News:

We have a new forums theme. This theme is mobile responsive and SEO compliant. The last one was not.
|CoR| Staff



Guardian

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2007, 02:27:04 PM »
So now unless you're an adherent to Finished Work theology, you're not saved.  Now I agree with the Finished Work Theology, I'm not arguing against it, and I'd defend it if the debate was focused on questioning its validity.

However, Finished Work Theology is a relatively new development in Christian Theology.  Of course its Apostolic, but so is the entire Bible, and frankly its taken in some cases thousands of years for people to "get it" when it comes to certain Biblical truths.  Anyone here who's not a Roman Catholic, comes from a denomination that is at the absolute best, 500 years old, meaning its a structure of beliefs and theology that while may be valid, has only been truly accepted for roughly a quarter of the existence of Christendom.

Finished Work Theology did not even come out of the Reformation, it came actually in the past 150 years.  In fact the first historical mention I can find of "Finished Work" theology, was 1907, and was preached by William H. Durham (A Pentecostal actually).

So you're not saying that a large portion of Christianity may not be saved, but you're basically saying that everyone who has not been taught Finished Work Theology, which wasn't even properly taught until 100 years ago, will not be in heaven?

I'm sorry Bryan, but I just can't side with you on that.  I read through all of Galatians last night, and I went through some commentary, and I feel you're stretching things a bit there.  First off, the "law" he was referring to was the Mosaic law.  Second, Catholics believe that Christ is the one who justifies, but they build their argument on simply Christ saying, "If you love me, you will obey my commands", and the sacraments are practices that they have built on what they believe to be New Testament, Apostolic, Biblical practices.  In order to be saved, you must love Christ.  In order to love Christ, you must obey Christ.  In order to obey Christ, you must do as Apostolic teaching says.  That's their logic.  And frankly its not horrible logic, but again I believe they fall short when it comes to discerning between cause and consequence, as I have pointed out numerous times.  Third, Paul seems to think he is correcting Christians, fellow brothers in Christ.  Would he refer to them as Brethren if they had not the grace of salvation, because they had been misled?

Also you must understand that Catholics come from a sort of Arminian position to where you can lose your Salvation.  It is not so difficult a thing to become Christian in the Catholic view.  Confess Christ and be baptized.  Nothing else to it.  However, to maintain that salvation, basically to show that you truly are of Christ, you must take part in the sacraments with a righteous heart.  Even an Arminian position which does come from Finished Work Theology, will say that you must live a holy life against sin to remain saved.  Even a true Calvinist position will say, if you do not see the manifest works in someone's life that line up with the New Testament commands, then they were never truly saved.

No true and accurate theology says that there is nothing expected of the Christian.  The disagreements are on the relationship between those expectations, and when someone is truly saved.  Basically, its not a confusion of components (in regards to Soteriology), but more a confusion of the order of components.

Example: The Bible makes it pretty clear that every believer should be baptized.
To claim to be a believer, and not be baptized when you have the opportunity, is that not disobedience?
So every Christian should be baptized.  No disagreement there.
Catholics (and some Protestants) say it should happen with the declaration of faith, the rest of Protestants say it should happen after.
Both agree it should happen.

You've seen me constantly defend Finished Work, Sola Fide Soteriology.  I obviously do not disagree with you that it is the most accurate interpretation of Soteriological Doctrine as presented in scripture.  However, I do believe man's understanding of God's revelation is a continual process, and it has taken many many centuries for that human understanding to catch up to God's revelation as was given to the apostles.

Where historically, Christians have always agreed: Man is fallen, and worthy of damnation.  God loves man, and humbles himself to become man.  Christ dies on the cross and rises from the grave and ascends into heaven, conquering sin, that through faith in him, we may be saved.  I believe that what is consistent in true Christian Theology, is that sin is so evil, that man is truly bound and condemned by it, and that God trumped it in a just and merciful way.  I believe as long as you understand the weight of sin, and the need of Salvation, and profess Christ as your savior, and believe it truly in your heart (which will naturally manifest in good works afterwards), then you are saved.

While the Catholics may be slightly inconsistent, they still hold that Christ is the only way that salvation is made possible to man, and that without him, sin will fully consume and destroy man.  Yes, they believe there is more to becoming saved than simply faith, and that truly is incorrect doctrine.  But it is a mistake made from misinterpretation of the same holy New Testament canon, and the same apostles, and frankly I do not believe that they have missed the gospel.  And I do believe that the lives of many many Roman Catholics, men and women who truly sought after God, with faith that he would reveal himself to them, prove that in spite of erroneous teaching on some matters, that God is still moving through the Roman Church, and the heart of the gospel is still being taught.

I agree that no act, no penance, no sacrament, will gain you favor with God.  However, if there is faith in the Christ who died, and rose again behind all of those works, while the works themselves are nothing special, the faith behind them is legitimate, and it is in that, that their justification lies.

Peace and God Bless!
~Brandon D. Watts
~Guardian
~General of *FR*, |COR|
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

Guardian

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2007, 02:27:46 PM »
And Merlin, that's Deacon, not Reverend.  Reverend is someone else. =)
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2007, 02:51:55 PM »
Brandon,

To be perfectly accurate, Catholic doctrine could itself be twisted to make such a flow. However, such a statement is, itself, inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that the sacraments themselves are salvific in effect, that the sacraments are not examples of obedient faith (as James calls for) but rather are activities of which a Catholic must partake in order to have any hope of salvation.

This is not simply a matter of order, this is a matter of man taking upon his shoulders the work which Christ alone could accomplish.
In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes


Guardian

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2007, 03:29:32 PM »
Brandon,

To be perfectly accurate, Catholic doctrine could itself be twisted to make such a flow. However, such a statement is, itself, inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that the sacraments themselves are salvific in effect, that the sacraments are not examples of obedient faith (as James calls for) but rather are activities of which a Catholic must partake in order to have any hope of salvation.

This is not simply a matter of order, this is a matter of man taking upon his shoulders the work which Christ alone could accomplish.

