Archive through February 01, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 4 » Headline: "Jesus Coming in 300 Years!" » Does the current Seventh-day Adventist Church teach false doctrine? » Archive through February 01, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You make some great points here Colleen. Actually the term "apostolic succession" does not accurately convey what I believe to be the actual concept.

Let's read it from the source... here's an excerpt from Clement of Rome. This was written in approximately 96 A.D;

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour."

As we can see here, the qualifications for being an overseer are many. The one most often referred to in the RCC is probably that the potential bishop has to be approved by the current bishop. But this is by far not the only qualification.

Oh and BTW there is no such thing as a blood succession, anyone of any race or family is allowed.

One qualification would obviously be that the potential bishop be absolutely committed to preserving the faith once delivered to the saints. In the case of Luther, I believe Rome judged that Luther failed some of these qualifications and thus dismissed himself from his ability to ever be a true successor in the line of bishops.

Here are some more quotes on the topic, from Ignatius of Antioch, to the church at Ephesus, on his way to Rome to be Martyred in 107 A.D.;

Ignatius, who is also called Theopharus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.

CHAPTER I.--PRAISE OF THE EPHESIANS.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,"[ye hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.

****
CHAPTER V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church ! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.

CHAPTER VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

****

So we can see how important church authority was in those very early days, but also what pains were taken in the selection of leadership! It was the belief that the Holy Spirit guided the church in everything. But there was a place for submission to authority.

HEB 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

That's what it was like in the beginning.

Jeremiah

Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1037
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah,

According to what Clement wrote, it looks like he was saying that it is ok to not recognize any bishops that are not blameless. If they have fallen into apostasy and are teaching false doctrine, they are not blameless.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches clearly teach a false gospel of faith plus works which contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9.

BTW, that is an amazingly clear statement from Clement of what he believed about the state of the dead, huh? :-)

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on January 31, 2006)
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah the state of the dead is crystal clear from Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and some others. No question at all!

I'm afraid Clement and the rest of these guys would disagree with you about what is a false gospel, however. It's too bad that we have such language and cultural differences, because it would be so much easier to understand things if you and I were living back there with them. Now, we have to learn what Paul means by "works", "faith", etc, and it seems only a survey of the complete evidence can give us a fairly accurate picture.

The overall impression I get from my extensive reading of these early writers is that the gospel according to Calvin and Luther etc is a new gospel.

Jeremiah
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1256
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah,
I am just catching up on the discussions from today. First of all I want to agree fully with what Colleen said about making our first emphasis scripture, and memorizing scripture. I remember when I first became saved out of Adventism, I determined to memorize the book of Galatians word for word. The Holy Spirit impressed the truth of Galatians on my heart, and then I was privileged to read Luther's commentary on Galatians, and an overwhelming sense of joy that I had been truly freed from the curse of the Law, and a real appreciation of what God's grace really meant. In Adventism, I never felt that kind of joy and peace. It was then that I read the book by Geoffrey Paxton that I linked to above, as well as on the Romans thread "Shaking of Adventism" where it was made so clear that Catholicism had the same false view of grace that Adventism did. You will see me reference the reformers a lot, and yes I am somewhat of a reformation "junkie" if you will, but iit continually speaks and confirms what the Bible, understood in it's most direct sense actually says.

I also don't know how you can find any evidence for the legitimacy of the priesthood as found in RCC. The book of Hebrews is so clear, that every believer can approach the throne of grace without any mediator whatsoever. RCC has a false priesthood.

And what about calling a mere man, a pope, as a "Holy Father". And even worse the Vicar of Christ. That term Vicar means the vicarious substitution of Christ in our place. Just the term Vicar of Christ is blasphemous.

Charles Spurgeon said it best, "Christ did not purchase His church with His own blood, so some pope could come steal His glory. The Pope did not come from heaven to earth, and live a perfect life, and then spill His blood in our place."

Those pompous papal robes with that pompous looking hat that is studded with diamonds worth millions-money stolen from widows, because they were convinced that they could buy their way out of purgatory.

