The view that many nonbelievers hold of the Church is not very high and many describe the Church as divided rather than united, as one innovative pastor found.
"We're not doing a very good job, are we?" Craig Groeschel, senior pastor of LifeChurch.tv, told church attendants Sunday.
With churches competing for larger attendance numbers, fighting over worship style, and a growing number of denominations around the world, Groeschel believes the divisions among Christians is breaking the heart of God.
"I wonder if God ever looks at all of His churches, all the Christian churches all over the world, and asks, 'Why can't you guys come together? Why are you so divided when my Son Jesus prayed 'Father, make them one,''" said Groeschel, who leads a fast-growing multi-site church with campuses now in six states and on the Internet.
Early this month, the Life Church pastor launched a month-long series called "One Prayer," partnering with over 1,400 churches from across the globe in what participants are calling an unprecedented and historic event. The hundreds of churches and their over 800,000 attendants are simultaneously running the series on the premise "If God would answer 'one prayer' for the church at large, what would you pray?" After preaching the first Sunday of the month, pastors are showing sermons from other participating pastors via video, each preaching on what their one prayer is.
Groeschel's one prayer – "make us one."
"What if we as churches across the world became the answer to his prayer when Jesus prayed 'Father, make them one,'" he challenged attendants on Sunday.
The series was born more out of repentance than a passion for unity, Groeschel explained. It was his desire not to be competitive against other believers and to instead be united.
Unity begins with recognizing "one enemy" – Satan, and not the church down the street or in another denomination, the lead pastor said. Having one heart and one purpose will also help unite Christians.
"What would happen if we the Church across the world united and took all the resources that God has given us?" he asked. Within a week, he demonstrated, starvation could be eliminated, every person could have access to drinking water, poverty could be eradicated, and the world "could not only know the name of Jesus, but they could see him if we became one."
By Sunday, the world would worship like never before as they have come to know the glory, power and love of Jesus through his followers, Groeschel highlighted.
LifeChurch.tv is also showing sermons this month from Jentezen Franklin of Free Chapel, Perry Nobel of NewSpring Church, and Ed Young of Fellowship Church.
Young's one prayer for the church is to engage, particularly in the reality of heaven and hell.
"For a long time, the Church talked too much and too often about hell," Young said in his One Prayer sermon. Now, "the pendulum has swung too far to the other side" and churches are preaching pop psychology rather than the Gospel, he says.
"I think the Church has ... done disservice in today's world by not talking about hell enough," he said. When believers engage eternity and begin to see others as eternal beings, it changes everything they do.
"If there's a hell ... we better leverage everything to touch people for Jesus Christ," Young preached. "It should be hard to go to hell because of Church."
About 60 pastors are sharing their messages via video with churches around the world this month. One Prayer churches are encouraging fasting and praying during the four-week series and will further seek to make a lasting impact by collecting a special offering this weekend to help support the planting of 500 new churches in Cambodia, India, Sudan and China.
RSS
Religion: Man trying to find God.
Christianity: God trying to find man.
To assume that only men, not God, cause division is to create the logical, but false and un-Scriptural, assumption that men can always achieve unity. Such efforts may produce an ecumenical and superficial sense of 'togetherness', but only at the expense of truth, integrity, and genuine pneumatological union. Christ's prayer in John 17 is clearly not for the former, but rather the latter form of unity. The fundamental reason behind the current conflict and division is that God's spiritual New Creation is being assembled, in part on Earth, before the Old Creation is fully dismantled.
scitsonga: I agree with your defintion, but consider this statemnet by Kile Jones It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition."
Therefore we can consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, and other beliefs to be religions. Also Agnosticism, Humanism, and Atheism can be defined as religions, because they contain a "belief about deity." Their belief is they do not know if deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they believe that God does not exist.
If we interpret religion in ths manner we can see that war is not the fault of "religion". Rather we see that religion is only a scapegoat for man's lust for wealth and power. I believe history bears this out almost universally.
Your thoughts?
logic: Religion I think is a set of beliefs centered on specific supernatural and moral claims and that most religions claim their interpretations to be the correct interpretations- other religions got it wrong. The last part of that I think is where the problems of religion exist. I should perhaps clarify my earlier statement to say if people would keep their religions to themselves and not attemt to impose their religious views on others, there would have been less war and conflict in the past and today. Much of the probelms that exist in the Middle East today are related to religious conlict amoung jews, christians and muslims. Amoung these religions, they cant even agree amoung themselves about the "correct" interpretation. How many thousands of denominations of the christain faith exist due to differing views?
flagged myself for error
scitsonga: In one or two sentences if possible, thanks.
scitsonga: May we have your defintion of religion?
elimination of religion thru enlightenment would reduce wars on earth.
Mike:
You are right! Its not a question of if but when. It will happen and the sad part is the US with all it's unrighteous power will lead the way! The U.S. is the two horned beast of REV 13. undeniably! We in our "christian" fervor will make and image to the Beast that had the wound healed. The last conflict will come down to two groups: those who worship the creator and keep His commandments and those who worship the apostate religion of the Beast. Here are the patients (endurance) of the saints, here are those who keep the commandments of God! and the faith of Jesus!
if & when the church across the world united, it will be very bad. there will be only one interpretation of the bible, & if you disagree with that interpretation, will you be ostracized & 'ex-communicated'? is this the beginning of a one world church that killed thousands of people in the middle ages bec. one church or person cannot disagree with? the bush adminstration has started their own kind of church. if you disgree with bush's interpretation of his religious foreign policy, you are unpatriotic, leftist, liberal or judging him.
Quecat,
I agree with your comment on June 20 @ 3:56 pm. Churches should quit boasting about their so-called heritage and humble themselves before God. God lifts the humble but resists the proud.
I think the key point here is that if we all believe that Jesus is right...then the problem comes in when we are not "conformed to the image of His son" and "transformed by the renewing of your minds."
Anyone who does any woodworking knows you can't mark a board, cut it, use the board to mark the next one and so on. The cut's will be different. You have to use the same standard.
This is why (here I go again) I hold to what Jesus said to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus gave a clear description of what it means to be in a right relationship with God and step by step instruction on how to have that relationship.
It's man wanting to choose what they believe that has been the real issue throughout history. The problem comes in when we measure our 'faith' by another instead of comparing it to what Jesus said. If we all compared ourselves to Jesus we would all have the same belief...of needing to be flat on our face before a holy God and use our two ears and one mouth in the proportion given!
mathetes, if you haven't already go to the same-sex marriage rush for the biggie challenge response. believer
mathetes, I can empathize with the load you're under but just remember this too shall pass, believer
Matt. 16:18---It was not Peter the Church was built on but rather verse 16-Peters response: Thout are Christ, Son of the Living God. Peter was blessed for his faith. Rock is the same as Christ in much of NT. 1 Cor. 10:4 is proof not to mention His Parables. He was speaking of HIMSELF.
No, I'm a recovering news addict. (and everyone in the circle said, "Hi, Mathetes.")
