nick. God bless brother
      
      Reply
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 19, 2020 at 9:35 am
  
  (Please ignore the previous, malformatted comment. Tim please delete it if possible!)
  
  Kevin,
  
  Did you write this comment in response to my comment? I actually agree with you.
  
  What the likes of Betty, Nick, and other Catholics have done is paint themselves into a corner on this issue. They don’t believe as we do, and if you follow their viewpoint on James to its logical conclusion, it is incoherent. I’ve been playing a bit of ‘devil’s advocate’ in order to force them to think about the (lack of) logic behind their view.
  
  “Paul is clear all men Jew and Gentile are shut up under sin because we’ve all broken God’s law. “
  
  God’s law is transcendent. It goes beyond covenants that bind specific groups in specific ways.
  
  “This was 30 years after his justification in Genesis 15:6.”
  
  This is point only reinforces the proof.
  
  God made a Covenant with Abraham and promised him a son from which nations would come. Abraham believed God and was justified from that moment: he was right (i.e. correct) to believe God. But, he was not yet made right(i.e. proven correct): this faith—trust— Abraham placed in the Covenant with God was not fulfilled (i.e. made complete). It was still just a promise until Abraham obeyed God and attempted to sacrifice his son and God stopped him. It was the act of God stopping Abraham that fulfilled the Covenant’s promise, not Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son! And Abraham was made right (i.e. proven correct): his faith (for an heir) was not misplaced.
  
  In the same way, Rahab put her trust into God’s people. Her trust was justified (proven correct) when she let the spies go and as a result preserved her own life.
  
  You see, a person is justified (in their faith) by what they do, not only by what they believe. By and through your actions, God proves faithful to the trust you have placed in him.
  
  Both Abraham and Rahab took risks. Their belief was tested to the extreme, against all odds. But they prevailed because they stood firm in that trust. Their faith was, indeed, fully justified.
  
  But what about the demons? Why does their faith make them tremble? When their faith in God is finally fulfilled, what happens to them?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 19, 2020 at 2:02 pm

Derek said ” what does the RCC offer that I do not already have” idolatry, a return to the sacrifices under the law, a false gospel or gracious merit, a Marian ego, and doing penance and living the gospel. Or as my Catholic friend Debbie told me a more complete experience. Cmon Derek. 😉 k

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 19, 2020 at 8:10 pm

Derek I saw this quote that I thought you might find interesting. ” we are saved by grace alone or we are saved by assisting grace that works in concert with our free will. “

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 19, 2020 at 10:03 pm
  
  To be honest, I’m not sure what to make of that quote.
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 19, 2020 at 9:54 pm

Phil said ” justification is always a past or present event never a future event” Phil could you please show us where the scripture says justification is a present event? This is a subject I have studied for 40 years and can tell you justification is always past. Galatians 3:6, Romans 5:1, Genesis 15:6. Its immediate and complete by faith alone. Phil continued ” I was talking about salvation and you brought up Kevin and justification.” What does it matter. justification/ salvation is by faith alone apart from works our anything coming from ourselves Ephessians 2:8 is clear . Titus 3:5 says he SAVED us not on the basis of righteous deeds. But by faith. And lastly Phil, you are missing what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15: 2 ” if you hold fast to the word I preached to you. This is what faith does Phil it rests on Christ and his righteousness. It’s the firm and constant assent of the soul to the Word of God. But then Paul immediately tells us what he meant by that statement. ” unless you believed in vain” in vain means without success. That means Paul says you really didnt believe. That’s it Phil. No conditional salvation. And incidentally Phil, and I say this sincerely, if Salvation has nothing to do with us or our deeds but is a gift Ephessians 2:8, then how can future sins not be covered by Christ’s righteousness. Colossians 2:13 says he’s forgiven us ALL of our transgressions pat, present, future. Verse 14 says he’s cancelled out the certificate of debt, all legal decrees, having taken it away having nailed it to the cross. We are justified, adopted, seated with him in the heavenlies, sealed in the Spirit, with an inheritance that cant go away Peter says. Fesko calls it the already/ not yet. God bless k

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 20, 2020 at 7:59 am

Derek Phil, this is what Mathew Henry says ” the doctrine of Christ’s death and resurection is the foundation of Christianity. Remove this, and all hopes for eternity sink at once. And it’s by holding this truth firm that Christians stand in the day of trial. We believe in vain ( without success) unless we keep the faith in the gospel. ” what does Paul say we hold fast? THE WORD in our hearts. This is faith. It’s not a momentary belief, but a firm and constant assent of the soul to the word of God. To believe in vain was to not keep the word in your heart. Dead faith. Listen to Paul talk about the immediate results of believing. Romans 10:9,10 says be confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart RESULTS in righteousness and salvation. Paul in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians is simply talking about true belief and dead belief. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 20, 2020 at 12:37 pm

Betty, one more post about the canon. Luke 24:44 ” now he said to them” these are my words which I spoke to you while I was with you, that all the things that are written about me in Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” So as you can see the OT can was complete in Jesus’s day and it did NOT include the apocrypha. It was exactly the same as the Protestant OT canon. The church did not have the authority to decide the canon. That would be like me saying I can decide what Jesus authority was. You see the church could only receive the books of the bible. The authority lied in the scripture not the church. They simply received it. In a few cases they only confirmed what was already true, that a certain book like Jude was inspired written by an apostle. But the authority did not lie in the church to decide the scripture. It didnt have that authority. The authority was God’s and the Spirit confirmed such. Hope this helps. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 20, 2020 at 3:05 pm

Kevin–
You said “‘Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ So as you can see the OT can was complete in Jesus’s day and it did NOT include the apocrypha.”

Well in that case, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and Proverbs ought not to be included either, but, for some strange reason the Protestant bible includes them. Go figger.

Deciding the canon is not so much deciding what is in the canon, but rather, what is NOT in the canon. The New Testament canon was decided upon after much debate, but it was settled that only the current 27 books and no others were to be included in the canon. That was affirmed in the 4th century and re-affirmed by the Catholic Church in 1545 and by the Westminster Confession in 1647. The New Testament canon is not in dispute.
The Old Testament canon, however, has been in dispute since the Reformation when Luther decided his bible should use the Hebrew Tanakh instead of the Septuagint. The Westminster Confession affirms that. The Catholic canon, on the other hand, uses the Septuagint version because that is what the Greek speaking world used in apostolic times when the New Testament was written. The Septuagint Old Testament canon was affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1449 and re-affirmed by Trent in 1546. It is most likely, then, that Paul used the Septuagint scriptures when he evangelized the Greek speaking gentiles, and the Church has been using translations of it ever since.

If you have alternative proof, I would be happy to entertain it.

Reply
1. Kevin Failoni says:
  
  August 20, 2020 at 4:16 pm
  
  Nick said ” deciding the Canon is not so much deciding what’s in the canon, but what is not in the canon.” But as I said your presupposition is wrong, the church didnt decide anything because they didnt have the authority, they simply received the 66 books of what is our English bible. Since Moses the faithful had accepted the canon because the Spirit of God confirmed the books. ” the new testament canon was decided after much debate” wrong, those 27 books were known and accepted early on. Again the church just received them. They diidnt decide anything. There was a working NT very early. They were accepted by the community of the faithful confirmed by the Spirit of God. ” that was affirmed in the 4th century and reaffirmed by the Catholic church in 1545″ The Roman Catholic church didnt have a formal canon until Trent, so I’m not sure where you get your information. At Trent they added the Duetercanonicals which were never a part of the OT scripture. Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha. ” The septuagent……Trent 1546″ really dont care what a Roman Catholic council says. As Luther said councils have erred thru history. Saying Paul probably used it is an argument from silence. But extracting things that aren’t there from scripture is normal for your church. If it weren’t true you wouldn’t have nuns, masses, popes, consign merit, Congrous merit, relics, pilgrimages, indulgences, and the immaculate conception. ” if you have any alternative proof, I would be jnterested.” You can find my position in my last post to your alter ego Betty. Peace K
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    August 23, 2020 at 8:38 am
    
    “The church didn’t decide anything because they didn’t have the authority”. So what does St. Augustine say? “for my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church”! Kevin says “wrong, those 27 books were known and accepted early on”. Kevin, I pointed out before the first correct list was given by St Athanasius in 325. I believe it was Origen that discussed as Nick pointed out that a number of the books were questioned. Nick provided you a nice outline. You say the Church “didn’t decide anything”. Well then who did Kevin.? You fictitious history that moved by the Spirit believers determined the canon list is nonsense. The Spirit did move the apostolic successors of the apostles within the Catholic Church to decide which questioned writings should be included. It certainly was not the Anabaptist Church or your denomination. And Paul obviously relied on the Septuagint written in Greek as he preached to the Gentiles. Do you think he was quoting Hebrew to Gentiles when quoting the Old Testament? Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno in their article Old Testament quotations in the New Testament list 340 places where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint but only 33 places it cites from the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Septuagint was the Old Testament in the early Church. Do you really believe those early Gentile Christians were studying Hebrew?
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 23, 2020 at 9:09 am
      
      Betty ” so what does Augustine say ” for my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the Catholic church” well, the Phillipians jailer, Moses, me, the apostles, Derek, and countless others believed the gospel without the Roman Catholic church. Jesus Christ is world is not the same as the church. Paul used church as a metaphor for the body of believers. The gospel is a message, a set of propositions about Jesus and what he did for his people ( past tense). God doesnt dwell in buildings anymore but in the hearts of his people thru the Spirit, those who believe the true gospel of scripture. Sometimes that message is heard in the church, and sometimes its heard outside the church. I’m not sure what Augustine’s quote has to do with the authority of scripture itself. Churches dont give their ok to the canon. The people who infallibly wrote the word knew they were writing it and the community and the Spirit confirmed it. The church just received it. ” it was given to St Athansius in 325.” Actually it was given to the men who wrote it and the church received it. You continue to give the authority to the church that God intended for the writers with the Spirit. You need no more proof of why that is important than to look at Trent where the gospel was formally anathemetizes therefore formally severing Rome for the true church, although this happened late 4th century as Tim has documented. ” Nick questioned a number of books were questioned.” No not true, a few smaller books like Ruth and a couple of the Johns were received as scripture. ” your fictitious history that moved by the Spirit believers determined the canon” that’s not what I said. I said the community of believers accepted scripture as confirmed by the Spirit. You reject the Spirit. Numerous times now you have condemned Christians who say the Spirit teaches them the word of God. But the apple doesnt fall far from the tree as your synagogue has put itself in the place of the Spirit of God. After all your leader has the gaul to take the title from the Spirit as the vicar of the Son of God. The Spirit and scripture are infallible, not a church. I reject that your leaders are successors of the apostles , but rather are antichrist. K
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 23, 2020 at 9:10 am
        
        Should be Jesus Christ in the world isnt the same as the church.
      2. Betty says:
        
        August 23, 2020 at 6:53 pm
        
        Kevin, here you go again. “And the community and the Spirit confirmed it, the church just recieved it”. I love the way Kevin you decide that the community resolved the canon issue and just dropped it into the Church’s lap. First off the community involved was the Catholic community, not the Protestant church you belong to a thousand years later. And it was not the community as a whole that settled the canon issue, it was the Catholic bishops, the successors of the apostles. Now I could care less rather you think it was the apostate Catholic Church of the fourth century based on Timothy Kauffman’s Interpretation of the book of Revelation or Trent. I still want to know why you would accept the canon from what you and Timothy clearly believe to be an apostate church.
        “Now numerous times you have condemned Christians that say the Spirit teaches them the word of God. “ Hand out Bibles Kevin and don’t say a word because as soon as you start interpreting the Bible what you are teaching is not God’s word, it is your interpretation. I assume you believe Jim Jones who talked his followers into drinking poisoned Kool Aid was full of the Holy Spirit and taught by the Spirit. You don’t think he should be condemned? Kevin I would assume each founder of a new Protestant denomination believe he or she is full of the Holy Spirit and guided by the Spirit. Christ prayed for unity Kevin, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Christianity with everyone interpreting the Bible on their own?
        You did not respond to Paul and the early Church’s use of the Septuagint.
      3. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        August 25, 2020 at 2:36 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        Perhaps you can help me understand something. Christ prayed for the unity of His church, and if I understand you correctly, His Father answered that prayer in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. It is my understanding that you believe I ought to join that religion so that I may experience and express the unity for which Christ prayed. That is an assumption on my part, and if it is incorrect, please let me know.
        
        Where I could use your help is that I watched this video, and in it, Fr. Michael Gaitley says the way God speaks to us today is through ecumenical councils and the pope. Our Rock for today, so he said, is the ecumenical and infallible Vatican II. It is the way God speaks to us, and thus the movement to reject Vatican II is in gross error.
        
        But in this video, Archbishop Vigano with apologist Taylor Marshall says that Vatican II was a mistake, and should be rejected. Taylor Marshall believes Vatican II was a tool used by the devil to infiltrate the Roman Catholic Church.
        
        Both Archbishop Vigano and Fr. Michael Gaitley believe they are led by the Spirit in submission to the Roman Catholic Church, but both are telling me the opposite thing. How do I know which one is speaking truthfully? How do I know if I should accept or reject Vatican II?
        
        Aside from the issue of Vatican II, there are Roman Catholics who think that receiving communion in the hand is a Protestant conspiracy to deny the “real presence,” while others think it is ok since communion in the hand predates Nicæa. There are also some Roman Catholics who believe Francis is the legitimate reigning pope, and others who think that Benedict remained the pope because his resignation letter was not specific enough to constitute a formal resignation and that Francis is a heretic. There are some Roman Catholics who believe Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an ex cathedra, morally binding proclamation of the Pope, and others who think it is just a discipline or tradition that is not morally binding. And just for fun, I’ll let you know that Pope Hadrian considered the Council of Trullo to be an Ecumenical Council but a lot of folks since then have decided that it is not. If I ever become Roman Catholic, I’m thinking I’d have to side with Pope Hadrian on that one because it is super important to be in union with the bishop, and not a rebel like that Martin Luther guy. But that puts me (and Hadrian) at odds with some really well meaning people who, believing they are led by the Spirit, have rejected the ecumenicity of Trullo. Man, that is super complicated.
        
        And that puts me in a bit of a bind. I have only listed 5 mutually exclusive and deeply held convictions by Roman Catholics who believe very different things about what is authentic Roman Catholicism, or should I say, about what is the authentic unity for which Christ prayed:
        
        1) communion in the hand is acceptable, or is of the devil
        2) Vatican II was a legitimate infallible council, or was a tool of the devil to infiltrate the church
        3) Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible, or was just some guy’s opinion
        4) Pope Francis is the legitimate pope, or he is a heretic and we are not bound to submit to him
        5) The Council of Trullo was an ecumenical council, or was just a regional synod and not morally binding.
        
        Now, each individual point of disagreement is mutually exclusive, and yet any number of Roman Catholics (or in my case, potential Roman Catholics) hold opposite views on them believing sincerely that they have understood the leading of the Spirit and the teaching of the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium. In fact, there are 32 different and mutually exclusive possible combinations on just these five points of disagreement. And believe me, there are many more mutually exclusive points of disagreement than just these 5.
        
        But you seem to know exactly how Jesus’ Father answered His prayer, and which is the correct expression of the unity for which He prayed. So, to make it easy for you, instead of listing the hundreds of ways Roman Catholics disagree with you or me or their “brethren” on fundamentals of Roman Catholic dogma (for which there are hundreds of thousands of exclusive possible combinations), why not settle it once and for all by identifying which of these 32 Types is the right one, so I can use that to rule out the hundreds of thousands of other heretical sects that exist under the umbrella of “Roman Catholicism.”
        
        Thank you in advance for your consideration.
2. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 20, 2020 at 4:38 pm
  
  Kevin says: “DR like always very well said. The Catholics cant get past this verse ” Abe believed God and he was counted righteous” do we see any works or merit there. No.”
  Really??? Can you not read what is right there in front of you?
  2:21ff Was not Abraham our father justified by WORKS, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his WORKS, and faith was completed by WORKS, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by WORKS and not by faith ALONE.
  
  This is the very WORD OF GOD, inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT in the book of James which I know is in the Protestant bible that you read. “Justified by WORKS” Not only said once but twice. What was the WORK of Abraham? The offering of Isaac on the altar. It is you, Kevin, who can’t get past those verses. Yep, it’s like what someone said: “Find out the opposite of what Calvinists teach and arrive at biblical truth.”
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 23, 2020 at 8:58 pm
    
    Betty, Kevin I love how you decide that the community resolved the canon issue” you continue a false presupposition that the canon needed to be resolved. The bible is composed of 66 books. How do we know that these books and no others are infallible and inherent word of God. When the men wrote these books , they came to be aware that they had written the word of God. Right away, the community of the faithful recognized that these books were the word of God because the Spirit caused the to recognize the Master’s voice. This process went on during the OT and continued on in the NT. We see this process in 2 Peter 3:16. The church simply received it. ” the church that was involved was the catholic community.” It wasnt the Roman Catholic community. Catholic means universal. Roman means specific. So it wasnt the CD Roman Catholic church. It was the early universal church that became what is now the Protestant church. The Roman Catholic church, again Roman being specific rose up late 4th century as apostate antichrist. Tim has documented this. ” I want to know why you and Tim accept the canine from the apostate church” I think I answered this. Just like Jesus in the world is not the same as the church, so the canon wasnt ” decided” by the Roman Catholic church. The universal early church simply received scripture. ” Hand out bibles Kevin and dont say a word your not teaching God’s word…… it’s your interpretation” leopards don’t want change their stripes. Your synagogue hunted down and killed William Tyndale forcrime of translating the bible into English. If we listen to you there would be no Luther or Calvin or the great reformed theologians or Tim. And here you are interpreting scripture on Tim’s site. Lol how do you spell hypocrisy. Betty. 1 John 2:27 Betty tell me what you think it means. ” Christ prayed for unity Kevin, so how is unity possible when everyone is interpreting the bible on their own. Hilarious, you cant get any RC leaders to agree when the Pope speaks infallibly from the chair. You cant get agreement on which declarations are infallible. And Betty most of all your church, the Roman Catholic church has only infallibly interpreted 10 verses. I’ll stick with my bible and the Spirit who Jesus promised me would lead me in all truth. K
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 23, 2020 at 9:49 pm
      
      “It was the early universal church that became what is now the Protestant Church”. Seriously Kevin? So the twenty to thirty thousand Protestant Churches teaching different doctrines are now the Catholic Church?
      First you call Augustine a Roman Catholic even though he says he follows the authority of the Catholic Church. The best I can tell Kevin the term Roman Catholic was coined after the Church of England was formed and took on the name Anglocatholic. So Augustine says he is a Catholic, the term Roman Catholic is nonexistent til hundreds of years later and Kevin says Augustine was a Roman Catholic.
      Definitely plan to post more on your post above but I would hope anyone interested in the truth will read the history of the canon selection either Protestant or Catholic accounts and compare those histories to Kevin’s synopsis. And Kevin, you again have not addressed the use in the early church of the Septuagint. Read Wisdom 2:12-20 and tell me the writer was not inspired.
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 23, 2020 at 11:01 pm
        
        As you know Betty the word for church ecclessia means assembly. Paul used church as a metaphor for the body of believers . The early church was catholic which means universal until about 389 and then yes was Protestant. Tim has actually started to trace the church after the rise of the Roman Catholicism in late 4th century. Please read his article The rise of Roman Catholicism. And then at the rise of the beast of Rome God hid his true church in the Wilderrness. Tim has started to trace the church after 389. Read it it’s fascinating. I think if you honestly read the articles on this site you so will see you sit in the pews of antichrist. I believe Roman Catholicism is a false Christianity and a front for the kingdom of Satan. I will pray God will use Out of His Mouth to show you that. K
      2. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 24, 2020 at 7:11 am
        
        ” and Kevin you again have not addressed the use in the early church of the septuagint.” The septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew, nothing more nothing less. WCF ” The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being divine inspiration, are not a part of the canon of scripture, and therefore are no authority in the church of God. nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”
Kevin Failoni says:

August 20, 2020 at 5:16 pm

Well Nick, we all have to answer the same question, according to whom? You trust in the meritorious system of you church, I trust in the Word alone. But a church cant save you, only the Word. Obviously you use James 2 to justify climbing the Roman ladder to justification. But Abraham didnt offer up Isaac until 30 years after he was counted righteous in Genesis 15:6. Maybe Abe was meriting his justification at the mass huh. Lol all the best climbing the Roman ladder to perfection so you can make it to purgatory. The good news indeed. Lol k

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 20, 2020 at 9:46 pm
  
  Kevin says “But Abraham didnt offer up Isaac until 30 years after he was counted righteous in Genesis 15:6.”
  
  What do you think the word “fulfilled” means in that passage from James?
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 20, 2020 at 10:28 pm
    
    The word fulfilled means his faith was justified, demonstrated, proved. It doesnt changed the fact that he was counted righteous in 15:6 by belief, apart from merit or works.
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 20, 2020 at 9:36 pm

Kevin–
Here is a statement from an official document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican:
“We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace…
When Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.”

Do you agree this is biblically true?

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 20, 2020 at 10:24 pm

Nick thanks so much for your last post, especially this sentence from the Doctrine of faith in the Vatican. Because this is instructive in the difference between the biblical justification and the Roman Catholic justification. Catholics are justified COOPERATING with his grace. Unfortunately Paul says we Christians are justified FREE by his grace” they ain’t the same. Roman 4:5 condemns Roman justification ” Buy to the one who does not work, by believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Nick God justifies an ungodly man who does not work, let me say it again God justifies a man who does not work. Got it. Simply by believing Christ’s righteousness is credited to the man. No COOPERATION in justification. Sorry Nick.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 20, 2020 at 10:30 pm

Freely by his grace

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

August 20, 2020 at 11:52 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment. I agree. Let’s move on. Still, I would like your comment on how you understand perseverance and your interpretation of (1 Peter 5:8).

Re. 1 Cor 15:2 you commented:
“Why did Paul … look elsewhere.”

In addition to that you said a little later:
“Out of many different … on this much, right?”
Right. That’s close enough.

And based on it you concluded that:
“The latter part presumes one of the three options I listed, rather than leaving it ambiguous (and misleading).”
Wrong. I told you why it should be #4 (just the first part, without the additional words). Paul never mentions works in the sentence and neither did I.
He is clearly praising them for having believed (past) and for standing firm in the faith. Then, I ask you, why is he conditionally (be “if”, “unless”, “or else”, it doesn’t matter) warning them now? The answer is to be found in the following narrative. He is concerned that “some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead” 1 Cor 15:12. And he tells them “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching has been in vain and your faith is in vain.” 1 Cor 15:13-14

Re: “doctrinal corruption”.
You said:
“When you talk … due to its Hebraisms.
You have the right to your opinion, but you have no doctrine or creed against which to measure it. If you are going to judge “doctrinal corruption” you need to set up the bar first and then make sure that you understand the doctrine correctly. You have misrepresented Catholic doctrine here and I’ll give you an example using your own words.

You told Betty:
“Consider these choices:
1) Faith in God alone is needed for salvation
2) Faith and works are necessary for salvation (descriptive)
3) Faith and works are required for salvation (prescriptive)
Of these #1 and #2 are tautologically equivalent. #3 IS THE RCC POSITION (emphasis mine). But in the Pew poll, there is no way to distinguish between #2 and #3. The difference between the Protestant position (#1 and #2) and the RCC position (#3) is that the latter relies on prescription of works and circular reasoning while the former relies on works and no circular reasoning.”
Here is the exact RCC POSITION from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is NECESSARY (emphasis mine) for obtaining that salvation.” CCC #161

Peace.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 21, 2020 at 10:26 am
  
  Phil,
  
  “I would like your comment on how you understand perseverance and your interpretation of (1 Peter 5:8). “
  
  Why? Just read the next sentence:
  
  “Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.”
  
  1 Peter speaks of suffering (1:6,11; 2:19-23; 3:14,17-18; 4:1,13,15-16,19; 5:1,9,10), trials (1:6), test (4:14), anxiety (5:7), submission (2:13-24,3:1-7), insults (2:23, 4:14), rejection (2:4,7), harm (3:13), fiery ordeal (4:14), and end (4:7).
  
  Perserverance—in the Catholic sense—is “remaining in the state of grace until the end of life.” There is nothing to comment on, because you are begging the question. Moreover, this…
  
  “Final perseverance cannot be strictly merited, as though a person had a claim on dying in grace because he or she had been faithful all through life. Nevertheless it can, with unfailing success, be achieved by proper prayer, offered regularly and earnestly, in the state of grace.”
  
  …is incoherent double-speak.
  
  “Paul never mentions works in the sentence and neither did I.”
  
  Because he was talking only about faith. Faith alone. And standing firm in that faith—and onlythat faith—just as Peter also says in 1 Peter 5:9.
  
  “why is he conditionally warning them now? “
  
  It is not a conditional warning. The verb tense and grammar do not permit that interpretation. I gave you two example translations highlighting this.
  
  “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching has been in vain and your faith is in vain.”
  
  How is it that you can read this, understand it, and then not understand that I am correct about 15:2? These two verses tell you which of the three options in 15:2 is probably the correct one to choose.
  
  Along with 15:2, these explain that without the correct faith at the time of your conversion, one is not and never has been a believer. Protestations to the contrary are irrelevant. That is the warning.
  
  “Here is the exact RCC POSITION from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is NECESSARY (emphasis mine) for obtaining that salvation.””
  
  But is that faith sufficient—all alone by itself? If not, then please don’t attempt to deceive me again with double-speak.
  
  “You have misrepresented Catholic doctrine here [..] So maybe Derek doesnt have a grasp on RCC doctrine. But his argument is correct.”
  
  I do not have a good grasp on RCC doctrine, as anyone can plainly see. The esoteric knowledge required understand it goes so far beyond what I could ever come up with by reading scripture and following the Spirit. The fact that no one can counter Kevin’s (or Tim’s) objections tells me that spending time on it would be a catastrophic waste of time. Moreover, I asked “What does the RCC offer that I do not already have?” and got nothing.
  
  My arguments are correct and do not rely on any doctrinal understanding. I’m careful to make sure that my assumptions do not impact my arguments in any way. At worst, my arguments would be strawmen, but that still wouldn’t make them wrong.
  
  “you have no doctrine or creed against which to measure it. If you are going to judge “doctrinal corruption” you need to set up the bar first and then make sure that you understand the doctrine correctly. “
  
  I reject the question-begging assumption that we need doctrine or creed to understand what God wants us to do. Doctrines and creeds are mere descriptions of what scripture says, so any deviation from God’s will is doctrinal corruption and it can be judged from any deviation from scripture. There have been numerous examples of scriptural deviation in this thread, and none of them require me to become a Roman Catholic doctrinal scholar to detect. As Jesus said, I will know it by its fruit.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Phil Sanz says:
    
    August 21, 2020 at 7:27 pm
    
    Hi Derek,
    Thank you for all your comments. On perseverance, you did not clarify anything for me. I did not mention a need for a creed or doctrine to be saved. A doctrine may or may not be God’s will, but you cannot claim “doctrinal corruption” without a doctrine to corrupt. I understand that you think 1 Cor 15:2 is ambiguous, but the IF is conditional, and I cannot change it. If we go with the REV translation you mentioned and the understanding of salvation as sanctification it may make more sense to you.
    
    Later you said:
    “Here is the exact … with double-speak.
    God is the one to decide if it is SUFFICIENT or not. Luther, the proponent of FAITH ALONE allegedly explained it as “FAITH ALONE, but a FAITH that is not ALONE”. In that case, my answer is YES.
    
    And added:
    “You have misrepresented … make them wrong.
    I am comfortable dealing with you on scriptural basis and logic only. I have dealt with Tim and Kevin in the past and all they have offered me have been strawmen arguments and misrepresentations of my beliefs. If you are interested in understanding Catholic biblical thought I will be happy to oblige. I am always “ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” 1 Peter 3:15. All I ask in return, for clarity and practical reasons, is to deal with a simple point at a time with due respect for each other.
    
    Peace.
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 22, 2020 at 1:13 pm
      
      Phil said to Derek ” the if is conditional” Phil he is speaking about the gospel and them believing it. Because in vain means without success. He’s talking about if you have believed these propositions. What are they ? He tells us, Christ does, was buried, and raised on the 3rd day. Later in the chapter verse 14 he uses the same phrase in relationship to some not believing in the resurection ” our preaching was in vain and you believed in vain” Iow if Christ wasnt raised what good is your faith. Incidentally Phil notice the outcome of Christ’s death and resurection according to Paul, you’re not in your sins. This is consistent with all legal decrees being cancelled against us in Collosians 2:14 and our sins removed. Incidentally, I dont have time but I can show you from scripture how all of salvation is forensic to Paul. But that’s for another Time. I’d love to hear Tim weigh in on 15:2 in context of all of 1 Corintians 15 and the resurection. Thx K .
      
      Reply
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      August 24, 2020 at 10:11 pm
      
      Phil,
      
      “On perseverance, you did not clarify anything for me.”
      
      What clarification do you want? You gave me an open-ended question. You didn’t define ‘perseverance’, the reference I cited engaged in logically contradictory double-speak, and 1 Peter 5:8 isn’t talking about “remaining in the state of grace until the end of life.”
      
      “you have no doctrine or creed against which to measure it [..] you need to set up the bar first and then make sure that you understand the doctrine correctly. [..] you cannot claim “doctrinal corruption” without a doctrine to corrupt.”
      
      My ‘doctrines and creeds’ are the Bible, the bar against which I judge. Doctrines that corrupt the Bible are doctrinal corruptions because they are corruptions of scripture. To wit:
      
      “Doctrines and creeds are mere descriptions of what scripture says, so any deviation from God’s will is doctrinal corruption and it can be judged from any deviation from scripture.”
      
      Instead of “doctrinal corruption”, I could say “doctrines resulting from corrupting scripture”, but what is the relevance of the Sheep and Goats discussion to our discussion?
      
      “the IF is conditional, and I cannot change it.”
      
      That is not an argument and isn’t a refutation of my argument: the first part is conditional on the second part (“if…”), but the third part (“unless…”) is not conditional on the second part, due to the grammar. Even so, it is a weak conditional, as the ‘being made whole’ (a process) is dependent on holding firmly. This makes the ‘if’ qualitatively conditional, not absolutely conditional (i.e. either-or). On the other hand, the the first and second parts are absolutely conditional on the the third part being false.
      
      “If we go with the REV translation you mentioned and the understanding of salvation as sanctification it may make more sense to you.”
      
      Wait, what? Earlier you admonished me for:
      
      “bringing up JUSTIFICATION when I was talking about SALVATION.”
      
      Now you want to bring up sanctification in place of salvation? Sanctification and salvation are not the same thing! According to the CCC Glossary, the RCC agrees: justification includes both salvation and sanctification, two different things.
      
      I’m fine with the word sōzesthe in 1 Cor 15:2 referring to the on-going process of sanctification and not salvation in the soteriological sense. What I don’t understand is why you were talking only about salvation earlier. If you are going to concede my point and accept a blatantly anti-Catholic translation choice, then that’s perfectly fine with me. I’m just really confused.
      
      ““JUSTIFICATION IS ALWAYS PAST TENSE” (emphasis yours) I never said anything different and since you brought it up again: YES, YES, YES. I agree. I hope that’s clear enough for you to accept it and leave it alone.”
      
      Given #1: Justification is always past tense (above)
      Given #2: Sanctification is on-going (1 Cor 15:2)
      Given #3: Salvation is the remission of sin, restoration of relationship, and is by God alone (CCC Glossary)
      Given #4: Justification includes both salvation and sanctification (CCC Glossary)
      By #2 and #4, justification must be on-going because sanctification is on-going. But by #1, justification is not on-going.
      
      Your givens (#1 and #2) lead to contradiction with the CCC. Also, by #1 , #3, and #4 salvation must also be past tense (which it is, according to the CCC, but not according to us).
      
      “I am comfortable dealing with you on scriptural basis and logic only.”
      
      I don’t know if it comes across in my writing, but I’ve found our discussions largely constructive and enjoyable. I hope you agree.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 8:13 am

Catechism of the Catholic church” believing in Jesus Christ and in the one who sent him for our salvation is NECESSARY for obtaining that salvation” ya, but it is sufficient according to RCC doctrine. No!!! And there is the ” doctrinal corruption.” So maybe Derek doesnt have a grasp on RCC doctrine. But his argument is correct. I certainly have a grasp of RCC doctrine. Phil, you presupposition is flawed, therefore are unable to read 15:2 ( as well as other verses) the way it was intended. K

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 21, 2020 at 9:37 am
  
  Kevin says “The word fulfilled means his faith was justified,”
  
  Justified by what? James says by works.
  
  Kevin also says “Catholics are justified COOPERATING with his grace. Unfortunately Paul says we Christians are justified FREE by his grace” they ain’t the same.”
  
  You didn’t read what I posted, did you. Look what it says:
  “Justification takes place solely by God’s GRACE…
  When Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of GRACE, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.”
  
  By your response, you agree with the Catholic Church.
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 21, 2020 at 10:02 am
    
    Nick, that’s right faith is justified by its works before men in the way that wisdom is justified by its children. But Abe was justified before God by faith alone in 15:6. What it certainly doesnt justify is a meritorious sacramental system, nor a gospel of gracious merit. The gospel is told and believed, not lived. And simply believing in the gospel imputes the righteousness of Christ to that person whose standing is always righteous before God. Scripture says repent and believe in the gospel, not do penance and live the gospel.
    
    Reply
  2. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 21, 2020 at 10:10 am
    
    Nick said ” justification takes place solely by God’s grace” do you know the doctrine of your church?! I think not. Justification in Rome is a cooperation between you and God. Unfortunately for you Romans 10:4 says Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to those who believe. In Rome Christ is the BEGINNING of the law for righteousness to all who believe. I do not agree with the Catholic church. Justification in the Catholic church is regeneration initially and the the process of sanctification. But in scripture it’s always past tense and complete. I’m no less righteous today then when I first believed because by faith Christ’s active and passive obedience is counted in my place. Roman’s 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:21.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      August 24, 2020 at 10:21 am
      
      Kevin, you wrote,
      
      “Nick said ” justification takes place solely by God’s grace” do you know the doctrine of your church?! I think not.”
      
      But Nick was simply quoting from a Vatican source, the Joint Declaration on Justification. It is not from Trent or the Catechism, but it is nevertheless a doctrine of his church. There are some Roman Catholics who disagree with that, and some that agree. But if a Roman Catholic posts an official teaching of his church, and you respond that he obviously does not know what his church teaches, I do not see how any productive conversation could possibly ensue.
      
      If you think the Joint Declaration on Justification was a compromise position with the Lutheran World Federation, then say so, and explain why you do not believe it is a faithful representation of what you to believe to be the true Roman Catholic teaching on justification. If you believe that Rome has issued inconsistent statements on Justification, and that the Joint declaration is inconsistent with previous teachings on justification, then say so, and point out the differences and inconsistencies. If you believe different Roman Catholics have received the Joint Declaration with varying degrees of suspicion and receptivity, then say so, and explain why such confusion may exist within Rome.
      
      But to accuse Nick of not understanding what his own church teaches when all he has done is post what his own church teaches strikes me not only as unproductive, but unthinking, knee-jerk, and uncharitable.
      
      You may need to reduce your total volume of posts in order to increase the quality of your conversation, but in the end I think that would increase the value of the exchanges in which you engage.
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin Failoni says:
        
        August 24, 2020 at 10:43 am
        
        Tim, good advice on amount of posts. I’ll make less and I agree on value. K
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 9:55 am

” for God so loved the world that He gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace, but not enough grace to keep all these things in a state of sanctifying grace since He has not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them from losing the state of grace” sums it all up in Romanism k

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 21, 2020 at 11:56 am

Kevin said “Nick said ” justification takes place solely by God’s grace” do you know the doctrine of your church?! I think not.”

Obviously you don’t. That is an official document issued by the Vatican. You have been listening too long to anti-Catholic rhetoric that you ignore the truth when you see it.

Reply
1. Kevin Failoni says:
  
  August 21, 2020 at 12:33 pm
  
  Nick ” obviously you dont” Trent ” if anyone says that a man is absolved from sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by his faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema. Got that Nick in your synagogue justification involves YOU and your cooperation. Grace is nothing more than the means of exchange in your church merit system. Like my friend always says, nothing hurts your golf score more than witnesses. K
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 12:20 pm

Derek said ” doctrines and creeds are mere descriptions of what scripture says” this is interesting and true. Even the WCF says reformed and always being reformed. Secondary documents, confessions etc. are very useful but secondary to infallible scripture. But Derek, for a guy like Phil or Betty etc. they must submit to all official RCC doctrine, all of it, or they are in bad standing with the church. For instance the Pope claims the religious sword and the civil sword in RCC doctrine. Iow he is king of the earth. Catholics must assent to that. Of course their faith is in the wrong head, and they are caught up in a system where grace is only the means of exchange on the church merit system. K

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 21, 2020 at 3:02 pm
  
  Kevin–
  ” if anyone says that a man is absolved from sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by his faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.”
  
  That’s right. Just because you believe you are absolved and justified doesn’t make it so. It’s by God’s grace alone. You can’t just believe yourself into sinlessness.
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 3:14 pm

Nick, you avoided the main point ” and that by his faith alone absolution and justification are affected” justification is completed thru faith alone. Romans 5:1 therefore HAVING BEEN justified by faith we have peace with God.” Grace in scripture is unmerited favor, but in your synagogue it’s the means of exchange on the church merit system. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 3:25 pm

” you cant just believe yourself into sinlessnes” I don’t think you understand justification in scripture. The word is daikaiou. It means to be counted righteous. It dosent mean you mean you become sinless. In fact Paul says God justifies an UNGODLY man who does not work. Watch Rimans 4:5 ” but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the UNGODLY , his FAITH is CREDITED to him as righteousness.” I hope you, and Phil, and Betty will look at 4:5. Just to review, Paul says God justifies an ungodly man, not a righteous man as your synagogue says, a man who does not work, that eliminates your cooperation. How does God justify an ungodly man who does not work, by counting to us the perfect righteousness of Christ. Unfortunately your church confused the in us with the for us. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 4:11 pm

Derek said ( in relation to the OT canon) ” no it wasnt” DR the words of Jesus say otherwise. Luke 24:44 ” He said to them ” this is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” The OT canon was completed in the days of Jesus.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 21, 2020 at 4:28 pm
  
  Of course the OT canon was completed in the days of Jesus. It happened 200 plus years before. 72 Jewish scholars reportedly took part in the Greek translation process. The scholars worked in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.), It’s called the Septuagint.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 24, 2020 at 8:17 am
    
    Nick and Kevin,
    
    So you both (1) agree that the OT canon was completed in the time of Jesus (for maybe hundreds of years) and (2) disagree on what the composition was. If you don’t see the irony here, I don’t know what else to say.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Kevin Failoni says:
      
      August 24, 2020 at 9:29 am
      
      DR, strawman argument. You and Phil disagree on justification and salvation, how is that ” irony” affect the truth. Incidentally, it’s not me that says the OT canon was completed. Jesus said as much in Luke 24:44. To the law and to the testimony. The septuagent is nothing more than a Hebrew translation. K
      
      Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 21, 2020 at 4:12 pm

Kevin says: ” I don’t think you understand justification in scripture.”

I don’t think you understand what that canon of Trent is saying.
Yes, you must to be born again with the Spirit–IN CHRIST. YOU can’t just believe YOURSELF into being justified. That’s called self righteousness. That doesn’t absolve you of sins nor does it justify.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 4:39 pm

Way to skip Romans 4:5 Nick. Of course if I were a Roman Catholic I wouldn’t like Romans 4:5. That verse alone destroys not only RC justification, but the gospel of gracious merit in your church. Your church says that God justifies a righteous man who cooperates. But Paul says in 4:5 God justifies an ungodly man who does not work but believes. How does he do that? By counting his faith as righteousness. Of course the faith isnt righteousness, it is merely the instrument that receives Christ.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 21, 2020 at 8:56 pm

Phil said to DR ” I have dealt with Kevin and Tim in the past and all they have offered me is strawman arguments and misrepresentations of my beliefs” and then ” if your interested in understanding Catholic biblical thought I will oblige” so Derek, I interpret Catholic tongues, a gift God gave me. Phil is saying I’m here to convert you to Catholicism, and if I cant I will charge you ,like Kevin and Tim, with being noncompliant and disingenuous. K

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 22, 2020 at 10:00 am

Derek and Phil, I’ve been watching your discussion on 1 Corinthians 15:2. I think its extremely important to look at the broader context of chapter 15 where Paul gives the hypothetical of if Christ not being raised then we are still in our sins and our faith is useless. He also uses the phrase there that we believed in vain. That phrase in vain means unsuccessfully. Paul then says ” but now” after the hypothetical he says Christ is raised. He is talking about the propositions we believe about the gospel. If we believe in a Christ that hasn’t been raised then it is in vain. The resurection was an issue with some Christians in Corinth. Of course the Catholic tries to read the if as you have to live the gospel, when Paul is talking about the nature of the message we believe. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 23, 2020 at 3:45 pm

Kevin says “Your church says that God justifies a righteous man who cooperates.”

Does your church teach that you should not cooperate with God?

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 23, 2020 at 5:13 pm

” does your church teach that you should not cooperate with God” of course not. We are to obey the Spirit of God as God sanctifies us thru his word. But our obedience to God is never the grounds for our justification before Him. Our justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ that comes by faith alone. Paul calls all his righteousness DUNG in Phillipians 3:9 as compared to the righteousness he gained thru faith. Romans 4:5 now to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES in Him who justifies THE UNGODLY” his FAITH is counted as righteousness” Nick, God justifies and ungodly man who does not work Paul says. That exempts becoming inherently perfect or works. He uses the most righteous man of the Jews Abraham and says his works dont mean anything in his justification. That means James is talking about a different justification, namely how a true faith is demonstrated. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 23, 2020 at 11:05 pm

So when the Catholic Church makes the official statement ”justification takes place solely by God’s grace”
and
“When Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of GRACE, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.”
why do you think that is a bad thing since you yourself believe that it is right to cooperate with God by obedience as an effect of His grace?

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 24, 2020 at 4:52 am

Roman’s 3:23″ now APART from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested , being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God thru FAITH in Jesus Christ to all those who BELIEVE, being JUSTIFIED as a GIFT by his grace.” can it be any clearer Nick. We are justified apart from anything we do. The righteousness of God ( Christ’s perfect righteousness that justifies us) comes by faith alone as a GIFT of his grace, not COOPERATING with his grace. That means our Spirit led works can only demonstrate our faith before men but are never the grounds for our justification. The word for justification means to count righteous. Roman’s 10:4″ Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE.” In the RC Christ is the BEGINNING of the law to all who believe. Sorry Nick, there is no cooperation in justification. It comes by faith alone. Rome confused the in us with the for us, not understanding salvation comes just from the goodness of God, not by merit. Grace in Catholicism is the means of exchange on the church merit system. Romans 4:16 says if a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone.” K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 24, 2020 at 9:19 am
  
  Kevin will start a new post. Concerning the Septuagint which was the Old Testament for the early Catholic Church and pointing out to you Wisdom 2:12-20 you wrote “The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew, nothing more, nothing less”. Seriously Kevin, where do you find Wisdom in your Protestant bible? Do you deny that Wisdom 2:12-20 is not a prophesy of Christ? In fact I can’t think of any prophesy in the rest of the books of the Old Testament that more clearly point to Christ. And then you quote a statement from the WCF. What year was that Kevin? Obviously after the Protestant reformation. What is funny about this whole discussion is you argue on the New Testament “the community of the faithful recognized these books were the Word of God because the Spirit caused them to recognize the Master’s voice”. But that same community recognized the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonicals as the Old Testament. Now should I follow the WCF (in what year? )or the Spirit led early Church community?
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 24, 2020 at 9:33 am

I’m a reformed Christian that believes in the 66 books of the bible. Anything else is a human writing. Derek said he doesn’t need a defined canon. That’s fine. In the end only God can bind our conscience. The septuagent is simply a Hebrew translation nothing more nothing less.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 24, 2020 at 10:51 am
  
  Kevin, you just can’t keep putting your head in the sand and say the Septuagint is just a translation, nothing more and nothing less. Deal with the fact that the same community that recognized the New Testament canon accepted the Septuagint as the Old Testament with the deuterocanonical books. I agree it is odd if Derek does not feel the need for a defined canon but it’s probably no more irrational then your resistance to give credit to the Catholic Church for the New Testament canon that you accept. The irony is both you and Derek claim the fullness and guidance of the Sprit and yet disagree on this and only God knows how many other issues
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 24, 2020 at 12:58 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    This is firstly an historical/academic issue and secondly a theological issue. You all argue that the OT canon was established by the 1st century, but You and Nick include the deuterocanonicals, rather than the future Tanakh. Much historical evidence is against both positions. You are all overzealously confident.
    
    The evidence (including Josephus’ 22-book list) strongly suggests that Kevin’s assertion is correct in Palestine (and thus, Jesus). The LXX assertion may be correct among the Diaspora, but the evidence is weaker (with stronger countervailing evidence). Nevertheless, it suggests that there was no worldwide unified canon.
    
    For the Protestant, theologically this doesn’t really matter. Kevin and I both use the canon that Jesus used and call it a day. But for the Catholic, this is devastating. It contradicts and invalidates its sacred tradition narrative. I encourage you to read the article where I lay out the details.
    
    “I agree it is odd if Derek does not feel the need for a defined canon”
    
    Why is it odd? Jesus didn’t commission a new canon, but sent the Spirit to reveal all things.[1] Personal revelation is Christianity.[2] A canon is—at best—helpfully supplements the leading of the Holy Spirit. But, a canon is—at worst—a serious obstacle preventing the revelation of the Spirit. One who starts by asking for (or insisting upon) a canon has already missed the mark.
    
    [1] It was a two-part strategy: send disciples to evangelize and the Spirit to reveal. It required nothing written.
    
    [2] Christianity is firstly a mystical religion, because its founders—including Jesus, Paul, and John—were mystics: Ancient Near East Hebrews. Non-mystical, bureaucratic Christianity can make little sense of John stating that the Spirit is real and teaches all things (1 John 2).
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 24, 2020 at 1:33 pm
      
      Derek, I never said that the canon of either the Old or New Testament was established by the 1st century. I just pointed out that the early Christian considered the Septuagint as the Old Testament. Since neither an Old Testament or New Testament inspired writer left us a canon list the question is who decides. I believe some of the leaders of the Jewish community did come together after Christ’s death and came up with a Hebrew canon but you have to deal with the fact that the Septuagint in which the Jewish translators provided by the chief priest in Jerusalem translated the Jewish scriptures included the deuterocanonical books. Now I think it is very odd for you to believe in Sola Scriptura and deny the need for a canon. Not only does everyone interpret scripture through their “personal revelation” but now they decide which books of the New Testament they should accept. So I would assume you would have no problem with Marcion’s canon right. I’m sure he felt he was guided by the Spirit right? Your view that having an established canon might actually be bad as it might be “a serious obstacle preventing the revelation of the Spirit” to be very bizarre.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 24, 2020 at 3:40 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        Thank you for clarifying your position, which I misunderstood. Let me clarify my own:
        
        “Now I think it is very odd for you to believe in Sola Scriptura and deny the need for a canon.”
        
        I am not Reformed. I’m technically not even Protestant. I’m Anabaptist out of the ‘Church of the Brethren’ tradition. The Bible is my creed. I don’t much go for doctrinal formulations.
        
        “…you have to deal with the fact that the Septuagint in which the Jewish translators provided by the chief priest in Jerusalem translated the Jewish scriptures included the deuterocanonical books. “
        
        I don’t actually. You have not established this as historical fact. The 4th and 5th century LXX codices do not agree on composition, so why should I assume that the 1st century LXX (of which we have no copies) both universally and consistently contained the same composition of deuterocanonicals? Even Catholic Jason Evert on Catholic.com defending the deuterocanonicals stated:
        
        “If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ. [..] Ultimately, [Jerome] recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.”
        
        The LXX composition was not consistent. It doesn’t agree with the RCC’s canon either. Catholic apologists had to look to the Ethiopian Jews to find a group of Jews that use the same canon, while explicitly acknowledging that it differed from the Palestinian Jewish canon (link).
        
        Is Jerome wrong? Is Evert wrong?
        
        “Since neither an Old Testament or New Testament inspired writer left us a canon list the question is who decides. “
        
        This begs the question. Canon formation was bottom-up (community-driven). This is why there was no canon list. Then, as noted above, the RCC innovated by making it top-down (authority-driven). That was the error.
        
        “Not only does everyone interpret scripture through their “personal revelation” but now they decide which books of the New Testament they should accept. So I would assume you would have no problem with Marcion’s canon right. I’m sure he felt he was guided by the Spirit right?”
        
        Understanding (loosely, ‘interpretation’) comes from the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t come from personal understanding or feelings. No one determines canon, they merely acknowledge what already is.
        
        “Your view that having an established canon might actually be bad as it might be “a serious obstacle preventing the revelation of the Spirit” to be very bizarre.”
        
        If focusing on canon, written words, and interpretations causes one to rely on that rather than the Spirit and prayer, then that can be catastrophic. This is made even worse if you add an authority on top of it. Bureaucratic (rules-based authority) systems are antithetical to the leading of the Spirit.
        
        Peace,
        DR
Kevin Failoni says:

August 24, 2020 at 10:41 am

Tim thanks I was aware of the joint declaration on justification, but was not aware that Nick was citing it. Thanks for the clarification, and an apology is in order to Nick. Thx K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 24, 2020 at 11:27 am

Kevin said “even the righteousness of God thru FAITH in Jesus Christ to all those who BELIEVE, being JUSTIFIED as a GIFT by his grace.” can it be any clearer Nick. We are justified apart from anything we do.”

Yes, it can’t be any clearer: “they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, NOT as an action arising from innate human abilities.” That translates from English to Kevinese as “we are justified apart from anything we do.” Trent agrees:
Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

And thanks for your apology, even though it was after admonishment from Tim.

Reply
Betty says:

August 24, 2020 at 12:08 pm

Had a chance to review an article on Wikipedia called Luther’s canon. I knew of his problem with James but was not aware he also had some issue with Hebrews, Jude and the Book of Revelation. They do mention the date of the Westminster Confession of Faith Kevin. 1646.

Reply
Betty says:

August 24, 2020 at 8:39 pm

Derek, I think your last two post definitely express some unorthodox views of the scriptures as it pertains to the canon and private revelation. First I was taken back by your statement “1) it was a two part strategy, send disciples to evangelize and the Spirit to reveal. It required nothing written.” Hard to accept such a statement based on Paul’s admonition to hold fast to both oral and written tradition. Then you say the Bible is your creed while stating at the same time that over emphasis on the correct canon may be a “serious obstacle preventing revelation by the Spirit. “ In your latest post I find your assertion “canon formation was bottom up” pretty much as Kevin’s claim that it was the community that decided the canon. It has always been the leaders of the Church , especially the bishops of the Catholic Church who focused the Church’s attention as to what was scripture and what should be spoken and discussed in their liturgical services. Your assertion that somehow focusing on the canon, written words and scriptural interpretation is a diversion from the Spirit and prayer creates an either / or situation that does not nessesarily exist. In fact you could easily argue to maximize our relationship with the Spirit and our prayer life it is essential that we have the correct canon and interpretation of Scripture ( the Eucharist for example). Your final comment about authority of course also flies in the face of the Bible which you claim as your creed. Do we need to go over the verses in the Bible where Christ gave authority to His church.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 24, 2020 at 10:39 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  I accept the canon that Jesus accepted and require no other, but that doesn’t mean I don’t highly value it. My explanation for that is given here: link.
  
  Would you agree that one (or both) of us is interpreting the Bible here in a way that is a serious obstacle to divine revelation because it is wrong? If so, then you understand my point completely.
  
  “It has always been the leaders of the Church”
  
  Formation of canon by leadership is a top-down approach and the historical evidence suggests it was always a bottom-up approach before the church councils centuries after Christ. The consequences of this are profound.
  
  “In fact you could easily argue to maximize our relationship with the Spirit and our prayer life it is essential that we have the correct canon and interpretation of Scripture ( the Eucharist for example). “
  
  First, the Spirit is not limited, so there is nothing canon can provide that the power of the Spirit cannot also do (and more!). Just as it authorized Paul, it could do so again at any time and in any way. Prophecy is a spiritual gift.
  
  Second, whether one is interpreting scripture or following a leaning from the Spirit, both require the real presence of the Spirit to get correct. Neither are inherently superior to the other. That’s why John says that the anointing is sufficient in all things, but still tells them to listen to the teachings.
  
  Third, you can (maybe) get canon wrong, but the Spirit is never wrong.
  
  “Do we need to go over the verses in the Bible where Christ gave authority to His church.”
  
  Not unless you are willing to address my formal arguments that the Roman Catholic understanding of this is based on circular reasoning.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 24, 2020 at 10:47 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    Read John 4 if you want to see an example of what happens when canons do not agree.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 25, 2020 at 2:07 pm
      
      Read it and always enjoyed that chapter. You will have to explain it’s relevance to the current discussion on the canon. We can discuss this chapter further after I read your insight
      
      Reply
  2. Betty says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 2:49 pm
    
    Jesus never left a canon list and if he had surely he would have instructed the apostles who would have passed the list on to the early Christians, especially if Christ had promoted the concept of Sola Scriptura. And the canon formation process was always a top down approach from the beginning. The vast majority of Church Fathers were bishops of the Catholic Church and the few that were not recognized apostolic authority other then Tertullian as he became a Montanist. So you believe the gift of spiritual prophesy is still ongoing., could you give me an example over the last thousand years? And yes, the Spirit is never wrong. I can’t think of a better proof that the Sprit is not leading the chaos and contradicting doctrines found in the Protestant world. Will address the rest of your post later.,
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      August 25, 2020 at 3:53 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      I don’t defend Sola Scriptura. Regarding chaos and contradicting doctrine, Tim has posted a reply. So for now, I’ll say no more.
      
      The top-down approach is ahistorical. I’m satisfied that I have presented enough evidence that various communities had their own canons at least into the 4th century and that the OT canon has never been unified across all communities.
      
      “So you believe the gift of spiritual prophesy is still ongoing., could you give me an example over the last thousand years?”
      
      I can make no sense of your request. Prophecy is revelation of the Spirit. It is a normal part of the Christian congregation and worship, more important than teaching, and second only to apostleship. See 1 Corinthians 12:27-28;14:5,29-30 and Ephesians 2:20.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 24, 2020 at 11:00 pm

Betty, I’m taking a break from blogging for awhile. I just wanted to put a last point on the discussion of you, me, and Derrick. The canon has the authority over the church, not the other way around. When Derek says ” no one determines the canon, they acknowledge it” he’s exactly right. The Spirit made it clear to the men who wrote the scripture that they were writing it, and to the faithful and the church. They simply received it. The church had no authority over the canon. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 8:18 am
  
  Kevin, the canon came out of the Church, the Church did not come out of the canon. And I think it is very telling that both you and Derek are focused on ignoring the FACT that it was the authoritative leaders of the Church , ie the successors of the apostles, the Catholic bishops that resolved the issue . I think your and Derek’s resistance to acknowledging leadership in the Bible and early Church simply spotlights your Protestant bias. Derek’s comments that a teaching authority of Chrst’s Church is anti Spirit is basically nonsense. Why not follow Marcion and his canon? How about Tertullian , wasn’t he following the Spirit when he left the Church. How about Jim Jones, didn’t he claim to be guided by the Spirit? And I was hoping you both would comment on Wisdom 2:12-20.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 9:11 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “And I was hoping you both would comment on Wisdom 2:12-20.”
    
    Then why misrepresent my views? For example, you said…
    
    “Derek’s comments that a teaching authority of Christ’s Church is anti Spirit is basically nonsense.”
    
    …but I said…
    
    “Neither are inherently superior to the other. That’s why John says that the anointing is sufficient in all things, but still tells them to listen to the teachings.”
    
    I have asked you many questions and made many comments that went unanswered. A reciprocal arrangement (like that with Phil) works well.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      August 25, 2020 at 11:25 am
      
      DR–
      I read your article on the relevance of the New Testament.
      That is an interesting opinion. I used to hold the same opinion–that IF Christianity was lived out properly by its adherents, the bible is not needed, just follow in their footsteps. That is a big IF.
      IF by baptism in the water and the Spirit makes you born again, then the Law is written on your heart. Like you said, who needs another holy book?
      IF one is a member of God’s elect, then one certainly does not need a holy book.
      IF one is not elect, then thousands of holy books won’t help anyway.
      And you mentioned circular reasoning when it comes to authority and the canon, then just believing in God is circular. “God is the one and only god. Why? Because he said so” — circular.
      Now I am not being facetious, because if we are Christian, we believe God is the one and only God because he said so. Why? Because we recognize Him as the final authority. Recognition of authority is the key.
      So here’s my questions to you DR:
      How did you come to the belief that there even was a God in the first place and why is He the ultimate authority? Did you come to this belief on your own, or did someone who you respect as authoritative teach you?
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 25, 2020 at 1:39 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        ” I used to hold the same opinion–that IF Christianity was lived out properly by its adherents, the bible is not needed, just follow in their footsteps. That is a big IF.”
        
        I appreciate your candor.
        
        The flip side is Betty’s challenge to hand out Bibles and wait for the result. To the extent that the Bible is the Word of God, it is just as effective as the working of the Spirit (which includes the works James speaks of). The Word of God takes many forms. Now…
        
        ““Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. [Matthew 7:13-14]”
        
        …the big if is why I take Jesus’ warning literally. Tim’s discussions of the Remnant in the “Come Hell or High Water” series also echo this.
        
        “you mentioned circular reasoning when it comes to authority and the canon, then just believing in God is circular. “
        
        Belief in God is not inherently circular.
        
        First: one can reason by logical inference to God. My favorite Catholic writer John C. Wright does this in “The Parable of the King’s Pillar.” He reasons that the existence of universal moral principles—Right Reason or Natural Law—logically requires a universal law-giver.
        
        Second: the revealing of God is primarily spiritual: not strictly a matter of reason. Reason can be applied indirectly when the seeker witnesses the working of the Spirit within a believer.
        
        Third: the Hebrew notion of ‘faith’ is action-oriented belief and trust. You can’t trust something for which you have no evidence or experience. Tautological belief—blind faith—is invalid.
        
        The RCC’s argument from authority, however, is circular.
        
        “How did you come to the belief that there even was a God in the first place and why is He the ultimate authority? Did you come to this belief on your own, or did someone who you respect as authoritative teach you?”
        
        This is hard to answer precisely. God has always revealed himself. There was never a time in memory that I was not aware of His presence. In that sense, I have always known.
        
        I was taught by my family and faith community. Yet, I only came to fully accept that ultimate authority after extensive biblical study and countless hours of prayer when—as a child—I made a public profession of faith and was baptized.
        
        Will you share your testimony?
        
        Peace,
        DR
    2. Betty says:
      
      August 25, 2020 at 12:26 pm
      
      Derek, I did not misrepresent you. You wrote and I quote “This is made even worse if you add an authority on top of it. Bureaucratic (rules based authority)systems are antithetical to the leading of the Spirit”. Now why is it that neither Kevin or you want to deal with the prophesy of Christ in Wisdom 2:12-20. As I mentioned I can only use a cell phone, could you copy and paste the passage and we can see where the Spirit leads the reader.
      I definitely apologize if I have not answered any questions as I am slow, especially on a cell phone. Keep posting them until I give you an answer. OK.
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        August 25, 2020 at 2:24 pm
        
        For reference:
        Wisdom 2:12-20
        New Revised Standard Version
        12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
        because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
        he reproaches us for sins against the law,
        and accuses us of sins against our training.
        13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
        and calls himself a child[a] of the Lord.
        14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
        15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
        because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
        and his ways are strange.
        16 We are considered by him as something base,
        and he avoids our ways as unclean;
        he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
        and boasts that God is his father.
        17 Let us see if his words are true,
        and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
        18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
        and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
        19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
        so that we may find out how gentle he is,
        and make trial of his forbearance.
        20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
        for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Kevin Failoni says:

August 25, 2020 at 11:02 am

” Kevin, the canon came out of the church” no the canon came out of the mouth of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 ” all scripture is inspired by God” it means God breathed. ” The church submits to the word. I personally think 1 John 2:27 was God telling believers in the end only the Spirit by and with the word binds our conscience. If that weren’t the case then how could a believer discern and obey Jesus when he says ” if someone comes to you and says I am the Christ dont believe him” and how could we obey and discern scripture in John when he says keep yourselves from idols. There would not have been a Protestant reformation if we all walked around like Zombies and submitted to Rome. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 12:40 pm
  
  Seriously Kevin. You quote a passage from Paul where Paul is referring to the Old Testament . But amen to what Paul wrote, except you don’t know All Scripture unless someone or a Church guided by the Holy Sprit settles the issue of the disputed books. You haven’t explained why you don’t follow Marcion’s canon. I believe it was the first New Testament canon. Oh that’s right, Marcion was not a successor of the apostles. If Derek does not copy and paste Wisdom 2:12-20 could you?
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 4:26 pm
    
    Betty ” except you dont know all scripture unless someone or a church guides by the Holy Spirit” and yet against your assertion John warns his congregation 1 John 2:26 ” These things I have written concerning those who are trying to deceive you.” John tells them there will be people trying to deceive you. Jesus had a similar warning saying ” if someone comes to you and says I am the messiah dont believe him” Mathew 24:5 so according to John there will be deceivers. And according to Jesus they will claim to be Jesus Christ. The RC makes that claim for itself, and you make that claim for them . What is John’s command to us on assessing claims of deception? 1 John 2:27 says you dont need a teacher, you have the anointing that will give you the truth to judge those claims. I dont want to sound like a broken record but since we will be confronted with deceivers Jesus and John say, we must all ask the question according to whom? The canon is the measure to make that determination for individuals led by the Spirit who cannot lie. K
    
    Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 25, 2020 at 11:46 am

” that if Christianity is lived out by its adherents the bible is not needed.” Well of course Paul, and the Trinty disagree with that. Since Paul said that faith comes thru hearing the word of God, and Jesus said God sanctifies us by his word. In fact Paul said he didnt come to baptize but to preach the gospel. The Spirit washes and regenerates us thru his word Titus 3:5. So much for baptism being necessary for salvation. The bible is consequential in faith, salvation, sanctification, everything. K

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 25, 2020 at 12:02 pm

“There would not have been a Protestant reformation if we all walked around like Zombies and submitted to Rome. ”
Yeah, probably not like World War Z but more likely The Walking Dead–slow moving and their heads being all mushy and stuff. ;-D

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 4:00 pm
  
  DR says– “The RCC’s argument from authority, however, is circular.”
  Maybe not. Here’s why:
  “First: one can reason by logical inference to God. My favorite Catholic writer John C. Wright does this in “The Parable of the King’s Pillar.” He reasons that the existence of universal moral principles—Right Reason or Natural Law—logically requires a universal law-giver.”
  If this is true, then reason would logically require a universal law promulgator as well. That is why Jesus established His Spirit-led Apostolic Church.
  
  “Second: the revealing of God is primarily spiritual: not strictly a matter of reason. Reason can be applied indirectly when the seeker witnesses the working of the Spirit within a believer.”
  As promulgators, then this is also true of the Apostolic Church “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”–John 13:35
  
  “Third: the Hebrew notion of ‘faith’ is action-oriented belief and trust. You can’t trust something for which you have no evidence or experience. Tautological belief—blind faith—is invalid.”
  To an extreme extent, true. But Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”–John 20:29b
  That is why He gave the Apostles the great commission:
  “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”–Mat 28:19ff
  
  And that is how I came to the knowledge of the truth. I was first taught by those who I trusted loved me and had my well being in mind. My mom and dad read us stories from the bible when we were kids. And their moral character confirmed that teaching. My grandmother was the first to tell me that the Bible was the inspired Word of God. As a child, I had no idea what that meant. But as I matured into an adult, it became apparent that it was not so much reading the Word of God, but the teaching of it by those ordained (authorized) to do so. And the more I am taught, the more the Bible confirms it.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 26, 2020 at 8:40 am
    
    Nick,
    
    “reason would logically require a universal law promulgator as well.”
    
    This does not follow from the argument that Wright made. In “The Parable of the King’s Pillar”, the king is the “law promulgator”. Right Reason (or Natural Law) is universal precisely because it does not require a law promulgator.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 25, 2020 at 2:26 pm

Betty,

But you did misrepresent me because I told you exactly what I believe. Only some authorities are anti-Spirit:

“If focusing on canon, written words, and interpretations causes one to rely on that rather than the Spirit and prayer, then that can be catastrophic. This is made even worse if you add an authority on top of it. Bureaucratic (rules-based authority) systems are antithetical to the leading of the Spirit.”

This is conditional and those conditions matter. Bureaucratic authority systems placed on top of spiritual error makes that error much worse, for it causes entrenchment.

“why is it that neither Kevin or you want to deal with the prophesy of Christ in Wisdom 2:12-20. “

But first, what does it mean for something to be inspired?

Here is Wisdom 1:16-2:1,12-20:

“But the ungodly by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away and made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his company. For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves… [..] Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.””

Here is Wisdom 5:1-5 for future reference:

“Then the righteous will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have oppressed them and those who make light of their labors. When the unrighteous see them, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous. They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, “These are persons whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach—fools that we were! We thought that their lives were madness and that their end was without honor. Why have they been numbered among the children of God? And why is their lot among the saints?”

What are your thoughts?

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 7:14 pm
  
  “In the presence of those who have oppressed them and Those Who Make Light Of Their Labors”. Haven’t you guys been making light of Catholic’s meritorious works? “These are persons who we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach-fools that we were! We thought that their lives were madness”. Madness, I think I have heard that before when Protestants comment on our belief in the real presence. Kevin says he won’t even fellowship with Catholics. Do you hold the same view Derek? I think you can look up inspired in the dictionary but for biblical terms I think “God breathed” is suitable. So Derek where does the Spirit guide you on Wisdon2:12-20. Sound familiar?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 11:05 pm
    
    “Kevin says he won’t even fellowship with Catholics. Do you hold the same view Derek?”
    
    No, I do not. In light of Matthew 7:1-6…
    
    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
    
    …I hold rather egalitarian views on heretics, sinners, and people who disagree with me. You have not sinned against me, and even if you did I have forgiven you, so Matthew 18 does not apply.
    
    Now, let’s reason to a kind of reductio ad absurdum…
    
    “So Derek where does the Spirit guide you on Wisdom 2:12-20. Sound familiar?”
    
    Well yes, it does sound eerily familiar.
    
    Wisdom 1:16-2:1 prophesies that the ungodly will make a covenant with death. What separates the godly from the ungodly is the covenant of the Spirit which gives life and the covenant of (works of) the Law that leads to death (2 Corinthians 3:6). But, who are those of the Spirit to which this refers?
    
    As I read Wisdom 2:12-20, I’m uncannily reminded of my people, the Anabaptists. We children of God our Father, who profess to have knowledge of God (v13,16), dared reproached the Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants for their violations of God’s law (v12) and impure debasement of the Lord’s Table and Baptism (v16). Our presence sent the ungodly into a murderous rage, for our ways are very much not like their ways (v14-15). So we were martyred knowing that God would be faithful to his promises of salvation (v16-20).
    
    As I read Wisdom 5:1-5, I note that when the Sheep and Goats are judged, the ungodly will be surprised that we Anabaptists are saved and they are not (v1-2). For wasn’t it the Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants who called us fools and dishonored us in giving us death (v3-4)? And yet we who are called Sons of God have a promised place with Jesus at his return (v5).
    
    Did you expect me to say that Wisdom 2:12-20 prophesies Christ? My explanation fits better… but it is still wrong. Did you expect me to agree with you that it prophesies our discussion with you as the righteous one? My explanation fits better… but it is still wrong.
    
    So, was this the leading of the Spirit, a demonstration of why Wisdom isn’t inspired, or an obvious parody? You did exactly what I did in your response, except you were serious. This is an excellent example of why first addressing Kauffman’s Law is so important.
    
    Moreover, God is not a cosmic vending machine. The gift of prophesy is not something to be called on a whim. It’s not even a gift that everyone possesses! Please do not challenge us to testify—by the Spirit—on what our particular religious communities—by the Spirit—have already determined is a non-canonical work.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 26, 2020 at 7:09 am
      
      Interesting that you do not want to be challenged on what your community has already determined by the Spirit. That’s a very open minded view. Now somehow I don’t think the inspired writer was speaking about a group that was born out of the reformation 1500 years after Christ’s death. And of course the inspired writer writes the righteous man, not righteous men. Child of God, not children of God. He, not they. And what was a more “shameful death” then crucifixion ? But hey, your Church group has decided Wisdom is not in the canon so that just can’t be Christ. Would you classify your Church as a “beaurecratic (rules based authority) system that is antithetical to the Spirit. It sounds like to me it is if you resent even being challenged.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 27, 2020 at 3:57 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “Interesting that you do not want to be challenged on what your community has already determined by the Spirit. That’s a very open minded view. [..] It sounds like to me it is if you resent even being challenged.”
        