Also, Jeremiah, where did this terrible blasphemy of purgatory come from? Do you know, that the RCC invented this doctrine to hold the whole system of deception together? What peace and assurance does any Catholic have, with this sword hanging over their heads?

Another point is that Jesus said that we are to judge whether a teacher or group is true by the fruit they bear? I just ask you what has been the proven fruit of the RCC over the centuries of their existence? Compare their fruit, to the fruit of the Reformers like Luther. The RCC has thousands of Christian martyrs whose blood is crying out from under the altar in Rev.6 "How long O Lord, before you avenge our blood?"

William Tyndale was burned at the stake by this wonderful RCC, and for what crime did he commit? It was the crime of translating the scriptures into English! How do you think the Rigteous Judge is going to judge that type of activity?

All over the world today the Eastern Orthodox and RCC are suppressing the true evangelical faith of the apostles. I understand the Eastern Orthodox has laws forbidding evangelical Christians from proselyting, and they are persecuted when they do. I gave the example in Cuba, where Fidel Castro loves this Holy Catholic church, but the true evangelical church is forced to go underground. Now, Jeremiah, I ask you, how is anyway the actions of these so-called churches that you respect in anyway is consistent with the true faith taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

There is one area I agree with you on, and that is your assessment of the worship experience in many evangelical churches. I am judging by your user picture, that being a violin player, that you like truly worshipful music. I believe this is an area of personal taste, so I am not being judgmental of what is worship. I am the same way. I have been to so many non-denominational churches in our area where the drums and guitars drown out the words of the songs. In one church I attende, there was a strong rock beat, and women clad in mini-skirts were dancing in a way, that frankly, since I am a red-blooded American boy was not very worshipful. In other words my spirit was not being ministered to. There just seems to be a lack of reverence sometimes when we are worshipping our King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Now I like good rock music in their proper place, but personally for me it is not at the worship service. Just one more example of this was a Christmas Eve service at an evangelical church. Well they played a very loud Jazz-Rock version of Handel's Messiah Hallelujah chorus and frankly I was offended. Then Jeremiah, I turned to the midnight Catholic mass, and I have to admit, it was a very worshipful experience. However there are good Reformed and Presbyterian and Lutheran churches whose worship services are very reverent, and where the music truly honors God. My wife and I are checking out some of these churches and have found some very good ones. I don't have any problem with liturgical sevices.

So, anyway Jeremiah, you have provided us with a lot of good material. I also respect the early church fathers. Have you read Augustine, as he was really the father of the Reformation? Anyway, I have the tape ready to send you that I mentioned, as I emailed you earlier today.

Stan
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1257
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We were posting at the same time Jeremiah. But I ask you again, if you believe that Luther is the one who is false, have you read any of his books that I referred to above, especially Luther's Galatians?

Stan
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1038
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Great points about the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Stan! Just to quickly add some additional points...

1. Jesus said that we should not call any man "Father"--and yet it's ok to call someone "Holy Father"?!

2. Pope John Paul II believed that Mary was his savior! Look at this one quote from a public prayer of his: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation."

That is pure blasphemy! That man was a deceiver who taught a false gospel and led many people to eternal hell. He is burning in hell right now right along with Ellen G. White--he was not the "holy" leader of the true church!

3. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Jesus each time it is done, and is a sacrifice for sins! This is a false gospel and totally goes against the book of Hebrews which says that Jesus made one sacrifice, once for all time.


quote:

"nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:25-26 NASB.)




Jeremiah, I was going to ask you what Stan asked, have you read Augustine? Why do you choose the gospels of Chrysostom and others over the gospel of Augustine?

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on January 31, 2006)
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looks like I got plenty more questions here to answer!

Regarding the RCC, many of your questions are answered decently at the Catholic Answers site; http://catholic.com . I will just pick one or two which apply both to Orthodox and Catholic, I think.

About Augustine versus the rest of the church fathers of his time; Augustine from what I've heard did teach more of the western theology than anyone else of his time, so you have him backing up the RCC and the reformers on many points that other church fathers aren't so strong with. Augustine isn't quite as well liked by the Eastern Orthodox as by the RCC. I think I get a good exposure to Christian teaching by reading things written before Augustine.