Which is odd that you say that, because if you ask a Catholic "What happens if I'm not saved, and I take communion?"  The answer will not be good!  Anywhere from, "Well it was completely pointless, and did nothing for you" to "You're gonna be cursed, or judged by God"

You must understand Catholic terminology sometimes works a little different from Protestant terminology. I believe one of the other Catholics on the board explained the "race" how in effect, Salvation can be referring to two (well he said three, but usually I hear two) different things.  One is the initial salvation, the other is the ongoing salvation.  Very similar to the "Second Work" theology of Sanctification and its debates.  Its Sanctification a singular act, or an ongoing process?  The debate still goes on today as to which it is.  In a sense, the two usages of the term salvation, are the same as the two usages of the word Sanctification.

In order to be saved, according to Catholic Doctrine, yes you must not only have faith in Christ, but you must partake in the sacraments.

However the phrase "to be saved" must be divided into two categories for Catholics.

One is the process of initial salvation, becoming saved.  This is obtained solely through placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and being baptized.  Now I believe that the baptism part is a mistake, but an honest one at least, not necessarily damning.  Baptism for them is a sacrament which relates directly to the death and resurrection of Christ after all.  And while the argument for its requirement is not the stronger argument, I can at least see where some might think it is necessary in order to become saved, based on a few passages which can be difficult to interpret.

Really the difference between how you "become saved" are not that great in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  The variation is in how you "remain saved".
This is where the other sacraments come into play.  So yes they are actions of obedient faith, but the Catholics sadly, make them into more than just that.  However, the one doing the work in the sacraments, according to Roman belief, is the Holy Spirit, not man. 

Frankly, the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is they place their faith in many of the church fathers and their teachings... why is that a problem?  Because well, many of the early church fathers taught many different things.  In some cases, the Catholics teach one thing, and practice another.  In some other cases they teach two things that when logically thought through, actually contradict each other.

Let me point out what I mean.  What Merlin said here:

Quote
Like I said the Church teaches Jesus died on the cross for our salvation it is FREE we can not earn or MERIT salvation of our own accord.

Is correct. The Catholic Church does teach that.  However, what Jenni posted from the Catechism is also correct:
Observance of the natural law: CCC 2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

So they say on one hand, its free, nothing you can do can merit it.  But on the other hand they say, you can't have it if you don't work for it.  Logically, this simply doesn't work.  However, they do force logic in a way, because it is more "illogical" in their mind to assume that something the Roman Church taught at one time, can not be wrong simply because something different is taught at another time.  However they do try to wrap their illogic around faith in Jesus Christ.  I also believe they are different from the problematic groups in Galatia, being that those "teachers" denied the apostleship of Paul, and directly opposed him.  The Roman Church at least tries to submit to Apostolic teaching.

Peace and God Bless!
~Brandon D. Watts
~Guardian
~General of *FR*, |CoR|
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2007, 04:04:14 PM »
Quote
Because well, many of the early church fathers taught many different things.  In some cases, the Catholics teach one thing, and practice another.  In some other cases they teach two things that when logically thought through, actually contradict each other.

  You say the Church fathers, they can teach what they want but we can we please distinguish from what church fathers taught and what the CHURCH taught please.  Lets look at the WHOLE section of the catechism clip instead of the one part so we can read it in context please.
Quote
* I. MORAL LIFE AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

2032 The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth."74 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."75

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life "in Christ," who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person's own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

2040 Thus a true filial spirit toward the Church can develop among Christians. It is the normal flowering of the baptismal grace which has begotten us in the womb of the Church and made us members of the Body of Christ. In her motherly care, the Church grants us the mercy of God which prevails over all our sins and is especially at work in the sacrament of reconciliation. With a mother's foresight, she also lavishes on us day after day in her liturgy the nourishment of the Word and Eucharist of the Lord.

  So I believe it is saying our observance of GOD's natural law is necessary for salvation, we read it in context it helps quite a bit.

  From Guardian
Quote
if you ask a Catholic "What happens if I'm not saved, and I take communion?"  The answer will not be good!  Anywhere from, "Well it was completely pointless, and did nothing for you" to "You're gonna be cursed, or judged by God"
  Lets examine why a Catholic would say this guardian.
1 Cor 11:27-29
Quote
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
  Jesus called us to partake in His body and Blood every mass, (the Eucharist), we must be pure and in God's grace to receive our Lord and Savior body and blood, and NOT in a state of mortal sin.  Paul tells us that if he receive Eucharist unworthily, being in a state of mortal sin, or not a member of the Catholic church that we eat and drink damnation upon ourselves.  It would be a mockery of God and His divine establishment a huge sacrilege.

|CoR| Blackhawk

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2007, 08:19:51 PM »
Just a point of curiosity, for reference:
What bible version are you taking your quotes from, NKJV, NIV, KJV,...?
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth me in the paths of righteousness for his names sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord fore ever." Psalm 23

|CoR| Gamil

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2007, 09:39:44 PM »

  You say the Church fathers, they can teach what they want but we can we please distinguish from what church fathers taught and what the CHURCH taught please.  Lets look at the WHOLE section of the catechism clip instead of the one part so we can read it in context please.
Doesn't the church teach through the church fathers? If so, then aren't the teachings of the church fathers really the teachings of the church?



  From Guardian
Quote
if you ask a Catholic "What happens if I'm not saved, and I take communion?"  The answer will not be good!  Anywhere from, "Well it was completely pointless, and did nothing for you" to "You're gonna be cursed, or judged by God"
  Lets examine why a Catholic would say this guardian.
1 Cor 11:27-29
Quote
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
  Jesus called us to partake in His body and Blood every mass, (the Eucharist), we must be pure and in God's grace to receive our Lord and Savior body and blood, and NOT in a state of mortal sin.  Paul tells us that if he receive Eucharist unworthily, being in a state of mortal sin, or not a member of the Catholic church that we eat and drink damnation upon ourselves.  It would be a mockery of God and His divine establishment a huge sacrilege.

I ahve always been taught that it is wrong to take communion if you are not saved. My church emphasizes the gravity of it's seriousness, but we don't teach that it is necessary. IF it was necessary, then someone who doesn't have the ability to take communion could never be saved. That is a point which I do agree with the Catholic church on. But I don't believe that it is necessary to stay saved. If it were, wouldn't Jesus have told us how often we need to do it?

Playstation Network ID: Gamil
SWTOR: Server: Shadow Hand Character: Gamil

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2007, 07:53:19 AM »
Quote
If it were, wouldn't Jesus have told us how often we need to do it?
  From Gamil
yes Jesus makes it quite clear read the following scripture

John 6:47-55
Quote
47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Gamil pay closely attention that Jesus says unless we receive Jesus in the Eucharist body, blood, soul, divinity, that we will have NO life in us, so this is a commandment from Jesus to receive Eucharist.

Jesus told us to do this at every mass. 
1 Cor. 11:23-26
Quote
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come

  St. Paul then goes on to warn us against receiving the Lord's body and blood unworthily telling us that we will {Please choose a better word} our souls if we do this sacrilege, in the past few verses it tells us people got very sick and died from doing this.

Quote
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

  Gamil, we know that Jesus taught HIS real presence in the Eucharist, in other words we truly believe this is Jesus' blood and flesh not crackers and grape-juice, in the scripture posted we can see that some of the people hearing Jesus could not believe what He was saying and could not understand, they would not accept it and some turned away and left not following Jesus anymore.

  Hawk,

 
Quote
What bible version are you taking your quotes from
  I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate, its my personal preference and favorite translation.

Crossbearer

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2007, 08:01:56 AM »
I don't see how you get this part.

 Jesus told us to do this at every mass. 
1 Cor. 11:23-26

Quote
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come


All that passages says is when you do it, do it in rememberance of JEsus, not to do it at every anything.

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2007, 08:23:07 AM »
here.
[youtube=400,300]0c6z0dKJGDI[/youtube]
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 02:22:24 PM by |CoR| Merlin »

|CoR| Legolas

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2007, 10:56:27 AM »
Merlin...jesus doesn't say to do it EVERY time...Not that that matters to me one bit...but...no where does it say to do it every time...

it says every time you DO it...not do it every time.
|CoR| Legolas*GI*     
*STAR* and *PiG* Official Member.

**Eleet computer builder club - 7 Fan Wonder**

Parents need to cowboy up.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2007, 06:11:32 PM »
Importance of Eucharist to us as Christians.
[youtube=400,300]3oTts799Lzg[/youtube]

|CoR| Vette

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2007, 09:00:14 PM »
Jesus makes it plain that He was speaking of belief in Himself when He spoke of "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood:"

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.  27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:

Jesus' celebration of the last supper was a powerful symbol to the apostles:  as Jews there were intimately familar with God's covenant with Israel.  Jesus was God's new covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  The "new covenant in My (Jesus') blood" (Luke 22:20) rests directly on the sacrificial work of Christ on the Cross (which was foreshadowed by Israel's system of sacrifices) and accomplishes the removal of sin and the cleansing  of the conscience by faith in Him.  So every time a Christian celebrates the Lord's Supper, it is done in remembrance of God's fulfilled promise: Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!




|CoR| Gamil

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2007, 10:23:37 PM »
Merlin, NO ONE has debaed the importance of communion here. I was just saying that IF it was NECESSARY that we do it, that Jesus would have at least told us when to do it. and you have it wrong. Read the passage. It says to do it "as often as you shall drink". So basically, every time we take a drink we are to do it in remembrance of in remembrance of JEsus Christ. Think about that. If everytime you drank a something you did it in remembrance of JEsus, wouldn't the entire way you drink ANY thing be drastically changed. If you can think about Jesus during such a n everyday, dare I say menial, task as drinking, would you ever stop thinking about Jesus? Probably not, and that's what God wants. He wants us to focus on him all the time. "Pray without ceasing" -- Paul-- well gee man, no wonder Paul was so devoted, he couldn't stop thinkiing about God long enough to do much else. Remember, prayer is our way to get in direct touch with God. So if we pray, we are talking to God, no one is needed to intercede for us. So basically, Paul was sayign that we should be in direct communication with God all day, every day.




Now for the catholic bashing which you would assume all of my posts are, this way you would be right about it once:

The catholic Church does communion wrong. Jesus says BREAK the bread I seem to remember the 'Eucharist' at catholic churches being so stream lined that they have precut little wafers that are put on your tongue by the priest. Jesus passed a loaf of bread around. It also says do it as often as you drink. Sicne hte Catholic church only says do it every Mass, they aren't doing it enough, so no catholic who only does it at mass is gonna be saved.






now obvioulsy that is pretty lousy who cares if the bread is broken or mot. Every church I've been to, except one, has used broken saltless saltines. but still, i wouldn't mind seeing how people respond to it.


no offense Merlin, but please, wear a shirt. it has nothing to do with you specifically I jsut don't like watching youtube videos of people without shirts on, it makes me jsut want to look at a different webpage. And most of all, PRACTICE what you are gonna say so you don't sound like a noob saying 'um' 3 times in a sentence. That is jsut a bit of advice. I'n not trying to attack you or your speaking skills, but you would have a much better arguemnt if oyu practiced. HOW you presents something is more than half of the battle for gettign them to actually listen to you. People who give speaches practice for HOURS upon HOURS to the point they have it memorized and they only have to look at notes if they have a brain fart or something. They actually think ahead several sentences of where they are so that what they are gonna say is buffered in their memory.(not intended to sound like computer jargon, but in either way it means the exact same thing). That's what i've learned to do from having to give several presentations just for my eagle scout project, add on a bunch of stuff for engineering classes and computer classes, and I get a LOT of practice doing public speaking. I still hate doing it though. I'm just not comfortable with people watching me. I don't like being the center of attention or anywhere near it.

Playstation Network ID: Gamil
SWTOR: Server: Shadow Hand Character: Gamil

|CoR| Legolas

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2007, 12:35:02 AM »
merlin...videos are cool..but when you quote something, can you still include the text. Thanks.

I was going to say something about the shirt earlier...thanks dude...we appreciate it. :)
|CoR| Legolas*GI*     
*STAR* and *PiG* Official Member.