I cut my daily email subscriptions way back, to finish my dissertation, or I'd be in the dog house. CP is the only daily I get now, but I will take a look at it. I'm sure it would be a good source. Thanks.
mathetes, just thought of it do you get bpnews, if not it's a daily M-F e-mail of what's going on that impacts the SBC or what the SBC is doing, it's a great way to stay in the loop on SBC issues, believer
mathetes, me too!!!!
believer,
I agree. I think it was a fairly small group, but it did seem to get awfully personal sometimes. I have not heard much from the CBF lately, wasn't sure if they were still around.
I will join you tonight as soon as I can. I'm praying for you to have wisdom to know whether to even take it up, or will you be casting pearls . . . ? I'm guessing it will be the same old "inconsistencies" that are still discussed in aethist chatrooms, while the answers are already published out there for anyone to read. God bless you, brother - in addition to wisdom, I'm praying for your patience.
mathetes, enjoying your dialogue with chris and like you even though I know now how important the resurgence was at first I was concerned about what I call the headhunting that went along with it, but considering the direction the CBF is going one has to wonder if thats where the SBC would be as a whole had it not been for the resurgence. I know we desperately needed it, but I also believe a very small minority used it as an opportunity for pay back, take care and looking forward to the biggie challenge.
You really should read some histories that are written by other-than-Catholic writers. You have been sadly misinformed. The Coptic Church, itself, claims descent from the first Christian converts in Egypt who received the gospel news from the disciple, Mark in about the year 48 AD... and the formal beginning of the Coptic church as a separate entity pursuant to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
Once again, it's the religious equivalant of cultural and imperialistic arrogance to assert that one's native (or adopted) branch of civilization, much less branch of Christendom is superior to all others and the one and only true inheritor and defender of the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Chris,
Man, I thought we were doing good at settling on the fact that we are all Christians saved by grace, and all the other things you mentioned in your last paragraph. Those are the things that are most important. Those are the things that inspired the modern (starting in 1920s) fundamentalism movement = they were the fundamentals that one must believe to be a Christian. Then you had to go and add:
"I still think you have some whacky other beliefs and don't worship God the way the Apostles directed us."
You are certainly entitled to have an opinion, but before being so descriptive of our other beliefs, try to understand that we hold fast to the Bible as the only infallible, inerrant Word of God. We believe that God inspired the writers of the NT as they wrote in ways that He did not inspire them at other times - at other times they were great men of God, but not inerrantly inspired in their verbal prouncements. That is why we continually come back to the Bible to test and prove beliefs and practices. That is why RCC practices seem a little strange to us - where in the Bible are we directed to do the things you mentioned:
"they pray for the dead, they ask Saints in Heaven l to pray to God for them, ..., they blessed themselves in the sign of the cross, ..., they honored Mary, they had a hiearchy(Bishop, Priest, Deacon), they went to Priests and Bishops for confession."
In the church described in the New Testament, you won't find these things. Hierarchy consisted of deacons serving under elders/overseers/bishops (all 3 are synonymous - see Titus 1:5-7). Where is the priest? James told us to confess our sins to each other, not to elders only.
I'm fine if those things help you as you have described - the whole car vs. the engine only. But please don't let pride in your ride cause you to look down on your brothers and sisters who adhere to the Bible with a faith every bit as strong as yours.
Quecat,
There was no such thing as Coptics or Eastern Orthodox in the first 1000 years. There was only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Bishop of Rome had primacy. that is a historical fact. They were the eastern church. Now, many Orthodox including Coptics, assyrians and many others have come home to communion with us.
Traditions of the Apostles are superior to traditions generated by men and women of today. The Apostles gave us Sacred Traditions from Jesus Christ and were inspired by the Holy Spirit how to worship Him. Protestants have simply left this patrimony.
Your idea of the one Church of Christ is a figment of your imagination. We are extremely divided and you just want to brush it off. I'm sorry, but it is doctine of beliefs that we must agree on like Paul emphasized. Your beliefs are a departure from both Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles.
What do we have in common; baptism, belief we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, that Jesus is fully God fully man, and that God is a Triune God, Jesus death on the cross was the substitutionary atonement for our sins, we can only get to Heaven through Christ and we must have a personal relationship with him, we can not merit heaven, and we must be born again. This is what we all have in common. I will accept you as a Christian based on these beliefs. I still think you have some whacky other beliefs and don't worship God the way the Apostles directed us, but I still count you as a Christian because of what you believe that binds us together as Christians. It is not total unity of one faith, one baptism, one Lord but it is pretty close.
Once again I find myself baffled as to why some modern day Christians argue that their forms of worship are more authentic than others, by appealing to and co-opting for themselves the identity and supposed habits of 1st century christians as if those ancient peoples somehow practiced a more holy and "authentic" version of the faith simply by virtue of their proximity in history to the earthly lifetime of Christ.
Strangely enough these same self-aggrandizing folks seem to have blinders on that only allow them to view the world through the latin mindset. They continually muddle through their historical revisionism while turning a blind eye to the equally ancient and well documented portions of Christ's church that are known to us as the Coptic and the Eastern Orthodox faith traditions.
As with so many other misguided efforts, they stem from an incomplete view of the nature and power of our God as He has given it to us to comprehend.
God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. His purposes and designs are not frustrated by finite man. Nothing we do takes Him by surprise. Certainly we very often fail to walk according to His perfect will for us, but to say that we have somehow stymied His plans and altered His pre-known narrative of eternal history; past, present and future, is to grossly overestimate the effect of man's freewill in the face of God's all-powerfulness.
As such, to accuse parts of the modern Christian church of somehow having departed in centuries past, from the true faith, seems to also imply that our Father God has been incapable of holding Christ's church in the oneness that He instituted for it, presumably because man interjected his more powerful will and "screwed things up".
I patently reject this worldview.
Our God reigns!
brotheraaron,
There are only a small minority of Baptists who believe this garbage about Baptists pre-dating Catholics. Lutherans will disagree with you and all the Reformers would too. In fact, I think the reformers persecuted more than Catholic did! Why, because Baptists or anabaptists have a very unbiblical view of Baptism. Before the 1600's you can't find any credible historic evidence supporting your statement. I went to your website that you suggested. You don't seriously believe that do You? C'mon that is pretty bizarre.
Books like the didache from the 1st Century and letters from Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaus, Polycarp are proven historical documents from proven real people. Here is what they believed in the first century; The Bishop of Rome holds special primacy among other Bishops, they eat the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they pray for the dead, they ask Saints in Heaven l to pray to God for them, they held worship services that were a Liturgy, they lit candles, they used incense so their prayers would be carried to heaven like in Rev, they blessed themselves in the sign of the cross, they baptized infants, children and adults, they gave confirmation to adults who had already been baptized, they honored Mary, they had a hiearchy(Bishop, Priest, Deacon), they went to Priests and Bishops for confession, they baptized by either full immersion or the sprinkling of water over the head depending on where they were baptized, they kept the Apostolic Traditions, they prayed certain prayers again and again, they did the kiss of peace at Mass, they prayed for others, they went to a Priest or Bishop for the Sacrament of healing, etc.