        You misunderstand, it is not about avoiding challenge. It is a very consistent view. The consequence of my historical and theological viewpoint is that my community’s canon is what I use and your community’s canon is what you use. My opinion is that your community’s canon is based on historical fiction. It would benefit you to acknowledge that and understand the wider theological implications, but that doesn’t mean the canon is of no spiritual value. This is, indeed, open-minded.
        
        “I don’t think the inspired writer was speaking about a group that was born out of the reformation 1500 years after Christ’s death.”
        
        Why not? If the Spirit reveals that Wisdom 2 is a prophecy of Jesus, why can’t the Spirit reveal that Wisdom 2 is also about the plight of the Anabaptists at the hand of ungodly Protestants and Catholics?
        
        “And of course the inspired writer writes the righteous man, not righteous men. Child of God, not children of God. He, not they.”
        
        I include the quote of Wisdom 5 in anticipation of you making this exact point.
        
        “Why have they been numbered among the children of God?”
        
        Peace,
        DR
Derek Ramsey says:

August 25, 2020 at 7:12 pm

Betty,

The Samaritans are non-Jewish, non-Gentile, genetic Israelites. The term ‘Samaritan’ was a Jewish pejorative. While the Pharisees canon was the 22 or 24-book Tanakh, the Samaritan canon was only the five-book Pentateuch. The Samaritans believed that Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem, is the proper site of God’s temple. It is this context that Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman at the well in John 4.

Jesus talks with her and reveals her secrets. The woman responds:

“I can see that you are a prophet”

The Samaritans based their entire Messianic teaching on Deuteronomy 18:18-22. They explicitly rejected all the Jewish prophets. They expected no prophet except the Messiah, so when the woman said “I can see that you are a prophet”, she already suspected that he was the Messiah. She said:

“I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

She saw in Jesus the fulfillment of prophecy:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.”

But she was surprised that the Messiah was Jewish!

“Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.””

Nevertheless, as a result of her declaration, many Samaritans believed that Jesus was the Messiah, Savior of the World. The Samaritans—a race largely mocked and ridiculed—rejected the Jewish canon, yet immediately recognized the Messiah. Despite their ‘error’, they responded more quickly and more readily than the Jews. Despite their completed canon, it proved of little worth to the Jews who largely rejected Jesus.

Jesus had the chance to tell her that her canon was wrong and point her to the correct one. Not only did he not do that, but instead he said that worship would no longer follow either the Samaritan or Jewish canons. Rather, worship would now be in Spirit and truth. To reiterate:

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Because of Jesus, our interaction with God is now—primarily—through the mode of Spirit, not canon. We do not go Mount Gerazim or Jerusalem to worship at a temple through intermediary priests entrusted with the scripture using prescribed liturgies: we go directly to God. Who does Jesus say God wants?

“true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.”

It is for this reason that Jesus promised to send the Spirit and not a canon. It is for this reason that John speaks of the sufficiency of the anointing of the Spirit.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 7:47 pm
  
  Thanks Derek, enjoyed the background information which I thought was very interesting. I find it quite a stretch that you consider this chapter somehow to represent a commentary by Christ on the canon. What I was going to point out is that the Church Fathers understood that the worship on Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem was sacrificial worship and that Christians continue sacrificial worship in Spirit and in Truth not in those localities but throughout the world. It’s called the Mass
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 9:52 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    “the Church Fathers understood that the worship on Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem was sacrificial worship and that Christians continue sacrificial worship in Spirit and in Truth not in those localities but throughout the world. It’s called the Mass”
    
    You are speculating, not reasoning. In doing so, you demonstrate Kauffman’s Law:
    
    “To the Roman apologist, all existing evidence is assumed to support the Roman position.”
    
    Come, let us reason together.
    
    The Jews and Samaritans were first and foremost religious communities. They were characterized by their canons: the Torah or the Tanakh. Their religious identity was their identity. Jesus’ conversation with the woman is primarily about the canonical differences between the two religious ethnic groups. It is front and center!
    
    When she realizes that he must be the Messiah and that the Messiah is a Jew, not a Samaritan, she immediately—without hesitation—brings up the most important thing she can think of: location of worship. Why? Because if the Messiah was a Jew, then that means the Samaritans were actually wrong for centuries regarding their beliefs on worship.
    
    But what does Jesus do? Rather than confirm her worst fears, he says, in essence, that both the Samaritans and Jews are wrong and location of worship is unimportant.
    
    Imagine how revolutionary it would be if I told you that it does not matter where you worship, who officiates, or what your liturgy is. That’s what Jesus did to the Samaritan woman, and by extension to the Jews as well. Religious observances were their chief cultural identity. Their rulers were religious leaders! In one swoop, Jesus dismantled the whole thing and replaced it with a direct spiritual experience with the God of truth.
    
    Now, what has the RCC done? It’s moved worship into physical synagogues. There are more of them throughout the world—and they call them churches now—but you must go to those locations and undergo prescribed rituals officiated by priests, who tell you what canon you must follow and what sacrifices you must make.
    
    But Jesus doesn’t want places of worship. He explicitly rejected places of worship. He wants you to worship him in Spirit and truth. The Spirit is central.
    
    All this is to say that you have correctly noted that the primary difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant: the oblationem missa—the Sacrifice of the Mass. Though it’s taken a lot of comments to get here, this is—not coincidentally—the focus of Tim’s series.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 26, 2020 at 8:09 am
      
      Got to love you Derek, especially “You are speculating, not reasoning”. Your whole post above is all speculation! You are doing exactly what Timothy Kauffman is accusing Catholics of doing and seem to be oblivious to the fact! Do you see it now that I have pointed it out to you?
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        August 26, 2020 at 8:13 am
        
        Betty,
        
        You said:
        
        “the Church Fathers understood that the worship on Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem was sacrificial worship and that Christians continue sacrificial worship in Spirit and in Truth not in those localities but throughout the world. It’s called the Mass”
        
        Jesus said:
        
        “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth”
        
        To what sacrifice was Jesus referring when he said that the time has now come to worship the Father in Spirit and truth?
        
        Peace,
        DR
Kevin Failoni says:

August 25, 2020 at 7:45 pm

DR ” it is for this reason that Jesus promised to send the Spirit and not a canon” and then ” true worshippers worship him in Spirit and in truth.” Our saviors words served as an implicit critique of samaritan practices and all worship not regulated by God’s word. Our worship must be based on on God’s self revelation in scripture. He is truth and His word is truth. The Spirit does 2 things , convicts men of their sin and lead them in his truth thru his word. K

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 25, 2020 at 7:51 pm
  
  Yes Kevin, God’s word. “This is my Body”
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin Failoni says:
    
    August 25, 2020 at 8:47 pm
    
    I am the the door. I am the bread of life. This is my body. Symbols. Antetypes.
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      August 26, 2020 at 6:18 am
      
      No one when Christ said “I am a door” took him literally. But what happened in the bread of life discourse when six times He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood? And for almost 2000 thousand years the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church has taught that when He said “This is my Body “ he meant “This is my Body”. He could have said represents or symbolizes but he didn’t. Since you were quoting Martin Luther previously I assume you are aware he believed in the real presence.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 26, 2020 at 9:42 am
        
        2000 years
Phil Sanz says:

August 25, 2020 at 11:48 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comments. I agree that constructive discussions are positive and enjoyable. When we put the effort and allow the Holy Spirit to work, wonders actually happen. The controversy over justification was one of the main causes that fueled the Reformation with all of its abominable consequences. In the last decade of the XX century a group of ecumenical theologians came up with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. It is awesome that what had been building over half a millennium started a strong reversal in less than a decade. Just my comment.

Perseverance means to continue a given course of action, in other words: “don’t quit”. 1 Peter 5:8 is an encouragement to Christians to be alert to the dangers of falling into temptation. I don’t see a contradiction with the other verses. To reach soteriological salvation (“remaining in the state of grace until the end of life”) is certainly PERSEVERING in a righteous relationship with God.

I think that saying “doctrines resulting from corrupting scripture” would be more accurate than corrupted doctrines, unless we have a way of measuring the corruption. Jesus used the allegory of the “sheep and goats” Matthew 25:31-46 in His teaching about the final judgement. The doctrine of the Church on the “Final Judgement” is not a corruption of scripture. If you disagree, then you have to prove it. I don’t know if this is the point you wanted to pursue or not.

You said:
“This makes the ‘if’ qualitatively conditional, not absolutely conditional (i.e. either-or). On the other hand, the the first and second parts are absolutely conditional on the the third part being false.”
Right. I never said ABSOLUTELY conditional.

Re:
“bringing up JUSTIFICATION when I was talking about SALVATION.”
Yes, I had admonished you for bringing it up. But you brought it up again with your speculation on the REV translation. I said it was “close enough” because I thought it would help you understand my position without cherry picking. If this does not sufficiently clarify the point, let me know , otherwise, I am OK with letting it ride.
And:
“Now you want to bring up sanctification in place of salvation? Sanctification and salvation are not the same thing! According to the CCC Glossary, the RCC agrees: justification includes both salvation and sanctification, two different things.” Right, and justification is neither of those.

“I’m fine with the word sōzesthe in 1 Cor 15:2 referring to the on-going process of sanctification and not salvation in the soteriological sense.” We can let it go at that.

“What I don’t understand is why you were talking only about salvation earlier. If you are going to concede my point and accept a blatantly anti-Catholic translation choice, then that’s perfectly fine with me. I’m just really confused.” To avoid beating a dead horse. I have gone that route with Kevin several times before. Remember that it was Kevin who brought it up. He defined justification as a “forensic declaration” from God declaring us righteous. I have no problem with that. Even though it is always present to God it can only be applied to us at a specific instant in our lives. That is why after that is always past tense. This is true in regards to recovering our “original righteousness” lost to mankind in Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3) something which we never discussed because Calvinists believe it was total corruption and irreparable even for God. Catholics believe in total regeneration and being born again (John 3:3) to our spiritual nature even though we continue to be subject to the curse of our mortal human nature. Adam (as humanity representative) lost righteousness for all of humanity until Jesus restored it for us (Rom 5). This righteousness is only an individual righteousness and can be lost by sin. David was justified by God and blessed with many good works, then he lost his righteousness by committing murder and adultery. He repented, asked for mercy, and God forgave him. I hope this is enough to substantiate my answer below. I am a slow typist.

This is your argument:
“Given #1: Justification is always past tense (above).
Given #2: Sanctification is on-going (1 Cor 15:2)
Given #3: Salvation is the remission of sin, restoration of relationship, and is by God alone (CCC Glossary)
Given #4: Justification includes both salvation and sanctification (CCC Glossary)”
By #2 and #4, justification must be on-going because sanctification is on-going. But by #1, justification is not on-going.
Your givens (#1 and #2) lead to contradiction with the CCC. Also, by #1 , #3, and #4 salvation must also be past tense (which it is, according to the CCC, but not according to us).”
I don’t accept your interpretation of #4 : “Justification includes both salvation and sanctification” unless the inclusion is meant just for the instant of justification which starts salvation and sanctification (both on-going) at the same time. You seem to interpret that inclusion as total and complete which leads to the apparent contradiction you presented.

Peace

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 26, 2020 at 8:31 am

Phil said ” In the last decade of the XX century a group of ecumenical theologians came up with the joint declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. It is awesome that what had been building over a millennium started a strong reversal in less than a deacade” as if a group of foolish senseless men in search of false unity can throw away 500 years of martyrdom, men dying for the truth. In Gallations 2:5 Paul wouldn’t relent, and those who layed down their life for the truth of the gospel and jbfa wouldn’t also. Here is what Spurgeon said ” We must have no truce , no treaty with Rome. War!War to the knife with her! Peace there cannot be. She cannot have peace with us and we cannot have peace with her. She hates the true church, and we can only say that the hatred is reciprocated. We would not lay a hand upon her priests, we would not touch a hair on their heads. Let them be free, but their doctrine we would destroy from the face of the earth as the doctrine of devils. So let it perish, O God, and let that evil thing become as the fat of lambs. Into smoke let it consume , yes, into smoke let it consume away.” As you can see there can be no false peace with antichrist, no matter what a group of foolish men say. K

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm
  
  That Spurgeon fellow sounds like a really nice guy, wouldn’t you say?
  
  Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 26, 2020 at 9:59 am

Betty” Kevin wont even fellowship with Catholics” just so you understand my position. I’m not willing to throw away 500 years of martyrdom and missionary work for a false unity. Either Protestants look at Roman Catholics as co laborers for Christ or as the mission field. I look at Roman Catholics as the mission field, just as they have been historically . I believe to be a Christian in the Roman church you’d have to be a bad Catholic. I believe Tim has something to the same effect but I dont want to misquote him. The historical reformed view is Roman Catholics were banned from the Lord’s table and prohibited from marrying Roman Catholics etc. 2 Corinthians 6:14. Derek can make his own decision as I believe each person is bound by there own conscience. He has no obligation to agree with me. If someone believes the biblical gospel as me I will fellowship with them. K

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 26, 2020 at 11:21 am
  
  DR says “Right Reason (or Natural Law) is universal precisely because it does not require a law promulgator.”
  
  I disagree. Jesus established his Church with the authority of the Keys to the Kingdom with the power of binding and loosing. (Mat 16:18, Isa 22:22)
  Why do you think He did that?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 26, 2020 at 4:00 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    “I disagree.”
    
    I hear your disagreement, but I will continue—absent a direct refutation—to agree with Wright’s argument.
    
    “Jesus established his Church with the authority of the Keys to the Kingdom with the power of binding and loosing. (Mat 16:18, Isa 22:22). Why do you think He did that?”
    
    I wrote a post on that topic: “Did Jesus Give Peter the Papacy?”. My article on the ‘keys to the kingdom’ argument is not yet finished. Maybe I should stop posting here and finish that.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      August 26, 2020 at 10:32 pm
      
      DR–
      Notice I did not mention Peter, although the text of Matthew does. Peter and the papacy is not a hot button I want to push at this time. That is not the point I was trying to make. My question to you is, why do you think Jesus established His Church with the keys to His kingdom and power of binding and loosing, if not to delegate His authority to promulgate?
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        We were discussing the universal (natural) law and the universal law giver in the context of revelation by the Spirit. None of this requires any other promulgator, so your question is irrelevant. If you wish to pursue that issue further, you’ll need to supply a refutation or counter-argument.
        
        However, I will answer your question anyway, so as to reveal its underlying error.
        
        “Why do you think Jesus established His Church with the keys to His kingdom and power of binding and loosing, if not to delegate His authority to promulgate?”
        
        What is binding and loosing? It is an ancient Pharisaic rabbinic role:
        
        “Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula. By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is, “loose them,” as they have the power to do.”
        
        In Matthew 16:19, ‘estai dedemenon‘ is typically translated “will be bound”. The verb ‘to be’ is not a simple future tense, but rather a future passive periphrastic. It refers to a past action with present (and future) on-going results. The verb ‘bind’ is a perfect future participle. Accordingly, it should be translated thusly and literally:
        
        “…whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven [NASB]”
        
        …or more precisely…
        
        “…whatever you bind on earth must be what is already bound in heaven”
        
        Jesus established his congregation (or followers; that is what ‘church’ means) with authority to bind/loose what God had already bound/loosed. In other words, Jesus’ followers were given the ‘power’ to obey God and declare what God had done in the name of Jesus’ name on His authority. This ‘power’ is declarative and descriptive: it is the good news (i.e. the gospel) of what God has already done.
        
        When a Rabbi gave his disciples the power to bind and loose, he was appointing them as his successors. So in Matthew 28:16-20, when Jesus instructed the eleven to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [..] and teaching them” he was instructing his disciples to make disciples of all nations and pass along to them the binding and loosing.
        
        The same language is used in John 20:23 where Jesus’ followers must declare the forgiveness of sins that God has already (completely) forgiven. Just as in binding and loosing, the Christian has no power, they merely reflect their Father’s will.
        
        Promulgate can mean “put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation”, but this is not what Jesus called his followers to do. Rather, when Christians promulgate they “promote or make widely known (an idea or cause).”. In being a disciple of Jesus, we have the authority and duty to promulgate the gospel.
        
        Peace,
        DR
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 2:43 pm
        
        Yes DR, Jesus established His church and gave it His authority in sharing of His eternal priesthood of binding and loosing. That is why the church has bishops (clerical overseers) to promulgate to the faithful (laity).
      3. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 3:56 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        I said (paraphrasing) this…
        
        “Jesus established his congregation [of believers] and gave them all His authority to share the gospel. That is why everyone in the church is a disciple and the goal of every Christian is to be a messenger of that gospel”
        
        …and you replied…
        
        “Yes DR, Jesus established His church and gave it His authority in sharing of His eternal priesthood of binding and loosing. That is why the church has bishops (clerical overseers) to promulgate to the faithful (laity).”
        
        …with a take completely contradicted by the argument I had just made.
        
        The binding and loosing was given to disciples when the Rabbi gave them his authority after sufficient training. They, in turn, would make their own disciples and give them authority after sufficient training. This is the very purpose of discipleship. It makes no sense to make disciples without training them for their own binding and loosing.
        
        Ancient Pharisaic Rabbis limited who could be their disciples, and thus limited those who could bind and loose. But every Christian is a disciple: the entry requirement to be a follower of Christ is faith. Every last disciple is being trained to bind and loose. And our primary teacher is the Spirit.
        
        The error in your church is fundamental, at its very foundation.
        
        Peace,
        DR
      4. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 4:47 pm
        
        DR says;”The binding and loosing was given to disciples when the Rabbi gave them his authority after sufficient training. They, in turn, would make their own disciples and give them authority after sufficient training. This is the very purpose of discipleship. It makes no sense to make disciples without training them for their own binding and loosing.”
        
        And the Church actually does this with those who are called to the ministry–the clergy. Not all Christian faithful are called to the ministry. Are you saying that the Brethren actually train everyone in your congregation to be pastors? The apostolic Church had bishops and priests. The anti-Nicean Church had bishops and priests. The post-Nicean Church has bishops and priests. Paul trained specific persons for the ministry–not everyone who professed faith in Christ.
        No, DR. The error is in your church fundamentals, not ours.
      5. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 9:19 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        “Are you saying that the Brethren actually train everyone in your congregation to be pastors?”
        
        I said nothing about pastors. I was discussing disciples in the context of binding and loosing. All believers are disciples (Acts 14:21-22). I did not mention clergy, nor did any of the scripture citations I referenced, nor is it relevant.
        
        If making disciples is limited to the clergy in the RCC, as you seem to suggest…
        
        “And the Church actually does this with those who are called to the ministry–the clergy.”</blockquote
        
        …then your church is utterly failing to fulfill the Great Commission.
        
        While not every member of the body is a pastor—nor does every body of believers require one—every member is a priest (1 Peter 2:5-9; Rev 1:6) under one High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16): Jesus. All disciples must be taught the faith so that they might spread the good news in order to make disciples.
        
        If you think binding and loosing has something to do with clergy, I suggest you review this comment.
        
        Peace,
        DR
2. Betty says:
  
  August 26, 2020 at 12:30 pm
  
  Kevin no need to explain. Your clarification was exactly what I understood you to say. Not to get political but your beliefs are very much in line with the political scene at the present time. Republicans look at Democrats as misguided while some Democrats are convinced all Republicans are satanic. Your views have been made crystal clear and fortunately most Protestants don’t hold to your views. But I assume they are not being guided by the Holy Spirit as you claim to be. And the martyrdom issue went both ways as I am sure you know.
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 26, 2020 at 12:35 pm

Kauffman’s Law:
“To the Roman apologist, all existing evidence is assumed to support the Roman position.”

Huh. And I though Kauffman’s Law was:
“To Tim Kauffman, all existing evidence is assumed to support Tim Kauffman’s position.”
My bad.

Reply
Kevin Failoni says:

August 26, 2020 at 12:49 pm

” not to get political but your beliefs are very much in line with the political scene today.” Although totally unrelated comparing the American political situation with the spiritual battle over truth, I think it’s a good comparison of the divide over doctrinal views. Two completely different views. ” and fortunately most Protestants dont hold to your views” most Protestants are ignorant to RC doctrine. 70% Catholics dont even know the mass is a sacrifice of Christ for sins. So I’m not sure that proves anything. ” but I assume are not being guided by the Holy Spirit as you claim to be” you really have a problem with Holy Spirit huh? Your point is to say look at all the disagreements in Protestantism, and yet Tim has pointed out the thousands of contradictions in Catholicism and you are yet to respond to him? So much for the benefits of an ” infallible teaching office” k

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 26, 2020 at 2:05 pm

“70% Catholics don’t even know the mass is a sacrifice of Christ for sins”
At least not in the context you believe it to be anyway. You’re right. It proves nothing.

Reply
Betty says:

August 26, 2020 at 2:05 pm

Sorry Kevin and Tim, Tim’s comments got lost under the barrage of posts and did not allow for a reply underneath the post. Tim provided 5 points of controversy raised in the Catholic Church and Kevin you say “thousands of contradictions”. So much for exaggeration. But it should be addressed. Kevin you said “I believe to be a Christian in the Roman Church you would have to be a bad Catholic”. Now the problem is I don’t know what a bad Protestant is! There are so many doctrinal differences, who knows.? Now any Catholic that opposes the teachings of the Catholic catechism or opposes a duly elected Pope or fails to recognize a universal council is a bad Catholic. You may not like Pope Francis and we all agree there have been bad popes in the past but with the protection of the Holy Spirit the Catholic Church will survive til the end of time while the number of Protestant denominations will continue to grow. The Dogmas and doctrines of the Church are well outlined in the Catholic Catechism. Some Protestant Christians deny that Christ is God! Maybe Kevin you or Tim could provide us with a Protestant Catechism so we could identify a bad Protestant. There lies your problem and a vivid display of contrast that Catholics have with a few outliers and the chaos of dogmatic disunity Protestantism has as a result of private interpretation of Scripture. But Kevin I agree with you there are many Catholics and Protestants that don’t have a good understanding of the faith group they belong to. Both groups need to be better educated.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 26, 2020 at 3:06 pm
  
  Thank you, Betty. You wrote,
  
  “Now any Catholic that opposes the teachings of the Catholic catechism or opposes a duly elected Pope or fails to recognize a universal council is a bad Catholic.”
  
  So you say. But you are one Roman Catholic who believes she is guided by the Spirit into all truth.
  
  Roman Catholic apologists Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon in this video complained that Francis changed the teaching in the catechism on the death penalty. According to them, that makes Francis a bad catholic because he went against the historical and traditional teachings of the catholic church. In subsequent episodes they complained that his document, Amoris Laetitia contained theological error. They believe the pachamama idols Francis placed in the Vatican after the Amazon synod were idols that needed to be removed, even though Francis went to great lengths to place them there and keep them there. They believe Vatican II was a mistake and there is a growing number of Roman Catholics who think so, too, because they believe, as they are guided by the Spirit “into all truth,” that the council taught error. Now all that may be debatable, but it does not remove the fundamental problem and it does not answer the question I asked.
  
  “Now each individual point of disagreement is mutually exclusive, and yet any number of Roman Catholics (or in my case, potential Roman Catholics) hold opposite views on them believing sincerely that they have understood the leading of the Spirit and the teaching of the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium. … How do I know which one is speaking truthfully?”
  
  To say that they should accept the catechism, the pope and ecumenical councils is just a pious platitude. They think, by defending the 1997 catechism against Francis’ changes, by rejecting Francis’ errors promulgated in Amoris Laetitia, by rejecting Francis’ idolatry and pointing out the huge theological errors of Vatican II, that they are the good Catholics and you (the people that defend them blindly) are the bad catholics.
  
  So to whom should I listen. You both claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth yet you each are teaching a different truth. The same spirit has not let you to different truths, has he? This is not the unity for which Christ prayed, is it? You appear to suggest that you have a good understanding of the faith group you belong, too, but Taylor Marshall, who teaches online courses about church history, apologetics, and the liturgy is absolutely convinced the he has a good understanding of the faith group he belongs to, and each week he appeals to Catholics like you to wake up and smell the infiltration.
  
  So I’m asking you, Betty, to whom should I listen if you both claim to be the “real Catholics” and you both claim the others are the “bad catholics” and you both think the other needs to get better educated about his/her faith. While you two argue and point fingers and claim to have been led by the spirit into the unity for which Christ prayed, I ask you, Betty, to whom should I listen? How do I know I’m joining the “right” Catholic church? Why should I join you at all if you are so divided?
  
  You can’t just say, “well, the other guys are bad catholics.” They say the same about you. How can I know the truth? How do I determine which of you is the one who truly has been led by the spirit “into all truth?” Taylor says it’s him. You say its you. Should I just flip a coin and play the odds?
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 26, 2020 at 10:38 pm

Timothy, actually I think you make some very valid points. But you mention which Catholic Church should you join. Have Taylor Marshall and those that support him left the Church over this issue? I have no problem with criticism of Francis as popes have been criticized in the past. And I personally would have to admit I have mixed opinions about the death penalty. Unfortunately even scripture is inconsistent about it’s use. Of course in the Old Testament it was used for sins no one would consider justifiable today. David was guilty of murder, no death penalty. Paul participated in murder, no death penalty. And The US bishops have been pushing for a stronger stand against the death penalty for some time given the current understanding that innocent men have been put to death and it has not been dispensed equally in different racial and economic groups. Don’t know where I quite stand on this issue. But what is the Protestant stand? You are not any better off on this issue then we are and the disagreements among Catholics on other dogma and doctrine pale when compared with those among Protestant groups. How many Protestant denominations are there now? Now if you are honest you will provide the latest number so everyone can get a handle on how much of a problem there is. And then maybe we can compare dogma and doctrinal differences among Catholics vs those among Protestants. Would that be fair?
By the way, are you going to give us a English translation that makes sense from that Irenæus quote where you rejected the translation from the Latin?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 27, 2020 at 6:46 am
  
  Thank you, Betty. Taylor Marshall has not left the Catholic Church. He does not just criticize the pope. He accuses the pope of teaching error on matters of faith and morals. He accuses the pope of changing the catechism so that the death penalty is now immoral even though the Roman Catholic Church has taught that it was moral and justified for well over a thousand years. He, as well as a current Roman Catholic Archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò, believe that Vatican II needs to be rescinded. One of Taylor’s guests on the Taylor Marshall podcast, Michael Voris, believes Francis should laicize all the cardinals, and then resign himself, although Taylor Marshall has not taken that extreme position. Another guest on Marshall’s show believes Benedict’s resignation may have been invalid, and that Benedict may still be the reigning pope, or possibly that Benedict resigned the office of Bishop of Rome, but did not resign the office of Supreme Pontiff. There is a theory going around the internet that perhaps there are two popes right now.
  
  It is interesting that you mention that good Catholics should embrace the councils, the pope and the catechism. Archibshop Vigano rejects Vatican II. Taylor Marshall rejects Francis’ change to the catechism. Michael Voris rejects Pope Francis. And yet you, Vigano, Marshall, and Voris all claim to be members of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, experiencing and expressing the unity for which Christ prayed, and criticizing protestants for all their denominations. And you are anything but unified. You do not believe the same Roman Catholicism that Taylor Marshall does. All of Roman Catholicism is a cafeteria in which Roman Catholics pick and choose which pope they like, which council they like and which version of the catechism they like. And you want me to join “the Roman Catholic Church.”
  
  Which one?
  
  There are catholics who believe Unam Sanctam was an ex cathedra, infallible papal statement. Others say it was not. Some say Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra. Others say it is not. Some say the apparitions of Mary are public revelation, while others say the messages of the apparitions are private revelation. And none of you know with certainty what the pope has or has not said infallibly. It is not just a difference of form or expression but of content. What is the content and extent of the “deposit of faith”? What has your supreme pontiff taught you? Which version of the catechism teaches the truth? Which councils were ecumenical and binding? Which guy is the pope?
  
  “You are not any better off on this issue then we are and the disagreements among Catholics on other dogma and doctrine pale when compared with those among Protestant groups. How many Protestant denominations are there now?”
  
  “Protestants are no better off than Catholics” is quite a confession, Debbie! It is another way of saying “Protestants are no worse off than Catholics.” Precisely. For every mutually exclusive point of disagreement between Roman Catholics (who is the pope? which councils are valid? which paragraphs of the catechism do we believe to be true? which papal statements were ex cathedra?) the total number of unique doctrinal combinations doubles. If there were only one point on which to disagree, there would be two possible options from which to choose. If there were only two points on which to disagree, there would be four possible options from which to choose. I can list 10 mutually exclusive doctrinal positions that have to do with the substance and essence and the very content of your faith, and different Roman Catholics have different answers to them, and they are all convinced they are right. On 10 points of disagreement, there are 1,024 different combinations of what is “true.” Eleven, yields 2,048. Twelve yields 4,096 different custom tailored versions of Cafeteria Catholicism.
  
  And how, exactly, did you arrive at your personal custom-tailored version of cafeteria catholicism, Debbie? Did the Holy Spirit lead you to this? Why has he not led Archbishop Vigano to the same one?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 27, 2020 at 2:10 pm
    
    Some observations:
    
    “And none of you know with certainty what the pope has or has not said infallibly. “
    
    None. And logically, no one can ever know.
    
    ““Protestants are no better off than Catholics” is quite a confession”
    
    Tim Staples did the same while trying to refute sola scriptura. Some Protestants pointed out that his reasoning on canon is also circular. He responded, saying their argument was weak, as if the RCC having the same problems as Protestants makes them go away. Deflection is a weak ‘argument’.
    
    Reply
Betty says:

August 27, 2020 at 8:47 am

Debbie? Are you confused Timothy?
Obviously absent from your response was the number of Protestant denominations and obviously it is embarrassing as it is the testimony of what happened when the human tradition Sola Scriptura was introduced into Christianity. And I am sure within each of those denominations you could find disagreements and do the mathematics game for a staggering number of “custom tailored “ versions of Protestantism. Let’see, 40,000 denominations times 4,096 ! Now at least I am willing to issue a confession although you twisted it and left out “on this issue”, ie the death penalty. And thanks for acknowledging that those who are criticizing the pope have remained in the Catholic Church. No Protestant Catechism? And do you agree with Kevin that the Holy Spirit dwells in and is teaching you and other Protestants with whom you disagree. So the Catholic Church teaches Jesus is God, some Protestants agree, some don’t. We believe in the Trinity, some Protestants agree, some don’t. We and the Fathers teach apostolic succession, some Protestants agree, some don’t. We teach 7 sacraments, Protestants are all over the map on this issue. We believe in the real presence, some Protestants agree, others don’t. We believe in infant baptism, some Protestants do, some don’t. We believe we are saved by faith and works, most US Protestants agree but obviously those on this website believe in Faith alone. We believe in Oral and Written tradition, some Protestants do, some don’t. We could go on and on but I think you get the point. Any debate among Catholics on these Dogmas of the Faith I just mentioned? In fact with Protestantism I have trouble coming up with a list of beliefs Protestants all agree with except their opposition to the Catholic Church.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 27, 2020 at 10:08 am
  
  Betty, the issue is not “where do protestants stand on the death penalty?” That’s hardly the point. The point is that you believe “good catholics” should accept that catechism. You accept 2267 of the current catechism. Taylor Marshall accepts 2267 as formerly worded. Here is the difference:
  
  1997: …the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty…
  
  2018: “the Church teaches … that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person””
  
  You’re acting as if I was criticizing catholics for disagreeing on the death penalty. I am not. I am criticizing catholics for disagreeing ON THE CATECHISM.
  
  You wrote,
  
  “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Christianity with everyone interpreting the Bible on their own?”
  
  So I asked you a similar question. That is the only thing I am asking of you. We are not talking about how many protestant denominations there are. We are not talking about whether the death penalty is morally acceptable. We are not talking about Irenæus or the Trinity or the number of sacraments or justification. We are talking about one thing only.
  
  You criticize protestants because they interpret the bible on their own, and you offer Roman Catholicism as the solution where you have the scriptures, the magisterium, the and tradition and a teaching authority to interpret them all for you. So I raised the question, which is essentially,
  
  “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, tradition and the magisterium on their own as they clearly do?”
  
  You have responded with deflection and distraction: “Protestants aren’t united on the death penalty! You still haven’t provided a translation of Irenæus! You haven’t told me how many protestant denominations there are! There are some things Catholics agree on! Let’s compare protestant disagreements with catholic disagreements! etc., etc., etc…”
  
  Those are all pitiful attempts to avoid the question through deflection and distraction. I’m not asking you about any of them. I am asking you only THIS:
  
  “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, tradition and the magisterium on their own as they clearly do?”
  
  Betty, what is your answer to THAT question?
  
  Thank you.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 27, 2020 at 12:34 pm

Timothy I don’t think I am responding with” “distraction and deflection” anymore then you are by not answering any of my questions that clearly show the flaws of the Protestant system. I freely confessed that the Catholic system is not perfect but holy cow look what you have in Protestantism. Now you are right, it eventually boils down to the individual accepting or rejecting a Church teaching but as I pointed out the vast majority of Catholic dogma is not contested. We have a functional family which does have internal squabbles. You have a dysfunctional family which every time they have a fight they run off and form another Church. And you won’t even acknowledge how many Protestant denominations there are because of how embarrassing it is. I gave you a list of beliefs that all Catholics believe and you don’t provide me any list of uniform Protestant beliefs. This is all essential to this discussion and yet you say I am “responding with “distraction and deflection “. The argument started with my contrasting the Protestant and Catholic systems. So we have established that yes the Catholic system is not perfect, that in rare occasions the Catholic will have to rely on his personal interpretation of the Bible, tradition and magesterium when they conflict but as I showed the unity in Catholicism stands in stark contrast with the disunity in Protestantism. And if you don’t believe that give me a list of Protestant dogmas and doctrines they hold in common. Should I ask about Irenaeus’s quote on a different thread?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 27, 2020 at 1:02 pm
  
  Betty wrote,
  
  “The argument started with my contrasting the Protestant and Catholic systems”
  
  You were having a conversation with someone else on that topic. You may continue that conversation as you like.
  
  MY conversation with you was to ask you a simple question:
  
  “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, tradition and the magisterium on their own as they clearly do?”
  
  What is YOUR answer to THAT question?
  
  You don’t have an answer for that, Betty, do you?
  
  Whatever I may be in your eyes, whatever belief system I may hold, however many Protestant denominations there may be, none of that is relevant to the objective question before you. Your answer to it should not change based on with whom you are talking. It is an objective question based on an objective standard you have erected by which you judge Protestants. And yet it is clear that Roman Catholicism cannot possibly live up to the standard by which you measure others.
  
  To say that “well, at least we are not as bad as protestants!” is an extremely low threshold, considering how high you set the bar when you thought only Protestants should be judged by it. Now that the tables are turned and your religion is judged BY ITS OWN STANDARD, you suddenly try to lower the bar and say that “not as bad as protestants” is good enough.
  
  But Jesus did not pray, “That they all may be not as bad as protestants”. He prayed “That they all may be one;”.
  
  At first, “doctrinal unity” is how you defined “one.” Yet you know very well now that professing Roman Catholics do not have “doctrinal unity.” Clearly, by now, you must at least admit the Father’s answer to Jesus’ prayer is not what you initially thought it was. By your own concession, doctrinal unity is not possible with everyone interpreting the Bible, tradition and the magisterium on their own, and they obviously do. You know this is true. Two Roman Catholics cannot say, “We both believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but one of us believes Vatican II was an infallible ecumenical council and the other believes it is a tool of the devil to infiltrate the church, but at least we agree on the essentials!”
  
  Betty, until I pointed out the problem, you asserted that the councils, the catechism and the pope are the essentials, but Roman Catholics aren’t even unified on those. So what did you do? You changed the “essentials” to the real presence, baptism, justification, and tradition” and said, ‘well, we at least agree on these.’
  
  So, it’s an objective question:
  
  “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, tradition and the magisterium on their own as they clearly do?”
  
  How, Betty? How?
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    August 28, 2020 at 6:42 am
    
    “Well at least we are not as bad as Protestants” Nice quote Timothy but I never said it. The problem my friend is that when it comes to doctrinal unity Protestants as a whole are not even in the same ball park as Catholics as I have amply shown and you have failed to even attempt to refute when I discussed doctrinal issues. Now the difference between you and I Timothy is that when you pointed out the death penalty issue I acknowledged that we Catholics do have disagreement over this issue, but when I pointed out to you the chaos in Protestantism over almost every other dogmatic issue you refuse to say “you know you are right, it’s a mess”. And even more incredible is Kevin claims that this is the result of Protestants having and being taught by the Holy Spirit. I’ll stick with a 2000 year old Church that Christ founded and accept the death penalty issue . And as Nick pointed out I am sure that is why those who disagree with the current pope are staying in the Church.
    So let’s get back to your question how is unity possible. I don’t know any two people who agree on everything ,such is the nature of humanity. So as I admitted the Catholic system is not perfect. Absolute unity, while an admirable goal is not possible with any system. Christ prayed for unity but He also wants us to be perfect. You and I know it’s not going to happen. But it doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that that goal of unity is more obtainable with the Catholic model then Protestantism. And I have shown this with my examples which you have refused to address. When I asked you how many Protestant denominations there were, did you even look it up?
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      August 30, 2020 at 5:25 pm
      
      Betty complained,
      
      ““Well at least we are not as bad as Protestants” Nice quote Timothy but I never said it.”
      
      Ok, here’s what you said:
      
      “the Catholic system is not perfect but holy cow look what you have in Protestantism.”
      
      That’s the logical equivalent of “Well at least we are not as bad as Protestants”. How the two could not be substantively equivalent in your eyes is beyond my ability to comprehend.
      
      Anyway, Betty introduced the following challenge, which is where this started:
      
      “I would assume each founder of a new Protestant denomination believe he or she is full of the Holy Spirit and guided by the Spirit. Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Christianity with everyone interpreting the Bible on their own?”
      
      Her question was about Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22. Let’s not forget that. The implication, obviously, is that Roman Catholicism has the answer, but Protestants do not, because Protestants interpret the Bible on their own, but Roman Catholics, allegedly, have “doctrinal unity” because they do not do their own interpretation. Ok, so doctrinal disunity was posed as the problem and, to Betty, Catholicism was the solution.
      
      So, I posed a challenge right back:
      
      “Both Archbishop Vigano and Fr. Michael Gaitley believe they are led by the Spirit in submission to the Roman Catholic Church, but both are telling me the opposite thing [about Vatican II].”
      
      Vigano and Gaitley have interpreted Vatican II on their own. Vigano thinks it’s invalid, Gaitley thinks it is infallible. Both believe they are led by the Spirit to their conclusions based on their understanding of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. When I asked, “whom should I believe,” it was based on Betty’s clear conviction that Catholics do not suffer from the same embarrassment of choices as Protestants do. Great, this should be easy. Which one should I believe? Betty responded:
      
      “Now any Catholic that opposes the teachings of the Catholic catechism or opposes a duly elected Pope or fails to recognize a universal council is a bad Catholic.”
      
      Well, we could all be thankful for Betty’s opinion, I suppose, except that Betty’s opinion is just an opinion. It’s just one more Roman Catholic voice in a sea of voices, all espousing their own opinions, telling me different things, based on their own personal interpretations of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Betty would presume to settle the matter by appealing to the Pope, the Councils and the Catechism—the very things that are in dispute among Catholics, all of whom are convinced they are interpreting it correctly.
      
      Vigano is against Vatican II. Gaitley is in favor of Vatican II.
      
      Marshall is against the new wording of Catechism 2267. Nick is for the new wording of Catechism 2267.
      
      Gaitley is for the Pope’s teachings on ecumenism. Marshall is against the Pope’s teachings on ecumenism.
      
      All believe they are upholding the truth of Roman Catholicism, all have varying interpretations of what Roman Catholicism includes in its broad definition of what counts as God’s Word—Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Obviously it is not as simple as “how is doctrinal unity possible with everyone interpreting things on their own,” since everyone, including the Roman Catholic, is clearly interpreting things on his own, and yet Betty believes the way all Catholics interpret things on their own is somehow superior to the way all Protestants interpret things on their own. I guess.
      
      So, acknowledging the implicit error in her argument, Betty took a different tack, and highlighted the agreement between Roman Catholics on the deity of Christ, the Trinity, apostolic succession, the number of sacraments, the real presence, infant baptism, justification, tradition, etc…: “Any debate among Catholics on these Dogmas of the Faith I just mentioned?”
      
      Well, actually, yes, as a matter of fact, there are. Pope Francis said in 2017 “Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification.”
      
      Phil Sanz says “I believe that the [Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification] came about by the power of the Holy Spirit,” but the nice folks over at 1 Peter 5 believe it came about by the spirit of error, and asked Francis to recant of his heresy: “Can we accept this? No. As Catholics, as milites Christi, it is our duty to proclaim that this joint profession of faith with the Lutherans openly contradicts the true doctrine of the justification solemnly defined by the dogmatic Council of Trent.” So Betty and Phil agree with Francis (I suppose) on justification, but the Roman Catholics at 1 Peter 5 disagree with Francis on justification.
      
      Man, that sounds like a whole lotta debate among Catholics on something about which Betty thought there was no debate among Catholics.
      
      Well, no worries. Nick Broom doesn’t believe that the unity for which Christ prayed was a “doctrinal unity” anyway, but rather a practical unity. So maybe all this doctrinal agreement doesn’t actually matter as much as Betty supposes. He wrote:
      
      “Roman Catholics may be diverse in what they say they believe, but the fact remains they have not left the Roman Catholic Church to another denomination or established their own denomination. If they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome by partaking of the Body and Blood at a Roman Catholic Mass, then their actions speak louder than their words. If Archbishop Vigano and Taylor Marshall both take communion at a Roman Catholic mass, then they, by their own actions and full consent of the will, are in communion with the Pope. That simply makes them Roman Catholics with a dissenting opinion.”
      
      Well, how about that! It’s not about a common catechism, a common canon of Ecumenical Councils, or even a common agreement on the pope, or even agreement on a doctrine as important as justification. It’s not even about doctrinal unity, Betty. It’s about a material confession, through accepted behavioral norms, of being in communion with the pope and not being in another denomination.
      
      But then Phil Sanz comes along and says it’s not even about being in the right denomination. He says the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine was a movement by the spirit—and said so in the context of our question on how the unity for which Christ prayed could be possible. It’s a doctrinal unity (justification in this case), not a practical unity, since, as I assume that all those Lutherans who participated in the ostensible doctrinal unity of the JDDF did not partake “of the Body and Blood at a Roman Catholic Mass” last week, and therefore were not “in full communion with the Bishop of Rome” (as Nick requires for the realization of the unity for which Christ prayed).
      
      Well, how about that! It’s not even about a common denomination.
      
      Now I highlight all this to showcase the utter futility of the Roman Catholic position on the unity for which Christ prayed. Three different Roman Catholics have opined on the importance of the unity for which Christ prayed, and yet they can’t even agree amongst themselves on what that unity looks like.
      
      Betty says it is a doctrinal unity (like on important things like justification), unlike the doctrinal disunity of Protestants.
      Nick says it’s not a doctrinal unity at all (because there are doctrinal disagreements in Rome even about justification), but rather a denominational unity in submission to the pope, unlike all those denominational divisions among Protestants.
      Phil says its not a denominational unity in submission to the pope, but a rather about the work of the Spirit across denominations.
      
      Three different Roman Catholics opining on how God answers Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22, and three different answers. Small wonder that Betty’s ultimate response is:
      
      “I don’t know any two people who agree on everything ,such is the nature of humanity. So as I admitted the Catholic system is not perfect. Absolute unity, while an admirable goal is not possible with any system. Christ prayed for unity but He also wants us to be perfect. You and I know it’s not going to happen. But it doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that that goal of unity is more obtainable with the Catholic model then Protestantism.”
      
      Which is basically the same as, “Well, at least we’re not as bad as Protestants.”
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        August 30, 2020 at 7:14 pm
        
        As I mentioned before Timothy when we speak of unity either doctrinal or practical, Protestantism and Catholicism are not even in the same ball park. Practical unity! Thirty to forty thousand Protestant denominations. One Catholic Church. Doctrinal unity? Good grief, some Protestants deny Christ is God and you can’t even agree on how many sacraments there are. Now Phil , Nick and I have described unity as we see it in Christ’s Church but I for one would not say either is wrong and I feel reasonably sure that they feel the same way. There are no disagreement so we are unified. But maybe Timothy you can tell us what Dogma or doctrine I, Nick or Phil denied? I though we were talking about dogma or doctrinal disunity.
        As far as the Justification issue if Francis said all Protestants are in agreement it would be a first. He obviously misspoke. And after being on this site where your apologist agree we are not saved without works but then insist we are saved by faith alone only God knows what anybody believes.
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        August 31, 2020 at 12:23 pm
        
        Timothy said “Nick Broom doesn’t believe that the unity for which Christ prayed was a “doctrinal unity” anyway, but rather a practical unity.”
        
        I didn’t say that so how did you come up with that conclusion? Is it some “logical equivalent” again?
        
        Timothy says: “Nick says it’s not a doctrinal unity at all (because there are doctrinal disagreements in Rome even about justification), but rather a denominational unity in submission to the pope, unlike all those denominational divisions among Protestants.”
        
        Being in full communion with the pope means that one is in doctrinal agreement as far as dogma is concerned. If one is teaching heresy with full consent of the will against Catholic dogma, then confession and repentance is due. Otherwise, if one is to continue in defiance, they should be excommunicated.
        
        Doesn’t your church practice closed communion?
      3. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 1, 2020 at 11:41 am
        
        Nick wrote,
        
        “Timothy said “Nick Broom doesn’t believe that the unity for which Christ prayed was a “doctrinal unity” anyway, but rather a practical unity.”
        
        I didn’t say that so how did you come up with that conclusion? Is it some “logical equivalent” again?”
        
        Yes, indeed, it is the logical implication of your statement.
        
        Taylor Marshall disagrees with the updated Catechism 2267 FROM “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude … recourse to the death penalty” TO ” the Church teaches … that the death penalty is inadmissible“.
        
        Archbishop Vigano denies the validity of Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council, and believes it should be rescinded. Pope Francis, obviously believes Vatican II is valid and binding, as does Fr. Gaitley.
        
        Some professing Roman Catholics believe Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid, and that he is still the pope. Others believe his resignation was valid, but Francis’ election was not. Others believe that Benedict, in his resignation letter, dissociated the office of Pope (currently occupied by Benedict XVI) and Bishop of Rome (currently occupied by Francis I).
        
        Marshall and the folks at 1 Peter 5 believe Francis’ statement on the agreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants on justification was heretical, while other Roman Catholics believe it is true, and of the Spirit.
        
        So—doctrinal disagreements on the Catechism (which version?), the councils (which ones?), the pope (which one?), the doctrine of justification (which doctrine?)—abound within Roman Catholicism. Nobody denies that. Betty thinks good Roman Catholics ought at least to agree on the Catechism, the Councils and the Pope and various doctrines including, but not limited to, the doctrine of justification. Either the number of “good catholics” who do not disagree on doctrine is very small, or the tolerance of severe and contradictory doctrinal disagreements within Roman Catholicism is very broad and widespread. Both cannot be true.
        
        Nick Broom says,
        
        “If Archbishop Vigano and Taylor Marshall [and by extension, all the other folks mentioned above] take communion at a Roman Catholic mass, then they, by their own actions and full consent of the will, are in communion with the Pope. That simply makes them Roman Catholics with a dissenting opinion.”
        
        Well, those “dissenting opinions” are about things that are not only foundational to the Roman Catholic religion (popes, councils, catechism and justification) but are doctrinal divisions over things about which the Holy Spirit was supposed to prevent disunity in the Church founded upon the Rock. If all that doctrinal disunity can be disregarded as long as everyone shows up and ACTs like and ALLEGes that you all agree on what matters even though you clearly don’t agree at all, I don’t see how your position can possibly be construed as superior to Protestants who profess to be in full communion with Christ even though they are doctrinally divided on some things over things which the Holy Spirit was supposed to prevent disunity.
        
        The only difference between Protestants and Catholics is who they identify as their chief shepherd. Apart from that, it’s just a bunch of people who disagree with each other eating bread and wine.
        
        And yes, Nick, to say that deeply and doctrinally divided people are in unity by taking communion at a Roman Catholic mass, then the unity is not doctrinal but practical. That is the logical implication of your claim.
Phil Sanz says:

August 27, 2020 at 2:03 pm

Hi Timothy,
Since I haven’t yet heard from Derek, I will give you my answer to your question to Betty:
I don’t know because “the wind blows where it wills” (John 3:8 RSV). However, after it has blown, with my faith I am able to recognize His action (in-workings, in Derek’s words). Can I get your answer to your own question?
God bless you.
PS: For example, I believe that the JDDJ came about by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 27, 2020 at 2:21 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  Since I take the most amount of time and thought to craft careful responses to your own thoughtful comments, that is why you receive replies less often. I’ve been busier than normal during my normal daily extended writing time. I have not forgotten you and I hope you don’t mind the wait.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
2. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 1, 2020 at 8:11 pm
  
  Hi Timothy,
  You seem confused about the essentials and the accidentals of doctrinal and practical unity among Catholics. Nick has told you about the practical (communion) and Betty about the doctrinal (Catechism). Both are true. If you look at what unites us instead of at what divides us you might get a better understanding. Lets try a quick solution. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains 2865 items and I believe all of them. Nick? Betty?
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    September 1, 2020 at 9:59 pm
    
    Thank you, Phil. Now let’s add Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon to the conversation on Francis’ revision of 2267 on the death penalty
    
    “This is actually the opposite of the development of doctrine. This is the perversion of doctrine.” (29 minute mark)
    
    So, Nick, Betty and Phil go to church one Sunday morning and find Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon are sitting in the next pew as they all receive communion. Nick, Betty and Phil know that Marshall and Gordon believe paragraph 2267 is a perversion, and Marshall and Gordon know that Nick, Betty and Phil believe paragraph 2267 is a true. There is no unity on that point.
    
    Marshall and Gordon believe Francis was dead wrong to change the paragraph and should repent of it, and Nick, Betty and Phil believe Francis was right to change the paragraph.
    
    Marshall and Gordon believe Vatican II was a mistake, and Betty, Nick and Phil believe it was a true ecumenical council and is therefore infallible.
    
    When they all receive communion together, Nick, Betty and Phil agree with Francis, the new version of the Catechism and Vatican II, and when Marshall and Gordon take communion together, they disagree with Francis, the new version of the Catechism and Vatican II.
    
    Nick says despite their disagreement on doctrine, they are nonetheless unified in their act.
    
    Ok Phil, in what meaningful way are all 5 communicants doctrinally unified when they disagree with each other on doctrine?
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      September 1, 2020 at 10:45 pm
      
      Even if they disagree with the pope on revising the Catechism, when Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon say “AMEN” in the Mass, they are basically proclaiming
      “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
      By their actions they profess unity; consequently, their disagreement becomes nothing more than a dissenting opinion.
      
      Reply
  2. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 1, 2020 at 10:18 pm
    
    Yes. All 2865. Have I practiced all of them all of the time? No. But that is my own sinfulness causing it. Romans 7.
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 2, 2020 at 12:09 am
      
      Thank you Nick,
      I don’t think that 2267 has been substantially changed. Even if it was, it would only be a 1/2865 of it. Timothy is clearly making a mountain out of a molehill. Keep up the good work.
      God bless you.
      
      Reply
      1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 6:36 am
        
        Actually, I believe it is Betty who is making a mountain out of a molehill. Her original comment was:
        
        “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Christianity with everyone interpreting the Bible on their own?”
        
        When I pointed out doctrinal differences on the pope, the catechism and the councils, she responded,
        
        “Now any Catholic that opposes the teachings of the Catholic catechism or opposes a duly elected Pope or fails to recognize a universal council is a bad Catholic.”
        
        Based on Nick’s and Phil’s responses, all it takes to be a good catholic is not to agree on actual doctrines but to say Amen at Mass even though you disagree with other catholics, including the pope, on the catechism, the Pope and the universal councils. Women priests? Justification? Birth control? Obviously agreeing on those is not as big a deal as Betty suggested. Betty, as it turns out, was making a mountain out of a molehill when she suggested doctrinal unity involved a common affirmation of the teachings of the magisterium. Doctrinal unity is not required in order to achieve doctrinal unity after all. All that is required is an Amen at Mass, which, as it turns out does not really mean “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God,” but rather, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church ought to believe, teach, and proclaim to be revealed by God.” Betty thinks Francis’ comment on justification was a mistake, and yet Francis very clearly believes that what he said was true. Taylor Marshall thinks Francis was wrong to change the ancient teaching on the death penalty, but Francis very clearly believes what he said was true. Archbishop Vigano does not accept Vatican II as an ecumenical council, even though the pope clearly believes it was. Betty and Taylor and Vigano, in their Amen are affirming not “what the church teaches,” but rather “what they personally believe the church OUGHT to teach” in their own personal private interpretation of Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium. Each one has become a pope unto himself.
        
        In other words, the alleged unity of Roman Catholicism is a bunch of people gathering to profess that they agree with each other even though they disagree with each other in their hearts, and in fact disagree with the pope and the magisterium and the councils. Well, I’m pretty sure Jesus does not like that kind of “unity”:
        
        “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” (Matthew 15:7-8)
      2. Betty says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 8:42 am
        
        I agree with you Phil. Seriously Timothy, 1/2865? I have to admire Timothy’s line of reasoning. All you Catholics have is practical unity, we have thirty to forty thousand denominations all as a direct result of the human tradition Sola Scriptura. And how about doctrinal issues? As Phil just pointed out any disunity is minuscule to what we see in Protestantism , In fact Derek won’t even admit that he is a Protestant. There is no Protestant catechism because it would be impossible to write, Is Christ God? Not sure. How many sacraments? Don’t know, To expand on Phil’s point if we did the numbers we would probably find Protestants agree on one issue,they oppose the Catholic Church and disagree on 2864 other issues. And this is all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
        Now Timothy called me out on saying Pope Francis was wrong if he said all Protestants agreed on Justification. Nice twisting of what I said Timothy, like quotes I never said. And are Catholics hipocrits for sticking together if we have a doctrinal disagreenent? I would call it humility. I may be wrong in my belief, so instead of going out and starting a new church I will anchor myself to the Church Christ founded.
      3. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 10:03 am
        
        Timothy–
        So Betty’s question to you remains unanswered:
        “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Christianity with everyone interpreting the Bible on their own?”
        You skirted the question by deflecting to Catholic doctrinal disunity.
        You also said: “The only difference between Protestants and Catholics is who they identify as their chief shepherd. Apart from that, it’s just a bunch of people who disagree with each other eating bread and wine. And yes, Nick, to say that deeply and doctrinally divided people are in unity by taking communion at a Roman Catholic mass, then the unity is not doctrinal but practical.”
        So, then, you imply that the unity that Christ prayed for is not doctrinal unity but that they just believe in Christ as their chief shepherd.–CCC 1548
        My question to you is still:
        Do you practice closed communion in your church?
        If so, what are the requirements for excommunication?
      4. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 11:10 am
        
        Nick,
        
        Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own?
        
        Tim
Phil Sanz says:

August 27, 2020 at 2:42 pm

Thank you Derek,
I don’t mind.
Peace.

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 2, 2020 at 8:18 pm
  
  Hi Timothy,
  Thank you for your comment. Your belief in faith alone (a non biblical human tradition) blinds you to what we are telling you in unison. Look at the unity instead of the divisions. By focusing on the dissenting opinion of Marshall and Gordon (and even thousands like them) over a billion believers you are not disproving the unity of the Church you are just missing the forest for the trees. We have been warned about false prophets since the beginning (Matthew 7:15). In the parable (actually an allegory) of the “weeds among the wheat” (Matthew 13:24-30) the owner of the field tells the servants: “Let both grow together until the harvest” vs.30. The Church is both the visible human institution (with the good and bad members) and at the same time the invisible heavenly mystery of sanctification. As Paul says in Ephesians (2:19-22): “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
  
  You said:
  ‘In other words, the alleged unity of Roman Catholicism is a bunch of people gathering to profess that they agree with each other even though they disagree with each other in their hearts, and in fact disagree with the pope and the magisterium and the councils. Well, I’m pretty sure Jesus does not like that kind of “unity”’
  Of course not. How did you come up with that? I did not even see any mention of faith in your fabricated description of the church.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    September 3, 2020 at 6:41 am
    
    Phil, you observed,
    
    “Your belief in faith alone (a non biblical human tradition) blinds you to what we are telling you in unison. Look at the unity instead of the divisions.”
    
    I would look at the unity if someone would just tell me which unity to look at. Marshall and Gordon and Archbishop Vigano believe the church has been infiltrated and that I must join them in their quest for the purity of the Roman Catholic religion (which purity, by the way, involves a rejection of Vatican II and paragraph 2267 of the catechism). You tell me that I should ignore the folks like Marshall and Gordon and Vigano and listen to your understanding of the purity of the Roman Catholic religion (which purity would exclude people like Marshall and Gordon who you would call the dissenters).
    
    Of all the different versions of Roman Catholicism that have been offered to me, I still haven’t the foggiest idea of which version is the truth. How do I figure out which one that is. Betty says the Catechism, the pope and the councils. Ok, which ones? The Catechism is full of errors that are constantly being corrected. There is a movement within Roman Catholicism to undo Vatican II. There is a theory within Roman Catholicism that both Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election were invalid. There is no infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements, and no infallible list of criteria to discern what qualifies as ex cathedra. I could describe for you thousands of different and exclusive variations of possible combinations of what could be construed as the “real Roman Catholicism,” and I have no means available to me to discern which version is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church except to review the teachings of the church, the statements of the pope and the teachings of the councils and choose for myself which ones reflect the true teachings of the church Jesus founded, and I have no guarantee that my personal interpretation of the Scriptures, the Magisterium and Tradition is the same as anyone else’s. I could arrive at nearly the exact same set of beliefs as you, with the exception of Ineffabilis Deus, and yet if I disbelieve that one papal pronouncement, I could not be truly Roman Catholic in your eyes, even though in mine, I had embraced the fullness of orthodoxy, having been led, in my opinion, by the Spirit into all truth.
    
    There are Roman Catholic apologists on every street corner purveying the unity and the fullness of Roman Catholicism as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those same apologists argue with each other about which councils are valid, which Catechism paragraphs are true, which guy is truly the current successor of Peter, which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra and whether Mary is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
    
    And I’m asking you which version of Roman Catholicism should I believe? Your answer is “Look at the unity instead of the divisions.”
    
    Ok, I’ll bite. Which version of “unity” should I look at? Marshall’s and Gordon’s and Vigano’s is much different than yours.
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 27, 2020 at 3:24 pm

“So to whom should I listen.”
To those who suit your liking, of course.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings

Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 27, 2020 at 4:41 pm

Roman Catholics may be diverse in what they say they believe, but the fact remains they have not left the Roman Catholic Church to another denomination or established their own denomination. If they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome by partaking of the Body and Blood at a Roman Catholic Mass, then their actions speak louder than their words.
If Archbishop Vigano and Taylor Marshall both take communion at a Roman Catholic mass, then they, by their own actions and full consent of the will, are in communion with the Pope. That simply makes them Roman Catholics with a dissenting opinion.
Here is a partial list of Protestant denominations:
shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Protestant_denominations
Here is a partial list Catholic denominations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_independent_Catholic_denominations
Here is a list of Roman Catholic denominations:
Roman Catholic Church

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 1, 2020 at 8:14 pm
  
  Hi Nick,
  Here is a copy of my comment to Timothy. I hope you don’t mind answering it. God bless you.
  
  Hi Timothy,
  You seem confused about the essentials and the accidentals of doctrinal and practical unity among Catholics. Nick has told you about the practical (communion) and Betty about the doctrinal (Catechism). Both are true. If you look at what unites us instead of at what divides us you might get a better understanding. Lets try a quick solution. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains 2865 items and I believe all of them. Nick? Betty?
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 27, 2020 at 9:03 pm

So true Nick, instead of looking for the church Christ started those Protestants that do not accept their parent’s faith will generally interpret scripture on their own and then find a Church that matches their interpretation of scripture. And I have met a few who just refuse to join any denomination because they just can’t match up with any Church. I forgot to thank you for posting Wisdom 2:12-20. Do you know of any prophesy in the Old Testament that so accurately fortells Christ’s life? Plan to try again tomorrow to answer Timothy’s question which I thought I had answered quite adequately but apparently not to his satisfaction. Some quotes he attributes to me I don’t remember writing but I think Timothy sees what he wants to see.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 28, 2020 at 9:35 am
  
  Betty said: “Plan to try again tomorrow to answer Timothy’s question which I thought I had answered quite adequately but apparently not to his satisfaction. ”
  
  Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. The only AMEN that Tim will accept is the one after the tithe offering and before the epiclesis. That AMEN is still there and I showed irrefutable proof of that fact. But Timothy is still not satisfied and is building an elaborate 6-part series to try and refute it by putting bits and pieces of diverse writings of the ECFs together and calling it a whole. He says I’m missing his point. I say he is missing my point. When a defense is made on a false premise, any conclusion is also false no matter how voluble the exposition. And to Timothy’s credit, his exposition is quite impressive. If Timothy was a lawyer, I would certainly want him on my side. Might not be able to afford him, though. 😉
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    August 28, 2020 at 10:56 am
    
    I agree Nick Tim is very impressive and that is one of the reasons I want him to translate that verse from Irenæus that he has contested. How good is he? Word’s always have multiple meanings and I assume one could easily go back to the original Greek text of a verse you did not like, and substitute the translation of one of the words that fit your narrative. Agree with the Amen issue .
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 1, 2020 at 8:19 pm
      
      Hi Betty,
      This is a copy of my comment to Timothy. I hope you don’t mind answering my question. God bless you.
      
      Hi Timothy,
      You seem confused about the essentials and the accidentals of doctrinal and practical unity among Catholics. Nick has told you about the practical (communion) and Betty about the doctrinal (Catechism). Both are true. If you look at what unites us instead of at what divides us you might get a better understanding. Lets try a quick solution. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains 2865 items and I believe all of them. Nick? Betty?
      God bless you.
      
      Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 28, 2020 at 1:38 pm

Betty,

“And the martyrdom issue went both ways as I am sure you know.”

That’s a deflection.

In five centuries the Mennonites have never martyred anyone (nor have the Amish, Brethren in Christ, Church of the Brethren, Hutterites, or Bruderhof).

In 1524, Conrad Grebel—co-founder of the Swiss Brethren in 1525—wrote “True Christian believers are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter… Neither do they use worldly sword or war, since all killing has ceased with them.” The 1527 Schleitheim Confession—containing the core beliefs—declared that violence must not be used in anycircumstance.

Here is the fate of the Swiss Brethren founders and other key leaders over the next decade: George Blaurock burned at the stake; Balthasar Hubmaier burned; Felix Manz drowned; Michael Sattler tongue cut out, tortured with hot tongs, and burned (his wife was drowned); Conrad Grebel died of the plague; and Wilhelm Reublin renounced the movement.

In 1534, in the face of extreme persecution and with almost all the original leaders martyred, a group of Swiss Brethren Anabaptists abandoned the founding principle and joined Lutherans and other citizens in an anti-Catholic rebellion against the Holy Roman Empire in the city of Münster, Germany. It was crushed a year later.

In 1536, Catholic priest Menno Simons left the church, in part over transubstantiation, and joined the Anabaptists. He would reject all violence. He led the group that would bear his name: Mennonites.

Persecution continued for around 150 years, and included thousands of burnings. Before the turn of the 18th century, Bishop Hans Herr—my nine times great-grandfather—finally fled the persecution in Switzerland for Germany with his congregation, only to end up losing religious freedom there when Catholic Johann Wilhelm came to power. So they left Germany for William Penn’s Pennsylvania in 1710. We have lived in peace there ever since.

Do you agree that the many deaths of my kin were justified? If the Holy Roman Empire were to be restored, would you support my death if your church demanded it?

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  August 28, 2020 at 1:53 pm
  
  To clarify: Conrad Greble died of a plague after an extended period of poor health from his imprisonment for his beliefs.
  
  Reply
2. Betty says:
  
  August 28, 2020 at 3:42 pm
  
  Thanks Derek but it was not a deflection, it was the truth unless you are unaware of the persecution of Catholics by the Church of England. And as you pointed out Protestants persecuted other Protestants. Your denomination should be congratulated but probably shares their peaceful coexistence with thousands of other Protestant denominations that have formed over the last hundred years. Thank God we appear to be getting beyond religious persecution among Christians. Of course I don’t support the death of your kin. But I thought your nine times great grandfather came to America. Which of your relatives was actually martyred? And seriously, “if the Holy Roman Empire was restored”. I feel sorry for your kin but I think you need to get over the martyrdom complex. I’m not worrying about my kin killed in England.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 28, 2020 at 5:09 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    “the persecution of Catholics by the Church of England”
    
    Irrelevant. I’m not a Protestant.
    
    “[Your denomination] probably shares their peaceful coexistence with thousands of other Protestant denominations that have formed over the last hundred years. “
    
    Luther nailed his theses in 1517. The Swiss Brethren were formed less than 8 years later in 1525. The Mennonites were formed in 1536, after the Munster Rebellion. We experienced a century (or two) of violence and death against us. We owe our peaceful existence entirely to escaping the rule of Protestants and Catholics by coming to America.
    
    “you need to get over the martyrdom complex. “
    
    If that’s true, then you won’t mind pointing me to the infallible statement condemning any and all use of violence—past, present and future—by the church against heresy.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

August 29, 2020 at 9:18 pm

DR says: “If that’s true, then you won’t mind pointing me to the infallible statement condemning any and all use of violence—past, present and future—by the church against heresy.”

Maybe this will help:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html
and
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html
and
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1364-1399_en.html

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  August 30, 2020 at 11:27 am
  
  Thanks Nick.
  Derek, I just looked up the definition of Protestant in Webster’s dictionary and by definition your group is Protestant but if you don’t want to admit that that’s OK. Now again if you are worried about the rise of the Holy Roman Empire or feel like you need an infallible statement from the Pope that the Church will not use violence in the future I think you might need some counseling. Was traveling yesterday so could not write. At Mass this AM from the Gospel Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person According To What They Have Done”! Sounds like the Sheep and the Goats! ? Meritorious works!
  Also my son sent me an article that Martin Luther was fascinated with the Ethiopian Church possibly as an example of pure apostolic Christianity without the barnacles of Catholicism. Very interesting Church, their New Testament canon includes additional books not found in our canons, Their Old Testament coincide with the books found in the Septuagint unlike Protestant Bibles along with a few additional books. Of course their doctrinal beliefs are for the most part very Catholic. Apparently very much into the veneration of Mary.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 31, 2020 at 9:19 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “Now again if you are worried about the rise of the Holy Roman Empire or feel like you need an infallible statement from the Pope that the Church will not use violence in the future I think you might need some counseling. “
    
    I was speaking hypothetically.
    
    What conditions must be satisfied before rejecting the RCC is justified? What is the threshold of sinful behavior and heresy that must be crossed first?
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

August 31, 2020 at 9:12 am

An observation:

“As I mentioned before Timothy when we speak of unity either doctrinal or practical, Protestantism and Catholicism are not even in the same ball park. Practical unity! Thirty to forty thousand Protestant denominations. One Catholic Church. Doctrinal unity?”

Mennonites, et al. have never martyred anyone in five centuries. Not so of the Magisterial Protestants and Roman Catholics. Want a fellowship that doesn’t have a history human rights atrocities? Become an Anabaptist.

I brought this up, because it highlights that doctrinal unity is irrelevant. You cannot, in good conscience, leave the Roman Catholic Church for any reason at all:

“Now any Catholic that opposes the teachings of the Catholic catechism or opposes a duly elected Pope or fails to recognize a universal council is a bad Catholic.”

Read the following account of Michael Sattler’s death. See the fruits of the two ‘denominations’ in stark contrast:

“Sattler was brought into the marketplace where the judgment he had received at the hands of his enemies was carried out to the letter. His tongue was cut out, and he was bound by chains to a cart where two pieces of his flesh were torn from his body with red-hot tongs. He was then driven to the place of execution by the gate where five more times the glowing iron tongs were applied to his body. Eyewitnesses recount that during these procedures, Sattler continually prayed for those persecuting him and urged others to do the same. Just before he was plunged into the fire, Sattler echoed the testimony of martyrs throughout Christian history as he cried out, “Almighty eternal God, Thou who art the way and the truth, since I have not been taught otherwise by anyone, so by Thy help I will testify this day to the truth and seal it with my blood.” After he was thrown into the fire with a small sack of gunpowder tied around his neck and “one despaired of his still being alive,” Sattler would cry out “with a clear voice often and constantly to God in heaven.” When the ropes that bound Sattler’s arms were burned up, he lifted them both with the first two fingers on each hand outstretched. This dramatic gesture was the symbol that he and his brothers had prearranged so that Sattler could signal to them that he was faithful even unto death.”