Here's an experiment for those who think Calvin and/or Luther were bringing back the true faith; read everything you can find written in the first 150 years after the death of the last apostle and see if you can find any of the reformation teachings there. If no trace of things like OSAS, faith alone, etc exists, then you can logically conclude one of at least these two things; All these truths were lost sight of immediately after the apostles died, or, the reformers invented a new gospel. My personal tendency is that the reformers invented a new gospel.

I think my favorite question of all you've posed is about the Eucharist. I'll put here a little study I wrote concerning my thoughts on the Eucharist, strictly from the KJV Bible.

Jeremiah
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually it's kinda long! Should give a different perspective for those not exposed to this yet.

JOH 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

According to John, Jesus is ìthe Lamb of Godî. I'm going to explore the teachings of the Bible about how Jesus is the Lamb, and how we should relate to Him in that way.

1CO 5:7 ...For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

Let's learn about the passover;

EX 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
EX 12:4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
EX 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
EX 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
EX 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
EX 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
EX 12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
EX 12:10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
EX 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover.
EX 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
EX 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
EX 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

So we have a lamb, without blemish, which is killed, it's blood used, and then eaten.

Jesus is said to be a lamb.

RE 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
RE 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Jesus is said to be without blemish.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Jesus' blood is useful to us.

1JO 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Jesus is to be eaten.

JOH 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Can we learn more about exactly how we should relate to our new Passover Lamb? I think so. Jesus has a detailed discussion about our need for Him, in John chapter 6.

JOH 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

Interesting that Jesus' teaching happened at this time of the Jewish year...

JOH 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.
JOH 6:27 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.

So Jesus is going to give us ìmeat which endureth unto everlasting lifeî.

JOH 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
JOH 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
JOH 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

The Jews were taught to ask for a sign. Moses gave signs as evidence that he was sent from God.

JOH 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
JOH 6:32 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.
JOH 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
JOH 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
JOH 6:35 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.
JOH 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
JOH 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
JOH 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
JOH 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
JOH 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: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So Jesus is the true bread from heaven...

JOH 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
JOH 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

How can Jesus say He came down from heaven? Hear Him explain...

JOH 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
JOH 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
JOH 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
JOH 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
JOH 6:48 I am that bread of life.
JOH 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
JOH 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
JOH 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Ok, now this almost gets confusing. First Jesus IS the bread, now Jesus is going to GIVE the bread. And He says the bread is his flesh, the same flesh that He will give for the life of the world. This is starting to sound a bit like ìeating the passover lambî...

Let's take a detour and look at the importance of the flesh of Jesus.

1JO 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

It must be really important to believe that Jesus came in the flesh!

JOH 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

HEB 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
HEB 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
HEB 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

HEB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It looks like Jesus having come in the flesh is vitally important, and that this flesh is what was offered as a sacrifice for us.

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Another tough question. Jesus explains...

JOH 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

It's like, EXACTLY!!! and if you don't eat my flesh you are going to die!

JOH 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
JOH 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

My flesh is really food, and my blood is really drink.... this gets stranger by the minute...

JOH 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Well we certainly want Jesus dwelling in us!

JOH 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
JOH 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Manna kept people from starving physically... The bread Jesus is going to give will give eternal life.

JOH 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
JOH 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

It's not like we couldn't understand what Jesus said... but us EAT his FLESH and DRINK his BLOOD? This is hard!

JOH 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
JOH 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus' flesh DOES profit something! It's our flesh that can't comprehend how Jesus could say what He just said.

JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

The problem here is belief. This is a case where you have to believe even though you don't know HOW it will work. YET... just wait, I think the answer of HOW is in the Bible.

JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOH 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
JOH 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
JOH 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
JOH 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter gave the right answer here. He believed in spite of not really understanding how it could be true. Now let's look at the Lord's supper. This was the passover meal. Jesus is preparing to become the true passover lamb.

JOH 6:51 ...the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

MT 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
MT 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
MT 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

IF you understand Jesus as meaning that the bread IS his body, and the wine IS his blood, this becomes a rather obvious answer as to how we can eat Jesus' flesh and blood. Jesus, being God, would have the power to speak the word and bread and wine become his flesh and blood, just like He made water into wine.

