Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Church|Mon, Jun. 01 2009 02:52 PM EDT

ELCA Synod Votes Against Allowing Non-Celibate Gay Clergy

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

One of the Evangelical Lutheran Church's regional synods voted on Saturday to uphold the denomination's policy banning non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy.

The South Dakota Synod voted 362-233 during its annual assembly against changing the ELCA's current ordination policy and social statements on sexuality.

The vote is a recommendation to the denomination's highest governing body which will consider proposals on homosexuality at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August.

Earlier this year, the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality released a long-awaited report acknowledging that there is neither a consensus nor an emerging one in the denomination on homosexuality while at the same time recommending that individual congregations be allowed to choose whether to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships to be ordained.

Currently, the ELCA allows the ordination of gays and lesbians if they remain celibate.

The task force agreed that the denomination cannot responsibly consider any changes to its policies unless it is able and willing in some way to recognize lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships but it recommended that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to recognize such relationships.

Voting members of the South Dakota Synod debated over the task force's recommendations on Saturday. Those supporting the changes argued that adopting them would be a way of treating others with love while members against the changes argued that Scripture has for over 2,000 years been against non-celibate same-sex relationships, as reported by Keloland Television.

Overall, the synod stood against liberalizing their sexuality statements and ministry policies.

Since the release of the task force's documents on sexuality, Lutheran pastors, theologians and teachers have come out either in support of or in opposition to the recommended changes.

A majority of the faculty at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago released a statement backing the documents.

"The crucial question before the church is not whether the current recommendation on ministry policies challenges long-standing scriptural interpretations and ecclesiastical practices," the statement said, according to the ELCA News Service. "It obviously does."

"Rather, the ultimate question is whether the recommendation on ministry policies proclaims Christ … and his message of grace more faithfully than older interpretations and practices," it said. "We, the faculty of LSTC, are convinced that it does and, therefore, support the approval of the recommendation."

A conservative group of scholars and church leaders say otherwise.

In an open letter addressed to voting members of the upcoming churchwide assembly, the conservative group cautioned against changing the teaching of the church on sexuality especially "without clear biblical and theological support."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Danpat wrote: "I am but a humble servant of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ and will never believe my Holy Spirit is better than someone else's Holy Spirit." to which Prophet replied: "I'm glad you finally agree that we are all part of His Church." :-) hide

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Maybe that's why so many people become Catholics."

    no, they long for being obedient to Him and to receive the greatest miracle on earth today, His Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament (as He ordered)

    And for this Deo Gratias, Deo Gratias, Deo Gratias

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet: "I was thinking about the situation with Peter and Jesus and the "upon this rock" situation. Why did Jesus pick Peter of all the disciples?"

    Good post and good question:

    The reasons are many starting with St Peter, being the only Apostle whose faith was strong enough "to walk on water." [anyone who thinks this is easy try it themselves]...and Peter's faith ultimately held fast right through his crucifixion but he never forgot his failures, crying out at his death ...for him to be crucified upside down since he was not worthy to be crucified like His Master.

    There are many reasons. St Peter was a "flawed" man and God loves to surprise us (Isaiah 55:9) "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts...")

    Peter denied Jesus three times as prophecized by Jesus' Judas also denied Jesus; however, unlike Judas (who despaired of Christ's mercy) Peter "wept" and repented.

    But Peter also was the only Apostle who had the "Faith" to believe and know who Christ was:

    King James version: (I will use your Bible)

    16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

    16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

    16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

    16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you...

    Hence when Simon professed that Jesus was the Christ while others said different, Christ commended him and said that it was Heavenly Father who revealed it.

    Whenever God had a "special" role for someone, He always changed their name as demonstrated in Scripture, e.g., Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul (bring the Gentiles in), Simon to Peter (Cephas or Kephas establishing His Church on earth) meaning Rock [which not even the gates of hell will prevail against]

    As far as St Peter being the first among the Apostles:

    Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

    Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You know, I do find a type of comfort in ignoring Scriptures. Maybe that's why so many people become Catholics."