Wow, now that I wrote this all down it does sound really Baptist....NOT. :) Wow, that was a fun exercise where reality meets with ignorance.
Mathetes,
This is why Christ gave us Shepherds because he knew His Sheep would stray. Yes, some Catholics divorce, abort and do other horrible things too. However, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is the final say and it is solid and won't move because Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Our Bishops who are our shepherds will not lead us astray.
Up to 1930's all Christians rejected contraception as immoral and pagan. Now the only church left that believes that is the Catholic Church.
By the way, I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with any Baptist at a pro-life rally!
Brotheraron,
Are you kidding me? There is no historical evidence that can prove that any Church came before the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church or Universal Church of Christ or "According to the whole of the Apostles"-Catholic Church has existed in its infancy when it was called originally the WAY and lead by Peter and the Apostles. The Apostles are our foundation who Christ appointed as our leaders and we have an unbroken history of connection from those Apostles to their first Bishops and so on like; Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaus, Clement, etc.
No historical record of any other church can provide tangible data that proves any connection of any Protestant group to the original Apostles and that is your problem. If you believe that your denomination came first and just hid out, then prove it! OUr Church is well documented from the year 33 ad.
If you honestly believe that you predated the Catholic Church then prove it. No scholar would ever agree with you, Christian or Secular. If you believe your sect came before us, then I have some ocean front property in PHOENIX, AZ for you to buy!!! How gullible. Hey maybe you are a Monophysite, or Donatist, or Arian then? They all denied the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. Yeah, you could be one of them but we Catholics put them out of business becaue they were HERETICS.
Any Christian group that splintered off from Luther was a Protestant. Since Luther who was the first Protestant of sorts, now there are 50,000 new sects of Christianity who Protest against Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Smith, Zwingli, Mennon, etc. You all Protest against each other.
The Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus Christ and only church that can support it historically and biblically. You can not.
I'm glad you recognize that things have changed over the last 20-30 years. At first I was against the "conservative resurgence" - I knew some good friends who were pushed out of teaching positions during the change. Now I'm glad it happened; we were on a path not unlike many mainline denominations have followed: decreased belief in God's Word as the ultimate authority for the believer, + tolerance and even acceptance of all sorts of evils.
Fragmented? Yes, there are many stripes of Baptists. I can only speak for the SBC. Are we much different from the RCC? I know from experience the difference in the official teachings and policies from Rome and what is taught by American bishops and priests. Look at the humanism taught in many Catholic universities. I thought Benedict might try to rein in some of them while he was here, but I believe he handled it well. Still has time to do so.
Blessings.
Mathetes,
Protestants are so divided and most of your churches within the Protestant Tradion allow for all these and have no "OFFICIAL" statement against these pracices.
HOWEVER, The SBC has done a very good job over the last 20 years. In the late 70's and early 80's the SBC had no official statment on abortion but by the late 80's they had finally made an official statement that abortion was wrong. Yes, I did make a broad statement because you guys are all so divided. It would be hard for anyone to be very specific.
Frankly, the only major group of Protestants I ever see at Pro-life rallies are Baptists with us Catholics and a few evangelicals too. Morality wise Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist and Non-denominationalss are the majority who stand against all these Pagan practices, but the majority of Protestants have no "Official" position.
chris,
"Divorce and Remarriage is ok by Protestants, Abortion in many denominations still ok, Contraception is the norm, they are pro-embryonic stem cell research, have no position on cloning and many Protestant denominations have supported gay marriage and euthanasia."
I don't know where you got your info, but you are overgeneralizing or just don't understand. Who said divorce was okay? I believe what God said in Malachi 3 when He said, "I hate divorce" - He considers it as bad as violence. Is it more acceptable if someone makes a large donation to the RCC and gets an annulment, even after having children?
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. I've stood with RCC and many others against it. Or do you think we believe it's okay because we allow the woman back into the church after an abortion? What does the RCC do? Shun her forever? I don't think so. As with divorce, we minister to the person who has done wrong and help them know God's grace.
The SBC is absolutely against ESC research, cloning, and euthanasia. And who do you think is on here daily trying to persuade homosexuals that what they are doing is wrong? Southern Baptists.
Would you like to repent and apologize, or continue denigrating your brothers and sisters in Christ, the ones you call "so-called Christians"?
This is classically rich.
No matter your faith background, if you disagree with or point out the errors in rcc theology, you're accused of "hatred".
It sounds as if those that refer to the politically correct "Webster's RE-Defined" have garnered more supporters.
My Brother Aaron – That’s excellent! You're new to Christianity, welcome aboard! Since you're new, it might just make sense that there is much more to learn and know. I’ll share my story in a bit.
Right now, you’re all fired up, but maybe all this hatred you hold toward Catholics is ill-founded. Maybe you’ve been misinformed. Like I said, I’ll share my story in a bit. Go ahead, you can catch Mass at the Basilica at noon today or at 5. Pay attention and listen closely, listen to every word. You’ll find that every word comes from scripture. You will find that the Mass is scriptural from the minute it begins to the minute it ends. Please don’t flippantly respond to this until you attend at least once. Check it out, it’s on the corner of Jasper and 112 St. God bless you my brother…
We don't believe in remarriage. Divorce and re-marriage is not ok. Please don't be so eager to judge me.
We are not protestant. http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
The Catholics do not predate Christians. That is wholly wrong and ignorant. What is Rome?
When I read the bible, I see my Church. I see my family. I see some of the people on here. I don't see the RCC. The Bible does not paint the picture attested to by Rome.
I wasn't raised in the Church. I was raised by a highly anti-religious family. I was saved only a year ago...
That is true TallGuy, if I studied the Catechism along with a bible, I might just become indoctrinated into the Catholic religion.
But thank God I am saved by His grace alone. For I came to Him through knowledge, reading His word and asking questions, and He revealed Himself to me. I called out to Him, and asked Him for forgiveness for my sins. I believed; He forgave me. Then he offered me two things: a cross to die on, and eternal life.
Please read again the stark contrast between what the Bible teaches and what the RCC teaches. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Tallguy1000,
Brotheraaron won't listen to you, but keep up the good work. You are right though, the more he studies the Catechism the more likely he will become Catholic.
Most of these Fundamentalists were either the most ignorant of exCatholics who were trained by Fundamentalist to be bigots towards us or they were taught at an early age. You will notice that his interpretation is not historical. In fact, very few Protestants can ever hit the tail on the Donkey with their interpretation coming close to what the earliest Christians believed. They simply don't care what the early Christians believed. They look at the early Christians as unchristian and yet these unChristians put the New Testament together defined the Trinity and the Incarnation. But they don't care.
You are right, I looked in my Catechism and he did make a lot of errors I saw too! For a group of so-Called Christians who don't like to dance they seem to dance a lot around the issues.
Can you rightly call yourself a Christian if your denomination is wrong morally?? Divorce and Remarriage is ok by Protestants, Abortion in many denominations still ok, Contraception is the norm, they are pro-embryonic stem cell research, have no position on cloning and many Protestant denominations have supported gay marriage and euthanasia. Where was the Catholic Church on all these issues? We were on the right side always and consistently saying no to all these issues.