1CO 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

The word "communion" is the same word as used here;

1JO 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The word "fellowship" is the same as the word "communion". It can mean "participation". So the cup is a "participation" in the blood of Christ... etc.

There is an interesting parallel between 1 Corinthians 11, and Hebrews 10.

Both chapters mention coming together;

1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

HEB 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Both chapters mention the body and blood of Jesus;

1CO 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

HEB 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
HEB 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Both chapters mention the possibility of not recognizing or even not believing Christ's body;

1CO 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

HEB 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

What is "the blood of the covenant"? Jesus' blood, of course! But is what is in the cup "the blood of the covenant"?

MR 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
MR 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

The word "testament" is the same as the word "covenant" in Greek.

There is a lesson drawn from there being "one bread"...

1CO 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

EPH 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
EPH 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
EPH 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
EPH 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Ok... if there is REALLY one bread... than the bread at communion is the same bread that Jesus blessed in that passover service. It's the same bread at any time, in any place. Why? because that bread is a participation with the body of Christ. Only because Jesus Himself said so!

But if it's REALLY Jesus' body and blood, then aren't we sacrificing Him all over again? Check out this passage in Revelation again;

RE 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
RE 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
RE 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
RE 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

John saw this AFTER the resurrection, right? And he saw Jesus, represented as a lamb as it had been slain. When we participate in communion, aren't we simply partaking of this one offering of the Lamb?

HEB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

But what about the communion service being a sacrifice? If we are eating the passover lamb we are eating a sacrifice... at least that's how it was in the Old Testament! Check out this reference to Christians having an "altar";

HEB 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
HEB 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
HEB 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
HEB 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

We have an altar, and we eat from the altar, and what's on the altar is our true passover Lamb? Do we actually "go forth to Jesus" outside the camp?

From the best I can tell, this has been the belief of Christians from the time the church started till now. By faith, even though we can't see, hear, smell, or taste it, we believe the bread is Jesus' body, and the wine his blood, during the communion service, just because Jesus said so.

(Hebrews may have been written to Jewish Christians who were being kicked out of Jerusalem, before it fell in 70 AD.)
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3320
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I see the problem of RCC and Orthodox explanations of church structure and theology to bear the same problems (with different specifics) as Adventism. All three assume the writings of people who are outside Scripture to be equally authoritative with the Bible. The problem with this foundational belief is that there is not absolute truth. Absolutely anyone can come up with extra-Biblical writings and claim they are authoritative. Who's right, and who's wrong?

The fact that the RCC and Orthodox churches claim their tradition dates back to the apostles, thus being authentic and true, begs lots of questions.

First, gnositcism dates back to apostolic times as well, and it remained alive and well up to the present time.

Second, the RCC claim that their form of worship continued unbroken from the apostles while Luther broke with tradition hundreds of years later, thus spurning God's legacy to the church, is the same sort of "authoritative" statement the Adventists use when they assert that the Catholic Church changed Sabbath to Sunday, and all Protestantism except itself has adopted a false Sabbath and is thus apostate.

The fact that the church CLAIMS to carry the unbroken legacy of God does not make it so. It's claim (which the Orthodox church also claims, by the way) to be the only true church carrying the apostolic succession and tradition does not have to be true simply because they "prove" their claims with the writings of certain church fathers.

In fact, an actual look at the practices and beliefs of the RCC reveal that they do not carry the apostolic tradition, and their claims to the contrary are straw-man arguments.

As Stan pointed out, Hebrews clearly debunks the RCC and Orthodox priesthoods. After Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the only priesthood the church has is the priesthood of all believers, as Peter stated in 1 Peter 2:5, and the only high priest is Jesus who is not in the tradition of Levitical priests but rather that of Melchizedek.

Nowhere do the apostles require anyone to "join the church" to effect salvation. Rather, the only "requirement" is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Our salvation is entirely an act of sovereign grace with NO participation on our part (Ephesians 2:4-9; Romans 3:21-23).