Which side would you have embraced?

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  August 31, 2020 at 1:53 pm
  
  What’s wrong with this picture?
  “HIS TONGUE WAS CUT OUT, and he was bound by chains to a cart where two pieces of his flesh were torn from his body with red-hot tongs. He was then driven to the place of execution by the gate where five more times the glowing iron tongs were applied to his body. Eyewitnesses recount that during these procedures, Sattler continually prayed for those persecuting him and urged others to do the same. Just before he was plunged into the fire, Sattler echoed the testimony of martyrs throughout Christian history as he cried out, “Almighty eternal God, Thou who art the way and the truth, since I have not been taught otherwise by anyone, so by Thy help I will testify this day to the truth and seal it with my blood.” After he was thrown into the fire with a small sack of gunpowder tied around his neck and “one despaired of his still being alive,” Sattler would cry out “WITH A CLEAR VOICE often and constantly to God in heaven.”
  
  Hmmmmmm………..
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    August 31, 2020 at 2:13 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    “What’s wrong with this picture? [..] HIS TONGUE WAS CUT OUT [..] WITH A CLEAR VOICE”
    
    Right. And which side would you have embraced?
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      August 31, 2020 at 5:05 pm
      
      Yep. Another story just like the Host actually bleeding Christ’s Blood during the Communion rite. I guess ya had to have been there, huh? 😉
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 9:15 am
        
        Nick,
        
        A careful reader will note that your objection is not an objection to the central point at all.
        
        Does anyone deny that Sattler was executed for the following crimes?
        
        ” 1) acting against imperial mandate, 2) teaching against transubstantiation, 3) teaching against infant baptism, 4) rejecting the sacrament of unction, 5) despising Mary and the saints, 6) rejecting oaths to the government, and 7) initiating a corrupt version of the Lord’s Supper”
        
        Does anyone deny the execution orders from the magistrate?
        
        “Michael Sattler shall be committed to the executioner. The latter shall take him to the square and there first cut out his tongue, and then forge him fast to a wagon and there with glowing iron tongs twice tear pieces from his body, then on the way to the site of execution five times more as above and then burn his body to powder as an arch-heretic.”
        
        Does anyone deny that this sentence was indeed carried out exactly as the magistrate demanded, according to the dictates of a monkey trial?
        
        “Ferdinand thought Sattler did not even merit the semblance of a trial but should be immediately drowned in the Neckar, thus effecting the cruel irony of a “third baptism.” Because Sattler was formerly a monk, Ferdinand deemed that “it was less fitting for him to have dared the rebaptism than for a simple lay person.” However, the authorities in Rottenburg wanted to go through the motions of a trial in order to preserve the appearance of justice”
        
        Is Sattler’s death justified—and genuinely comforting—knowing that while he was praying for those who were torturing him, his voice slurred?
        
        So, again, I ask the Catholics here this simple question: which side would you have embraced?
        
        Peace,
        DR
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 2, 2020 at 11:05 am
        
        DR says:
        “Does anyone deny that Sattler was executed for the following crimes?”
        Were these crimes against the law of the land (imperial mandate) at that time and was Sattler aware that what he was doing was against the law?
        
        “Does anyone deny the execution orders from the magistrate?”
        Did Sattler also know he would face the death penalty if he acted against imperial mandate?
        
        “Does anyone deny that this sentence was indeed carried out exactly as the magistrate demanded, according to the dictates of a monkey trial?”
        Were “monkey trials” common at that time and did Sattler know this when he acted against imperial mandate?
        “Is Sattler’s death justified—and genuinely comforting—knowing that while he was praying for those who were torturing him, his voice slurred?”
        Slurred or “clear” as the story says? Now we have an instance where the testimony is called into question as being truthful. How much more of this story is exaggerated?
        
        “So, again, I ask the Catholics here this simple question: which side would you have embraced?”
        In America today, execution is only carried out in the most serious of capital crimes. And cruel and unusual punishment is in itself outlawed. More over, the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed that the death penalty is now inadmissable. But even as late as the 19th century the law called for the punishment of hanging for the crime of horse theft. The Old Testament punishment of stoning to death was even for those caught in adultery. How would that go over now in America if that law was enacted? So the question of “which side would you have embraced?” is a loaded question.
        I’ll give you my loaded answer. I would embrace the side of the law abiding, just as I do today.
      3. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 10, 2020 at 11:13 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        “So the question of “which side would you have embraced?” is a loaded question. I’ll give you my loaded answer. I would embrace the side of the law abiding, just as I do today.”
        
        When one obeys God rather than man, he may suffer the consequences, but he is still the victim. No law of man is justified if it violates the law of God. The law is not valid if it violates the universal Law of God, and you can (and must) never be obligated to violate God’s Law. If, instead, you embrace the side of the law when it violates God’s law, you oppose God.
        
        ” More over, the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed that the death penalty is now inadmissable.”
        
        Have you asked yourself why it took so long and cost so many lives before they realized this?
        
        And yet, even in this proclamation, they are still wrong. The death penalty is absolutely wrong for Christians, not for secular governments to whom God has explicitly given the sword to be his instrument of justice. It is for this reason that Christians must have zero direct roles in government.
        
        “The Old Testament punishment of stoning to death was even for those caught in adultery. How would that go over now in America if that law was enacted?”
        
        The secular government answers to God alone, and it will be judged accordingly. If it gave the death penalty for adultery, would you stand in its way?
        
        Peace,
        DR
Nick Broom says:

August 31, 2020 at 11:05 am

Whew! I sure am glad Americans don’t act that way over religion anymore. And the Catholic Church has certainly embraced social justice nowadays. They don’t even excommunicate as much as they used to.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  September 1, 2020 at 11:55 am
  
  “I brought this up, because it highlights that doctrinal unity is irrelevant “. Derek I guess that statement pretty much explains your cavalier and irrational attitude about letting the Sprit decide which canon list to accept and the belief that Protestants have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and are being guided and taught by the Holy Spirit despite the fact that there are thirty to forty thousand Protestant denominations. Reminds me of the people putting up Black Lives Matter signs in the yard because they empathize with African Americans over slavery and discrimination but are totally unaware I assume that BLM has spoken against the nuclear family and have Marxist leanings. Now to say “doctrinal unity is irrelevant” is basically saying i’m just fine with teaching heresy. But again if you can’t defend your doctrines by reason, by the Bible and by the writings of the Church Fathers I can see why focusing on persecution 500 years ago would be your argument for why someone should join the Anabaptist Church. Christ founded a Church and the Catholic Church can trace it’s lineage to the apostolic age. Your Church as you explained started after the Protestant reformation although you don’t like to be called a Protestant for whatever reason. And I believe the Jews were guilty of “human rights atrocities “ but they were still God’s chosen people , right ?
  
  Reply
2. Nick Broom says:
  
  September 11, 2020 at 10:32 am
  
  DR–
  I see we are talking about the death penalty.
  You do realize that God’s Law includes the death penalty, right? Gen 9:6 Exo 1:12-35:2 Lev 20:2-27, 24:16-21 Num 1:15, 3:10, 3:38, 15:35, 35:16-21
  
  You ask “Have you asked yourself why it took so long and cost so many lives before they (RCC) realized this (death penalty is not admissible) ?”
  Yes, I have asked myself that question and found an answer. Have you researched the reasoning behind the death penalty and why the RCC has made the current decision?
  
  You said “The secular government answers to God alone, and it will be judged accordingly. If it gave the death penalty for adultery, would you stand in its way?”
  No, I would not.
  Now let’s turn the tables a bit. You consider yourself non-resistant based on the Sermon on the Mount. Here is a scenario Jesus doesn’t address:
  An armed and desperate criminal breaks into your house and tells you he intends to rape and murder your wife and torture and murder your kids and make you watch while he does it. Pleading with him you realize he is irrational and won’t listen to reason. But you have the ability to protect your family and stop him in his tracks by use of deadly force. Will you “turn the other cheek”?
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    September 11, 2020 at 10:53 am
    
    Christ said “It would be better that a milestone be tied around his neck and he be thrown into the sea then for him to offend these little ones”. Sounds like the death penalty to me but what do I know. Unfortunately there are good biblical arguments for and against the death penalty, would you agree Derek? If not I suggest you look them up. And I hope you will answer Nick’s question about the dangerous criminal instead of responding you “are begging the question “.
    
    Reply
  2. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 12, 2020 at 10:29 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    “Have you researched the reasoning behind the death penalty and why the RCC has made the current decision? “
    
    Yes. As you can imagine, such a change would be very interesting to me. I wrote a little on the topic, mostly joining the Catholic dissent.
    
    “Yes, I have asked myself that question and found an answer. [..] You do realize that God’s Law includes the death penalty, right? “
    
    Of course it does. That’s why Francis’ absurd reasoning is a moral inversion of Genesis 9:6. But I’m not Catholic, so I’m not obligated to engage in cognitive dissonance.
    
    “But you have the ability to protect your family and stop him in his tracks by use of deadly force. Will you “turn the other cheek”?”
    
    Yes. I would not use deadly force under any circumstance. I would sooner take a bullet than take the life of an unbeliever and doom him to damnation because of my disobedience. Read what happened at the West Nickel Mines school, in my proverbial backyard.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
Pingback: Michael Sattler and Wisdom - Derek L. Ramsey
Betty says:

September 1, 2020 at 2:40 pm

Derek, will try and post this comment on your site and your association of Michael Sattler with the righteous man in Wisdom I am sure could be mimicked with many Catholic martyrs at the hands of Protestants but both would fall short with fulfilling the taunting verse from Wisdom “For if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” And in Matthew 27:43 “let God deliver him now, if he desired him. For he said “I am the Son of God”. Close but no cigar! So Derek do you still deny it is a prophesy fulfilled in Christ?

Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 2, 2020 at 3:55 pm

Tim–
You ask “Christ prayed for unity, so how is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own?”

Roman Catholic unity of doctrine is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What is found there is a culmination of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the teaching Magisterium
and contains “all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”.
The “I believe and profess” part of that citation is a personal vow made by the baptized and confirmed Catholic. If that person makes that profession when he consciously and with full consent of the will says AMEN in the Mass, then anything other that comes from his mouth contrary to that profession is breaking his personal vow. That is the fault of the person, not the teaching of the Church. Consequently, that makes him a bad Catholic. Reconciliation is then needed. Unity comes with reconciliation.
So let me ask you again:
Do you practice closed communion in your church?
If so, what are the requirements for excommunication?
And now that brings up another question:
What is required of a person to reconcile with your church once excommunicated?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 2, 2020 at 5:01 pm
  
  Thank you, Nick. You wrote,
  
  “Roman Catholic unity of doctrine is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
  
  I suppose. Except it keeps changing. Paragraph 1481 used to refer to the Pharisee being forgiven, rather than the publican. You could be forgiven, I suppose, for refusing to agree to that paragraph until it was fixed. And yet, it stood that way for years before it was corrected to align with the scriptures.
  
  2267 on the death penalty and 1481 are just some examples. Robert Sungenis was in the same situation, and could not submit to the catechism until the bishops changed it. I can certainly understand if Marshall and Gordon conscientiously object until the matter is resolved. Sungenis paved the way.
  
  Sungenis could not submit to a heretical statement in the Catechism until it was fixed. No Christian should affirm that the Pharisee went home justified simply because the Catechism got it wrong. Marshall and Gordon believe the catechism is wrong on the death penalty, and needs to be corrected so they can affirm it in good conscience. You say (if I understand you correctly) that they should accept the updated language in 2267 because of their vow. And Sungenis should have accepted the heretical statement on the Mosaic covenant until it was corrected to say what is true. And that all Roman Catholics should have accepted that the Pharisee went home justified (from 1994 until it was corrected in 1997) because of their vow, at which point they should have changed their belief back to what the Scripture teaches based on their vow.
  
  The problem is, the catechism is not an infallible document. It’s a fallible document that is alleged to contain some infallible things. It is constantly changing. How about you, Nick. Do you believe laypersons enjoy “the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish” in solidum?
  
  * in solidum: the individual acting with the power of the whole
  
  Well of course you don’t. The charism of the petrine pastoral office exists only in the ordained ministers of the church, not in the laypersons.
  
  But from 1994-1997, that is exactly what the Catechism taught (paragraph 911). Did you believe laypersons enjoy “the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish” in solidum from 1994 – 1997? If not, why not? It isn’t true. But it was in the catechism.
  
  And, as you say, “Roman Catholic unity of doctrine is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 3, 2020 at 3:07 pm
    
    Timothy–
    “The problem is, the catechism is not an infallible document. It’s a fallible document that is alleged to contain some infallible things. It is constantly changing.”
    
    This is why there is a need for a living, breathing, teaching magisterium so that corrections can be made when needed and to keep up with the increase in knowledge.
    
    So let me ask you once again:
    Do you practice closed communion in your church?
    If so, what are the requirements for excommunication?
    And then:
    What is required of a person to reconcile with your church once excommunicated?
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 3, 2020 at 4:47 pm
      
      It’s not just an increase in knowledge, Nick. It’s correcting error that has been codified in the catechism. You have established affirmation of the teachings of the catechism as the basis of your unity, and yet the catechism is known to have taught things that are deeply problematic, erroneous and false. Paragraph 911 was not corrected because of an “increase in knowledge.” It was corrected because it was factually wrong based on information known at the time it was published. 1481 was not corrected because of an “increase in knowledge.”It was corrected because it was Scripturally incorrect based on information that was nearly 2000 years old. According to you, the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains “all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God” and serves as the summary of truth for the Roman Catholic. All good Roman Catholics must affirm it.
      
      Yet in 1993 the Catechism of the Catholic Church stated that laypeople enjoy “the exercise in solidum of the pastoral care of a parish,” something that is deeply erroneous and was known to be wrong in 1993. Should the good catholic have affirmed that in 1993 in order to maintain the appearance of unity, or can the good catholic in good conscience reject that paragraph until it is corrected? That’s the question.
      
      For some crazy reason you keep asking me:
      
      Do you practice closed communion in your church?
      If so, what are the requirements for excommunication?
      And then:
      What is required of a person to reconcile with your church once excommunicated?
      
      None of which is relevant to a question about Roman Catholic claims of unity. Roman Catholic Unity is an objective construct independent of outside issues. The Roman Catholic Church alleges to manifest the doctrinal unity for which Christ prayed, which ought to be true even if it was the only religion on earth.That claim is universal and is independent of the existence of any other claim or construct. And yet Roman Catholicism is demonstrably non-unified on matters of doctrine. What I or a martian believe about anything is irrelevant. How is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own, as they clearly do? I still don’t have an answer to that question. I have been told I am making mountains out of mole hills, that I should ignore the doctrinal differences and focus on the unity, that agreeing on most of the catechism should suffice, that the unity of Betty, Nick and Phil should suffice to prove that the Roman Catholic doctrinal unity is real, and that Roman Catholic disagreements on doctrine are immaterial as long as those Roman Catholics take the Lord’s Supper together and say amen. All of which papers over real doctrinal disagreements and deflects the issue by focusing on what protestants do.
      
      Imagine I’m an atheist from Mars and I’ve never heard of any religion at all. I land on earth, and you claim that Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one” is realized in the doctrinal unity of Roman Catholicism which is summed up in the teaching of the catechism. As an atheist martian, I am asking you, how that is that possible if the catechism is known to contain error and professing Roman Catholics alternately accept or reject different paragraphs based on their personal interpretation of what is true?
      
      As an atheist martian I have no concept of communion or excommunication and my opinions on those constructs are immaterial. The atheist martian is only asking you how something that appears logically impossible to him is affirmed as a central tenet of your faith: doctrinal unity between people who do not agree on doctrine, affirmation of error in the act of professing to believe what is true, multiple different factions within Roman Catholicism saying that the other factions are the dissenters or infiltrators and are not really part of the church, widely divergent opinions on which councils are ecumenical and which papal statements are ex cathedra.
      
      To an atheist martian, an answer that starts with “Well, we are not as bad at this as Protestants” is an irrelevant non sequitur.
      
      Why is it that no Roman Catholic can address the martian’s question outside of the context of the Reformation?
      
      Imagine for a moment that there is no Protestant, no reformation. Just Roman Catholicism and an unbelieving world. Now answer the question:
      
      “How is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own?”
      
      And honestly, what good is Roman Catholicism to the martian if he has to sift through mountains of tradition, papal statements, councils, church fathers and sort out all the conflicting and divergent opinions on his own, with all the various factions within Rome claiming that their personal interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium is the ‘real’ Roman Catholicism?
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 3, 2020 at 9:27 pm
        
        Timothy says: “It’s not just an increase in knowledge, Nick. It’s correcting error that has been codified in the catechism.”
        Yes. That is what I said. “This is why there is a need for a living, breathing, teaching magisterium so that corrections can be made when needed AND to keep up with the increase in knowledge.”
        In other words:
        1) Correcting human mistakes in the catechism.
        2) To keep up with current issues.
        Not to correct errors BECAUSE of increasing knowledge.
        
        And you said “Now answer the question:
        “How is doctrinal unity possible in Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own?”
        My answer is:
        It is possible because “everyone” doesn’t interpret on their own. That is your hasty generalization. With a few exceptions, Catholics attend Mass and remain Catholic because we accept the teaching of the magisterium using Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
        
        You also said: “For some crazy reason you keep asking me: Do you practice closed communion in your church? If so, what are the requirements for excommunication? And then: What is required of a person to reconcile with your church once excommunicated?
        None of which is relevant to a question about Roman Catholic claims of unity.”
        You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with our claims of unity. It has to do with the tradition in YOUR church. That is why I asked YOU. It is relevant to doctrinal unity in YOUR church and whether it exists in YOUR church.
        I’ve answered your question, now please answer mine.
Betty says:

September 3, 2020 at 10:05 pm

Maybe I missed it but I haven’t seen Timothy provide any list of dogmas Protestants agree on. Now you would think the first thing the alien Martian would want to know on learning about Christianity and Christ and seeing 40,000 churches would be which Church did Christ start. So my Protestant friend, what year was your Church founded? Since you are called Protestant it of course was after Martin Luther? And of course our alien Martian would like to be informed of the difference in Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline. Now Timothy for whatever reason did not want to discuss the fact that Disciplines are liturgical and theological practices and customs of our faith such as the role of the laity which unlike Dogmas and Doctrines can be changed. So the role of laypersons in the pastoral care of the Church can obviously be changed. But what is it about Protestant dogmatic unity that Timothy refuses to address. So I’ll provide ten Catholic dogmas that all Catholics believe and Timothy can provide ten Protestant dogmas that all Protestants agree with. I already gave him one, they oppose the Catholic Church. So let’s see, Jesus is God. Ever read Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong? There are seven sacraments, infant baptism is valid, the dead benefit from our prayers, Mary’s perpetual virginity, apostolic succession, veneration of saints , the real presence, the bodily resurrection and the final judgement where we will be rewarded for what we have done as Christ said. There are many others and I will go on but I want to give Timothy the opportunity of coming up with ten dogmas all Protestants agree on.
Now I have pointed out multiple times Kevin and Derek’s belief based on Scripture that Protestants have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and are being guided and taught by the Holy Spirit. Hard to explain given Timothy’s inability of coming up with any significant list of Dogmas Protestants agree on. Is Bishop Spong who questions Christ’s divinity being guided by the Spirit. I mentioned before it is humility, not hipocrisy that keeps Catholics in the Catholic Church recognizing their own fallibility when there is a teaching in the Church they may not agree with. But where is the humility when people think they personally are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Or those people who think they can actually interpret the Book of Revelation?

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 4, 2020 at 6:59 pm
  
  Hi Betty,
  Thank you for your comment. I hope you get your answer.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 3, 2020 at 11:32 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. You still did not differentiate between essentials and accidentals. Anyway, I’ll do my best to answer your question.

You said:
“Phil, you observed … differ rent than yours.”
According to you, Marshall and Gordon put themselves in conflict with the Catechism. Vegano with Vatican II. On the surface, neither of the three has been excommunicated. They are in the field, they have external unity with the wheat, but they could be weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). God is the only one who knows if they have the real unity of faith (which is spiritual and of the Holy Spirit). That should answer your question since in the opening statement of your blog you say that you have “faith alone”. Faith is what brings up the unity by the action of the Holy Spirit (unless of course, we don’t cooperate with Him). Doesn’t that make sense to you? Let me know if it doesn’t.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 4, 2020 at 6:37 am
  
  Phil, when you attempt to differentiate between essentials and accidentals, do you mean to say that the doctrinal divisions within Roman Catholicism are “accidental” attributes that do not affect the “essential” doctrinal unity of the Church, which is an attribute the Church enjoys irrespective of the doctrinal divisions that exist within her walls?
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 4, 2020 at 9:18 am

Here is an interesting article concerning doctrine and dogma:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/doctrine/The-relation-of-faith-reason-and-religious-insight-to-doctrine-and-dogma

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 4, 2020 at 6:55 pm
  
  Hi Nick,
  Thank you for the article. Very enlightening.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 4, 2020 at 7:36 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. What I mean by “essential” and “accidental” is that they are different and should be considered separately. You just keep lumping all the differences together which does not make sense. Why don’t you tell us which ones you consider “essential” and which ones “accidental”? Obviously, all dogmas are “essential” and you should answer Betty’s question about that if you want to be taken seriously.

You asked me:
“Phil, when you attempt to differentiate between essentials and accidentals, do you mean to say that the doctrinal divisions within Roman Catholicism are “accidental” attributes that do not affect the “essential” doctrinal unity of the Church, which is an attribute the Church enjoys irrespective of the doctrinal divisions that exist within her walls?”
No, you are lumping all differences together. It is you who should point out which differences are “essential”, in your opinion, and which are “accidental” before bringing them up. Since the 2865 points of agreement in the Catechism may be too many for you to handle I will make it easier for you: let’s take a look at the pre-Reformation Martian of your scenario to Betty and make it easier for him, too. The Nicene Creed (less than 200 words) contains most of the “essential” truths of our faith. It had been universally professed by Christians in their local churches in Europe, Africa, and Asia. I don’t see how that Martian would be confused at all about their unity of faith. When other “essential” differences came up, within the next millennium, they were clearly dealt with and anathematized by subsequent Councils. This discipline followed the instruction of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:5), in order to keep the unity of the faith and save the sinner. After the Reformation, the Church slowly changed her policy of how to handle internal dissent due to the change of the world’s circumstances. How has your church adjusted to those circumstances? This is where Nick’s question becomes relevant.

God bless you

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 4, 2020 at 11:06 pm
  
  Phil wrote,
  
  “What I mean by “essential” and “accidental” is that they are different and should be considered separately.”
  
  That is no definition. Telling me that “essential” and “accidental” are not the same thing still does not tell me what you think they mean. It only tells me that you think they are not the same thing. Tell me what you think they mean so I can answer you.
  
  Betty alleged there were no doctrinal differences regarding the pope, the catechism and the councils. So I pointed out obvious doctrinal differences within Rome about all three. So she came back with a list of what, perhaps may be the essentials (but I have no idea since I don’t know what you mean by essential), about which she alleged there were absolutely no differences (e.g., on justification), and so I provided an example of a situation where the pope has taught something on justification, and probably Betty, and a lot of other Roman Catholics, disagree on his views on it, and still, a disagreement on JUSTIFICATION, is not considered significant enough to be considered a “doctrinal disagreement”. And so I was told to focus on your what unites you, instead of what divides you, by which perhaps you mean to say that I should focus on the essentials rather than the accidents, but I have no idea what you mean by that except probably this: any division must be accidental, and therefore there are no disagreements on the essentials. Well, that’s an awfully convenient definition.
  
  Roman Catholics allege no doctrinal disagreements. Yet there are hundreds. But let me give you just one:
  
  Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap., writes that there is the appearance of one church (the accidents), but in reality two churches (the essence):
  
  “Because he [Francis] is the head of both, the appearance of one church remains, while in fact there are two. The only phrase that I can find to describe this situation is “internal papal schism,” for the pope, even as pope, will effectively be the leader of a segment of the Church that through its doctrine, moral teaching, and ecclesial structure, is for all practical purposes schismatic. This is the real schism that is in our midst and must be faced, but I do not believe Pope Francis is in any way afraid of this schism.” (Pope Francis and Schism, Oct 8 2019)
  
  That doesn’t sound like a disagreement over “accidents”. That sounds like a disagreement over “essence.”
  
  So, Phil, there are currently “two” churches in Rome. One is schismatic and heretical, and one is orthodox and biblical. The problem is, both factions think the other faction is heretical, obstinate and factious. And yet they all claim to be the true church. How on earth is this Martian to know which of the two factions in Rome I should join?
  
  Now, if you want to be taken seriously, 1) acknowledge that there are serious doctrinal divisions within Rome over what constitutes the true church, and 2) tell me how I can know which of these two factions I should join, and 3) explain why I should give any creedence at all to your fallible opinion on the matter?
  
  Thanks
  
  Tim
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    September 5, 2020 at 5:48 pm
    
    Fascinating that Timothy cannot come up with any dogmas or essentials of the Faith that Protestants agree on. And then he quotes a priest saying there is a schism in the Church , so does anyone expect the Church to split? Of course not. There is a natural schism in almost every Church or institution between the more liberal elements and those who are more conservative. Now presumably because Bishop Spong is a Protestant Timothy is not willing to state that Spong is not being led by the Holy Spirit when he denies that Christ rose from the dead!
    Now of course without a teaching Church who decides what is essential and what is not. Protestant churches have divided over the use of musical instruments in their Church. The Church of Yahweh insists that the scriptures need to be read in the original languages. Should the restraints on woman mentioned in the New Testament during the worship service be kept.
    So to your questions 1, there are no serious doctrinal disagreements in Christ’s True Church that threatens its unity. Wishful thinking on your part. 2 just join the Catholic Church, you don’t have to join either “faction” and 3: Common sense! Timothy you have not been able to come up with any list of dogmas Protestants all agree on. I just gave you 10 Catholics do agree on . And Practical unity. One Church vs forty thousand denominations. And if we include the liberal and conservative factions in each group that’s eighty thousand.
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 5, 2020 at 7:22 pm
      
      Hi Timothy,
      Thank you for your comment. “Essential” means “necessary” and “Accidental” means “non-essential”. The definition is irrelevant now because what I said is that they were different (which they are) and that you were “lumping” them together for your argument which is not good logic: it is called “Hasty Generalization” and is ‘using a small number to represent the all’. My opinion is “fallible” indeed and I don’t expect you to give me any more credence than that: 1 vs 1. I am sure that the atheist pre-Reformation Martian would not presume to tell you what to do and neither will I.
      
      You said:
      “That sounds like a disagreement over “essence”. You are right, this would be a doctrinal error if substantiated. However Fr. Weinandy’s faction has no authority to change doctrine. You claim confusion about Catholic doctrine and yet you are able to show knowledge of it when it suits you. How “convenient”’.
      
      I was going to tell you that Fr. Weinandy’s is only 1 vs 1 billion plus opinion, but since you mention “faction” there must be more than one. How many? I don’t know. Let me know if you do.
      
      Thank you Betty for your comment.
      
      God bless you both.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 6, 2020 at 10:56 am
        
        Thank you Phil. I actually just finished a Protestant’s Christian experience which I thought was so pertinent to the current discussion. I am not sure what denomination Paul Pavao belongs to because it appears he started a new one but a few quotes show the dilemma Protestants face. Now Pail never mentions finding the Church Christ founded, it’s all about finding a church which met his interpretation of the Bible. At the end of his story he quotes 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reprogram ….” and then writes “They (All Scripture) are not profitable for doctrinal disputes, for these lead only to division. (1 Tim 6:3-5). Is this the official Protestant dogma Timothy? Of course the problem for Paul was he could not find a Church that agreed with his interpretation so the solution he thought up was find a group of Christians who all felt the Spirit was with them, stay unified and over time the Spirit would lead them to correct interpretation of Scripture. I wonder how long his denomination will last til it starts splitting. I was also amused by his experience in Alaska while in the service.
        “There were only six committed Christians on that air station. There were others who called themselves Christian, but no one who was interested in Bible study, or evangelism. I quickly got the six Christians together for Bible study and prayer, and we would go pass out out tracts to the eskimos in Galen’s village on our days off.
        We did this for six weeks. That’s how long it took for our doctrinal differences to divide us into six individual denominations. The brothers- it was almost exclusively men on that air base- were angry , and most of them wouldn’t speak to one another.”. Now I wonder why there are forty thousand Protestant denominations?
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 10:50 am
        
        Phil wrote,
        
        “I was going to tell you that Fr. Weinandy’s is only 1 vs 1 billion plus opinion, but since you mention “faction” there must be more than one. How many? I don’t know. Let me know if you do.”
        
        Goodness, Phil, when your own clergy are arguing over this and calling each other heretics and schismatics, it’s time to wake up and smell the division. Catholic Family News writes,
        
        “Since its founding, Catholic Family News has never ceased to call upon the hierarchy of the Church to recognize the destruction wrought by the Second Vatican Council and to do something to correct the errors and dangers that stem from it.”
        
        This is from their news article, “More Than 50 International Scholars, Clerics, and Journalists Publish Open Letter in Support of Abp. Viganò and Bp. Schneider”.
        
        The letter was in support of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider who have called repeatedly for a correction of the Second Vatican Council.
        
        Today, July 15, 2020, a group of 51 scholars, journalists, dignitaries, and clerics published an Open Letter in Support of these two courageous bishops. Among the initial signatories are Italian Church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei (a CFN contributor); the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as fellow law professors Brian McCall (CFN Editor-in-Chief) and Paolo Pasqualucci; well-known Catholic authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (also a CFN contributor), Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall; the retired Oxford Research Fellow Fr. John Hunwicke, as well as numerous other priests; and Catholic journalists such as Matt Gaspers (CFN Managing Editor), Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen (LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief).
        
        But don’t worry, Phil. I’m sure all those Catholics supporting Vigano and Schneider in their efforts to correct an ecumenical council of the bishops of “Holy Roman Catholic Church” in unity with the Supreme Pontiff are just demonstrating an “accidental” division over non-essentials and not over anything that really matters.
        
        😉
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      September 8, 2020 at 1:41 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      Can you clarify something for me? You said:
      
      “And then he quotes a priest saying there is a schism in the Church , so does anyone expect the Church to split? Of course not. There is a natural schism in almost every Church or institution between the more liberal elements and those who are more conservative.”
      
      Of the ~10 denominational families, are any of these schisms and splits from the Roman Catholic Church or are they all independently formed?
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
Betty says:

September 4, 2020 at 8:33 pm

A good question of how does a Church handle discent. I remember when reading Bishop John Shelby Spongs books years ago I was always fascinated that he was the Episcopal bishop of Newark but was obviously denying the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 6, 2020 at 12:44 pm

Phil said “This discipline followed the instruction of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:5), in order to keep the unity of the faith and save the sinner. After the Reformation, the Church slowly changed her policy of how to handle internal dissent due to the change of the world’s circumstances. How has your church adjusted to those circumstances? This is where Nick’s question becomes relevant.”

Thanks, Phil. Here is something I found online:
https://presbyterianreformed.org/about-us/government/88-103-excommunication-absolution-censure-ministers/
You mention “unity of faith”. So does this appendix of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Reformed Church listed under the Basis of Union:
90. Such errors as subvert the faith, or any other errors which overthrow the power of godliness, if the party who holds them spread them, seeking to draw others after him; and such sins in practice, as cause the name and truth of God to be blasphemed, and cannot stand with the power of godliness; and such practices, as in their own nature manifestly subvert that order, unity and peace, which Christ hath established in his church: those being publicly known, to the just scandal of the church, the sentence of excommunication shall proceed according to the directory.

Timothy, being currently a member at Southwood Presbyterian Church, do you agree and adhere to this?

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

September 7, 2020 at 9:58 am

Tim,

On unity:

Phil said: “Essential” means “necessary” and “Accidental” means “non-essential”.

Though “unity” defined means “united” or “oneness”, let’s rather consider what is necessary. The CCC #816 says this:

“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.””

The “fullness of the means of salvation” is exclusive to the RCC because of its apostolic government. The RCC establishes “the one body of Christ.” Oneness (or unity) is, therefore, the necessity of membership in the RCC and non-unity is non-membership or excommunication. Unity is top-down: declarative or prescriptive. The church has unity because it self-identifies as universal.

Under these terms, the RCC is by definition united. Unity does not produce doctrinal unity, rather doctrinal unity is a consequence of the unity of the church. All disunity is an ‘accidental’ consequence of failure to adhere to the ‘necessary’ authority of the church and failure to repent of it.

Nick says…

“Catholics attend Mass and remain Catholic because we accept the teaching of the magisterium using Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. “

…and Betty says…

“Now you would think the first thing the alien Martian would want to know on learning about Christianity and Christ and seeing 40,000 churches would be which Church did Christ start. “

…and Phil says…

“On the surface, neither of the three has been excommunicated.”

All three of these espouse the exact same argument: unity is submission to church authority (as proven by membership).

It always comes back to papal infallibility, apostolic succession, sacred tradition, and the keys to the kingdom. All of these are riddled with circular reasoning, just as ‘unity’ is circularly defined here.

A priest or bishop says that the current apostolic head of the church is false, but because he is still a member of the RCC he is in full unity with the current pope as his head. Absurd. But that’s where the circular argument leads, so it must be true!

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  September 7, 2020 at 9:28 pm
  
  DR says “All three of these espouse the exact same argument: unity is submission to church authority (as proven by membership).”
  
  Yes, that is correct. Then of course you submit to Anabaptist church authority as well. But which one? This article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Brethren ) states:
  ” the Brethren split several times because of doctrinal differences.”
  Which one of these do you submit to “as proven by membership”?
  Brethren Church · Church of the Brethren · Conservative Grace Brethren · Dunkard Brethren · Grace Brethren · Old Brethren · Old Brethren German Baptist · Old German Baptist Brethren · Old German Baptist Brethren, New Conference · Old Order German Baptist Brethren
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 8, 2020 at 2:06 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    “Then of course you submit to Anabaptist church authority as well. But which one?”
    
    Your question begs the question. Thus, no answer is necessary or wise. Indeed, it is not possible to answer your loaded question. Rather, you should ask yourself what conclusion—to the argument under debate—you have assumed.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
2. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 8, 2020 at 4:05 pm
  
  Hi Derek,
  I think that you believe in a spiritual Church alone (correct me if I am wrong) and we also believe in a spiritual Church (agreement here) in a visible body (disagreement here). It’s very important to keep this in mind if we are going to be logical in our arguments. I have previously brought up to Timothy’s attention that Jesus compared His Kingdom to a wheat field with weeds planted by the enemy (Matthew 13:24-30) and it is going to stay that way until harvest time. I would rather concentrate on keeping the wheat healthy (98%) and protected from the weeds (2%) than in trying to concentrate on the weeds alone.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 8, 2020 at 4:33 pm
    
    Phil,
    
    “It’s very important to keep this in mind if we are going to be logical in our arguments.”
    
    Well, your comment is a complete mess. I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I don’t know if we agree or disagree.
    
    The church is the congregation of believers. It is neither building nor organization (including denomination). The notion of a congregation can be understood on multiple levels (such as a set of believers, a community of believers, all believers in a particular region, or all believers entirely), but it always refers to a group of believers.
    
    What do you mean by “spiritual Church alone?” A believer cannot be spiritual alone, nor will he be spiritual alone even when he receives a new body on the Day of Judgment.
    
    Christians are called the ‘body of Christ’, both individually and collectively. But, I’ve never met an invisible Christian, so I don’t know why you’ve prefixed ‘body’ with ‘visible’. Of course it is visible.
    
    I don’t know what you are referring to when you discuss wheat and weeds nor why you have assigned percentages to them.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 8, 2020 at 5:13 pm
      
      Hi Derek,
      Thank you for your comment and I apologize for bringing up the percentages. I have problems with my computer and my comments are being managed. I have noticed your last comment to me and I hope to answer it eventually. Since I have had some involvement in the discussions between Timothy, Nick, Betty, and yourself, I wanted to clear the air before I move on and I assumed that you were familiar with those issues. I was wrong. However, that should not affect my quote of Matthew 13:24-30. You should still be able to answer that.
      God bless you.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 8:45 pm
        
        Phil,
        
        “…that should not affect my quote of Matthew 13:24-30. You should still be able to answer that.”
        
        Answer what? Regarding the parable, you said:
        
        “I would rather concentrate on keeping the wheat healthy (98%) and protected from the weeds (2%) than in trying to concentrate on the weeds alone.”
        
        I understand from this that your personal calling is to primarily minister to the saved rather than the lost, but this is not a question. I’m perplexed as to what you think I should be able to answer or why this is applicable to anything we have been discussing to date. If you have a question, please make it clear and direct.
        
        Regardless, I eagerly await your response.
        
        Peace,
        DR
Betty says:

September 7, 2020 at 2:12 pm

Yes Derek, it is all about submission to the Church Christ founded. It’s not about hipocrisy as suggested by Timothy, it is about humility. Sola Scriptura is all about me. You and Kevin both claim to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and to be guided and taught by the Spirit, and yet with the little interaction you had on this website obviously have numerous disagreements. Did you read the Paul Pavao story? Seven “Christians “ engaged in Bible study for six weeks and then they wouldn’t even talk to each other due to doctrinal disagreements. So Derek, do you agree with Paul Pavao, that Sctipture is”not useful for doctrinal disputes , because these lead to division”? I would appreciate an answer as I see Nick, Phil and I attempting to answer your questions .
Now the good thing about common sense is you don’t have to have a degree in Philosophy or take a course in logic to realize the Protestant model that unity is possible with the human tradition Sola Scriptura is insanity. And it doesn’t take circular reasoning to look at the facts and use a little common sense. Practical Unity, One Catholic Church! Protestantism 40,000. Doctrinal unity? While maybe 98 percent is not perfect it sure is a lot better then 1 percent. And on the last 10 dogmas I provided I believe the Catholic unity is probably a 100 per cent. Derek maybe you could help Timothy provide us with 10 dogmas that Protestants hold in common. We know Bishop Spong who was Bishop of Newark denied Christ’s bodily resurrection so forget that belief. Would you consider that an essential or nonessential belief?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 7, 2020 at 5:06 pm
  
  Betty, you strode in here asking how doctrinal unity is possible when everyone is interpreting the Bible on their own. Implicit within that question is the presumption and an assertion that Roman Catholicism is doctrinally unified. Yet while Protestants are busy interpreting the Scripture on their own, Roman Catholics are busy interpreting the church fathers, the Catechism, the councils, the magisterium on their own. Depending on which apologists or priest you listen to, that was either the accidental byproduct of Vatican II or its very purpose. It depends on who you ask.
  
  In this review of Amoris Laetitia and the Spirit of Vatican II, “Francis and the Council [Vatican II] share two basic issues: first, an open textuality that requires “creative fidelity” (12-18; 27-34)—through which a plurality of interpretations could be acknowledged as plausible and consistent with the authoritative word of the Church”.
  
  Plurality of interpretations. In Roman Catholicism, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature. Everyone reads the councils, the patristics, the magisterial documents, and the scriptures on their own and arrives at their own personal, private interpretation, insisting that theirs could be a plausible interpretation of what the Church means, meant, or should have meant, or perhaps will one day mean in the future. Many personal, private, contradictory interpretations. One church.
  
  This woman interprets the Eucharist through her Feminist Theological Lens:
  
  “This paper is based on the findings of my PhD research into at the effect of participation in the Roman Catholic Sacrament of the Eucharist on the formation of subjectivity viewed from the perspective of Feminist Liberation Theology. Taking Eucharist as a communal manifestation of belief in communion with the divine celebrated through symbolic liturgical enactments of thanksgiving and praise I am exploring the link between Feminist Relational Theologies and new findings in Cosmology and Quantum Theology that highlight interdependence and relationality as basic to our understanding of ourselves and the nature of the divine.”
  
  This woman evaluates the Eucharist through the lens of Black Liberation Theology:
  
  “Here I argue that the central theme of the unity of the human community is the teleological focus of both Black liberation theology and communion ecclesiology.”
  
  This guy imagines the Eucharist is an expression of the queer body politic:
  
  “Christ’s mystical body is already political, the co-abiding of a nondivisive body conjoined by both human and divine desire, responding to the hunger of and for the Other, emerging in a space and tine wherein eros and agape constitue one another. Within this queer body-politics, otherness is always welcome.”
  
  Yay! Creative fidelity! But at least there are no doctrinal disagreements like those Protestants!
  
  Betty, you have conceded that doctrinal unity is not possible within Roman Catholicism:
  
  “While maybe 98 percent is not perfect it sure is a lot better then 1 percent.”
  
  98% is a little ambitious, but for the sake of conversation I’ll just observe and agree that 98% also is not 100%, and 100% doctrinal agreement is not possible within Roman Catholicism with everyone interpreting the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium on their own. It just isn’t.
  
  Now keeping in mind that the ability to achieve doctrinal unity was YOUR standard of measure, and your own religion, by your own acknowledgement, does not live up to your own standard, I have no plans to answer your question. I won’t participate in a conversation in which you attempt to measure others and condemn them while acknowledging that you yourself cannot and do not live up to the standard by which you measure them.
  
  You, Jamie T. Phelps, Agnes Rafferty and Ángel F. Méndez‐Montoya OP are all “unified” under an umbrella of “creative fidelity,” when all you are doing is expressing your own personal opinions and private interpretations about the teachings of the Bible, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
  
  And after all this talk, I still don’t know which pretend unified faction of your horribly divided religion I should join.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 7, 2020 at 9:37 pm
    
    Timothy says “And after all this talk, I still don’t know which pretend unified faction of your horribly divided religion I should join.”
    
    The answer is easy. Just pick the one that is closest to where you live. Many have done it that way, too. 😀
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 8, 2020 at 8:25 am
      
      Oh, thank you Nick for your fallible opinion on the matter! That should settle it! “Just pick the one that is closest” geographically is your advice. But Taylor Marshall says I should instead research which parish most closely aligns with my personal understanding of the true, historic and orthodox faith. In his article, “Are You Part of the Great Catholic Migration of the 21st Century?: Realign your time, talent, and money within the Catholic Church,” he gives examples of the cacophony of heterodoxy at different churches, and says it is time to move on from those and start migrating toward the parishes that are faithful to the true Church. Here are the examples he gives, as he collected them from his listeners:
      
      My priest tells off-color jokes in the homily. What should I do?
      The local RCIA instructor taught that contraception is a “personal decision” and when I asked the priest about it, he didn’t think it was a big deal.
      In confession, my priest said that “the pill” is okay in certain situations.
      The nuns at my parochial school are promoting {insert something sketchy}, should I talk to my priest about it?
      Our parish promotes Eastern non-Christian mystical practices and prayers? Should I say something?
      My pastor has forbidden Communion on the tongue. What should I do?
      The priest at my parish changes the words of the liturgy, for example “Son of Man” to “Son of Humanity” in order to be gender inclusive. Should I talk to him about this?
      
      So you say say choose one that his geographically suitable, but that could lead me to disunity. Taylor Marshall says instead I should find out what is taught and then go to a parish that reflects my personal understanding of what constitutes orthodoxy:
      
      Here is what I mean by migration. These Catholics are not physically moving to new geographic areas (though some Catholics do literally move to be part of a wonderful parish). They are realigning their attendance, resources, skills, and money to those parishes, orders, schools, colleges, and other institutions that support and promote traditional Catholic orthodoxy and practice. … This migration is made possible through public transportation and the internet. People can now drive to the “solid parish” in the diocese. They can now have fellowship and friendship with like-minded Catholics via the internet. They can refuse to put their money in the local parish collection and instead send it the FSSP, the Norbertines of Orange County, the Canons of St John Cantius, or to a solid orthodox College that promotes the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. A large network is currently being extended and strengthened. It’s unstoppable. … It is only a matter of time before more and more people vote with their feet and vote with their pocket books. The dissenting parts of the Church will wither and die. Their influence will shrivel up.
      
      Yay for unity! The problem is, how do I determine which parish in my diocese “promotes the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church”? I guess I need to read the Catechism, sort out which affirmations are true, which ones are just uncorrected human error, and which ones are heretical, read the fathers, and figure out which ones spoke the truth and which ones were just kind of winging it, read all papal pronouncements and figure out which ones are ex cathedra and read all the councils and find out which ones are ecumenical and binding, and then make a decision on which one most closely aligns with my personal interpretation of orthodoxy. Which sounds exactly like what Catholics accuse Protestants of doing.
      
      Well, Nick, I’ll just put your fallible opinion on top of the pile of contradictory fallible opinions I get from Roman Catholics all the time. Thank you for contributing to my collection.
      
      Reply
  2. Betty says:
    
    September 8, 2020 at 5:47 am
    
    Timothy, you obviously have no plan to answer my question because you could not come up with any list of dogmas or doctrines that Protestants agree on. And then you try to display Catholic disagreement with three statements concerning the Eucharist from a feminist view, black liberation theology and queer body politic none of which contradict the dogmas of the Church on the real presence . That’s your example of disunity? It’s exactly like when Phil, Nick and I explained unity in the Catholic Church , never denied any dogma or doctrine within the Church and then you claimed this showed we were not unified. Go figure. Next you are going to point out that some Catholics belong to the Knights of Columbus and others don’t as a sign of disunity in Christ’s Church.
    Now the “creative fidelity” statement reminds me of St Augustine’s comments in interpreting Scripture and his belief that Scripture verses can have multiple interpretations that an individual could expound on as long as they do not contradict what I believed he called the “rule of faith”. And at least in the comments you quoted concerning the Eucharist I do not see a denial of the real presence.
    Now I knew from the beginning that you and Derek would not come up with a list of dogmas Protestants agree on because I have asked the question before of Protestant apologist. Always dead silence! No one ever attempts to come up with a list and with 40,000 denominations you can see why. This is insanity and you won’t even acknowledge the problem.
    I am rereading your original article in this series and will try to post later today
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 8, 2020 at 8:40 am
      
      Oh, how delightfully selective of you, Betty: “the feminist view, black liberation theology and queer body politic none of which contradict the dogmas of the Church on the real presence.” But they contradict the church’s teaching on feminism, liberation theology and homosexuals taking communion.
      
      Crisis Magazine says “There is no Catholic Feminism.”
      
      And on Liberation Theology, John Paul II once said, “This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth does not tally with the church’s catechism.”
      
      And Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law says a practicing homosexual cannot participate in the holy Eucharist.
      
      But aside from affirming things contrary to the teachings of the church, the pope, the catechism and canon law, all three examples I gave are still completely unified!
      
      Yay for unity! What you call “doctrinal” or “practical” unity, Betty, is wholly imagined. To allege unity where there is only division is itself insane, Betty.
      
      Now I knew from the beginning that you and Derek would not come up with a list of dogmas Protestants agree on because I have asked the question before of Protestant apologist.
      
      Goodness, Betty, even you aren’t even talking about 100% agreement anymore. You’re settling for 98%. And there is a word for “98% unified”. That word is “divided.”
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 1:50 pm
        
        Love the fact that you are keeping on this topic. So let’s ask the atheist Martian should you join a Church historically founded by Christ that is one and has agreement on 98 percent of dogmatic or doctrinal issues or join one of 40,000 denominations founded 1500 years after Christ’s time on earth that have nearly 0 dogmatic unity except for their opposition to the Church Christ founded. Phil and Nick, can you gentlemen help with any dogmas or doctrines all Protestants agree on since Timothy and Derek refuse to address the question. I think they may all agree we are saved by Faith but just not sure.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 8, 2020 at 2:03 pm
        
        Well, let’s ask the question more accurately:
        
        “should the Martian join an evil interloper imposter religion that arose three centuries after Christ and commands people to worship a crust of bread and a drop of wine as if they had created the universe, and listens to a demonic being claiming to the the mother of the false Christ they claim to worship, and claims to have been founded by the real Christ yet can provide no evidence to support the claim, and while it claims that is one, is horribly divided, and even her own clergy disagree and bicker with each other and call each other names while they disagree on whether they are, or are not, currently in conformity with the initial deposit of faith because they don’t know which catechism questions are correct, which councils are ecumenical and which papal statements are ex cathedra, and while one of its members has claimed that she personally believes without data that the members of her religion have achieved 98% agreement on dogmatic or doctrinal issues, in reality their only singular point of agreement is their utter hatred and opposition to the actual Church Christ founded because they hate Christ and do not even realize it?”
        
        Martian says no, I shan’t join that religion.
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      September 8, 2020 at 8:57 am
      
      Betty,
      
      You said:
      
      “[Tim] and Derek would not come up with a list of dogmas Protestants agree on because I have asked the question before of Protestant apologist.”
      
      Why should I do that when you are doing such an excellent job refuting your own argument?
      
      Feminism, black liberation theology, and the queer body politic divide Protestant denominations. Since these divisions are declared irrelevant in the RCC, then they must also be irrelevant among Protestants. By your own standard the Protestants are not divided.
      
      “Always dead silence!”
      
      I don’t generally respond to logically fallacious or invalid arguments. I may point out the error, but if it isn’t corrected, there is no need for me to comment further. If you persist in fallacious reasoning, the problem still remains with you. No amount of sealioning changes this.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 10, 2020 at 7:41 pm
        
        Obviously Derek you have not been reading what Phil and I have posted about essential and accidental, or Dogma , doctrine and discipline. I am not aware that Catholics are not to speculate concerning different theological matters as long as they are not denying Catholic dogma . Is Timothy’s speculation on Revelation the dogma of the Presbyterian Church. So why should I be offended by speculation from the feminist, black liberation theologist and the gay representative about the Eucharist if they are not denying Catholic dogma on the Eucharist? Now what was that name of that book that gave 200 interpretations on “This is my body” after the Protestant reformation which your “kin” participated in”. So simple, so sublime. “This is my body”. Isn’t it interesting that all the Churches that can date their Church to the apostolic Church believe Christ meant “This is my body”. Why don’t you review the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and their teaching. While they have a different Old and New Testament canon then Catholics and Protestants, they believe in the real presence.
        So you say “By your own standard the Protestants are not divided”. Derek again please try to stick to the subject matter. We are talking about essentials, dogma. I have already proven you guys are divided by my challenge for you guys to come up with a measly 10 dogmas you agree on. I already gave you one, opposition to the Catholic Church. And I love your response “I don’t generally respond to logically fallacious or invalid arguments”. That’s laughable! Facts are hard to argue with aren’t they Derek. And there is nothing fallacious or invalid about the Fact that you and Tim refuse to accept this very simple request that would prove me wrong.
      2. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 10, 2020 at 9:04 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “I have already proven you guys are divided by my challenge for you guys to come up with a measly 10 dogmas you agree on. [..] And there is nothing fallacious or invalid about the Fact that you and Tim refuse to accept this very simple request that would prove me wrong.”
        
        You beg the question. This challenge requires me to agree with Roman Catholic assumptions, which I will not do. If you wish me to answer the challenge, your burden is to prove your assumptions first.
        
        On dogma, CCC #88 says:
        
        “The Church’s Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”
        
        I am not Catholic and neither are my Protestant brothers. Under the common definition of dogma…
        
        “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.”
        
        …I am not subject to your earthly Magisterium because the only such authority I have is my Lord and master Jesus. Unless a Christian rejects Christ’s authority, any disagreement I might have with another Christian is accidental and not a matter of essential dogma.
        
        Remember when you agreed that membership in the RCC constituted unity? For Christians, membership in the body of Christ constitutes unity. That’s the key difference. Therefore, it remains true that “by your own standard Protestants are not divided.”
        
        Peace,
        DR
Derek Ramsey says:

September 7, 2020 at 11:07 pm

Phil,

“1 Peter 5:8 is an encouragement to Christians to be alert to the dangers of falling into temptation. I don’t see a contradiction with the other verses.”

It is not a contradiction per se. You *could* make a biblically sound teaching about general temptation from this verse, while largely taking the verse out of context.

Verses 5 and 6 talk about showing humility rather than pride. Verse 7 talks about not giving in to anxiety, but relying on God to handle anxiousness. Verses 8 and 9 talk about standing firm in the face of suffering, because (as per verse 10) we will be called to His eternal glory after a little suffering and He will help us endure that suffering now.

This passage is about perseverance in the sense of enduring physical suffering, which is the primary topic of 1 Peter. Perhaps it entails “soteriological salvation” in a certain sense, but the verse does not support equivocating between that and explicitly “remaining in the state of grace until the end of life” (i.e. the CCC technical term ‘final perseverance’).

I fail to see why you want me to agree that this is primarily talking about temptation. If it is to get me to tacitly agree to RC technical terms I don’t understand and doctrinal baggage I don’t expect, trickery serves no one. Speak plainly.

“The doctrine of the Church on the “Final Judgement” is not a corruption of scripture. If you disagree, then you have to prove it. I don’t know if this is the point you wanted to pursue or not.”

I brought it up in the first place and my previous arguments are still there, waiting and unanswered.

“…he lost his righteousness by committing murder and adultery”

So one can lose righteousness by their misdeeds?

Does righteousness in the context of David (under the Old Covenant) apply in the same way to us (under the New Covenant)?

“I don’t accept your interpretation of #4”

Here is the definition:

“The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (1987-1989).”

Plainly, justification includes both remission of sins and sanctification. So, I maintain that…

“Given #4: Justification includes both salvation and sanctification (CCC Glossary)””

…is accurate according to the citation I have given.

“unless the inclusion is meant just for the instant of justification which starts salvation and sanctification (both on-going) at the same time. You seem to interpret that inclusion as total and complete which leads to the apparent contradiction you presented. “

In what sense can justification be one-and-done when it consists primarily of two things (sanctification and salvation) that are on-going? It is pretty clear that the words ‘frees’, ‘communicates’, ‘sanctification’, and ‘renewal’ all suggest an on-going action.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 9, 2020 at 12:44 pm
  
  Hi Derek,
  Thank you for your comment.
  You say that “justification” can only be on-going because it includes “salvation” and “sanctification” which are on-going. If salvation is only on-going, then why did Paul say in Romans 8:24 “For in this hope we were SAVED” (emphasis mine), clearly a past tense and not on-going.
  Peace and blessings.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 10, 2020 at 9:47 pm
    
    Phil,
    
    I said…
    
    “Also, by #1 , #3, and #4 salvation must also be past tense (which it is, according to the CCC, but not according to us)”
    
    …since we had previously agreed up-thread that salvation is on-going. Now you are saying it is not on-going. Pick one, please, and stick with it. I can’t debate if you take both positions simultaneously. If this is your real position, I’ll need to review your previous comments for inconsistency there.
    
    Now, having said that, even if this invalidates the secondary conclusion, it does not impact the primary conclusion:
    
    “By #2 and #4, justification must be on-going because sanctification is on-going. “
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 11, 2020 at 5:29 pm
      
      Hi Derek,
      Thank you for your comment. I had no problem with the definition of justification, but in view of how you interpret it, I have my doubts about how you understand it. That is why I asked you about Rom 8:24. I did not think that you would have any problem answering. I am sorry you did not answer it since it definitely has a bearing on the meaning of salvation.
      You said:
      “Here is the definition of justification:
      “The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (1987-1989).“
      Then you added:
      “Plainly, justification includes both remission of sins and sanctification.”
      That is the main point of #4 that I challenged you on, and you failed to prove it. “Remission of sins” is not on-going and “sanctification” is on-going. You are just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to prove your point.
      You continued
      “So, I maintain that…
      “Given #4: Justification includes both salvation and sanctification (CCC Glossary)””
      …is accurate according to the citation I have given.”
      Same answer as above. To be on the same page, I think that first you should define salvation.
      Peace and blessings.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 12, 2020 at 8:55 pm
        
        Phil,
        
        “To be on the same page, I think that first you should define salvation.”
        
        Let’s keep a tight focus. The contradictions are created by your stated views and the language of the Catechism. If the Catechism’s statements on salvation are insufficient, then I rest my case and have nothing further to say.
        
        “That is the main point of #4 that I challenged you on, and you failed to prove it. “ “Remission of sins” is not on-going and “sanctification” is on-going. “
        
        I’ve already clearly explained it. It says, in black and white, that “justification is….the remission of sins…also the sanctification…of the interior man”, so clearly #4 is a true given (and so the conclusion follows). Moreover, if salvation is not on-going, this has no bearing on the primary conclusion of my argument.
        
        Two comments ago you challenged me, saying salvation was not on-going, even though you previously agreed that it was on-going. I don’t have time to revisit old arguments because the goalposts have been moved. You decide what you believe and then you’ll know if my secondary conclusion applies to you or not. I see no reason to discuss it further: either it applies (and is a problem for you) or it doesn’t (and we don’t need to talk about it).
        
        On the topic of salvation and justification, considerably more revealing would be the answers to the questions I posed, not least of which is this:
        
        “So one can lose righteousness by their misdeeds?”
        
        Peace,
        DR
Derek Ramsey says:

September 8, 2020 at 9:54 pm

Betty,

““I brought this up, because it highlights that doctrinal unity is irrelevant “. Derek I guess that statement pretty much explains your cavalier and irrational attitude [..] Yes Derek, it is all about submission to the Church Christ founded. “

The irrelevance of doctrine on unity logically follows from your view. You have now all agreed that the definition of unity is“submission to church authority (as proven by membership)”. Unity of membership is not doctrinal unity.

“Now to say “doctrinal unity is irrelevant” is basically saying i’m just fine with teaching heresy.”

Yes, the logical conclusion of the claim that unity is based on membership (i.e. ‘essentials’) and not doctrinal unity is that heresy (i.e. ‘accidentals’) is fine so long as you remain in good standing with the RCC church. Your views are therefore self-refuting.

“But again if you can’t defend your doctrines by reason, by the Bible and by the writings of the Church Fathers I can see why focusing on persecution 500 years ago would be your argument for why someone should join the Anabaptist Church.”

This isn’t about me, it’s about your church. 500 years ago it thought torture and the death penalty for doctrinal division was morally acceptable, even as Michael Sattler told them that what they were doing would condemn their souls to hell and begged them to repent.

Look! The Catechism now supports Sattler’s stance on the death penalty. Turns out he was correct, but how did he know? Was he some sort of visionary? No, it is because he read the words of Jesus for himself.

Why is the question “Which side would you have embraced?” so difficult to answer? You know what the Catechism says on the subject, so it is a very simple question: would you have supported the doctrinal error of the RCC in order to maintain your membership and your life, or would you have stood with Sattler against that error even if it meant your own death?

“Did you read the Paul Pavao story? Seven “Christians “ engaged in Bible study for six weeks and then they wouldn’t even talk to each other due to doctrinal disagreements.”

I don’t see the relevance. They are not Roman Catholics, so what does it matter?

“So Derek, do you agree with Paul Pavao, that Scripture is”not useful for doctrinal disputes , because these lead to division”?”

I am unable to take a position on that, because it begs the question.

“…realize the Protestant model that unity is possible with the human tradition Sola Scriptura is insanity.”

What is this Protestant model of unity?

“Practical Unity, One Catholic Church! Protestantism 40,000. Doctrinal unity? While maybe 98 percent is not perfect it sure is a lot better then 1 percent.”

I don’t see your point. We’ve already agreed that the RCC doesn’t have doctrinal unity, it has unity of membership. So, why should I care about doctrinal unity when you don’t care about it yourself?

“… Would you consider that an essential or nonessential belief?”

This also begs the question. What would make you think that I would separate beliefs between essential and nonessential?

“…provide us with 10 dogmas that Protestants hold in common.”

A dogma is “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” Unless you are referring to the authority of the Word of God, this is also begging the question. If you are referring to the Word of God, it doesn’t matter what views various Protestants hold. It doesn’t change the Word of God nor does it impact one’s duty to follow God in the slightest.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  September 10, 2020 at 8:33 pm
  
  Derek, of course I would not stand with Michael Sattler, he was a heretic. He made vows before almighty God to remain celibate , then left the Church and married a nun. How often have we seen that. But did he deserve to die, of course not. But as Nick had pointed out to you definitely different times when you could be put to death for stealing a horse and poaching on the King’s Property.,And unfortunately because of the close ties between the Catholic and Protestant churches and the secular governments at that time heretical teaching was looked upon as treason. You had posted that he was 1) acting against imperial mandate and refusing to take an oath. Fortunately we live in a country were Catholics and Protestants fought together to ensure our religious freedom. I did read about Sattler and was interested if your anabaptist group are pacifists ? While there is a side of me that admires pacifists I do have a problem with a group that allows others to die for them for their religious freedom.
  Do you have any other good reasons to join your church other then the fact you were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants. ?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 10, 2020 at 10:44 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    “of course I would not stand with Michael Sattler, he was a heretic”
    
    You only partially answered the question. I asked which you would have stood behind. Your church taught heresy. So let me modify my question. Would you have decried the RCC’s heresy, even though doing so would have subjected you to punishment for heresy?
    
    “I did read about Sattler and was interested if your anabaptist group are pacifists?”
    
    Quakers are pacifists. Anabaptists are nonresistant. Jesus was not a pacifist, he was nonresistant.
    
    The charges against Sattler were the collective charges against all the arrested Anabaptists. For those charges he would have been drowned with the others. But Sattler was specifically charged with marrying and non-resistance (explicit refusal to kill Turks). For that he was tortured and burned alive as an archheretic. So, you are in error when you say…
    
    “…the secular governments at that time…”
    
    …because neither the government nor the trial were secular.
    
    “Do you have any other good reasons to join your church other then the fact you were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants?”
    
    While Anabaptists have much to offer, is that not sufficient? When the atheist objects “What about all the atrocities (including slavery) that Christians have done?”, I respond with “I’m Anabaptist.” What do you say? Can you recommend another denomination that has not committed atrocities in the name of Christ?
    
    Also, your use of ‘church’ is question begging. I do not have—and never have had—a ‘church’ in the sense you are using it, nor do I accept your use of the term. The church is the body of Christ. Even denominational labels are not very important. I have and will attend physical churches of many different denominations. I can’t recall a time that I have ever needed to ask the denomination of a fellow Christian.
    
    “Derek seems to say doctrinal disunity doesn’t matter as long as you are following the Word of God.”
    
    Well, that’s what you argued when you said doctrinal disunity isn’t essential unless it hits certain poorly specified thresholds, and I didn’t disagree. That’s not quite the same thing, so you should be careful not to put words in my mouth. See this thread.
    
    ” I remember a debate I had years ago where a Protestant apologist told me the only things Protestants disagreed on was things like the color of carpeting to use at Church and should they have a steeple on their Church.”
    
    The apologist was being obviously hyperbolic, but you knew that, didn’t you? In another comment, Nick listed Anabaptist denominations in the context of division and disunity. Do you know what one denomination split over? Sunday School. It’s not quite the carpeting, but by your standard, that hardly qualifies as ‘essential dogma’. Just remember that when you ask about the number of Protestant denominations.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
2. Betty says:
  
  September 11, 2020 at 10:34 am
  
  Now I told Derek since we are having a discussion on dogmatic unity between Catholics vs the disunity we see in Protestantism the story Paul Pavao tells of seven Protestant Christians who after bible study for six weeks wouldn’t talk to each other because of doctrinal disagreements and Derek responds “I don’t see the relevance, they are not Roman Catholic so what does it matter?” Derek the fact you don’t see the relevance is a perfect example of the blinders you wear . And to verify my point you say “they are not Roman Catholic so what does it matter”. It’s the fact that they were not Roman Catholic Derek that it does matter. If seven Roman Catholics entered into a bible study for six weeks I guarantee you they would still be talking to each other after six weeks was up. And the seven Protestants that refused to continue fellowship obviously disagree with you Derek that “any argument I have with another Christian is accidental and not a matter of essential dogma.” Do you seriously think Kevin that any of those seven Protestants denies “the authority of Jesus as my Lord and Master”. Derek they didn’t stop speaking to each other over what they thought were minor issues.
  And Derek where did you learn the debating technique of responding when you don’t want to answer a question “that begs the question “, I also love the “I don’t generally respond to logically fallacious and invalid arguments”. So how about those ten dogmas Protestants agree on? Since there are no essential dogmas based on your theology how about ten nonessentials?
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    September 11, 2020 at 11:02 am
    
    Betty,
    
    Talk about blinders.
    
    “If seven Roman Catholics entered into a bible study for six weeks I guarantee you they would still be talking to each other after six weeks was up.”
    
    Opinion: Let’s not talk about Fr. James Martin, Scott Hahn
    
    “You have to be all in or you’re out. Worse, you have to be completely against the other side or you’re out.
    
    … Sometimes they divide people who would not want to be divided, like Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II. Other times they encourage divisions that shouldn’t be encouraged, like “Novus Ordo Catholics” vs. “Traditionalists.” …
    
    In any case, the same division into opposing sides appears in almost every Catholic publication and among Catholics of public weight and stature, and I don’t exaggerate the bitterness with which some on both sides speak of the other. These are not random people on Facebook, but Catholics with a name and following.”
    
    Betty keeps accusing me of not answering the question. I have no plans to do so, Betty, because every time you are weighed in your own balance, you are found wanting.
    
    The divisions that currently exist within Roman Cathoicism, are bitter, doctrinal and widespread. The fact that you don’t even know that “is a perfect example of the blinders you wear.”
    
    When the Pharisees approached Jesus with a trap, He asked them a simple question that they could not answer. So He said, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”
    
    You have confused denominational singularity with doctrinal unity, and have shifted and wavered under examination because you know very well that Roman Catholics do not enjoy the doctrinal unity you claimed, and your pretend “practical” unity is laughable, when all it takes is for you to agree with your lips while disagreeing in your hearts.
    
    Even now you deflect. You asked,
    
    “So why should I be offended by speculation from the feminist, black liberation theologist and the gay representative about the Eucharist if they are not denying Catholic dogma on the Eucharist?”
    
    Because, Betty, in the alleged expression of their unity (the Eucharist) they are at odds with Roman Catholic teaching on feminism, gays taking communion, and black liberation theology, which is precisely what I pointed out when I brought it up. To say, as you imply, that “at least they are not denying Catholic dogma on the Eucharist” is just a sampling of the extremely low threshold of unity you allow for your self, while maintaining what is, as currently illustrated within Rome, an impossibly high standard for everyone else. That’s Pharisaism, and you wear it well.
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      September 11, 2020 at 1:58 pm
      
      Personal attacks are fairly typical of those who can’t win a argument. First it was hypocrites and now it’s Pharisees. And Timothy like Derek refuses to answer the simplest questions. Timothy writes “Betty keeps accusing me of not answering the question. I have no plans to do so”. Timothy I could care less rather you answer my questions. It simply proves my point. Derek has just brought up another point of disagreement between the two of you and you refuse to admit it. I think your Catholic hatred is so obvious that you refuse to criticize any heretical teachings within Protestantism. When Bishop Spong denies the resurrection and you remain silent who is the Pharisee? Now I gave you 10 dogmas Catholics believe and you switch to comments from a feminist, black liberation theology supporter and the gay viewpoint none of which deny the real presence. Instead you point to division and discussions within the Church that do not contradict the dogmas and then claim disunity. And Derek does the same thing. At least we discuss our differences of opinion instead of going out and starting a new Church. When you won’t even admit how many Protestant denominations there are, who is wearing the blinders?
      
      Reply
      1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 11, 2020 at 2:50 pm
        
        Betty wrote:
        
        “Personal attacks are fairly typical of those who can’t win a argument.”
        
        For you to measure others by a standard you yourself do not meet is objectively Pharisaical. It is not a “personal attack.”
        
        “First it was hypocrites and now it’s Pharisees.”
        
        To profess with your lips what you do not believe in your heart is objectively hypocritical. The fact that Roman Catholics accept a profession of unity while they are divided on doctrine is objectively hypocritical. It is not a personal attack.
        
        “Timothy like Derek refuses to answer the simplest questions.”
        
        Timothy, like Jesus, refuses to answer questions of hypocrites and Pharisees. I wear that accusation proudly.
        
        “Timothy I could care less rather you answer my questions.”
        
        It obviously bothers you, so it is not as insignificant as you claim.
        
        “It simply proves my point.”
        
        It is logically fallacious for you to assert this, for Jesus Himself refused to answer questions. It did not prove the Pharisees’ point when He refused, and it does not prove your point when I refuse.
        
        “I think your Catholic hatred is so obvious that you refuse to criticize any heretical teachings within Protestantism.”
        