**Eleet computer builder club - 7 Fan Wonder**

Parents need to cowboy up.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2007, 09:46:08 AM »
Quote
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Bulletproof, you specifically left these verses out so you are taking the lesson taught quite out of context. 
Jesus said that the bread that Jesus will give IS HIS FLESH.  We can clearly see that the Jews understand this literally, and we also read the Bible LITERALLY, when Jesus was holding Himself in His hands and said "this is my body" it because the body of Jesus, and when Jesus held the Eucharist wine cup He said "this is my blood" and the wine turned in Jesus' blood, the sacrament of the Eucharist is quite clear in the New Testament and has been taught to use for over 2,000 years, when the Roman Empire was persecuting the Christians they said that the Christians "ate their God" in history dating so far back even they who were pagan Romans understood the Eucharist as literal, it is a mysterious sacrament and the Holy Paschal sacrament that Jesus established at the Last Supper. 

  Gamil, Jesus from the verse I quoted in earlier post told us that if we do not eat His Flesh and Drink His blood that we will have NO life in us.  On your second thought the Eucharist is very holy and only performed at a Church by a dually ordained priest with the prayer and words of Consecration.  Making a opinion that taking a drink of a soda is like receiving the Eucharist if far from actuality and what Jesus taught us.  Its very good to think of Jesus all the time, but it is a wonderful calling we have to the Lord's Supper every mass.

|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2007, 11:45:45 AM »
Key to this discussion is an understanding of the difference between sanctification and justification. You are correct, recent Catholic apologists have argued in a manner which creates a confusing blur between the two. These teachings about the "race" and the sacraments purposes in them, that the sacraments give us the 'grace' we need to continue in the 'race' which is set before us, are themselves contrary to what Catholic doctrine teaches.

Thiessen defines justification:

Quote from: Lectures in Systematic Theology
...that act of God whereby he declares righteous him who believes in Christ.


As Thiessen points out, justification is declarative. It is God choosing willfully to set aside our sin from our accounts.

What then is sanctification? (And yes, my definition will be inherently progressive)

Broadly speaking, we may define sanctification as a separation to God, an imputation of Christ as our holiness, purification from moral evil, and conformation to the image of Christ.


Catholic apologist would confuse the two. Justification deals with how man's sin debt to God is dealt with, sanctification deals with man's moral nature itself, both how it is viewed by God (Christ's imputed holiness), and how it is itself transformed through the Christian's life.

So let's look at the core issue rather than allowing ourselves to be confused by common language used differently.

According to Catholic doctrine, how is the sin debt between God and man dealt with?

What role does baptism have in dealing with sin?

According to the Council of Trent baptism is salvific in nature in that it baptism which deals with one's original sin. That sin debt which we as ancestors of Adam incur and are born with.

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.


977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."


1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.


What role does Christ's death have in dealing with sin?

Catholics are correct in that they claim it is the work of Christ which 'saves' them.

What role does communion have in dealing with sin?

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[size=10][Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.[/size]


1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

[size=10]For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.[/size]


1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.231 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

[size=10]Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world. . . . Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.[/size]


What role does the viaticum ('last rites') have in dealing with sin?

In essence, the viaticum is a last participation in Communion before one passes over in death. As such can it be expected that its effect is the same? The forgiveness of sins?

Conclusion

Can one claim that they are saved by the work of Christ, and then also believe that their sins are only forgiven if they are baptized and then participate in communion, penance, reconciliation, etc?

This is the fundamental problem and it is not simply a semantic one as some of the apologists would try to make it seem.

Catholic doctrine teaches that man must deal with his sin debt by placing his faith in Christ, but that that man may only partake of the salvific, effectual grace of God through the sacraments performed by the Church. They have, in effect, made the agent of salvation the Church itself.

Per Catholic doctrine, man's sin debt (that gap between he and God) is not, in effect, resolved by faith in Christ's death on the cross, but is rather resolved first by a start of faith in Christ's work, plus faith in and partaking of the sacraments which the church has mandated as the mechanism by which God's grace is granted to men.




« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 11:48:06 AM by |CoR| GC-Deacon »
In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes


|CoR| Vette

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2007, 08:05:58 PM »
If the bread and wine literally became Jesus' flesh and blood at the Last Supper, why?  He was alive at the time, so why didn't He just stick out His arm and offer them a bite?
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!




|CoR| Gamil

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2007, 12:33:23 AM »
If the bread and wine literally became Jesus' flesh and blood at the Last Supper, why?  He was alive at the time, so why didn't He just stick out His arm and offer them a bite?

ROFL.... i'm sorry, i can't help it.



but anyway, what proof is there that the wine became Jesus' blood and that hte bread became Jesus' flesh? If that did happen, then why does the bible not say so? It was pretty obvious when Jesus turned water to wine.

Playstation Network ID: Gamil
SWTOR: Server: Shadow Hand Character: Gamil

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2007, 07:52:54 AM »
From bulletproof
Quote
If the bread and wine literally became Jesus' flesh and blood at the Last Supper, why?  He was alive at the time, so why didn't He just stick out His arm and offer them a bite?

  wow you say you are a Christian and you are disrespecting and making fun of Jesus I am not even going to respond to your posts anymore for that disrespect to Jesus you need to pray and I will pray for you.
Gamil shame on you for laughing at such a disrespetful and blasphemous statement really makes me sick to my stomach and makes me question your true motives.  If your going to be disrespectful and think this is all a joke then PLEASE refrain from posting in my threads, bullet I would ask you please don't post in my threads anymore I am quite disturbed by your words as should you be.

  Gamil the Bible does say so, we read in Isaih that the "Words of God do not come back empty" so when Jesus was holding HIMSELF in His hands and He said "this is my body." it became His body, and when He held the Eucharistic cup and said "this is my Blood" it became His blood.  If we read further in the passage it says that the Jews murmured among themselves saying, "how can this man give us His flesh to eat?"  and they turned and no longer followed Jesus, they could not accept it.

  Deacon you are making things to complex then they really are.  There are two types of Grace, Actual Grace, and Sanctifying Grace, however  right now I want to focus on the Eucharist and we can address  your questions later :)!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 08:04:21 AM by |CoR| Merlin »

|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2007, 08:41:20 AM »
Merlin,

Personally, I tire of these discussions with you. Why? Because they cover the same ground over and over again with little to no result. Your response to Bulletproof is ridiculous. It is in no way disrespectful to the Lord, it simply point out colorfully the inaccurate manner in which Catholics have chosen to read that passage of Scripture. It's been stated on this forum on more than one occasion that in order to have a proper understanding of scripture you must first read it as it was intended. You must read it literally where it speaks literally and you must read it symbolically where it speaks symbolically. Just as Christ was speaking symbolically when he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me" he was speaking symbolically when he said, while holding the unleavened bread of the passover, "this is my body, broken for you" and when holding the wine of the passover "this is my blood..."

It's becoming fairly obvious to me that there really isn't any interest here in learning. Rather there is only interest in arguing about your position. There is no interest in honest and open discourse, only in promoting your own world view.

I'm not making things overly complex. I am, rather, distilling the issues to their most fundamental point.

According to Catholic doctrine how may a man deal with his sin debt? This is the core question of salvation. How is the chasm between God and man bridged? How is the sin which stands between God and man done away with?

According to my understanding of scripture God declares me to be righteous when I place my faith in the work of Christ. God chooses to see Christ's righteousness in place of my own unrighteousness. It is a judicial act, a declaration that I am not guilty. I can do nothing to earn it, I can do nothing to increase it and once accomplished it is accomplished completely.

According to Catholic doctrine Christ's death is, yes, the energy behind salvation. Yet it is only through one's participation in the sacraments of the church, specifically baptism (dealing with original sin), communion (dealing with daily 'venial' sin), penance (dealing with sin by performing some act which looks forward to your future punishment for sin), reconciliation (dealing with grave sin), and the viaticum (one final wipe of the slate before death), that one's sin debt which stands between he and God is resolved.

This isn't making the issue overly complex it is laying the issue bare and devoid of it's theological terms (which mean fundamentally different things to a Catholic than they do to me).

How does the Bible state we deal with our sin? By placing our faith in Christ.

How does the Catholic Church state we deal with our sin? By placing our faith in Christ and the Church and by our participation in the Church's sacraments.

In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes


|CoR| Blackhawk

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2007, 01:06:04 PM »
Merlin,

Personally, I tire of these discussions with you. Why? Because they cover the same ground over and over again with little to no result. Your response to Bulletproof is ridiculous. It is in no way disrespectful to the Lord, it simply point out colorfully the inaccurate manner in which Catholics have chosen to read that passage of Scripture. It's been stated on this forum on more than one occasion that in order to have a proper understanding of scripture you must first read it as it was intended. You must read it literally where it speaks literally and you must read it symbolically where it speaks symbolically. Just as Christ was speaking symbolically when he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me" he was speaking symbolically when he said, while holding the unleavened bread of the passover, "this is my body, broken for you" and when holding the wine of the passover "this is my blood..."

It's becoming fairly obvious to me that there really isn't any interest here in learning. Rather there is only interest in arguing about your position. There is no interest in honest and open discourse, only in promoting your own world view.

I'm not making things overly complex. I am, rather, distilling the issues to their most fundamental point.

According to Catholic doctrine how may a man deal with his sin debt? This is the core question of salvation. How is the chasm between God and man bridged? How is the sin which stands between God and man done away with?

According to my understanding of scripture God declares me to be righteous when I place my faith in the work of Christ. God chooses to see Christ's righteousness in place of my own unrighteousness. It is a judicial act, a declaration that I am not guilty. I can do nothing to earn it, I can do nothing to increase it and once accomplished it is accomplished completely.

According to Catholic doctrine Christ's death is, yes, the energy behind salvation. Yet it is only through one's participation in the sacraments of the church, specifically baptism (dealing with original sin), communion (dealing with daily 'venial' sin), penance (dealing with sin by performing some act which looks forward to your future punishment for sin), reconciliation (dealing with grave sin), and the viaticum (one final wipe of the slate before death), that one's sin debt which stands between he and God is resolved.

This isn't making the issue overly complex it is laying the issue bare and devoid of it's theological terms (which mean fundamentally different things to a Catholic than they do to me).

How does the Bible state we deal with our sin? By placing our faith in Christ.

How does the Catholic Church state we deal with our sin? By placing our faith in Christ and the Church and by our participation in the Church's sacraments.


Amen.
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth me in the paths of righteousness for his names sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord fore ever." Psalm 23

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2007, 01:16:35 PM »
Deacon, read and learn.

Quote
The Institution of the Mass


Many non-Catholics do not understand the Mass. Television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart wrote, "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Mass is an expiatory sacrifice, in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the cross" (Swaggart, Catholicism and Christianity). The late Loraine Boettner, the dean of anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, said the Mass is a "jumble of medieval superstition."

Vatican II puts the Catholic position succinctly:

"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, "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’" (Luke 22:19).

The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as "This is my body." The verb estin is the equivalent of the English "is" and can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb "is" usually is taken literally.

Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, "This is my body," he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for "body" in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for "eats" (trogon) translates as "gnawing" or "chewing." This is certainly not the language of metaphor.

 

No "figurative presence"


The literal meaning can’t be avoided except through violence to the text—and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries. The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in the Real Presence. There is no basis for forcing anything else out of the lines, and no writer tried to do so until the early Middle Ages. Christ did not institute a Figurative Presence. Some Fundamentalists say the word "is" is used because Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, had no word for "represents." Those who make this feeble claim are behind the times, since, as Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman showed a century ago, Aramaic has about three dozen words that can mean "represents."
[/size]

 

The Catholic position


The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.

Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, "The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary" (306).

 

"Once for all"


The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner"—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.

 

The Language of Appearances


Loraine Boettner mounts another charge. In chapter eight of Roman Catholicism, when arguing that the meal instituted by Christ was strictly symbolic, he gives a cleverly incomplete quotation. He writes, "Paul too says that the bread remains bread: ‘Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. . . . But let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:27–28)."

The part of verse 27 represented by the ellipsis is crucial. It reads, "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Why does Boettner omit this? Because to be guilty of someone’s body and blood is to commit a crime against his body and blood, not just against symbols of them. The omitted words clearly imply the bread and wine become Christ himself.

Profaning the Eucharist was so serious that the stakes could be life and death. In the next two verses (29–30), Paul states, "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

Boettner’s omitted statements reveal that when Paul uses the term "bread," he’s using the language of appearances, what scholars call "phenomenological language." In this form of speech, something is described according to how it appears, rather than according to its fundamental nature. "The sun rose," is an example of phenomenological language. From our perspective, it appears that the sun rises, though we know that what we see is actually caused by the earth’s rotation.

Scripture uses phenomenological language regularly—as, for example, when it describes angels appearing in human guise as "men" (Gen. 19:1-11; Luke 24:4–7, 23; Acts 1:10–11). Since the Eucharist still appears as bread and wine, Catholics from Paul’s time on have referred to the consecrated elements using phenomenological language, while recognizing that this is only description according to appearances and that it is actually Jesus who is present.

We are not merely symbolically commemorating Jesus in the Eucharist, but actually participating in his body and blood, as Paul states, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).

 

The Manner of Melchizedek


The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God using the elements of bread and wine. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (that is, Jerusalem) and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We must look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass meets that need.

Furthermore, "according to the order of Mel-chizedek" means "in the manner of Melchizedek." ("Order" does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only "manner" shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed.

Fundamentalists sometimes say Christ followed the example of Melchizedek at the Last Supper, but that it was a rite that was not to be continued. They undermine their case against the Mass in saying this, since such an admission shows, at least, that the Last Supper was truly sacrificial. The key, though, is that they overlook that Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Clearly, he wasn’t talking about a one-time thing.

"Do this in remembrance of me" can also be translated as "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The Greek term for "remembrance" is anamnesis, and every time it occurs in the Protestant Bible (whether in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament), it occurs in a sacrificial context. For example, it appears in the Greek translation of Numbers 10:10: "On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance [anamnesis] before your God: I am the Lord your God." Thus the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial offering we present to God to plead the merits of Christ on the cross.

Fundamentalists disbelieve claims about the antiquity of the Mass’s sacrificial aspects, even if they think the Mass, in the form of a mere commemorative meal, goes all the way back to the Last Supper. Many say the Mass as a sacrifice was not taught until the Middle Ages, alleging Innocent III was the first pope to teach the doctrine.

But he merely insisted on a doctrine that had been held from the first but was being publicly doubted in his time. He formalized, but did not invent, the notion that the Mass is a sacrifice. Jimmy Swaggart, for one, goes further back than do many Fundamentalists, claiming, "By the third century the idea of sacrifice had begun to intrude." Still other Fundamentalists say Cyprian of Carthage, who died in 258, was the first to make noises about a sacrifice.

But Irenaeus, writing Against Heresies in the second century, beat out Cyprian when he wrote of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and Irenaeus was beaten out by Clement of Rome, who wrote, in the first century, about those "from the episcopate who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1).

Furthermore, Clement was beaten out by the Didache (a Syrian liturgical manual written around A.D. 70), which stated, "On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (14:1–3).

It isn’t possible to get closer to New Testament times than this, because Clement and the author of the Didache were writing during New Testament times. After all, at least one apostle, John, was still alive.

 

A misreading


Fundamentalists are particularly upset about the Catholic notion that the sacrifice on Calvary is somehow continued through the centuries by the Mass. They think Catholics are trying to have it both ways. The Church on the one hand says that Calvary is "perpetuated," which seems to mean the same act of killing, the same letting of blood, is repeated again and again. This violates the "once for all" idea. On the other hand, what Catholics call a sacrifice seems to have no relation to biblical sacrifices, since it doesn’t look the same; after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on Catholic altars.

"We must, of course, take strong exception to such pretended sacrifice," Boettner instructs. "We cannot regard it as anything other than a deception, a mockery, and an abomination before God. The so-called sacrifice of the Mass certainly is not identical with that on Calvary, regardless of what the priests may say. There is in the Mass no real Christ, no suffering, and no bleeding. And a bloodless sacrifice is ineffectual. The writer of the book of Hebrews says that ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ of sin (9:22); and John says, ‘The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7). Since admittedly there is no blood in the Mass, it simply cannot be a sacrifice for sin" (174).

Boettner misreads chapter nine of Hebrews, which begins with an examination of the Old Covenant. Moses is described as taking the blood of calves and goats and using it in the purification of the tabernacle (Heb. 9:19–21; see Ex. 24:6–8 for the origins of this). Under the Old Law, a repeated blood sacrifice was necessary for the remission of sins. Under the Christian dispensation, blood (Christ’s) is shed only once, but it is continually offered to the Father.

"But how can that be?" ask Fundamentalists. They have to keep in mind that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb. 13:8). What Jesus did in the past is present to God now, and God can make the sacrifice of Calvary present to us at Mass. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26).

Jesus does not offer himself to God as a bloody, dying sacrifice in the Mass, but as we offer ourselves, a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1). As this passage indicates, the offering of sacrifice does not require death or the shedding of blood. If it did, we could not offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God. Jesus, having shed his blood once for all on the cross, now offers himself to God in a continual, unbloody manner as a holy, living sacrifice on our behalf.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
  http://www.catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 01:20:33 PM by |CoR| Merlin »

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2007, 01:17:46 PM »
Quote
Grace: What It Is and What It Does


If you took your parish’s catechism classes when you were growing up, you at least remember that there are two kinds of grace, sanctifying and actual. That may be all you recall. The names being so similar, you might have the impression sanctifying grace is nearly identical to actual grace. Not so.

Sanctifying grace stays in the soul. It’s what makes the soul holy; it gives the soul supernatural life. More properly, it is supernatural life.

Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.

Imagine yourself transported instantaneously to the bottom of the ocean. What’s the very first thing you’ll do? That’s right: die. You’d die because you aren’t equipped to live underwater. You don’t have the right breathing apparatus.

If you want to live in the deep blue sea, you need equipment you aren’t provided with naturally; you need something that will elevate you above your nature, something super- (that is, "above") natural, such as oxygen tanks.

It’s much the same with your soul. In its natural state, it isn’t fit for heaven. It doesn’t have the right equipment, and if you die with your soul in its natural state, heaven won’t be for you. What you need to live there is supernatural life, not just natural life. That supernatural life is called sanctifying grace. The reason you need sanctifying grace to be able to live in heaven is because you will be in perfect and absolute union with God, the source of all life (cf. Gal. 2:19, 1 Pet. 3:18).

