Denomination

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

CARM has no credibility. It is a misleading and dishonest organization.

CARM is run by Matt Slick, a 5 Points Calvinist who believes that if God has predestined you to Hell, there is nothing possible you can do to be saved. He also believes that if you are predestined for heaven that no sins you commit matter.

That's an ad hominem fallacy.

I looked at some of the material in the links there, and they quote directly from the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which are official Catholic Church doctrine.

CARM States:

"Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to God alone."1 Where is the worship given the sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there.

Here's what Paul said:

1 Cor 11

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

And you torture out of that passage that Slick's premise is inaccurate?

You think this passage from 1 Corinthians suggestst worship should be given to the sacrament of latria?

Just from that passage there? That's where you get your support?

Those words say nothing, whatsoever, about worshipping a sacrament, literal body and blood, or any of the other ficticious myths purported by the supposed Catholic eucharist, but you think that despite the total absense of support we should just accept what the text doesn't say as fact?

CARM also makes this ridiculous point, which I don't even need to refute:

But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

You know, you're right - that's not articulated very well.

Dave Hunt said it better:

"Vatican II insists: "For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated... the Mass is... a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated." The Pocket Catholic Dictionary explains that in the Mass Christ "offers himself... as really as he did on Calvary." Then what did Christ mean when He cried in triumph, "It is finished!"? Indeed, that golden cup is "full of abominations" (v 4).

Contradicting itself, Catholicism explains that Christ is not really being sacrificed over and over but His sacrifice on the cross is being "represented" or made present. Such a statement is meaningless. An event that was completed in the past cannot be made present. Moreover, if the past event accomplished its purpose then there is no reason for wanting to perpetuate it in the present even if that could be done. For example, if a benefactor pays a creditor the debt someone owes, the debt is gone forever. It would be meaningless to speak of representing or reenacting or perpetuating the payment in the present. The debt has been paid by a transaction that was effected and completed in the past. One could well "remember" with gratitude the payment that was made, but no reenactment would have any virtue since there no longer remains any debt to be paid.

Yet the new Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God." (par 1414, p 356) That is like trying to pay more installments of a debt that has been paid in full. Clearly the Mass is a denial of the sufficiency of the payment Christ made for sin upon the cross!

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be in the process of procuring through its rituals the redemption/salvation which the Bible says Christ has already accomplished. In order to carry on the "work of redemption," the Catholic priesthood claims to perform the miracle of transubstantiation: turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ "under the appearance of remaining bread and wine." This MYSTERY is supposed to be a great miracle even though the wafer and wine remain unchanged in physical qualities. There is no such "miracle" in the Bible. Did Christ ever give a blind man his sight "under the appearance of the man remaining blind"? Did He ever raise a dead man to life "under the appearance of the man remaining dead"? Under those circumstances it would not be unbelief but common sense to deny that the alleged miracle had occurred at all!

Suppose the water turned to wine by Christ at the wedding in Cana had been this kind of "miracle"! The servants pour it out to the governor of the feast and he exclaims, "I asked for wine. This is water!" The servants insist, "Sir it is wine." Angrily the governor shouts, "It looks like water, tastes like water, it is water!" "You need faith," the servants insist. "This is a miracle! Christ turned water into wine-but under the appearance of remaining water." "That's not a miracle, that's a fraud!" would be the governor's response. And he would be right. And so it is with transubstantiation! The golden cup is "full of abominations."

[Guest]

The Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

And The Record

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;

that ye may know that ye have eternal life,

and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:11-13

____________

_________

______

___

My point is that preaching Christ is not necessarily the same as preaching Truth. One can claim to preach Christ but be teaching falsehoods.

I totally agree.

The Bible warns us not to put up with false Christs (2 Cor. 11:4), and there are even some people who believe such terrible falsehoods as waffers becoming Christ Himself and repeat the sacrafice on the cross, despite what scripture tells us about how that's impossible (Hebrews 7:27; 9:28; 10:10)!

And Some (Most?) Bow Down To The Queen Of Heaven

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Jeremiah 7:18

And Say What A Good Boy Am I

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3

Strange Fire Indeed~!

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

And you torture out of that passage that Slick's premise is inaccurate?

You think this passage from 1 Corinthians suggests worship should be given to the sacrament of latria?

Just from that passage there? That's where you get your support?

Paul said that we must recognize the body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament.

What?

No he didn't.

You can't point at a passage and say that Paul said something he didn't.

I pointed out already that none of those notions were found in the text, and instead of simply showing that they are, you simply assert that they are, when we can all see they're not. That's just silly.

Eating or drinking in an unworthy manner might be something like taking communion while labouring under the misapprehension that someone merits their own sanctification.

Do you worship Jesus?

Yes, instead of a cracker that someone else calls Jesus.

See the difference?

You worship a cracker, like a common pagan throwing yourself down in adoration to something in creation instead of the Almighty Creator who is forever to be praised!