        And yet, in this very blog, I have repeatedly, and emphatically, criticized Protestants. Your allegation is erroneous. I just don’t plan to engage someone who keeps shifting when her arguments are challenged.
        
        “When Bishop Spong denies the resurrection and you remain silent who is the Pharisee?”
        
        Jesus refused to answer Pilate (John 19:9). Does that make Him a Pharisee? You have raised the issue of Spong because your own religion cannot bear being measured against your own standard. Your question is a typical red herring.
        
        “Now I gave you 10 dogmas Catholics believe and you switch…”
        
        I did not switch. I was still talking about your original question, which was how unity is possible when people are interpreting the Bible on their own. I have repeatedly shown you that your question presumes and implies Roman Catholic unity. I never switched from the first issue, and I provided the feminist Catholic, the gay Catholic, the black Catholic liberation theologian as evidence that your religion does not enjoy the unity it claims. It is you who have repeatedly switched to avoid that hypocrisy. You said the catechism, the councils and the pope were the essentials of unity, and I immediately provided you Roman Catholic disagreement on the catechism, the councils and the pope. Then you switched and provided 10 dogmas Catholics allegedly agree with, and I immediately provided evidence that one of them (justification by works) fails your unity test because people are arguing over what the pope said and taught on justification. And so you keep switching, and switching and switching, as evidenced by this:
        
        “…and you switch to comments from a feminist, black liberation theology supporter and the gay viewpoint none of which deny the real presence.”
        
        As I made crystal clear in my post, these Roman Catholics agree on the eucharist as an expression of unity while disagreeing on papal and other magisterial teaching—which in fact makes the Eucharist a mere facade of unity to cover up the underlying disunity within your denomination, and yet you keep avoiding the fact that they actually disagree with the teachings of the church and instead focus on the things they agree on. And that actually does prove my point, namely that a Roman Catholic cannot stand to be measured by the very standard she uses to condemn others and demands that, on the charge of “disunity,” only evidence for “unity” should be entertained. Phil said as much: “If you look at what unites us instead of at what divides us you might get a better understanding.” Well of course. On the charge of disunity, “look at what unites us.” Sure. 😉
        
        And here is another deflection:
        
        “Instead you point to division and discussions within the Church that do not contradict the dogmas and then claim disunity.”
        
        But Betty, you personally guaranteed that Roman Catholics would still be speaking to each other after a six week bible study, as if bitter and vitriolic disagreement was a Protestant problem. I merely pointed out that Roman Catholics, by their own confession, have bitter and vitriolic disagreements with each other on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Every time you allege Roman Catholic unity, I simply provide evidence that your claim is false, and so you move on to another unsubstantiated claim of unity. You keep shifting, and shifting, and shifting, and I only want to focus on one thing:
        
        “How is doctrinal unity possible with everyone interpreting Scripture, the Tradition and the Magisterium on their own, as they clearly do?”
        
        And you can’t face that simple question which is similar to the one you wield as a weapon to condemn others. So I simply ask you again, how is it possible?
        
        I know the answer: it is not. Until you can acknowledge that fact, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
        
        “When you won’t even admit how many Protestant denominations there are…”
        
        Why on earth would I even answer that if you cannot acknowledge how many hundreds of thousands of possible contradictory and exclusive variants of “Roman Catholicism” there are?
Nick Broom says:

September 9, 2020 at 5:07 pm

“If you are referring to the Word of God, it doesn’t matter what views various Protestants hold. It doesn’t change the Word of God nor does it impact one’s duty to follow God in the slightest.”

Makes this whole discussion irrelevant, wouldn’t you say?

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  September 10, 2020 at 8:55 pm
  
  I agree Nick, Derek’s counterpart admirer of Sattler says don’t rely on Scripture to decide doctrinal disputes because it is divisive and Derek seems to say doctrinal disunity doesn’t matter as long as you are following the Word of God. So what if you are teaching Christ didn’t really rise from the dead. I have not been able to get Timothy or Derek to say that Bishop Spong is wrong. I remember a debate I had years ago where a Protestant apologist told me the only things Protestants disagreed on was things like the color of carpeting to use at Church and should they have a steeple on their Church. Talk about burying your head in the sand!
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 10, 2020 at 11:44 am

DR says: “The irrelevance of doctrine on unity logically follows from your view. You have now all agreed that the definition of unity is’submission to church authority (as proven by membership)’. Unity of membership is not doctrinal unity.”

It is if membership means submission to church authority which includes belief in all that the Church teaches concerning faith and morals. If one obstinately teaches heresy, then he is not submitting to Church authority which is risking excommunication if not repented. So, yes, unity of membership is doctrinal unity.

“Now to say “doctrinal unity is irrelevant” is basically saying i’m just fine with teaching heresy.”

Agreed.

“Yes, the logical conclusion of the claim that unity is based on membership (i.e. ‘essentials’) and not doctrinal unity is that heresy (i.e. ‘accidentals’) is fine so long as you remain in good standing with the RCC church. Your views are therefore self-refuting.”

Not hardly. Only your contrived conclusion is self refuting.
St. Thomas Aquinas defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.” Summa Theologica II-II:11:1

Thus, heresy denotes the formal denial or doubt of a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Four elements constitute formal heresy:
1) a valid Christian baptism
2) a profession of still being a Christian
3) outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the RCC regards as revealed by God
4) the disbelief must be morally culpable, that is, there must be a refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative
So, to be a heretic in the strict sense and be excommunicated, one must deny or question a truth that is taught as the word of God, and at the same time recognize one’s obligation to believe it.
But, if the person is believed to have acted in good faith, as one might out of ignorance, then the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith.

Reply
Betty says:

September 11, 2020 at 9:37 am

Derek wrote “ Unless a Christian rejects Christ’s authority any argument I have with another Christian is accidental and not a matter of essential dogma”. Now I am pretty sure that I, Nick and Phil reject this statement so we are unified. That’s why I keep bringing up the example of Bishop Spong. Now Timothy and Kevin if you are still following this blog, do you agree with this statement from Derek? My guess is no, or you won’t answer my question. As Nick wrote, “Makes this whole discussion irrelevant, wouldn’t you say?”

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  September 11, 2020 at 11:31 am
  
  I agree with you Betty. And here is something else.
  DR said: “Unless a Christian rejects Christ’s authority any argument I have with another Christian is accidental and not a matter of essential dogma”.
  If I am not mistaken, Christ gave His authority to the Church.
  (Matt 16:18 Luke 10:16 John 13:20, 21-23) So it stands to reason if one rejects Church authority, then one rejects Christ’s authority. And Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth. That also stands to reason why Church teaching must be infallible. Why would anyone join a church that does not claim infallibility in their teaching?
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    September 11, 2020 at 11:36 am
    
    Nick said,
    
    “That also stands to reason why Church teaching must be infallible.”
    
    And since the Catechism does not enjoy the attribute of infallibility (at best it is a fallible collection of ostensibly infallible teachings), then to what document can I turn to find what constitutes “the infallible teaching of the Church.”
    
    Does that list exist anywhere, or is that something Roman Catholics have to sort out on their own?
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Sanz says:
      
      September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm
      
      Hi Betty,
      You are right and if Timothy does not see it is because he is only interested in what he is looking for. Jesus told us “seek, and you shall find” Luke 11:9. He quoted me correctly, but he does not apply himself to it.
      God bless you.
      
      Reply
    2. Betty says:
      
      September 11, 2020 at 7:14 pm
      
      I think you are right Nick, Christ gave His authority to teach to His church, not to an individual and not to a Church established 1500 years later. But obviously these guys don’t believe what the Bible says when it doesn’t fit their scenario.
      
      Reply
  2. Betty says:
    
    September 11, 2020 at 2:21 pm
    
    I agree Nick, but let’s be thankful they do accept the New Testament canon that the Catholic Church gave them. At the same time the universal Church was settling the question of the canon Timothy claims the the entire Church was falling into heresy., I was looking back at his original article about the Apostolic Amen where he was quoting the Church Fathers he believes were teaching this heresy and thought it was interesting that he did not identify the Father that instigated this heresy. So we are to believe that all these Fathers fell into heresy simultaneously and no one objected. Simultaneously? How gullible can you be?
    I also after reading Justin Martyr and Irenæus’s comments on the Eucharist would point out the Eucharist was not the tithe but the consecrated bread and wine, ie the body and blood of Christ. As I mentioned I don’t own a computer right now but if Timothy would copy and paste all of Justin Martyr’s and Irenaeus’s comments on the Eucharist I believe you would see I am right.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 11, 2020 at 3:28 pm
      
      Betty wrote,
      
      “I agree Nick, but let’s be thankful they do accept the New Testament canon that the Catholic Church gave them. At the same time the universal Church was settling the question of the canon Timothy claims the the entire Church was falling into heresy.”
      
      The “entire church” has never fallen into heresy. I have never claimed that it had. Also, the “universal Church” did not “settle the Canon” until Trent in the 16th century, the first ecumenical council to identify the canon. The council of Rome in 382 AD was a regional synod, not an ecumenical council, and therefore was not “infallible” according to Rome’s own understanding of councils. It was an opinion. Jerome had a different opinion in Prologus Galeatus, a full 10 years after the council of Rome, and denied that the apocryphal books were canonical. The “New Testament canon” to which you refer was obviously determined much sooner, since Athanasius identified those 27 books in his 39th Festal letter (367 A.D.), as what he had received “from the beginning”. He was born in 298 AD, and would have learned the canon before he even turned 13. As such, his identification of the 27 books of the New Testament canon was clearly known at the turn of the century (early 300s). The heresy into which the whole world fell (not “the entire church”) occurred at the end of the 4th century. So no, I have never claimed that the canon was determined at the same time “the entire Church was falling into heresy,” no, the Roman Catholicism had not “settled” the canon that early.
      
      Besides, if the canon was “settled” in the 4th century, why was Pope Gregory still claiming in the 6th century that books of the Maccabees were “not canonical”? (Moralia in Job, Volume II, part 4, book 19, chapter 34)
      
      “So we are to believe that all these Fathers fell into heresy simultaneously and no one objected. Simultaneously? How gullible can you be?”
      
      Yes, it all happened in a period identified in Revelation. The scriptures clearly prophesy a time when the whole world would fall into error, but the Lord’s church would not. Roman Catholicism is that apostasy. The whole world fell into. I won’t apologize for having an opinion that is consistent with the Scriptures.
      
      “How gullible can you be?”
      
      I would ask you the same question, except that no man can possibly resist the strong delusion sent upon him by God (2 Thessalonians 2:11). A strong delusion from the Lord is irresistible. It is not a matter of gullibility but of reprobation.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 11, 2020 at 8:06 pm
        
        Timothy I said to Nick “let’s be thankful they do accept the New Testament canon”. Now at the council of Rome in 382 in discussing the scriptures they wrote “Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scripture, what the universal Catholic Church accept and what she ought to shun.” The same New Testament canon they selected then was confirmed by Trent and accepted by the Catholic Church and most Protestants but who knows about the Protestants. Now you are right there continued to be a difference of opinion about the Old Testament, even at Trent apparently the vote was split. Rather odd that if God’s plan was Sola Scriptura he would fail to leave a New and Old Testament canon list . So at least give credit to the Catholic Church for the New Testament canon list and that council was during the period of your supposed apostasy.
        I was not surprised that you believe that all the Fathers were deluded simultaneously. I thought to myself it would definitely be a challenge for the devil to sprout heresy among the Fathers of that period simultaneously, but are you seriously arguing that God purposely spread heresy? “No man can resist the strong delusion sent upon him by God. A strong delusion from the Lord is irresistible .” So God is the source of heresy? Surely you are not serious. You say “I won’t apologize for having an opinion that is consistent with the scriptures”. Excuse me my friend but you don’t seem to realize it is only consistent with your interpretation of the Scriptures. Personally I think anyone who believes with any certainty that they can interpret the Book of Revelation is delusional. But that’s not Catholic dogma. So do you still say the heresy was simultaneous and instigated by God?
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 12, 2020 at 10:17 am
        
        Betty, you said the Catholic church settled the canon at the same time I claim that the whole world was falling into apostasy. I assume you mean the council of Rome in the late 4th century (382). The council of Rome listed the books, but was not an ecumenical (infallible) council, and Jerome (392) and Pope Gregory (late 500s) apparently did not get the memo. Therefore your statement that the church “settled” the canon in the late 4th century is false. To say that the church settled the canon in 382 but there were still disagreements by some church fathers and popes on the canon after 382 is logically incoherent. If you accept a fallible council as the church “settling” the canon, then you must also accept Athanasius’ claim that he had received the 27 books of the NT “from the beginning,” which is well before “the same time I claim that the whole world was falling into apostasy”.
        
        Thus your statement below is historically inconsistent:
        
        So at least give credit to the Catholic Church for the New Testament canon list and that council was during the period of your supposed apostasy.
        
        The New Testament canon was known well before the end of the 4th century (per Athanasius), and therefore the knowledge of the NT canon predated the apostasy.
        
        You continued,
        
        “I was not surprised that you believe that all the Fathers were deluded simultaneously.”
        
        Well, I don’t recall saying “all the Fathers”. I said “the whole world.” That included many of whom you call the Fathers, that is true. Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc… But when the Scripture says “the whole world” wandered after the beast (Revelation 13:3), it necessarily excludes God’s people, for God promised them that they would be spared from the temptation coming upon the whole world (Revelation 3:10). In any case, the delusion occurred in the latter half of the 4th century, and it was “worldwide.” A worldwide delusion must of necessity happen “at the same time.” Otherwise it would not be a “worldwide” delusion.
        
        You continued,
        
        “I thought to myself it would definitely be a challenge for the devil to sprout heresy among the Fathers of that period simultaneously …”
        
        Well, the devil “cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood” (Revelation 12:15), and the Lord spared his church from it. Everyone else was swept up in it. All that is left is to determine who was “the church” and who was “the apostasy.” The scriptures reveal that to us, but since you deny God’s ability to communicate with his people through His written word (e.g., “Personally I think anyone who believes with any certainty that they can interpret the Book of Revelation is delusional”) then there is nothing the Lord could say to you in His Word that you would accept, since any interpretation of Revelation is the product of a delusion (so you say).
        
        “… but are you seriously arguing that God purposely spread heresy? … So God is the source of heresy? … So do you still say the heresy was simultaneous and instigated by God?”
        
        No, I do not “still say the heresy was … instigated by God.” I have never said the heresy was instigated by God, so it would be impossible for me to “still say” something that I have never said in the first place.
        
        But you do appear to have a problem with more than just Revelation, specifically as a book, but with revelation, generally, as God’s own written communication to His people. You have equated God “sending a strong delusion” upon people with God “spreading heresy” and yet the scriptures plainly say that God purposely sends a “strong delusion” upon men that they may be damned. I would not presume to correct God on that, or to judge Him. Here is what He said through the apostle Paul:
        
        “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)
        
        Yes, God intentionally sends a “strong delusion,” and since Paul is clearly talking about the same thing John is in Revelation 13, that “strong” delusion is sent upon the whole world. The people who are preserved from the delusion are very few. That is the nature of a worldwide delusion and the apostasy that must necessarily follow it, and God preserving a remnant. It is impossible for the whole world to be swept up in error, and God’s remnant to be the vast majority of the world (which Roman Catholicism was after it arose).
        
        In any case, this sovereign attribute of God clearly disturbs you. Of Him Jesus said, “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them” (John 12:40).
        
        Betty, can you worship a God Who intentionally blinds the eyes, and hardens the hearts of men, lest they be converted and be saved? Can you adore a God Who intentionally sends a strong delusion upon men “That they all might be damned” who believed the lie? That is the God I worship, and He is far, far superior to that crust of bread you worship.
        
        Now, to your erroneous belief that because God purposely sends a “strong delusion” upon men, it must mean that He “purposely spreads heresy,” let me help you out.
        
        It is impossible for men to be misled or deceived by God’s Word, so the “strong delusion” cannot be anything erroneous or misleading in God or in the Scriptures. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). The only possible ‘delusion’ unto damnation is intrinsic to man. A delusion from the Lord therefore must be the presumption man brings to God’s Word, and not God’s Word itself. As I have highlighted in this series on the Collapse of the Eucharist, the abominable mass sacrifice is just one example of such a delusion. The Scriptures have said nothing about Jesus sacrificing His body and blood the night before He died. Nor did the early church fathers allege as much. It was not until the end of the 4th century that the idea of an offering of consecrated bread and wine came about. The Scriptures did not teach it, but men’s presumption imposed that upon the scriptural accounts of the Last Supper. It is a remarkable thing indeed that at the end of the 4th century, the epiclesis was moved before the eucharist to turn the eucharist into an offering of consecrated bread and wine. The effect of that delusion is the rewriting of the early liturgies to force them to conform to the later. That’s a powerful delusion, and no man can escape from it. That is why I say it is not a matter of gullibility but of reprobation.
        
        Now, to the matter of simultaneity: what do all the following statements from Roman Catholic sources have in common? See if you can figure it out:
        
        On the Sacrifice of the Mass: “St. Gregory of Nyssa [382 A.D.], discussing the question who commenced the sacrifice of the Redemption, was it Christ, or Judas, or the Jews or Pilate, makes use of this reckoning [that Jesus sacrificed Himself on Thursday night at the Last Supper] more remarkably than all the other Fathers, to claim the Great Action for Christ:” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §1.B.a, n71).
        
        On Mary’s sinlessness: “A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377 [A.D.], with the publication of St. Ambrose’s three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature.” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol 1 (140-42)).
        
        “The Immaculate Conception was a commonplace of the early Church. Saint Ephraim of Syria testified to it in the [late] fourth century [360 A.D.], as did Saint Augustine in the fifth.” (Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God, (Doubleday, 2006) 96)
        
        On Mary’s virginity “in partu”: “[the] early Fathers are not so clear; it is a far cry to the precise formulation by Zeno of Verona who wrote in the last half of the fourth century: ‘Maria virgo incorrupta concepit, post conceptum virgo peperit, post partum virgo permansit.'” (Plumpe, Joseph, C., “Some Little-Known Early Witnesses to Mary’s Virginitas in Partu” Catholic University of America)
        
        On Mary as “ever virgin”: “Since we know that by the [late] fourth century, at the latest, a popular title for our Lord’s Mother was ‘ever virgin’, I believe this qualifies as a Universal Truth, held by all Christians, in all places, in all ages, in all times.” (The Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady)
        
        On Mary as “Mother of God”: Dionysius of Alexandia (d. 264 A.D.) is alleged to have used the term “ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου” (the Mother of my God) in his epistle Against Paul of Samosata. But “[s]ubsequent criticism has proved that it [the epistle of Dionysius Against Paul of Samosata] is a forgery of the [late] 4th century” (Dublin Review, No. XX, (London: Burnes, Oates & Co.) April 1868) 320-361).
        
        “St. Ambrose [374 A.D.] first used the title Mater Dei [Mother of God] in the West” (Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael O’Carroll, 258)
        
        On Mary as Mother of the Church: “The title was first used in the [late-]4th century by Saint Ambrose of Milan, as rediscovered by Hugo Rahner.”
        
        On pilgrimages and the cult of saints: “However in the 4th century, there was a significant sea change as the cult of saints and pilgrimage to holy places really took hold in Christian thought and practice.” (Dee Dyas, Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Culture at the University of York, To Be a Pilgrim Tactile Piety, Virtual Pilgrimage and the Experience of Place in Christian Pilgrimage)
        
        On consecrated virginity: “The ritual of consecration of virgins had become a formal practice in the Western church only at the end of the fourth century” (David Hunter, Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky, The Virgin, the Bride and the Church).
        
        On Marian theology, and clerical celibacy: “If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than … Ambrose and Jerome … .” (Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
        
        On clerical celibacy: “We will therefore choose the late 4th century as our chronological basis for inquiry on the birth and development of the law on clerical celibacy rather than the year 325, the date of the First Ecumenical Council.” (Christian Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy)
        
        On the sudden focus on virginity in ascetic movements: “In the later years of the fourth century the ascetic and monastic movements led male Christian writers to devote an extraordinary degree of attention to the bodies of women, especially celibate women.” (David G. Hunter, The American Society of Church History, June 2000 (283-84))
        
        “The author of the anonymous Consultationes Zachaei equals, if he does not surpass, Hilary in his esteem for Mary. He … was also an adherent of the ascetical movement already favored by St. Hilary—a movement which almost literally mushroomed in the second half of the fourth century…” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. II, p. 281).
        
        On the earliest attempts to defend relic veneration: “The Fathers of the Church take up the theme of the reverence paid to the sacred relics as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Relics)
        
        On the inability to trace Roman Catholicism back far enough: “The acts of the fourth century speak as strongly as its words. … the simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim, though definite, outlines traced in the preceding.” (John Cardinal Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine).
        
        Man, that’s a lot of stuff to happen “simultaneously” at the end of the 4th century. And none of it could be found in the Scriptures. Men had to bring these assumptions to the Scripture, and then impose the error upon the world under the auspices of “the word of God.” But it was a lie. Ever since, apologists, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, have attempted to prove that whatever was being taught at the end of the 4th century must be what had been taught for the previous three. That is the Presumption of Apostolic Continuity (PAC). As I have stated repeatedly, here, the PAC is the strong delusion God sent upon men to cause them to believe the lie that originated with Satan. And yes, it all began at the end of the 4th century.
        
        And yes, there was a noble resistance to the error, as I pointed out in The visible apostolicity of the invisibly shepherded church, and Come Hell or High Water.
      3. John says:
        
        September 12, 2020 at 4:42 am
        
        “It is not a matter of gullibility but of reprobation.”
        A very important point, even if a hard pill to swallow.
        Thx Tim.
Betty says:

September 12, 2020 at 7:02 am

So John you agree with Timothy that the apostasy that Timothy imagines occured is actually not the result of the devil but actually God placing a strong “irresistible delusion” in the minds of the Church Fathers. And God didn’t do this to just one Church Father who then spread it throughout the ancient world in a period when mass communication did not exist but instead simultaneously placed the same “irresistible delusion “ into multiple leaders of the Church. And wouldn’t you know it, no historical evidence that anyone protested against this new heresy. We know about Arianism and other heresies in the early Church but no this one. Or maybe you could give me the name of a Church Father that was fighting against this “irresistible delusion “.
Also John could you give us the name of 10 dogmas all Protestants agree on?

Reply
Betty says:

September 12, 2020 at 12:38 pm

Concerning the list of what you think where novel views of apostasy in the fourth century I don’t think anyone could have summarized it better then your quote from John Newman “the simple question is rather the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be taken to interpret the dim though definite outlines traced in the preceding “. The Trinity is a perfect example. Clearly defined by the later church but the word never appears in the Bible. Was this an apostasy? And of course some Protestants believe in the Trinity, others don’t. If I wasn’t doing this by phone we could trace some of those dim though definite outlines but the advantage of celibacy can be traced back to the scriptures, relics, read the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Mary’s perpetual virginity read Jerome’s Against Helvidius. Mary the Mother of God, so Timothy are you one of the Protestants that denies Jesus was God?
Now you brought up my statement about the canon but again ignored the preceding sentence where I clarified the New Testament canon. Typical Timothy.
But what about 2 Thessalonians 2? You conveniently left out verse 8, “and then the lawless one will be revealed . The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming”. News flash! Christ did not come at the end of the fourth century. I suggest anyone who wants to witness how speculative Bible commentaries are review the commentaries on that Chapter. They are all over the map. So much for the certainty of what the Bible has revealed. But Timothy is convinced his interpretation of the Book of Revelation is correct just as those before him who predicted the end of the world based on their interpretation of Revelation were certain . Yes anyone who thinks they can understand the book of Revelation with certainty is delusional. I did not say that any interpretation of Revelation is a delusion. How about quoting me instead of twisting what I say. And I apologize if I have misrepresented your comments.
Now Timothy says the “whole world was engulfed” in heresy but not “God’s people” Now I read a Baptist history where they claimed they were the invisible remnant of God’s people but knowing you are Presbyterian I guess there was more then one invisible remnant. And even though we know historically both Churches were founded after Martin Luther kind of hard to explain. I will take you up on reading The visible apostolicity of the invisibly shepherded church. Still waiting on that translation of the Irenæus quote and the quotes from Justin Martyr and Irenæus on the Eucharist. I actually am thinking of buying a computer in the next couple of weeks so if you can’t post them i’ll try.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 12, 2020 at 1:31 pm
  
  Betty wrote,
  
  “But what about 2 Thessalonians 2? You conveniently left out verse 8, “and then the lawless one will be revealed . The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming”. News flash! Christ did not come at the end of the fourth century.”
  
  An excellent example (thank you) of reading your personal assumptions into the text. You are representing 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as if it said,
  
  “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom [at the moment he is revealed] the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:”
  
  And so, based on your assumption, you think to disprove my assertion by saying, “News flash! Christ did not come at the end of the fourth century.”
  
  But 2 Thessalonians 2:8 does not say that Jesus will consume the wicked one with the breath of his mouth and destroy him with the brightness of His coming when the wicked one is revealed. That’s Betty adding to the text.
  
  What we can conclude from 2 Thessalonians 8 is that Jesus will destroy the wicked one with the brightness of His coming (He will), and that while the wicked one will be revealed at some point future to Paul’s letter, the Thessalonians were wrong to think “that the day of Christ is at hand” already (it was not) (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
  
  You continued,
  
  “but knowing you are Presbyterian I guess there was more then one invisible remnant”
  
  I don’t recall ever saying the remnant was “invisible.” But anyway, the congregation at Corinth was Presbyterian. All you have to do is read Clement’s letter to see that. When you get a computer, I encourage you to look it up and read it.
  
  In any case, the true church of the late 4th century understood at the time that the Wicked one had indeed been revealed as prophesied, since different populations of Christians from that point forward identified themselves as Philadelphians (see Revelation 3:10) and “they who had not swerved from the faith.” They knew very well that the Wicked one had been revealed, and that they were the elect, preserved from the “strong delusion.”
  
  Well, anyway Betty, there’s really not much more for us to talk about. You need an “infallible” church to guide you, but that “infallible” church cannot even agree on when it is teaching “infallibly.” So, best wishes to you. You’re going to have to sort that out on your own somehow. But if you want to understand what God has revealed, get up off your knees before the bread idol and ask the Lord for wisdom to understand the Scriptures. “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1 John 5:21)
  
  Reply
Betty says:

September 12, 2020 at 3:43 pm

Thank you Timothy. I was really surprised you let me post this long. Not surprised you would not copy and paste Justin and Irenæus. The Eucharist was the tithe? I think you showed your true self the way you treated Kevin.

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 13, 2020 at 8:49 pm
  
  Hi Betty,
  Timothy should not ignore the arguments of more prominent scholars just because they disagree with him. Here is a wonderful book as a resource for understanding the Last supper.
  “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist — Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper” by (Dr.) Brant Pitre published by Doubleday. It should not be hard to find.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

September 12, 2020 at 9:53 pm

Betty,

“Derek has just brought up another point of disagreement between the two of you and you refuse to admit it.”

I just said I have no essential disagreement with Tim, so why try to pit us against each other? By your standard…

“I am not aware that Catholics are not to speculate concerning different theological matters as long as they are not denying Catholic dogma .”

…disunity is only a matter of dogma, so if Tim disagrees with me it is merely accidental.

I do not share your obsession with the number of Protestant denominations. Have you analyzed which denominations were formed over essential doctrinal disagreements, accidental doctrinal disagreements, or over some reason completely unrelated to disagreement? Do you assume without evidence that the number of denominations is indicative of essential dogmatic disunity?

Perhaps they are, so of the various denominational families, are any of these schisms and splits from the Roman Catholic Church or are they all independently formed?

“Protestant Christians who … wouldn’t talk to each other because of doctrinal disagreements. [..] Derek the fact you don’t see the relevance is a perfect example of the blinders you wear . And to verify my point you say “they are not Roman Catholic so what does it matter”. It’s the fact that they were not Roman Catholic Derek that it does matter.

I’m not Roman Catholic, so I’m not subject to Roman Catholic dogmas. Dogmas are not relevant to me. By your standard if it isn’t a disagreement on dogma, it doesn’t count as disunity. So by your standard, Protestants, not being Roman Catholic, nor subject to the Dogmas, have no Dogmas in which they disagree. By your standard, Christians who agree on Jesus as their authority cannot disagree on dogma any more than members in good standing of the RCC can disagree on RCC Dogma. So, yes, by your standard it is irrelevant.

The blinders are yours.

“Since there are no essential dogmas based on your theology how about ten nonessentials?”

I am not aware that Protestants are not to speculate concerning different theological matters as long as they are not denying essential dogmas.

“Derek refuses to answer the simplest questions”

Do you know what begging the question means? It is a form of circular reasoning where you assume the conclusion of an argument in order to show that the argument is true. When implied in question form, it is called a loaded question. Since I don’t accept your RC assumptions, I have the perfectly valid option to answer your loaded questions by merely rejecting your assumptions, which I have done repeatedly. Your only option is to discuss those assumption, not your original question.

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  September 17, 2020 at 9:14 am
  
  Derek, took a little respite but did want at least to try and respond to your last post to me. If Tim does not want me to continue to debate on this site would be glad to debate you on another site. As mentioned I really would like to challenge his last series of articles but it is his blog.
  Derek you wrote “Unless a Christian rejects Christ’s authority any argument I have with another Christian is accidental and not a matter of essential dogma.” And then when I pointed out you had brought up “another point of disagreement between the two of you” you wrote “I just said I have no essential disagreement with Tim so why try to put us against each other?”. Now maybe I am wrong Derek but I don’t believe Tim agrees with your first statement and that was the point Nick and I were trying to point out to you. Why would Tim be so vehemently antiCatholic if he did not think these are essential issues? Do you think Catholics reject Christ’s authority? No essential dogmas except to accept Christ’s authority? Christ’s divinity ? Now I don’t know if I can get Tim to admit he disagrees with you because I have not been able to get you guys to admit you disagree with Bishop Spong’s denial of the Resurrection of Christ. I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man on the radio who would say something to the effect in essentials unity, in nonessentials Charity” The only problem is that with Sola Scriptura who determines what is essential and what is nonessential? The Catholic system is not perfect as I have conceded to Timothy but when people are forming new churches over a fight about Sunday School or instrumental music where does the madness end.
  As I mentioned be glad to debate you on another site and if Tim wants to debate his current series would be glad to continue posting here.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    September 17, 2020 at 12:29 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    Tim said: “there’s really not much more for us to talk about. [..] So, best wishes to you.”
    
    This doesn’t look like a soft-ban. Regardless, you may post on my site in any comment section and I’ll host guest-post rebuttals. My public email is “me@derekramsey.com”.
    
    “I don’t believe Tim agrees with your first statement”
    
    Our presumptive disagreement doesn’t matter. His agreement is not required. As a fellow member of the body of Christ, he is duty bound to follow his master, as am I. He doesn’t answer to me and I don’t answer to him. He could declare me a heretic, but it wouldn’t impact our relationship. If I was his mission field, we would be able to have civil discussions in keeping with the love and unity of Christ.
    
    “The Catholic system is not perfect as I have conceded to Timothy but when people are forming new churches over a fight about Sunday School or instrumental music where does the madness end.”
    
    Division/disunity is a choice, it is not an institution or system. When a denomination splits over Sunday School, it is not disunity, but common sense: the best way to maintain unity is to agree to disagree.
    
    If, for sake of argument, we consider Orthodox, Protestants, and Anabaptists to be splits off the RCC, then (by definition) the presumptive Mother Church is ultimately responsible for all schisms. If we absolve the RCC of this responsibility, we must by logical necessity absolve Protestants of the similar charge.
    
    “Do you think Catholics reject Christ’s authority?”
    
    This is fundamental: whether or not Christ is our master. Though important to an extent, agreement on doctrine or dogma is secondary.
    
    IF the RCC (i.e. Pope and Magisterium) are the sole, required, true authority of God directly under Jesus AND Christ cannot be one’s master without the RCC’s authority, THEN Catholics do not reject Christ’s authority. In any other case, Catholics—by logical necessity—do reject Christ’s ultimate authority (i.e. trying to serve two masters).
    
    “Why would Tim be so vehemently antiCatholic if he did not think these are essential issues?”
    
    Take the eucharist. In showing the 4th century innovation, Tim implicitly argues that the RCC (i.e. Pope and Magisterium) cannot be the sole, required, true authority of God under Jesus. Highlighting the eucharist shows the fundamental error that is the RCC as a whole. The conclusion logically follows, whether or not the Eucharist is itself an essential or non-essential doctrine.
    
    You (perhaps) could refute his argument if you could provide a list of infallible statements, dogmas, and councils. Your cross challenges don’t help at all.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      September 21, 2020 at 3:37 pm
      
      Derek, you said you “have no essential disagreement with Tim” and when I pointed out you obviously do, you respond “Our presumptive disagreement doesn’t matter”. Of course it doesn’t matter to you Derek, you don’t have a problem with Bishop Spong denying the Resurrection. Again your cavalier attitude concerning dogma I do find interesting. You wrote “this is fundamental, whether or not Christ is our master . Though important to an extent, agreement on dogma or doctrine is secondary “. How can Christ be your master Derek if you are not following his commands? Now if the Catholic Church is correct in it’s belief in the real presence then Derek Christ is not your master when you ignore His command in John 6 that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I can hardly blame Timothy for trying to paint a scenario of a novel simultaneous heresy in the latter fourth century which was not contested at the time, but the sacrificial nature of the mass rests on the belief in the real presence. In simplistic terms if the doctrine of the real presence is true, the Last Supper and the Mass is a sacrifice. If it is a false doctrine, then you have your memorial meal. Now Timothy tries to argue that the Eucharist in the early Church is the tithe he repeatedly states in his series of articles. Derek, did you go back and read all Justin Martyr and Irenæus wrote on the Eucharist to see if Timothy is correct? I don’t think so. You argue “ Highlighting the Eucharist shows the fundamental error that is the RCC as a whole”. The error my friend is on the Protestant side, and you don’t need a “list of infallible statements, dogmas and councils “ to prove my point. Just look at the abundance of evidence provided by the Scriptures and the Church Fathers.
      
      Reply
      1. Phil Sanz says:
        
        September 21, 2020 at 5:41 pm
        
        Hi Betty,
        Thank you for your comment. Paul tells the Corinthians that “Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” 1Cor 5:7. This clearly ties up the Last Supper to His sacrifice on the Cross. As usual, Timothy clearly ignores what would nullify his argument.
        God bless you.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 26, 2020 at 8:13 am
        
        Phil, You wrote that 1 Corinthians 5:7 “clearly ties up the Last Supper to His sacrifice on the Cross. As usual Timothy clearly ignores what would nullify his argument.”
        
        I find that statement puzzling. When Protestants celebrate the Lord’s Supper we understand that the bread and wine signify Christ’s passion, and we understand that we do so in memory of Christ’s death. In other words we understand that there is a relationship between the Last Supper and Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself for us. But you seem to be claiming that 1 Corinthians 5:7 proves that the apostle believed the Lord’s Supper is the paschal sacrifice, which that passage does not claim.
        
        The fact that Paul says “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened” (1 Corinthians 5:7) and “Therefore let us keep the feast … with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:8) shows that he is using the Jewish festivals metaphorically. We are not unleavened bread and “sincerity and truth” are not bread either. But leaven is a metaphor for hypocrisy and error, and “unleaven” is a metaphor for uprightness and proper living.
        
        Paul has merely stated that because Christ has offered himself for us, we ought to live lives honorably and “not to company with fornicators” (1 Corinthians 5:9).
        
        It is the same message of Romans 6:
        
        “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:3-4)
        
        Jesus died for us. We ought walk in newness of life. The context of 1 Corinthians 5:7 is not of Jesus or the Apostles and their successors transubstantiating bread and wine to offer Christ for sins. The context is church discipline, and repentance. Not the sacrifice of the mass.
      3. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 28, 2020 at 9:53 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        ” How can Christ be your master Derek if you are not following his commands? “
        
        In the parable of the prodigal son, the son did not cease being the son of the master even though he failed to do the will of his father.
        
        In the Ancient Near East, the patriarch’s domain was all those people under his authority and that authority was absolute. He was responsible for the behaviors of those under his domain. If he wanted to shed responsibility, he could sell them (i.e. slave), send them away (i.e. concubine; servant), or put them to death (i.e. wife), according to their status in the household. The lower the status, the easier it was to remove them. If he wished them to remain in the household, he could bear the punishment for their sins on their behalf.
        
        This is our Covenant relationship to Christ. We are his adopted heirs. That adoption is irrevocable and we cannot be disowned. As we are Christ’s, he bears responsibility for our sins as our master. It is by his grace alone that we remain in covenant with him.
        
        “In simplistic terms if the doctrine of the real presence is true, the Last Supper and the Mass is a sacrifice. If it is a false doctrine, then you have your memorial meal.”
        
        You have painted a picture of mutual contradiction. Both cannot be true. One of us is following the commands of the master while the other is not. As yours is a late fourth century novelty, it is clear which is which.
        
        “His command in John 6 that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. “
        
        Do you personally make this interpretation because you’ve read what the scriptures say or is it because your church tells you that is what it means?
        
        Peace,
        DR
Nick Broom says:

September 13, 2020 at 10:13 pm

Tim asks …the infallible teaching of the Church.”
Does that list exist anywhere, or is that something Roman Catholics have to sort out on their own?

A good start is “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” by Heinrich Denzinger

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 14, 2020 at 5:45 am
  
  Nick, Denzinger is not infallible, of course. Also, your appeal to Denzinger is fraught with difficulty, as Denzinger is always in need of an update, and what is more, when the 1957 “green” version came out it had a long list of corrigenda at the beginning, correcting errors in the previous version, and they are by no means trivial corrections. Several of the errors in the 1954 version accidentally required readers to subscribe to heresy, and the 1957 version provided the corrigenda, i.e.,
  
  Page 31, number 74, read: “is true God” for “is not true God.”
  Page 87, number 218, read: “but not as if the word of God” for “‘but as if the Word of God.”
  
  These had to do with the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Christ. There is a possibility, however remote, that anything you read in Denzinger’s is liable to be corrected in the next version.
  
  So from 1954 to 1957 Denzinger included heresy as the teachings of the church, and at the moment, it still says the death penalty is not immoral:
  
  “With regard to the secular power, we affirm that it can exercise a judgment of blood without mortal sin, provided that in carrying out the punishment it proceeds, not out of hatred, but judiciously, not in a precipitous manner, but with caution.” (DS 425).
  
  Which of course, is contrary to the current teaching of the catechism which (now) says that the death penalty is inadmissable.
  
  So the problem remains. Roman Catholics have no way of knowing infallibly what they are, or are not, to believe. There exists no infallible collection of infallible teachings of the church, and therefore the Roman Catholic must read all the data—including the errors and heresies identified as truth—and sort them out on his own.
  
  Nick, I asked for an infallible collection of infallible teachings precisely because the Catechism is prone to error and subject to correction, and you provide me with Denzinger’s, which is also prone to error and subject to correction. How on earth is that an improvement over the Catechism? Denzinger is just a guy with an opinion.
  
  Now, on the matter of the death penalty, Steven Long highlights the historical blindness and gross doctrinal error of declaring the death penalty to be absolutely wrong. Long points out, ironically, that the Waldensians in 1210 were required to confess “the essential justice of the death penalty for grave crime” as a condition of returning to ecclesial communion. Looks like the joke was on them. If they could have just held out of 807 years, they would have been required to deny “the essential justice of the death penalty for grave crime” as a condition of returning to ecclesial communion.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 14, 2020 at 7:33 pm
    
    Timothy says “Denzinger is just a guy with an opinion.”
    
    As are you. But you asked for a collection and I gave you something to start with. Infallibility is in the truthfulness found in the sources for teaching in faith and morals including those from Holy Scripture which is also recognized infallible by the Church.
    
    “I asked for an infallible collection of infallible teachings precisely because the Catechism is prone to error and subject to correction, and you provide me with Denzinger’s, which is also prone to error and subject to correction.”
    
    Again, this is why we have a living, breathing teaching magisterium so that typographical errors are corrected and don’t remain permanent errors.
    So, Tim, what sources does your church have that the RCC doesn’t have that makes the Reformed Church a better choice for the Christian?
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 15, 2020 at 3:55 pm
      
      Nick, wrote,
      
      “That also stands to reason why Church teaching must be infallible.”
      
      But because some of the church’s teachings are clearly not infallible, it also “stands to reason” that for the Church to enjoy infallible teaching authority, the sheep must be able to discern when the Church is teaching infallibly, and when the Church is not teaching infallibly. If the sheep do not know the difference between what is infallible teaching and what is not, then the value of an “infallible” guide is precisely zero.
      
      As Robert Sungenis once lamented,
      
      “The reason someone could question the infallible status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is that the language John Paul II used in the decree gave some doubt as to whether he was making it infallible. This is why I said earlier that when the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly, as Canon 749.3 requires.” (Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008).
      
      Now, on the matter of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Benedict, in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. But the National Catholic Register objected:
      
      “The doctrinal congregation can make many definitive decisions regarding church doctrine and life. It is beyond its authority to determine which church teachings are infallible and which are not. Only a pope clearly speaking ex cathedra or an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops can determine that.”
      
      But we aren’t even sure which councils are truly ecumenical, either, as evidenced by the recent movement to unwind Vatican II—a movement propagated by some of Rome’s own currentclergy.
      
      So here we are: different catholics are trying to figure out if and when the popes or the councils have spoken infallibly, and until they can figure that out, they can’t know with certainty what is taught, no matter how loudly they proclaim the importance of an infallible teaching authority.
      
      Enter Nick Broom who says the Catechism is a reliable source, and then immediately acknowledges that the errors in the catechism illustrate the need for a “living, breathing, teaching magisterium so that corrections can be made when needed”. But the living breathing magisterium—Benedict, John Paul II, Vatican II—is part of the problem. So I ask again,
      
      “since the Catechism does not enjoy the attribute of infallibility (at best it is a fallible collection of ostensibly infallible teachings), then to what document can I turn to find what constitutes “the infallible teaching of the Church.””
      
      It is clear from my question that I am looking for a compendium of Roman Catholic teachings, a compendium that enjoys the attribute of infallibility, so that I may understand what constitutes “the infallible teaching of the Church,” and importantly, what does not. And Nick responds with Denzinger’s. But as I immediately pointed out, Denzinger’s also does not enjoy the attribute of infallibility. In fact it has some catastrophic errors. So Nick responds that Denziger’s, being fallible, underscores the need for a “living, breathing, teaching magisterium so that corrections can be made when needed.” But the problem is, that “living, breathing, teaching magisterium” has demonstrated that it is chronically, absolutely incapable of producing an infallible list of what has been taught infallibly, leaving the sheep always guessing as to what the church has “taught” and what must be believed for salvation. If you don’t believe that, try compiling an infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements. Good luck. That is just the beginning.
      
      Which papal statements are ex cathedra? Which councils are ecumenical? Which patristic teaching is part of the deposit of faith? Which paragraphs of the catechism have been transcribed correctly? Which ones are no longer true? Which sources of Catholic dogma have been properly conveyed to us that we may find them, and believe them to be true? This is the struggle faced by every Roman Catholic. It is fundamentally an epistemological problem, and it is the EXACT same position everyone on earth finds himself: how do I know what to believe? If the Roman Catholic chooses to reject Vatican II (as Archbishop Vigano has) and some of the teachings of Francis (as Archbishop Vigano does) and some teachings of John Paul II (as National Catholic Register does), it raises the question of how he can know which magisterial teachings are to be believed and which are not? So far, I have not heard a compelling answer.
      
      I pointed out that Denzinger is just a guy with an opinion. Nick retorts “as are you.” Of course I am. But I did not offer myself to you as a source of infallible teachings.
      
      Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

September 14, 2020 at 4:47 pm

An observation.

Nick cites Denzinger—to illustrate the infallible RCC teachings—who notes:

““With regard to the secular power, we affirm that it can exercise a judgment of blood without mortal sin, provided that in carrying out the punishment it proceeds, not out of hatred, but judiciously, not in a precipitous manner, but with caution.” “

My stance is identical:

“The death penalty is … not [absolutely wrong] for secular governments to whom God has explicitly given the sword to be his instrument of justice. [..] The secular government answers to God alone, and it will be judged accordingly. “

And yet I also said…

“The death penalty is absolutely wrong for Christians [..] It is for this reason that Christians must have zero direct roles in government.”

The Waldensian’s stance was—by implication—the same:

“the Waldensians in 1210 were required to confess “the essential justice of the death penalty for grave crime” as a condition of returning to ecclesial communion.”

It is not a coincidence that Anabaptists have at various points considered themselves to directly or indirectly descended from the Waldensians (e.g. Martyrs Mirror in 1660).

Both of these groups’ views roughly cohere with the current RCC teaching:

“the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”

As Tim notes:

“If they could have just held out of 807 years, they would have been required to deny “the essential justice of the death penalty for grave crime” as a condition of returning to ecclesial communion.”

If you were Waldensian/Anabaptist for any time in the last 800+ years, you would have been on the right side of the issue the entire time. If you are Roman Catholic, you are guilty of cognitive dissonance and/or heresy.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 14, 2020 at 4:57 pm

DR–
You believe it is better not to take the life of an unbeliever than to let the unbeliever rape and murder your wife and children while he makes you watch. Understand that your wife and kids are seeing you do nothing to help them. Taking a bullet to save her and your kids is not a deterrent. He knows you are a non-resister.
You dying will not pacify the unbeliever. And if he takes his own life immediately afterwards, there is still no reconciliation with God–he still died an unbeliever.
How tragic to extended family and close friends.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 14, 2020 at 8:42 pm

DR says “If you were Waldensian/Anabaptist for any time in the last 800+ years, you would have been on the right side of the issue the entire time. If you are Roman Catholic, you are guilty of cognitive dissonance and/or heresy.”

Not so fast.
You say that the embrace of the death penalty as RCC teaching, but you should note that John Paul II quotes St. Ambrose to establish that God does not desire death in punishment for death. St. Ambrose describes the death penalty as “homicide.”
Pope St. John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae 9:
“And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, ‘put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him’ (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes:
‘Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide.’ ”

Imagine that! The “strongly deluded reprobate who was guilty of cognitive dissonance and/or heresy” St Ambrose wrote this in Tim’s proverbial “late 4th century”. That’s 800 years BEFORE the Waldensians.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 15, 2020 at 4:55 pm

Timothy says “I pointed out that Denzinger is just a guy with an opinion. Nick retorts “as are you.” Of course I am. But I did not offer myself to you as a source of infallible teachings.”

Why not? Do you not believe that what you are writing here is 100% correct? You defend it as though it is. Are you not led into all truth by the infallible Holy Spirit when you are teaching others on this very blog? If not, then you must confess that somehow the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is lost in translation, and that, yes, you could be wrong. And if that is true, then it is only your opinion against what you claim is only the opinion of the RCC.
So the only difference between the two opinions is that the RCC claims they cannot err in teaching Christian faith and morals and that you claim that you could be wrong in stating that the RCC is fallible in its teaching.
You imply, then, it’s all a matter of opinion to you. So, in your fallible opinion, what you are looking for in infallibility could not possibly exist as a complete reference written by the RCC–at least you have convinced yourself of that–and no matter what sources I could give you it won’t be compelling enough to overcome the impossibility of infallibility.
Now since I cannot possibly come up with any sources compelling enough for you, Tim, then I ask you again what sources does your church have that the RCC doesn’t have that makes the Reformed Church a better choice for the Christian?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 21, 2020 at 9:46 am
  
  Yes, Nick, precisely my point: “And if that is true, then it is only your opinion against what you claim is only the opinion of the RCC.” Yes, it is my fallible opinion vs. the fallible opinion of the Roman Catholic Religion.
  
  But your next statement is just silly:
  
  “So the only difference between the two opinions is that the RCC claims they cannot err in teaching Christian faith and morals and that you claim that you could be wrong in stating that the RCC is fallible in its teaching.”
  
  No, the difference between the two is that between me and Rome, the Roman Catholic religion is the only one that claims to teach infallibly. As such, between Rome and me, only one is obligated to prove that it can and does teach infallibly. The burden of proof is on Rome, not on me, as I have not made the claim.
  
  Having made the claim of infallibility, Roman Catholicism is chronically, systemically, intrinsically and perpetually UNABLE to show infallibly what it DOES teach infallibly and what it DOES NOT teach infallibly.
  
  So I will recap again. I ask for an infallible list of what Rome has infallibly taught. You point me to the Catechism. I show that the Catechism can and does err on rather significant matters (like whether laypeople can shepherd a parish “in solidum”). So you point me to Denzinger’s, and I show that Denzinger’s can and does err, and (currently) says the death penalty is admissible, while the Catechism (currently) says it is not. So you defer to the living breathing magisterium, and still I cannot tell (nor can you) when the living breathing magisterium is teaching me something infallibly.
  
  Every Roman Catholic will acknowledge that individual members of the Roman Catholic magisterium have taught error, and individual documents produced by the magisterium have taught error and individual popes have taught error, and even some ecumenical councils (if Rome’s current apologists live Voris, Vigano and Marshall are to be believed) have taught error. The Roman Catholic apologist will then allege that while individual members of the magisterium, including popes, have taught error, they have never taught error in their role as infallible guides and shepherds.
  
  As such, inherent within the claim and the alleged need for, and existence of, an infallible guide for the sheep, is the ability of the sheep to be able to tell when the magisterium is teaching in its role of an infallible guide and shepherd to the sheep, and when it is not.
  
  So there ought to be a really simple solution: produce the list of what the Roman Catholic religion has taught infallibly so the sheep can know that the other stuff can be ignored. Where can I find such a list? It’s not the Catechism, as the Catechism itself did not receive Christ’s admonition to “feed my sheep.” It’s not Denzinger’s, because he does not enjoy the charism of infallibility either (obviously). It’s not the Councils, since even some Roman Catholics believe that Vatican II taught error. It’s not the Popes, since popes say a lot of things and not everything they say is ex cathedra, and since Roman Catholics disagree among themselves what the criteria are that a papal statement must fulfill in order to be considered ex cathedra, there is no objective and infallible way to determine what has, and has not, been declared infallibly by the pontiffs.
  
  So, honestly, what good is an infallible teaching office if nobody knows when it is teaching infallibly or not?
  
  Nick: you claim Rome teaches infallibly, so what has Roman Catholicism taught infallibly? It’s a pretty simple question.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 16, 2020 at 8:50 pm

Hi Nick,
Great job in showing the inconsistency of their reasoning. Derek admits agreement with the Catholic stance on the death penalty. That’s fine: he is not Protestant. However, he had also said that he is essentially in agreement with them. Where is Timothy (et al.) standing on this issue? He is making a big deal about the changing of a few words in the Catechism and ignoring the main point of the statement.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  September 17, 2020 at 12:37 pm
  
  Thanks Phil.
  I guess Tim thinks that any revision to the catechism is the RCC not getting it right in the first place and concludes it as the RCC teaching error, ergo, the Church is indeed fallible when it comes to EVERYTHING it teaches. That’s the problem with Reformed thinking. The problem is that what is written in the Bible is the sole rule of faith. If it can’t be referenced in the Bible, then it should not be taught as true for matters of faith. And they know for a fact that not everything given us from the mouth of God is written in Holy Scripture. The Bible even testifies to that very fact. So the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-contradicting. There has to be Apostolic Tradition to help the Church apply the teaching of Holy Scripture or else it becomes static in a dynamic world–inert words on a page instead of the living Word of God. That is why the Bible says the Word should be taught, not just given to everybody to read for themselves.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 19, 2020 at 4:12 pm

Hi Nick,
You are right. Timothy hears only what he wants to hear and uses Sola Scriptura at his own convenience. He cannot accept that the Passover meal was sacrificial (even in light of 1 Cor 5:7) and the fact that many other Protestants accept it. I doubt that he will get back to you. Even Derek has left the blog. I don’t know if Derek will try to contact me here or not. Just in case I am going to give you my e-mail address since I don’t have a blog. It is “felisanz9@msn.com”. Feel free to contact me there.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  September 20, 2020 at 8:57 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “Even Derek has left the blog. I don’t know if Derek will try to contact me here or not.”
  
  What are you talking about? I posted a few days ago. I’m still waiting on (but probably won’t receive) responses for quite a few comments.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 21, 2020 at 5:20 pm

Hi Derek,
You said:
“What are you talking about? I posted a few days ago. I’m still waiting on (but probably won’t receive) responses for quite a few comments.”

This is what I am talking about, in case you missed it:

“Hi Derek,
You are the one that keeps raising or lowering the bar for convenience. I will discuss the CCC with their own words and your arguments with yours. I have no problem with that but I expect you to make some effort to understand.

You said:
“To be on the same page, … don’t need to talk about it).
It’s your choice.

You added:
‘On the topic of salvation and justification, considerably more revealing would be the answers to the questions I posed, not least of which is this:
“So one can lose righteousness by their misdeeds?”’

What do you know? I completely agree with you that those two questions (closely related) are more important. Here they are:
“So one can lose righteousness by their misdeeds?”
My answer is YES. 2 Samuel 12:1-14.
What is your answer?

Does righteousness in the context of David (under the Old Covenant) apply in the same way to us (under the New Covenant)?”
Here again I give you the same answer: YES.
It is Paul himself in Rom 4:1-12 who brings up Abraham and David (under the Old Covenant) as examples of God’s justification and forgiveness (Psalm 32:1-2) to be applied equally to both Jews and Gentiles (under the New Covenant). In the New Testament the use of the words “just” and “righteous” is consistently used in the same sense as in the Old Testament.
What is your answer?”

I did not know if you were going to answer me. I will look for your answer on this blog.

Peace and blessings.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 21, 2020 at 5:44 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comment. Paul tells the Corinthians that “Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” 1Cor 5:7. This clearly ties up the Last Supper to His sacrifice on the Cross.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  September 22, 2020 at 10:24 am
  
  Thanks Phil. And they ate the paschal lamb. You can trace the sacrificial nature of the Lord’s supper to the Bible. At the Last Supper Christ offered His Body, then His Blood. What happens when you separate the Body from the Blood? You have a sacrifice! Christ is our Paschal Lamb!
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 21, 2020 at 10:55 pm

Hi Timothy,
I hope you don’t think that I am repeating myself again.

You told Nick:
“Yes, Nick, precisely … pretty simple question.”

The Church does proclaim the faith in human words and not everything is infallible, you are the one that keeps saying so. The Church does teach infallibly only when the object of the teaching is infallible: like the Word of God or the dogmas.

You are assuming that the dogmas of the faith are subject to human proof. That is a completely wrong assumption. We believe those dogmas in faith only because if they can be proven then you don’t need faith to believe them (Rom 8:24) do you? Either you believe them or you don’t. For example, can you prove the mystery of the Trinity or the Hypostatic union? Obviously you can’t.

The dogmas have a negative infallibility in the sense that they are here to protect us from dangerous faith errors. They are very limited and not the totality of the faith. Dogmas are identified and declared only when guided by the Holy Spirit to do so in order to preserve His Church free from error. Just as Paul says: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” Rom 5:20. Almost all dogmas have come about because of heresies. Shall we disobey God to obtain a clear condemnation? Or as Paul says: “Are we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Rom 6:1. The denial of the infallibility dogma is heretical indeed, and If you are not satisfied that your denial of it is heresy and you want proof of it, I, in your place, would write to the Vatican and ask them for a written confirmation (the same can be said for Vigano et al.).

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 22, 2020 at 9:02 am
  
  Phil wrote:
  
  “The Church does proclaim the faith in human words and not everything is infallible, you are the one that keeps saying so.”
  
  I have never said or claimed that everything the Church teaches is in fallible.
  
  “The Church does teach infallibly only when the object of the teaching is infallible: like the Word of God or the dogmas.”
  
  I do understand that to be the claim of Roman Catholicism. So it should be easy for you to provide a list of what the Church has taught infallibly. You continued:
  
  “You are assuming that the dogmas of the faith are subject to human proof. That is a completely wrong assumption.”
  
  I have never assumed any such thing, nor have I ever asked any of the Roman Catholics here to “prove” that one of the dogmas is true or infallible. I have simply asked you (or anyone) to provide me an infallible list of what those “dogmas of the faith” are. Not whether they can be proven to be true. Just what are the “dogmas of the faith” that the Church has taught infallibly.
  
  You continued:
  
  “The dogmas have a negative infallibility in the sense that they are here to protect us from dangerous faith errors.”
  
  Great. What are they?
  
  “They are very limited and not the totality of the faith.”
  
  Great. Then this should be easy. What are they?
  
  “Dogmas are identified and declared only when guided by the Holy Spirit to do so in order to preserve His Church free from error.”
  
  Great. What are they?
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 22, 2020 at 12:20 pm
    
    Here is a list of infallible dogmas, not an infallible list of dogmas:
    1 God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.
    2 God’s existence is not merely an object of rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith.
    3 God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.
    4 The blessed in Heaven possess an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence.
    5 The immediate vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural.
    6 The soul, for the immediate vision of God, requires the light of glory.
    7 God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven.
    8 The divine attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence.
    9 God is absolutely perfect.
    10 God is actually infinite in every perfection.
    11 God is absolutely simple.
    12 There is only one God.
    13 The one God is, in the ontological sense, the true God.
    14 God possesses an infinite power of cognition.
    15 God is absolute veracity.
    16 God is absolutely faithful.
    17 God is absolute ontological goodness in Himself and in relation to others.
    18 God is absolute moral goodness or holiness.
    19 God is absolute benignity.
    20 God is absolutely immutable.
    21 God is eternal.
    22 God is immense or absolutely immeasurable.
    23 God is everywhere present in created space.
    24 God’s knowledge is infinite.
    25 God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
    26 God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
    27 By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.
    28 God’s Divine Will is infinite.
    29 God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
    30 God is almighty.
    31 God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth.
    32 God is infinitely just.
    33 God is infinitely merciful.
    34 In God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy GhosEach of the three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
    35 In God there are two internal divine processions.
    36 The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the internal divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
    37 The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to Father.
    38 The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.
    39 The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.
    40 The relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
    41 The Three Divine Persons are in one another.
    42 All the ad extra activities of God are common to the three Persons.
    B God the Creator
    43 All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
    44 God was moved by His goodness to create the world.
    45 The world was created for the glorification of God.
    46 The Three Divine Persons are one single, common principle of creation.
    47 God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
    48 God has created a good world.
    49 The world had a beginning in time.
    50 God alone created the world.
    51 God keeps all created things in existence.
    52 God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
    53 The first man was created by God.
    54 Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul.
    55 The rational soul per se is the essential form of the body.
    56 Every human being possesses an individual soul.
    57 God has conferred on man a supernatural destiny.
    58 Our first parents, before the fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace.
    59 In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality.
    60 Our first parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment.
    61 Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.
    62 Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the devil.
    63 Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation but by descent.
    64 Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.
    65 In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
    66 Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.
    67 In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.
    68 The nature of angels is spiritual.
    69 The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
    70 The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.
    71 The devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin.
    C God the Redeemer
    72 Jesus Christ is true God and true Son of God.
    73 Christ assumed a real body, not an apparent body.
    74 Christ assumed not only a body but also a rational soul.
    75 Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary.
    76 The Divine and human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person.
    77 In the hypostatic union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with each other.
    78 Each of the two natures in Christ possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation.
    79 The hypostatic union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception.
    80 The hypostatic union will never cease
    81 The hypostatic union was effected by the three Divine Persons acting in common.
    82 Only the second Divine Person became Man.
    83 Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God.
    84 The God-Man Jesus Christ is to be venerated with one single mode of worship, the absolute worship of latria which is due to God alone.
    85 Christ’s Divine and human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate.
    86 Christ was free from all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin.
    87 Christ’s human nature was passable.
    88 The Son of God became man in order to redeem men.
    89 Fallen man cannot redeem himself.
    90 The God-man Jesus Christ is a high priest.
    91 Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice.
    92 Christ by His sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God.
    93 Christ, through His passion and death, merited reward from God.
    94 After His death, Christ’s Soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld.
    95 On the third day after His death, Christ rose gloriously from the dead.
    96 Christ ascended body and soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.
    D The Mother of the Redeemer
    97 Mary is truly the Mother of God.
    98 Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
    99 Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
    100 Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
    101 After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
    102 Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
    E God the Sanctifier
    103 There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
    104 There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
    105 For every salutary act, internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary.
    106 Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and salvation.
    107 Without the special help of God, the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.
    108 The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.
    109 Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths.
    110 For the performance of a morally good action, sanctifying grace is not required.
    111 In the state of fallen nature, it is morally impossible for man without supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty, and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.
    112 Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo.
    113 God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the divine commandments.
    114 God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
    115 God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
    116 The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.
    117 There is grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.
    118 The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.
    119 The justification of an adult is not possible without faith.
    120 Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.
    121 Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul.
    122 Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God.
    123 Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of heaven.
    124 The three Divine or theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused with sanctifying grace.
    125 Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace.
    126 The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just.
    127 Grace can be increased by good works.
    128 The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.
    129 By his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
    130 A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if death finds him in the state of grace) and an increase in heavenly glory.
    F The Catholic Church
    131 The Catholic Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.
    132 Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
    133 Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
    134 The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.
    135 Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
    136 According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time.
    137 The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.
    138 The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
    139 The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
    140 By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
    141 Christ founded the Catholic Church.
    142 Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
    143 In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.
    144 The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.
    145 The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.
    146 The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
    147 The Church founded by Christ is holy.
    148 The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
    149 The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
    150 Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
    G The Communion of Saints
    159 It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession.
    160 It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of the Saints.
    161 It is permissible and profitable to venerate images of the Saints.
    162 The living faithful can come to the assistance of the souls in Purgatory by their intercessions.
    H The Sacraments
    163 The Sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace which they signify, and bestow it on those who do not hinder it.
    164 The Sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, the sacraments operate by the power of the completed sacramental rite.
    165 All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers.
    166 Three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, imprint a character, that is an indelible spiritual mark, and, for this reason, cannot be repeated.
    167 The sacramental character is a spiritual mark imprinted on the soul.
    168 The sacramental character continues at least until the death of the bearer.
    169 All Sacraments of the New Covenant were instituted by Jesus Christ.
    170 There are seven Sacraments of the New Law.
    171 The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind.
    172 The validity and efficacy of the Sacrament is independent of the minister’s orthodoxy and state of grace.
    173 For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental sign in the proper manner.
    174 The minister must have the intention of at least doing what the Church does.
    175 In the case of adult recipients moral worthiness is necessary for the worthy or fruitful reception of the Sacraments.
    I Baptism
    176 Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
    177 The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
    178 Baptism confers the grace of justification.
    179 Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
    180 Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
    181 Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
    182 Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
    183 Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
    184 The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
    J Confirmation
    185 Confirmation is a true Sacrament properly so-called.
    186 Confirmation imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, and for this reason, cannot be repeated.
    187 The ordinary minister of Confirmation is the Bishop alone.
    K Holy Eucharist
    188 The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.
    189 Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
    190 The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
    191 The Body and Blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity and therefore, the whole Christ, are truly present in the Eucharist.
    192 The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species.
    193 When either consecrated Species is divided, the Whole Christ is present in each part of the Species.
    194 After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood are permanently present in the Eucharist.
    195 The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.
    196 The Eucharist is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
    197 The matter for the consummation of the Eucharist is bread and wine.
    198 For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
    199 Communion under two forms is not necessary for any individual members of the Faithful, either by reason of Divine precept or as a means of salvation.
    200 The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only .
    201 The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be validly received by every baptised person in the wayfaring state, including young children.
    202 For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary.
    203 The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice.
    204 In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory celebrated, and its saving power applied.
    205 In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.
    206 The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration.
    L Penance
    207 The Church has received from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism.
    208 By the Church’s Absolution sins are truly and immediately remitted.
    209 The Church’s power to forgive sins extends to all sin without exception.
    210 The exercise of the Church’s power to forgive sins is a judicial act.
    211 The forgiveness of sins which takes place in the Tribunal of Penance is a true and proper Sacrament, which is distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism.
    212 Extra-sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti).
    213 Contrition springing from the motive of fear is a morally good and supernatural act.
    214 The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation.
    215 By virtue of Divine ordinance, all grievous sins according to kind and number, as well as those circumstances which alter their nature, are subject to the obligation of confession.
    216 The confession of venial sins is not necessary but is permitted and is useful.
    217 All temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment.
    218 The priest has the right and duty, according to the nature of the sins and the ability of the penitent, to impose salutary and appropriate works for satisfaction.
    219 Extra-sacramental penitential works, such as the performance of voluntary penitential practices and the patient bearing of trials sent by God, possess satisfactory value.
    220 The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
    221 Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.
    222 The principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God.
    223 The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.
    224 The sole possessors of the Church’s Power of Absolution are the bishops and priests.
    225 Absolution given by deacons, clerics or lower rank, and laymen is not Sacramental Absolution.
    226 The Sacrament of Penance can be received by any baptised person who, after Baptism, has committed a grievous or a venial sin.
    227 The Church possesses the power to grant Indulgences.
    228 The use of Indulgences is useful and salutary to the Faithful.
    O Anointing of the sick
    229 Extreme Unction or anointing of the sick is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
    230 The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil.
    231 The form consists in the prayer of the priest for the sick person which accomplishes the anointing.
    232 Extreme Unction gives the sick person sanctifying grace in order to arouse and strengthen him.
    233 Extreme Unction effects the remission of grievous sins still remaining and of venial sins.
    234 Extreme Unction sometimes effects the restoration of bodily health, if this be of spiritual advantage.
    235 Only Bishops and priests can validly administer Extreme Unction.
    236 Extreme Unction can be received only by the Faithful who are seriously ill.
    M Holy Orders
    237 Holy Order is a true and proper Sacrament which was instituted by Jesus Christ.
    238 The consecration of priests is a Sacrament.
    239 Bishops are superior to priests.
    240 The Sacrament of Order confers sanctifying grace on the recipient.
    241 The Sacrament of Order imprints a character on the recipient.
    242 The Sacrament of Order confers a permanent spiritual power on the recipient.
    243 The ordinary dispenser of all grades of Order, both the sacramental and the non-sacramental, is the validly consecrated Bishop alone.
    N Matrimony
    244 Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God.
    245 From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
    246 The Sacrament of Matrimony bestows sanctifying grace on the contracting parties.
    P The Last Things
    247 In the present order of salvation, death is a punishment for sin.
    248 All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death.
    249 The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven.
    250 The bliss of Heaven lasts for all eternity.
    251 The degree of perfection of the Beatific Vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merit.
    252 The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.
    253 The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity.
    254 The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter purgatory.
    255 At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgement.
    256 All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies.
    257 The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth.
    258 Christ, on His second coming, will judge all men.
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      September 22, 2020 at 1:26 pm
      
      Nick,
      
      Tim can specifically address your list of infallible dogmas. I’ll speak only about this cop-out in particular:
      
      “Here is a list of infallible dogmas, not an infallible list of dogmas”
      
      A list of infallible doctrines is only good if (1) it has universal agreement or (2) is itself infallible. You’ve declined to assert the latter, so either you must show the former or Tim must show that your list does not have universal agreement.
      
      Now, as I’ve written before, there are problems with achieving a ‘infallible list of dogmas.’ Given some ‘list of infallible dogmas’, a dogma could be shown to be infallible that was not included and should have been. Or a dogma could be shown to be fallible that was included.
      
      What would happen in either case? Does the church cease to exist? Absolutely not! As you noted, the list itself was not declared infallibly.
      
      Now let’s say that no dogma was left out and none were found to be fallible after the fact. Mere existence of such a list is not enough to ensure full falsifiability. We don’t know if any fallible infallible dogmas were left out (i.e. cherry picking). We don’t know if there exist infallible dogmas that we just don’t know about or are hidden in secret church archives. We can’t use existence in the list to know whether the original dogmas were actually considered to be infallible originally (i.e. circular reasoning), which was one reason for the list in the first place, because they become infallible by merely being included in the list. Moreover, we can’t use the list, even if authenticated by papal authority, to show that church authority is valid (i.e. circular reasoning), which was a reason for making the list in the first place.
      
      There is real risk that if an ‘infallible list of dogmas’ were made that a discrepancy would be found and Catholicism would end. So who would take that risk? The current setup is safer because it is ambiguous and malleable (which is a worse situation than Protestant doctrinal unity). It is a cop-out.
      
      As I’m sure Tim will demonstrate, Catholics can argue and argue about what counts as an infallible statement, but there will be no consensus. Various claims will be made that a statement is infallible and used to selectively push or defend certain Catholic doctrinal stances. Such arguments need only be used long enough to effectively end any objections. The goalposts can always be moved later.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 22, 2020 at 3:45 pm
        
        DR–
        You gave this rule: “A list of infallible doctrines is only good if (1) it has universal agreement or (2) is itself infallible. You’ve declined to assert the latter, so either you must show the former or Tim must show that your list does not have universal agreement.”
        