    Yah, right. It's almost like you grew up in a furniture box and never got out. Your knowledge of history is effete, especially Church history...you nothing about the early Church Fathers, the early Christians and what they believed (you will not look at the Didache, and hundreds of other sources read in the pulpit of the first Christan Churches) since it affirms what the Catholic Church says today including the Mass; you know nothing about the Church Councils which approved the books of the Bible [fighting off many heresies], nothing about the Bible which you would not even have today if it weren't for the Irish monks who hand-wrote Scripture during the Dark Ages since no printing press was available...Must be another public school graduate. All of this information is available at any second hand book store for your perusal or free at many libraries. Also, you have a typical "woman's logic" when you and your friend (the Britzer) disagree on scripture you do not even know a basic premise of logic "that two opposites cannot be true at the same time and "oh, well, we'll just agree to "love" each other does not heal the dicotomy between the Holy Spirit not being capable of agreeing to both posits. And ignore your Reformers and Protestant Theologians which on most beliefs agree with Catholic Theology; being much closer the Church's posts and explain "Protestant" resistence to "Protestant prejudices" (see Harnack, et al)

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And I always thought that when the Scriptures said that salvation was a gift, that it was. But I guess it has to earned....
    You know, I do find a type of comfort in ignoring Scriptures. Maybe that's why so many people become Catholics.

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I was thinking about the situation with Peter and Jesus and the "upon this rock" situation. Why did Jesus pick Peter of all the disciples?

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""So then we are not saved by works..."

    Correct - Faith AND Works (St Paul and St James, equal Apostles)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The problem with that, is that Paul and James disagree.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "I'm studying it a little deeper..."

    A shovel may help...

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "So then we are not saved by works..."

    Correct - Faith AND Works (St Paul and St James, equal Apostles)

  • Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So then we are not saved by works, if you say the only thing that can keep us from heaven is sin.

  • Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""I got saved when I was 17. Other than go to church, I didn't do anything until I was about 20. So you're saying I wasn't truly saved until I was 20?"

    No. We're not saved or rejected until our particular judgement (then we find out) Sin can always ruin it until our last breath. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first..." (surprises are in store)"

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Indeed, suprises are in store. Like all the people you thought were going to heaven via purgatory not being there. Catholics and baptists and presbies, and petacosts all standing in both lines. Mary and Peter and Paul and all the other New Testament greats standing in the same line as the other Christians awaiting their reward.

  • Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I got saved when I was 17. Other than go to church, I didn't do anything until I was about 20. So you're saying I wasn't truly saved until I was 20?"

    No. We're not saved or rejected until our particular judgement (then we find out) Sin can always ruin it until our last breath. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first..." (surprises are in store)

  • Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I got saved when I was 17. Other than go to church, I didn't do anything until I was about 20. So you're saying I wasn't truly saved until I was 20? If so, when exactly did I get saved? What work is it that I did that put me into the "saved" catagory? Can you please let me know how much good works I have to do to be saved, because I'm not sure I've done enough.
    Maybe that's the Catholic guilt way. Always make people feel like they haven't done enough to merit salvation so that they'll keep doing good works. Sounds like grace to me, doesn't it?

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Whew! It's like pulling teeth. Finally you agree."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Not really. Because if I didn't do good works, I'd still be saved.

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I posted this in another article, but I thought I'd post it here too.

    I'm studying it a little deeper, but it appears that Paul is talking about salvation, and James is talking about justification.

    Salvation and saved come from the words soteria and sozo which mean to be delivered or rescued.

    Justified comes from the word dikaioo which means to show as being just or innocent.


    We show we are saved by our works. As I said before, we are not saved because of works; we do works because we are saved.

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "What James is saying what good does it do to claim you have faith and yet your faith "

    Amazing that St. James who has earned heaven would need help on his words from someone who is trying to apply them to "preconceived" errors and lives 2000 years later than him. Arrogant.

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I am very involved in works in my church and community. There is only one reason I do it. Because I love God, my brothers and sisters, and the lost. That is the only reason."

    Whew! It's like pulling teeth. Finally you agree.

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You still have it wrong--it's Faith AND Works."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    For you, perhaps. But for those who are Christians, we are free from the law, and no longer under bondage to it.
    I am very involved in works in my church and community. There is only one reason I do it. Because I love God, my brothers and sisters, and the lost. That is the only reason.

  • Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Works don't make you a Christian, they prove you're a Christian."