My Brother Aaron, you're from Edmonton! You're a very lucky man, I used to live in Edmonton, and you’re in a great city! The Holy Catholic Church is very much alive and well within Edmonton! How very lucky you are! I’ve since moved back to Saskatchewan – go Riders go!
You are so lucky! As soon as you can, today if you can, head over to St. Joseph’s Basilica on Jasper Ave, drop in, you can attend Mass there three times a day, every day of the week! Yes, three times a day! I’m not sure what the schedule is for the Useful Benedictions that you might want to attend, but you can check that in the parish bulletin or ask someone. You’ll find that it is not as you called it “Pompous”, but rather within the Basilica are some very meek and humble people truly in love with Jesus, serving our Lord! Please don’t call God’s people pompous. Have you actually ever spoken with a priest or bishop? Before you call them pompous get to know them in person, they will most likely be far more humble then you expected. Remember, they are human beings too, just like you, serving our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now more good news! After that you can drive a few blocks north to St. Andrew’s on 111th Ave and attend 24hour adoration 7 days a week. Lucky Lucky Lucky! Go ahead, sign up, spend an hour with Jesus! Worship Him! Adore Him! Tell Him you love Him! Tell Him how much you need Him! On your way home, call the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Center, you’ll find a prayer group somewhere in the city each day of the week. Join any one of these groups and sing songs of praise to Jesus.
And finally, I hope the seminary you’ve signed up for is the Newman Theological College in St. Albert so that you will receive solid teachings in the truth! If you’re in Kings College, it might not be too late, you can always switch and come home to Rome….May God bless you my brother!
My brother Aaron, this is sooo exciting! You are studying your catechism, along with your bible! YES, you’ll soon be Catholic! The catechism was put together over a 2000 year period by teams of scholarly people who completely trusted, studied, prayed about, and understood the bible. Keep it up my brother; keep an open mind, good to challenge as this is the way we learn! Keep in mind, the scholarly people who assembled the catechism were not out to trick Brother Aaron in the year 2008. No, they assembled it as a way to help us who are less learned in biblical matters (I work in Electrical Engineering) to understand the bible in it’s entire context, historical, grammatical, language of the era, OT, NT. I’m thankful for the catechism, it allows me to do my job and work on these electrical designs, while leaving the understanding and deciphering of the bible to people who study it as part of their lift time vocation.b
I appreciate your efforts. Yet I spot checked a few (yes I have a copy here, also online) and you have errors. Make sure not to be broadcasting errors to the world, you might one day have to answer to Jesus for this.
For example, you said that the last supper was a real sacrifice…etc. Yet her is how the cathchism reads: And he took bread, and when he had given 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." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."
This is pretty scriptural to me…agree? Please slow down and not be so excited brother Aaron. I know this is good stuff, but make sure to understand it before you quote it.
You also misquoted 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 when you said “The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ”. Maybe I need to get new glasses, and I checked three different bibles, but I just didn’t see the word symbol anywhere in St. Paul’s writings.
These are just two examples, I was able to find more inconsistencies in your text. Maybe you need to discuss with your local parish priest to get a better understanding. Amen!
9. The RCC teaches: The Mass makes Christ present in His death and victimhood. [1353, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1409]
The Bible teaches: Christ should not be presented in His death and victimhood, for He has risen and is “alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:17, 18; Romans 6:9, 10.)
10. The RCC teaches: At each Mass the priest re-presents to the Father the sacrifice of Christ. [1354, 1357]
The Bible teaches: Christ presented the sacrifice of Himself to the Father “once at the consummation of the ages” (Hebrews 9:24-28.)
11. The RCC teaches: The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice which atones for the sins of the living and the dead. [1367, 1371, 1414]
The Bible teaches: Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22.)
12. The RCC teaches: Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin. [1371, 1414]
The Bible teaches: The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18.)
13. The RCC teaches: The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the sacrifice of the Mass. [1366, 1407]
The Bible teaches: Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14.)
14. The RCC teaches: The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass. [1364, 1405, 1846]
The Bible teaches: The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3.)
15. The RCC teaches: The RCC is to continue the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of the world. [1323, 1382, 1405, 1407]
The Bible teaches: The church is to proclaim the Lord’s death for the salvation of the world (1 Corinthians 11:26.)
2 Corinthians 11:14 - "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. "
Job 28:28 – “And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
Psalm 2:1 – “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”
Matthew 6:7 – “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
The numbers in square brackets reference the paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1.The RCC teaches: The last supper was a real sacrifice in which Christ's blood was poured out for our sins in the cup. [610-611, 621, 1339]
The Bible teaches: The Last Supper was a Passover meal. Christ's blood was poured out for our sins on the cross (1 Peter 2:24.)
2. The RCC teaches: The bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ. [1373-1377]
The Bible teaches: The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25.)
3. The RCC teaches: Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every RCC around the world. [1374, 1377]
The Bible teaches: Christ is bodily present in heaven (Hebrews 10:12, 13.)
4. The RCC teaches: The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food, which help one to attain to eternal life. 91392, 1405, 1419]
The Bible teaches: The bread and wine are symbols which help one to remember Christ (Luke 22:19.)
5. The RCC teaches: God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381]
The Bible teaches: God forbids the worship of any object, even those intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4, 5; Isaiah 42:8.)
6. The RCC teaches: Christ has ordained men to a ministerial priesthood to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. [1142, 1547, 1577]
The Bible teaches: Christ has ordained every believer to a holy and royal priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, the praise of their lips, and lives yielded to God (1 Peter 2:5-10; Hebrews 13:15; Romans 12:1.)
7. The RCC teaches: The Sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the cross. Only the manner in which it is offered is different. [1085, 1365-1367]]
The Bible teaches: The sacrifice of the cross was a historical event. It occurred once, approximately 2000 years ago, outside Jerusalem (Mark 15:21-41.)
8. The RCC teaches: The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1323, 1382]
The Bible teaches: The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30.)
I agree with "believer". very well said.
I sure would hope that you would do your research before judging and condemning pastors. Yes, I do agree that there are some televangelists out there, even non-tel, that are only in it for the money, and one day they will have to answer to that before the Judge. However, it's not our place to judge the motives of others, especially those we don't know personally. Also, I know that the pastor of Lifechurch is the very first I've ever heard of that leads a church of that size, yet his income is still well under 6 figures. The church is completely debt free because he is a firm believer in being good stewards of God's resources, and he has always given all the sermons and curriculum for FREE to anyone who wants it. Now tell me how that is money hungry? the money that is raised will go to starting 500 churches in countries where God's Word is not prevalant.
justme, I guess to answer your question one would need to know what your definition of worship is? Because worship could be defined as a ritual/style or as a way of life. I prefer the second because Romans 12:1 says were to present ourselves as a living sacrifice to God which is our spiritual worship, some translations say reasonable service, but I think both work together in that my service/obedience to God should be seen as worship. That is just about everything I do should be done out an attitude to please God in order to show Him and the world how much I love Him and want to grow closer to Him and become more like His Son, Jesus Christ each day. The standard we should use to do that is the Word of God. So if what I say, think, or do does not compromise, contradict, or violate God's Word I guess we could say that is worship of God because it brings Him both pleasure and glory. Needless to say there are some things that are not seen as worship but simply necessary to our human limitations. As far as worship as a ritual/style once again if it does not compromise, contradict, or violate God's Word and it brings honor and glory to Him alone then I believe that becomes a matter of preference as well as where a person is not only comfortable but feels they can freely worship God.