        In the same reasoning:
        A list of inerrant books of Scripture is only good if (1) it has universal agreement or (2) is itself infallible. The Holy Bible meets neither one of those criteria. The list of books is not in universal agreement nor is the list in and of itself infallible. And yet Sola Scriptura dictates the books listed in the Protestant bible and only those books to be the sole rule of faith.
        
        Here’s what Timothy said:
        “But because some of the church’s teachings are clearly not infallible, it also “stands to reason” that for the Church to enjoy infallible teaching authority, the sheep must be able to discern when the Church is teaching infallibly, and when the Church is not teaching infallibly. If the sheep do not know the difference between what is infallible teaching and what is not, then the value of an “infallible” guide is precisely zero.”
        
        By Tim’s reasoning, then, the fallible Church that Jesus Christ established (catholic–small “c”– meaning universal which Tim and you, DR, claim to be a member of) teaches that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God contained in a list or canon recognized by the fallible Church to contain only those books in that list and no other writings. And in which version is one to rely on that is error free? The King James? The New World? The Vulgate? The Message? The NAB? The RSV? Young’s Literal? There are no original autographs of the texts, so how does one know the fallible early Church did not fallibly edit the manuscripts that are currently extant? An example is chapter 16 of the Gospel of Mark. Does it stop with verse 8? Or should the longer ending with vv9-20 be more correct? Or should the un-versed shorter ending be correct? There are early manuscripts supporting all three versions. The value of an “infallible” guide is in Tim’s words “precisely zero.” How are the sheep to know the Bible is indeed the inerrant Word of God if the Church’s teaching could be wrong?
        By your reasoning, what makes a fallible Reformed or Anabaptist shepherd any better than a fallible Roman Catholic shepherd?
      2. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 22, 2020 at 4:28 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        I’m afraid you have misunderstood. You said…
        
        “A list of inerrant books of Scripture is only good if (1) it has universal agreement or (2) is itself infallible.”
        
        …but when I say universal agreement, I mean within the Roman Catholic context. It doesn’t matter, for example, if Protestants don’t have universal agreement on Roman Catholic dogma. If you forgo declaring your list to be infallible (which is your right), then you must prove that all Roman Catholics agree with your list for the reason Tim gave:
        
        “If the sheep do not know the difference between what is infallible teaching and what is not, then the value of an “infallible” guide is precisely zero.””
        
        One one hand, I’ve argued up-thread, an infallible list of infallible Scriptures is not required (i.e. an authorized canon), not least of which because Christianity existed before the NT was written. Moreover, I do not assert that you are going to hell if you don’t use a single authorized canon.
        
        On the other hand, you’ve asserted both that the list you provided contains infallible dogmas and that the RC canon is the only valid one.
        
        “A list of inerrant books of Scripture is only good if (1) it has universal agreement or (2) is itself infallible. The Holy Bible meets neither one of those criteria. “
        
        Your fallible list of infallible dogmas is—by analogy—just as authoritative as your fallible list of scripture. I’ve answered your objection, now answer your own objection.
        
        Peace,
        DR
    2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 25, 2020 at 11:39 am
      
      Nick,
      
      I observed,
      
      Having made the claim of infallibility, Roman Catholicism is chronically, systemically, intrinsically and perpetually UNABLE to show infallibly what it DOES teach infallibly and what it DOES NOT teach infallibly.
      
      And you provided a list of 258 infallible dogmas. But the problem is that these 258 Dogmas always come with a caveat.
      
      Examples:
      
      Catholic Bridge provide the list, but says,
      
      “Note that the Vatican has no official list of Dogmas, probably for many reasons, one of which, that Dogmas can be very complicated, and placing them in a few words, could become legalistic, and also give an incomplete view of the Dogmas.”
      
      And Simple Catholic Truth says,
      
      “I admit this is not an official Vatican document but it does contain the Nihil Obstate (no errors) and Imprimature (Okay to publish) markings from the Church. From what I can determine it is consistent with Church history and teachings. It may not be perfect but it is extensive and has been very useful.”
      
      Additionally, the nice folks over at Catholic Apologetics went through the same book and were able to come up with 426 dogmas.
      
      This simply reinforces my point. The sheep are left trying to sort this out on their own because the Magisterium cannot and will not teach them.
      
      Thank you.
      
      Tim
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 25, 2020 at 1:34 pm
        
        The Church is obviously slow to come out with a definitive list of infallible statements, but what would you expect? It took 300 to 400 years to pin down the concept of the Trinity, 1500 years to make a final statement on the Old and New Testament. Maybe in another thousand years they will give us a number, does it matter? Nick, Phil are you losing sleep over this matter? So do any of the 426 dogmas contradict the 258 dogmas Nick provided? I don’t think so. And so far Timothy you and Derek have not come up with 10 dogmas all Protestants agree on. Not even in the same ball park!
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 25, 2020 at 11:14 pm
        
        Timothy–
        You say the sheep are left trying to sort this out on their own because the Magisterium cannot and will not teach them. Then what makes a fallible Reformed shepherd any better than a fallible Roman Catholic shepherd?
Betty says:

September 22, 2020 at 4:51 pm

Hmmmm, 258 points of dogma Catholics agree upon and Derek you have not been able to come up with 10 points of dogma Protestants agree on. And you don’t realize this is the consequence of Sola Scriptura. Do you still believe Protestants have the fullness of the Holy Spirit who is guiding and teaching them?

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  September 23, 2020 at 4:32 pm
  
  Hi Betty,
  You are right on the money. Fullness of faith is the main issue. You told us about your experience of the acrimony brought about by division in Protestantism. On the other side of the coin, reading about conversions to Catholicism from people familiar with several Protestant congregations (some even in positions of leadership), I found out how consistent they are in claiming that their faith has been enriched by their experience and how thankful they are to God for the gift of their faith experience with their former confreres. Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    September 29, 2020 at 4:27 pm
    
    Phil, I meant to respond to this post earlier. I totally agree with you. You really don’t see many Catholic converts who after their conversion dedicate their lives to attack the Protestant churches they belonged to but their are numerous exCatholics like Timothy that find attacking the Catholic Church to be their life mission. I’m sure like Derek they believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit but as I discussed with Derek not all spirits as we know are holy. It would definitely be an interesting psychological study.
    
    Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 22, 2020 at 9:55 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad that you agreed with most of my statements even though you still keep insisting on a list of infallible statements when you do not believe in them. What for? Nick provided a list for you and I wonder, what are you going to do with it?

You argued:
“As such, inherent within the claim and the alleged need for, and existence of, an infallible guide for the sheep, is the ability of the sheep to be able to tell when the magisterium is teaching in its role of an infallible guide and shepherd to the sheep, and when it is not.”
This is a good example of your all or nothing strategy in some of your arguments. The “need for, and existence of, an infallible guide for the sheep” is not necessary for all and under all circumstances, but only in the presence of danger. Continuing with the same figurative language used here, “the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” John 10:4-6 This is the normal setting and following the voice of the shepherd will be enough to keep them safe. Infallibility is required only in special circumstances when a more drastic action from the shepherd is required i.e. the Holy Spirit intervenes to protect the Church. I hope that helps. You are missing the point when you keep repeating yourself instead of trying to understand what the other person is trying to say.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 26, 2020 at 8:46 am
  
  Phil, thank you again for illustrating my point for me. You wrote,
  
  “This is a good example of your all or nothing strategy in some of your arguments. The “need for, and existence of, an infallible guide for the sheep” is not necessary for all and under all circumstances, but only in the presence of danger. … Infallibility is required only in special circumstances when a more drastic action from the shepherd is required i.e. the Holy Spirit intervenes to protect the Church.”
  
  Well, thank you for your personal opinion on the matter. Other Roman Catholics have other personal opinions. The nice folks over at Catholic Answers appear to agree with you and say that infallibility is only invoked when some doctrine has been called into question:
  
  “An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.”
  
  But Scott Hahn says that is the opposite of the truth:
  
  “Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire.” (Hahn, Scott, “A Biblical Understanding of Mary”)
  
  Let me know when you Catholics get that figured out. Sounds to me like Catholics don’t really understand what infallibility is, except that the pope has it and the church exercises it. WHEN they exercise it is anyone’s guess.
  
  You continued,
  
  “This is the normal setting and following the voice of the shepherd will be enough to keep them safe.”
  
  Well, thank you for your personal opinion, but that is a diversion. WHEN the sheep ARE or ARE NOT to follow the voice of the shepherd is precisely what is in question. To respond simply that following the voice of the shepherd is enough is avoiding the question: WHEN are the sheep to follow the shepherd, and HOW do they know? Karl Keating says we only have to do so when the pope actually speaks infallibly:
  
  “…infallibility comes into play only when the pope ‘proclaims by a definitive act.’ This means a formal, public statement. An offhand comment over lunch doesn’t count.” (Keating, What Catholics Really Believe)
  
  Ok, fair enough? What counts as a formal public statement? –crickets– Catholics can’t answer because they don’t know.
  
  Here’s an illustration of the futility of your position: Bishop Joseph Fessler, wrote a book called The True and the False: Infallibility of the Popes, just a couple years after the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed. In the book, Fessler sought to correct Protestant Dr. Schulte who had identified thirteen papal statements in history that Roman Catholics were obligated to believe because the Pope is infallible. After all, the pope is the shepherd. Catholics are the sheep. The know his voice and follow him. But Bishop Fessler disagreed, and assured his readers that Dr. Schulte didn’t know what he was talking about:
  
  “Accordingly a Catholic who accepts on faith, in accordance with his obligation, the definition de fide of the Vatican Council on the Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff, is in no way obliged to believe these thirteen propositions, which I have given word for word from his work, to be infallible utterances.” (Fessler, Joseph, The True and the False (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1875) p. 118)
  
  Well that’s a relief! The sheep are by no means obligated to believe everything the shepherd says. As you say, Phil, “the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice,” which is to say that the faithful, dutiful, attentive Roman Catholic somehow knows when the his own shepherd is saying something he doesn’t have to believe, and is equally equipped to recognize when his shepherd is saying something he does have to believe.
  
  The problem is, nobody (not even Phil) seems to know definitively which statements fall into which category.
  
  For some reason you seem to think that’s not a big deal. Well, Bishop Fessler thought it was.
  
  Let me know when you Roman Catholics get that sorted out so I can know which version of Roman Catholicism I should believe when the time comes for me to convert.
  
  Reply
  1. Phil Sanz says:
    
    September 26, 2020 at 4:52 pm
    
    Hi Timothy,
    Thank you for your comment. Since you don’t believe in infallibility, I am wondering why you worry about it? As Betty said “we are not losing any sleep over it”.
    
    You said:
    “Phil thank you again … is anyone’s guess.” Yours certainly; and continued guessing is not going to help you much. Jesus is the truth (John 8:32) and it is only by following Him that we are able to avoid all kinds of errors.
    
    You continued,
    “This is the normal setting … because they don’t know.” That’s your opinion. I don’t know how many others share it, but that is irrelevant and does nothing to support argument. I am confident that I know the voice of the Good Shepherd and by His grace I can tell apart the voices that are not His.
    
    And:
    “Here’s an illustration … Bishop Fessler thought it was.”
    And you seem to think so, too. That’s your problem as well as his problem, isn’t it? “Futility” is continuing to beat a dead horse.
    
    And finally:
    “Let me know when … for me to convert.”
    Conversion only happens by the inner workings of the Holy Spirit and our obedience to Him. I think that Derek may be able explain this to you better than I can.
    
    God bless you.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 27, 2020 at 9:53 am
      
      Phil asked, “Since you don’t believe in infallibility, I am wondering why you worry about it?” I am not worried about infallibility.
      
      You continued,
      
      “Jesus is the truth (John 8:32) and it is only by following Him that we are able to avoid all kinds of errors.”
      
      Very many Roman Catholics believe the same thing, and yet they disagree with each other and accuse each other of being in error. And they all believe they have understood the teachings of the pope, which means that each believes he has understood when the pope is, and when the pope is not, speaking infallibly and by extension, when the pope has and has not spoken error and falsehood. So yes, it is anyone’s guess, and it is certainly yours, too, unless you have perhaps developed the criteria by which you personally can know with assurance that the pope has or has not spoken something you must or ought believe.
      
      In the end, every Roman Catholic is in that same situation. He could read the catechism, as Nick suggests, and when reaching the section on the teaching magisterium, he will be confronted with the reality that it is not as simple has he has been led to believe. In order that the sheep not be misled, the church has been provided with a shepherd “who confirms his brethren in the faith [when] he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” Since the popes have spoken lots of things, he must understand what counts as a definitive act. Nobody knows what counts as a “definitive act,” and he has to sort that out on his own.
      
      That same Roman Catholic will read the catechism and find that in order that the sheep not be misled, the church has been provided with a “body of bishops” who teach what is divinely revealed together with Peter’s successor through the Ecumenical Councils. He will again be confronted with the reality that it is not as simple as he has been led to believe.
      
      Allow me to illustrate.
      
      Our illustrative Roman Catholic turns to the writings of Pope Leo the great and finds an affirmation of the very first Ecumenical Council. Pope Leo reminds us all that the “holy and venerable fathers” of Nicæa “laid down a code of canons for the Church to last till the end of the world:
      
      “These holy and venerable fathers who in the city of Nicæa, after condemning the blasphemous Arius with his impiety, laid down a code of canons for the Church to last till the end of the world, survive not only with us but with the whole of mankind in their constitutions; and, if anywhere men venture upon what is contrary to their decrees, it is ipso facto null and void; so that what is universally laid down for our perpetual advantage can never be modified by any change, nor can the things which were destined for the common good be perverted to private interests.” (Leo the Great, Letter 106, paragraph 4).
      
      Well, that’s exciting. Something definitive! The pope has reaffirmed an ecumenical council and what is more, he has preëmptively nullified any attempts to modify or change it, declaring unambiguously that the canons of Nicæa are to last to the end of the world.
      
      “Man, this is going to be so easy,” says our hapless Roman Catholic, as he thinks to discover how effectively the church has wielded this charism of infallibility. Pope Leo has spoken so clearly, so crisply, imbued as he is with the charism of infallibility, so that the church can never be led into error.
      
      So our Roman Catholic picks up the canons of the council and finds that the holy synod in 325 A.D. decided, in order that the liturgical expressions of worship be unified throughout the world, “universally laid down for our perpetual advantage” a decree that it is prohibited to kneel on the Lord’s day, or on any day from Easter to Pentecost. And of course, Pope Leo says that canon of Nicæa is to last to the end of the world and any attempt to teach contrary to it is ipso facto null and void. Good thing Jesus Christ imbued the Roman Catholic church with the charism of infallibility through her popes and ecumenical councils so that we can know definitively what our shepherd has taught us. Because “Jesus is the truth (John 8:32) and it is only by following Him that we are able to avoid all kinds of errors.”
      
      So, confident that he knows the voice of the Good Shepherd and by His grace he can tell apart the voices that are not His, our Roman Catholic goes forth looking for a church that does not kneel on the Lord’s day, or on any day from Easter to Pentecost, only to find that the church claiming to be the one true holy roman catholic and apostolic church, not only does not forbid kneeling on the Lord’s day but actually requires it. In fact cardinal Ratzinger in his “Spirit of the Liturgy” insisted that those nutty guys in Nicæa did not really get it, because a “liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core” (p. 194). Yes, those silly bishops at Nicæa received from the apostles a liturgy that was “sick at the core.”
      
      What is our hapless Roman Catholic to do? Leo said the canons of Nicæa were supposed to last until the end of the world and that any attempt to change them was ipso facto null and void, because those “holy and venerable fathers … laid down a code of canons for the Church … for our perpetual advantage” that “CAN NEVER BE MODIFIED BY ANY CHANGE” because the church is imbued with infallibility.
      
      In the end the roman catholic has but one choice: he must dismiss with the futility of trying to figure out what the Roman Catholic church teaches and has taught so that he can believe that, and must instead transfer his faith from “the teaching of the church” to “the church” itself. Instead of believing what the church teaches (who can know?), the Roman Catholic is left simply believing in the church, professing to believe implicitly what ever the church teaches, taught, should have taught, whatever that might be at any given time, whether it is kneeling on the Lord’s day, or not kneeling on the Lord’s day; whether it be the inadmissibility or the admissibility of the death penalty. Whatever. The Roman Catholic can never profess to believe a definitive set of propositions because he is ultimately led into contrary and contradictory propositions that emanate from within the teaching magisterium.
      
      The Roman Catholic apologist, faced with the utter futility of his position turns on his heel (as the Roman Catholics here have done) and says, “Well, you Protestants are no better off! You face the same thing with the Scriptures.”
      
      Of course we do. But I never came to you and claimed to have a superior infallible epistemology. The Roman Catholic did claim that, and bears the burden of proving it. He cannot do so, and so rests comfortably with the knowledge that he believes the church (whatever it currently teaches), and upon his personal conviction that he is not as bad off as the Protestants.
      
      In the end, this is precisely the where the Roman Catholic’s argument must ultimately arrive. Having claimed a superior infallible epistemology, but unable to prove or demonstrate it, he is satisfied to have believed the Church. Sola Ecclesia.
      
      Our epistemology is precisely the same, Phil (and Nick and Betty). We each believe in a first axiomatic SOMETHING, and then reason from there. Every Roman Catholic epistemological argument begins with Sola Ecclesia, and every argument that flows from that point rests upon that first unprovable axiom. And I start my arguments with Sola Scriptura, and every argument that flows from that point rests upon that unprovable axiom. I know I cannot prove that the Bible Alone is the Word of God. Nor can you prove that the Roman Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. You take it on faith, but cannot prove it. I take it on faith that the Bible Alone is the Word of God but cannot prove it. Nor do I intend to. So yes, I believe the Word of God. I imagine there are worse things to believe.
      
      That said, the likelihood that the Bible is a damnable work of Satan that will lead my soul to hell is precisely zero. But the likelihood that the Roman Catholic Church is a damnable work of Satan that will lead your soul into hell is decidedly nonzero. In fact, according to the Scriptures, that likelihood is precisely 100%.
      
      So, here ends Betty’s silly proposition that the Roman Catholic religion enjoys doctrinal uniformity as God’s answer to Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one.” Roman Catholics are not doctrinally uniform or doctrinally unified. And Phil’s silly argument that as long as he personally can discern the voice of the shepherd as it manifests in the magisterium of the RCC he’s ok (since the magisterium has taught contradictory things “infallibly” and every Roman Catholic will ultimately arrive at a “voice” of the shepherd that suits him), and Nick’s silly argument that anyone who wants to know the truth can start with the Roman Catholic catechism (since the catechism contains error and still requires the reader to figure out exactly when the church has and has not taught what is true, which is not an easy task, and it doesn’t take long to figure that out).
      
      Yes, I believe God’s Word. I believe the Scriptures are the last and only written record of what He has said to us, and He speaks to us today only through the Scriptures. And yes, that means I need to sort out what each proposition of the Scriptures means and what can logically be deduced from them, and I understand that any apparent contradiction is resolved by falling back on my first axiomatic proposition. Understood.
      
      And Roman Catholics are in the exact same situation, unable as they are even to get past the first ecumenical council without facing a contradiction that can only be reconciled by falling back on their first axiomatic proposition. Understood.
      
      Nothing any of us says here will change that, but at least I acknowledge my axiom. Roman Catholics ultimately fall back on Sola Ecclesia, but can’t bring themselves to admit it.
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 27, 2020 at 4:06 pm
        
        Timothy–
        Here is the text of Canon 20 of Nicaea– On the Lord’s Day and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
        And here is Redemptionis Sacramentum on the rubrics of the Mass:
        [52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.
        [53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer (STANDING) “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.
        [54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognition of the Holy See”. (ALL OF THESE ARE DONE STANDING)
        I am confused about your claim that we pray while kneeling at Mass. We pray either standing or sitting. The priest never prays while kneeling and neither does the congregation. When we are called to respond in prayer, we are told to stand.
        Where or when have you ever seen any Catholic, cleric or laic, openly and vocally pray while kneeling at Mass? I haven’t.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 27, 2020 at 8:56 pm
        
        Nick wrote,
        
        “I am confused about your claim that we pray while kneeling at Mass.”
        
        No, I don’t think you are. The Redemptionis Sacramentum was not written to explain the liturgy but simply to address some things that happen during the liturgy. It is silly and disingenuous to present the Redemptionis Sacramentum as evidence that kneeling is not required.
        
        You wrote,
        
        “The priest never prays while kneeling and neither does the congregation.”
        
        Well thank you for your non-Magisterial opinion on the matter. The General Instructions of the Roman Missal say,
        
        “In the dioceses of the United States of America, they [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason.”
        
        “From the epiclesis until the priest shows the chalice, the deacon normally remains kneeling.”
        
        From the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 182, “From the epiclesis until after the elevation of the cup, the bishop kneels facing the altar on a kneeler provided for him either in front of the chair of in some other convenient place.”
        
        So yes, the people, the bishops and the deacons are all required to pray kneeling.
        
        You concluded,
        
        “Where or when have you ever seen any Catholic, cleric or laic, openly and vocally pray while kneeling at Mass? I haven’t.”
        
        Nick, are you even Roman Catholic?
        
        “For Roman Catholics, kneeling is one of the most distinctive physical gestures of prayer during the celebration of Mass.” (Why do Roman Catholics kneel at Mass?)
      3. Phil says:
        
        September 28, 2020 at 7:19 pm
        
        Hi Timothy,
        Thank you for your comment. You are partially correct when you say that we cannot prove that the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church. The very nature of the Church is spiritual and can only be received in faith, like His resurrection. The other side of the coin is that Christ’s Church is also physically present in this material world through the congregation of believers. Like the resurrection, can only be believed in faith although there are historical documents to support that claim. Comparatively, there are innumerably more documents and records proving that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded than any contradicting that fact.
        
        You said:
        “Phil asked … proposition. Understood.
        
        My axiomatic proposition is: Only by grace through faith in Christ, the living and written Word, which testifies about Him and His Body by the Holy Spirit and has uninterruptedly transmitted that living faith to us, both orally and in writing (2 Thes 2:15) for our salvation and His glory. Living that faith I recognize the in-workings of the Holy Spirit and obediently “test it all and retain what is good” 1 Thes 5:21. Apparently, I have more success than you do since you show a lot of confusion.
        
        You also said:
        “Nothing any of us says here will change that, but at least I acknowledge my axiom. Roman Catholics ultimately fall back on Sola Ecclesia, but can’t bring themselves to admit it.”
        We don’t admit it because it’s not true. The only “Sola” we have is “Sola Gratia” (Eph 2:5). You are the ones who keep adding “Solas” to keep good company to your axiom of “Sola Fide”, which is not found in the Word of God. Why don’t you check the blog “Sola Symbolica – the 6th Sola of Protestantism? Who knows, you might like it.
        
        Nothing any of us says here will change that, but at least I acknowledge my axiom. Roman Catholics ultimately fall back on Sola Ecclesia, but can’t bring themselves to admit it.
        We don’t admit it because it’s not true. The only “Sola” we have is “Sola Gratia” (Eph 2:5). You are the ones who keep adding “Solas” to keep good company to your axiom of “Sola Fide”, which is not found in the Word of God. Why don’t you check the blog “Sola Symbolica – the 6th Sola of Protestantism? You might like it.
        
        Re I Cor 5:7-9 you said that it means that “Jesus died for us and we ought to walk in newness of life” which certainly ties it in with the Lord’s Supper. You are correct, but that is only half the truth. As you argued, the very reason Paul tells them to “walk in newness of life” is because “Jesus died for us” (His sacrifice on the Cross). If it was sacrificial (ritual) and not just a fleeting remembrance, then it could not have been invented centuries later, could it? The Lord’s Supper (Passover) was not only eucharistic and memorial but also sacrificial: “Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrified” 1 Cor 5:7 This was true for Jews at the time of Jesus, as Josephus has documented historically, as later when Paul reminds his Gentile brethren.
        
        God bless you.
      4. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 29, 2020 at 9:23 am
        
        Phil said
        
        “The only “Sola” we have is “Sola Gratia” (Eph 2:5).”
        
        Well, thank you for your personal private interpretation, Phil. Scott Hahn, Roman Catholic Apologist, disagrees with you:
        
        “That’s why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, the Word of God alone, rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, Scripture alone.’” (Rome, Sweet Home, p. 74)
        
        Phil also said, his axiomatic proposition is:
        
        “Only by grace through faith in Christ, the living and written Word, which testifies about Him and His Body by the Holy Spirit and has uninterruptedly transmitted that living faith to us, both orally and in writing (2 Thes 2:15) for our salvation and His glory. Living that faith I recognize the in-workings of the Holy Spirit and obediently “test it all and retain what is good” (1 Thes 5:21)”
        
        Well, you appear to have arrived at your Axiom by appealing to the Scripture, which would make the Scripture your first principle, or Axiom. (I am using Axiom in its technical sense of a “given” that is not proved or substantiated.). If your Axiom has to be proved from the Scripture, then it is not Axiomatic, since the Axiom is “given”, not proved.
        
        But I suspect that “The Scripture is the Word of God” cannot be your axiomatic proposition either because you have to prove it from the authority of the Church, and what is “proved” is not “given.”
        
        So how did you arrive at the conclusion that the Church has the Authority to declare the Scripture to be God’s word so you could arrive at your statement “Only by grace through faith in Christ,…”? It certainly cannot be the trustworthiness of innumerable “documents and records proving that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded”, since those innumerable documents are themselves fallible, since the innumerable “documents and records” are not the Word of God. And yet, it appears that that is precisely your starting point: innumerable, but fallible historical “documents and records” that you examine to arrive at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the church Jesus founded, that Church declared the Canon, and the canon leads you to the conclusion, “”Only by grace through faith in Christ,…”.
        
        Seriously, Phil you have to start somewhere. At some point you back up to a point that you have to assume something to be true, even if you cannot prove that it is. Isn’t your starting point therefore the fallible historical record?
      5. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 7:14 am
        
        Phil, I wrote,
        
        “The context of 1 Corinthians 5:7 is not of Jesus or the Apostles and their successors transubstantiating bread and wine to offer Christ for sins. The context is church discipline, and repentance. Not the sacrifice of the mass.”
        
        To which you respond
        
        “the very reason Paul tells them to “walk in newness of life” is because “Jesus died for us” (His sacrifice on the Cross). If it was sacrificial (ritual) and not just a fleeting remembrance, then it could not have been invented centuries later, could it?”
        
        You are still assuming the context of 1 Cor 5:7-9 is the Lord’s Supper, and then interpreting it through that assumption. I.e., “Because the passage is about the Lord’s Supper, the reference to Jesus being sacrificed must refer to the sacrifice of the consecrated bread and wine of the Supper.” What I am challenging is the assumption itself. How did you conclude that the context of 1 Corinthians 5:7-9 is the Lord’s Supper when the context of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 is about church discipline and expelling a fornicator. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump” is a metaphor for “put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”
        
        You introduced the passage saying, “As usual Timothy clearly ignores what would nullify his argument.” What, precisely, am I ignoring, and how, precisely, does 1 Cor 5:7-9 nullify my argument, and which argument is it nullifying?
      6. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 29, 2020 at 12:13 pm
        
        Tim,
        
        “At some point you back up to a point that you have to assume something to be true, even if you cannot prove that it is. Isn’t your starting point therefore the fallible historical record?”
        
        Not if the reasoning is purely circular, which I’ve asserted repeatedly that it is. In my limited experience, I have yet to find a Catholic apologist whose reasoning is not inherently circular, whether it be the apologists here or more prominent apologists like Tim Staples.
        
        Maybe Phil will buck the trend and point out his starting point. I certainly hope so. In the meantime, I’ll maintain my thesis that a starting point is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.
        
        Peace,
        DR
  2. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 26, 2020 at 8:01 pm
    
    Timothy said “Let me know when you Roman Catholics get that sorted out so I can know which version of Roman Catholicism I should believe when the time comes for me to convert.”
    
    Why do you tickle your ears with only the quotes from those apologists that seem to tell you only what you want to hear and cite them as defense of your position? You have access to the Catechism just as does anyone else. It is the official teaching of the Magisterium. Here is what it says concerning infallibility:
    
    CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”
    890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
    891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
    892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with RELIGIOUS ASSENT” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
    
    The Catechism is clear. Whether or not it is pronounced as definitively infallible or not, a Catholic is to adhere to the teaching of the Magisterium with religious assent at least because it stems from the assent of faith.
    The code of Canon Law confirms this:
    Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
    Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
    
    These are official documents from the Vatican. Apologists who say otherwise are not in step with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. That is their own fault and not the fault of the Magisterium. It reduces down to, like yours, mere personal opinion.
    
    The Roman Catholic Church has it sorted out, Tim, just in case you entertain the idea of converting.
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

September 23, 2020 at 10:29 am

DR says “It doesn’t matter, for example, if Protestants don’t have universal agreement on Roman Catholic dogma.”

You are absolutely correct. That’s why you are called Protestant and not Roman Catholic.

““If the sheep do not know the difference between what is infallible teaching and what is not, then the value of an “infallible” guide is precisely zero.””

That is the reason the teaching magisterium is a living, breathing, magisterium so that the teaching can be clarified to those who have questions and have not closed their minds with pre-conceived notions that hinder the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

“On the other hand, you’ve asserted both that the list you provided contains infallible dogmas and that the RC canon is the only valid one.”

Actually, the Protestant version is a valid canon. The Catholic canon includes all of the books listed in the Protestant canon. All of those books are undisputed. The deutero-canonical books of the Catholic bible are listed as apocryphal in some Protestant versions. Other Protestant versions do not list them at all.

“Your fallible list of infallible dogmas is—by analogy—just as authoritative as your fallible list of scripture.”

My point exactly. So the question still remains, in this line of reasoning, what makes a fallible Reformed or Anabaptist shepherd any better than a fallible Roman Catholic shepherd?
The answer in this line of reasoning is “precisely zero”. So the sheep have to remain confused no matter which shepherd.

But the RCC doesn’t confess fallibility. Yours does.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  September 28, 2020 at 10:18 pm
  
  Nick,
  
  “hinder the illumination of the Holy Spirit.”
  
  Would you agree with 1 John 2 that the Holy Spirit is sufficient to illuminate?
  
  “So the question still remains, in this line of reasoning, what makes a fallible Reformed or Anabaptist shepherd any better than a fallible Roman Catholic shepherd?”
  
  First, we do have an infallible shepherd: the Spirit. Second, …
  
  “But the RCC doesn’t confess fallibility. Yours does.”
  
  …we are the only ones who are honest. In this, we have nothing to repent.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    September 29, 2020 at 11:03 am
    
    Oh my, “we do have an infallible Shepherd, the Spirit”. Forty thousand Protestant denominations all being guided and taught by the infallible Shepherd , the Sprit. And Derek and Timothy cannot come up with ten dogmas all Protestants agree on! They can’t even agree on how many sacraments there are. Is Bishop Spong being led by the Spirit When he denies Christ’s bodily resurrection? No answer, right Derek! The Holy Spirit is infallible, but the Spirit that deceived men into belief in the human tradition Sola Scriptura is the great deciever.
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      September 29, 2020 at 12:38 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      Jesus said, “I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 29, 2020 at 3:36 pm
        
        Oh brother! Maybe you missed my quote Derek, “The Holy Spirit is infallible “. So Derek explain my blasphemy. And then maybe you can explain to me how the Holy Spirit can be leading 40,000 Protestant denominations that can’t agree on ten simple dogmas. By the way Derek, how many sacraments are there?
Betty says:

September 27, 2020 at 7:33 pm

The question of rather the Eucharist in the early Church was the tithe or the consecrated bread and wine was raised. If anybody is really interested I would strongly recommend they read all the quotes from the early Church Fathers on this issue. Timothy says it was the tithe. There are lots of quotes but I will post just one from Irenæus with no comment. When you have to explain that what a Church Father wrote is not what he meant one should recognize you are attempting to twist their writings. Irenæus wrote

“And as we are His members, we are also man, for a Spirit has not bones nor flesh: but (he refers to) that dispensation (by which the Lord became) an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones-that (flesh) which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in it’s season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase in the Sprit of God, who contains all things, and then through the wisdom of God , serves for the use of men, and have recieved the Word of God, becomes the EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 27, 2020 at 9:21 pm
  
  Oh thank you, Betty. You wrote,
  
  “Timothy says it was the tithe.”
  
  Um, so did many church fathers, as I have showed you.
  
  “If anybody is really interested I would strongly recommend they read all the quotes from the early Church Fathers on this issue.”
  
  Oh, I absolutely agree. In Against Heresies Book IV, chapter 18 paragraph 5, Irenæus says the bread becomes the Eucharist when it receives the summons (gr: ecclisin) of God. He said this in the context of the tithe offering. The translator changed ecclisin to epiclesin, or invocation, to make Irenæus say the bread becomes the Eucharist at the consecration, rather than at the tithe offering. As you say, “When you have to explain that what a Church Father wrote is not what he meant one should recognize you are attempting to twist their writings.” I agree. Roman Catholic Migne was twisting Irenæus’ actual words because he had to explain what Irenæus “really” meant.
  
  In Against Heresies Book V chapter 2, paragraph 2, Irenæus said, “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the blood and the body of Christ” showing that the bread was the Eucharist before it was consecrated. But the protestant (Anglican) translator did not agree with that so he deferred to the Latin which reads, “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,” making it look like Irenæus was saying the bread becomes the Eucharist when it is consecrated. But that is not what Irenæus wrote. As you say, “When you have to explain that what a Church Father wrote is not what he meant one should recognize you are attempting to twist their writings.” I agree. The Anglican translator was twisting Irenæus’ actual words because he had to explain what Irenæus “really” meant.
  
  As I have acknowledged repeatedly in the series, the church fathers who called the Eucharist the tithe, also freely called it the Eucharist after it was consecrated. They referred to them both by the same name. So when a church father refers to the eucharist of the tithe before the consecration and refers to the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ after the consecration, it does nothing to controvert my argument. In fact it is consistent with it.
  
  If Irenæus repeatedly places the Eucharist prior to the Consecration (and he does) and in fact acknowledges that the bread becomes the Eucharist when it is set aside as a tithe (and he does), and then says that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ when it is consecrated (and he does), it is perfectly reasonable for him also to say in the next paragraph that the bread, “having and have recieved the Word of God, becomes the EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.” Yes. And before it received the consecration, it was the Eucharist, which is the tithe offering.
  
  Yep. The normal bread becomes the eucharist when it is tithed. The Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ when it is consecrated. When it is unconsecrated it is the Eucharist of the tithe. When it is consecrated it is the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ.
  
  That you think you have overturned my reasoning just shows that you have not been paying attention.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    September 28, 2020 at 9:02 am
    
    “And have recieved the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”. Now what did I say about twisting what a Father has said. I’m sure Timothy is going to claim that is a mistranslation too. Tim you say you also want your readers to read all the Church Fathers have to say but when I asked you to copy and paste all of Justin’s and Irenæus comments you simply ignored me. So just copy and paste Irenæus Against Heresies Book V, chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. I’d like to ask Derek for his opinion.
    Now I missed your attempt to translate Irenæus previous comment from the Greek. Why don’t you give us your English translation from the original Greek of Book V, chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. And why blame the poor Anglican translator, why don’t you blame the Latin translator. Do you also think he twisted the original Greek since he was the source for the Anglican translator?
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      September 28, 2020 at 1:53 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      “I’d like to ask Derek for his opinion.”
      
      Sure.
      
      You have not addressed Tim’s argument that the Eucharist has different states— consecrated and not—and that Irenæus calls it the ‘thanksgiving’ in both cases.
      
      Now, when I read this…
      
      “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made… [Against Heresies Book V, para 3]”
      
      …I ask why the following italicized qualifier—’the eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made’—even exists. If the Eucharist was, by definition, always and only the blood and body of Christ (i.e. unqualified), then he could have simply said this:
      
      “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist is made”
      
      Even if, for sake of argument, we accept the Latin/English translation, it still does not explicitly show the Roman liturgy. At minimum, it fails to support your claim. At maximum, the presence of the qualifier is evidence against your claim.
      
      Moreover, we must reason deductively from premise to conclusion. The Scripture describes the eucharist as the tithe offering and communion as a separate act. By deduction, the only thing we can debate is whether Irenæus was a heretic (per the RCC’s understanding of his writing) or a faithful Christian (per Tim’s assertion).
      
      If we were to say “Irenæus said X, therefore the Bible says X”, that would be circular reasoning: reasoning from the conclusion to the premise. Notice how different this is from when Tim says “Irenæus said X because the Bible said X” The former is inherently fallacious while the latter is not.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        September 28, 2020 at 3:39 pm
        
        Derek why don’t you copy and paste the two verses so we can look at Irenæus’s entire comment in context? Have you read the two verses? Now the tithe offering is an offering of thanksgiving but where is the tithe called THE EUCHARIST in the Bible, chapter and verse. And you say “Tim says “ Irenæus said X because the Bible says X”. Irenæus said “so also our bodies nourished by it …shall rise at the appointed time, the word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God”. And what was the It they are nourished by? Hmmmm. “THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.” There is that nasty word “IS” that our Protestant brethren twist to mean symbolizes or represents. Now Derek after you post those verses from Irenæus could you then post the Bread of Life discourse from John 6. “Irenæus said X because the Bible said X”, right? Derek do you believe by being nourished by the body and blood of Christ you will rise at the appointed time , the word of God granting you resurrection to the glory of God? Yes or No?
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 28, 2020 at 4:50 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        I do have to call you out on your constant demands for people to paste additional text, and your implied assault on the character of people who do not comply with your silly demands. Everyone here has access to the Scriptures and to the internet. There is no implied obligation on the part of anyone here to paste adjacent texts, as long as they simply refer to their source and do their best to convey the context.
        
        You, by way of example, pasted Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (the second half), but you did not paste Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (the first half) which (by the way) when translated from Greek, contextualizes your observations. Why did you not paste the entire paragraph? And why not the whole chapter? An why not the whole book? And why not the whole collection? And why not the whole library? The requests could go on and on ad infinitum. No matter what part or piece is cited, you can always complain (and frequently do) that he had not pasted enough. Well, neither did you, Betty. But nobody called you out for being deceptive.
        
        You asked, “Derek why don’t you copy and paste the two verses so we can look at Irenæus’s entire comment in context?”
        
        Well, why don’t you just look them up and read them? You clearly have access to them.
        
        You observed,
        
        “And have recieved the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”. Now what did I say about twisting what a Father has said. I’m sure Timothy is going to claim that is a mistranslation too.
        
        What on earth are you talking about? In the very comment from which you copied my words, I had cited the translation verbatim and agreed with it:
        
        “…it is perfectly reasonable for him also to say in the next paragraph that the bread, “having and have recieved the Word of God, becomes the EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.” Yes.
        
        Can you see that Betty? In the comment in which you claim I was refusing to accept what was written, I had accepted what was written. Now, why should I post entire chapters and books from Irenæus if you aren’t even reading the simplest of comments? “Having received the Word of God, becomes the EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST” is a perfectly reasonable translation, just as I said.
        
        Now, to Derek’s point, he cited AH V.2.3 as follows:
        
        “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made…”
        
        Well, that sure sounds like the bread and wine become the Eucharist at the consecration, and indeed the Latin suggests that, but Irenæus did not write in Latin. He wrote in Greek. It is not I, but the Anglican translator himself who acknowledges that the Greek says something different than the Latin. Here is the footnote (4462) from the English translations from the editor of the translated work:
        
        “The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give, “and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
        
        Just to make it easy on you, here is the English translation from the Latin, which was not what Irenæus wrote:
        
        “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made…”
        
        And here is the English translation from the Greek, which is what Irenæus wrote:
        
        “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ…”
        
        To Irenæus, it was the Eucharist before it was consecrated. And it was the tithe before it was consecrated. Because to Irenæus, the Eucharist was the tithe offering.
        
        You asked,
        
        And why blame the poor Anglican translator, why don’t you blame the Latin translator. Do you also think he twisted the original Greek since he was the source for the Anglican translator?
        
        Well, the Anglican translator was given the option of using a translation that was not Irenæus’ native tongue. That is unwise. It was poor judgment. As for the Latin translator, he has long since been acknowledged to be inept at the task of translating Irenæus. Here is what the editor of Schaff’s series on the Greek fathers said of the Latin translator:
        
        “After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.”
        
        I do blame the Latin translator, as does Schaff. And I do blame the Anglican translator for ignoring the Greek, and Schaff kind of does, too, by pointing out that the English translation is not consistent with what we know from the Greek.
        
        Anyway, I can hardly blame the translators for relying on the Latin if that is all they have, and in some cases that is true. But for this particular paragraph, the translator had access to the original Greek and chose instead to rely on the barbaric Latin which comports with his Anglican preferences. That’s a willful error and unconscionable bias for a translator to defer to what he knows is incorrect simply because it is what he wishes Irenæus had written. And here you are arguing for relying on the barbaric Latin and rejecting the Greek. Well, if you have to go to such extents to avoid what Irenæus was saying, I have to think that it might be you who prefers to twist the fathers.
        
        Another translator, relying on the Greek, translated the passage as follows, “Since therefore both the cup which is mingled and the bread which is made receiveth the Word of God, and the Eucharist becometh the body of Christ…”
        
        No that any of this matters to you. Sola Ecclesia.
      3. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        September 28, 2020 at 4:43 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “Now the tithe offering is an offering of thanksgiving but where is the tithe called THE EUCHARIST in the Bible, chapter and verse.”
        
        A curious thing for you to ask! Are you saying that thanksgiving is never used in the Bible in the context of sacrifice, the tithe, or Christ’s Communion?
        
        Peace,
        DR
Nick Broom says:

September 27, 2020 at 10:40 pm

Timothy–
“It is silly and disingenuous to present the Redemptionis Sacramentum as evidence that kneeling is not required.”

Oh yes kneeling is required during the Eucharistic Prayer. But we don’t pray while kneeling. Neither does the priest. The priest prays the Eucharistic Prayer by himself, standing the whole time. The congregation remains silent except when we are to pray in response, and then we stand.

Yes, the General Instructions of the Roman Missal say,
“In the dioceses of the United States of America, they [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason.” And yet no one in the Mass PRAYS while kneeling. We remain silent until it comes time to pray, and then we stand.

And yes it is true that “From the epiclesis until the priest shows the chalice, the deacon normally remains kneeling.” And yet not a word of prayer comes from the deacon’s mouth while kneeling.

And you quote from the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 182, “From the epiclesis until after the elevation of the cup, the bishop kneels facing the altar on a kneeler provided for him either in front of the chair of in some other convenient place.” And yet not a word of prayer comes from the mouth of the bishop while kneeling. He will stand when it comes time to pray.

So you conclude “So yes, the people, the bishops and the deacons are all required to pray kneeling.”
No they are not. Nowhere does it say we are required to pray kneeling. That is your erroneous conclusion.

Tim, you say “Nick, are you even Roman Catholic?”
Yes. And I go to Mass. Never have I witnessed anyone pray openly and vocally while kneeling. If anyone does, they do it silently when they are not supposed to–usually out of ignorance.

You cite “For Roman Catholics, kneeling is one of the most distinctive physical gestures of prayer during the celebration of Mass.” (Why do Roman Catholics kneel at Mass?)

That is right, the priest prays STANDING while we kneel. When it comes time for us to participate in prayer, we STAND.

Tim, you say you were once Roman Catholic. Did you ever pray out loud during the Mass while you were kneeling? No, you did not. Did you ever hear the priest pray from the kneeling position in the Mass? If you did, then he was doing it against the teaching of the Church.
Here again is the text of Canon 20 of Nicaea– “”Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that PRAYER be rendered unto God standing.” (Canon XX of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, A.D 325).
Kneeling in the Mass is in adoration of the Real Presence. There is nothing in that article you cited (Why do Roman Catholics kneel at Mass?) that says we pray while in the kneeling position.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 28, 2020 at 6:31 am
  
  Nick says, “There is nothing in that article you cited (Why do Roman Catholics kneel at Mass?) that says we pray while in the kneeling position.”
  
  And yet the first sentence of the article says “For Roman Catholics, kneeling is one of the most distinctive physical gestures of prayer during the celebration of Mass.”
  
  I’m sure they’re all doing it in ignorance.
  
  Over at Catholic Answers, in the article Why Do Catholics Kneel?, they answer, “The Mass is a sacrifice, and there are times–especially in the last part–when the faithful pray on their knees.”
  
  I’m sure they’re all doing it in ignorance, Nick.
  
  And neither I, nor the bishops at Nicæa, said anything about “out loud” prayers. That’s just you trying to wiggle out of a contradiction. The council said we are not to offer prayers kneeling. At all. They did not say “no one is supposed to offer their prayers out loud on their knees.”
  
  In Roman Catholicism, people offer their prayers to God kneeling. The offering of their prayers and intercessions is led by the priest, but the faithful offer them along with him on their knees.
  
  Well anyway, Benedict thought liturgical kneeling was important so that in our prayer we remain in fellowship with the Apostles. But I’m sure he was just saying this in ignorance. Because, you know, what does he know? He was just a pope.
  
  Yes, Roman Catholics are required to pray kneeling.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    September 28, 2020 at 5:06 pm
    
    Tim says “Yes, Roman Catholics are required to pray kneeling.”
    No, Tim they are not. I have never witnessed in my 32 years of being a Catholic, in many different parishes, locally or out of state, anyone PRAYING while kneeling in adoration during the Mass.
    
    You say “In Roman Catholicism, people offer their prayers to God kneeling. The offering of their prayers and intercessions is led by the priest, but the faithful offer them along with him on their knees. ”
    
    No, Tim. The priest offers our prayers for us. That is what priests do, Tim. That is their job. They make offerings to God in behalf of others. And he stands while doing it.
    
    You say “Over at Catholic Answers, in the article Why Do Catholics Kneel?, they answer, “The Mass is a sacrifice, and there are times–especially in the last part–when the faithful pray on their knees.” I’m sure they’re all doing it in ignorance, Nick.”
    
    I agree. I would say that the staff writer over at Catholic Answers is writing it out of ignorance. Catholic Answers does not speak officially for the Vatican just as you do not speak officially for the Presbyterian Church.
    
    And you said “Benedict thought liturgical kneeling was important so that in our prayer we remain in fellowship with the Apostles. But I’m sure he was just saying this in ignorance. Because, you know, what does he know? He was just a pope.”
    
    Thank you for your opinion of what Cardinal Ratzinger said.
    And yet while pope, he never changed anything in the Liturgy of the Eucharist making it a requirement for Catholics to PRAY while kneeling in adoration during the Mass. And we still don’t.
    
    Tim, you have cited an official document that says we are not to pray while kneeling on the Lord’s Day. And I have provided you a document that says we are to remain silent while kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer:
    [52.] …The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.
    [53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer (STANDING) “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”.
    Can you cite any document issued by the Vatican that says Catholics are required to PRAY while kneeling in the Mass?
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      September 28, 2020 at 6:06 pm
      
      Nick wrote,
      
      “I have never witnessed in my 32 years of being a Catholic, in many different parishes, locally or out of state, anyone PRAYING while kneeling in adoration during the Mass”
      
      Well, thank you for your personal interpretation of the Magisterium, Nick. I’m sure we can take your personal observations as authoritative and binding.
      
      The Catholic Encylopedia says kneeling during the mass is obligatory:
      
      “There are, nevertheless, certain liturgical prayers to kneel during which is obligatory, the reason being that kneeling is the posture especially appropriate to the supplications of penitents, and is a characteristic attitude of humble entreaty in general. Hence, litanies are chanted, kneeling, unless (which in ancient times was deemed even more fitting) they can be gone through by a procession of mourners.”
      
      Yes, Roman Catholics are required to kneel on the Lord’s Day, and in fact to offer their prayers kneeling.
      
      Everyone seems to know this except Nick.
      
      If you disagree Nick, you can write to the pope, the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers and explain to them that they just don’t understand Roman Catholicism like you do. I mean, all they’ve got is centuries of practice, and what’s that compared to your 32 years of personal, private interpretation?
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        September 29, 2020 at 4:39 pm
        
        Timothy–
        Evidently you can’t find an official document requiring the congregants to pray while kneeling during adoration in the Eucharistic Liturgy. Instead you give your own personal interpretation of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
        “There are, nevertheless, CERTAIN LITURGICAL PRAYERS to kneel during which is obligatory”
        (And that is referring to the Eucharistic Prayer which is offered by the priest only in our behalf and he is STANDING while we are kneeling. Whenever we are asked to respond in prayer, we rise from the kneeling position to the standing position.)
        “the reason being that kneeling is the posture especially appropriate to the supplications of penitents,
        (those doing penance)
        and is a characteristic attitude of humble entreaty IN GENERAL. Hence, litanies are chanted, kneeling, unless, which in ancient times was deemed even more fitting, they can be gone through by a procession of mourners.”
        
        Nowhere does this say that the congregation is to pray while kneeling in adoration during the Eucharist.
        I have given you an official document from the Vatican in my support, and all you can do is cite an entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia and try to tell me it says something is doesn’t say.
        
        You claim:
        “Yes, Roman Catholics are required to kneel on the Lord’s Day, and in fact to offer their prayers kneeling.
        Everyone seems to know this except Nick.”
        
        Betty, Phil–
        Have you ever been required to utter a word of prayer while kneeling at Mass? Have you ever seen the priest kneel while praying the Eucharistic prayer?
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        September 29, 2020 at 10:11 pm
        
        Nick wrote,
        
        “Evidently you can’t find an official document requiring the congregants to pray while kneeling during adoration in the Eucharistic Liturgy.”
        
        Why do I need an “official document” if I’ve got a living breathing magisterium, Nick?
        
        Anyway, here’s what we’ve got:
        
        The Catholic Encylopedia says kneeling during the mass is obligatory:
        
        “There are, nevertheless, certain liturgical prayers to kneel during which is obligatory, the reason being that kneeling is the posture especially appropriate to the supplications of penitents, and is a characteristic attitude of humble entreaty in general. Hence, litanies are chanted, kneeling, unless (which in ancient times was deemed even more fitting) they can be gone through by a procession of mourners.”
        
        But Nick for some reason doesn’t think the supplication (prayer) of penitents and humble entreaty (prayer) counts as prayer, and litanies chanted kneeling don’t count as prayer either because, well they just don’t.
        
        Roman Catholic News Service, Aeleta, asks Why do Roman Catholics kneel at Mass?, and answers, because “For Roman Catholics, kneeling is one of the most distinctive physical gestures of prayer during the celebration of Mass.” But Nick says they don’t know what they’re talking about.
        
        Catholic Answers says, in the article Why Do Catholics Kneel?, answers “The Mass is a sacrifice, and there are times–especially in the last part–when the faithful pray on their knees.” But Nick says they don’t know what they’re talking about.
        
        Pope Benedict (you know THE POPE) in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (you know, THE LITURGY), wrote “The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ himself.” (p. 194)
        
        Man, that Pope guy was sure nutty for going off and teaching the sheep about kneeling for prayer in the liturgy without running it past pope Nick first. Didn’t Pope Benedict know what he was talking about?
        
        And here is Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical ON THE SACRED LITURGY, insisting on the importance of the faithful praying out loud on their knees during the liturgy:
        
        “It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds – like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem – to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.”
        
        Man, what a nutty guy! He should have checked with Pope Nick first!
        
        And how ironic: Nick perpetually talks about the need for a living breathing magisterium to correct the written documents, and so I present him with the living breathing magisterium, and suddenly only a written document will do.
        
        But hey, in all likelihood, Nick isn’t really Catholic, since he’s only hearing about this for the first time here.
        
        Nick I really do have a hard time believing you’ve been Catholic 32 years and you don’t know that praying on your knees out loud during the Mass is normative.
        
        Well, anyway. Have a good night.
Derek Ramsey says:

September 28, 2020 at 8:56 pm

Phil,

To summarize your belief: righteousness can be lost by misdeeds (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:1-14) and righteousness is applied in the same way under both Old and New Covenants (e.g. Romans 4:1-12)., and “just” and “righteous” are synonymous.

“What is your answer?”

Abraham is declared righteous (or just) by his belief (trust) in God’s covenant promise that Abraham’s seed would become a great nation. His belief was so complete that he offered his son as a sacrifice and God proved him correct. He was justified in his belief. He was right.

“…for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”

God will—as with Abraham—credit righteousness for those who believe.

The Christian’s covenant is with Jesus. When we put our trust in Jesus, he will declare us righteous by his deeds, in particular the sacrifice on the cross for the cleansing of sin. If one places their trust in Jesus, one is (and will be) righteous: that faith is correct, that is justified, and they are (and are being) saved. One cannot, therefore, lose their salvation due to misdeeds. These are the terms of the New Covenant.

The idea that one can lose salvation due to misdeed has many logical consequences. It means that salvation is not past tense (contra the Catechism), but rather an ongoing act of increasing grace (contra Romans 6:1). It means that one can have no assurance of salvation. It means that if one fails to repent just prior to Final Judgment, one is damned despite a lifetime of righteousness. It means that the authority of the master can be overridden by the acts of the vassal.

You say that the Old and New Covenants are the same, but the Law of God under the Mosaic Covenant stated that David must die. And yet he was not put to death. Did God violate his own Law? How was David declared righteous by his words without the shedding of blood?

Peace,
DR

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 29, 2020 at 10:42 pm

Hi Timothy,
No, it isn’t. Of course, I have to start some place. Will you accept Descarte’s proposition: “Cogito, ergo sum”? You cannot get any more basic than that, can you? Come to think of it, you could say that I existed before I could think, but that was by the grace of God. Wasn’t it? Faith came in later. I wonder where and how did you find your axiomatic proposition?

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 29, 2020 at 11:19 pm

Hi Nick,
What are you trying to do? Get Timothy a job at the Vatican to write rubrics in red letters or trying to confuse him more than he is? Why, with all these Catholics who the only thing they have in common is just “Sola Ecclesia” as their “axiomatic proposition” and they don’t even know when to sit, kneel, or stand . I am just wondering what he thinks about the prayer position of the “pharisee” vs. the “publican” in Luke 18:9-14.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 30, 2020 at 10:27 am
  
  Phil, deflection is the last resort of the cognitively dissonant, and you have indeed resorted to it.
  
  Just to get you back on focus:
  
  The first Ecumenical Council said:
  
  “Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, 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.” (Canon 20)
  
  The only matter on the table is Canon 20 which prohibits kneeling on Sunday and any day between Easter and Pentecost. The prayer position of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18 has precisely NOTHING to do with what the council stated plainly. That is a Canon of an ecumenical council and therefore infallible according to your own religion. That is not in dispute. The council said what it said. According to Rome, the council taught that infallibly. (I personally don’t care whether anyone kneels or stands in prayer—I don’t think Nicæa was infallible.). All that matters is that popes and ecumenical councils are supposedly infallible.
  
  Pope Leo I said that the canons laid down by the bishops at Nicæa were to last UNCHANGED until the END OF THE WORLD:
  
  “These holy and venerable fathers who in the city of Nicæa, after condemning the blasphemous Arius with his impiety, laid down a code of canons for the Church to last till the end of the world, survive not only with us but with the whole of mankind in their constitutions; and, if anywhere men venture upon what is contrary to their decrees, it is ipso facto null and void; so that what is universally laid down for our perpetual advantage can never be modified by any change, nor can the things which were destined for the common good be perverted to private interests.” (Leo the Great, Letter 106, paragraph 4).
  
  That was a teaching on faith and morals from your pope regarding the canons of an ecumenical council and therefore infallible according to your own religion. That is not in dispute.
  
  So there you go. The first ecumenical council infallibly prohibited kneeling on the Lord’s day or any day from Easter to Pentecost and the Pope infallibly taught that canon was to remain unchanged to the end of the world. ANY teaching contrary canon 20 is ipso facto null and void. There is no fuzz on that. It comes from the Pope. That’s an infallible teaching.
  
  So recognizing the fact that Catholics do in fact kneel on the Lord’s Day (and on many days between Easter and Pentecost), Nick got swallowed up in spin, and started trying to rationalize. Every Roman Catholic source you can read on this says the council prohibited KNEELING. But Nick thought he could get out of it by saying the council really only prohibited kneeling to pray (so I thought, sure, let’s go with that, Nick, and see how far you can get). And Catholics (so Nick believed) do not kneel in prayer on Sundays. They either kneel but do not pray, or they pray, but do not kneel. At least, so Nick thought. But then Nick probably realized that during all that kneeling during the mass on Sundays, Catholics are actually quietly praying along with the priest (in fact Pope Pius X insisted that they “pray the mass” along with the priest), so Nick spun the canon so that it only prohibits kneeling while praying out loud (something neither I nor the council even mentioned), and kept on insisting that Catholics don’t pray out loud on their knees during mass. And now Nick has added yet another caveat, saying that it’s just not praying out loud while kneeling that was prohibited, but praying out loud while kneeling in adoration. Oh, please, Nick. If your popes and apologists and encylopedia all acknowledge that praying on your knees during the Sunday liturgy is obligatory, you can comfortably set aside your own personal interpretation the deposit of faith and get with the program, and the program is to bear the weight of your cognitive dissonance as you maintain your conviction that the popes and the councils are infallible, even while knowing that your infallible popes have clearly contradicted your infallible councils. Welcome to Roman Catholicism! You’ve finally arrived.
  
  Betty, of course, has no choice but to analyze the entire debacle through the lens of her axiom, which is “Sola Ecclesia,” so she attempts to rationalize to get her church back into noncontradictory territory:
  
  “[kneeling on Sundays] is not dogma or doctrine but falls in the category of Disciplines. … As with Dogmas and Doctrines, Disciplines are intended to further enhance the faith journey of the believer. Unlike Dogma and Doctrine, however Disciplines can be changed”
  
  Well, thank you, Pope Betty, for your private interpretation of the deposit of faith. Unfortunately, your rationale doesn’t work. Pope Leo said the canons of Nicæa are unchangeable until the end of the world, and there is no such thing as a “discipline” that is unchangeable until the end of the world. That would make it a dogma, by your definition, since disciplines by definition are changeable. So you have to accept either
  
  • that Pope Leo did not understand the difference between dogma and discipline and needs to be infallibly corrected by Pope Betty, or
  • that Pope Betty does not understand the difference between dogma and discipline as well as Pope Leo did and is wrong, or
  • that the church erred when it made kneeling on the Lord’s Day obligatory after it had already been infallibly prohibited forever, and Pope Benedict and Pope Pius XII just hadn’t read Pope Leo’s letters and didn’t understand Roman Catholicism as well as Popes Nick and Betty do, or
  • that Pope Betty and Pope Nick have the magic decoder ring that helps determine whether a pope is speaking infallibly, because Betty clearly doesn’t think Leo was speaking infallibly (because canon 20 allegedly can be changed), and Pope Nick clearly doesn’t think Benedict or Pius were speaking infallibly (because Catholics allegedly don’t pray on their knees during the liturgy, in accordance with the 20th of Nicæa).
  
  Perhaps Nick and Betty, like Pope Phil, just know when the pope is saying something they have to believe and obey. Pope Phil said, “I am confident that I know the voice of the Good Shepherd and by His grace I can tell apart the voices that are not His.” Well, that’s terrific, Phil! I’m assuming you can confidently tell us that Pope Leo was speaking erroneously on a matter of faith and morals, the very thing the charism of infallibility was to prevent him from doing. The problem is, Pope Nick thought he could understand the voice of the shepherd, too, and arrived at a conclusion that is different than Pope Betty’s and Pope Benedict’s and Pope Pius’.
  
  In reality it all comes back to Sola Ecclesia. But like I said, Roman Catholics rely on the Axiom, but refuse to admit it.
  
  And lest Phil, Nick and Betty resort to deflection again, remember: we got here because I had the temerity to allege that “Roman Catholics are in the exact same situation as Protestants, unable as Roman Catholics are even to get past the first ecumenical council without facing a contradiction that can only be reconciled by falling back on their first axiomatic proposition. Understood. Nothing any of us says here will change that, but at least I acknowledge my axiom. Roman Catholics ultimately fall back on Sola Ecclesia, but can’t bring themselves to admit it.”
  
  The problem for Roman Catholics is their Axiom forces them into a position where they must hold that the Church cannot contradict itself while mine simply maintains that God cannot contradict Himself. (Who do you think is on safer ground?)
  
  The Roman Catholic axiom is that Roman Catholicism is the Church Jesus founded. It cannot be proved, nor need it be proved, since Axioms are “given”. If they could be proved, they would not be Axioms. Thus, Roman Catholics must pore over the mountains historical data to try to figure out a version of Roman Catholicism that is not internally contradictory, because… Sola Ecclesia.
  
  I, too, have an axiom: Sola Scriptura. Epistemologically, we are in exactly the same situation. We start with our axiom and reason accordingly. Noted. So when Betty, Phil and Nick say,
  
  “But… but… but… PROTESTANTS!”
  
  I just smile and say, “That’s right. But Protestants.” We are in exactly the same situation. But remember, I never made the claim that my epistemology was superior. Roman Catholics do make that claim. The burden of proof is upon the one who claims epistemological superiority. To win the argument, I have no burden to prove that my epistemology is superior, since I never claimed that it was. I only need prove that Roman Catholic epistemology is not. And since you have all conceded that you are in the same situation, the argument is over. Roman Catholic epistemology is not superior. All those claims of infallibility achieve nothing but a false confidence in a false religion. My confidence is in the Scriptures.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 1, 2020 at 8:28 pm
    
    Timothy says “We are exactly in the same situation”. Now there is disagreement in Christ’s church over kneeling on Sunday from the early Church (although there was not uniformity at that time according to the canon) and present liturgical practice in the Catholic Church. And Protestants today cannot agree if Christ is God, if Christ actually rose from the dead and how many sacraments there are. Oh yes Timothy, we are in exactly the same situation. Thanks for making our point.
    So how should we respond to Pope Leo’s comment on the canons from Nicea. Timothy writes “Pope Leo said the canons of Nicea are unchangeable until the end of the world”. Now this is a perfect example where Timothy puts on his Protestant blinders and apparently doesn’t appreciate what canons Leo is specifically talking about in the actual quote Timothy provided. Let’s look at the quote “The holy and venerable fathers who in the city of Nicea, after CONDEMNING THE BLASPHEMOUS ARIUS WITH HIS IMPIETY, laid down a code of canons for the church to last until the end of the world”. Now I guess I would have to look it up but I don’t believe Arius was promoting kneeling on Sunday. I think Leo was pretty specific as to which canons he was referring to.
    And I think it’s pretty obvious that even as today there is some variation in different communities in liturgical practice. Now if we were Protestants we would go out and start a new denomination but as we have been going over and over again some issues are essential, others are not.
    Now Timothy you claim Catholics rely on Sola Ecclesia. I have no problem admitting in religious disputes and the interpretation of the Bible the final arbitrator should be the Church Christ founded. Now Timothy , are you willing to admit you believe in Sola Individual? Yes or No. And look where that has gotten us, 40,000 denominations and you can’t even agree if Jesus is God. Seriously, and you say “We are in the same situation”.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      October 1, 2020 at 10:52 pm
      
      Betty, I strongly suggest that you read Leo’s letter and the Canons of Nicæa before publicly explaining what they meant. Not one of the 20 canons of Nicæa condemns the blasphemies of Arius.
      
      Reply
Betty says:

September 30, 2020 at 6:27 am

Nick asked if Phil and I had been required to utter a word of prayer at Mass while kneeling and have we witnessed the priest kneeling while praying the Eucharistic prayer. Mostly while kneeling at Mass i’m listening to the priest praying while he is standing but before communion when we say “lord I am not worthy ….but only say the word and my soul will be healed” we do kneel in our parish. Not sure how universal that is. I thought we had been over this before. This practice is not dogma or doctrine but falls in the category of Disciplines, defined as “the liturgical and theological practices and customs of our faith. As with Dogmas and Doctrines, Disciplines are intended to further enhance the faith journey of the believer. Unlike Dogma and Doctrine, however Disciplines can be changed”
Timothy I did not copy and paste that quote from Irenaeus. I told you I do not have a computer. And why would I want you to copy and paste all of Irenaeus writings? I only asked you to copy and paste all the writing that pertain to the Eucharist and I asked Derek to only copy and paste two verses. Now obviously if you thought those writing looked at in their entirety would support your position you would have immediately copy and pasted them. It would have only taken you a couple of minutes. I however on my phone would take hours. From your tone obviously you do not want me to make any further request of that nature. Looks like I’ll have to break down and buy a computer. In the meantime can I ask Nick or Phil to copy and paste pertinent quotes of the Church Fathers on the Eucharist?

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 1, 2020 at 10:53 am
  
  Betty–
  Do you want a big long list or are you looking for something more specific?
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 1, 2020 at 1:26 pm
    
    Thanks Nick, we could start with Irenæus Against Heresies Book V, chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. And since Derek is claiming the belief in the real presence he heard from Timothy was an invention of the fourth century maybe you could copy and paste Bob’s list of quotes from the Fathers under Timothy Kauffman’s article Eating Ignatius posted April 12, 2016 at 11:15. Now Derek has already said “I don’t treat Irenæus as authoritative” so we have a Herculean task to prove to Derek that the doctrine of the real presence started with the apostles since Derek I am sure does not believe any of the Church Fathers are authoritative. Derek apparently subscribes to Timothy’s belief that after believing in a symbolic presence for three centuries there was this simultaneous irresistible delusion that God participated with where the Church Fathers all started believing in the real presence. I don’t believe I am misrepresenting their position.
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      October 1, 2020 at 2:19 pm
      
      Betty–
      Here is Irenæus Against Heresies Book V, chapter 2,
      2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins. Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
      
      3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones — that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, 1 Corinthians 15:53 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, 2 Corinthians 12:3 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?
      
      Wow! Bob’s list is a REALLY long post! Do you want all of that at once or will some parts of it be sufficient?
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 6:28 pm
        
        Betty–
        As Tim has specified that the word “eucharist” is the tithe offering having been set aside for the poor, now substitute (tithe offering) into the texts of Irenaeus and see how it fits:
        “But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the (TITHE OFFERING) the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.”
        AND
        “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the (TITHE OFFERING) of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”
        AND
        “and having received the Word of God, becomes the (TITHE OFFERING), which is the body and blood of Christ”
        
        By Tim’s explanation of how “eucharist” is to be understood, it appears Irenaeus is offering the body and blood of Christ as the tithe offering. According to Tim, the tithe offering is a sacrifice. Hmmmm….according to Tim’s reasoning, looks like Irenaeus is the one 2 Thessalonians 2:11 is referring to.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 10:21 pm
        
        But that is not “Tim’s explanation of how “eucharist” is to be understood”, Nick. I have never alleged that every single reference to the Eucharist must refer to the tithe offering. In my first article in the series I stated plainly: “the Supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated were taken from the Eucharistic tithe (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2).” Now if I have already written publicly and plainly (and that more than once) that Eucharist does not always refer to the tithe, why would you allege here that my position on the Eucharist is that it always refers to the tithe offering? (That’s a rhetorical question. I know why you do that.)
        
        Anyway “the cup of the Eucharist” (as in Against Heresies Book I chapter 13 when he refers to the cup of the Eucharist prior to the epiclesis, and in Fragment 37 when he refers to the Eucharistic oblation prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit) can indeed refer to the tithe offering. And the cup of the Eucharist can refer to Christ’s blood after the Consecration. There is no mystery there. I have said it loudly and plainly to whomever will listen, and it is evident from the early writers who use the terms as I have described them. So your silly example does not hold any water.
        
        Anyway, you quoted AH V.2.3, as “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the (TITHE OFFERING) of the blood and the body of Christ is made…” as if to mock me. And yet the Greek proves to be true that which you think to ridicule.
        
        The Greek (according to the scholars who compiled the translation) is rather, “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the eucharist becomes blood and the body of Christ… .” And yes, since the eucharist offering preceded the epiclesis in Irenæus, that can legitimately be written as: “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the (TITHE OFFERING) becomes blood and the body of Christ… .”
        
        Yes, the tithe offering becomes the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration, and because the bread and wine of the tithe offering were consecrated for use in the Supper, the Supper came to be called the Eucharist, too. In Irenæus that is how he uses the term: the bread becomes the Eucharist when it is tithed (AH IV.18.5), and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ when it is Consecrated (AH V.2.3).
        