    You still have it wrong--it's Faith AND Works.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Works don't make you a Christian, they prove you're a Christian.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    dan, James 2:14, "What use is it, my brethern, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" What James is saying what good does it do to claim you have faith and yet your faith produces no works or that a faith that does not compel a person to wholeheartedly obey God and minister to others is not a genuine saving faith, but rather as we'd say in our day, a product of cheap grace theology. And once again Ephesians 2:8-10 supports this verse and passage and vice-versa.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    dan, but I do know what Jesus says in John 6:63 with regards to John 6:53-58, it's all part of the same discussion Christ was having with His disciples and when they tell Him that this teaching is hard to grasp He says to them in verse 63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." In other words He was telling them this is a spiritual concept not a physical concept, not to be taken literally.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    (Ahh, Listen to what St. James says, "Faith without works is dead.")

    Ahh, trying reading James 2:20 in the context of the entire chapter . . . it may surprise you as to what is and what is not being said . . .

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:16)."

    Ahh, Listen to what St. James says, "Faith without works is dead."

    Sola "My Holy Spirit against your Holy Spirit."

    Hmmm, wonder why?

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "dan, Jesus is no longer on the Cross, when He declared from the Cross, "It is finished!", it was, all that could or would be done to save us had been completed by Christ on the Cross once and for all. Your inability to answer two very simple questions about the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation and your constant contradictions of yourself show that perhaps you know your roman catholic catechism but you are very lacking in your ability to grasp God's truths as taught in the Word of God. And as a result when you find yourself in the proverbial corner you have to revert to comments that are either totally unrelated to the topic or simply begin taking cheap shots at those who disagree with you."

    I've answered those questions several times but one needs the ability to "read and understand." A remedial reading course might help so I am not giving up. You with your Sola'ing just hunt around until you find a Bible verse that you think supports you, ignoring the fact that someone else finds it supports him or her and wonder why anyone would question - a god of Scripture.
    You know so little about the first Christians it is frightening that you may be teaching others.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    dan, Jesus is no longer on the Cross, when He declared from the Cross, "It is finished!", it was, all that could or would be done to save us had been completed by Christ on the Cross once and for all. Your inability to answer two very simple questions about the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation and your constant contradictions of yourself show that perhaps you know your roman catholic catechism but you are very lacking in your ability to grasp God's truths as taught in the Word of God. And as a result when you find yourself in the proverbial corner you have to revert to comments that are either totally unrelated to the topic or simply begin taking cheap shots at those who disagree with you.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    So danpat has resorted to childish retorts. Figures.

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "But that's the nature of the beast"

    Ah, yes; this too is biblical . . .

  • Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Dan said, (Hebrews teaches the atoning death of Christ was effective for the remission of sins and hence needed to be offer only once. But this speaks of what theologians call the "objective redemption." It doesn't mean that, since Jesus died for everyone, everyone will get to heaven. (That's universalism.) The merits or the fruits of Christ's death need to be applied to the individual)

    I agree; that is, with only the first sentence . . . Paul disagrees with what your "theologians" call infused grace; listen to what he says:

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:16).

    Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5).

    Paul speaks of imputation NOT infusion . . . Christ died once and justification is through faith not infusion through a wafer into ones stomach . . . as Hebrews 7:27 says, we do not need a DAILY sacrifice; period.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""Satan never sells his poisons naked - he always gilds them before he vends them" C.H. Spurgeon"

    How can a fish make this comment which really scares me, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "But that's the nature of the beast."

    "Woof Woof"

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "dan, I didn't ask for the definition of transubstantiation, I asked why is it so important that the bread and wine actually/literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and why is it so important that roman catholics take holy communion as allowed by the roman catholic church?"

    Oh, so that's what you mean? You need to ask Jesus. I am always obedient to Him especially when He is this agressive and clear:

    "Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You." (John 6:53)

    When God is this direct, I do what he tells me. You can disobey Him if you want, but I want His Life within me.

    This was an easy one.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part II of This is a snap re: Hebrews

    Read Hebrews 9:11-12: "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands...he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

    What does this means? In the Old Testament, atonement for the sins of the people was obtained once a year on the Day of Atonement when the high priest entered the holy of holies to offer sacrifices. Hebrews contrasts this with Christ who, as victim and high priest, offered the perfect sacrifice, once for all, on the Cross and who presented himself, as both victim and priest, in the true tabernacle, which is heaven itself, the dwelling place of God (Heb. 8:2-3; 9:11-12, 24).