How do christians unite under one banner with so many ideological differences on how to worship Him? If there is One God, One baptism and One faith, it is fair to say One path and a narrow one at that? So many differences in "truth" that there is no way all can be truth. Are we saying however WE decide to worship God is ok? I find that to be deadly wrong! I do believe there is ONE truth and the truth shall set you free!
another reason is these pastors / televangelist do not understand the issues of life. that is why their message is hell & damnation. THEY DO NOT WORK BUT GET RICH!!
what about conservative christians who support a president to start a war & make profit out of the dead soldiers & use christianity to get votes.
Does this issue of church division breaking the heart of god? is the gospel all about church attendance? competition? sounds like a business to me so church leaders will profit from this religion.
and if the author say that this issue of church division is breaking the heart of god, then what about other issues like using god for profit, these televangelist making millions, & they stumble other believers because of their hypocrisy & arrogance. what about those issues!!!
May God give us all discerment to know truth from error and grant us repentance when challenged to abandon error for truth.
Well Said Believer!!
Also, I have to give kudos to MSNCHris because although you mentioned many things that you do may be similar to what MSN does in the Catholic Church, for him to not bring up the fact Catholics do not recognize Protestant orders or sacraments except Baptism because of the lack of Apostolic succession is amazing.
I'm glad he left it alone. This was very charitable on both of your parts not to attack each others' legalistic authority. As you both do things differently and yet the same, may Jesus Christ who is the Lord of all of us be praised.
I can't hardly wait to be a Pastor someday! Thanks to both of you for being good Christian examples.
Amen!
Believer, May we both continue to persevere and be steadfast in the Lord. My prayers are with you.
chris, with the exception of going to confession I've technically celebrated all the sacraments. I was baptized after I became a Christian, I was ordained as a Southern Baptist minister which included having hands laid on me by other ordained men of God to include my father-in-law, in 1974 I went forward in our home church and publically surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ which is similar to what happens through confirmation as well as I surrendered to full-time Christian service that day as well, and my wife and I were married in our home church. Plus as often as possible I take part if not officiate over the Lord's Supper. And yes each of those have had a tremendous impact on my life as a Christian. As far as sanctification, if you define that as becoming more like Christ, there is no doubt that since the day I accepted Christ as my Savior and Lord I am becoming more like Him, needless to say I have a long way to go but prayerfully I moving and at times falling in the right direction, but I also realize the process will not be complete until I go home to be with the Lord. To me sanctification is not only a result of observing rituals, but also if not more importantly studying and living out God's Word to show myself more approved unto God.
Believer, there is a big difference between being made holy and being saved. Sanctification vs. Salvation. I agree with you that you are well equipped by God once you receive His Grace by faith in His Son. You have everthing you need to be saved. I am looking at this from a sanctification point. Yes, you a Protestant and me a Catholic are no less or more saved if we put our trust in Christ for our salvation.
Christ gave His Church certain powers through the Sacraments to sanctify His people, to make them more like Him. We humans because of Original sin were made weak and we are going to sin. Christ gave us tangible things or gifts where we can receive additional Grace to strengthen us. He gave us the Lord's supper, Reconciliation, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony and the healing of the sick. All these very tangible things convey Grace or infuse it in you. You won't feel anything different per se, but when Grace of God which is a free gift is given to you then you can be more holy in the eyes of God.
I know many Protestants who love the Lord and are amazing people. I know many Catholics who love the Lord and are amazing people too. Without the Sacraments or Gifts of Grace given by Christ to His Church, it is hard to live a super Saintly life. Having said that I have seen some Catholics who regularly receive the Sacraments and yet nothing about their faith or lifestyle is heroic. My point is that we are called to cooperate with His Grace. If we can accept Grace through the Sacraments and cooperate with His Grace, then the Lord will do many great things in and through you. Another poster made comments about Catholic Saints. People like Padre Pio, St. Thomas More, St. Charles, St. Dominic, St. Theres, St. Francis of Assisi have lived all superhuman Saintly lives. Their lives would not have been as effective for God if they had not taken of the Sacraments.
I think you sound like a very solid Christian and I celebrate your love for the Lord. I can only imagine if you had an opportunity to receive these Sacraments with your current relationship with Christ how much more sanctified you would be and how much more you could do to bring people to Christ? Your relationship with Christ will only be strengthened by frequent reception of the Sacraments especially the Eucharist and Confession.
Shouldn't we all want to live Super Heroic Lives for Christ? If the Sacraments can make you a stronger Christian and a better witness for God, then why would you not partake?
chris, one thing you said that concerns me, you seem to imply that a result of taking the eucharist is that Jesus literally comes into your body, I really have a problem with understanding that concept, but more importantly the issue I have is that at the moment of my salvation I was indwelt by God's Holy Spirit as is everyone who genuinely puts that faith in the finished work and person of Jesus Christ, so God in essence lives in me and every other believer already and depending on how surrendered one is to the control of the Holy Spirit a believer should be being empowered, equipped, and guided by God's Holy Spirit every moment of the day and with regards to every choice/decision we make each day, so for me if God through the Holy Spirit reigns in a believer already and all the three persons of the Trinity are equal yet with very different responsibilites then what is the need of the transubstantiation?
chris, I am not saying there is a right or wrong here and my sense is you are not either, but rather a matter of preference with regards to worship as well as rituals. The problem comes when we make rituals requirements or develop an attitude that says our worship is more pleasing to God than your worship and we lose sight that worship regardless of it's expression is a matter between the worshipper and God. Granted if this worship were to include anything that either compromises, contradicts, or violates the Word of God then we as His Church must speak up. Not until I became a Christian did the Lord's Supper really have an impact on my life because until then the death of Christ still had not had a real impact on me personally, but after I got saved it has and hopefully always will have a powerful impact on my life and most especially every time I have the opportunity of celebrating the Lord's Supper.
Grace2,
If we are saved by Grace through faith, then both you and I are correct. By eating of the Eucharist, I am explicitly showing that HIs body took the penalty that I should have had. By eating his body, I show my faith that he died for my sins. By eating his flesh and drinking his blood I have new life in me through Grace.
So, if Grace can be given to us through the Eucharist, Confession, reading your bible, studying Scriptures, doing devotionals, praying for others, then how much more sanctified will we be? The aim of our life is to be as "Full of Grace" as possible which means to live a Christ-like life. By doing certain things like reading your bible, going to Church, receiving the Sacraments, giving testimony to others Grace flows into us. Why does Grace flow more when we do more? Well, the more we do the will of God the more free we become. The more free we become the more we can see Christ in others and in ourselves.