        You won’t earn any giggle points from Betty for saying such things, but at least you’ll have the small comfort of knowing that it is true.
      3. Betty says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 8:45 pm
        
        Well Derek, what do you think. Be honest now. Do you believe Irenæus believed in the real presence or that the Eucharist was just a symbol. I heard one Protestant apologist after reading that quote say “What do you expect, Irenæus was a Roman Catholic.”
        Nick, I know the list is incredible. And there are a lot of quotes missing. Have you ever seen a list provided by Protestants to support their view. It’s like the difference between a Trump rally and a Joe Biden rally. Maybe you could just copy and paste those quotes for the first three centuries before God intervened and simultaneously deluded apparently all the Church Fathers who believed in a symbolic presence and then started believing in the real presence. Now I guess for the delusion to have worked God must have also erased their memories as to what they had been taught from childhood.
      4. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 10:30 pm
        
        How about these for starters, Betty?
        
        Irenæus of Lyons (190 A.D.)
        Irenæus refers to “the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ” as “these antitypes (ἀντίτυπον).” (Fragment 37)
        
        Clement of Alexandria (202 A.D.)
        “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols (συμβόλων), when He said: ‘Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor (lit. allegory, ἀλληγορὤν) the drinkable properties of faith …” (Pædagogus 1 6)
        
        Tertullian of Carthage (208 A.D.)
        “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure (figura) of my body.” (Adversus Marcionem, 4 40)
        
        Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.)
        The Greek original of Hippolytus’ instructions on the thank offerings and the Supper is no longer extant, but the Verona Latin fragments helpfully preserve both the Latin translation and a Latin transliteration of the Greek. At the thank offering, prior to the blessing, the bread is called an example, “exemplum,” of the body of Christ, or in Greek “antitypum.” The wine is called an antitype, “antitypum,” of the blood of Christ, or in Greek, “similitudinem.” Yet, even after the consecration, the communicant is instructed to receive “the image (antitypum) of the blood of Christ.” (Anaphora 32)
        
        Origen of Alexandria (248 A.D.)
        “…it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical (τυπικοῦ) and symbolic (συμβολικοῦ) body.” (Commentary on Matthew 11 14)
        
        Adamantius (c. 300 A.D.)
        “If, as these say, He was fleshless and bloodless, of what flesh or of what blood was it that He gave the images (εικόνας) in the bread and the cup, when He commanded the disciples to make the memorial of Him by means of these?” (Dialogue 5 6)
        
        Eusebius of Cæsarea (325 A.D.)
        “Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, … and the mysterious symbols (σύμβολα) of the Saviour’s passion were dispensed.” (Historia Ecclesiastica 10 3.3)
        
        “…we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols (σύμβολων) of His Body and saving Blood” (Demonstratio Evangelica 1 10)
        
        “…the wine which was indeed the symbol (σύμβολον) of His blood … He gave Himself the symbols (σύμβολα) of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness (εικόνα) of His own Body. … bread to use as the symbol (σύμβολω) of His Body” (Demonstratio Evangelica 8 1)
        
        Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.)
        “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the body and blood of Christ: for in the figure (τύπω) of bread is given to you His body, and in the figure (τύπω) of wine His blood;” (Catechetical Lecture 22 3)
        
        “Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical (ἀντίτυπου) body and blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lecture 23 20)
        
        Sarapion of Thmuis (353 A.D.)
        “This bread is the likeness (ομοίωμα) of the holy Body, … the cup, the likeness of the Blood, for the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his own disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my Blood,’ … .” (Eucharistic Anaphora)
        
        Gregory of Nazianzen (361-381 A.D.)
        In his preparation for the Supper, Gregory refers to the unconsecrated elements using the language of symbolism, calling them “the antitype (ἀντίτυπον) of the great mysteries” (Oration 2, paragraph 95), but also uses figurative language even after the consecration: “Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical (τυπικώς); though it is plainer than the old one. … :” (Oration 45, paragraph 23)
        
        Macarius the Egyptian (390 A.D.)
        The consecrated bread and wine are “the symbol (ἀντίτυπον) of His flesh and blood, … those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord…” (Homily 27 17)
      5. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        October 1, 2020 at 11:33 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “Be honest now. Do you believe Irenæus believed in the real presence or that the Eucharist was just a symbol.”
        
        I have been honest in my analysis, and, Tim’s argument remains unrefuted.
        
        “I heard one Protestant apologist after reading that quote say “What do you expect, Irenæus was a Roman Catholic.””
        
        Neither Protestants nor Catholics have a monopoly on poor reasoning.
        
        Peace,
        DR
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 1, 2020 at 2:39 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      “…so we have a Herculean task to prove to Derek that the doctrine of the real presence started with the apostles”
      
      That’s not a good idea. Irenaeus remains a potential defeater. Even if you showed that the real presence teaching in the Bible is “more likely than not”—the lowest standard of evidence—you still need to prove it for Irenaeus. Currently, Tim’s argument is not refuted and thus “more likely than not.”
      
      If the task is Herculean, then the teaching cannot be explicit anyway. You said:
      
      “It took 300 to 400 years to pin down the concept of the Trinity”
      
      I had wondered why you keep bringing up the denial of the Trinity when no one else discussed it, but here you declare that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed with a final formulation more-or-less in the late 4th century (!!).
      
      Am I correct that you believe that both the real presence and the Trinity are not explicitly taught in the Bible and depend on the church alone to make explicit?
      
      “…copy and paste…list of quotes from the Fathers…”
      
      The list of citations are here and here. Tim’s responses are also in those threads.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
    3. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      October 1, 2020 at 4:14 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      Perhaps you should start by defining “real presence”. As I have never used the term “symbolic presence”, I won’t bother defining it. The early church understood the consecrated elements to be symbolic. That is true. The burden of the medievalist is to show that the early church fathers did not mean what they plainly wrote, which is precisely where the Roman Catholic argument has to go. For three hundred years the church understood the consecrated elements to be figures, likenesses, metaphors and allegories of His body and blood, but did not believe it was “really” His body and blood. Thus, the medievalist has to attempt to diminish what the early writers said. Here’s how they do it (Roman Catholic and Protestants alike):
      
      Adolph Harnack (1896): What we now-a-days understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies;
      
      Darwell Stone (1909): The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely misleading.
      
      Joseph Pohle (1917): For want of a more accurate terminology, they often refer to the sacramental species as “signs,” “types,” “symbols,” or “figures.”
      
      Burton Scott Easton (1934): None of this language, however, is “symbolic” in the modern sense; … in the earlier Patristic period the deeper nature of this connection was left unexplored.
      
      J. N. D. Kelly (1977): Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized.
      
      Shucks, that sure sounds like the Early Church Fathers used a whole lot of symbolic language to refer to the consecrated elements, and those scholars sure seem anxious to play it down. A reader of this blog once famously said, “Well, if you have to go to such extents to avoid what [they were] saying, I have to think that it might be you who prefers to twist the fathers.” Man, was she ever right!
      
      In any case although “simultaneous irresistible delusion that God participated with” is not how I have ever phrased it, you appear to believe that God either could not, or would not, send a delusion upon people a lot of people at once. Paul wrote, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Do you think Paul was wrong to say that about God?
      
      Reply
Betty says:

September 30, 2020 at 9:59 am

Now Derek said “The scripture describes the Eucharist as the tithe offering and communion as a seperate act” . When I challenged him to give me Chapter/Verse he responded “Are you saying thanksgiving is never used in the Bible in the context of sacrifice, the tithe or Christ’s communion?”. Derek, all you have to do is look at the concordance. Eucharist of course does not appear and thanksgiving appears in Phil 4:6, Col 4:2, 1 Tim 4:3,4 and Revelation 7:12. I’m not allowed to ask you to copy and paste those verses but I would say the word Eucharist and Thanksgiving are never used in the scripture to refer to the tithe offering . Just admit you were wrong.
You never answered my yes or no question do you believe what Irenaeus wrote about being raised to the glory of God by receiving the Eucharist. Yes or No.
And did you state the belief in the real presence was a fourth century Invention?. It is so hard with this format to go back to previous posts but I thought you wrote that. If not I apologize.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 30, 2020 at 10:41 am
  
  Betty said,
  
  “I’m not allowed to ask you to copy and paste those verses but I would say the word Eucharist and Thanksgiving are never used in the scripture to refer to the tithe offering.”
  
  Betty, this is why it’s not worth arguing with you. I never prohibited you from asking for people to paste anything. Here is what I said:
  
  “I do have to call you out on your constant demands for people to paste additional text, and your implied assault on the character of people who do not comply with your silly demands. Everyone here has access to the Scriptures and to the internet. There is no implied obligation on the part of anyone here to paste adjacent texts, as long as they simply refer to their source and do their best to convey the context.”
  
  I have never prohibited you from asking. What is prohibited is to make character assaults on those who refuse to comply with your silly demands, because “There is no implied obligation on the part of anyone here to paste adjacent texts”.
  
  In other words, statements like this are uncalled for:
  
  “Now obviously if you thought those writing looked at in their entirety would support your position you would have immediately copy and pasted them.”
  
  I have analyzed the writings in depth and provided my arguments in minute detail in a 5-part series. I have no intentions of complying with your demands, nor will I continue to tolerate your assumption that anyone who does not immediately obey you has something to hide. If you want to understand my position on the compendium of Eucharistology in the first three centuries, I have provided it in my series. If you think more can be said, or you wish to refute what I have written, please feel free to do so. But to assume malice any time someone does not immediately accommodate your lack of internet access is calumny, and you (ought to) know better.
  
  But don’t take my word for it. Listen to your encyclopedia.
  
  Calumny: “the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.”
  
  In your religion, that’s a mortal sin.
  
  Reply
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  September 30, 2020 at 12:49 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  “I would say the word Eucharist and Thanksgiving are never used in the scripture to refer to the tithe offering . Just admit you were wrong.”
  
  You answer betrays the legalism of your argument. My question was semantic: I asked if the Bible mentions thanksgiving—not eucharist—in the context of sacrifice. And indeed it does!
  
  The first mention of thanksgiving in the Bible is Leviticus 7 referring to the fellowship offering of thanksgiving, a sacrifice of bread or meat. Such an offering could be either a duty or by free will. The next mention of thanksgiving is Leviticus 22:29, which again refers to the freewill thank offering. The thanksgiving offering consisted of both bread and meat which was not completely burned up, rather, it was consumed communally with the priest.
  
  The next mentions are in Nehemiah. 11:17 ties together thanksgiving and prayer. 12:8 associates thanksgiving with song. 12:26 ties together thanksgiving with praise.
  
  There are various mentions of thanksgiving in the Psalms, but we’ll concern ourselves with two specifically. Psalm 116:17 refers again to the thanksgiving sacrifice. Psalm 107:21-22, utilizes Hebrew parallelism to associate the giving of thanks, the thanksgiving sacrifice, and the offering of praise.
  
  The last two mentions in the OT are Amos 4:5 and Jonah 2:9. Amos describes the freewill thanksgiving offering and Jonah describes sacrificing shouts of thanksgiving praise.
  
  We have covered over 50% of the OT references to thanksgiving: it is clear that the Hebrews understood bread, meat, thanksgiving, praise, and song as thanksgiving sacrifices freely offered.
  
  The OT Law mandated 10% tithe offerings to support the priesthood and the poor. But, like the Widow’s Mite, the giving of the ‘tithe’ in the church is nonspecific and voluntary: it is a free will offering (e.g. Acts 2-6; 2 Corinthians 9:7) used to support those in need (e.g. 1 Corinthians 16:1-3).
  
  We have called this the tithe offering because it is directly based on the original tithe offering (supporting the clergy and those in need), but strictly speaking it isn’t a tithe as the amount isn’t predetermined and why they are called gifts. That is why the offering in the church is the thanksgiving offering. It is a free will sacrifice: by definition a eucharistic offering.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
3. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  September 30, 2020 at 3:27 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  “And did you state the belief in the real presence was a fourth century Invention?”
  
  Yes, as one who is repeating what he has heard. I’m more concerned with what happened rather than when it happened. Tim can (and has) defended the timing from historical documents. I’ll stick to weighing in on the what.
  
  “do you believe by being nourished by the body and blood of Christ you will rise at the appointed time , the word of God granting you resurrection to the glory of God? “
  
  The answer is (without contradiction) ‘Yes’ to the apparent surface question and ‘No’ to the question you are begging (see below).
  
  This…
  
  “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and the body of Christ”
  
  …and this…
  
  “[the cup and bread] having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”
  
  …are equivalent. Both statements qualify what is meant by ‘eucharist’ in this context. As previously stated, the semantic and lexical range of this varies from merely failing to add support to your claim to being evidence against it.
  
  I do not treat Irenaeus as authoritative, but you’ve put your case on it, creating a potential defeater (which does not apply to me): you’ve accepted the burden of proof. Tim has shown that Irenaeus mentions both a consecrated and non-consecrated eucharist in different contexts. It is your self-imposed burden to either refute that position or else abandon your claim (and all that comes with it)
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 2, 2020 at 5:51 am
    
    I came back to this post as “my analysis” of Irenæus’s Against Heresy book V , 2:2-3 and basically find it a deflection to what Timothy has written. Perfect example of no matter what the evidence the power of Sola Individual , and in this case being convinced that you are being personally guided by the Holy Spirit. And Timothy Kauffman. Now the two verses from Irenæus that you say are equivalent show that you apparently are oblivious to the argument over the translations. Did the tithe become the Eucharist at the consecration or was the Eucharist , ie the tithe consecrated? Now Timothy says the Anglican followed the Latin translator because that translation fit the narrative that the bread and wine became the Eucharist at the consecration, which Timothy explains was a 4th century invention. But apparently Tertullian used the Latin translation. So you have the Latin translator following the error that did not occur for over a hundred years later. I guess God was deluding that translator, then waited well over a hundred years at which point he placed the irresistible delusion simultaneously among the Church Fathers. And again nobody seemed to recognize this was going on. Truly amazing!
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      October 2, 2020 at 7:45 am
      
      Betty, the dating of the Latin translation is controverted. “Apparently used” and “seems to have used” are mere guesswork, and the Scholars freely acknowledge that. Some scholars say the Latin translation originated in the 4th century some say the 3rd. Oxford Classical Dictionary says “a Latin translation was made of the original Greek during the 3rd or 4th centuries.” In his analysis of Irenæus work, Otto Reimherr makes this interesting point:
      
      “We lack precise information regarding the origins of the Latin translation of the Adversus haeresies. For this question two important facts have been established: Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 220) used Irenæus in his Adversus Valentinianos, chs. 5 and 37; Augustine (354-430) also used Irenæus. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Tertullian and Augustine had access to Irenæus via the Greek text or a Latin Translation. … Jordan has proposed a fourth-century date and North African origin for the translation on the basis of its seeming use by Augustine. Souter agreed with Jordan on both points, believing that the text of Irenæus used by Tertullian was Greek rather than Latin since Greek was the primary language of the Church at the end of the second century.”
      
      Yes there are scholars who place the document in the 3rd century. Others in the 4th. What they all agree on is that they don’t know.
      
      Reply
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 2, 2020 at 9:44 am
      
      Betty,
      
      “[I] basically find it a deflection”
      
      Reasserting a valid unrefuted argument is not a deflection. When you directly reason with evidence, I will respond in kind. Otherwise, I will restate it, as I do below.
      
      Claim: ‘eucharist’ is used in both consecrated and non-consecrated contexts
      
      Tim has provided a number of examples, including this most recent comment:
      
      ““the cup of the Eucharist” (as in Against Heresies Book I chapter 13 when he refers to the cup of the Eucharist prior to the epiclesis, and in Fragment 37 when he refers to the Eucharistic oblation prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit) can indeed refer to the tithe offering. And the cup of the Eucharist can refer to Christ’s blood after the Consecration.”
      
      Philip Schaff stated:
      
      “The Greek text [of AHV 2.3] would give, “and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.” “
      
      The use of ‘eucharist’ is qualified in the Latin in AHV 2.3: “[the wine and bread] receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made” and “[the wine and bread] having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”.
      
      The eucharist of the tithe offering (which is wine and bread) becomes the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ (which is the body and blood of Christ). Irenæus does not use language that can be treated as an reversible proposition (where A→B and B→A are both true). For that, an unambiguous context or an unqualified construction like “[the wine and bread] becomes the eucharist” is minimally required. Regardless of the translation, this is a deductive reasoning error in interpretation.
      
      Now, to your objections:
      
      “Now the two verses from Irenæus that you say are equivalent show that you apparently are oblivious to the argument over the translations.”
      
      The context (per Tim), the original Greek (per Schaff), and the interpretation of the Latin/English all militate against your objection.
      
      “Did the tithe become the Eucharist at the consecration or was the Eucharist , ie the tithe consecrated?”
      
      You cannot infer—from Irenæus—the exclusive proposition that the wine and bread are the eucharist if and only if it is consecrated. Furthermore, no one is arguing that the wine and bread are the eucharist if and only if it is the tithe. That is a red-herring. You can legitimately infer—from Irenæus—that ‘eucharist’ has multiple, separate, but non-exclusive, contexts (i.e. tithe; epiclesis), which is why it is evidence for my position and not evidence for yours.
      
      “But apparently Tertullian used the Latin translation. So you have the Latin translator following the error that did not occur for over a hundred years later.”
      
      The consequence of this claim is that Irenæus, Tertullian, and (by extension) the RCC are in error. Whether the error occurred in the 2nd or 4th century, the error still occurred. You refute your own argument. Very well, I accept your concession.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 30, 2020 at 9:32 pm

Hi Derek,

Thank you for. your comment. I did not say that the OT and the NT are the same. All I said was that Scripture does not make a difference about people being “righteous” in the OT and in the NT. It comes by grace through faith. You seem to agree with that since in Rom 4:1-12 this is what Paul says. Then you go on about the Covenants being different and the Christian’s covenant being with Jesus. Are you saying that the Bible doesn’t tell us that Jesus is, God? I don’t understand your statement.

You said:
“To summarize your belief: … without the shedding of blood?”
Paul says that it was because “his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (vs 5) and quotes Ps 32:1-2 in support of that. It was God’s mercy plain and simple. I don’t understand either why you seem to doubt that. Of course, the Law does not apply to its maker. Why did you ask?

I am more interested in what unites us than in what separates us. We both believe that Scripture is the Word of God. I had agreed with you to discuss Scripture and logic. Now, you are bringing up the CCC. I am not against it but it only adds to the confusion and misunderstanding. Right now let’s try to stick to straight exegesis even before we move on to discuss logic and doctrine. Will you please answer my questions with Scriptural quotes only, before we move on? Thank you.

Peace and blessings.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

September 30, 2020 at 9:40 pm

Hi Betty,
I have a computer but I am very slow with typing and all this new technology. I will help you in any way I can. My e-mail address is “felisanz9@msn.com” and if you send me your request I’ll see what I can do. I don’t have a scanner nor printer. Nick is probably your best bet.
God bless you.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 1, 2020 at 4:15 pm

Tim–
You cite Canon 20 “Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, 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.”
And then you conclude “The only matter on the table is Canon 20 which prohibits kneeling on Sunday and any day between Easter and Pentecost.”

I don’t see any prohibition of kneeling by itself. What I read is that one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing–which is exactly what the priest does for us on Sunday and the Pentecost season–standing the whole time. He never offers prayers in the kneeling position–period. We, on the other hand, kneel in silent adoration of the Real Presence. The kneeling is in recognition of the Real Presence, not to offer our prayers.

You said “I really do have a hard time believing you’ve been Catholic 32 years and you don’t know that praying on your knees out loud during the Mass is normative.”

I am not making this up, nor am I saying this to confuse you. It is just my experience. Here is a portion of an article that supports my position. It is rather long:
” (The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) recommended “standing” in imitation of the early Christians who stood during the Liturgy on Sundays in honor of the Resurrection. No doubt, they got this from the Council of Nicaea I (325) which stated:
“Since there are some who are bending their knee on Sunday and on the days of Pentecost, the holy council has decided, so that there will be uniformity of practice in all things in every diocese, that prayers are to be directed to God in a standing position.”
But this statement of Nicaea (I) in the 4th century refers to kneeling in general throughout the entire Mass and not just kneeling in part of the Mass. P. F. Mulhern states: “Kneeling during religious services began as a penitential practice and at one time was not permitted on feast days.” The statement of Nicaea (I), therefore, is most likely a reference to those, like the 4th century “substrati,” who, as members of the “ordo paenitentium, . . . remained inside (at the Eucharist) but were on their knees the whole time.” Thus, in order to show that the Resurrection was a victory over sin Nicaea (I) ruled that these penitential Christians should take a break in their penitential posture of kneeling throughout the entire Mass in prayer on weekdays, by generally praying in a standing position on Sundays.
So, this statement of Nicaea (I) is not a ruling on posture, especially kneeling, as an act of latria or adoration during the Consecration of the Eucharist. If some act or form of latria at the Consecration of the Eucharist had already developed during the first few centuries of the Church, this statement of Nicaea (I) would not have been taken as an order to do away with that act of latria at the moment of Consecration. It would have merely been understood as doing away with the general penitential posture (kneeling for the sake of penance) at other times during prayer and the Liturgy on Sundays. Most likely, it was only when the general act of kneeling for the sake of penance was eliminated during the Sunday and feast day Liturgies that the specific act of kneeling for the sake of adoration could be distinguished from kneeling for the sake of penance and come to the fore.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=242

Like I said, the purpose for kneeling is for adoration, not for offering prayer. The priest offers prayers in our behalf–standing the whole time. I have never witnessed the priest offer any prayers in the kneeling position. Where have you seen it?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 1, 2020 at 6:24 pm
  
  Thank you, Nick,
  
  The ancient prohibition was against kneeling.
  
  Irenæus Fragment 7 (180s AD):
  
  “This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under Him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenæus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged concerning it.”
  
  Tertullian De Corona (235 A.D.)
  
  “We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday.”
  
  The earliest evidence we have is that kneeling was prohibited on Sunday and every day from Easter to Pentecost. No mention of kneeling in prayer being prohibited. Just kneeling.
  
  So when Nicæa says “Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost” it is clear that the recommendation to “offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing” is particularly recommended because kneeling at all was generally prohibited.
  
  The Catholic Encyclopedia, its entry on Genuflection says of the Canon:
  
  “The canon thus forbids kneeling on Sundays; but (and this is carefully to be noted) does not enjoin kneeling on other days.”
  
  Pope Benedict said of the canon:
  
  “The twentieth canon of Nicæa decrees that Christians should stand, not kneel, during Eastertide. It is the time of the victory of Jesus Christ, the time of joy in which we show forth the Paschal victory, even in the posture of our prayer.” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 192).
  
  Catholic Answers in its article on kneeling during the mass said,
  
  “The First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) included a canon proscribing kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost, suggesting that kneeling was common in the early Church at other times (e.g., on weekdays).”
  
  These all indicate pretty obviously that the prohibition was against kneeling, and because of that, kneeling to pray was also forbidden. But if you go back to Irenæus and Tertullian (the earliest references) they said nothing of prayer. Just kneeling. The Encyclopedia and the Pope and Catholic Answers all seem to agree with that. This is the problem with arguing with Catholics. You have to figure out their personal version of Catholicism because all the other Catholics just don’t know what they’re talking about.
  
  To your point, you cited the Canadian Bishops:
  
  “(The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) recommended “standing” in imitation of the early Christians who stood during the Liturgy on Sundays in honor of the Resurrection. No doubt, they got this from the Council of Nicaea I (325)”
  
  How here is the quote from the same newsletter talking about the same issue:
  
  “It is the position of the delegates to the 1990 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the BCL Task Force on American Adaptations of the Roman Missal provide for the assembly to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer in the revised Sacramentary for use in the United States.”
  
  Now, Nick, if Catholics don’t offer their prayers during the Eucharistic Prayer, why on earth would the bishops vote to recommend that the assembly stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer based on Nicæa’s requirement that people offer their prayers standing? If they’re not “offering their prayers” during the Eucharistic Prayer what did the 20th of Nicæa have to do with it at all? Didn’t the bishops know that Catholic don’t offer their prayers during the Eucharist, and therefore the 20th of Nicæa didn’t apply?
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 1, 2020 at 4:40 pm

Timothy–
You seem to favor using 2 Thessalonians 2:11 a lot inferring it to be pointing to the RCC.
So let me ask you this about 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

What traditions do you stand firm in holding by word of mouth?

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  October 1, 2020 at 9:06 pm
  
  Nick, I could not respond under your post about substituting tithe offering for Eucharist in Irenaeus comments. I totally agree with you. Not only do you have Irenæus declaring the tithe offering to be the body and blood of Christ but you have the recipients of the tithe being promised eternal life. If you look at Tim’s articles he repeatedly stressed that the Eucharist is the tithe but when you look at the early Church Father’s quotes it’s obvious that they are referring to the consecrated bread and wine. When you post those quotes we can look at each instance where the word Eucharist appears.
  I’ll be interested in reading what oral traditions Tim follows.
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    October 1, 2020 at 10:25 pm
    
    Betty said,
    
    “If you look at Tim’s articles he repeatedly stressed that the Eucharist is the tithe “
    
    You mean like when I said, “the Supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated were taken from the Eucharistic tithe (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2).”
    
    If you’re going to critique the articles, at least read the articles.
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      October 5, 2020 at 10:00 am
      
      Tim thanks for your response but I feel it undermines your position. You wrote “”From the earliest days of the Church, “the Eucharist “ was the tithe offering and the early writers understood it to be the fulfillment of the Malachi prophesy.” But then you pointed out above “the supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated was taken from the Eucharistic tithe.” You reference Irenæus but it’s hard to imagine Irenaeus not being considered part of the earliest Church since he was taught by Polycarp . But I can’t imagine how you could go earlier in Church history then Ignatius who was taught by John the apostle for the meaning of “the Eucharist”. Ignatius wrote “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist IS THE FLESH of our savior Jesus Christ , the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his graciousness raised from the dead. So Derek, based on this quote would you say it was certain Ignatius did not believe in the real presence ? So which came first, the Eucharist being described as the flesh of Christ or being described as the tithe?
      
      Reply
      1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 5, 2020 at 1:10 pm
        
        Betty, if you think through this you’ll find there is no contradiction:
        
        “”From the earliest days of the Church, “the Eucharist “ was the tithe offering and the early writers understood it to be the fulfillment of the Malachi prophesy.”
        
        Can be true at the same time the following is true:
        
        “the supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated was taken from the Eucharistic tithe.”
        
        I think you’re assuming that by “the supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated was taken from the Eucharistic tithe” I meant “the supper eventually later after the earliest days of the Church took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated was taken from the Eucharistic tithe.”
        
        I have never claimed that.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 5, 2020 at 1:20 pm
        
        Anyway, can you tell me what you think of Cyprian’s reference to oil in the Eucharist:
        
        How do you interpret the following:
        
        “Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them.”
        
        If you believe “Eucharist” must always refer to consecrated bread and wine, would you agree that the citation from Cyrpian actually means:
        
        “Further, it is the [consecrated bread and wine] whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the [consecrated bread and wine] celebrated at all among them.”
        
        Thanks
      3. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 6, 2020 at 2:39 pm
        
        Betty–
        Here is Cyprian Epistle 69 chapter 2 in its entirety for your reference:
        2. But, moreover, the very interrogation which is put in baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, Do you believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church? we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church, and that among heretics, where there is no Church, sins cannot be put away. Therefore they who assert that heretics can baptize, must either change the interrogation or maintain the truth; unless indeed they attribute a church also to those who, they contend, have baptism. It is also necessary that he should be anointed who is baptized; so that, having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed of God, and have in him the grace of Christ. Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them. But we ought to know and remember that it is written, Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head, which the Holy Spirit before forewarned in the Psalms, lest any one going out of the way and wandering from the path of truth should be anointed by heretics and adversaries of Christ. Besides, what prayer can a priest who is impious and a sinner offer for a baptized person? 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 Who, moreover, can give what he himself has not? Or how can he discharge spiritual functions who himself has lost the Holy Spirit? And therefore he must be baptized and renewed who comes untrained to the Church, that he may be sanctified within by those who are holy, since it is written, Be holy, for I am holy, says the Lord. Leviticus 19:2 So that he who has been seduced into error, and baptized outside of the Church, should lay aside even this very thing in the true and ecclesiastical baptism, viz., that he a man coming to God, while he seeks for a priest, fell by the deceit of error upon a profane one.
2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 1, 2020 at 9:46 pm
  
  The traditions that Paul delivered by word of mouth are the same that he delivered in his epistle.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 2, 2020 at 8:07 am
    
    That’s nonsense. Where does it say that all that Paul said orally was written down in his epistles. If Paul knew everything he was telling people orally was included in his epistles why would he write “”stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by OUR SPOKEN WORD or by our letter. “ Maybe he should have added, “Oh, and by the way, every tradition I spoke to you orally I included in my epistles so just ignore that last line”. The Bible teaches we are to follow both oral and written tradition, the Catholic Church teaches we are to follow both oral and written tradition and Timothy following Sola Individual says we should only follow written tradition.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      October 2, 2020 at 8:23 am
      
      Betty, please read the chapter before commenting on it.
      
      2Th. 2:1 ¶ Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
      2Th. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
      2Th. 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
      2Th. 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
      2Th. 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
      2Th. 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
      2Th. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
      2Th. 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
      2Th. 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
      2Th. 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
      2Th. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
      2Th. 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
      2Th. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
      2Th. 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
      2Th. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
      
      Nick asked me what “traditions” Paul meant in 2 Thess 2:15. Paul says exactly what traditions he’s talking about in 2 Thess 2:5. Everything he wrote down in ch 2 he had already told them orally.
      
      Betty says that’s evidence of “Sola Individual”, but if you think about it, it’s more like “Sola Scriptura.”
      
      Betty says, “The Bible teaches we are to follow both oral and written tradition”. Indeed it does. You should read it now and then to find out what that means.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        October 3, 2020 at 9:07 am
        
        Now I asked Tim “Where does it say ALL that Paul said orally was written down in his epistles” to which Tim referred me back to the passages where we are told to follow “traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word or our epistle” And Tim focuses on this verse “Remember ye not,that when I was yet with you, I told you these things”. Seriously? The word THESE is not the word ALL. And in context it is obvious Paul is addressing the coming of Christ preceded by a falling away and the revealing of the man of sin. Imagine Tim how you would react going to the grocery, pointing to some apples and saying to the clerk “I want these apples”. So the clerk bags up all the apples in the store and loads them up in your car”. You protest, “I didn’t want them all” and he responds , “But you said you wanted these!” You just can’t change the words of Scripture like This represents My body for This is My body. But that’s what happens with Sola Individual.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 3, 2020 at 11:12 am
        
        Well then, my apologies to you, Betty. I thought you were asking me to justify my answer to Nick, and Nick’s question was:
        
        So let me ask you this about 2 Thessalonians 2:15
        “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
        
        What traditions do you stand firm in holding by word of mouth?
        
        Nick’s question was which traditions do I hold to that were taught by word of mouth, and my answer is that I hold to the oral traditions to which Paul was referring in 2 Thess 2:15, and in that chapter, the “oral traditions” to which he refers are “these things” that he now writes, for he asks, “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” Therefore I hold to the oral traditions to which Paul refers: those things he now writes.
        
        Nick had not asked me whether “ALL that Paul said orally was written down in his epistles” nor had I answered that “ALL that Paul said orally was written down in his epistles.” So your follow-on question was a complete non sequitur and I should have read it more carefully: “Where does it say ALL that Paul said orally was written down in his epistles”. Nick had not asked that, and I had not claimed that, and the Scriptures do not say that. Since nobody in this conversation alleged any such thing, it was a ridiculous question and I should not have answered it.
        
        My answer to Nick’s question remains the same: the oral “traditions” to which Paul referred may be understood clearly from what Paul said in his letter. The Thessalonians were clearly worried that the day of the Lord was at hand, and Paul simply reminds them not to be unsettled, “neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”
        
        So he reminds them what He told them while he was with them:
        
        “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?”
        
        The Day was not near at hand at all. It was a long way off, because a lot had to happen first. Therefore, they ought not be shaken, and they should rather “stand fast”. Based on what? Based on Paul’s insruction which he had delivered orally and now reminded them in writing: “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
        
        What did you think he was referring to?
  2. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 2, 2020 at 12:22 pm
    
    So you are “collapsing the word of mouth in to the letters”.
    Ok. We’ll call it “The Collapse of the Scriptures”.
    😉
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      October 2, 2020 at 12:31 pm
      
      2Th. 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
      2Th. 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
      2Th. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
      
      Yep. Pretty vague. I wonder who he told the Thessalonians will be taken out of the way who is withholdething and letting? Must have only been in the word of mouth teaching.
      
      Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 1, 2020 at 11:25 pm

Hi Timothy,
I understand that you don’t believe in the infallibility of the pope, the council of Nicaea or any other ecumenical council of the Church and you are not interested in the difference between doctrine, morality, and disciplinary regulations as Betty and Timothy have patiently tried to explain to you. Therefore, I don’t see the use of getting into it. You continue to mix historical, doctrinal and epistemologicaI issues without showing any interest in clarifying them. By the way, thank you for calling me Pope Phil, I was beginning to feel left out. I know that you said that tongue in cheek only and that nobody is going to take you seriously, otherwise it could be calumny.

Therefore, assuming that you still want to discuss the exegesis of 1 Cor 5:7 “For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been SACRIFICED” (emphasis mine) I will try to get back to you tomorrow.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 2, 2020 at 6:07 am
  
  Phil said, “I understand that you don’t believe in the infallibility of the pope, the council of Nicaea or any other ecumenical council of the Church”. But Phil, we were never talking about my reliance on the the infallibility of the pope and the councils.” We were talking about yours. Betty’s patient explanation to me was that Leo was obviously talking about disciplines that can change, and I simply pointed out that Pope Leo said the canons of Nicæa were unchangeable and were to last to the end of the world and therefore the canons cannot fall under the category of disciplines. And while Betty was arguing that it doesn’t matter that she prays on her knees on Sunday because Canon 20 was just a discipline that can change, Nick was arguing (implicitly) that it was dogma and had not changed at all and that Catholics still don’t pray on their knees on Sunday, even though I provided several popes who insisted that Catholics should and do, and Betty says she does. And Betty’s solution to the obvious contradiction was that Leo must have been only saying the canons about Arius’ blasphemies must be what are unchangeable, not knowing that none of the canons of Nicæa address Arius’ blasphemies. And Nick, who only recently was appealing to the living breathing magisterium to clear things up, suddenly won’t hear the living breathing magisterium about kneeling to pray during the Sunday liturgy and will only submit to a formal conciliar decree to that effect. And you? You want to argue over “For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been SACRIFICED” (emphasis yours) as if I was denying that Jesus is the Lamb of God and that the Lamb of God was sacrificed. Of course He was. My only point was that 1 Cor 5:7 is not given in the context of the Lord’s Supper, as you assume. And if the context is not the Lord’s Supper, then the reference to the sacrifice does not “nullify” my position as you claim, nor have I ignored the evidence, as you claim.
  
  It is not I, but the Roman Catholics here who “continue to mix historical, doctrinal and epistemologicaI issues without showing any interest in clarifying them.”
  
  Reply
2. Betty says:
  
  October 2, 2020 at 7:47 am
  
  Phil, thanks for offering to help me. I agree the fact that Timothy I believe teaches that the Pope is the man of Sin by calling us Pope does appear to be guilty of calumny, and a mortal sin. He accused me of calumny and a mortal sin and all I did was point out my opinion that he was not posting Irenæus Against Heresy Book V, Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3 because they undermined his position. Do you believe I committed a mortal sin? How do you explain the mind set of those who read those two verses from Irenæus and then deny Irenaeus’s belief in the real presence?
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    October 2, 2020 at 10:31 am
    
    Betty,
    
    “How do you explain the mind set of those who read those two verses from Irenæus and then deny Irenaeus’s belief in the real presence?”
    
    The mindset is logical. As before, Irenaeus believing the real presence is at most plausible, that is, not an outright contradiction. By contrast, on Irenæus rejecting the real presence, the logically consistent beliefs range from plausible to certain. Consequently, the burden of proof is on you.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      October 3, 2020 at 8:24 am
      
      Derek, I have to laugh. After I assume you read Iranaeus Against Heresies Book V , chapter 2, 2-3 you write “Irenæus believing the real presence is at most plausible “ . And then you write “By contrast , on Irenæus rejecting the real presence, the logically consistent beliefs range from plausible to certain” Derek, you deep down know what you have just written is ridiculous and it is just your zealot mind set that forces you to deny the obvious. Zealot, Phil that’s the word I was looking for to explain their mindset. And of course it is an outright contradiction to your belief Derek that the doctrine of the real presence began in the fourth century which you claim you learned from Timothy. Now take the quotes to a person who is not a zealot like your self and get their opinion. I don’t think you will do it because you can’t handle the truth but if you do let me know what they say.
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        October 3, 2020 at 12:37 pm
        
        Betty,
        
        “Derek, you deep down know what you have just written is ridiculous and it is just your zealot mind set that forces you to deny the obvious.”
        
        I reasoned out a deductive argument, summarized the multiple pieces of evidence to support the claim, determined the semantic and lexical range of logically possible interpretations, and showed what was required to change that. You responded with dismissal and ad hominem. If you decide to participate, I’ll be here.
        
        “And of course it is an outright contradiction to your belief Derek that the doctrine of the real presence began in the fourth century which you claim you learned from Timothy.”
        
        So what? I accept that alleged contradiction—for sake of argument—if that contradiction leads to a conclusion that refutes your core position. The real question is whether or not you will accept the consequences of that contradiction.
        
        Peace,
        DR
Nick Broom says:

October 2, 2020 at 10:59 am

According to the citations from the ECFs that Tim offered, it seems to me that they all agree the bread and the wine are the host specie for the body and blood using the words type, symbol, figure, etc. before or after consecration–bread and wine being empirical and the body and blood being spiritual.
I have no problem with that. The bread and wine are consumed by my flesh and the Body and Blood are consumed by my spirit.
AMEN!

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 2, 2020 at 12:42 pm
  
  Spoken like a true Pope, Nick! “By the Sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.” — (Pope Gelasius of Rome, De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium)
  
  “The bread and wine are consumed by my flesh and the Body and Blood are consumed by my spirit” is true, and that is what I believe. I have no problem with that either, but I think upon reflection you may find that what you have expressed is not the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, because there is no bread to be consumed after the consecration.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 2, 2020 at 3:22 pm
    
    Of course it’s true. The accidents of the bread remain after consecration. That is what the fleshly human senses discern–see, taste, smell, and consume. It is our faith that discerns the Body and Blood that our spirit consumes. It’s a mystery revealed by the Holy Spirit and not easy to convey in ordinary human understanding. Are you saying this is NOT what the Church teaches?
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      October 2, 2020 at 4:32 pm
      
      Nick said, “The accidents of the bread remain after consecration.”
      
      But that’s not what you wrote. You wrote: “The bread and wine are consumed by my flesh…” According to Rome, they are not, for after the consecration there remains no more bread and wine.
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 3, 2020 at 8:14 pm
        
        Timothy–
        You say “According to Rome, they are not, for after the consecration there remains no more bread and wine.”
        And yet, the Church also teaches that the accidents (physical appearance) of the bread and wine remain.
        
        It is interesting, Tim, that you do not understand the accidents of the bread and wine. You appear to be a very intelligent man, and yet this one concept you cannot grasp. So far everything you have written has been about solid proof. You research and study and all you come up with is only what you want to see. Maybe God has not given it for you to see. Why don’t you try using faith?
Phil Sanz says:

October 2, 2020 at 8:26 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment.
You said:
“My only point was that 1 Cor 5:7 is not given in the context of the Lord’s Supper, as you assume. And if the context is not the Lord’s Supper, then the reference to the sacrifice does not “nullify” my position as you claim, nor have I ignored the evidence, as you claim.”
Right. But if the context is the Lord’s Supper, then it will certainly “nullify” it. Therefore, I will let the evidence speak for itself.

1. Paschal is the Greek version of “Pesach” = “Passover” in Hebrew. Therefore, it is the same as saying: “Christ, our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed.

2. You said that I Cor 5:7-9 means that “Jesus died for us and we ought to walk in newness of life” and I said “correct you are, but that is only half the truth”. And ‘the reason Paul tells them to “walk in newness of life” is because “Jesus died for us” (His sacrifice on the Cross)’. Correct again, and this is the other half of the truth. Why would he use the image of “unleavened bread” in connection with “celebrate the festival” in “newness of life” to the newly convert Gentile Corinthians, unless they were very familiar with it? These are clearly “Passover” references made here before expanding on his previous instructions to them on the last Supper in 1 Cor 11:17-34.
3. Christians had been celebrating the Last Supper or Passover Supper as “breaking of the bread” Luke 24:35 on “the Lord’s Day” Acts 20:7. They would use, as Jesus did, the customary unleavened bread Jews used in the Passover feast. This had been going on in the Christian homes and local churches for more than 20 years, since Pentecost Acts 2:42. Of course, in the case of the new Gentile Corinthians it was less than 5 years, which makes this point even stronger.
4. Passover was not only a thanksgiving and memorial meal (true) but also a sacrificial (ritual) celebration for the liberation (Exodus) of Israel from Egypt. At the time of Jesus Josephus the Jewish Historian tells of thousands upon thousands of lambs being sacrificially offered in the Temple and consumed in the homes in groups of around 10. Quoted in “JESUS and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Dr. Brian Pitre.
5. In 1 Cor 11:17-34, definitely a direct reference to the Last Supper, a Passover meal, Paul uses almost the exact wording as the three Synoptic Gospels. All four narratives introduce the Supper with the words “on the night when he was betrayed’ (1 Cor 11:22), which is an unchanged formula kept through almost two millennia until today. Even the Gospel of John mentions Judas’ betrayal on his version of the Last Supper John 13:2. Jesus new of His impending sacrifice on the Cross and, like the Passover lamb, He was offering Himself voluntarily to the father, “once and for all” Hebrews 9:12 and not just as a victim of a treacherous apostle.

Based on these points alone, it is obvious that Scripture tells us clearly that “the Lord’s Supper (Passover) was not only eucharistic and memorial but also sacrificial”. And this was just as true for Jews at the time of Jesus, as Josephus has documented historically, as later when Paul reminds his Gentile brethren of it. If it was sacrificial (ritual) and not just a fleeting remembrance, then it could not have been invented centuries later, could it?

I am sorry if it was a little bit longer than I intended, but you asked for it.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 2, 2020 at 9:08 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “I am sorry if it was a little bit longer than I intended”
  
  I’ve been following along somewhat with your exchange with Tim, but due to the length I cannot be completely informed. I perplexed regarding this:
  
  “Christ, our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed [..] the Lord’s Supper (Passover) was not only eucharistic and memorial but also sacrificial”
  
  Jesus was the Paschal sacrifice, not the eucharist sacrifice. The Passover and thanksgiving sacrifices are two completely different sacrifices. There is no question that the Lord’s Supper is memorial of the sacrifice of Jesus, the final paschal lamb. So, how do you derive that this was “not only eucharistic”? Your fellow Catholic Betty asserted (incorrectly) that the Bible does not associate thanksgiving and sacrifice, even though the Law described a freewill thanksgiving offering. By what means did thanksgiving come to be associated with the Lord’s Supper?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 3, 2020 at 10:06 am
  
  Thank you, Phil. I appreciate the thoughtful response and it’s ok if it is long. It was thorough which I appreciate. Your first point is mere tautology and is not in dispute. Jesus our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Who would doubt it? I certainly don’t. That’s very obviously what the verse says. What it doesn’t say is “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us in the Eucharist: Therefore let us eat the Lord’s Supper.” You are reading that into the passage simply by assuming that’s what the passage is saying, as I have pointed out repeatedly, and as your next comment demonstrates:
  
  “Why would he use the image of “unleavened bread” in connection with “celebrate the festival” in “newness of life” to the newly convert Gentile Corinthians, unless they were very familiar with it? These are clearly “Passover” references made here before expanding on his previous instructions to them on the last Supper in 1 Cor 11:17-34.”
  
  In your exegesis of 1 Cor 5:7-8, you assume that Paul is referring to that which he expands upon 4 chapters later in which the context is clearly “the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor 11:20). And yet at no point in 1 Cor 11 does he say he’s continuing what he started in 1 Cor 7. You are simply assuming what it is your duty to prove, namely that 1 Cor 5:7 is about the Lord’s Supper.
  
  You ask, “Why would he use the image of “unleavened bread” in connection with “celebrate the festival” in “newness of life” to the newly convert Gentile Corinthians… ?”
  
  Why indeed? Perhaps you should ask yourself how you know the Corinthian church was made up solely of newly converted Gentiles, and whether that assumption is valid.
  
  Paul makes repeated and explicit references to the Law and the Prophets when speaking to “newly Converted Gentiles”, which utterly undermines your assumption:
  
  1Cor. 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
  1Cor. 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
  1Cor. 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
  1Cor. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
  1Cor. 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
  1Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
  1Cor. 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
  1Cor. 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
  1Cor. 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
  1Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
  
  Yes there were newly converted Gentiles present to be sure (1 Corinthians 7:18 indicates as much), but there was a broad base of Jewish converts, too, and thus the repeated and explicit appeals to specific passages of the Old Testament Scriptures. So your implicit assumption that the Church of Corinth was comprised solely of newly converted Gentiles is easily falsified.
  
  The context of 1 Corinthians 5 is behavior that is forbidden under the Law (Lev. 18:7), and is so reprehensible that even the Gentiles don’t practice it (thus shaming the Jewish converts). Paul is addressing Jews knowledgeable of the Law about unlawful behavior, and makes a metaphorical appeal to the Feast of Unleavened Bread in order to establish the expected response of the Christians at Corinth. Under the Old Testament Law, the Feast of Unleavened Bread follows immediately upon the completion of the Passover Sacrifice, and requires that the Jews purge all leaven from their households and keep the feast of unleavened bread. Paul starts by asking them to purge out the old leaven:
  
  1Cor. 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
  1Cor. 5:7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
  
  This is based on Exodus which states that immediately upon the conclusion of the passover sacrifice, the Jews are to purge the leaven from their houses so they can keep the feast of unleavened bread in purity:
  
  Ex. 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
  Ex. 34:18 ¶ The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
  
  Paul then says they should keep the feast of unleavened bread with sincerity and truth by expelling the fornicator from their midst, just like the OT feast of unleavened bread:
  
  1Cor. 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
  1Cor. 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
  
  It is an appeal to the Law, addressed to Jews familiar with the Law. Under the law the Jews were to keep the festival of unleavened bread by first purging the leaven from their midst. In this case the Christians at Corinth are the unleavened bread and the fornicator is the leavened bread. Paul’s admonition follows that metaphorical reference, “that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened …. let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
  
  If the Christians at Corinth are the unleavened bread, and the context is the Lord’s Supper (as you assume), then Paul has just instructed the Corinthians to eat themselves (the unleavened bread) because Jesus the passover lamb has just been sacrificed.
  
  Jews familiar with the Old Testament (as Paul’s audience clearly was), knowing that the feast of unleavened bread immediately followed the passover and is kept by purging leaven from their midst, would have recognized the fact that Paul had appealed to the Law to make the point that as Jesus has died for us, we ought therefore to repent of evil and live uprightly.
  
  Your interpretation is invalidated by the fact that two assumptions upon which it is based are falsified: you had to assume the Corinthian congregation was “newly converted Gentiles” (it was not) and that 1 Cor 5:7 ought to be interpreted through the lens of 1 Cor 11 (resulting in the absurdity of eating ourselves for the Supper). You ought instead to have interpreted it in the context of a church discipline issue of 1 Cor 5 and the Law, in which the Jewish Christians of Corinth were expected to purge the fornicator from their midst just as they used to purge the leaven from their households in order to keep the feast of unleavened bread immediately following the passover.
  
  I believe your original accusation against me is therefore falsified as well:
  
  “Paul tells the Corinthians that “Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” 1Cor 5:7. This clearly ties up the Last Supper to His sacrifice on the Cross. As usual, Timothy clearly ignores what would nullify his argument.”
  
  Neither have I ignored the passage, nor does the passage nullify my argument.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 2, 2020 at 11:29 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment. My purpose is to decrease the amount of misunderstanding shown in this blog and my argument
was directed at Timothy’s statement telling him that the Lord’s Supper was a Jewish Passover meal (no tithe offering per se) which was sacrificial, memorial, and “eucharistic”. He does not agree that it is sacrificial and you apparently do. You can settle that with him, and if you still have an unanswered question, please, bring it back to me after you answer my previous exegetical question to you. Thank you.
Peace and blessings.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 3, 2020 at 12:57 pm
  
  “Lord’s Supper was a Jewish Passover meal (no tithe offering per se) which was sacrificial, memorial, and “eucharistic”. He does not agree that it is sacrificial and you apparently do. “
  
  No. I said “Jesus was the Paschal sacrifice” The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice. Jesus was a sacrifice. The Lord’s Supper is a “memorial of the sacrifice of Jesus.”
  
  “if you still have an unanswered question, please, bring it back to me after you answer my previous exegetical question to you. “
  
  To be honest, I’ve lost the will to participate in that conversation ever since it lost focus when you didn’t answer my argument. Now I find that you don’t want to answer how the thanksgiving (eucharist) sacrifice came to be associated with the Lord’s Supper, since the thanksgiving offering is not related to the Paschal sacrifice (nor the Passover meal). By calling the Lord’s Supper ‘eucharistic’, you are begging the question. If you are going to refuse to answer challenges and only allow discussion about “what unites us” and disallow any discussion about (the more important) “what separates us”, then those are not terms I agree with.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 3, 2020 at 8:56 pm

DK says “Now I find that you don’t want to answer how the thanksgiving (eucharist) sacrifice came to be associated with the Lord’s Supper, since the thanksgiving offering is not related to the Paschal sacrifice (nor the Passover meal).”

Pardon my intrusion, Phil, but:
Let the bible answer it:
Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after GIVING THANKS he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.”
Mar 14:22 While they were eating, he took bread, and after GIVING THANKS he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.”
Luke 22:17 Then he took a cup, and after GIVING THANKS he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves.
Luke 22:19 Then he took bread, and after GIVING THANKS he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Yes, Jesus related thanksgiving with Passover meal and His being the Pascal Lamb sacrificed all in the same ritual. Maybe that is why Irenaeus referred to the Lord’s Supper as Eucharist.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  October 5, 2020 at 7:54 am
  
  So many issues can be clarified by closely looking at the Scriptures as you have shown Nick. And of course when you seperate the body from the blood as the Lord did at the Last Supper you have a sacrifice. And how were the Paschal lambs sacrificed? If I’m not mistaken the Pascal lambs were seperated from their blood. Isn’t that right?
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 5, 2020 at 10:14 am
    
    That is absolutely right, Betty. The blood from the Paschal Lamb was sprinkled on the mercy seat for atonement.
    “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”–Mat 26:28
    That brings up another thought–the un-bloody sacrifice of the Eucharist. The doctrine of concomitance says that since Christ is indivisible, no one part of Christ’s substance can be divided. Thus, Christ’s glorified body can not be separated from his blood which means that Christ’s full presence is in each element fully. This supports that the Church does not re-sacrifice Christ but that the one time 2000 year old sacrifice is presented by Jesus’ real presence–Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity–in person, scars and all.
    Are the accidents of the bread and wine symbolic of the body and blood? Yes.
    Are they figurative of the body and blood? Yes.
    Are they the antitypes of the body and blood? yes.
    Do we offer our thanks and praise and our very selves through Him, with Him, and in Him? Yes.
    This is the Eucharist the Early Church Fathers described in their writings to the best of their human abilities at the time. We Catholics can recognize this because we experience it at every Mass. Protestants can’t because they don’t.
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 6, 2020 at 8:35 am
      
      Nick,
      
      “The doctrine of concomitance says that since Christ is indivisible, no one part of Christ’s substance can be divided. Thus, Christ’s glorified body can not be separated from his blood which means that Christ’s full presence is in each element fully. “
      
      You pointed out that Jesus made eucharistic offering (prayer of thanksgiving) before each element, thus sacrificing the indivisible elements separately.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 6, 2020 at 3:18 pm
        
        That’s right. Jesus made it so when he established the sacrament. Thus was the beginnings of the Christian worship service on the Lord’s Day. No longer were Christians to worship as the Jews do remembering the Passover and exodus from Egypt, but instead remembering the Crucifixion of Christ that redeemed us from sin. We can now love our neighbor as ourselves because the Law is written in our hearts and the Holy Spirit now dwells within us because we have been baptized into His death and raised to new life.
        This is why we offer our tithes, thanks, praise, and our very lives to God:
        1) through Christ– because all things were made through Him and no can come to the Father except through Him.
        2) with Christ–because He promised He would be with us always, even to the end of the age.
        3) in Christ–because He abides in us and we in Him.
        This is how the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 becomes perfect is because it is offered “Though Him, With Him, and in Him, in unity with the Holy Spirit.”
        It is why we call the entire rite the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
      2. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 6, 2020 at 3:41 pm
        
        “thus sacrificing the indivisible elements separately.”
        Yes. Unfortunately the bread and wine don’t come as a combination. I suppose He could have soaked the bread in the wine and called it blood-n-body, but He didn’t do that. 😀
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 6, 2020 at 7:28 am
  
  Nick,
  
  I said “thanksgiving (eucharist) sacrifice” and “thanksgiving offering”, not merely thanksgiving. But let’s go with the idea that all thanksgiving and praise freely made to God is a sacrifice, which I’ve claimed. In a meal, the giving of thanks is the offering, not the food.
  
  Deut 8:10 mandates giving thanks after eating. Yet the Pharisees instituted praying before eating, a tradition that Jesus adopted. You can find examples in Matthew 14: 19-21, Matthew 15:34-37, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 24:30-31, and Acts 27:35 (by former Pharisee Paul).
  
  So I ask again, how did ‘eucharist’ come to be applied to the Lord’s Supper, specifically the bread and wine?
  
  “To be clear, the Supper (consecrated bread and wine) came to be called the Eucharist because the bread and wine used for the Supper was taken from the Eucharistic tithe offering (unconsecrated bread, wine, oil, etc…). There are statements in Irenæus that have been mistranslated to obscure the fact that the unconsecrated Eucharist (tithe) preceded the consecrated meal, and there is evidence that the Supper came to be called the Eucharist.”
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 9, 2020 at 1:17 pm
    
    Derek, your last quote from Timothy suggest that I have been unable to get my point across. Tim says “came to be called the Eucharist because the bread and wine used for the Supper was taken from the Eucharistic tithe offering” and he wrote “the Supper came to be called the Eucharist “. But when did this “came to be called “ occur? If Ignatius who was taught by John the apostle is already referring to the consecrated bread and wine as Eucharist, when did this change take place? Do you think Ignatius made this change and if so based on what evidence.
    
    Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 3, 2020 at 10:47 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. You missed my point by addressing imagined assumptions. I used to say that it was putting words in my mouth but now I have to say that it is more like putting assumptions in my mind. The only thing that you got right, you called it a “tautology” which, of course, it was. Big deal. Betty was right when she called upon you to show some humility.

You said:
“Thank you, Phil … nullify my argument”
That the Corinthian community was mostly Gentile is generally accepted as fact but it was irrelevant to my argument and, therefore, so are your ten Scripture quotations trying to prove that it was not. It does not matter, it only makes the Christian Corinthians more familiar with the prophesies of the OT but even more familiar with their fulfillment in the NT.

This is what I said: (3)
“Christians had been celebrating the Last Supper or Passover Supper as “breaking of the bread” Luke 24:35 on “the Lord’s Day” Acts 20:7. This had been going on in the homes and local churches for more than 20 years, since Pentecost Acts 2:42. Of course, in the case of the Gentile Corinthians it was less than 5 years, which makes this point even stronger.”
You may ask how so? Well, even if the Christian communities outside Jerusalem had continued observing the “unleavened bread festival” for seven days, which it would be up to you to prove, it would have been only once a year. The Lord’s Passover Supper was celebrated the evening following the slaughter of the lambs, which is celebrated using unleavened bread, a custom observed in the Catholic Church until today. It is common sense, then, that Christians would have been a lot more familiar with the unleavened bread of the Lord’s Supper (or breaking of the bread) being celebrated weekly for 20 years than an annual festival. And can you tell me how do you interpret 1 Cor 14:22?
God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 4, 2020 at 1:58 pm

Hi,
Hi Betty,
I have a question from Derek about the Lord’s Supper being eucharistic. My understanding is that it was Timothy who brought it up first in this blog. I certainly didn’t. Unless the understanding of “eucharist” is shared we are going to talk apples and oranges.
Derek told you: “ I reasoned out a deductive argument, summarized the multiple pieces of evidence to support the claim, determined the semantic and lexical range of logically possible interpretations, and showed what was required to change that.”
That sounds good in theory but in practice it is very hard to “determine the semantic and lexical range of logically possible interpretations” when those interpretations are miles apart and distorted with assumptions. They are impossible without an effort on both parts to gain understanding.
Keep up the good work with humility and remember Paul’s warning “Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he falls” 1 Cor 10:12.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  October 5, 2020 at 8:41 am
  
  Phil, very insightful comments, I agree we seem to be comparing apples and oranges. It is confusing. Thanksgiving can be defined as an act of gratitude and appears frequently to be descriptive when speaking of a thanksgiving offering, sacrifice or oblation. On the other hand Timothy says in the early Church the Eucharist or Thanksgiving is the tithe, Nick and I of course contend since the Eucharist is described as the body and blood of Christ the early Father must be referring to the consecrated bread and wine. Tim pointed out to me in his article he did say based on that quote from Irenaeus that he feels was mistranslated later the supper came to be referred to as the Eucharist. I’ll address his comment under his post.
  Is Derek using his terminology “ deductive argument” and “multiple pieces of evidence to support the claim , determined the semantic and lexical range of logically possible interpretations” as a distraction? After all of that highly intellectual processing he ends up saying after reading Irenaeus Book V, chapter 2: 2-3 that it is possible or certain that Irenæus did not believe in the real presence. Seriously?
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    October 5, 2020 at 9:37 am
    
    Betty, I’m not sure where you arrived at this conclusion:
    
    “Tim pointed out to me in his article he did say based on that quote from Irenaeus that he feels was mistranslated later the supper came to be referred to as the Eucharist.”
    
    To be clear, the Supper (consecrated bread and wine) came to be called the Eucharist because the bread and wine used for the Supper was taken from the Eucharistic tithe offering (unconsecrated bread, wine, oil, etc…).
    
    There are statements in Irenæus that have been mistranslated to obscure the fact that the unconsecrated Eucharist (tithe) preceded the consecrated meal, and there is evidence that the Supper came to be called the Eucharist. However, it appears to me that you have combined two separate thoughts into one, creating the impression that I believe the Supper came to be called Eucharist because of a translation error, which I have never said.
    
    That said, you also wrote,
    
    “Timothy says in the early Church the Eucharist or Thanksgiving is the tithe, Nick and I of course contend since the Eucharist is described as the body and blood of Christ the early Father must be referring to the consecrated bread and wine.”
    
    Based on that, I would ask how you interpet the following from Cyprian’s 69th Epistle, paragraph 2:
    
    “Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them.”
    
    If you believe “Eucharist” must always refer to consecrated bread and wine, would you agree that the citation from Cyrpian actually means:
    
    “Further, it is the [consecrated bread and wine] whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the [consecrated bread and wine] celebrated at all among them.”
    
    You also wrote,
    
    “After all of that highly intellectual processing he ends up saying after reading Irenaeus Book V, chapter 2: 2-3 that it is possible or certain that Irenæus did not believe in the real presence. Seriously?”
    
    Yes, seriously. What do you think “real presence” means? We may be talking past each other.
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      October 12, 2020 at 12:24 pm
      
      Timothy, thanks for your response. I never intended to imply and never said you believed “the supper came to be called Eucharist because of a translation error”. In the verses mentioned from Irenaeus the word Eucharist I believe is used twice, once suggesting that at the consecration the bread and wine become the Eucharist. The Latin translation suggest the same but your argument is that the original Greek suggest that the tithe is the Eucharist which is consecrated and continues to be called Eucharist. The impression I get is your belief is that naming the tithe Eucharist came first and later the consecrated bread and wine came to be referred to as Eucharist. But where is your evidence when we have Ignatius calling the Eucharist the flesh of Christ who became flesh.
      Timothy you also wrote “if you believe the “Eucharist” must always refer to the consecrated bread and wine”. I to my knowledge never made that argument. My argument has been that your article suggests Eucharist meant Tithe for the earliest Christians and later came to refer to the consecrated elements. But how much earlier can you get then Ignatius taught by John the apostle? Did Ignatius come up with this novel idea of calling the Eucharist Christ’s flesh or was he taught this by the apostle John?
      As far as Cyprian he lived after Irenaeus and Ignatius so his comments are not really relevant but I can give my opinion. Thanks for posting the link and I hope everyone including Derek will read the entire epistle as Cyprian names the Church Catholic, says baptism washes away our sins, that Christ built his church on Peter and speaks of anointing with chrism, ie confirmation. So Cyprian writes”further it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar.” Not sure with any certainty I can explain that verse although in context of an altar, and mentioning the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation , Eucharist would seem more likely related to the consecrated bread and wine, ie the flesh of Christ instead of being anointed by the Tithe. And are the heretics unable to celebrate the Tithe or the Body and Blood of Christ since they have left Christ’s church built on Peter?
      What does real presence mean? What is the difference between “IS” and “REPRESENTS” or SYMBOLIZES”. Does anyone in this discussion feel like they don’t comprehend the difference?
      
      Reply
      1. Phil Sanz says:
        
        October 12, 2020 at 7:49 pm
        
        Hi Betty,
        You told Timothy:
        “Cyprian names the Church Catholic, says baptism washes away our sins, that Christ built his church on Peter and speaks of anointing with chrism, ie confirmation. So Cyprian writes”further it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar.”
        You are correct there. Holy Chrism is consecrated on the altar by the Bishop on Holy Thursday and can only be administered to the baptized CCC #1233. Oil of the Catechumens is only blessed (not consecrated) and it is used before the candidate is baptized. I hope this helps Timothy and Derek understand your argument.
        God bless you.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        October 13, 2020 at 12:51 pm
        
        Betty wrote,
        
        “Timothy you also wrote “if you believe the “Eucharist” must always refer to the consecrated bread and wine”. I to my knowledge never made that argument. “
        
        Is it your understanding, then, that “Eucharist” does not of necessity refer to consecrated bread and wine and it is to be understood rather by the context in which it is used?
        
        You continued,
        
        “The impression I get is your belief is that naming the tithe Eucharist came first and later the consecrated bread and wine came to be referred to as Eucharist. But where is your evidence when we have Ignatius calling the Eucharist the flesh of Christ who became flesh.”
        
        Ignatius is plenty of evidence. Here is his letter to the Smyrnæans, citing from chapters 6, 7 and 8:
        
        They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
        
        They abstain from the EUCHARIST and from prayer, because they confess not the EUCHARIST to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
        
        See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper EUCHARIST, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast;
        
        All three references are to unconsecrated bread and wine. It is far beyond your abilities to understand that, though I have tried several times to explain it to you. But all three references are to the unconsecrated bread. You may wish to re-read the first installment in the series and see what I believe Ignatius was saying.
Phil Sanz says:

October 4, 2020 at 3:21 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment. I don’t want to put words in your mouth nor assumptions in your mind. What I want is to gain understanding. Apparently, you took the words “united” and “separate” as referring to “belief” when I meant them as referring to “understanding”. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
I will proceed on the assumption that indeed you are interested in greater understanding. It is common sense that we should not expect others to understand us without we making first the effort to understand them.

You started quoting me and said :
“Lord’s Supper was … terms I agree with”
You ask me “ how the thanksgiving (eucharist) sacrifice came to be associated with the Lord’s Supper”. It is my understanding that this is precisely what Timothy is asserting in this blog. And he says that the Church Fathers also said that. He should be able to explain that association to you better than I can.
I understand that you begged the question by saying “ since the thanksgiving offering is not related to the Paschal sacrifice (nor the Passover meal)” and I understand by that clause that such is your opinion. Then, it is going to be up to you to prove it. The Passover meal was memorial and sacrificial (of the Paschal Lamb) which was consumed at home, and which Paul identified as Christ in 1 Co 5:7. It was also “eucharistic” (thanksgiving) as recitation of the Hallel Psalms (113-118) was a requirement complied by Jesus and the Apostles (Matthew 26:30). It is my understanding that this Jewish tradition is kept in Jewish Orthodox homes until today. I hope that you find this answer satisfactory and that it helps you understand how the Lord’s Supper could have also been “eucharistic” since the beginning and how it is so closely connected to His Passion and Sacrifice on the Cross.
You still have not answer some of my questions.
Peace and blessings.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 6, 2020 at 8:12 am
  
  Phil,
  
  “I understand that you begged the question by saying “ since the thanksgiving offering is not related to the Paschal sacrifice (nor the Passover meal)”
  
  You are mistaken. This is not an instance of circular reasoning. Indeed, the circular reasoning resides clearly on your side of the argument, as I will demonstrate.
  
  First, nowhere in the NT is praying before a meal explicitly stated as a thanksgiving sacrifice. Thanksgiving, yes, but not a sacrifice. It is a deduction from the OT evidence that the giving of thanks in prayer is a sacrifice.
  
  Second, by deduction, the thanksgiving offering was the prayer Jesus made and that this prayer was neither unique nor specific to the Lord’s Supper.
  
  Let’s look at the biblical evidence.
  
  The tradition of praying before eating has no direct causal link to Jesus dying on a cross (i.e. the Paschal sacrifice) while the tradition of praying before eating has no direct causal link to the Passover at all (let alone the meal specifically). The freewill thanksgiving sacrifice was a specific sacrifice in Mosaic Law that was unrelated to the Paschal sacrifice: no Hebrew would confuse the two.
  
  Now, if you assume a direct causal link between the thanksgiving sacrifice and the Paschal sacrifice or the Passover meal, then you have in fact begged the question, as that is the issue under debate and none here have presented a deductive argument to establish a link between them. But, by all means, avoid the fallacy by answering Tim’s question here.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 4, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Hi Nick,
Thank you. I appreciate your comment and I hope Derek takes it to heart and gives it the same weight as he gives to what Timothy says. He claims Scripture as his axiomatic proposition and when challenged on it then he appeals to logic and viceversa. You are doing great and feel free to pitch in anytime.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 5, 2020 at 10:17 am
  
  Thanks, Phil.
  May God bless you as well.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 7, 2020 at 4:19 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment. You must have catched the habit of assuming from Timothy. That’s what often leads both of you into the wrong conclusions. The early Christians called Jesus’ Passover meal “the breaking of the bread “ and celebrated it on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection. It was a memorial of the ritual instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper. How do we know? Because, as Nick has shown you, it was revealed by Jesus at that time and it was a memorial of His coming sacrifice on the Cross and a good reason to offer “thanks” to God. That is why later it came to be called “eucharist”. Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper were a departure from the traditional Passover celebration ritual and cannot be explained as a “thanksgiving sacrifice” (Numbers 28:26-31) which was started at the Temple. Instead, the book of Acts shows us a totally different picture of how the Jerusalem community celebrated the Lord’s Supper. It was not a strictly “thanksgiving offering”, and as the faithful moved away from the Temple it would have been almost impossible to comply with the requirements of the Law in this respect. This is my direct answer to your question. It is direct biblical evidence and, definitely, not deductive nor causal. Of course, it involves some historical background and may be it’s there that you expect my deductions on the subject. In that case, please, clarify for me your position, one point at a time, and I will be happy to do the same for you.

This is what I said (without the emphasis):
“The Passover meal was memorial and sacrificial (of the Paschal Lamb) which was consumed at home, and which Paul identified as Christ in 1 Co 5:7. It was ALSO “eucharistic” (thanksgiving) as recitation of the Hallel Psalms (113-118) was a ritual part of it complied by Jesus and the Apostles (Matthew 26:30).”
I never mentioned “thanksgiving sacrifice”. And as I already explained to Timothy:
“Christians had been celebrating the Last Supper or Passover Supper as “breaking of the bread” Luke 24:35 on “the Lord’s Day” Acts 20:7. They would use, as Jesus did, the customary unleavened bread Jews used in the Passover feast. This had been going on in the Christian homes and local churches for more than 20 years, since Pentecost Acts 2:42.”

You said:
“First, nowhere in the NT is praying before a meal explicitly stated as a thanksgiving sacrifice. Thanksgiving, yes, but not a sacrifice. It is a deduction from the OT evidence that the giving of thanks in prayer is a sacrifice.”
Yes. It is your deduction based on the wrong assumption.

And:
“Second, by deduction, the thanksgiving offering was the prayer Jesus made and that this prayer was neither unique nor specific to the Lord’s Supper.”
cdxssd3esNo. Your deduction is not correct. The “prayer Jesus made” was specifically a part of the Passover meal. What is evident is that Jesus’ Passover celebration was a fulfillment of the OT prophecies with the consumption of the sacrificed Paschal lamb and the beginning of the NT (Covenant) by His blood which “is poured out” Matthew 26:28. Scripture provides absolutely no evidence to separate the Last Supper from His Passion. There is an obvious continuity in all the gospel narratives. It’s up to you and Timothy to provide a different interpretation.