Also, latria just means worship that is reserved for God. There is no sacrament of latria.

"In Catholic teachings, latria also applies to the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latria).

So you're whoring out your worship for the Alpha and Omega, the Primacy of Creation, for bread and wine. It's pagan foolishness. "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen" (Romans 1:25). Hence the Catholic cup of communion is full of abominations "She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries" (Rev. 17:4).

The verse you're pointing at in 1 Corinthians doesn't say anything about doing so, and this is just to try to smuggle a works-basis into salvation.

In one of those links that nChrist submitted is a quote from Catholic sources:

“We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (CCC, par. 1821).”

“Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification" (CCC, par. 2010).

So I’m curious… since the RCC says that we merit for ourselves sanctification for the good works accomplished, if coming to salvation is a work then should a non-believer wait until Monday until accomplishing the work of salvation, since we shouldn’t work on the Sabbath, or how does that go?

Seriously though, this business of pretending like you can't tell when Jesus and Paul were making a point in the same way that Jesus compared Himself to the mana of the OT, a door, a shepherd, etc., and suddenly mistaking that we have to hyper-literalize something just so that it's completely logically incoherent is simply too much.

As I already quoted, "Suppose the water turned to wine by Christ at the wedding in Cana had been this kind of "miracle"! The servants pour it out to the governor of the feast and he exclaims, "I asked for wine. This is water!" The servants insist, "Sir it is wine." Angrily the governor shouts, "It looks like water, tastes like water, it is water!" "You need faith," the servants insist. "This is a miracle! Christ turned water into wine-but under the appearance of remaining water." "That's not a miracle, that's a fraud!" would be the governor's response. And he would be right. And so it is with transubstantiation! The golden cup is "full of abominations."

Please, no one really believes that nonsense, and if anyone could then they’d be in no position to criticize the Mormons or anyone else who accepts foolishness, to say nothing of being critical of beliefs based on sound logic and doctrine.

[Guest]

Paul said that we must recognize the body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament.

Dear One It Is In Remembrance, Eat The Bread And Drink The Wine In Remembrance Of The LORD Jesus

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: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Corinthians 11:22-26

Do You Ever, Just For The Pure Joy Of It

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. John 17:6-8

Eat The Words Of God

And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved. Psalms 119:47

____________

_________

______

___

Do you worship Jesus?

Yes

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Galatians 4:6

[Dragoon]

Hello again Chesterton,

I think you're confusing the 'church' with the Roman Catholic Church.

If you choose to confine yourself to its teachings, that is your choice and I pray that God guide you.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and Him alone. When I look for the 'church', I'm looking for the body of Christ, and the strange thing is.... God is not limited by our conceptions of who He should use or who He will call to Himself.

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. (Phil 1:15-18)

Instead of arguing about the 'church', perhaps it would be more beneficial to be preach Christ?

Yes, I believe the Church is the Catholic Church because there is an unbroken line of leaders all the way back to the apostles.

However, even if you don't agree that this Church is the Catholic Church you can still see that Jesus established a single, authoritative body and gave this body leaders with a commission. He told us to listen to their message. We can see in Acts 15 that the Christians in Antioch recognized this authority and did not attempt to create doctrine on their own.

As to your last comment, Mormons, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and many others preach Christ. Why don't you follow them?

My last comment was, "Instead of arguing about the 'church', perhaps it would be more beneficial to be preach Christ?"

So, merely because some people preach Jesus falsely, you think this somehow absolves you of the need to preach Christ?

Which kinda leads to a second problem. If the 'church' you are advocating does not preach Christ, does it really matter what pedigree or claims they have?

I repeat Chesterton...

Instead of arguing about the 'church', perhaps it would be more beneficial to be preach Christ?

[stacey c]

I think Joe means that the Holy Spirit is the authority..

Who do we listen to when two people claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them in opposite directions?

The one who leads us in truth to Truth... The Word alone to Christ alone with nothing in between...

Love, Steven

What if two people disagree about what the Word says and claim a different intepretation from the Holy Spirit?

Man will never have perfect interpretation of the Word, we are faliable and will mess up. But God is faithful to lead us back into the right direction. Our walk with God will always be a learning expierence, it's line upon line precept upon precept.

God says it's a trying of our faith.

Blessings stacey c

Jesus promised the Church that the Holy Spirit would lead it into ALL truth, not some truth and some falsehoods.

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church. When the early Christians had a question about faith or morals, they asked the Church for the answer. That's what most Christians still do today.

Jesus promised all believers that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. Sometimes as humans we miss the mark, but He will redirect us as we seek His Word.

No Jesus didnt write a book, He is the Word made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:1, and He came to save the world, John 3:16. And I can't speak for everyone, but myself if I need an answer I seek my Lord's face and search His Word for my answer it's all in there.