Nowhere in Scripture do the apostles pray to or recommend others pray to saints as part of the body of Christ or as intercessors. Certainly addressing Mary is never hinted at.

Further, a celibate priesthood (a requirement not completely shared by the Orthodox church) is not only never recommended but is overtly condemned as a doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

If one is going to defend the historic teachings of a church as the only true conservator of tradition, one must look at the whole package and compare it to Scripture. If one claims apostolic authority, one must be practicing what the apostles taught. One cannot build a case upon the church's own interpretation of history.

Just as scienctific discoveries must be able to be replicated in different labs before they are considered authentic, a church's claims must be able to be validated by sources outside its own statements.

The issue boils down to one question: am I willing to risk putting all my trust in the words of Scripture, or will I hedge my bets according to human authorities I like? The Bible claims to be God-breathed. It also is identified as the "sword of the Spirit" which is the word of God. If these claims are true, then God will effect divine, miraculous results through embracing its teachings.

If Scripture is indeed God's inspired word to us, we must be willing to forsake all other sources as the rule of faith and practice in our lives. Outside writings may be insightful and helpfuil, but they do not effect the divine work of God in us that Scripture does. It's a matter of trustóand the prrof of its power occurs only after we decide to trust it, just as trust Christ precedes the security of intimacy with Him.

Colleen
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 2110
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah, Several years ago I was visiting with Father ***** the head priest of our communities local Catholic church. I told him I'd been raised SDA and now attended weekly services at the local Lutheran church down the street. He said something about Adventists generally having a big misunderstanding of Cathliciasm so I asked him just someone neeed to believe or agree with in order to become a Catholic in good standing. He told me the only requirement is faith in Jesuis as Him having paid our price for our sins. He told me he asks all those in his new member classes who know how to read to read the books of Matthew, Mark Luke and John expecially focusing on Jesus and His life and sacrafice and if the future Catholic agrees with that then he can be a Catholic church member in good standing. I asked him what about Mary, what about praying the Rosary, what about praying to the saints, the belief that the pope has the final say on all religious and moral matters and on and on. Father ***** told me that the official Catrholic church doctrine does not include all the above but only what he'd told me, that all these other things and even more are to enhance ones Christian experience as a Christian and as a Catholic but that many Catholics do not get into all those extras. Upon being bapitzed or Confirmed into the Catholic religion the words are veery basic Christian. I am addicted to watching EWTN. I have learned a lot about early Christianity on there and alot about the martyers. Thank-you, Jeremiah for saying alot of the same things that I would have liked to share but didn't think I could express it as well as you have.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1261
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah,
I don't know if you answered my question. First of all did you say you have read Augustine, because this is important as he was an early church father long before the Reformation who did come up with the doctrines of sovereign grace that Calvin was famous for, and he got it from scripture. Why are you putting so much faith in these earlychurch fathers, and picking and choosing which ones to believe. I get this feeling that you don't like Augustine because he is too much like Calvin.

Also you didn't answer my question about what you have studied about the Reformation. If you are saying Calvin and Luther were the ones with the false gospel, then could you tell me which books of theirs have you read that they are false? I am willing to hear your arguments about where you think the reformers are wrong from scripture, but it is not fair to keep circularly going back and appealing to Chrysostom, Clement, but skipping Augustine, and then not appealing to scripture alone. I can see how the early fathers may have missed some important truths of the gospel. But why are you so reluctant to accept that God had a specific purpose when he raised up Martin Luther to restore the true gospel of grace?

Also, you haven't answered the argument of the long years of persecuting the true martyrs of the faith such as Tyndale. For some reason you are enamored with church authority. I find it interesting that a former SDA would then be interested in churches with similar false gospels that SDA preaches.

Susan,
Welcome back to the forum. I am sorry that I can't possibly understand your fascination with Catholicism either.