If we are saved by Grace through Faith, then by being an active Christian who embraces as much of Christ and Christian living in their daily lives then we can truly be a window to our Lord for others. We must receive as much "grace" fuel as we can so we can explicitly show in us His glory and joy. People want joy in their lives, and you can only have joy if you are fully alive in Christ and have a personal relationship with him.
If you celebrate everthing Christ did and everthing that the Apostles did to honor and worship their Lord, then you too will glow with the light of Christ and others will be saved because of your example.
Believer,
I can understand your point of view and I don't think your understanding of rituals and traditions is unreasonable, but I think that we do need others like Priests. When I got married, we didn't just marry ourselves we had a Pastor intercede for us and marry us. When I was baptized, you can't baptize yourself so a Pastor baptized me. When I pray for the healing of sick, I can't apply the oil to myself and just pray over myself but rather I have a Priest do it. We constantly see how God uses others to bring us closer to Christ and we see how God uses others ritually to bring us to God through the Sacraments. We can't just only confess to God our sins but both to God and to His representatives on earth who have the actual power from God to forgive sins or else why did He give this power to them? Because He knew we would sin and He left us with a gift so that we could know that are sins are forgiven because of the Priest's authority given by God.
Yes, we have a lot of rituals and traditions, but if those traditions came from the Apostles then why would someone not want to do them? We do these rituals and traditions not unlike Protestants. We all have our Traditions. Some Traditions of men came from the Apostles and some Traditions of men came from the Reformers. Traditions can be good, bad or neutral depending on the intent. The Apostles traditions helped us worship God. If a tradition honors and glorifies God then keep it, if it does not then get rid of it. Perspective is a very human thing. These Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scriptures with the teaching authority of the Church create a solid foundation on which our church has never failed. These traditions build up the body to create a uniform body of Christ where we pray, praise and worship in a very similar fashion. This uniformity builds strength and vitality and has proven the test of time.
You mention that all you need is Jesus and that is fine. If Christianity was a car, Protestants would only need the engine while Catholics take the whole car; engine, seats, steering wheel, spare tire and gasoline to fuel it. Which would you choose? Jesus wanted you to have the whole car, not just the engine. You can be saved by the faith you have in the engine which is Christ, but you can have such a deeper faith and travel much farther with Christ if you have the whole car. Eating the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist would be a good example of the fuel we need to keep the car moving. The more we partake the more sanctified we become and the more spiritual energy we receive to spread the Gospel. If you eat the sybolic bread, then how can symbolism fuel you? Our Sacred Traditions help us show reverence to God and be in awe of His Glory. These Traditions support our reverence, which thus creates a relationship with Christ where we are in awe of Him and what He did for us.
I guess it all depend on how you see Jesus, eh?
chris, I guess that's where I struggle most with Catholic traditions just about everything either involves a ritual or requires going through a priest or other religious person. That's one of the reasons I left the seminary because as I looked at my life and the life of a large majority of others at the seminary I realized there was no way a large majority of us could ever be worthy of being a mediator between God and man and especially me. But when I became a Christian at the age of 19 I realized that I have a mediator between God and me and that person is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I do not need to go through any rituals or anybody because I have direct access to the throne of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and that's available to anyone who puts their faith and trust in the finished work and person of Jesus Christ. Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to ritual in fact one thing I miss from my days as a Catholic is the observance of the Stations of the Cross during the lenten season and yes I know that some of the stations are extra-biblical, but it made the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross so much more meaningful to me. And when my wife and I went to the Garden Tomb on a Sunday morning I was vewry moved with the thought that my Christ may have been laid in that tomb, but Praise God He ain't there anymore. And as far as confession I am so glad God's Word includes 1 John 1:9 and I don't have to wait until Saturday to go to confession because I remember I used to confess one extra lie because I knew there were probably several sins I had forgotten about since my last confession and I didn't want to lie to God or the priest and I seriously believed that so please don't think I'm poking fun. As far as the Lord's Supper even if I don't believe in transubstantiation I hope and pray I will always observe the Lord's Supper as if I did and let God know how grateful I am for what His Son did for me on the Cross of Calvary.
chris70, a believer gets forgiven of their sins when they turn to God in the name of Jesus and ask God to forgive them for what they have done. I would be in a heap of trouble if I had to wait to participate in the Lord's supper before I could get forgiven.
You get forgiveness of sins when God convicts you that you have sinned and draws you to Himself in prayer asking for forgiveness.
That is something you catholics just don't seem to understand. Everything to you all is centered in ritual and not in God moving on you through the Holy Ghost. In your religion man and ritual has replaced God and His atoning work.
Dear CP readers.
Some may have noticed that a large number of comments have disappeared from a number of articles. We would like everyone to know that we are currently in the process of launching our new site within this week and experienced a minor glitch. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope to be able to restore the comments to the site.
Thank You
CP Admin
Grace2,
Come on. What you wrote doesn't stand up to any critical analysis of language in either aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or even English.
Jesus said, "This IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD" He didn't say it was a symbol. Doing this in rememberance of me implies nothing figurative and no professor of literature would grant you figurative use. We are simply to do this everytime we get together, because by eating the body and drinking the blood we receive forgiveness for our sins. Since we as humans sin everday, the bread and wine to be offered as the flesh and blood, act as rememberance of Calvary everytime we eat these elements. By eating and drinking we are forgiven of our sins.
Paul admonishes Christians to make sure we discern the Body of the Lord before partaking in the Eucharist. This was very strong language that all Christians understood as Jesus is really present in this bread and wine because Jesus said so. The people who heard Jesus say this understood it as literal and the first Bishops who were taught by the Apostles all understood it as literal.
We don't know how it happens, but we believe it in faith. Like in John 6, some have faith enough to believe and others simply do not have enough faith so they like some of Jesus followers left Jesus because they didn't have enough belief to just simply trust Jesus. Peter said it best, "Lord where will we go? For only you have the words of eternal life."
Do you have enough faith to just accept it literally as did 100% of all early Christians? Why is it that not only the RCC, but Orthodox, Armenians, Assyrians, Coptics, Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians all believe that Jesus is truly present in the body and blood of our Lord? The oldest Churches all agree.
Believer, I too had the same problem about reverence of the Lord's Supper when I was a Pastor. I knew there were people in my congregation who were on their second and third marriages, I knew people who were shacking up and I knew of people who lead in general immoral lives. When I did the prayer over the elements from Mt 26:26ff I could not help but remember Paul in 1Cor 11:23-29 where people should not receive unworthily because that would by guilty of the body and blood. Then I asked myself why would Paul use such strong language if it was only a symbol or if it was the real thing? I then reread 1Cor 2:14 and 3:4 where Paul explains what the flesh means. I then read remember when food was talked about symbolically in Jn4:31-34 &Mt 16:5-12. That was sybolic, but John 6 was different. John 6 was where the Eucharist was promised and there wasn't any symbolic language used and Paul's use of strong language led me as it did the early Christians that some how this bread and wine really does become the body and blood of Christ. I then had to ask what makes this bread in wine the body and blood of our Lord? Authority through Apostolic succession. No matter how much I wanted that bread to turn into our Lord, I had no powers of Apostolic authority to pray over the elements to create a change. This power and grace was given only to Bishops and Priests by the Apostles handed down through the laying of hands. This was how authority from the Bible was transferred in an unbroken line.