    Christ IS "always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). What is the basis of this intercession? The sacrifice of the Cross (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:14), which is forever present before God in the heavenly tabernacle because he who was both offered as victim and who offered the sacrifice as priest "appears before God on our behalf" (Heb. 9:24).

    Christ's perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. As Frank Sheed puts it, "The Mass is the breaking through to earth of the offering of Himself that Christ makes continuously in heaven simply by His presence there."

    Some people will still object that the Mass is actually the reverse of the Cross. On the Cross Christ offered himself for us: We didn't offer anything. In the Mass, on the other hand, we do the offering.

    In a sense, this is true. We weren't physically or personally at Calvary. Still, there's a sense in which we were present--present in our high priest, Jesus, who offered the sacrifice of himself for us.

    In the Old Testament the high priest, in offering sacrifice for Israel, represented the people before God. In other words, the people offered their sacrifice through the high priest. Christ was our high priest, as well as our sacrifice, on Calvary. We offered the perfect sacrifice (Christ) for sins to the Father through him.

    Similarly, in the Mass Christ offers himself to the Father on our behalf, and we, his people, join ourselves sacramentally to his offering. The Mass is a way of approaching God through Christ's sacrifice, which is made present sacramentally because Christ himself is present.

    Nothing in this diminishes Calvary or implies we can approach God other than through the Cross. Rather than taking away from the Cross, the Mass emphasizes it.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "
    Also, why have you chosen not to comment on the passages that forbid the drinking of blood or on the specific passage which states Jesus NOT needing to DAILY offer himself up . . . Hebrews 7:27?"

    This is a snap: Part I

    "There is no new slaying of Christ in the Mass....Yet that it is the Christ who was slain upon Calvary is shown sacramentally by the separate consecration of bread to become His body and wine to become His blood. The essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering to the Father of Himself, who was slain for us upon Calvary. The Mass is Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father."

    Hebrews teaches the atoning death of Christ was effective for the remission of sins and hence needed to be offer only once. But this speaks of what theologians call the "objective redemption." It doesn't mean that, since Jesus died for everyone, everyone will get to heaven. (That's universalism.) The merits or the fruits of Christ's death need to be applied to the individual.

    When Catholic theologians talk about the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, they mean, among other things, that the objective redemption which Christ's sacrifice on the Cross merited is subjectively applied to the individual through the sacrifice of the Mass.

    Christ's sacrifice objectively merited redemption on the Cross. The same sacrifice of Christ, now offered sacramentally, not physically, is applied to the individual in the Eucharist.

    Far from substituting for the Cross or to make up for something that's lacking in Christ's sacrifice, the Mass is a means by which we receive the benefits of the Atonement.

    Granted this is what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass, and granted it doesn't mean Jesus is killed again by the priest, people still ask, "Doesn't Hebrews 7-11 contradict even a sacramental sacrifice when it says Christ offered one sacrifice?"

    No. Remember, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross, only presented in a different manner. The.aspect of redemption which involved his death is finished, but Christ lives forever to offer, by his very presence in the Mass, his work on the Cross for our sins to the Father in heaven. In no way does this diminish Calvary. (to be continued for my Protestant brethern)

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    dan, I didn't ask for the definition of transubstantiation, I asked why is it so important that the bread and wine actually/literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and why is it so important that roman catholics take holy communion as allowed by the roman catholic church?

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I once said the Scriptures were simple, but it took a theologian to make them difficult.

    I stand corrected. It takes a Catholic to make it pert'n near impossible. But that's the nature of the beast.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Sure. Transubstantiation is a snap:

    Part I

    Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated.
    Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above (Article 2). But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: "This is My body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Dan,

    Here is an appropriate quote that best describes the erroneous doctrines peddled by Rome . . .

    "Satan never sells his poisons naked - he always gilds them before he vends them" C.H. Spurgeon

    We have specifically addressed John 6 but you have refused to comment on Hebrews 7:27; in case you missed it, here it is again . . .

    Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself (Hebrews 7:27).

    What does it mean?



    ( . . . Christ's Church permits)

    Sorry, the Roman Church is not Christ's Church; granted there are true believers in every communion but the magisterium could never be Christ's representatives seeing they continue to promote dogmas that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught . . .

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    dan, your redundancy is getting old, such as sharing from a passage in John 6 without including the whole message that Christ shared, specifically leaving out and avoiding John 6:63. Plus, you have yet to answer my questions with regards to the transubstantiation.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    online, no I think he may be the roman catholic version of mickeyc with all his off the wall comments which have nothing to do with the discussion!

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I am but a humble servant of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ and will never believe my Holy Spirit is better than someone else's Holy Spirit."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    I'm glad you finally agree that we are all part of His Church.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Symbols stand for something else ...


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Yeah, the wine is a symbol of his blood. The bread is a symbol of his flesh. Very good. His blood became a part of me when I was saved. And I partake of the bread in my study of his Word.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Please share with us what this passage means . . .

    Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself (Hebrews 7:27)."

    I am but a humble servant of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ and will never believe my Holy Spirit is better than someone else's Holy Spirit. The gift was given to Peter and his Successors in union with the Bishops, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatserver you loose upon earth will be loosed in Heaven. I will be with you until the end of time."

    Thank you again Lord for your Church.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Wow. That's deep. Body and blood merges with mine everyday too. His blood was infused with mine the day I made Him my Lord. Now I celebrate His covenant with me whenever I drink the wine (symbol of the Blood shed for me) and eat the bread (symbol of His body that was torn for me)."

    Symbols stand for something else ...

    Catholics and Orthodox and Byzantines drink and eat the Real Presence (not a symbol of the Lord):
    "For my flesh IS meat indeed, and my blood IS drink indeed..." Deo Gratias,Deo Gratias,Deo Gratias my Jesus.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Salvation by works was done away with, too.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Also, why have you chosen not to comment on the passages that forbid the drinking of blood or on the specific passage which states Jesus NOT needing to DAILY offer himself up . . . Hebrews 7:27"

    Are you Jewish or Christian?

    You're in the wrong place -(OT) Jesus came to FUFILL the OT, and this was what the Jews meant when they heard Jesus saying:

    Jesus was questioned on this hard saying by the Jews because this kind a thing was a forbidden in the OT [your post]...but this is the NT and Jesus speaks even clearer:

    "For my flesh IS meat indeed, and my blood IS drink indeed..." Pretty clear indeed. Notice He did not say...well, I did not mean this is really my flesh for I speak figuratively. Are you dumb a bunny or what? I do not say ... this looks like my flesh...this looks like my blood...His word says "IS" in both instances...IS is not figurative language. And then Jesus really locks it in so there could not be any misunderstanding at all when He says (hitting a home run):

    "Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You." (John 6:53)

    This is like saying "circumcision" required in the OT is also required in the NT, and I think St Paul put the boots to that (Thank you, St Paul for the clarification here)

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You keep the simplicity and I'll take Jesus' Body and Blood merging with mine every day...Go Jesus, the greatest miracle in the world since man began..."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    Wow. That's deep. Body and blood merges with mine everyday too. His blood was infused with mine the day I made Him my Lord. Now I celebrate His covenant with me whenever I drink the wine (symbol of the Blood shed for me) and eat the bread (symbol of His body that was torn for me).

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Boy you are heretical. You missed it. Jesus did rebuild the Temple in three days...Jesus is the Temple and he arose from the dead in three days as He promised."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    Not heretical. Just right. Jesus was speaking figuratively....just as He did with Peter.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I think what pisses Catholics off is the fact that Protestants actually study the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit..."

    Yah, right. That's why Protestants come up with opposite meanings of the same verses (some Holy Spirit you got)

    Logic 101 - Two opposites cannot be true at the same time, i.e., the Square of Opposition.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I know. Too bad the Catholics are on the wrong side of opposites.

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I think what pisses Catholics off is the fact that Protestants actually study the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit..."

    Yah, right. That's why Protestants come up with opposite meanings of the same verses (some Holy Spirit you got)

    Logic 101 - Two opposites cannot be true at the same time, i.e., the Square of Opposition.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links