Stan
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 2111
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 12:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I would not call is fasination. I hold my membership with a local Lutheran church. In fact, I had never attended any of the Catholic churches services until the Lutheran church I attend was holding joint services with the Catholic church. Several times a year the local Prespertarian church, the two local Catholic churches, the local Epispalian church, and the Methodist church have joint group services. Having said that I want to ad that I really like attending the prayer group at this particular Catholic church. I have actually attended only several regular services. The prayer group meets on Monday evenings and I for sure am not the only non-Catholic in the group. Maybe it's a local thing because I just haven't gotten the impression of exclusiveness with the local Catholics and this includes the preists and others in leadership positions over there. The few times I have attended the services communion has been offered to all Christian believers. The Lutheran church I attend weekly and the local Catholic church do a lot of their social ministry outreaches together. There just is a very natural meeting of the two groups. BTW, some Lutheran churches are now putting in confessiionals. Seems like folks like hearing themselves repent and having a human ear on the other side of the partition. I can take it or leave it but it is kinda interesting.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1263
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 7:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One other point to consider Jeremiah would be the question of level of scholarship when you compare some of the early fathers you keep quoting (except Augustine) with Martin Luther. Luther was a true Biblical scholar. Luther translated the entire Bible from Latin into German. When you do a remarkable work of translation like that, you know you are dealing with a brilliant scholar. I am not aware of any such scholarship among the early church fathers. It is when you immerse yourself in scripture the way Luther did is when you discover with the Holy Spirit's enlightenment the marvelous truths of the grace of God which Roman Catholicism hid intentionally from the masses.

In the book by Luther "Bondage of the Will", the RCC scholar Erasmus even goes so far to admit that Luther's arguments are correct regarding the lack of our free will with regard to salvation. But guess what Erasmus said, "It would hurt the masses if we were to admit that the Bible taught what Luther was trying to affirm.

Stan
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 8:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, about Augustine again. No I haven't read much of Augustine. In fact I only very recently started reading Chrysostom, with the exception of my having read his commentary on Galatians long ago because it is the first commentary on Galatians ever written by anyone, that is extant.

Luther was a scholar and translated the Bible. That's fantastic. But can you beat having the original manuscripts of the NT in YOUR native language? With these really early writers, it was as if for an American Paul wrote the NT epistles in English! They spoke the same language the NT was originally written in! Not only that, they went to a local church which Peter or Paul themselves started a couple generations back!

One could also remember that it was the church which started before the NT was written, which in process of time decided for future generations what was going to be considered scripture. Personally I think this fact gives some credibilty to the spiritual experience and the doctrinal authority of those involved in sorting true writings from gnostic writings.

I think there's a BIG difference between holding a tradition which started in say 1844 and holding a tradition which started at the beginning of the church. Especially when we can go back and read the original tradition! It's like what more can a person hope for? Nobody is arguing whether the Bible is truth, just what it means!

Jeremiah
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 8:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

I think for the purpose of my being able to understand a little more where you are coming from it would be a great idea for me to read a book or two by Luther. I'll see whether I can find any online editions of the books you mention. But for me to prove from Scripture alone that Luther is wrong I think is impossible.

Which reminds me... I also found it impossible to prove from Scripture alone that my SDA (ex)girlfriend was wrong in her SDA beliefs. I could show ME that she was wrong, but I couldn't show HER that she was wrong. After all, she had the Holy Spirit confirming her view of Scripture!

Which is one thing that makes me not take "scripture alone" very seriously. Life experience has shown me that sola scriptura produces differing beliefs. I'd be happy to discover that sola scriptura produces Christian Unity, but so far I'm coming up short on that one!

Jeremiah
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1264
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 9:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah,
In addition to that tape I talked about I could send you a Luther's Galatians if you would like to read it or "Bondage of the Will" with no obligation. My point of most concern is your implication that Luther was the one with the false gospel, when as you admit, you haven't read any of his classic works.

I have read some of the fathers you talked about, but it has been a long time. But I would like to check out what you say about their understanding of justification, because I might even question your thesis above about what these guys believed. But Augustine was unequivocal on grace, and a very smart scholar.

It is amazing that the true evangelical church does agree on 95% of doctrine, so the sola scriptura principle works quite well--thank you.

