re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".

quote:

---

That is not the same thing as stating that authority is only found in Scripture

---

It most certainly is, in a passive way, not an active way. Conversely, it is not viable to say there is authority outside the words of Jesus when Jesus did not say so. And before you refer to the HS, I've already explained that. The Bible tells us precisely what the role of the HS is and making up Catholic stuff is not in that catalog.

quote:

---

Provide the quote stating the proposition

---

It's fascinating to see Catholics unable to provide their own justification from scripture after being asked repeatedly but instead need to be instructed on how scripture does not support Catholicism.

The Spirit of Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now seen to be the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The answer is partly that the Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit which bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7, 8; Rv 19:10), but also and more profoundly, as the Spirit which inspired and empowered Jesus himself. Thus the Spirit is to be recognized as the Spirit of sonship—that is, as the one who inspires the same prayer and brings about the relation with God as Father that Jesus enjoyed (Rom 8:15–17—“fellow heirs”; Gal 4:6, 7). The Spirit is to be recognized as the power of God that transforms the individual into the image of God, that makes the believer like Christ (2 Cor 3:18; cf. Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 13; 15:44–49; Phil 3:21; Col 3:10; 1 Jn 3:2). In particular, this means that experience of the Spirit of Jesus is experience of Christ the crucified as well as of Christ the Exalted One, experience not just of resurrection power but also of sharing his sufferings and death (Rom 8:17; 2 Cor 4:7–12, 16–18; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10, 11). The mark of the Spirit of Christ is not so much experiences of divine power that leave behind or transform physical weakness, but rather the experience of power in weakness, of life through death (2 Cor 12:9, 10).
The link between the Spirit and the exalted Jesus is even closer for the believer. The Spirit in a real sense is Jesus’ mode of existence now (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Tm 3:16; 1 Pt 3:18). To experience the Spirit is to experience Jesus (Jn 14:16–28; Rom 8:9, 10; 1 Cor 6:17; 12:4–6; Eph 3:16, 17; Rv 2, 3). One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit. One cannot experience the Spirit other than as that of power which bears the character of Christ and impresses that character on those who submit to it. Any other spiritual experience is to be discounted by the Christian, entirely disregarded and avoided.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1988). Holy Spirit. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 990). Baker Book House.

quote:

---

A direct quote from Scripture was provided

---

That you performed eisegesis on. You can't find any Catholic words in that quotation

quote:

---

I am very glad to see you use this word. The next step is asking how it might apply on a personal level

---

Let's review what's happening. The Catholic church can't provide support for the millions of things that have come from their eisegetical approach. Not only is there no a direct command from God about it but there are plenty of verses that denounce what became Catholic practices.

quote:

---

False

---

No. True.

Contrary to your blanket statement that Roman Catholics had no Biblical or Apostolic authority for any of their traditions, ordinances, or practices I pointed out they do.

Head covering for women in worship, though not exclusively Roman Catholic, most definitely had and continues to have scriptural and Apostolic authority. I shared St. Paul’s instructions to the Church with you.

Didn’t you read it?

I find it ironic that many Christians who have a high view of the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture ignore, overlook, dance around, or otherwise defy St. Paul’s teaching concerning Christian women and head coverings.

Regarding “…maintain the traditions” you wrote-

quote:

---

Meaning the gospel and its outworking, which matches then rest of scripture. Not a million miles of Catholic paperwork. Trying to stretch that word is eisegesis.

---

Quoting Holy Scripture, St. Paul specifically, using his choice of terms for the practice of women covering their heads in worship is certainly not eisegesis. Traditions, ordinances, practices, the teachings he handed down to them, whatever you want to call it, they all convey the same idea that, in this instance, women wearing head coverings is the practice of the Churches of Christ. It’s Biblical and Apostolic.

quote:

---

How do you get the Magisterium from this? That is super eisegesis

---

Well, I don’t get it. I understand what Rome contends biblically supports the dogma of the Magisterium, I don’t find it convincing or compelling however.

There is much I value and appreciate respecting the RCC. Their high view of the Sacraments and liturgical worship for example. But there are elements that one must believe to be accepted by Rome that I cannot in good conscience accept.

quote:

---

somethingdifferent

---

You’re a twat.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Frankly you’re being obtuse

---

Bro, you just got owned. You are patently wrong on this issue.

---

Golly gee, a bunch of evangelical apologists supporting biblical inerrancy, and who believe the Romans didn’t set the canon but God set it for the Romans, say I’m wrong! You got me!!!

quote:

---

When you get done playing with the keyboard, there's some limbs that need to be dragged to the street. K?

---

This amateur

quote:

---

somethingdifferent

---

Doesn’t even have his own burn pile or tractor.


An upitty city-dwelling Baptist nutjob.

quote:

---

The more I study the more I believe that “The Real Presence” is what scripture teaches and what most of the undivided Church taught and believed. Because of the profound mystery proposed, I can’t dogmatically assent to Transubstantiation as THE theological explanation.

---

So, how would you describe The Real Presence, without transubstantiation? I see it as Jesus being present with all believers, during communion- as in He’s in the room (not the bread and wine) just like He was at the last supper. What are your thoughts on transubstantiation?

quote:

---

So, how would you describe The Real Presence, without transubstantiation? I see it as Jesus being present with all believers, during communion- as in He’s in the room (not the bread and wine) just like He was at the last supper. What are your thoughts on transubstantiation?

---

That’s the Reformed view in a nutshell. It isn’t purely and entirely a memorial, but also not a physically real presence. Instead Jesus is really present to our faith. Just as the bread and wine are present to our senses, Jesus’ body and blood broken and spilled for the forgiveness of sins is really and truly but spiritually present to the believer by faith. As we meditate upon what Christ has done on the cross, we receive true grace to our souls.

quote:

---

show me a quote from Jesus that's not in scripture that mentions Catholic distinctives. A fortiori, show me a quote from the Apostles.

If you can't provide a quote from Jesus, it can't be authoritative or necessary for salvation. Meaning, it's made up by people.

---

So we can put Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, etc. in the place of "Catholic" and the sentence would still be correct?

I'm Baptist. What I can do is start with the Apostle Peter, as appointed by Jesus, and trace a line to the current Pope with branches off to the other mentioned religions.

quote:

---

So, how would you describe The Real Presence, without transubstantiation?

---

Without trying to sound flippant, I don’t try to describe it beyond the gospel writers’s accounts of the Last Passover/First Holy Communion and St. Paul’s instructions regarding it to the Church expressed in his first epistle to the Corinthian believers. At the risk of sounding redundant, calling attention to the unbroken bread of the Passover Seder Jesus says this is my body, in like manner calling attention to the common cup of wine, he says this is my blood. As you know I find nothing metaphorical or comparative in the Master’s words or actions. I believe they are declarative statements. How whatever happens through his words of institution happens I don’t know or try to fully comprehend. Jesus said it. I believe it. Is means is. Transubstantiation is defective and inadequate to encompass such a mystery and Rome’s dogmatic insistence on it (and other dogma) as though it (they) were creedal has done little toward unifying and has only further damaged and divided the Church.

By the same token, many Protestants refuse to give Roman Catholics room to breathe, pounding them on the corner ropes with body shot after body shot, often evidencing an unreasoning and unreasonable knee jerk hostility and refusing to try and understand what Roman Catholics do and do not believe.

quote:

---

I see it as Jesus being present with all believers, during communion- as in He’s in the room (not the bread and wine) just like He was at the last supper. What are your thoughts on transubstantiation?

---

I agree fully with you and our Prayer Book’s Holy Communion Service beautifully presents this truth and yet still provides me the ability to fully participate and fully worship without doing violence to our reformed Catholic distinctives or my conscience and High Church Anglican sensibilities.

It would be unwieldy to quote extensively from the entire’28 BCP so I will post a link to it so you can perhaps get a feel for the narrow straits, sandbars, reefs, and shoals Archbishop Cranmer steered to craft a liturgy that was Catholic and Reformed. I sometimes feel I steer a similar course in a much smaller craft.


Order of Service for Holy Communion-1928 BCP

1928 Book of Common Prayer