When I now eat the bread and drink the wine I now know it is truly the body and blood of our Lord because of the prayer of consecration where the elements change but the accidentals remain bread and wine, and I make sure Like Paul admonishes to discern the body and receive in a worthy manner. When you truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you receive a special gift of grace by having the true presence of Christ in you. It is a mystery how it happens, but we accept in faith that it does.
I go to Mass everday unless if I am sick. As a Catholic I do not look at the Eucharist as an ordinance or something I have to do. Most Catholics look at the Eucharist as the pinnacle of worship and gift we get to receive Jesus in us; body blood soul and divinity. I and many others will never get tired of it. We don't just do it everytime because we have to, but because we desperately want to receive him every chance we get. It is out of love not ordinance. If you love the Word of Scripture just think how much more you will love the Real Presence of the Word in your body. It is an amazing thing.
Tallguy
Re:Grace2 you never answered, why would Paul call this the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD if it weren’t?
I did answer you in my 12:38am post. Go back and re-read it.
Here is the scripture:
1 Cor 11:24-25 (KJV)
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Jesus said "in REMEMBRANCE of me" not take my "actual body and blood" inside of you.
"remembrance" => figurative
"actual body and blood" => literal
What concerns me more than how we interpret the elements is what appears to be a very flippant approach to observing the Lord's Supper. Although, I do not adhere to the transubstantiation view I do believe we need to see that the celebration of the Lord's Supper should be done with both awe and reverence and yet I have seen so many times not only people showing a lack of respect to the observance but people blatantly taking part in the observance in an unworthy manner. As a pastor I have seen people who are blatantly living in sin and even though their told the biblical requirments for taking part in the celebration they go ahead and partake anyways and without disturbing the whole celebration there's really not much I could do, but at the same time it really put a damper on my personal celebration of the Lord's Supper. As a pastor I did my best to ensure my people knew the biblical requirments and ensured they knew the significance of the Lord's Supper as well. We would observe the Lord's Supper for a purpose or in conjunction with a special day such as a Watchnight Service, Christmas Eve, and Maundy Thursday. We also stayed away from celebrating it on Sunday mornings as well. I also have a problem with churches who celebrate the Lord's Supper just because it is required by their church constitution, to me personally that makes the whole celebration no more than a ritual or obligation at best and not the wonderful observation of the greatest act of love the world will ever know.
Wow Grace2 you’re an incredibly fast reader! At www.earlychristianwritings.com there are thousands of writings/letters/essays, and to get through them all in the last 3 hours impresses me! It’s obvious that you do know exactly what the early church fathers wrote! Where did you learn to read so fast?
As far as St. Augustine, have you ever said or written something and then later realized it was wrong? Why can’t St. Augustine?
But, let’s never mind the early church fathers for a minute. What did Paul write in Cor 11? Grace2 you never answered, why would Paul call this the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD if it weren’t?
And, why is it a wafer? This is to trick Grace2 and deceive her/him in the year 2008, the Catholic Church had been plotting it all along. Well actually I was just kidding. It is a wafer because it is to be unleavened bread, and the wafer is just that, unleavened bread, no additives, no preservatives! Just unleavened bread nothing more! Unleavened bread does not rise. Here, I got this from Wikipedia: Many flatbreads are unleavened—made without yeast or sourdough culture. They can range from one millimeter to a few centimeters thick.
The wine at Eucharist is wine. Maybe I don’t understand your question. Yes we do use wine just like in the book of Acts.
Thank you for your questions… May God bless and keep you Holy…
Gee Tallguy, the early Church fathers can't seem to agree on anything regarding the elements of the Lord's supper.
Augustine says first the elements of the Lord's Supper is figurative, then he changes his mind and says its literal. Can't trust his opinion on this matter nor anything he writes for that matter because you don't know if he got it right the first time or the second time.
St. Ignatius of Antioch says it is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which I guess means that it is literal.
mathese says that there is an early Christian apologist who says that it is figurative.
Wow, the early christians are divided about what the elements of the Lord's Supper represent.
Who are you going to believe?
Jesus told the disciples to take the bread and the wine in REMEMBRANCE of Him (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24,25). Did Jesus say "take my actual body and blood inside of you". There is no scripture reference to support the claim that that is what Jesus said.
If you do it in REMEMBRANCE of Him then it is figurative. If you take His actual body and blood inside of you then it is literal which is what St Ignatius is saying.
So, who is right? Jesus or St. Ignatius of Antioch?
How come a wafer is used and not acutal bread and wine like Jesus used and the early Church used in the book of Acts?
You evangelicals sort of have a love affair with St. Paul, right? Obviously then you know that you can trust the words of St. Paul. Therefore you can obviously trust Paul when he says in
Cor11:27
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself”.
So, ask yourself……. why would Paul call this the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD if it wern’t? Why would he call it the Body and Blood of the Lord if it were only a symbol? Maybe I need new glasses? I just don’t see the word symbol anywhere in Paul’s text.
One of the early church fathers; St; Ignatius of Antioch wrote “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ who suffered for our sins and who, in his goodness, the father raised up. (From the book Against Heresies www.earlychristianwritings.com )
I'd like to add 2 quick items to this discussion:
Re: John's gospel -
In his Eccles. History, Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandra who said, "Last of all, John, believing that the external facts of the gospel had been made plain, being urged on by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel."
For this reason, many scholars place John's gospel about 90-95 A.D. Otherwise we would have to put the writing of the other gospels prior to 50 A.D. As for the meaning of "spiritual gospel," Clement did not clarify.
I also remember an early Christian apologist (sorry, which one escapes me) responded to a critic who claimed that Christians were cannibals (eating flesh + drinking blood) by writing that the flesh + blood were only symbolically in the bread + wine.
Sorry I can't supply more details; my books are at the office.
chris70 - If what you say is true about Augustine, why would you want to place any faith in a man who can't make up his mind what the elements of the Lord's Supper represents? Doesn't make any sense to me.
chris, plus this was not the first time Christ used figurative language with regards to Himself, He called Himself the True Vine as well as called Himself a Door, so it would not be out of character for Him to be talking figuratively here as well. Plus considering how much of an offense it would be to the Jews for them to think they were actually being asked to literally drink blood since their dietary rules strictly forbid consuming any type of animal blood let alone human blood. Needless to say this issue is a tough one for me.
chris, what I hear Augustine saying is by faith we see the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ as opposed to them literally becoming flesh and blood. Do you view it as the former or the latter? And if the latter what is the significance of that view?
Thank you for your comment Believer,
I appreciate the fact you use other sources to support your opinion. I truly respect that.
It is true that Augustine said that, but later recanted and stood corrected. Here are a few statements he did make:
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
I hope this is helpful.
chris, I totally take your blog as you intended it and for me personally I would not see it as a point of fellowship, my only concern is what is the significance of the teaching of transubstantiation, why is it a problem for some to believe that the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a symbolic remembrance of the death of Christ on Calvary as opposed to believing in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine? Because even Augustine said the hard saying of John 6:53 cannot be taken literally, "it is therfore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of the Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that His flesh was crucified and pierced for us." Elsewhere he sums the matter up in an epigram: "Crede et manducasti," Believe and thou hast eaten. (On Christian Doctrine 3.16., Homilies on John 26.1)
Believer,
You say John 6 can only be understood from a spiritual sense instead of a literal sense. You are a friend in the Lord despite the fact we may disagree with each other on some items but we both still consider each other Christians. Here is my point that agrees with the literal presence of eating Christ flesh in the bread and drinking his blood in the cup of wine. The fact is these words in Scripture were written in the year 50ad or thereabouts. We know for a fact that the earliest Christian historical accounts took these passages literally, not figuratively. In fact, we can't find anywhere in historic record where anyone disagreed with the fact that the Eucharist was the true presence of Christ. The first time this belief was ever challenged in a major way was in the 18th Century by Ulrich Zwingli where he took it figuratively or spiritually as you stated.
I'm sorry but I'll stick with what the early Christians did and how they interpreted that Scripture, rather than from Christians who were not there at the time of Christ and created a new interpretation 1700 after the fact. T interpret this passage Spiritually is inconsistent with the historical record. This passage was only recently interpreted Spiritually by Baptists and Evangelicals because if they didn't spin it, they would have to know the Catholic belief was correct. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists all agree that Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine. They call it consubstantiation while we call it transsubstantiation. Call it what you want, but Christ is litterly and amazingly present in that bread and wine. That bread and wine does become his body and blood, although the accidentals remain the same to the eye and taste.
Believer, this is the bigest difference that I saw as being a Protestant Pastor that many of our current interpretations of Scripture do not match up at all with how the earliest Christians perceived them and more importantly lived them out. You have to remember that I really was an anti-Catholic. I was mad everytime I read Scriptural interpretations of the 1st and 2nd century and found that at least in the Calvinistic Tradition that we were wrong and that Catholics were right. The biggest difference is that Catholics stick with the earliest and most widely accepted orthodox beliefs from the beginning and because our Protestant Traditions came much later, our founders put a spin on them to make it sound less Catholic. Anything that was Catholic they threw out and started over. The problem with that is that they threw out the bulk of what early Christianity believed.
You are a reasonable person and have been very charitable with me, so I hope this was perceived as charitable to you in my defense of the literal interpretation of John 6
Tallguy1000
Re: Lord Supper Observance - Literal or symbolic?
Old Testament Covenant:
God says in His Word that the Jews are to observe all the days of their life the passover in order that they may REMEMBER how God delivered them from Egyptian bondage.
Deu 16:1-3
1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leaven bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleaven bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest REMEMBER the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
The New Testament Covenant:
The teaching the Apostle Paul received from the Lord Jesus regarding the passover:
1 Corintihians 11: 23-26
23 For I have received of the Lord that which I also deliver unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of me'.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of me'.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come.
Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament. He is the passover Lamb that would redeem people from their sins.
It is obvious that the bread was only symbolic of Jesus' body. The Word of God says that the Messiah would be stricken for our transgressions. (Isaiah 53:8) Jesus took 39 stripes on His body. When the Jews baked their unleaven bread it was done on a grill and it left strips on it. The strips that Jesus took on His back parallels the strips on the unleaven bread. Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament passover observance that we now call the Lord's supper.
It is obvious that the cup was only symbolic of Jesus' blood. Jesus is the passover Lamb. It is His shed blood that is applied to our hearts (by accepting Jesus' sacrifice for our sins) that gives us redemption from our sins and allows us to escape His judgement when we die.
Since Jesus didn't give His body to be whipped until later that night and shed His blood until the next day when He hung on the cross thus the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup is only a symbol of what He was going to do for them.
The Jews observe the passover as a REMINDER of what God did for them in delivering them from Egyptian bondage. In like manner, Christians observe the Lord's Supper as a REMINDER of what Jesus did for them to deliver them from sin.
tallguy, please show me where I twisted God's Word, I only said that the passages you quoted need to be taken from a spiritual context and not a literal context. Plus why is it so important that we believe in the transubstantiation as opposed to it simply being a symbolic rememberance of the death of Jesus Christ?
Sure thing Believer! Twist the words of Jesus to suit yourself....
Let's repeat John 6:64.... But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
I though you were a "beliver" Believer! May the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you....
Quecat
Re: disappearing comments
I have reported it to CP by email (a month ago) and by phone (2 wks ago) and I have not heard back from them.
Here is my post which was removed yesterday:
There is a tool known as the law of non-contradiction where one can determine the relationship between two statements to see whether they are contradictory. The two statements (statements of faith) that I am referring to are the Word of God and the dogmas of Rome. Rome has often contradicted herself as history can attest to; so, the question is this, should we neglect the Word of God to embrace irrational contradictions?
This has been going on for about a month now; why post articles where people can comment and then remove them. Hopefully this is not censorship.
Tallguy, my sense is you want to equate those verses to the Lord's Supper or as Catholics prefer to call it Holy Communion, the problem is that the Lord's Supper was not instituted until Holy Thursday so the people He was speaking with would have no clue this referred to the transubstantiation. Most Bible scholars believe He was speaking to the fact that He would go to the cross and be crucified and if they were to truly follow Him they must recognize the fact that He would and must be crucified. Plus if you believe we should take this passage literally are you saying Christ was endorsing cannabalism and if you take this passage literally why didn't they begin right there to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Plus Jesus does not literally live in anyone, God's Word clearly states that at present He is in heaven with His heavenly Father, it is the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity, God in the form of the Holy Spirit that comes into a person's life the moment they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. Bottomline is Christ was speaking in spiritual terms not literal terms in the passages from the Book of John.
all of the comments went missing again?
This is getting tiresome.
Once again, I've missed being able to read the continuance of a conversation that I had to excuse myself from for awhile.
I've reported this to CP, has anyone else? has anyone heard anything as to what might be being done about it?
star 2; thats why we have so many churches, everyone has their own version of biblical truth.
Flagged myself! Yes Star2, I can tell you are very intelligent by the depth of your comments & you obviously have no trouble interpreting Scripture in its entire context of history, language, and culture. Impressive! Therefore I’m sure you will have no trouble understanding the following Scripture & you will from this day forward keep the command Jesus gave you where he instructs you to do this to in order to remain in Him Jn 6:56 & 15:4
Jn 6:52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?" 71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
Jn 15:4 Remain in me, as I remain in you.
Cor11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
Amen Star2!
Where did all the messagese go, CP? This was a great thread...
I rather stand alone in the Biblical truth God that has taught me than to unite with those who do not have Biblical truth. I will not compromise biblical truth for unity.
Where did all the comments go?