Stan
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 2115
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 9:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah, In my OPINION the idea of scripture alone with those scripture alone churches is a myth. I really have only heard of one church that really adhears to that and that particular denominastion is nearly extenct. I don't know how to say or spell the name of the demonination but it interperts to "Church of the Baby Jesus". Back though to what I was saying about scripture alone. Folks who use this arguement would then not look at the culture of the regions spoken about in the Bible of those times and the culture that was mentioned. Case in point would be the foot washing that Jesus did on the Last Supper with His deciples. It is generally understood Jesus pregformed this offer of humility because the deciples wore sandles and the area over there is very dirty and dusty. Generally Christians don't practice the foot washing at communion. If people were to go with the belief of scripture alone then it would be my understanding that the Adventists are surely correct in following this part in their communion services. As you can see I just can't go along with the sola scripture doctrine. There are also other instances of sola scripture being in conflict with beliefs and practices among the more orothodox Christians. I heard so much growing up that religious traditions are bad. Well, just because something is a tradition does not make it bad, or good or indifferent. Each tradition needs to be held up to scripture and evaluated accordingly. There is a lot of myth out there among some Protestant groups about the Catholic church and on to including the churches that more directly sprung from Colothicism such as Lutheran and the Orothodox churches which did not come from catholic but rather pre-dated the Catholic church. Traditions that inhance ones relationship with the holy are good and really need to be built upon and kept strong. Traditions that stem from and promote the unGodly need to be discarded and traditions just for the sake of tradition that are inherently neither bad or good well so what? The SDA church though as well as the non-litergical Prostatism generally have religions based to a high degree on traditions, traditions they have come up with on their own since their starts. The idea of the SDA having communion every three months is a SDA tradition. I understand this began because in the early years of Adventism the pastors would travel and have many small rural xchurches they had to minister to. Often the ministers would be at each SDA congreation only once each three month and they then would hold communion each time they were at a church. That's o.k. It's not bad, good or otherwise. It's just how they do it. And, that also is why many denominations, Catholic, some Lutheran churches, some Methodist, some Prespertarian, etc., hold communion weekly or even daily. It's tradition starting back to the apostles. I, like you, prefer Christian traditions that go back to the onsety of Christianity. Campmeeting is a traditiion. If we went by scripture alone then very few of who call themselves Christians could refer to themselves as NT Christians. Paul says for women to not wear braided hair. Dang, I could go on and on but to be honest as a little girl I used to really obsess over the braides thing because I always had brades and I read in my Bible that brades were wrong. I now understand that Paul was speeking more about the point of modesty and some of the specifics were specific to his time and place. There you have it fo0lks, you are not going to get me on the sola scriptural bandwagon. One sore point with the SDA's I know about the Catholic church, the Lutheran church and possdibly some others is in the litergy the pastor stands up and says, "As a called and ordained minister of The Word I now grant you complete forgiveness of all your sins." The SDA's tell me and tell me that this is unBibical because onlt God caqn forgive sins. I then have to explain that Jesus told his deciples to go out baptizing and forgiving sins and it is very Bibical. I don't want to rant but please some opf you out there at least consider what I'm sharing.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1265
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 10:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Susan,
You posted a new thread about Dietrich Bonhoeffer earlier. I assume by that that you respect what he says. Have you checked out what he thought about RCC?

One of Bonhoeffer's great quotes is his assessment of American religion. "It is protestantism without the Reformation."

Stan
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1266
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 11:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah and all those who have been following this discussion. I have found an excellent and relatively short article illustrating what happened to the doctrine of justification by faith. This is must reading and fascinating. This author documents how Clement actually had the doctrine of faith alone down perfect in one of his first letters, but then allowed himself to get corrupted and a little leaven got in and spoiled the whole lump, even influencing Augustine. But then the reformation came along and straightened this mess out.

What do you think Jeremiah?

http://members.truevine.net/shadrach/just.htm

Stan
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This paper is loaded! I'll need to think about it for a little while, but it sure helps me understand the difference between Eastern Orthodox theology and the Latin theology of the RCC! The paper documents the progress of Rome's theology, which the East to this day does not agree with.

I think I can come up with some useful comments, but give me a little time.

Jeremiah

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration