- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ecumenism - Is it happening??
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:26 pm to jizzle6609
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:26 pm to jizzle6609
quote:Are you referring to something I listed in that post? I did not say that all are saved.
The biggest bullshite I've ever heard/read/seen is the Baptist we are all saved crap. It’s such a load of shite I cannot believe people actually believe it.
Also, there may be some small Baptist universalist churches that believe in universalism, but the largest Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptists, are not universalists. If some of the members of southern Baptist churches are universalist, then it is despite and not because of their church’s teachings.
0
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Christ is really spiritually presence in the elements in some mysterious way. Yep, I call that 'real presence' teaching.
"The reality itself is present, and the effect follows, but the manner is different: we do not imagine any change of substance in the bread and the wine, but as the bread is the symbol of the body of Christ, so the reality of the body of Christ is present with the symbols, in a spiritual and mysterious manner." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.17.10)
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:30 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:Fair enough
Christ is really spiritually presence in the elements in some mysterious way. Yep, I call that 'real presence' teaching.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Like I said, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is clear,
Written by who?
Preserved by who?
Translated by who?
Interpreted by who?
You have complete sects of protestantism that developed over disagreement on the meaning of a few words or phrases.
So when you say it's clear, your brethren disagree.
This post was edited on 9/16/24 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:35 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:No doubt. I'm not saying everything the Bible says is equally clear, and yet the Gospel is so clear that even children can understand it.
You have complete sects of protestantism that developed over the disagreement of the meaning on a few words or phrases.
quote:See above. I'm addressing the Gospel, not whether head coverings are required in worship.
So when you say it's clear, your brethren disagree.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:37 pm to theballguy
quote:
Sounds like someone's religion is Capitalism.
Communism's religion is slavery.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 4:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm not so sure about that
I am sure. We use the same language that Jesus used when He instituted the Lord's Supper when we participate in it. We have no problem calling the bread His "body" or the wine His "blood" even though we do not teach or believe that they are transformed into His literal, physical body and literal, physical blood.
I'm still not convinced. Jesus was pretty adamant. And he lost many followers. Do you think he would have lost any of he had simply explained it the way you just did?
I'm just a little hesitant to brush over this like that.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:01 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:Yes, it's exactly why He spoke in parables, as He explained in Matthew 13.
I'm still not convinced. Jesus was pretty adamant. And he lost many followers. Do you think he would have lost any of he had simply explained it the way you just did?
I'm just a little hesitant to brush over this like that.
The context of John 6 was pretty clear. Jesus actually seems annoyed at the crowds for following Him only to get more bread. Jesus didn't come to perform signs and wonders (miracles) merely to feed the bellies of people but to show that He is God so that people would believe in Him and be saved.
People leaving Him or driving Him away was actually a pretty established pattern for Jesus. He was driven out of several different cities for His teaching. He was threatened with stoning more than once. Even the rich, young ruler of Matthew 19 went away sad because he didn't like what Jesus was teaching.
Point being, Jesus losing followers because of His teaching being enigmatic to them was not unusual but was quite normative in the gospels.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:07 pm to FooManChoo
But you didn't answer the question. If Jesus had described the Eucharist as you do, would he have lost any followers in that instance?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:21 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:Jesus wasn't describing the Eucharist at all in John 6. It wasn't for a while later that the upper room scene occurred. He was describing what the Eucharist would later signify, namely that if we feed on Christ spiritually by faith, we belong to Him. Communion is a means of grace, giving the Gospel to us experientially as a help to us.
But you didn't answer the question. If Jesus had described the Eucharist as you do, would he have lost any followers in that instance?
Even so, Jesus didn't provide a more direct and plain meaning to His words just as He didn't explain to Nicodemus that being "born again" was the act of regeneration by the Spirit, where He gives us new affections for Christ and a desire for Him where we once were dead in our sins, though that's essentially what He was teaching. Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about entering into his mother's womb again and when asked how these things can be, Jesus essentially shut Him down without further explanation asking him why he doesn't understand it as a leader of Israel.
Like I mentioned, Jesus explained that He spoke cryptically on purpose so that His people would understand and those who were not His people wouldn't understand. He essentially told His disciples that if He spoke more clearly, people would understand Him and not leave Him or drive Him away.
Again, the woman at the well thought Jesus was talking about literal water that He would draw for her. He didn't clarify what He meant but she only believed Him after He told her about her husband's with supernatural insight. Jesus didn't always provide direct and clear teaching to the people for the sake of gaining followers.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Like I mentioned, Jesus explained that He spoke cryptically on purpose so that His people would understand and those who were not His people wouldn't understand. He essentially told His disciples that if He spoke more clearly, people would understand Him and not leave Him or drive Him away.
Given this, the Apostles eventually received the fullness of the faith at Pentecost and were tasked with spreading the Gospel to all corners of the earth. They wrote numerous epistles explaining the teachings of Christ and his Church. Many of Paul's epistles were clarifications to local congregations. Are we to assume that their teachings were also coded so that only His people would understand?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:54 pm to Knartfocker
quote:The rest of the NT writings (save for Revelation) were certainly written to provide clarity to the Church, especially given that ultimately they were all coming from the same true source: God.
Given this, the Apostles eventually received the fullness of the faith at Pentecost and were tasked with spreading the Gospel to all corners of the earth. They wrote numerous epistles explaining the teachings of Christ and his Church. Many of Paul's epistles were clarifications to local congregations. Are we to assume that their teachings were also coded so that only His people would understand?
1 Cor. 11, for instance, is read every Communion Sunday at our church and we wholeheartedly affirm that the bread is Christ's body and the wine is His blood, but mysteriously and spiritually, not physically.
But back to the point: the key text that Catholics tend to use is John 6 because Jesus mentions eating His flesh for eternal life, as if the mere act of partaking of the Eucharist is what provides eternal life anyway even if the Catholic interpretation of John 6 of Jesus talking about the Eucharist was right. The context of the passage does not lend itself to a shift to a literal interpretation of Jesus' words given what just happened earlier in the chapter as well as the general usage of metaphors, signs, and typology that Jesus uses throughout the gospel of John that are taken as they are by Catholics because their doctrine of the Eucharist isn't at stake in doing so for those verses.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:00 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
As a Christian, I care about the unity of the body of Christ, which is the Church
Agreed. But we ARE UNITED in our belief in the saving power of Christ's blood on the cross!
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:02 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:hmm, let’s see. You are not your own but belong—body and soul, in life and in death to Jesus Christ.
If Jesus had described the Eucharist as you do, would he have lost any followers in that instance?
Whether modern or ancient, most folks would rather drink blood.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The rest of the NT writings (save for Revelation) were certainly written to provide clarity to the Church, especially given that ultimately they were all coming from the same true source: God.
If the source is God, were the epistles also coded so that only His people could understand?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:16 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Bjorn Cyborg
As a Presbyterian, why do you care?
If you want to be Catholic, you can convert.
As a Catholic, I don't care about the inner-workings and policy decisions of the Presbyterian church.
Not posting very Catholic like. Ever heard of apologetics?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:27 pm to FooManChoo
What is your basis for your interpretations of the Holy Scriptures?
More pointedly, from what sources preceding you do you believe had the full deposit of the Faith and provided right dogma?
Do you believe St. Ignatius of Antioch knew of what he was teaching? After all, he was one of the children who sat on the lap of Christ as he preached and went to his death proclaiming Christ as lions tore him apart.
How about St. Athanasius? After all, he was responsible for collating what we know as the New Testament and fought against the Arians.
St. Iranaeus? St. Seraphim of Sarov? St. Nicholas? St. Nina of Georgia? And on and on…
It’s the teachings of the Fathers and the Lives of the Saints that passed down the full deposit of the Faith and kept heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and other “isms” out of the one true Church.
The only difference in papal infallibility (another 19th century RC heresy) and Protestantism is that Protestants makes themselves “everyman a pope” so that they can personally interpret Scriptures as they are so “led”.
There is no teaching by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles who would chide one for “not being Biblical”. They preached the Christ they knew and walked with and met on the road to Emmaus and the Fathers the Traditions as were handed down to them by apostolic succession.
As a former Protestant (what exactly were we protesting 500 years later?), I was sick and tired of the constant splintering due to heresies throughout all of the denominations (LGBT, aborttion, abuse, false gospel, ad nauseam).
Thank GOD for technology and Youtube and podcasts…like so many thousands in America, we are returning to the FULLNESS of the Church in Holy Orthodoxy. It’s never changed and the only place where the Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions are celebrated as they were from the beginning.
More pointedly, from what sources preceding you do you believe had the full deposit of the Faith and provided right dogma?
Do you believe St. Ignatius of Antioch knew of what he was teaching? After all, he was one of the children who sat on the lap of Christ as he preached and went to his death proclaiming Christ as lions tore him apart.
How about St. Athanasius? After all, he was responsible for collating what we know as the New Testament and fought against the Arians.
St. Iranaeus? St. Seraphim of Sarov? St. Nicholas? St. Nina of Georgia? And on and on…
It’s the teachings of the Fathers and the Lives of the Saints that passed down the full deposit of the Faith and kept heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and other “isms” out of the one true Church.
The only difference in papal infallibility (another 19th century RC heresy) and Protestantism is that Protestants makes themselves “everyman a pope” so that they can personally interpret Scriptures as they are so “led”.
There is no teaching by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles who would chide one for “not being Biblical”. They preached the Christ they knew and walked with and met on the road to Emmaus and the Fathers the Traditions as were handed down to them by apostolic succession.
As a former Protestant (what exactly were we protesting 500 years later?), I was sick and tired of the constant splintering due to heresies throughout all of the denominations (LGBT, aborttion, abuse, false gospel, ad nauseam).
Thank GOD for technology and Youtube and podcasts…like so many thousands in America, we are returning to the FULLNESS of the Church in Holy Orthodoxy. It’s never changed and the only place where the Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions are celebrated as they were from the beginning.
This post was edited on 9/16/24 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:28 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
I have zero regard for the Catholic Church as an institution and find the institution to be offensive to the actual teachings of Christ and God
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:30 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:All Christians have the Holy Spirit that opens the scripture for them to aid in understanding. This is not an exclusive gift to the Pope.
Protestants makes themselves “everyman a pope” so that they can personally interpret Scriptures as they are so “led”.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:37 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
This is not an exclusive gift to the Pope.
I never said that as I agree that the pope in Rome definitely doesn’t serve as an authority of the Church. The Holy Spirit is GOD and GOD is CHRIST and Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
So either His Church remains the same, unbroken and as the Nicene Creed states, “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” or as St. Paul said, we’re miserable creatures indeed believing in a false god.
That Church He founded and remains the same TODAY is found in the Holy Orthodox Church aka Eastern Orthodoxy.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News