[enoob57]

What if two people disagree about what the Word says and claim a different interpretation from the Holy Spirit?

This is an honest question that is resolved only in the understanding of commitment to The Word!

It is really the willingness to rely on that which is to be done, despite what the personal cost might be, as to the

death to self being not a matter of loss but gain. When one is born again it is a love relationship with Christ that

consumes. It is very much a clear jealousy portion on God's part to have total faith initiated into desire that is to

Him and no other. Once this Spiritual energized being begins to understand and trust -God is able to bring Glory

to Himself through miraculous outworking of Himself within. Even as the child watches as witness of His very own

awe of God's performance from the Seated Position within their own being...

The slight doctrinal distinctions, I will call, idiosyncrasies are merely the unrefined portions of self still initiating

some control in the child of God but is inprocess of disclosure and removal as the child is brought into the light of

its wrongness. The major question of mine about you- is if you love Christ Jesus? How can you allow anything but

Him be next to you in the decision of spiritual matters? Once I learn truth from Pastor or Teacher or Friend, or

academia I establish its living principle with my Lord and fellowship with Him in its application in this ravaged,

war raging, place-> which is not my home but only a place I must pass through to get to My Jesus! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

Chesterton,

Here is a simple way to examine truth of God... In the beginning He created the ground we have clearly

had experience on a daily basis... so much so we attribute the ground almost like a god of itself ->in that

we question not its ability to support us: when ever we run, jump or walk upon it. The ground is the ground

is the ground -BUT- the spiritual truth is we are supported by ever unchanging Word of God that in the

beginning formed the ground from The Living Word Christ Jesus. The grape juice and the unleavened

bread is but a physical representation of the Living Blood and Body that Came and Died and now is in

Heaven preparing us, His Brides, dwelling onto the Fathers House... Love, Steven

Luke 22:19

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJV

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

1 Cor 11

29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I can see what is says chesterton. We can all see what it says.

And what it does not say is 'give the worship that belongs to God alone to a cracker and some wine like a common pagan throwing yourself down in adoration of creation instead of the Almighty Creator', ignoring pretty much all of the affirmative statements in scripture in favour of some flimsy pretense of an inference.

I agree with the verse, and I disagree with the nonsense that you seem to see instead of the verse.

This verse follows the verse "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

He gave His body and His blood for us on the cross and we're supposed to take communion in remembrance of the fact that He gave (past tense) His body and His blood for us.

If His body and blood were being given in the communion, then the cross would not matter, only the Last Supper would have mattered, but despite Jesus' prayer in the garden that that cup (being the crucifixion which is the metaphor of the wine in the spilling of Christ's blood on the cross, you see - not of his pouring the fruit of the vine into a cup) be taken from Him if possible, it was not taken from Him, so it was not possible that the remission of sins came unless His blood was actually spilt and His Body actually broken, so to the cross He went.

If we partake in the symbol of acceptance of what Christ did for us on the cross unworthily (without appreciation for what He gave to us) then we scorn that sacrifice of His body and His blood, broken and spilled on the cross, because "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:20-21).* Footnote

That's the whole metaphor. It doesn't mean recognize that the bread is His body literally in some magical mystery that can't actually be recognized or confirmed by any appearance or study - that's totally senseless in the context (not to mention logically incoherent).

It means simply recognize that His body was given for us, which is so clear from the text you couldn't honestly miss it or mistake it any more than you could any of the other times Jesus used such language. "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). Is Jesus actually a door? Is he actually a fountain? Is the Holy Spirit actually water? Is the Kingdom of Heaven a vineyard? Are we actually sheep?

Are you actually confused about very, very simple concepts or do you really just love lies that command you to worship bread and fruit? You are participating in pagan worship of creation rather than Creator, you are making bread and pouring out drink offerings to other deities by making graven images of the Queen of heaven and bowing down to them, and performing blasphemous ceremonies with bread and wine that God did not instruct.

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them " (Exodus 20: 4-5).

"The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way" (Jeremiah 5:31)

"... women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger" (Jer. 7:18).

"She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries... The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH... In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen" (Rev. 17/18)

In every other context you don't even pause to realize that Jesus is not really a door and the kingdom of heaven isn't really a vineyard and we're not in some mysterious way actually sheep with the appearance of people.

Your foolish pretense of misunderstanding scripture does not excuse your paganism.

-------------------------------------

* (Note: This, or course, could not possibly mean that therefore Jesus was instituting a New Law of sacraments, as the Roman Catholic Church asserts and which centres around the pretense of misunderstanding communion, since this passage makes it clear that Christ came to free us from the Law, not institute a new Law as though God erred in His Law given to Moses, as we see in the context of the passage: "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Can you show me in scripture made this promise? In the book of John chapters 14-17 he is only speaking with his apostles. The apostles were given unique authority.

Which we've seen already was, at the very least, demonstrably not given to the Roman Catholic Church, so we can at least rule that one out.