You also said:
“The tradition of praying before eating has no direct causal link to Jesus dying on a cross (i.e. the Paschal sacrifice) while the tradition of praying before eating has no direct causal link to the Passover at all (let alone the meal specifically). The freewill thanksgiving sacrifice was a specific sacrifice in Mosaic Law that was unrelated to the Paschal sacrifice: no Hebrew would confuse the two.”
You are right that the tradition of praying before eating has no direct link to the Passover. I said nothing about it and It is irrelevant. The apparent assumption that I confused the two sacrifices would be relevant, but I didn’t say that and, therefore, it is completely wrong. I know very well that they are different.

And your biblical evidence:
“Now, if you assume a direct causal link between the thanksgiving sacrifice and the Paschal sacrifice or the Passover meal, then you have in fact begged the question, as that is the issue under debate and none here have presented a deductive argument to establish a link between them. But, by all means, avoid the fallacy by answering Tim’s question here.”
I never said that there was a link between them nor have I ever made such deduction. As I have already answered Tim:
“Christians had been celebrating the Last Supper or Passover Supper as “breaking of the bread” Luke 24:35 on “the Lord’s Day” Acts 20:7.
In 1 Cor 11:17-34, definitely a direct reference to the Last Supper, a Passover meal, Paul uses almost the exact wording as the three Synoptic Gospels. All four narratives introduce the Supper with the words “on the night when he was betrayed’ (1 Cor 11:22), which is an unchanged formula kept through almost two millennia until today. Even the Gospel of John mentions Judas’ betrayal on his version of the Last Supper John 13:2. Jesus knew of His impending sacrifice on the Cross and, like the Passover lamb, He was offering Himself voluntarily to the Father. He made that sacrificial offering “once and for all” (Hebrews 9:12) and not just as a victim of a treacherous apostle.”
I expect that any biblical evidence brought up would have a clear text as a “starting point” (“axiomatic proposition”), or am I wrong in that?
Peace and blessings.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 8, 2020 at 10:20 am
  
  DR, Phil, Betty, Timothy–
  It occurs to me that there may be some confusion as to the meanings of the words “thanksgiving offering” and “thanksgiving sacrifice”. Are they interchangeable?
  As Christians, we are taught to offer our prayers to the Father “through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” Jesus has always been and still is now the Lamb of God sacrificed for us. How, then, can we make any offering of thanks “through Christ our Lord” and it NOT be connected to His sacrifice?
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 8, 2020 at 2:36 pm

By the way, here is an interesting article shedding some light on offerings and sacrifice. It is a very interesting read:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/offerings-and-sacrifices.html

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 8, 2020 at 10:56 pm

Hi Nick,
Thank you for your comment and for the referenced article. Obviously, there is only one sacrifice in the NT and a variety of sacrifices in the OT. I found the article scholarly written and very enlightening. The author is not Catholic and may be it will catch the attention of Timothy and Derek. When something comes from a Catholic author they seem to get a hernia, figuratively speaking, of course.
God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 9, 2020 at 9:20 am
  
  Phil,
  
  “may be it will catch the attention of Timothy and Derek”
  
  I need more time before I can respond to recent comments, but I have read most of the article at that link. Are you suggesting that there is something in there that is critical to our discussion?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 12, 2020 at 6:53 pm

Hi Derek,

You said:
“I need more time … to our discussion”

Well, I will let you be the judge. This is what Dr. Averbeck said (Capitalized emphasis mine):

“Jesus as our “Passover sacrifice.” There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New Testament. However, the MOST CERTAIN of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 CORINTHIANS 5:7 “Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” In the context Paul uses this to rebuke the Corinthians for not removing an evil man from their church fellowship. The Passover sacrifice was associated with the removal of leaven from every Jewish household (see Exod 12:15-20 ; and cf. Mishnah Pesahim 1-3 ). Therefore, the leaven image could be used to refer to the polluting effect of one evil person in the midst of the congregation. Since Christ has already been sacrificed it was certainly time now to get rid of the leaven.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 14, 2020 at 2:21 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “This is what Dr. Averbeck said…”
  
  We have all agreed that Jesus was the Paschal lamb. How are you applying this agreement (and the quotation of Dr. Averbveck) in a way that is critical to our discussion? I don’t understand why you are pressing this point. The critical error is choosing to interpret Jesus’ sacrifice as one of the other kinds of Hebrew sacrifices and offerings.
  
  The link provided serves to show the difference between the Paschal sacrifice and other sacrifices (e.g. sin-sacrifices; thanksgiving sacrifices). This coheres with my argument that the only eucharist (thanksgiving) offering during that final Passover meal before the crucifixion was Jesus’ prayers made before eating and that Jesus and Paul both prayed before eating any meal. Accordingly, how and when did the Lord’s Supper—in particular the bread and wine—take on the label of Eucharist? All existing evidence prior to the mid-4th-century suggests that it bore the name because the bread and wine came out of the eucharistic offering. It was, quite literally, (part of) the thanksgiving offering.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Betty says:

October 13, 2020 at 1:59 pm

Timothy, unfortunately I again cannot post under your response and your argument that when Ignatius says Eucharist he means Tithe. Actually I read your argument from Ignatius over again today before your response and was planning to point out you took 7 paragraphs to try and negate Ignatius’s very simple statement “the Eucharist IS the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ”. Ignatius didn’t say we take from the tithe, ie the Eucharist and then after the consecration it represents the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ. “The Eucharist is the flesh”. That’s pretty straightforward and there is no statement from Ignatius that states the Eucharist is the tithe. In reading your article you seem to speculate that the heretics were at the service and dismissed prior to the offering of gifts. On what basis? You also associate the sacrifice of Malachi with the tithe instead of the consecrated bread but the Didache when describing Sunday worship associates Malachi with the breaking of the bread, not the collecting of the tithe. Irenæus makes the same association. I’ll see if I can get Nick to copy and paste those quotes and feel pretty comfortable we won’t have to explain their meaning.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 14, 2020 at 10:04 am
  
  Betty–
  Which quotes did you want me to copy and paste?
  
  Reply
Betty says:

October 16, 2020 at 7:48 am

Thanks Nick. Timothy in trying to make the case for a fourth century irresistible delusion where the Church Fathers simultaneously started believing they were offering up Christ’s body and blood. To push this argument Timothy writes in the early Church the Eucharist was the Tithe and the sacrifice of Malachi was the Tithe and the thanksgiving prayers of the Church. The Catholic position and that of the earliest Christians was that the Eucharist was the liturgical breaking of the bread, ie the Lord’s supper, ie the consecrated bread and wine, ie the body and blood of Christ which with our thanksgiving prayers fulfill the sacrifice of Malachi. To defend that position could you copy and paste the following three paragraphs from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenæus. I don’t think any commentary is necessary but if you think there is feel free to add your explanation of those paragraphs. In the Didache where they discuss Sunday worship the paragraph begins “on the Lord’s Day, come together , bread bread and give thanks” and ends with referencing Malachi. Justin Martyr Dislogue with Trypho , chapter 41, and from Irenæus Book 4, Chapter 17, verse 5.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 16, 2020 at 12:18 pm
  
  DIDACHE:
  Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day
  But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
  
  JUSTIN MARTYR:
  Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 41.
  The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist
  Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.
  
  IRENAEUS:
  Book 4, Chapter 17
  5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things — not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful — He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
  
  All of these citations suggest that the Eucharist (capital “E”) includes communion with the consecrated elements–Christ’s Body and Blood. They also suggest that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the prophesy of Malachi.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 16, 2020 at 9:52 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for you comment on my quoting of Dr. Averbeck’s interpretation of 1 Cor 5:7 as sacrificial and a CERTAIN reference to the Passover Meal. I posted it as my answer to Timothy’s request that
“it is your duty to prove, namely that 1 Cor 5:7 is about the Lord’s Supper”.
In addition Dr. Averbeck shows that most of the OT sacrifices usually showed some overlapping with each other. This is why I still stand by my statement that:
“The Passover meal was memorial and sacrificial (of the Paschal Lamb) which was consumed at home, and which Paul identified as Christ (SACRIFIED) in 1 Co 5:7 (emphasis added now).”
You would have to prove that I am wrong about what he said. I did not argue with you about the Lord’s Supper being a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering) that is something which Timothy has repeatedly failed to prove. This is how relevant my quote is to our discussion. In addition, Dr. Averbeck, cited to you by Nick in support of his argument, said a lot more which so far you have failed to address

You said:
“We have all agreed … sacrifices and offerings.”
Yes, and how do you say that the PASCHAL LAMB was SACRIFICED?

You also said:
“The link provided … the thanksgiving offering”.
Since, as I have been saying to both of you, prior to being labeled EUCHRIST it was labeled BREAKING OF THE BREAD, was the BREAKING OF THE BREAD a EUCHARIST or was it not. How do you interpret BREAKING OF THE BREAD in light of Luke 24:35?

Peace and blessings.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 18, 2020 at 10:43 am
  
  Phil, I’m puzzled by your statement, “I did not argue with you about the Lord’s Supper being a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering) that is something which Timothy has repeatedly failed to prove.”
  
  I have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering). I have, of course “failed” to prove that it is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering), but I have never alleged that it is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering), so yes, I have indeed failed to prove that which I have never alleged.
  
  Perhaps I have misunderstood your observation. What, precisely, have I failed to prove?
  
  Reply
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 19, 2020 at 6:38 pm
  
  Phil,
  
  “how do you say that the PASCHAL LAMB was SACRIFICED?”
  
  I say it this way: I confess that Jesus, the paschal lamb, was sacrificed for—and because of—my sin.
  
  “prior to being labeled EUCHRIST it was labeled BREAKING OF THE BREAD”
  
  The prayers before eating was Jesus’ eucharist. He gave thanks for the wine, distributed it, and then it was consumed. He gave thanks for bread, distributed it, and then it was consumed.
  
  “How do you interpret BREAKING OF THE BREAD in light of Luke 24:35”
  
  Interpret? Scripture plainly states that when he broke the bread, the Spirit released its suppression and allowed them to recognize him:
  
  “but they were kept from recognizing him. [..] When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. [..] Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.” [Luke 24:16,30-31,35]
  
  I’m not sure why you think this has any relevance to our discussion.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 20, 2020 at 10:14 am
    
    Nick and Phil, it seems Derek and Timothy continue to downplay the connection between Christ as our Paschal Lamb and the Eucharist, ie the breaking of Bread in a liturgical sense, the Lord’s supper, the consecrated bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ and the sacrifice of Malachi offered throughout the world. The connection was definitely recognized by Justin Martyr. Nick, could you copy and paste Chapter 40 of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho which immediately preceded the chapter where Justin links the Eucharist with the sacrifice of Malachi. Hopefully this chapter will open Derek’s eyes as Christ’s breaking the bread opened the eyes of the disciples. In fact Derek your statement you don’t see the relevance of the disciples eyes being opened by the breaking of the bread in Luke tells me your mind is closed. Will you at least admit that the sacrifice of Malachi in the early Church was the Eucharist, the breaking of the bread, the Lord’s supper, the consecrated bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Do you think Justin’s going into detail on how the Paschal lamb was a prefigurement of Christ is relevant since in the very next chapter Justin tells us the Eucharist is “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed in rememberance of the suffering”
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      October 20, 2020 at 12:05 pm
      
      Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho:
      Chapter 40
      Justin: The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe in Him. For that the creation which God created — to wit, Adam — was a house for the spirit which proceeded from God, you all can understand. And that this injunction was temporary, I prove thus. God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [goat], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape [goat]; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        October 20, 2020 at 12:59 pm
        
        Thanks Nick. And the next chapter Justin immediately goes into discussing the Eucharist which is not the tithe but “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed in remembrance of the suffering “. And this is the sacrifice of Malachi, not the tithe. In those two chapters of Justin it’s all there Derek, Christ is our Paschal lamb, and the Eucharist, the breaking of the bread, the Lord’s supper, the body and blood of Christ” is the SACRIFICE of Malachi.
    2. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 20, 2020 at 2:15 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      You said “…the disciples eyes being opened by the breaking of the bread…” Let’s set aside, for sake of argument, that you have mystified and made specific the multi-varied general preposition en (ἐν). Instead, let’s examine this statement:
      
      “it seems Derek and Timothy continue to downplay the connection between Christ as our Paschal Lamb and the Eucharist, ie the breaking of Bread in a liturgical sense”
      
      You have not established this: it is the very thing under debate. Even if we say that their eyes were open when (or perhaps even ‘by’ ) he broke bread, that is still not a eucharist, nor is the word ‘eucharist’ mentioned by Luke (rather the word for ‘blessing’).
      
      If you would like a further response, then stop begging the question and instead produce evidence from scripture to support your claim.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        October 20, 2020 at 5:04 pm
        
        Betty, DR–
        There is no definitive Scriptural proof that the meaning of the breaking of the bread in Luke 24:30 means either the Eucharist or just a Jewish tradition of blessing the meal before eating. So neither position of “this very thing under debate” can be proven with Scripture alone. Moreover, there is no help from the ECF’s to confirm either position. So the interpretation falls on tradition that has been taught through the years. Both the Roman and Eastern Catholic Church show evidence of having the oldest tradition of the breaking of the bread of Luke 24:30 referring to the Eucharistic Body and Blood ritual that opened their eyes to recognize Christ at that moment.
        The Reformed tradition can only trace back to John Calvin to refute the Catholic claim.
Nick Broom says:

October 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm

Phil–
I think what Timothy is trying to convey is that the Lord’s Supper in the Presbyterian Church is a different rite than the Eucharist of the RCC. And the RCC separates the communion rite from the consecration of the Eucharist by the AMEN that Timothy refers to as the “apostolic amen”.
Notice that the Presbyterian Lord’s Supper liturgy has the consecration (words of institution) in the communion rite (Breaking of the Bread) which is separated from the Great Thanksgiving (eucharist) by what Timothy refers to as the “apostolic amen”. Also notice that they refer to that entire liturgy as “eucharistic” just as we do in the RCC.
The confusion may be the difference in the breaking of the bread and the consecration of the elements:
RCC==consecration BEFORE communion rite
Presbyterian==consecration DURING the communion rite

Sounds like splitting hairs, but that difference obviously drives a wedge.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 19, 2020 at 12:20 pm

Oooops…
I forgot to add the link:
https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/sharedcelebration/pdfs/liturgy.pdf

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

October 20, 2020 at 3:30 pm

Betty,

Rather than respond to your question-begging question re: Justin, I will stick to the scriptures you think support your position (even though you didn’t actually make an argument!). Let’s look at the sacrifice of Malachi.

Malachi 1:7,12-13 speaks of the Lord’s Table. Which table is this? Naturally, this includes the ‘Table of the Bread of the Presence’, from which the priest were permitted to eat week-old showbread. More than this, it also included profaning the altar (the showbread was not sacrificed!) upon which the priests received a portion of food (from the tithe!). The priests in Malachi showed contempt for all of this. Malachi uses a play-on-words, referring to both the literal table they eat from (showbread; table of the bread of the presence) and the figurative table from which the Lord provides them (portion of the sacrifices; the altar).

Sandwiched between this are verses 10 and 11:

““Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.”

God utterly rejected the sacrifices of these priests. Instead, it would one day be that all nations would offer sacrifices in all places. Does this sound familiar? It should, as we previously discussed it up thread:

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth”

And so, Jesus revealed the fulfillment to Malachi’s prophecy as he spoke to the Samaritan woman. I will ask this again: to what sacrifice was Jesus referring when he said that the time has now come to worship the Father in Spirit and truth?

Peace,
DR

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  October 21, 2020 at 9:31 am
  
  DR–
  Explain what you mean by “More than this, it also included profaning the altar (the showbread was not sacrificed!) upon which the priests received a portion of food (from the tithe!)”
  Where is that in Scripture that the showbread was not sacrificed and the portion of food was from the tithe? Please provide chapter and verse for better clarification. Thanks.
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    October 21, 2020 at 12:52 pm
    
    Nick,
    
    “Explain what you mean”
    
    Yes, sir!
    
    The showbread was of course offered to God (by being placed on the table). That is what made it holy. It was also a sacrifice in the sense that the ingredients (and time to make the bread) were given in the service of God. But, it was not sacrificed on the altar, that is, burned. Indeed, it had nothing to do with the altar. Rather, the bread was consumed by the priests once it was a week old (and replaced by new bread).
    
    Malachi says “By offering defiled food on my altar. “But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ “By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible.” He speaks of the table and the altar together.
    
    “…the portion of food was from the tithe? Please provide chapter and verse…”
    
    Have you never read the Pentateuch? Melchizedek, the Levites, and the priests all received provisions from various tithes. After reading the Pentateuch itself, I suggest you continue your research with this overview, which cites an abridged set of chapters and verses as well as links for more information.
    
    Regarding the tithe, Deuteronomy 14:28 includes not only the priests and Levites, but the poor, widows, and orphans as well. The notion of supporting the clergy and the needy through sacrificial (offered) tithes is ancient.
    
    As part of the first tithe (Numbers 18:21-26), priests received the grains, wine, oil, fruit, and cattle (Leviticus 27:30–33). Notice that oil is on the list (see: Hippolytus of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage on the eucharist including oil).
    
    So, where did the flour and oil come from to make the showbread? Of course it must have come from (directly or indirectly) the offerings!
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      October 21, 2020 at 9:11 pm
      
      DR–
      You seem to make a distinction between “offering” and “sacrifice”. The tithe is an “offering” to God, but a portion of that “offering” (the bread) is not “sacrificed” to God. But when we “offer” our thanks and praise to God, it is a “sacrifice”.
      Can you explain the distinction?
      
      Reply
      1. Derek Ramsey says:
        
        October 21, 2020 at 10:52 pm
        
        Nick,
        
        “Can you explain the distinction?”
        
        Not really. Like their Hebrew equivalents, the English words “offering” and “sacrifice” are both generalist words. Their meaning is contextual. For example, there were gift offerings offered along with burnt offerings. When a typical English speaker hears “sacrifice” in a Hebrew context, he may think only of the burnt offering. But the word ‘sacrifice’ itself has a much broader possible meaning.
        
        If I was unclear on any particular use, quote it specifically and I’ll clarify what I meant.
        
        Peace,
        DR
Betty says:

October 21, 2020 at 9:09 am

Thanks Derek for acknowledging that Christ was speaking to the Samaritan woman about sacrificial worship. And we celebrate the “sacrifice of the Mass”. Do you call your Sunday worship a sacrifice? We participate in a sacrificial worship of the Father “in Spirit and in Truth”. Was Christ speaking of the Holy Spirit? But who is the Truth? Didn’t Christ say I am the Truth? I don’t know what roles the Spirit and Christ play in your worship service but the Catholic priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while Christ continues as our High Priest in the order of Melchesidec forever.
For a review of the “Bread of the presence” I would refer you to Chapter 5 of Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharistic.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 21, 2020 at 11:08 am
  
  Betty,
  
  “we celebrate the “sacrifice of the Mass”.”
  
  Is your mass a sacrifice or a celebration of a sacrifice?
  
  “Thanks Derek for acknowledging that Christ was speaking to the Samaritan woman about sacrificial worship.”
  
  You are confused. I made no such acknowledgment. I merely asked you a question.
  
  The Samaritan woman asked about sacrificing on Mt. Gerazim vs. Jerusalem. Jesus told her that sacrificial worship at a single location was now replaced by worship in spirit and truth done everywhere. He fulfilled Malachi: “In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me”
  
  “Do you call your Sunday worship a sacrifice?”
  
  Both Jesus (‘spirit and truth’) and Malachi (‘incense and pure offerings’) understood worship as being much more than mundane sacrifices on an altar: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. [Hosea 6:6]”
  
  “We participate in a sacrificial worship of the Father “in Spirit and in Truth”.”
  
  Sacrificial worship of the Father? Worship to the Father is sacrificial. To sacrifice is to make sacred (or holy) that which is offered. Anything offered to God is made a holy sacrifice (e.g. Hebrews 13:15) when (and if) it is accepted by God.
  
  This is why when Jesus prayed before eating meals: his thanksgiving prayer was an offering to God. The bread and wine were neither a sacrifice of thanksgiving (that was the prayer) nor a sacrifice of the Paschal lamb (that was Jesus at Golgotha). On the other hand, there are Hebrew sacrifices that involved bringing food, for example, the tithe. If the bread and wine are a sacrifice, they must be of the third type.
  
  But what of Malachi’s pure offerings? Are they a reference to the bread and wine? Let’s look at the words of Jesus in Luke 11:
  
  “But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal. Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.”
  
  Jesus speaks of giving to the poor and in the very next breath speaks of the tithe. Jesus identifies a pure offering as giving to the poor, the very thing the early church did with its eucharist sacrifice (i.e. the tithe) in fulfillment of Malachi.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 21, 2020 at 9:35 pm
    
    Both , the Mass is a sacrifice and a celebration of a sacrifice.
    Derek one of us is confused. I said you pointed out Christ and the Samaritan woman were speaking of sacrificial worship, you then say I was confused, And then write “The Samaritan women asked Jesus about sacrificing on Mt Gerazim and Jerusalem.”
    I also find it funny you finished your post above speaking of the early Church but never discussed the quotes Nick posted . Which one do you want to deal with first? By the way, did you ever share those quotes from Irenæus we shared with you before?
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 22, 2020 at 10:38 am
      
      Betty,
      
      “Both”
      
      All our worship—praise, thanks, song, gifts, heart, mind—is (by definition) a offertory sacrifice from us to God. Only Communion (which does not occur during Sunday morning worship) is a celebration of Christ’s sacrifice from himself to God on our behalf for our sins.
      
      “the Mass is a sacrifice”
      
      A sacrifice of what, exactly?
      
      “Christ and the Samaritan woman were speaking of sacrificial worship, you then say I was confused, And then write “The Samaritan women asked Jesus about sacrificing on Mt Gerazim and Jerusalem.””
      
      Right, but I only asked a question, not made any statement, argument, or assertion. To wit:
      
      “[IF Jesus was referring to a sacrifice, then] to what sacrifice was Jesus referring when he said that the time has now come to worship the Father in Spirit and truth?”
      
      Remember what you said?
      
      ““the Church Fathers understood that the worship on Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem was sacrificial worship and that Christians continue sacrificial worship in Spirit and in Truth not in those localities but throughout the world. It’s called the Mass””
      
      I am merely asking you to defend your claim by telling me what sacrifice he was (supposedly) referring to that has arrived now (i.e. not in the future after the Lord’s supper, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension).
      
      “I also find it funny you finished your post above speaking of the early Church but never discussed the quotes Nick posted.”
      
      Do you mean the quotes from Nick’s post on the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, or do you mean the one that only contained the Justin’s Dialogue and your subsequent comment?
      
      Regardless, I’ve derived my position from the OT and NT and then logically moved forward to conjecture regarding the early Church. You’ve done the opposite, by taking the early Church and moving backward to conjecture regarding the OT and NT. Since your approach is inherently deductively fallacious, I spend the least amount of my time on these topics and will continue to give them lower priority (and thus the lowest intellectual rigor).
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        October 23, 2020 at 4:05 pm
        
        Derek, why am I not surprised that you and Timothy are trying to steer the discussion away from the Early Church teachings on the Eucharist? So you say “I’ve derived my position from the OT and NT and then logically moved forward to conjecture regarding the early Church. “ So let’s be honest, we both derive our positions in evaluating the OT and NT from the traditions of our religious upbringing, ie Anabaptist and Catholic. Now we can argue scripture but Timothy’s articles especially the recent series deals with the early Church. You were all supportive of Timothy until Nick posted those quotes from the Church Fathers and now “want to spend the least amount of my time on these topics”. Of course you do because you can’t defend your position from the early Father’s writings. You talk about “the lowest intellectual rigor. “ It hasn’t been rigorous for us at all, just have Nick cut and paste the Father’s writings with almost no commentary and then watch as you avoid dealing with the quotes. Timothy I will say is a master at trying to explain what the Fathers are saying is not really what they meant but you can’t change what they wrote.
Derek Ramsey says:

October 21, 2020 at 11:15 am

To All,

Now that the Pope approves of same-sex unions (i.e. civil marriage) and same-sex partners having families (including adoption), do you all agree that this has always been the case? Do you all agree that Catholic Charities was wrong for so many years to reject homosexual couples from adopting children?

What should I believe?

Peace,
DR

Reply
Betty says:

October 21, 2020 at 4:13 pm

Derek, did you read the story you posted? Apparently the pope expressed the same opinion when he was only a bishop. Do you Derek believe an atheist should be allowed to marry and have children? Yes or No?

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 21, 2020 at 6:18 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  “Apparently the pope expressed the same opinion when he was only a bishop. “
  
  Yes, I know. When he was not pope he was as much the pope as you are now. I weight what he said then with the same authority that I weight what you have to say. But now he is pope. Or is this further proof that he is a false pope? I’m unclear on this point.
  
  What would you tell the visiting alien? For centuries, homosexual activities have been condemned as sin in accordance with Scripture, some practitioners burned. Your pope is advocating that governments (who ultimately answer to God) promote sinning. Or is this an official pronouncement and it is no longer sin? See that’s what I’m not sure about. Is the Pope advocating sinning or was the church of the past wrong? It must be one or the other! And also importantly, do you, Nick, and Phil all agree that it is (or isn’t) a sin.
  
  “Do you Derek believe an atheist should be allowed to marry and have children? Yes or No?”
  
  What do you mean allowed? It is the divine command from the beginning for a man and woman to cleave together and be fruitful. That command is universal and is not subject to earthly authorities. Jesus spoke quite plainly when he defined marriage: marriage (no distinction for civil or sacred) requires physical consumation by a fertile (as Jesus understood it) couple.
  
  But I see that when you say “allowed to … have children”, you think that having children is merely a physical human function subject primarily to human will or physical condition. It is not. That act of creation is primarily an act of Creation by the will of the Creator (e.g. Abraham and Sarah; Zachariah and Elizabeth). I’m not even Catholic and I understand that the RCC condemns artificial birth control: it thinks it is an attempt to circumvent the will of God. But I suppose the church will soon ‘realize’ that birth control was right all along.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Betty says:

October 21, 2020 at 8:33 pm

You didn’t answer my question Derek, yes or no? Or do you not believe atheism is a sin? And what about raising children to be atheist? Is that a sin? So your OK with the sin of raising children as atheist? You also failed to mention that the popes personal belief that homosexuals should not be denied their civil rights is being forwarded as his personal belief, not as Church teaching. Or did you read the article?

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 21, 2020 at 9:28 pm
  
  Betty,
  
  “You didn’t answer my question Derek, yes or no? “
  
  Of course I answered it. The two answers you want me to select from (“Yes” and “No”) are both wrong. One can neither allow nor disallow atheists to marry.
  
  “And what about raising children to be atheist? Is that a sin? “
  
  Yes, by definition. All humans are required to raise their children to worship the One God. To do otherwise is to be disobedient and subject to God’s judgment.
  
  “…that homosexuals should not be denied their civil rights…”
  
  That’s a very snaky analysis you want to trap me with! Civil unions (i.e. marriage) are not a civil right, except in a tautological sense. Jesus explicitly taught that such persons may not have a family, but rather should dedicate their lives to service of God.
  
  I happen to agree with the atheist at Irreducible Complexity blog: if you don’t agree with the bigotry of Jesus and Paul, then don’t try to be a Christian. The Pope would do well to admit that he desn’t believe in Jesus and stop lying to himself.
  
  “You also failed to mention that the popes personal belief …is being forwarded as his personal belief, not as Church teaching.”
  
  So you don’t see the problem with the sole head of your church (representative of God himself) advocating sinning (the domain of the Devil himself)? Formally, this is called cognitive dissonance.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    October 22, 2020 at 10:23 am
    
    Derek, you apparently don’t have any problem advocating sinning since you are OK with atheist marrying and raising their children atheist.,I hope you see how silly your claims are. This really is a question of the role of government . My understanding at least is in our country government’s role is to ensure we are all treated equally and to ensure religious freedom. Now while I agree that homosexuality is a sin that is our belief as taught in the Bible. But as you well know many Protestant churches teach it is not a sin. I’m amused you didn’t seem to have any problem with doctrinal differences within Protestantism on such subjects as Christ’s bodily resurrection but on the issue of homosexuality you are singing a different tune. And of course the only reason is because of the Pope’s view on the role of government. There are financial benefits that those who have a civil union enjoy so your opposition to allowing homosexuals to benefit from such unions show you obviously are for discrimination and against religious freedom.
    
    Reply
    1. Derek Ramsey says:
      
      October 22, 2020 at 12:20 pm
      
      Betty,
      
      “you apparently don’t have any problem advocating sinning since you are OK with atheist marrying and raising their children atheist.,I hope you see how silly your claims are. “
      
      Yes, had I said that, it would have been silly. Here is what I actually said: “It is the divine command from the beginning for a man and woman to cleave together and be fruitful. That command is universal and is not subject to earthly authorities.” and “All humans are required to raise their children to worship the One God. ” I will add this further point: all humans are required to repent and worship the One True God. This includes atheists.
      
      “This really is a question of the role of government.”
      
      No, it isn’t. All governments are established under the authority of God (Romans 13:1). They are required to uphold God’s principles. To do otherwise is rebellion against God.
      
      “I’m amused you didn’t seem to have any problem with doctrinal differences within Protestantism on such subjects as Christ’s bodily resurrection but on the issue of homosexuality you are singing a different tune.”
      
      Your amusement is misplaced. I was discussing the Pope. I never mentioned Protestants or their doctrines.
      
      “There are financial benefits that those who have a civil union enjoy so your opposition to allowing homosexuals to benefit from such unions show you obviously are for discrimination and against religious freedom.”
      
      Don’t you realize that the reason for financial benefits to marriage (or unions) at all is because of discrimination? Discrimination is neither inherently scary nor inherently wrong. In recognition of this, the government has determined which things are (in its opinion) legal vs illegal to discriminate upon.
      
      Jesus discriminated. You are faced with three options:
      
      1) Agree with Jesus and Paul (Christianity)
      2) Reject Jesus and Paul as raving bigots (Atheism)
      3) Selectively ignore inconvenient teachings (Cognitive dissonance)
      
      You know which one I have chosen. Which do you choose?
      
      Lastly, this does not impinge on religious freedom.
      
      Peace,
      DR
      
      Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 21, 2020 at 10:16 pm

DR said “What would you tell the visiting alien? For centuries, homosexual activities have been condemned as sin in accordance with Scripture, some practitioners burned. Your pope is advocating that governments (who ultimately answer to God) promote sinning. Or is this an official pronouncement and it is no longer sin? See that’s what I’m not sure about. Is the Pope advocating sinning or was the church of the past wrong? It must be one or the other! And also importantly, do you, Nick, and Phil all agree that it is (or isn’t) a sin.”

I would tell the visiting alien “Let’s look at what Pope actually said, and compare it with the teaching of the Church in the Catechism.”
My opinion is that without the complete context of what Pope Francis said, it is hard to determine what he actually meant. From the bits and pieces of what Pope Francis said by the author of the article, there is really no variance from what the Church teaches.
Pope Francis: “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

I don’t know what he meant by “legally covered”. But I do know that a civil union is not Holy Matrimony. And there is nothing in the words of Pope Francis that indicates a homosexual civil union should be blessed by the Church. Civil means civil. And “legally covered” may mean that a civil law will protect homosexuals from being discriminated against in legal matters, whatever those matters may be.
What I seem to understand that Francis is saying is that because that person is made in God’s image, he/she still has human dignity. Therefore, the Church should not treat that person in a way that you yourself would not want to be treated–in other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That being said, you would want to be treated decently and taught the proper truth as given by God IF you want eternal life, right? Pope Francis is not teaching anything different than what the Catechism teaches.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

In a nutshell, if a homosexual wants to be a Christian, then they must, just like any other sinner, “take up their cross” and follow Jesus with confession and prayer, repenting of the homosexual act and practicing chastity.
As a Christian, don’t go around assaulting and humiliating homosexuals. Teach them, instead, how a Christian should act. You have heard it said to love the sinner, but hate the sin. This is what the Catechism says and I also believe that is what Francis is trying to convey. As in so many things, clarification is needed.

Why is there not a specific canon in a papal document or ecumenical council? Most likely homosexuality has not historically been a matter of contention dividing Christians until the gay rights movement became socially acceptable in the last few decades. Maybe there should be a statement from the Vatican “If anyone sayeth that homosexuality is not an abomination before God, and that one is exempt from repenting of the homosexual act by reason of being made in the image of God and retain human dignity, let him be anathema.”–1st Ecumenical Council of Texas; Pope Nicholas VI presiding.

Timothy ought to get a kick out of that last part 😀

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 22, 2020 at 8:11 am
  
  Nick,
  
  “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, paragraph 11 (2003))
  
  Since that is plainly what the Roman Catholic religion teaches, and desire for legal unions is plainly what Francis is advocating, I cannot see how Francis’ words can be taken in any other way than a rejection of what the Roman Catholic religion teaches.
  
  If your thought is that Francis is just trying to protect the dignity of the human person, the same document prohibits that line of thinking:
  
  “Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens.”
  
  Francis said explicitly, “What we have to have is a civil union law, that way they are legally covered” and Roman Catholicism prohibits that very teaching.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 22, 2020 at 3:56 pm
    
    Timothy–I am sure that the remarks made by Pope Francis are made for dialog with the film maker and not a papal pronouncement for doctrine. If he does make it a doctrinal pronouncement, such as an encyclical or a bull, then that would be a serious matter for Catholics to contend with.
    
    Notice also that the quote from CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
    TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
    TO UNIONS
    BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS has a disclaimer in the introduction:
    “The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element.”
    
    This is just what its title represents–considerations for proposals. It is not declaration of doctrine. Before that happens, I would think that Pope Francis would confer with the rest of the magisterium on this issue on what the Church should teach.
    
    Reply
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 22, 2020 at 9:19 am
  
  Nick,
  
  “Let’s look at what Pope actually said”
  
  Sure. He unequivocally and unambiguously advocated for gay unions, which are verboten by the RCC, by Jesus (Matthew 19), and by Paul (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:9-10).
  
  “But I do know that a civil union is not Holy Matrimony.”
  
  In the context of biblical marriage, there is no meaningful distinction between the two.
  
  “the Church should not treat that person in a way that you yourself would not want to be treated–in other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
  
  Were the Pope applying the Golden Rule, the Church would do to others (oppose [civil] gay unions) what the Church would do to itself (oppose [sacramental] gay unions).
  
  Were the Pope applying the Golden Rule, the Church would do to others (oppose sin) what the Church would have done to its own members (oppose sin). The church cannot maintain the inherent dignity of another person by advocating they sin.
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 21, 2020 at 10:17 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. This is what you said in your intrusion to my answer to Derek which you took out of context. No wonder you are puzzled. I thought you would recognize your own words.

Anyway, you said:
“Phil, I’m puzzled by your statement, “I did not argue with you about the Lord’s Supper being a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering) that is something which Timothy has repeatedly failed to prove.”

I have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering). I have, of course “failed” to prove that it is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering), but I have never alleged that it is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering), so yes, I have indeed failed to prove that which I have never alleged.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your observation. What, precisely, have I failed to prove?”

Yes, you have misunderstood my observation and several other observations as well. I understand now that you “have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering)”. Nick has been more helpful in clearing this point than you. Thank you Nick. On the other hand, I hope that you understand also that I have never made THAT CLAIM either. Are we clear on that?

As regards to “failing to prove” it was initially your request to me (your own words) when I brought up 1 Corinthians 5:7 as a reference to the Last Supper. Derek also thought it irrelevant and I quoted to him what Evangelical Dr. Richard E. Averbeck said on the subject (from the link that Nick provided for us):

“Jesus as our “Passover sacrifice.” There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New Testament. However, the most CERTAIN (emphasis mine) of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

That’s what Scripture says and that’s what I am discussing with Derek on that basis alone. I hope that this clears some of the misunderstanding.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 22, 2020 at 9:27 am
  
  Phil said,
  
  “I understand now that you “have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering)”. … On the other hand, I hope that you understand also that I have never made THAT CLAIM either. Are we clear on that?”
  
  I would like very much to be clear on that. When you say, that you “have never made THAT CLAIM either,” what claim is it that you have never made?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Tim
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 22, 2020 at 4:40 pm

DR–
I suppose you have not heard of a Platonic relationship. The definition of a civil union does not require a sexual relationship. If a homosexual couple wants to be Roman Catholic, the Church would require the couple to be celibate. That is already established doctrine. The Church has no control of adulterers who don’t want to be Christian nor does it have any control over civil governments.
Where in Pope Francis words do you see him advocating for a sexual civil marriage? What he “stood up for” in Argentina was a civil union as an alternative to same-sex marriage. Evidently the Pope was making a distinction. Have you asked the Pope if he really is teaching it is ok for couples to engage in the homosexual act? I would think his answer would be pertinent to this discussion, wouldn’t you?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  October 23, 2020 at 8:02 am
  
  Nick,
  
  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith exists “to promote and defend the doctrine of the faith and its traditions in all of the Catholic world.”
  
  In its role of promoting and defending “the doctrine of the faith and its traditions,” the CDF taught, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
  
  Francis said explicitly, “What we have to have is a civil union law, that way they are legally covered” and the CDF explicitly prohibits that very thing. Respect for the dignity of homosexual persons “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
  
  I don’t understand how any sober Roman Catholic, of whatever of the thousands of possible doctrinal variations that exist within Rome, could possibly disagree with the plain truth of the preceding paragraph. Francis has advocated a position that is at variance with the teaching of the church. Either Francis is wrong or the CDF is wrong. And, apparently, it is up to each individual Roman Catholic to decide.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 22, 2020 at 9:56 pm

Hi Derek,
Thank you for your comment and your partial answer to Luke 24:35.

You said:
“how do you say … relevance to our discussion.”
As you said: “the Spirit … allowed them to recognize him”. And then only fifty days later, under the guidance of the same Spirit, the newly baptized believers were led to “the apostle’s teaching and fellowship, to the BREAKING OF THJE BREAD and to prayers” Acts 2:42 (emphasis mine). And how did they do it?: “by attending the temple together and BREAKING BREAD in their homes” Acts 2:46 (emphasis mine). If it was strictly eucharist why didn’t Luke say so to an audience who should have been very familiar with it instead of using the formula BREAKING OF THE BREAD?

God bless you.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 23, 2020 at 11:57 am

Timothy–
You said : “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith exists “to promote and defend the doctrine of the faith and its traditions in all of the Catholic world.”

Yes, that is correct–the Catholic world, NOT the non-Catholic world, which the Catholic Church has no control over. I would assume by your position in this blog that you, Timothy, would not like the Roman Catholic Church to be in control of the United States civil government, am I right?

You also said:
“In its role of promoting and defending “the doctrine of the faith and its traditions,” the CDF taught, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

That is correct. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homoSEXUAL behavior is not approved and neither is legal HomoSEXUAL unions. Pope Francis made the distinction between homoSEXUAL marriage and civil unions. What the Pope is requesting is for civil governments to protect against UNJUST discrimination.

And you finally said: “I don’t understand how any sober Roman Catholic, of whatever of the thousands of possible doctrinal variations that exist within Rome, could possibly disagree with the plain truth of the preceding paragraph. ”

You are right. You don’t understand. You are trying to make sense of the news stories that are reporting on someone’s critique of a film maker’s edited interview with Pope Francis. Obviously you have the Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome*. It is not uncommon for those who rush to judgement to render a verdict of “plain truth” when it is just a false conclusion on their part with only partial or hearsay evidence. If you want to find out the truth of what the Pope meant by his words presented by a film maker, then I suggest you ask Pope Francis himself for clarification. Not like the ECF’s or the apostles who cannot clarify their words personally to you, he is still living, breathing, and able to answer any direct questions you may have.

*scottericalt.com You’ll find Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome listed in “Categories” down the right hand column of his web page.

Reply
1. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 23, 2020 at 3:12 pm
  
  Nick,
  
  Per Wikipedia:
  
  “A civil union (also known as a civil partnership) is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, created primarily as a means to provide recognition in law for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant most or all of the rights of marriage except the title itself.”
  
  …except the title itself. Everyone knows this. Universally. You are pretending that you (and the Pope) don’t know this. Yes, pretending. You do it here…
  
  “Pope Francis made the distinction between homoSEXUAL marriage and civil unions.”
  
  …and here…
  
  “The definition of a civil union does not require a sexual relationship.”
  
  …and here…
  
  “the United States government has legalized same-sex marriage, not just civil unions.”
  
  You have wrapped yourself in a fantasy.
  
  Do you know what happens if you ask if heterosexual couples if their unions are sexual? They say they are. Do you know what happens if you ask gay couples if their civil unions are sexual? They say they are. Why? Because civil unions are equivalent to marriage, except in name only.
  
  What are the justification given for civil unions? Because gay people should be allowed to freely love each other. They don’t mean this platonically. Have you ever asked yourself why they needed financial benefits in order to love each other? Of course the answer to this is obvious: because civil unions are equivalent to marriage, except in name only.
  
  In California the very idea that gays unions can or should be explicitly non-sexual is considered bigotry and outlawed. Do you see gay rights activists calling the Pope’s comments bigotry? Nope. But they called Cardinal Burke a bigot. Do you think Cardinal Burke is a bigot?
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 23, 2020 at 4:16 pm
    
    DR–
    As a Roman Catholic, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Like I said before, if he had made it a doctrinal statement in an encyclical or a papal bull, that would be a different story.
    So I take it you have not spoken directly with Pope Francis about what he meant. Have you at least spoken to the film maker to release the interview in its entirety so that we can at least get the context of the Pope’s statements? A lot can be lost in translation. I suppose you realize by now that you are accusing the Pope of saying something based upon 3rd or 4th hand information which may or may not be entirely accurate.
    Is that how you would liked to be judged, by that same measure?
    
    Reply
2. Derek Ramsey says:
  
  October 23, 2020 at 3:27 pm
  
  Nick,
  
  Here are some snippets from Cardinal Burke’s statement regarding the Pope’s statement:
  
  “The particular and sometimes deep-seated tendencies of persons, men and women, in the homosexual condition, which are for them a trial, although they may not in themselves constitute a sin, represent nonetheless an objectively disordered inclination.”
  
  “They are, therefore, to be received with respect, compassion and sensitivity, avoiding any unjust discrimination. The Catholic faith teaches the faithful to hate sin but to love the sinner.”
  
  “The faithful, and, in particular, Catholic politicians are held to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions. The right to form a family is not a private right to vindicate but must correspond to the plan of the Creator who has willed the human being in sexual difference, “male and female He created them.””
  
  “Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good. To speak of a homosexual union, in the same sense as the conjugal union of the married, is, in fact, profoundly misleading, because there can be no such union between persons of the same sex.”
  
  (emphasis added)
  
  Peace,
  DR
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 23, 2020 at 4:30 pm
    
    “To speak of a homosexual union, in the same sense as the conjugal union of the married, is, in fact, profoundly misleading, because there can be no such union between persons of the same sex.”
    
    Like I have said, Pope Francis made the same distinction.
    
    Reply
  2. Nick Broom says:
    
    October 23, 2020 at 4:42 pm
    
    DR–
    And I guess you did not also see Cardinal Burke’s statement:
    “First of all, the context and the occasion of such declarations make them devoid of any magisterial weight. They are rightly interpreted as simple private opinions of the person who made them. These declarations do not bind, in any manner, the consciences of the faithful who are rather obliged to adhere with religious submission to what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the ordinary Magisterium of the Church teach on the matter in question.”
    Or did you deliberately leave that out?
    Tsk Tsk.
    
    Reply
Nick Broom says:

October 23, 2020 at 12:07 pm

By the way, the United States government has legalized same-sex marriage, not just civil unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 23, 2020 at 9:23 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment and your desire to clear up the confusion, although I think that even your hypothetical Martian would have figured out that the only claim in that sentence was clearly identified in quotation marks.

You said:
“Phil said,
“I understand now that you “have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering)”. … On the other hand, I hope that you understand also that I have never made THAT CLAIM either. Are we clear on that?”
I would like very much to be clear on that. When you say, that you “have never made THAT CLAIM either,” what claim is it that you have never made?”
Since you were not able to identify it on your own, I am going to restate it for you literally. And, in order that you may take me seriously and understand that I am not mimicking you, I am adding a clarifying word as emphasis: “I have never claimed that the Lord’s Supper is EXCLUSIVELY a thanksgiving sacrifice (or offering)”. That’s the best I can do and I hope that it is an answer clear enough for you.

I would also point out to you on Dr. Averbeck’s article that he clearly points out in his analysis of the different types of OT sacrifices that they often overlap with one another. I find this also to be very relevant. Don’t you?

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

October 29, 2020 at 10:27 pm

Hi Betty,
This is Phil and while I am waiting for an answer to my Scriptural questions to Timothy and Derek I am wondering why I haven’t heard from you. I hope that you have not been banned from the blog for “cognitive dissonance” when it is Timothy and Derek who are the masters at it under the name of “irrelevancy”.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  October 30, 2020 at 1:11 pm
  
  No I am fine Phil and very much appreciate Timothy allowing me to post. Actually was glad everyone seemed to be taking a little breather. People need to be spending some quality time with their families. Was hoping Derek would try to address the post Nick pasted
  
  Reply
  1. Derek Ramsey says:
    
    November 4, 2020 at 9:48 pm
    
    Betty,
    
    ” Was hoping Derek would try to address the post Nick pasted”
    
    I am taking an extended hiatus away from most internet forums. I’m not sure when I will return, but I’ve bookmarked the outstanding comments awaiting my reply.
    
    Peace,
    DR
    
    Reply
Betty says:

November 5, 2020 at 7:51 am

Derek, will anxiously await your response to the quotes Nick posted from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenæus. I actually was just going to draw your attention to what appears to be another glaring flaw in Timothy’s article concerning his analysis of Justin Martyr and the Eucharistic Tithe, the Apostoilc Amen And then the consecration. I don’t think that this has been brought up but Timothy points out the tithe given by the wealthy to support the orphans and widows, the sick, those in need etc. The problem is that if you look at Justin’s Apology chapter 66, 67 the giving of the tithe twice is stated to occur after the consecration, not before the consecration. Nick maybe you could copy and paste those two chapters. Yes Praise and Thanksgiving is given before the consecration but not the giving of the tithe by the wealthy. Nick and Phil, would you agree?

Reply
1. Phil Sanz says:
  
  November 7, 2020 at 10:13 pm
  
  Hi Betty,
  You are right. They have a problem accepting the Last Supper as the institution of the New Covenant and that is why they consistently separate it from Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Rod Bennett in his book “FOUR WITNESSES (The Early Church in Her Own Words) Ignatius Press referring to Justin Martyr’s position on the Lord’s Supper makes the following quote on pg. 191 (footnote 46)
  ‘As testimony to this, Protestant Church historian Phillip Schaff wrote this words: “The Lord’s Supper was universally regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice, the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superceding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt” (History of the Christian Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1944], 2:245).’
  I hope that, after his hyatus, Derek answers your questions, and Nick’s as well as mine. I doubt that Timothy will bother to answer at all.
  God bless you.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

November 9, 2020 at 12:26 pm

I agree Phil, when you look at those quotes Nick posted from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenæus concerning the sacrifice prophesy found in Malachi it’s obvious that Schaff is correct. I am sure Timothy will respond but not by simply quoting the Church Fathers. Instead he will have to take snippets of their writings and with some mental gymnastics come up with a defense. But we will see. I found another flaw in his analysis of the Didache .

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  November 10, 2020 at 4:54 pm
  
  Justin Martyr First Apology
  Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
  And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
  
  Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
  And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
  
  Sorry, I’ve been out of town for quite some time and not really in front of a computer for any length of time.
  Betty, it seems to me what Justin is saying about the tithe is the actual distribution of it to the poor from the wealthy, not the giving of thanks (Eucharist) over it. The way I read it is that the wealthy give the tithe for consecration and then it is distributed to the poor in the consecrated condition.
  Phil, it would seem that both Derek and Timothy have not had their eyes opened by the breaking of the bread–Christ is only a memory to them when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. To them Christ is not present in the Eucharist. That is why they have to go to such great lengths to explain it away just as did John Calvin.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    November 12, 2020 at 12:08 pm
    
    Also Phil–
    Timothy says in the introduction of this blog “I am a former Roman Catholic, and now I am a believer in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. I was once a follower of the visions of Mary at Fatima, Guadalupe and Lourdes, among others, but I no longer believe those visions were from God. My passion is to warn Christ’s sheep of the danger of Roman Catholicism, and to equip them to defend the faith and refute Rome’s many errors.”
    
    And therein lies Tim’s difficulty. When he said “those visions were from God”, it appears he did once believe that Mary was God, which in itself is his error and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is a good thing that he now no longer believes those visions were from God. And since the faithful are not required to believe any private revelation from Mary, even approved ones, it only reinforces the teaching that Mary is not God. So, at least in that case, Tim’s passion to warn Christ’s sheep of the danger of Roman Catholicism is a warning of the errors of a strawman of his own creation. Most likely this tendency toward false beliefs clouds his judgment.
    This being the case, I would certainly take what he says with a grain of salt.
    
    Reply
Betty says:

November 11, 2020 at 6:17 am

Thanks Nick for posting those two chapters. What I read is two descriptions of the Mass, And in both instance the wealthy contributing occurs after the distribution of the consecrated bread and wine mixed with water. The chapter notation and description of the chapter would not have been present in the original text and I believe Timothy would agree. I don’t see any consecration of the Tithe given by the wealthy mentioned. The distribution by the deacons to those not present is a distribution of the consecrated bread and wine, no evidence that it is a distribution of the tithe. At Mass when we take communion we don’t look at it as if we are consuming our tithe meant for support of the ministry or the poor. Note in Justin Martyr’s account, he doesn’t say the wealthy give the Tithe and then we give praise and thanksgiving over it and consecrate it. In fact in his specific description of Sunday worship note the mention of the wealthy giving comes after the Amen, not before. I’m not sure how Timothy explains his “Eucharistic tithe” being given after the Amen in Justin’s description. And I believe you would agree with me that Amen is the Amen we say after the consecration of the bread and wine.
I am not sure which if any Protestant groups take bread and wine (or grape juice) to those not present at the communion service. Do you know?

Reply
Nick Broom says:

November 11, 2020 at 9:24 am

Betty said “I am not sure which if any Protestant groups take bread and wine (or grape juice) to those not present at the communion service. Do you know?”

If they do I have never witnessed it. But there is a provision for it:
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/can-i-worship-and-have-communion-at-home-by-myself-3/

It seems to me to be like the Last Rites communion…sort of…more like communion in the home or hospital instead of in church……maybe?

Reply
Betty says:

November 11, 2020 at 10:14 am

Thanks Nick. I guess I should have made the distinction between taking communion from a communal service in church for the homebound rather then having a service in your home. The author of the article speaks on communion as symbolic and not efficacious which would seem to be the reason most Protestants I would guess don’t take their communion to the homebound. Obviously this does not appear to be the practice of the early church as Justin mentions the deacons taking the Eucharist to those who are absent twice. But I think it’s interesting that the tithe given by the wealthy appears to be given after the consecration at Justin’s time. Or are we to believe there was a tithe given by the average church giver and then a later tithe given by the wealthy?

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 12, 2020 at 6:32 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comment.

You said:
“I agree Phil, … analysis of the Didache.”
You seem confident that both Timothy and Derek will answer you. I am not as confident as you about Timothy and I consider Derek more likely to answer us. Of course, you are correct in saying that if Timothy answers he will use some “mental gymnastics”. You are doing a good job and should be prepared for that.

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 12, 2020 at 7:30 pm

Hi Nick,
Thank you for your comments.

You said:
“Also Phil- Timothy says … with a grain of salt.”
Nick, you are correct in your assessment that “Tim’s passion to warn Christ’s sheep of the danger of Roman Catholicism is a warning of the errors of a strawman of his own creation.” Yes, Timothy’s narrative, and the arguments he uses to prove his point, is full of holes. I like to focus only on one point at a time and right here I find myself with such a rich smorgasbord to chose from, that it is very hard for me to choose.
This is exactly the reason why both he and Derek considered Dr. Averbeck’s article irrelevant in order to avoid having to face the issue. They cannot accept the witness of Scripture telling us that Jesus’ celebrated the Passover Meal (a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt to establish the Old Covenant) with His disciples and clearly told them about the “New Covenant in my blood” Luke 22:20. Therefore, I agree with you, that’s why they are so insistent in separating the Last Supper from His sacrifice on the Cross. Not all Protestants are that blind, though, as attested by the quote I gave Betty from Church historian Phillip Schaff.

Keep up the good work and God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 13, 2020 at 9:50 am
  
  Phil, I am puzzled by your statement,
  
  “[Tim] cannot accept the witness of Scripture telling us that Jesus’ celebrated the Passover Meal (a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt to establish the Old Covenant) with His disciples and clearly told them about the “New Covenant in my blood” Luke 22:20.”
  
  In fact, I do accept the witness of Scripture telling us that Jesus’ celebrated the Passover Meal with His disciples, since the Scripture plainly attests to it. If you have any evidence that I have ever refused to accept that, just let me know and I will be happy to correct it.
  
  In fact, I do accept the witness of Scripture telling us that the Passover is a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt, since the Scripture plainly attests to it. If you have any evidence that I have ever refused to accept that, just let me know and I will be happy to correct it.
  
  I do accept the witness of Scripture telling us that Jesus clearly told His disciples about the “New Covenant in my blood”, since the Scriptures plainly attest to it. If you have any evidence that I have ever refused to accept that, just let me know and I will be happy to correct it.
  
  What I do not accept, since the Scriptures do not teach it, is your claim that the passover meal is “a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt to establish the Old Covenant“.
  
  Would you mind pointing me to the Scriptures where the Passover sacrificial memorial celebration establishes the Old Covenant?
  
  Thank you.
  
  Reply
2. Nick Broom says:
  
  November 15, 2020 at 6:52 pm
  
  Thanks, Phil.
  The Last Supper was indeed the establishment of the sacramental celebration of the New Covenant in His blood which was poured out the next day on the Cross just as Jesus said it would. The sacrifice on the Cross and the Body and Blood of the sacrament of the Last Supper are one and the same–Jesus Christ. The Blessed Sacrament is how we connect with His sacrifice.
  One bread, one body, one Lord of all
  One cup of blessing which we bless
  And we, though many, throughout the earth
  We are one body in this one Lord.
  There is no separation.
  
  Reply
  1. Phil Sanz says:
    
    November 15, 2020 at 10:46 pm
    
    Hi Nick,
    Thank you for your comment and support. I was wrong in thinking that Timothy was not going to answer. He did it in his own way (with “mental gymnastics” as Betty put it) and I called him on that. We will have to wait to see what he has to say.
    God bless you.
    
    Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 14, 2020 at 3:44 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for the clarification on your thoughts about the Passover meal being “a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt”. There should not be any question that we are in complete agreement on this point.

Then you said:
“What I do not accept, since the Scriptures do not teach it, is your claim that the passover meal is “a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt TO ESTABLISH THE OLD COVENANT“. (emphasis yours)

And you asked me:

“Would you mind pointing me to the Scriptures where the Passover sacrificial memorial celebration ESTABLISHES the Old Covenant?”
The “Passover sacrificial memorial celebration” does not ESTABLISH THE OLD COVENANT. Those are your words. What I said is that “God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt” was “to establish the Old Covenant”. The celebration is about the purpose of God’ action (salvation, redemption, rescuing, etc…) from Egypt’s oppression so “that they may hold a feast for me in the wilderness”. Exodus 5:1 The celebration does not
ESTABLISH the Covenant (that is God’s doing).

The Passover was not just a one-stand overnight but the beginning of a journey: “your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand;” Exodus 12:11 That was God’s main purpose for Israel’s delivery from Egypt: to establish the Covenant at Sinai with His ransomed people as the first step and then to take them to the Promised Land, “a land flowing with milk and honey” Exodus 3:8.

First, in Exodus 3:12 ‘when you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain.’ This was the ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OLD COVENANT. Exodus 19-20

Then, in Exodus 13:8-10 “And you shall tell your son on that day, ‘it is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the LAW OF THE LORD (emphasis mine ) may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the Lord has brought you out of Egypt. You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.’

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 14, 2020 at 5:43 pm
  
  Thank you, Phil.
  
  You wrote, “They cannot accept the witness of Scripture telling us that Jesus’ celebrated the Passover Meal (a sacrificial memorial celebration of God’s salvation of Israel from Egypt to establish the Old Covenant) with His disciples and clearly told them about the “New Covenant in my blood” Luke 22:20.”
  
  I am probably missing your point. Since I can and do accept the witness of Scripture that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples and told them about the New Covenant, it would seem that your premise for the following sentence is wrong: “that’s why they are so insistent in separating the Last Supper from His sacrifice on the Cross.”
  
  Would you mind restating your position without misstating mine?
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 15, 2020 at 10:36 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your prompt comment. I guess that I was wrong thinking that you were not going to answer any of our comments. Of course, you still have not provided an answer to either Nick’s or Betty’s concerns. Derek, at least, was polite enough to ask for a hiatus from it.

You said:
“You wrote, “They … without misstating mine?”
I don’t mind. That was just my comment to Nick about my perception up to that point of a common Protestant attitude towards the Lord’s Supper (if the shoe fits …). It was not a premise to any argument with Nick, because my assumption was that he was in agreement with me on that point. Since then, you have made it clear that your position is that the Last Supper of the Lord with his disciples was a Passover meal (memorial and sacrificial) where He instituted the New Covenant. I fully understand that such is your claim and, therefore, that it does not conflict with your axiomatic principle. Am I correct so far? Well, that is my position, too, and I never intended to misstate yours any more than I would appreciate your misstating mine.

Where we have the disagreement is over the interpretation I had made of 1 Cor 5:7 as a reference to “Jesus as our “Passover sacrifice.” You disagreed with my interpretation as irrelevant, even after I quoted for you from the article that Nick had sent to us. Here are the very words from the Evangelical Dr. Averbeck: “There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New testament . However, the most CERTAIN (emphasis mine) of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”
Now, here is my question to you, since you CAN and DO agree that “Christ is our Passover Lamb” somehow sacrificed and memorialized at the Lord’s Supper, why did you disagree with me and Dr. Averbeck’s interpretation of 1Cor 5:7 since it should not be a contradiction of your axiomatic principle?.
Our interpretation should be as scripturally valid as yours. Shouldn’t it be?

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 16, 2020 at 8:10 am
  
  Phil, I have never agreed that Christ is somehow sacrificed and memorialized at the Lord’s Supper.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 16, 2020 at 8:36 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. I realize now how my statement allows for a different interpretation than I intended. I am sorry for my carelessness and I understand your response even though you did not answer my question.

You said:
“Phil, I have never agreed that Christ is somehow sacrificed and memorialized at the Lord’s Supper.”
I see now the ambiguity of my statement and I already have apologized for it to you. I am not interested in promoting division but rather in getting a better understanding of our agreements and disagreements. The purpose of my request is to know the reason for your disagreement “with me and Dr. Averbeck’s interpretation of 1Cor 5:7 as a “reference(s) to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice”. Plain and simple: Why did you disagree with our interpretation?

God bless you.

P.S. Are you planning to give an answer to Betty and Nick?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 17, 2020 at 3:09 pm
  
  Phil, I don’t understand your question. You wrote,
  
  The purpose of my request is to know the reason for your disagreement “with me and Dr. Averbeck’s interpretation of 1Cor 5:7 as a “reference(s) to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice”.
  
  To my knowledge, that has never been a point of disagreement and I have never denied it. 1 Corinthians 5:7 says “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”. Christ is our passover and He has been sacrificed for us.
  
  My first response to you was that “Paul has merely stated that because Christ has offered himself for us, we ought to live lives honorably and “not to company with fornicators” (1 Corinthians 5:9). It seems to me that Dr. Averbeck arrives at the same conclusion:
  
  Jesus as our “Passover sacrifice.” There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New Testament. However, the most certain of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” In the context Paul uses this to rebuke the Corinthians for not removing an evil man from their church fellowship. The Passover sacrifice was associated with the removal of leaven from every Jewish household (see Exod 12:15-20 ; and cf. Mishnah Pesahim 1-3). Therefore, the leaven image could be used to refer to the polluting effect of one evil person in the midst of the congregation. Since Christ has already been sacrificed it was certainly time now to get rid of the leaven.
  
  1 Corinthians 5:7 is an exortation to purity, not a treatise on the Lord’s Supper.
  
  Your first observation on the passage was:
  
  Paul tells the Corinthians that “Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” 1Cor 5:7. This clearly ties up the Last Supper to His sacrifice on the Cross.
  
  And yet, Dr. Averbeck does not say that 1 Cor 5:7 is a reference to the Last Supper. Why do you think he supports your position?
  
  Reply
2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 17, 2020 at 3:22 pm
  
  Phil, you asked, “Are you planning to give an answer to Betty and Nick?” Nick and Betty have not specifically asked anything of me. I will be happy to answer questions, but their last comments and questions were to each other on their own interpretation of various topics. E.g., “It seems to me to be like the Last Rites communion…sort of…more like communion in the home or hospital instead of in church……maybe?” and “I don’t see any consecration of the Tithe given by the wealthy mentioned.”
  
  Was that a question for me?
  
  Betty, what is your question to me?
  
  Nick, what is your question to me?
  
  Tim
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

November 17, 2020 at 1:10 pm

Phil–
Timothy’s silence has answered my question, unless you are talking about a different question…?

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  November 17, 2020 at 4:32 pm
  
  Timothy–
  My last question to you was:
  I would assume by your position in this blog that you, Timothy, would not like the Roman Catholic Church to be in control of the United States civil government, am I right?
  
  Reply
  1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
    
    November 17, 2020 at 4:46 pm
    
    Oh, I see. In that email, you concluded with this:
    
    You are trying to make sense of the news stories that are reporting on someone’s critique of a film maker’s edited interview with Pope Francis. Obviously you have the Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome*. It is not uncommon for those who rush to judgement to render a verdict of “plain truth” when it is just a false conclusion on their part with only partial or hearsay evidence. If you want to find out the truth of what the Pope meant by his words presented by a film maker, then I suggest you ask Pope Francis himself for clarification. Not like the ECF’s or the apostles who cannot clarify their words personally to you, he is still living, breathing, and able to answer any direct questions you may have.
    
    Because you dismissed my observations as a “false conclusion … with only partial or hearsay evidence” yet you confidently asserted based on exactly the same evidence that you knew that Francis was only requesting “for civil governments to protect against UNJUST discrimination” I simply understood your question as rhetorical.
    
    In any case, I would not like the Roman Catholic Church to be in control of the United States civil government.
    
    Anyway,
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      November 18, 2020 at 12:03 pm
      
      I figured as much. That is why I said your silence was your answer.
      
      Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 17, 2020 at 9:20 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. I understand that you agree that “Christ is our passover and He has been sacrificed for us” and that “1 Corinthians 5:7 is an exhortation to purity, not a treatise on the Lord’s Supper.” I will take “a treatise on the Lord’s Supper” as an exaggeration on your part and not a “misstatement” because I never said that. What I said is that it was a “reference to the Last Supper”.

You said:
“Phil, I don’t understand … supports your position?”
This is what Dr. Averbeck says (emphasis mine): “Jesus as our “Passover sacrifice.” There are many possible REFERENCES to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New Testament. However, the most CERTAIN of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Corinthians 5:7“.
Why was the people exhorted to purity during the celebration of the feast of the “Unleaven Bread’ (Exodus 13:3-10)? Because of the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb carried out in the first day and consumed with unleaven bread at the Passover Meal on the second day, the most important part of this OT feast. This clearly ties up the Last Supper (Passover Meal) to His sacrifice on the Cross and His resurrection on the “Lord’s Day” NT all within the span of the seven days of the feast.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 18, 2020 at 7:41 am
  
  Phil, I’m still not understanding. Why do you capitalize “reference” and “certain” in your citation? Typically when such an emphasis is made it is to make a point or correct an assumption. Since I have already acknowledged that 1 Cor 5:7 is certainly a reference to Jesus as our passover sacrifice (in fact I acknowledged that before you introduced Dr. Averbeck), I do not understand why you are emphasizing those two words. 1 Cor 5:7 is certainly a reference to Christ as our passover sacrifice, not because of anything you, I or Dr. Averbeck say, but because that is what 1 Cor 5:7 actually says. Since it has never been disputed among us that 1 Cor 5:7 refers to Jesus as our passover sacrifice, what do you intend by emphasizing those two words? It seems to me that you are continually attempting to prove from Averbeck what is plainly obvious from the text: that Jesus is the passover lamb. But isn’t the text on its own sufficient to show that?
  
  Sorry to be obtuse. I just don’t understand what you are arguing about.
  
  Reply
nick Broom says:

November 18, 2020 at 12:15 pm

Phil–
I also am having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make. There is no doubt the Last Supper and the Cross are connected in the fulfillment of the Passover. Everyone here, including Tim and DR, understand that. Is there something specific about that connection that you believe Tim denies?

Reply
Betty says:

November 18, 2020 at 5:35 pm

Maybe i’m missing the point but if Christ is our Passover sacrifice as we apparently all agree the Passover meal was not completed until the Passover sacrifice was eaten. Timothy’s position is Christ is our Passover sacrifice in the New Covenant but we don’t consume the sacrifice.
I thought Timothy you might respond to the three quotes from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenæus posted by Nick linking the sacrifice of Malachi with the breaking of the bread, the Lord’s supper, the consecrated bread and wine, ie the body and blood of Christ. I was hoping you could just post some quotes from the Church Fathers without any explanation that demonstrate that it is the tithe that was the sacrifice predicted by Malachi. Nick’s post was on Oct 16, 2020 at 12:18 PM. There were other points I made sine that post but we can deal with those later. Glad to see you are OK.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 19, 2020 at 11:41 am
  
  Thank you, Betty. If “the Passover meal was not completed until the Passover sacrifice was eaten,” why do you suppose the Gospels have the Last Supper taking place only after the Passover Supper was already over?
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    November 19, 2020 at 2:45 pm
    
    Timothy–
    Yes, you are being obtuse. The Passover meal was Jesus’s last supper before the Cross. That’s why it is called “the Last Supper”. The institution of the sacrament of the Body and Blood was a part of his last supper, not after it. (Mat26:26, Mar14:22 notice the bible says “while they were eating”) The Cup of Blessing was only the third cup of the four required to complete the seder. Jesus instituted the sacrament as a replacement of Himself instead of the Passover sacrificed lamb. That is why Christ is called the Lamb of God.
    Revelation 5:6: “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain…”
    Even in your own Sunday service you say:
    “The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest, took bread,
    and after giving thanks to God,
    he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
    Take, eat.
    This is my body, given for you.
    Do this in remembrance of me.
    In the same way he took the cup, saying:
    This cup is the new covenant sealed in my blood,
    shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.
    Whenever you drink it,
    do this in remembrance of me. ”
    The difference is Christ is there for you only symbolically. For us, Christ is really present.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      November 19, 2020 at 3:35 pm
      
      Nick,
      
      The scripture does not call it His Last Supper, though I understand how it came to be called that, since He did continue eating after the Passover Supper was over. John 13:2 says “supper being ended”. And then after supper, there is a discussion with the disciples about who is going to betray Him and that occurs as they are eating, but what they are eating is not “the supper” because the supper was over. It’s that meal that takes place after the Passover Supper that ended up being called the Lord’s Supper, or what we now call Communion. Luke says that Jesus did not say of the cup, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” until “after supper.” Which Supper would that be?
      
      The conversation we are having is that “the new testament in my blood” (as cited by Phil) must refer to the Passover Sacrifice, but Betty, thinking the bread and wine of the Last Supper were eaten as part of the Passover Supper, says,
      
      “the Passover meal was not completed until the Passover sacrifice was eaten.”
      
      But the Scripture says Jesus did not say of the cup “this is the new testament in my blood” until after the Passover Supper was over (and indeed after they had already eaten the passover lamb), and thus, the Passover Lamb had already been eaten. In what way, therefore, is Jesus’ statement “This cup is the new testament in my blood” Luke 22:20 in reference to the Passover Sacrifice if the Passover meal was already completed and therefore the Passover sacrifice already eaten?
      