If sanctifying grace dwells in your soul when you die, then you have the equipment you need, and you can live in heaven (though you may need to be purified first in purgatory; cf. 1 Cor. 3:12–16). If it doesn’t dwell in your soul when you die—in other words, if your soul is spiritually dead by being in the state of mortal sin (Gal. 5:19-21)— you cannot live in heaven. You then have to face an eternity of spiritual death: the utter separation of your spirit from God (Eph. 2:1, 2:5, 4:18). The worst part of this eternal separation will be that you yourself would have caused it to be that way.

 

Spiritual Suicide


You can obtain supernatural life by yielding to actual graces you receive. God keeps giving you these divine pushes, and all you have to do is go along.

For instance, he moves you to repentance, and if you take the hint you can find yourself in the
confessional, where the guilt for your sins is remitted (John 20:21–23). Through the sacrament of penance, through your reconciliation to God, you receive sanctifying grace. But you can lose it again by sinning mortally (1 John 5:16–17).

Keep that word in mind: mortal. It means death. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they kill off this supernatural life, this sanctifying grace. Mortal sins can’t coexist with the supernatural life, because by their nature such sins are saying "No" to God, while sanctifying grace would be saying "Yes."

Venial sins don’t destroy supernatural life, and they don’t even lessen it. Mortal sins destroy it outright. The trouble with venial sins is that they weaken us, making us more vulnerable to mortal sins.

When you lose supernatural life, there’s nothing you can do on your own to regain it. You’re reduced to the merely natural life again, and no natural act can merit a supernatural reward. You can merit a supernatural reward only by being made able to act above your nature, which you can do only if you have help—grace.

To regain supernatural life, you have to receive actual graces from God. Think of these as helping graces. Such graces differ from sanctifying grace in that they aren’t a quality of the soul and don’t abide in it. Rather, actual graces enable the soul to perform some supernatural act, such as an act of faith or repentance. If the soul responds to actual grace and makes the appropriate supernatural act, it again receives supernatural life.

 

Really Cleansed


Sanctifying grace implies a real transformation of the soul. Recall that most of the Protestant Reformers denied that a real transformation takes place. They said God doesn’t actually wipe away our sins. Our souls don’t become spotless and holy in themselves. Instead, they remain corrupted, sinful, full of sin. God merely throws a cloak over them and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while that they’re not.

But that isn’t the Catholic view. We believe souls really are cleansed by an infusion of the supernatural life. Paul speaks of us as "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 4:24). Of course, we’re still subject to temptations to sin; we still suffer the effects of Adam’s Fall in that sense (what theologians call "concupiscence"); but God removes the guilt from our souls. We may still have a tendency to sin, but God has removed the sins we have, much like a mother might wash the dirt off of a child who has a tendency to get dirty again.

Our souls don’t become something other than souls when God cleanses them and pours his grace into them (what the Bible refers to as "infused" ["poured"] grace, cf. Acts 10:45, Rom. 5:5 Titus 3:5–7); they don’t cease to be what they were before. When grace elevates nature, our intellects are given the new power of faith, something they don’t have at the merely natural level. Our wills are given the new powers of hope and charity, things also absent at the merely natural level.

 

Justification and Sanctification


We’ve mentioned that we need sanctifying grace in our souls if we’re to be equipped for heaven. Another way of saying this is that we need to be justified. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a forensic (i.e., purely declaratory) legal declaration by God that the sinner is now "justified." If you "accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you’re eligible for heaven.

A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don’t make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you’ll get to heaven. You will, since you’re justified; and justification as a purely legal declaration is what counts. Unfortunately, this scheme is a legal fiction. It amounts to God telling an untruth by saying the sinner has been justified, while all along he knows that the sinner is not really justified, but is only covered under the "cloak" of Christ’s righteousness. But, what God declares, he does. "o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Is. 55:11). So, when God declares you justified, he makes you justified. Any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is no justification at all.[/size]

The Bible’s teaching on justification is much more nuanced. Paul indicates that there is a real transformation which occurs in justification, that it is not just a change in legal status. This is seen, for example, in Romans 6:7, which every standard translation—Protestant ones included—renders as "For he who has died is freed from sin" (or a close variant).

Paul is obviously speaking about being freed from sin in an experiential sense, for this is the passage where he is at pains to stress the fact that we have made a decisive break with sin that must be reflected in our behavior: "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1-2). "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness" (6:12-13).

[b]The context here is what Protestants call sanctification, the process of being made holy. Sanctification is the sense in which we are said to be "freed from sin" in this passage. Yet in the Greek text, what is actually said is "he who has died has been justified from sin." The term in Greek (dikaioo) is the word for being justified, yet the context indicates sanctification, which is why every standard translation renders the word "freed" rather than "justified." This shows that, in Paul’s mind, justification involves a real transformation, a real, experiential freeing from sin, not just a change of legal status. And it shows that, the way he uses terms, there is not the rigid wall between justification and sanctification that Protestants imagine.

According to Scripture, sanctification and justification aren’t just one-time events, but are ongoing processes in the life of the believer. Both can be spoken of as past-time events, as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:11: "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Sanctification is also a present, ongoing process, as the author of Hebrews notes: "For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). In regard to justification also being an on-going process, compare Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6 with both Hebrews 11:8; Genesis 12:1-4 and James 2:21-23; Genesis 22:1-18. In these passages, Abraham's justification is advanced on three separate occasions
.[/b]

 

Can Justification Be Lost?


Most Fundamentalists go on to say that losing ground in the sanctification battle won’t jeopardize your justification. You might sin worse than you did before "getting saved," but you’ll enter heaven anyway, because you can’t undo your justification, which has nothing to do with whether you have supernatural life in your soul.

Calvin taught the absolute impossibility of losing justification. Luther said it could be lost only through the sin of unbelief; that is, by undoing the act of faith and rejecting Christ; but not by what Catholics call mortal sins.

Catholics see it differently. If you sin grievously, the supernatural life in your soul disappears, since it can’t co-exist with serious sin. You then cease to be justified. If you were to die while unjustified, you’d go to hell. But you can become re-justified by having the supernatural life renewed in your soul, and you can do that by responding to the actual graces God sends you.

 

Acting on Actual Graces


He sends you an actual grace, say, in the form of a nagging voice that whispers, "You need to repent! Go to confession!" You do, your sins are forgiven, you’re reconciled to God, and you have supernatural life again (John 20:21–23). Or you say to yourself, "Maybe tomorrow," and that particular supernatural impulse, that actual grace, passes you by. But another is always on the way, God never abandoning us to our own stupidity (1 Tim. 2:4).

Once you have supernatural life, once sanctifying grace is in your soul, you can increase it by every supernaturally good action you do: receiving Communion, saying prayers, performing the corporal works of mercy. Is it worth increasing sanctifying grace once you have it; isn’t the minimum enough? Yes and no. It’s enough to get you into heaven, but it may not be enough to sustain itself. It’s easy to fall from grace, as you know. The more solidly you’re wed to sanctifying grace, the more likely you can withstand temptations.

And if you do that, you maintain sanctifying grace. In other words, once you achieve the supernatural life, you don’t want to take it easy. The minimum isn’t good enough because it’s easy to lose the minimum. We must continually seek God’s grace, continually respond to the actual graces God is working within us, inclining us to turn to him and do good. This is what Paul discusses when he instructs us: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain" (Phil. 2:12–16).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 01:26:56 PM by |CoR| Merlin »

|CoR| Blackhawk

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2007, 02:02:03 PM »
Quote
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as "This is my body." The verb estin is the equivalent of the English "is" and can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb "is" usually is taken literally.

Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, "This is my body," he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for "body" in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for "eats" (trogon) translates as "gnawing" or "chewing." This is certainly not the language of metaphor.

The catholic bible is translated from greek, which in turn was translated from hebrew; non-catholic bibles, i.e. KJV, are translated directly from hebrew to english. Translation over translation doesn't always work out; it goes in meaning one thing, and comes out meaning another. So you get a partial translation instead of a complete translation. Another part, stop taking things out of context, if you are going to quote the bible, please put the complete view down.

Matthew 26: 26-29
[qoute]26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the deciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, whichi is shed for many for the remission of sins.29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.


Don't get all of your sources from the same place, do like you would do a good report, give more than one source. Use the Bible for starters. Come from an academic theologian standpoint, not from a stubborn closed minded view. Deacon is right, you are stubborn, and close minded.
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth me in the paths of righteousness for his names sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord fore ever." Psalm 23

Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2007, 02:23:57 PM »
Hawk I would say the same of you two, however I am open minded to what all you say, you need to keep in mind that I WAS raised Protestant and worked directly UNDER pastors for years of my life.  video response time.

[youtube=400,300]0c6z0dKJGDI[/youtube]

|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2007, 04:02:31 PM »
Merlin,

Please, stop using these videos. This is an online discussion forum. By using these videos you undermine the ability of people to reference your statements and respond thoroughly. In essence, you're refusing to respond in a manner which is conducive to carrying on a thorough and thoughtful discussion on these boards. I am sure that was not your intent, however, please do not use videos in these discussions anymore.

This is not really a request, but rather gentle and respectful direction. Videos are not to be used in responses. Either take the time to reply with a well thought out written response or don't respond.

Finally, folks have posted more than once and it has been pointed out more than once that the copying of an outside article as a person's response is not acceptable. I can do the same thing and can post equally scholarly articles refuting the ones you've posted. This section isn't intended to be a you bring your references and I'll bring mine, but is, rather intended to be a personal discourse on spiritual matters. Either participate in this forum as it was designed or don't participate.

Finally, as I've said on multiple occasions, this forum was intended for open and honest discourse on spiritual issues. It is, however, a forum hosted by an organization with a very clearly defined statement of faith. Do not post on a board inviting folks to ask about and discuss our faith and then complain when your positions are refused and refuted. If there is no room to come together then the issue should not be discussed. Do not, however, be surprised if the last word to be had on any issue is one which is consistent with our Statement of Faith. While we welcome open and honest discussion we have an obligation to ensure that the final conclusion of any discussion is consistent with our understanding of scripture.
In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes


|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2007, 09:04:44 PM »
Let me add something else here. My purpose in this thread is not to debate whether or not the Catholic belief system is correct. I do agree that some of the language I used in one of my posts did take a negative view of the Catholic church's hermeneutic. My purpose in this thread was to show that the Catholic repudiation of Sole Fide is not a minor issue. It is, rather, a major issue and a major error in soteriology. My purpose was to show that Catholicism is incompatible with what I will call, for lack of a better word, Protestentism (although that lumps a great many denominations and doctrines which are also highly questionable into the argument).

So Merlin, I'm not going to debate which is right and which is wrong. I'm not foolish enough to believe both can be right, but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that without the work of the Holy Spirit one can be convinced of the truth. In other words, I'm happy to show the differences and incompatibilities between Catholic and 'fundamentalist' doctrine, I'm even happy to point out the inconsistencies within the Catholic belief system. But that's as far as I can go.
In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes


Merlin

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2007, 04:57:44 PM »
Wait is there a rule against using videos in responses on the forums?  Bro I work 14 hour shifts I dont have time to sit and type out 3 hour responses...please let me know if there is a rule against using a video. 

  Is it ok to wonder if we have a better grasp of the Eucharist is now, and what it means to us as Christians?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2007, 05:00:13 PM by |CoR| Merlin »

|CoR| Deacon

Re: Jack Chick publications
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2007, 05:42:59 PM »
Does there need to be a rule?

Your use of videos undermines the interaction we have here. I can understand working long hours. I work long hours myself. However, out of respect for the other people in this forum, and out of respect for these discourses then you must participate in a manner which facilitates discussion. If you refuse to participate in a manner which facilitates discussion then don't participate.

The admins and moderators of these forums do not have to have a specific rule for every potential case which they may come across. The manner in which you're choosing to respond is not conducive to this format. So, again and finally, please stop responding with videos. If you can't do people the courtesy of putting together a well thought out written response founded in the Bible then don't respond.
In Christ,

Bryan Stiekes