      It’s a reasonable question. Betty had assumed that the bread and wine were the Passover Sacrifice because they were eaten during the Passover Supper, and the Passover Supper is not over until the Passover sacrifice has been eaten. But the Scripture says Jesus and the Apostles did not eat and drink them until after the Passover Supper was already over. Doesn’t that undermine Betty’s argument? She was claiming that the consecrated bread and wine must be the Passover Lamb because the passover meal is not complete until the passover sacrifice has been eaten. Well, if the bread and wine were not eaten until after the Supper, what becomes of Betty’s argument?
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        November 19, 2020 at 8:14 pm
        
        Timothy, you are the master of misdirection and misrepresenting what others have said. I never implied or said that the “bread and wine were the Passover Sacrifice because they were eaten during the Passover supper”. In fact, given the bread and wine are associated with the Passover meal of the New Covenant I specifically wrote this “immediately after celebrating the Passover meal of the Old Covenant.” So Timothy, pick a better time for Christ “our Paschal lamb” to have established the Lord’s supper. It was your question to begin with.
        And i’m still waiting for those quotes from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus on the prophesy of Malachi. No commentary, just quotes.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        November 20, 2020 at 10:04 am
        
        Betty on 11/19/2020: “I never implied or said that the “bread and wine were the Passover Sacrifice because they were eaten during the Passover supper”.
        
        Betty on 11/18/2020: “if Christ is our Passover sacrifice as we apparently all agree the Passover meal was not completed until the Passover sacrifice was eaten.”
        
        Betty said on 11/18 that the Passover meal is not complete until the Passover sacrifice is eaten. Well, on the night before He died, Jesus did not institute and administer the Lord’s Supper until after the passover supper was complete. Thus, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are not the passover sacrifice. It’s pretty straightforward, Betty. But now you have changed your story to have a second passover meal immediately following the passover meal that had just ended. The misdirection and misrepresentation originates with you, Betty. I have simply reported to you what the Scripture says.
        
        The Douay Rheims says Jesus washed the disciples’ feet “when supper was done” (John 13:2) and then started talking about betrayal when they were eating bread and wine after the supper. The Scripture nowhere says that after the passover lamb had been sacrificed and Jesus and his disciples at the passover sacrifice and the passover sacrifice was over, Jesus celebrated the passover supper again. I know you very much wish it did say that, but it does not.
        
        Nick also opines,
        
        “
        
        The institution of the sacrament of the Body and Blood was a part of his last supper, not after it. (Mat26:26, Mar14:22 notice the bible says “while they were eating”)
        
        The institution of the sacrament of the body and blood took place after the passover supper was ended. That’s what the Scripture says. He celebrated the Passover Supper. The Supper Ended. Then Jesus washed the disciples feet. Then they ate some bread and wine after the supper. Jesus took bread after the supper and blessed it. Jesus likewise after the supper took wine (Luke 22:20). Yes, all this was done while they were eating. But they were eating after the Passover Supper had ended. What Matthew 26:16 and Mark 14:22 do not say is “while they were eating the passover supper”. Can reason all you want that his “Last Supper” had not ended. That’s true. It was His last supper. But what you cannot say is that the Passover Supper had not ended. It clearly had.
        
        It is true that we call his last meal His Last Supper. But that’s just a traditional term. When the Scripture says the supper was over, it is referring to the Passover Supper. Only then did Jesus institute the sacrament of the bread and wine.
  2. Betty says:
    
    November 19, 2020 at 2:51 pm
    
    What more appropriate time would there have been to establish the Passover meal of the New Covenant immediately after celebrating the Passover meal of the Old Covenant? Luke 22:14 “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”. Timothy, would you not agree Christ was planning the Last Supper to follow the Passover meal?
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      November 20, 2020 at 12:40 pm
      
      Timothy, how convenient of you to leave out my distinction between the Passover of the Old Covenant and the Passover of the New Covenant which we celebrate today. Actually you use the same approach with the Church Fathers taking snippets of their comments to weave a scenario that supports your positions and just simply ignoring that which does not. Point to be made, still waiting for your quotes from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenæus. No commentary necessary. If you cannot provide quotes from those sources that show the tithe is the sacrifice prophesied in Malachi and negate the quotes we provided i’m afraid your complete series falls flat on it’s face.
      
      Reply
      1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        November 21, 2020 at 8:08 am
        
        Betty, When you asked Nick to post two chapters from Justin’s First Apology, you only asked him to post Chapters 66 and 67, even though Chapter 65 also addresses the Thank offering. Were you trying to hide something?
Phil Sanz says:

November 18, 2020 at 6:55 pm

Hi timothy,
Thank you for your comment.

You said:
“Phil, I’m not understanding. … what you are arguing about.”
Very simple. As I told you:
“This clearly ties up the Last Supper (Passover Meal) to His sacrifice on the Cross and His resurrection on the “Lord’s Day”. If this is not clear enough I will be happy to further clarify it for you.
Now, you shouldn’t have any trouble giving me your opinion about the question I had asked you and Derek since Scripture tells us that

“prior to being labeled EUCHRIST it was labeled BREAKING OF THE BREAD” Luke 24:35

That will go a long way to understand each other’s position.

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 18, 2020 at 7:05 pm

Hi Nick,
Thank you for your comment. I hope that my answer to Timothy clarifies for you the point I am trying to make. Derek, definitely, would not agree with your statement and I’ll wait for Timothy’s answer to see what he has to say about it.
God bless you.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

November 20, 2020 at 12:25 pm

Timothy–
You also opined:
“The institution of the sacrament of the body and blood took place after the passover supper was ended. That’s what the Scripture says. He celebrated the Passover Supper. The Supper Ended. Then Jesus washed the disciples feet. Then they ate some bread and wine after the supper. Jesus took bread after the supper and blessed it. ”

No, that’s not what Scripture says.
Scripture clearly says the bread was broken “while they were eating” meaning DURING the meal. Nowhere does it say Jesus took bread and broke it AFTER the meal:
Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
Also notice that Matthew and Mark both say “And as they were at table eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” John’s gospel gives no details of the Passover seder at all, nor does it say anything about the “Lord’s Supper” being after the seder is finished.
Only Luke 22:20 says that the cup is poured AFTER the meal. That makes sense because the Cup of Blessing is poured after they are finished eating the food, but the supper is not completed until the fourth cup (the Hillel) is poured.

Again you opined “Yes, all this was done while they were eating. But they were eating after the Passover Supper had ended. What Matthew 26:16 and Mark 14:22 do not say is “while they were eating the passover supper”. Can reason all you want that his “Last Supper” had not ended. That’s true. It was His last supper. But what you cannot say is that the Passover Supper had not ended. It clearly had.”

And yet nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Passover Supper had clearly ended” as you claim. What you are assuming is that the institution of the sacrament of the Body and Blood was a separate meal after the Passover seder. Scripture does not support that at all.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 20, 2020 at 12:49 pm
  
  Nick, what do you suppose the Scripture means when it says “the supper being ended” (John 13:2)?
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    November 20, 2020 at 3:33 pm
    
    Timothy–
    John 13:2 καὶ δείπνου γενομένου,(Kai ginomai deipnon), the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him…
    
    Correctly translated as “And during supper”, not “the supper being ended”. Young’s Literal translates it as “And supper being come…” Matches perfectly with the other Gospels.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      November 21, 2020 at 9:09 am
      
      Thank you, Nick. That helps me understand where you’re coming from, although if you harmonize the gospel accounts I don’t think your proposed translation can stand. The Passover Supper includes the consumption of the sacrificed lamb, none of which is mentioned in the gospel narratives, except to say that the day had arrived “when they killed the passover” (Mark 14:12) and “when the passover must be killed” (Luke 22:7). The supper would have included the eating of the passover lamb, although none of the gospels mention it. And thus, by the time we arrive at the institution narrative, the passover lamb has already been consumed. That much I think we can all agree on.
      
      Matt. 26:20, Mark 14:17 and Luke 22:14 all have Jesus sit down to eat and Luke provides even more details about distributing the cup to the disciples during the supper.
      
      John then interposes a footwashing between the supper and the betrayal narrative, and finally after the betrayal narrative, but before Judas departs, Jesus takes the bread and breaks it and distributes it and calls it His body, and then He takes the cup and gives it to the disciples to drink and calls it His blood:
      
      “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:27-28)
      
      Now according to Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 this (the distribution and consecration of the cup) took place after supper. It is after supper that Jesus instructs them to take and drink the cup of His blood. I think (perhaps) we can both agree on that, too.
      
      But you have said,
      
      Only Luke 22:20 says that the cup is poured AFTER the meal. That makes sense because the Cup of Blessing is poured after they are finished eating the food, but the supper is not completed until the fourth cup (the Hillel) is poured.
      
      How can the fourth cup be poured after the meal if the meal is not over until the fourth cup is poured? That doesn’t make sense to me.
      
      At best you can possibly say that the bread was broken, distributed and consecrated during the supper and the cup was poured, distributed and consecrated after the supper. But why would Jesus make the first part of communion part of the Passover Supper but the second part of communion after the supper. That seems strange to me, but it seems to me to be where you must end up based on your interpretation.
      
      Yes, γενομένου can mean “being come” but it also can mean “being accomplished” and “having happened” (past tense).
      
      If you take γενομένου to mean “being come” as in “was underway but was not complete,” you end up with the communion bread being part of the Passover supper but the cup not being part of the Passover supper. If you take γενομένου to mean “being accomplished,” the Lord institutes the sacrament after the Passover Supper was over. But in neither of these two possible scenarios are both the bread and wine of the sacrament instituted during the Passover Supper, which would seem to be necessary for the Roman Catholic interpretation. In any case, the Douay-Rheims says, “And when supper was done…” (John 13:2). I don’t deny that they continued eating after the supper. That was to be expected since the Passover Feast is immediately followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread. What I deny is that the communion narrative took place during the Passover Supper. It took place after.
      
      Well, anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        November 22, 2020 at 10:05 pm
        
        Timothy–
        You said: “How can the fourth cup be poured after the meal if the meal is not over until the fourth cup is poured? That doesn’t make sense to me.”
        
        If you will look at the Passover Supper as an entire rite, then you will understand it has different parts to the rite and not just the eating of food, separated into steps:
        https://www.dummies.com/education/holidays/the-haggadah-and-the-steps-of-a-seder/
Betty says:

November 21, 2020 at 8:52 pm

Unfortunately again cannot post under Timothy’s comment where he suggested I did not have Nick post chapter 65 of Justin’s First apology because I was trying to avoid discussing the “Thank offering”. Nick, could you post chapter 65 and we can see if there is any evidence that the tithe offering was the sacrifice that fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi?Then we could compare that quote with those you provided previously from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  November 22, 2020 at 10:10 pm
  
  Betty–
  Here ya go:
  Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
  But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    November 23, 2020 at 6:29 am
    
    Thanks Nick. I’m not sure what Timothy thinks I was hiding in this verse but we will see. I don’t see the tithe mentioned in this verse and I certainly don’t see the tithe being linked with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      November 23, 2020 at 9:34 am
      
      Betty, in chapter 65, what do you think Justin Martyr intended by placing the people’s prayers of thanks prior to the consecration as he clearly does in Chapter 65?
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        November 23, 2020 at 11:54 am
        
        Timothy, what makes you think Justin Martyr intended anything other then to describe the religious service. He didn’t “place the people’s prayer of thanks prior to the consecration”, that is what he witnessed. Now if you persist to claim the Eucharist is the tithe, I assume it is the wealthy , ie those who can afford to give who are giving the tithe and Chapter 67 twice suggests their giving occurs after the consecration.
      2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
        
        November 23, 2020 at 12:52 pm
        
        Thank you, Betty. When you say, “what makes you think Justin Martyr intended anything other then to describe the religious service” and “He didn’t ‘place the people’s prayer of thanks prior to the consecration’, that is what he witnessed,” I assume you mean that in Chapter 65, Justin is merely describing what he witnessed, and what he witnessed was the religious service during which people’s prayer occurs before the consecration. Am I right in that assumption?
Betty says:

November 21, 2020 at 9:18 pm

I came across at least in my opinion a very nice discussion of the “Passover -the meal” at differentspirit.org which gave me a much clearer understanding of the discussion Timothy and Nick are having. Timothy wants to distinguish apparently the main meal of bread, bitter herbs and roasted lamb as the Passover meal or supper while Nick is considering the Seder completely as the celebration of the Pasch. Timothy is excluding at least based on this article the third and fourth cup of wine of the Seder as well as eating the hidden Matza bread. And on further consideration I would have to agree with Nick Christ incorporated the “”Lord’s Supper” within the Seder celebration. But the best I can tell this whole discussion simply directs attention from the fact that Catholics believe we consume our Paschal lamb, ie Christ and most Protestants don’t believe.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 21, 2020 at 11:32 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comment and your reference.

You said:
“I came across … Protestants don’t believe.”
Both you and Nick are correct. Keep up the good work and may be Timothy will be open to accept somebody else’s views. I found your quote of the “Passover -the meal” very appropriate and something that Timothy may even read and consider. I hope so. I doubt that he would even bother with Dr. Brant Pitre’s book. After dancing around with the issue of the Last Supper and the Lord’s Supper he has finally admitted his position. Not even all Protestants agree with him as I showed you in my quote of Dr. Schaff and you did with your quote of differentspirit.org. His I-xgesis focuses on this or that word and ignores their context.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 22, 2020 at 7:15 am
  
  Phil, the link Betty provided says the New Testament omits the 4th cup. But Nick appears to believe the fourth cup is mentioned in Luke 22:20. How can that be? What is more, the Scripture says Jesus took the cup and said “This cup is the new testament in my blood” after the supper (Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25). How can his words of institution, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” be part of the Supper if Jesus did not give it and say it until after the Supper?
  
  You wrote, “Not even all Protestants agree with him…”. Of course they don’t, and I have highlighted that throughout my series of the Collapse of the Eucharist. Dr. Schaff was an Anglican who believed the Lord’s Supper was itself sacrificial in some way—something the early writers did not say. Dr. Schaff in that sense is very much like the Roman Catholic apologist who wishes the early writers affirmed his teaching but did not, and so has to retranslate and mistranslate the early writers to support him, as I have detailed in this series. I focus on this or word that word because the scholars like Schaff ignore content to mistranslate them to align with a presumed context and give the appearance of the early origins of the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper.
  
  So tell me: if Jesus did not say “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” until after the Supper, in what way was “This cup is the new testament in my blood” part of the Supper? That seems to be a reasonable question.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    November 22, 2020 at 1:20 pm
    
    Timothy , would you deny that the third and fourth cup were essential parts of the Passover meal? The mystery of “The Fourth Cup” is discussed on YouTube with Dr. Scott Hahn which I suspect relates to Nick’s previous comment.
    
    Reply
  2. Betty says:
    
    November 22, 2020 at 9:51 pm
    
    I don’t see where Nick believed that the fourth cup is mentioned in Luke 22:20. While speculative, I think Dr. Hahn’s suggestion that the fourth cup was the grape product Christ consumed after saying “I thirst “ on the cross is very interesting. Then Christ said “It is finished”. What was the name given to the fourth cup?
    I also find it fascinating Christ using the present tense “body which is given, blood “is shed for many” at the last supper. When did Christ’s sacrifice begin? Our Lord and Savior is telling us it began at the Last Supper. I’ve been meaning to ask our priest why the future tense is used at the consecration during Mass.
    
    Reply
  3. Nick Broom says:
    
    November 22, 2020 at 10:16 pm
    
    No, Tim, I do not believe the fourth cup is mentioned in Luke 22:20. You are reading something into my words that is not there. The cup of blessing is the third cup, not the fourth.
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      November 23, 2020 at 6:21 am
      
      Nick, I didn’t think you had mentioned the fourth cup related Luke 22:20. Interesting that the fourth cup is called the cup of completion which Dr Hahn connects with Christ’s death on the cross.as He said “”it is finished”. It was the fourth cup that Christ feared “Father, if thou be willing , remove this cup from me. “ The sacrifice on the cross started at the Last Supper when Christ’s body IS GIVEN, Christ’s blood IS SHED. The Passover meal that night ended on the cross as Christ said “I thirst” and drank from the Cup of Completion.
      
      Reply
    2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
      
      November 23, 2020 at 8:32 am
      
      Thank you, Nick. For the sake of clarity, then, would you please tell me what you meant by:
      
      “Only Luke 22:20 says that the cup is poured AFTER the meal. That makes sense because the Cup of Blessing is poured after they are finished eating the food, but the supper is not completed until the fourth cup (the Hillel) is poured.”
      
      Thank you.
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        November 23, 2020 at 11:22 am
        
        Timothy–
        The Cup of Blessing, mentioned in Luke’s Gospel is the third cup of Passover. The Cup of Completion (Hillel) is the fourth cup. I gave you an example of the order of the seder here:
        https://www.dummies.com/education/holidays/the-haggadah-and-the-steps-of-a-seder/
        Obviously since you come across as an educated man, I assumed you would know about the Jewish Passover feast. That is what I get for assuming. My bad.
Betty says:

November 22, 2020 at 6:34 am

Thanks Phil for your kind words . I had tried before on line to get a good explanation of the Passover meal but did not find it so clearly explained and that’s why I thought it might benefit the discussion., Thanks also for bringing up the Passover lamb discussion. The Catholic position of the real presence fits in so well with Augustine’s quote of how the New Testament reveals that that is hidden in the Old Testament. Beyond the Passover lamb we have in the Old Testament the miraculous manna from heaven. So the New Testament manna has to be even more miraculous and of course it is with the doctrine of the real presence. I’m not putting down the bread Protestants pray over and remember the Lord’s suffering but it would be hard to consider it miraculous. God bless you Phil.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 22, 2020 at 2:43 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. I will go ahead and address it even though you still have not answered my question about “the breaking of the bread.” Luke 24:35

You said:
“Phil, the link Betty provided says the New Testament omits the 4th cup. But Nick appears to believe the fourth cup is mentioned in Luke 22:20. How can that be? What is more, the Scripture says Jesus took the cup and said “This cup is the new testament in my blood” after the supper (Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25). How can his words of institution, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” be part of the Supper if Jesus did not give it and say it until after the Supper?”

I will answer this with your final question below.

Then you said:
“You wrote, “Not even all Protestants agree with him…”. Of course they don’t, and I have highlighted that throughout my series of the Collapse of the Eucharist. Dr. Schaff was an Anglican who believed the Lord’s Supper was itself sacrificial in some way—something the early writers did not say. Dr. Schaff in that sense is very much like the Roman Catholic apologist who wishes the early writers affirmed his teaching but did not, and so has to retranslate and mistranslate the early writers to support him, as I have detailed in this series. I focus on this or word that word because the scholars like Schaff ignore content to mistranslate them to align with a presumed context and give the appearance of the early origins of the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper.”
It appears that Dr. Schaff was Lutheran and not “Anglican” (ck. Wikipedia), but that is not relevant and I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill. “Scholars like Schaff” are respected and listened to because they are thorough in their research and put forward strong arguments in support of their statements; not because they “retranslate and mistranslate” … “this or that word”. This should be true when dealing with the early writers as well as when dealing with Scripture . I’m afraid that it is you and not the majority of scholars who is trying to manipulate the Word of God and its early witness in order “to observe your own tradition” Mark 7:9.

And your final question was:
“So tell me: if Jesus did not say “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” until after the Supper, in what way was “This cup is the new testament in my blood” part of the Supper? That seems to be a reasonable question.”
It is a reasonable question only when we have a clearly defined beginning and ending. If I say “I’ll have desert after supper”, is desert part of the supper or not?

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 23, 2020 at 9:27 am
  
  Thank you, Phil. You are right that Schaff was Lutheran, not Anglican. My mistake. Schaff was in fact worse than I represented because he believed that “God has assigned to me the mission of a mediator between German and Anglo-American theology and Christianity.” He considered himself to play a key role in the great cause of Christian unity and hoped Pope Leo XIII would facilitate it. In reality, Schaff sided with antichrist, and while he found the doctrine of infallibility to be unpalatable, he did not find the rest (the mass sacrifice, etc…) to be. And thus, Schaff had no interest in accurately reflecting the early liturgies and instead represented them as if they were consistent with the later novelty of treating the Lord’s Supper as if it was a sacrifice. Nevertheless, your are right that Schaff was Lutheran, not Anglican.
  
  You continued,
  
  “Scholars like Schaff” are respected and listened to because they are thorough in their research and put forward strong arguments in support of their statements”
  
  I understand that is what you are saying and what you believe. But it sounds rather silly to appeal to the authority of Schaff to disprove my position when my position is that men like Schaff are untrustworthy. I have shown repeatedly that Schaff and his many translators intentionally mistranslated, edited, redacted and in some cases rewrote the original liturgies, and for that reason they ought not be trusted. If Schaff’s trustworthiness is what is disputed, it is invalid to appeal to his trustworthiness.
  
  You have said that my “I-xgesis focuses on this or that word and ignores their context,” when in fact it is Schaff who has done this very thing. When Irenæus says “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly,” the context is the tithe offering, for Irenæus started the chapter talking about the oblation of the church is to “offer to God the first-fruits of His creation.” The two realities of Irenæus were simply the earthly reality of the tithed bread and the heavenly reality of offering it on a heavenly altar for God’s purposes to feed the poor.
  
  Yet in spite of that context, Schaff (and many other scholars, translators and apologists with him) assume the context is the Supper the followed the tithe, and therefore that he must have meant “invocation” instead of “summons”. He and many others with him, have assumed a context and then changed Irenæus’ words to fit that context. Disagree with me as you like, but don’t invoke Schaff’s ostensible “trustworthiness” as a defense against the charge that he was untrustworthy.
  
  That I am alone in that opinion, I do not deny. That the presumptive weight of scholarship and history would seem to be against me, I do not deny. That I am an untrained amateur theologian claiming that all the rest, at best, did not know what they were doing, and at worst, knew quite well what they were doing, I do not deny. All of this I am willing to stipulate and in fact, it is a gauntlet that I threw down at the beginning of this very topic:
  
  “The reader might well ask how it is possible that for well over a thousand years the scholars, translators, historians, and apologists have all overlooked this simple fact. How could they possibly miss something this obvious?
  
  The shocking truth is that that they did not overlook it at all, and knew very well that the liturgy of the early centuries was fundamentally different from the liturgy of the late 4th century and beyond.”
  
  I stand by that. Schaff was wrong. You concluded,
  
  “I’m afraid that it is you and not the majority of scholars who is trying to manipulate the Word of God and its early witness in order “to observe your own tradition” Mark 7:9.”
  
  That is quite a charge, Phil. All I have done is represent what the Scripture says (e.g., Jesus said “this is my blood” after the supper), and contextualized what the early writers were talking about (by their own words). Under no circumstances have I ever added words in the original text where I thought the early writers must have accidentally left one out (the scholars have done this), and under no circumstances have I ever crossed out a word and replaced it with another “more appropriate” word (the scholars have done this) and under no circumstances have I mistranslated a word because it was inconsistent with what I thought the early writer should have said (the scholars have done this). And yet, you accuse me of manipulating the early witness!
  
  Well, Phil, I stand accused. Where is your proof?
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

November 23, 2020 at 12:11 pm

Phil–
I am observing a misappropriation of words possibly. I am guilty of it as well sometimes. Tim is assuming that your word “manipulate” is meaning that he is actually changing the words of the texts he cites, which, I am guessing, is not what you meant. My guess is that He is giving his opinionated spin to manipulate the meaning, observing his own tradition, right?

Reply
Betty says:

November 23, 2020 at 2:51 pm

Nick, as I mentioned Timothy is a master at misdirection and avoiding answering questions that point out the weakness of his arguments. Any word has multiple meaning and therefor a translator will have to make a choice. Sometimes the original will make no sense as the quote from Irenaeus I hounded Tim to translate from the original Greek and he just ignored my request. Tim’s analysis are short on the original text and long on explanations as to what the Fathers really meant. He says he has “contextualized what the early writers where talking about (by their own words)”. Seriously? He acknowledges that he is an amateur and then claims the experts in these early languages are purposely adding phrases or mistranslating a passage . And since he knows more then the experts it’s silly to ask him to back up his opinions with any expert. That’s why I think the best approach is to simply print out as much as you can find from a particular Father to defend the Catholic opinion. The Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus quotes on the sacrifice prophesy from Malachi is a perfect example. Instead of posting quotes from the three sources we provided Tim asks me what I think Justin Martyr “intended by placing the people’s prayer of thanks prior to the consecration “. I would assume Justin intended to give an accurate description of the early Church worship service and when you start trying to speculate what he intended you have opened up a whole can of worms where I think is exactly where Timothy wants the discussion to go.
Timothy again I cannot reply under your question “Am I right in that assumption”. Tim, am I to assume that you meant what you wrote? What do you think Justin Martyr intended? And can you acknowledge you have no quotes to counter the quotes Nick and I provided on Malachi’s sacrificial prophesy from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.That acknowledgement would move us much further along in these discussions.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 23, 2020 at 4:22 pm
  
  Well, thank you, Betty. You have answered my question (albeit, indirectly). You wrote:
  
  “…Tim asks me what I think Justin Martyr “intended by placing the people’s prayer of thanks prior to the consecration “. I would assume Justin intended to give an accurate description of the early Church worship service…”
  
  I just wanted to hear you say that Justin intended to give an accurate description of the early church worship service.
  
  The reason Chapter 65 of Justin’s First Apology matters (though you initially left it out) is that Justin explains where the prayers of the people occur in the liturgy, and he describes them thusly:
  
  “we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.”
  
  As Betty says, Justin is just describing the prayers and thanksgivings of the “early Church worship service”.
  
  But Justin also describes that particular part of the Worship Service in Chapter 13 of the same Apology. He writes,
  
  “…worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons; and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ…”
  
  Here does two things of note: 1) he links providing for those who need as part of the Malachi prophesy (see Malachi 1:10), and 2) he includes the setting aide for the poor of “things wherewith we are supplied” as part of their “prayer and thanksgiving” which he describes in Chapter 65.
  
  And thus, the tithe offering is the fulfillment of the Malachi prophesy and was offered prior to the consecration in the liturgy.
  
  You continued,
  
  “He acknowledges that he is an amateur and then claims the experts in these early languages are purposely adding phrases or mistranslating a passage .
  
  Actually, this is what is so comically entertaining about your objections, Betty, and it shows that you are incapable of having a rationale conversation on this topic.
  
  On your first point, it is not I, but the translators themselves who have acknowledged that they changed the words. It was Migne who acknowledged that Irenæus wrote ecclesin in his original greek, but probably meant epiclesin. And it was the “experts” on Fermilian of Caesarea who acknowledged that “the word non is not in the manuscripts, but it seems to be generally agreed that the sense of the passage as a whole requires its insertion,” and it was the translator who could not find a reference to the Holy BODY of the Lord, and so took the liberty of inserting it into Cyprian’s treatise on “the Lapsed.” And it was Schaff who acknowledged that the original Greek in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2 was very different than the English translation included in his collection on the Fathers. All this evidence I have provided to you, and yet you say I “claim” the experts in these early languages are purposely adding phrases or mistranslating a passage. The experts claim that, Betty! Do try to pay attention.
  
  You continued,
  
  And since he knows more then the experts it’s silly to ask him to back up his opinions with any expert.”
  
  Well, I did not say it was silly to ask that. I said it was silly to appeal to Schaff’s trustworthiness when it is his trustworthiness that is in question. That’s just logic, and to appeal to an authority for his trustworthiness when his trustworthiness is in question is “begging the question.” But nevertheless, I don’t accept appeals to experts who have already confessed that they altered the evidence to fit their assumptions.
  
  In any case, In Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 3, the English is rendered:
  
  “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the INVOCATION of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly…”
  
  But it ought to be rendered,
  
  “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the SUMMONS of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly…”
  
  If it makes you feel better, John Keble rendered it “as Bread from the earth, receiving the SUMMONS of God, is no longer commen bread but an Eucharist composed of two things, both an earthly and a heavenly one…”, just as I said it ought to be. You can find Keble’s rendering on pg. 361 of A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, volume 42, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Col, (1872).
  
  Or, if you want to know what evidence I have compiled, you may consider reading my blog articles on the topic which are available here:
  
  https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2020/06/27/the-apostolic-amen/
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    November 29, 2020 at 12:07 pm
    
    Nick, still have not gotten a computer. Timothy criticized the translators for substituting invocation for summons from Irenaeus. Obviously you need to look at the entire paragraph to grasp his point so would you mind copying and pasting Irenaeus Against heresies, Book 4, chapter 18, paragraph 5. He wrote paragraph 3, but I think that was a mistake. What I find interesting is the paragraph supports the comment I couldn’t get Timothy to translate from Irenaeus where he felt the English from Latin from Greek translation was inaccurate. After you post the quote I would like your and Phil’s opinion.
    
    Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 23, 2020 at 8:35 pm

Hi Betty and Nick.
Thank you for your comments. I apologize for answering both of you together, I do not mean to get into your argument, but the common link here is Timothy and his I-xgesis. He has continued to avoid giving us a direct answer to our questions and spinning his own version in order to fit his opinion.

Nick, you are correct interpreting what I meant and in “observing a misappropriation of words”. Timothy has avoided the context of the Passover celebration and mixed up the meaning of words and concepts like “supper”, “meal”, “after” and “completed” (without clarification) in order to support his argument. He does the same thing with the early liturgies and the writings of the Fathers.

Betty, I like your expression of Timothy’s “mental gymnastics”. The use of the word Thanksgiving (Eucharist in Greek) goes well back in time to the Old Testament and it was not restricted exclusively to the “Tithe offerings”. Justin’s saying that the Last Supper celebration was called “Eucharist” at the time of his writing does not mean that it had always been called that by the Christian community. By the way, Justin’s description of the Eucharist liturgy in chapter 75 is for the newly baptized and should not be confused with the regular Sunday liturgy described in chapter 77.

I told Timothy and Derek that it was called “breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35 and Acts 2:42-46) by the original Christian community in Jerusalem. Timothy has not answered me yet even though I have asked him for it. Like his artificial separation of the “Suppers” he will probably try to spin his own answer.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 24, 2020 at 11:03 am
  
  Phil, Again your comments puzzle me. You wrote,
  
  “Betty, I like your expression of Timothy’s “mental gymnastics”. The use of the word Thanksgiving (Eucharist in Greek) goes well back in time to the Old Testament and it was not restricted exclusively to the “Tithe offerings”.”
  
  And yet, from the beginning I have acknowledged that Eucharist was not used exclusively to refer to the tithe offerings. How is that “mental gymnastics” for me to acknowledge plainly what is known to be true? The mental gymnastics are actually performed by those who deny that the Eucharist can (and often did) refer to the tithe offering. Cyprian saying that the oil used to anoint the believer came from the Eucharist, Hippolytus saying that the newly baptized are to bring their own Eucharist with them, and the Eucharist being deposited with the bishop for the help of strangers—all of which I have documented, and all of which are dismissed by the naysayers. Hippolytus says the Eucharist included an offering of cheese, oil and olives. Instead of embracing that truth, the Roman Catholic church history professor dismisses Hippolytus’ liturgy and attempts to strike if from the record. Now that is “mental gymnastics.”
  
  You continued,
  
  “Justin’s saying that the Last Supper celebration was called “Eucharist” at the time of his writing does not mean that it had always been called that by the Christian community.”
  
  That statement is evidence of your own mental gymnastics, for Justin at no point says that the Last Supper was called Eucharist. It is the same folly in which you engaged by insisting that 1 Corinthians 5:7 referred to the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper because it referred to the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. Even in the article you offered as proof, instead of acknowledging that 1 Cor 5:7 refers to the Lord’s Supper, Averbeck instead insisted that the context of 1 Cor 5:7 was church discipline.
  
  In any case here is what Justin said in First Apology 66:
  
  “And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”
  
  Where does Justin say that the Lord’s Supper is called “Eucharist”? He says this food (τροφήν) we call Eucharist (Εὐχαριστία) (66). Which food is that? The eucharisted (εὐχαριστηθεντος) bread and wine and water just mentioned (65). The translators say “over which thanksgiving was pronounced,” but in Greek it is just one word: εὐχαριστηθεντος, eucharisted. Justin then proceeds and says that food is called Eucharist of which only the believer may partake, and then describes how that Eucharisted Food becomes the body of Christ: “by the prayer of His word (δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) the eucharisted food (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν)” becomes the body and blood of Christ.
  
  If the bread and wine were already “eucharisted food” before the consecration, then Eucharist does not refer to the Lord’s Supper, but rather to the unconsecrated offerings before the Supper. So with Irenæus who wrote in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3, “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ”. Even Schaff acknowledges that this is what the original Greek actually says, rather than the faulty english translation upon which the Roman Catholic relies. When the consecration is spoken, that which had been up to then only Eucharist then becomes the body of Christ—the Lord’s Supper. Justin and Irenæus agree on that point. So no, you cannot simply assert that Eucharist refers to the Lord’s Supper. You actually have to look at the evidence and set aside your eisegesis, Phil.
  
  You continued,
  
  “By the way, Justin’s description of the Eucharist liturgy in chapter 65 is for the newly baptized and should not be confused with the regular Sunday liturgy described in chapter 67.”
  
  Well someone forgot to tell that to Justin. He explicitly states that the thanksgiving prayers to which he refers in 67 are the same as those he refers to in 65. He said in paragraph 65:
  
  “that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water” (65)
  
  And then in 67:
  
  “Then we all rise together and pray, and, AS WE BEFORE SAID, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings…” (67)
  
  What he is describing in 67 is the same prayers and thanksgivings he was describing in 65. He was not referring to a special baptismal liturgy in 65 and a regular liturgy in 67. In 65 he says that only those who are baptized and believe are eligible to participate in the regular liturgy, and the regular liturgy he describes in 65 is the same regular liturgy he describes in 67.
  
  Talk about mental gymnastics, Phil: trying to make Eucharist in 66 refer to the consecrated elements, and trying to make the descriptions of 65 and 67 different occasions and different liturgies? That was a nice try, though, but no less gymnastic for the attempt.
  
  To your question on Breaking Bread, you asked about the use of the term in “breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35 and Acts 2:42-46). Here is what the text says:
  
  τὸν ἄρτον εὐλόγησεν καὶκλάσας ἐπεδίδου αὐτοῖς the bread he blessed and having broken it (Luke 24:37)
  κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου breaking of bread (Luke 24:35)
  κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου breaking of bread (Acts 2:42)
  κλῶντές τε κατ’ οἶκον ἄρτον breaking at each house bread (Acts 2:35)
  
  But this is the same language the gospel writers use even when the Lord’s Supper is not in view:
  
  εὐλόγησεν καὶ κλάσας, ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοὺς ἄρτους blessing and having broken, he gave the loaves (same word as bread) (Matthew 14:19).
  
  The same words are used in all the passages in which Jesus breaks and blesses bread (see Mt 15:36, Mk 6:41, Mk 8:6, Mk 8:19, Lk 9:16).
  
  It is true that Jesus blessed and broke bread when instituting the Sacrament, but he blessed and broke bread on other occasions that were not the sacrament.
  
  Is it your belief, Phil, that when Paul convinced the passengers on the ship to take some food for their health, and took bread (artos) and gave thanks (eucharistia) and broke it (klasas) (Acts 27:35), he was administering the Lord’s Supper to them?
  
  All celebrations of communion involve breaking of bread, but not all breaking of bread is communion.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    November 24, 2020 at 2:20 pm
    
    Timothy, where did anybody say that “all breaking of bread is communion” ? Obviously context is going to enable the reader to make that distinction in most cases.
    Nick, Timothy apparently is still insisting that the tithe was the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. Could you copy and paste those comments again from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus so we can clarify this point again.
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      November 25, 2020 at 9:39 am
      
      Betty–
      Timothy is right. The Catholic Eucharist is the tithe offering prophesied by Malachi. Today, the Offertory includes our monetary gifts, bread, wine, our giving of thanks and praise to God, and our very lives abiding in Christ as a living sacrifice. This is what we offer to the Father. And what makes it perfect is that we offer these through, with, and in Jesus Christ, our Lamb of God sacrificed for the remission of sins, who is truly and substantially present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
      Timothy does not deny the tithe, just Christ’s Real Presence in which it is offered.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        November 25, 2020 at 10:39 am
        
        Technically I would agree with your statement Nick that our Catholic theology emphasizes our linking our prayers, Tithe and our very lives to Christ’s sacrifice but the question is in the early Church when speaking of the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi was the emphasis on our tithe or Christ’s sacrifice, ie the breaking of bread, communion , the consecrated bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. if you don’t mind repasting those quotes from the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus I think you will clearly see that the early Christians were placing their emphasis on Christ’s sacrifice, not our tithe as the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. Let me know what you think after repasting them if you don’t mind. I think you would agree our sacrifice can never be perfect unless it is linked to Christ’s sacrifice.
  2. Nick Broom says:
    
    November 24, 2020 at 3:05 pm
    
    Timothy–
    You said: “If the bread and wine were already ‘eucharisted food’ before the consecration, then Eucharist does not refer to the Lord’s Supper, but rather to the unconsecrated offerings before the Supper… ‘the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ’…When the consecration is spoken, that which had been up to then only Eucharist then becomes the body of Christ—the Lord’s Supper.”
    
    Yes, the Eucharist remains the Eucharist when it becomes the Body of Christ. It never reverts back into un-Eucharisted bread once it becomes the Body of Christ. So the consecrated bread which is now the Lord’s Supper is rightly called by the RCC the Eucharist. Christ, our Lamb of God, who has already been sacrificed once and for all time, becomes present as His Body and Blood in the appearance of the Eucharisted bread and wine. And as much as you would like to believe it, Tim, we do not re-sacrifice Christ in the Eucharistic rite.
    Speaking of that, how do you explain that procedure of re-sacrificing Christ that you say we Catholics do at every mass? Is it something that you picture in your mind or is it something you have actually seen someone do?
    
    Reply
Betty says:

November 24, 2020 at 12:15 pm

Exactly Phil. So many points to comment on from Timothy’s last point and I hope to address each issue but I appreciate you insight “The use of the word Thanksgiving (Eucharist in Greek) goes well back to the Old Testament and it was it was not restricted exclusively to the “Tithe offerings”. Thank you for pointing that out to Timothy . When he accused me of purposely not posting Chapter 65 he suggested I did not want to address the “Thank offering”. Only problem the tithe is not mentioned in Chapter 65. Whenever Timothy sees the words “Praise and Thanksgiving “ he assumes the writer is speaking of the Tithe. But Justin does address the Tithe in Chapter 67 and it occurs after the consecration.
Now I had mentioned Timothy would not just provide some quotes, he would take bits and pieces and weave a scenario consistent with his theology and interpretation. He wants to work the Tithe to support the poor into chapter 65 by stating the Chapter 13 is describing the same particular part of the worship service. It’s obvious how desperate Timothy is when he compares a paragraph that gives some generalized statements about Christian worship and compares that with a chronological description of the worship service. Justin speaks of hymns in chapter 13, but there is no mention of hymns in Chapter 65. And of course there is no mention of a Tithe for the poor in Chapter 65, Timothy just assumes it must have taken place during that part of the worship service. So Timothy is Chapter 13 a chronological description of the early Church worship service like Chapter 65?Yes or no?
Definitely want to address the question of the amateur correcting the Patristic scholars but a good starting point would be Timothy translating that passage from Irenaeus from the original Greek which I pleaded for him to translate before.

Reply
Betty says:

November 24, 2020 at 1:39 pm

Just as a reminder of the difficulty for the translators, from fragment 37 of Irenaeus the translation “the receivers of these anti types may obtain remission of sins and eternal life.” This translation was basically from the Latin translation from the Greek. So far from Timothy the English from Greek should read “the recipients of these copies of the remission of sins and of eternal life”. Now which of these translations does one believe more closely approached the point Irenaeus was trying to make? I offered Timothy to try and clean up his trsnslation but got no response.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 24, 2020 at 10:23 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for partially addressing my question. Yes, those are the words Jesus used “when instituting the Sacrament” of the New Covenant and when revealing Himself to the Emmaus disciples after the Resurrection (Luke 24:35). Now, immediately after Pentecost, the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” … “to the breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:46) as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant. How do you explain it? Coincidence?

You said:
“To your question on Breaking Bread, you a sked about the use of the(Acts term in “breaking of the bread” (Luke of the 24:35 and Acts 2:42-46). Here is what the text says:
τὸν ἄρτον εὐλόγησεν καὶκλάσας ἐπεδίδου αὐτοῖς the bread he blessed and having broken it (Luke 24:37)
κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου breaking of bread (Luke 24:35)
κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου breaking of bread (Acts 2:42)
κλῶντές τε κατ’ οἶκον ἄρτον breaking at each house bread (Acts 2:35)
But this is the same language the gospel writers use even when the Lord’s Supper is not in view:
εὐλόγησεν καὶ κλάσας, ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοὺς ἄρτους blessing and having broken, he gave the loaves (same word as bread) (Matthew 14:19).
The same words are used in all the passages in which Jesus breaks and blesses bread (see Mt 15:36, Mk 6:41, Mk 8:6, Mk 8:19, Lk 9:16).
It is true that Jesus blessed and broke bread when instituting the Sacrament, but he blessed and broke bread on other occasions that were not the sacrament.
Is it your belief, Phil, that when Paul convinced the passengers on the ship to take some food for their health, and took bread (artos) and gave thanks (eucharistia) and broke it (klasas) (Acts 27:35), he was administering the Lord’s Supper to them?
All celebrations of communion involve breaking of bread, but not all breaking of bread is communion.”
That’s just the point and you missed it. Can you show me why this practice of the Jerusalem Christian community was not “communion”?
I am not going to answer now anything else because the rest of what you said is mostly misstatements of what I said or what I meant to say. Since I am not as good a gymnast as you are, I need some time to sort out exactly what you tried to say.

God bless you.

Reply
Betty says:

November 25, 2020 at 11:04 am

Nick brought up an excellent point about our linking our prayers, tithes, and our very lives to Christ’s sacrifice to the Father. I believe there is a quote from Irenaeus to do with making sure our oblation is perfect and the question I would ask can we make a perfect offering to the Father without joining our sacrifice with Christ’s sacrifice? I would say no. Timothy, Nick, Phil?

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  November 25, 2020 at 2:09 pm
  
  The bible is clear that the only way to the Father is through the Son. Period. Mic drop.
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

November 25, 2020 at 2:00 pm

DIDACHE:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day
But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

There is no question in my mind that this is referring to the Lord’s Supper because of the mention of the breaking of the bread in a sacerdotal setting. Also it refers to the offertory because it references Matthew 5:23-24. This is a good picture of the Catholic Eucharist.

JUSTIN MARTYR:
Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 41.
The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist
Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.

There is no doubt this is a reference to the Lord’s Supper ” the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed” which Justin connects directly to Malachi’s prophesy.

IRENAEUS:
Book 4, Chapter 17
5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things — not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful — He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.

Irenaeus clearly connects Malachi’s prophesy with the Lord’s Supper when he says: “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, OFFERS TO GOD throughout all the world…”

There is no doubt in my mind that these authors are picturing the sacrifice of the Mass which includes not only the tithe offering, but the Lord’s supper oblation as well.
But then, I am not the one who needs convincing.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 25, 2020 at 5:08 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. I am trying to figure out what you said to me and I am afraid I will not be able to do much else to help you. You continue to misappropriate and misstate our statements and your puzzlement is going to continue as long as your attitude is a Timothy 100-Catholics 0 (all or nothing). You are not trying to find a better understanding and even when non-Catholics agree with Catholics on a point different than yours, you immediately move them to the 0 column with us.

You said:
“Phil, Again your comments puzzle me. … gymnastic for the attempt.”
I agree with what you said that Eucharist (thanksgiving) can mean several things. But then, when I said “Eucharist liturgy” you went on and interpreted it as “Eucharist food”. When I made a reference to chapter 65 of Justin’s First Apology as being a liturgy “for the baptized {illuminated} person” (check your own quote) and different from chapter 67 which was a regular Sunday liturgy, you immediately jumped the gun and went on and on with both quotes referring to the same “prayer” which I had never disputed. It is true that “prayer” is part of the “liturgy” but it is not the same as the whole liturgy.

For your information, here is an earlier and more detailed description (all emphasis mine) of the Sunday service found in chapter 14 of the Didache by Dr. Johannes Quasten:
“The ordinary Eucharistic service held on Sundays is described in chapter 14:
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common TO BREAK BREAD (emphasis mine) and offer THANKS; but first confess your sins, so that your SACRIFICE may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your SACRIFICE must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord; In every place and time offer me a pure SACRIFICE; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations (ACW).”
“ The definite reference to the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE (zusia) and the allusion to Malach. 1,10 are significant” (pg.33) Patrology Vol. 1 Newman Press.

A blessed “Thanksgiving” to you and to all.

Reply
Betty says:

November 26, 2020 at 12:26 pm

Phil, I think you and Nick are making excellent points trying to get to a basic understanding of the early Church service. Unfortunately there is always going to be some speculation as in the Didache quote you gave above. What does the writer mean by “your sacrifice”. Is he speaking of our prayers and thanksgiving, the Tithe by itself or with our prayers and thanksgiving or is your sacrifice the Eucharist, ie the consecrated bread and wine, ie the body and blood of Christ that we offer up to the Father, or the entire Eucharistic service. I think it is interesting the Catholic Church teaches our prayer and thanksgiving, the Tithe and the Eucharist are all sacrifices, it would seem to me Timothy recognizes our prayer and thanksgiving and the Tithe to be a sacrifice but denies the Eucharist , the consecrated bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ to be a sacrifice. Isn’t that why Protestant reject the Mass being called the “Sacrifice of the Mass.”

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 26, 2020 at 10:51 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comment.

You said:
‘Phil, I think you and Nick … the “Sacrifice of the Mass.”‘
Yes. That appears to be the main reason for their insistence on separating from the regular Passover ritual the third cup, the institution of the New Covenant, the second part of the “Hallel Psalms”, and the fourth cup of completion and calling it another meal: the “Lord’s Supper”. It is a speculation which is very hard to fit with the text and is contrary to the earlier tradition of the Church.

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 28, 2020 at 8:10 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment and for giving me the Greek text in answer to my question. However, unless you think it was just a coincidence, the text by itself without reference to the context does nothing to answer the implicit question related to “the institution of the New Covenant”. I am afraid that your appeal to other unrelated texts is insufficient. This is what I said:
‘immediately after Pentecost, “the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” … “to the breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:46) as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant. How do you explain it? Coincidence?’
Yes or no, and why?

I do not disagree with your words: “All celebrations of communion involve breaking of bread, but not all breaking of bread is communion”. That’s just a tautology and do nothing to explain your reason to separate them.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 29, 2020 at 8:15 am
  
  Phil, do I understand correctly that you believe the reference to “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:46 is a reference to the Lord’s Supper, and thus that you understand Acts 2:46 to be saying ‘immediately after Pentecost, “the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” … “to the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper” as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant”, and that you are asking me to explain why they are offering the Lord’s Supper as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant, or if I just think that is a coincidence? I just want to make sure I understand what you are assuming in your question to me.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 29, 2020 at 6:42 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comment. You must be obtuse to think that my repeated question to you was anything else than “if I just think that is a coincidence” (by George you got it!). At first I just requested a clear Y/N answer from you and later I also asked you why. By your failure to answer the question directly I will take it as a “No”. Now, I would Like to know your reasoning for the connection between Luke 24:35 and Acts 2:42-46, if you don’t mind. I am not obtuse and I am not asking you “to explain why “they are offering the Lord’s Supper” or “the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper” (those are your words, not mine), but just how do you interpret the reference. I am mot asking either
If you think that the reference here to “breaking of the bread” means “communion” since you already stated: “not all breaking of bread is communion”.

You said:
“Phil, do I understand … in your question to me”
We have to interpret those passages in light of the proper context and that’s what I offered you. If you happened to disagree, feel free to clarify it for me. But, please, do not misquote what I say or assume anything for me.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 30, 2020 at 10:14 am
  
  Phil, I’m just not understanding your question. If there is a “coincidence,” what would the “coincidence” be? That they happen to be breaking bread in Jerusalem where their savior died and was raised from the dead? Why would that be a coincidence? If you could spell out what the coincidence is, I could answer your question.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Tim
  
  Reply
2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  November 30, 2020 at 10:23 am
  
  Phil, let me be more clear. You wrote:
  
  Yes, those are the words Jesus used “when instituting the Sacrament” of the New Covenant and when revealing Himself to the Emmaus disciples after the Resurrection (Luke 24:35). Now, immediately after Pentecost, the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” … “to the breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:46) as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant. How do you explain it? Coincidence?
  
  How do I explain WHAT? What is it that you are asking me to explain?
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

November 30, 2020 at 6:11 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your comments. You pretend not to have understood my question about “the breaking of the bread” when you had already quoted me the words in Greek and the places in Scripture where you had found them. That’s just plainly deceptive of you.

You said:
“Phil, I’m just not understanding … could answer your question.”
The most common understanding of “coincidence” is given to similar things that happen “fortuitously” or “by chance” and not “by purpose”. How do we know the difference? As Betty told you, we can know by the “context”. Since you refused to answer my simple Y/N question I took it to mean that you thought the same use of the words in those quotes had not happened “by chance” but “by purpose”. You had your chance to say that it was “by chance” and you didn’t because it would have been very hard to justify. Was I wrong?

It helps when we clarify the meaning of the words we use and I have said that I am always open to it although I understand that it may not always be practical in every single instance.

Later you said:
“Phil, let me be more clear … asking me to explain.”
What I was trying to do is to call your attention to the specific context of each of the quotes. In the case of Luke 24:35 the context is the whole narrative of the Risen Christ appearance to the Emmaus disciples on Easter to the end of the chapter (Luke 24:13-53). I will not insult your intelligence by quoting the entire narrative. You can read it on your own in the original Greek, if you are so fortunate, or in a reliable translation as some of us have to do.

The context of the quote in Acts 2:42-46 (written by Luke) is the first acts of the Christian community in the New Covenant (approximately 5 years) from Pentecost to the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts, chapters 2-7) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is clear that while keeping most of the traditional Jewish customs they had Jesus as their Lord and “held steadfastly to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” Acts 2:42.
I understand this “breaking of the bread” to be a direct reference to the Last Supper and, since you do not, how do you actually interpret it?

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  December 1, 2020 at 7:20 am
  
  Phil, you needn’t get offended or start making accusations. Each time I tried to understand what precisely you were asking, you retorted that I had misrepresented what you were saying. So I asked you to state explicitly what you thought the coincidence was. I still don’t know. I know what coincidence means. I just don’t know what you thought might just be coincidental. You asked, “Was it coincidental that immediately after Pentecost, the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” … “to the breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:46) as members of the New Covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant.”
  
  What is the coincidence, Phil? That they were breaking bread in Jerusalem where their savior had risen from the dead? That they were holding steadfastly to the apostles teachings in the city where they had first heard them? That they ate their meat together with singleness of heart with a newly founded community of believers? You asked me if it was just a coincidence, and for there to be a coincidence there has to be some remarkable alignment of otherwise unrelated events or a concurrence of circumstances without any causal connection. Do I think it was just a coincidence that the Christians were breaking bread together after they joined the church? Of course not. Spending time in fellowship with one another is hardly an unrelated activity without causal effect. Their fellowship with one another was the direct result of having believed, and breaking bread together is another way of saying “having fellowship”. Companionship literally means to break bread with another. Do I think it was coincidental that Christians started spending time together in fellowship? No, I do not.
  
  But what you seem to be asking, however, is, if breaking bread is a definitive reference the Lord’s Supper in these passages, and the Lord’s Supper is the Passover Sacrifice of the new covenant, and Jesus is our Passover Sacrifice that we offer, do I think it was just a coincidence that immediately after Pentecost, the Christian Community is holding steadfastly” to offering the Lord’s Supper as the passover sacrifice of the new covenant in the very heart of Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple of the Old Covenant.
  
  Well, to raise that question, you would first have to prove definitively that in each case, “breaking bread” referred to the Lord’s Supper, AND that the Lord’s Supper is the Passover Sacrifice of the New Covenant—neither of which you have done.
  
  Let’s take Luke 24:35 for example. You seem to believe that the context suggests that Jesus had celebrated the Lord’s Supper with the two men on the road to Emmaus. Why do you think so? Does context demand or suggest it? Of course not. Jesus had only instituted the Lord’s Supper three days earlier, and did so only with the apostles. The two men on the road to Emmaus would have had no knowledge of the institution of the sacrament and therefore no recollection of anything Jesus had taught about it. Does Peter’s disposition in Luke 24:12 strike you as that of a man who has been busy catechizing people about the significance of the Lord’s Supper? If not, how do you suppose the two men on the road to Emmaus recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread? More likely they knew of his many miracles (Luke 24:19), and the breaking of the bread prompted them to remember that Jesus had on many occasions broken bread with people, particularly in the miracles of the loaves.
  
  Here is what Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible says about Luke 24:35. “this was a common meal, and not the ordinance of the Lord’s supper.”
  
  The Geneva Study Bible says “When he broke bread, which that people used to do, and as the Jews still do today at the beginning of their meals and say a prayer”
  
  Some commentaries think it is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Others think it is not. You have not proven that it was.
  
  Regarding Acts 2, you have cited Acts 2:46, but the first reference to breaking of bread in that chapter occurs in 2:42, of which Benson’s commentary says,
  
  “Though we have great reason to believe that the eucharist was often celebrated among these primitive converts to Christianity, perhaps much oftener than every Lord’s day, yet there seems no sufficient reason to conclude with Lightfoot, Pearson, and many others, that this phrase must here refer to it, since it may undoubtedly signify common meals, as Grotius, Wolfius, and several others have shown; in which sense the same phrase is used, Luke 24:35, for there, it is plain, the eucharist could not be intended.”
  
  Some commentaries think it is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Others think it is not. You have not proven that it was. Until you can, there is no cause for imputing sacramental or sacrificial significance to the breaking of bread in these verses or demanding of me that I confirm or deny that breaking of bread is “just a coincidence.”
  
  Thank you.
  
  Reply
Phil Sanz says:

December 1, 2020 at 8:59 pm

Hi Timothy,
Thanks for your comment. I’ll make it simple and to the point. The deception was pretending that you didn’t understand the question when you did, since you had already answered it.

Let’s move on. You said:
Phil, you needn’t get … is “just a coincidence.”
I did not ‘demand’ that you ‘confirm or deny that breaking of bread is “just a coincidence.”’ I asked for your interpretation because I am careful not to misstate what you say or believe. This is literally what I said: “I understand this “breaking of the bread” to be a direct reference to the Last Supper and, since you do not, how do you actually interpret it?”
I knew that you were not going to agree with my interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong but now I know that you interpret “breaking of the bread” as meaning fellowship only. Therefore, to avoid beating a dead horse, I will interpret Acts 20:7-12 and the reference in Didache 14 as just meaning fellowship to you, in an exclusive way. Fair enough?

You see, as Catholics we tend to interpret those passages as sacramental; including: fellowship (communion), sacrifice (breaking of the bread), thanksgiving (eucharist), memorial, sanctifying, etc… and we do this by faith. This grace is given to us only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and not by our own effort. Do we reject science, research or exegesis? Not at all. Human knowledge, too, comes from God as long as it does not contradict His revelation. This would also apply individually to the Fathers of the Church. Jesus told us in His prayer to the Father: “Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” Luke 10:21

God bless you.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  December 2, 2020 at 11:09 am
  
  Betty–
  You said: “Unfortunately there is always going to be some speculation as in the Didache quote you gave above. What does the writer mean by ‘your sacrifice’. ”
  Concerning this passage in the Didache,
  “But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving AFTER HAVING CONFESSED your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, UNTIL THEY BE RECONCILED, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.”
  is a reference to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
  If one is in mortal sin, he is not worthy to participate in the sacrifice or he will be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. Absolution/ remission of sin is needed for purity. The sacrifice, of course is what we offer that we pray is pleasing and acceptable to the Father. And still none of this is done without the finished work of the Cross–through Him, with Him, and in Him.
  
  Reply
  1. Betty says:
    
    December 2, 2020 at 12:30 pm
    
    Agree with everything you have said Nick. We know at Mass that Christ as our high priest offers himself to the Father correct? So as we participate we also offer the Son to the Father, correct.? The only way our sacrifice can truly be perfect is in union with Christ’s sacrifice. And of course in the state of mortal sin we are not able to participate and if we did we would be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. So would you agree when the early Christian speaks of “your sacrifice” they are likely speaking of our praise and thanksgiving, our tithe and our offering the Son to the Father.
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      December 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm
      
      Betty–
      You asked: “So as we participate we also offer the Son to the Father, correct.?”
      I am not so sure about the wording you use. We are not offering the Son to the Father. Christ has already done that. We offer our sacrifice in conjunction with that one sacrifice. But we can’t do that without Christ being truly present as the Eternal Victim.
      You then ask: “So would you agree when the early Christian speaks of “your sacrifice” they are likely speaking of our praise and thanksgiving, our tithe and our offering the Son to the Father?”
      The only way we can offer the Son to the Father would be presenting ourselves as a living sacrifice with Christ abiding in us and us in Him.
      Rom 12:1 says “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”
      And John 6:56 says “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
      And John 15:4 says “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.”
      We are renewed as the body Christ so that we may then prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
      
      Is that what you meant by us offering the Son to the Father?
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        December 2, 2020 at 4:01 pm
        
        Nick, I thought we are taught that we actually participate in offering up Christ to the Father during Mass which seems to make sense when the Fathers speak of “your sacrifice”. I googled the question and at the divine mercy.org look at the commentary entitled “ In the Chaplet, what do we “offer” the Father”. They mention the Eucharistic prayers which touch on this subject.
Betty says:

December 2, 2020 at 8:26 am

So Christ is our Passover lamb but unless I am misreading Timothy we do not have a Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant. Seems like something is missing doesn’t it.?
And as Phil says Tim continues to misrepresent what others have said. Quote “Well to raise the question you would have to prove definitively that in each case “breaking bread” referred to the “Lord’s supper”. I wrote “where did anyone say that “all breaking of bread is communion”. Phil wrote “I do not disagree with your words “all celebration of communion involve breaking bread but not all breaking of bread is communion”. Now as I pointed out Timothy pointed out that the Didache did not have an institution narrative but obviously we recognize a institution narrative in the three gospels and later worship services of the early Church. So Timothy are you arguing the institution narrative was there, they dropped it and then added it back on at a latter date. And now Timothy appears to be arguing that the breaking of bread mentioned in acts when the Christians were coming together to worship was not the Lord’s supper. They were just celebrating fellowship meals. And Christ said “do this in remembrance of me” but i’m sure those earliest Christians left out the institution narrative and they just later brought it back. Not sure why Paul was describing the institution narrative if it was not part of their worship service? What do you think Phil?
When Nick comes back I will ask him again to post Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, paragraph 5.

Reply
1. Nick Broom says:
  
  December 2, 2020 at 12:06 pm
  
  Betty–
  Here ya go:
  Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18
  5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
  
  Irenaeus plainly distinguishes “common bread” from the Eucharist by the bread receiving of the invocation of God. That invocation (I believe is the consecration) gives the bread an additional “heavenly” quality, that when received by our bodies makes them no longer corruptible.
  If the “common bread” is only offered in thanksgiving as a tithe for the poor, but is not given the words of consecration, then it does not have that additional “heavenly” quality about it which makes whoever receives it incorruptible.
  Now that being said, I don’t recall any time in the Mass today that the bread and wine of the offertory are separated from the consecration to go with the collection for the poor. Have you? The collection plate is prayed over with the bread and wine, but the collection plate is not placed upon the altar for consecration like the bread and wine are.
  So Irenaeus must mean, in this instance, that the Eucharist is the consecrated bread of the Lord’s Supper, not just bread in which has been given thanks.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    December 2, 2020 at 4:41 pm
    
    Betty–
    You said: ” I googled the question and at the divine mercy.org look at the commentary entitled “ In the Chaplet, what do we “offer” the Father”.
    Then yes, that is what you meant.
    The site says:
    1) “when we offer Him to the Father in the chaplet, we are also offering ourselves IN and WITH Him, and He is offering us IN and WITH Himself. Spiritually, we are so enmeshed as to be inseparable from Him (save by unrepented mortal sin, of course).”
    **Yes. We abide in Him and He in us.**
    
    2) “Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride (see Eph 5:25-32). As in any true spousal relationship, the spouses, in a sense, belong to each other. The two have become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24).”
    **Also yes. We abide in Him and He in us.**
    
    3)”We offer You His Body and Blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. Lord, look upon this sacrifice WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN TO YOUR CHURCH; and gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one Body of Christ, a LIVING SACRIFICE of praise…”
    As we are His living Body, the sacrifice is offered to God **through Him, with Him, and in Him.**
    Yes. Just like I said.
    Agreed?
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      December 2, 2020 at 7:50 pm
      
      Totally agree. And based on those comments when the Fathers and early Church speaks of “your sacrifice” according to Catholic theology it’s not just “your sacrifice”, it is also Christ’s sacrifice. “We abide in him, and He in us”
      
      Reply
      1. Nick Broom says:
        
        December 2, 2020 at 8:49 pm
        
        Forever and ever, AMEN!
  2. Betty says:
    
    December 5, 2020 at 11:49 am
    
    Thanks again Nick. I would have to agree with you placing the tithe on the altar to be consecrated would seem out of order today and in fact at least so far it is not precisely clear to me when the Tithe was offered during the early Christian service. Would you not agree that based on Justin Martyr’s description at least the tithe from the wealthy appears to have been given after the consecration. Timothy wants to connect the Tithe to our praise and thanksgiving during the Mass but he is looking at a paragraph from Justin that is not a chronological description of the religious service. Maybe he can provide us with some other paragraphs that discuss the timing of the tithe more clearly.
    Actually what is interesting about the above paragraph from Irenaeus is that it supports the English from Latin from Greek Timothy objected to. Look at the first and last line from the above quote from Irenaeus. In the fragment from Irenaeus “the receivers of these anti types may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”, Timothy objected to “may obtain”. The point of course is no one who believes in a symbolic presence would be attributing eternal life to receiving the Eucharist.
    Nick and Phil, Timothy’s main complaint is he feels the translators changed the Greek word for “summons” to “invocation “. So how does that mistranslation if it is one change Irenaeus’s main point of receiving eternal life when we receive the Eucharist?
    
    Reply
    1. Nick Broom says:
      
      December 8, 2020 at 2:28 pm
      
      It doesn’t change the meaning nor does it change the point.
      Timothy is grasping at straws on this one.
      
      Reply
      1. Betty says:
        
        December 9, 2020 at 8:55 am
        
        I would agree Nick and Phil, the beginning and ending of the paragraph both associate eternal life from receiving the Eucharist and what does Timothy focus on? One translator translates a Greek word “Summons” and the other “Invocation”. Who has not read translations of the Bible and not seen variance in the words chosen to translate the original text. Maybe Timothy can explain how this difference in translation negates the FACT that Irenaeus believed that after receiving the Eucharist are bodies are no longer corruptible.
Phil Sanz says:

December 2, 2020 at 9:10 pm

Hi Nick,
AMEN! Thank you for your help to Betty and all your quotes of Scripture and the FOC. You are doing a great job. I hope that Timothy finally decides to answer the question you asked him about “resacrifying” Christ.

God bless you.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  December 3, 2020 at 8:45 am
  
  Phil,
  
  Nick asked me, “how do you explain that procedure of re-sacrificing Christ that you say we Catholics do at every mass?”
  
  I have never said Catholics “re-sacrifice” Christ at every mass. Perhaps Nick would be so kind as to provide evidence of his accusation before asking me to explain what he accuses me of saying.
  
  Reply
  1. Nick Broom says:
    
    December 3, 2020 at 3:15 pm
    
    Timothy–
    In a nutshell, why do you think the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Body and Blood is an abomination?
    
    Reply
    1. Betty says:
      
      December 31, 2020 at 5:16 pm
      
      Nick, was waiting on Timothy’s response but a good pick up on your pointing out the Timothy believes the mass is an abomination. Obviously that accusation is linked to the belief that we “re-sacrifice “ Christ at every mass. I too am waiting for Timothy to explain the abomination claim if he does not believe we re- sacrifice Christ.
      
      Reply
Phil Sanz says:

December 2, 2020 at 10:33 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. Nick has already told you about our understanding of “sacrifice”, Christ’s work of the Cross “as the eternal Victim”, our union “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him” as well as with one another (communion) as members of His body (the Church), etc … all part of our sacramental understanding of His Passion. Check John 19:35-37 in particular.

You ask me and Timothy if “the institution narrative was part of the Christian service”. Of course it was: Paul tells the Corinthians “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you … (1 Corinthians 11:23-33). He had already talked to them about the ritual of the Last Supper before.

You also asked about Christ as “our Passover lamb”. As I said above, John 19:36 explicitly states in the narrative of the Crucifixion: that “Not one of his bones will be broken” was fulfillment of Exodus 12:4×6 (sacrificial ritual of the Passover Lamb). I hope this helps you and I am curious about Timothy’s response to you.

God bless you.

Reply
Phil Sanz says:

December 5, 2020 at 9:19 pm

Hi Betty,
Thank you for your comment. You are correct in saying that “no one who believes in a symbolic presence would be attributing eternal life to receiving the Eucharist” as Irenaeus clearly states.

You asked:
“… how does that mistranslation if it is one change Irenaeus’s main point of receiving eternal life when we receive the Eucharist?”
I don’t think it does. There is a small difference between “summoning” and “invoking” but not enough to support Timothy’s effort to separate the “Eucharistic” liturgy from the “Lord’s Supper” as he keeps on doing.

Stephen K Ray in pg.218 of his book “Crossing the Tiber” (Ignatius Press, San Francisco) quotes Ignatius of Antioch:
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common
Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one
single altar of sacrifice – even as also there is but one
bishop with his clergy and my own fellow-servitors the
deacons. This will insure that all your doings are in full
accord with the will of God.” Epistle to the Philadelphians 4
in Early Christian Writings 94.

God bless you.

Reply
Nick Broom says:

December 17, 2020 at 2:49 pm

Timothy–
Since you have not answered my direct question to you, I assume you can’t answer it. To vague maybe? I decided to go back and find where you have a problem with the Church offering the Body and Blood.
After re-reading your article where you show that Hippolytus did not offer consecrated bread and wine in the “Eucharist”.
You said:
“This is Hippolytus’ Epiclesis, the point in the liturgy when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the bread and wine to change them into the body and blood of Christ. When Hippolytus then refers to Consecrated bread and wine, he shifts from his Eucharistic language (gratias agat) and begins to use the Consecratory language of blessing or consecration (benediction)…”

If one reads it closely, one will notice that this is not the case. You said “Consecrated bread and wine”. But as it is clearly cited, the bread is considered already consecrated in the language of eucharist:
“All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the EUCHARIST, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned.”
Hippolytus refers to the bread as the Body of Christ, which means the eucharist has already been consecrated. And notice the past tense of the immediately following statement:
” Having blessed (benedicens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for … [you] will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought. (Anaphora, 36-38; Hauler, 117))

You then concluded:
“Having moved past “gratias agat” or “thanksgiving” in reference to the Eucharist, Hippolytus has now shifted to “benedicens,” or “blessing” in reference to the Epiclesis. Hippolytus did not say, “Having eucharisted (gratias agens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ,” but rather, “Having blessed (benedicens) the cup…”. The Eucharist (gratias agens) was first, and the Epiclesis (benedicens) came after. They were, as is abundantly obvious, two separate liturgical acts.”
That would be the case if the consecration of the bread was rite #1 and the consecration of the cup was rite #2. But that is not biblical.

What you are not seeing, apparently, is that Hippolytus is doing exactly what you are accusing the Roman Catholic Church of doing– collapsing the Eucharist. He is using gratias agens AND benedicens in the same rite–the Lord’s Supper. He is describing one liturgical act, not two. That is what is abundantly obvious.

Reply
1. Betty says:
  
  December 25, 2020 at 1:53 pm
  
  Merry Christmas to everyone. A lot to say but not on this day. Again want to thank Timothy for the opportunity to express our differences and Derek and Phil for their insights
  
  Reply
Nick Broom says:

December 31, 2020 at 5:30 pm

Silence is golden, don’t you think?

Reply
Derek Ramsey says:

October 5, 2022 at 4:02 pm

These threads have long gone quiet, but I wanted to point out one thing I missed when I said this:

“It is not a coincidence that Anabaptists have at various points considered themselves to directly or indirectly descended from the Waldensians (e.g. Martyrs Mirror in 1660).”

The Martyr’s Mirror—which claims Waldensian origin for the Anabaptists—was published in 1660, five years after Peitmontese Easter, the massacre of the Waldensians on January 25, 1655.

For some reason I thought the Anabaptist claim that the Waldensians were their apostolic ancestors may have been apocryphal, but the Waldensians existed at least as far back as the 12th century and the two groups coexisted for about a century and a half prior to the massacre that ended the 1,260 year period of civil persecution by the Roman Catholics.

Peace,
DR

Reply