BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[BreadOfLife]

Nice try, but I have already established that "none are righteous." So, if you want to prove that every church father is righteous in their roll as leaders in the church and in complete agreement to the real presence doctrine...it's on you. I say again - they all are not.

I didn't say that the ECFs were ALL righteous about anything.
I am saying that although they debated some matters - they were UNANIMOUS in their beliefs and teachings on the Real Presence.

This puts YOU and ALL Protestants in a precarious spot because if you reject this doctrine - it makes ALL of the ECFs IDOLATERS. Scripture tells us flat out that idolaters will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.
So - if you follow ANYTHING they taught - you are following the teachings of men bound for Hell.

Remember - it was the ECFs who declared the Canon of Scripture.

 

[ScottA]

I didn't say that the ECFs were ALL righteous about anything.
I am saying that although they debated some matters - they were UNANIMOUS in their beliefs and teachings on the Real Presence.

This puts YOU and ALL Protestants in a precarious spot because if you reject this doctrine - it makes ALL of the ECFs IDOLATERS. Scripture tells us flat out that idolaters will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.
So - if you follow ANYTHING they taught - you are following the teachings of men bound for Hell.

Remember - it was the ECFs who declared the Canon of Scripture.

If you want to put all the church fathers in one group, that is your choice, which is quite presumptuous...as if you knew each and every one's heart. But I would not.

But their numbers and votes do not count, nor do ours. The issue is not up for debate.

The problem is to have made a religious practice out of an example used by Christ, as if any inanimate object could be God. The scriptures say Christ has come in the flesh, and was not the actual manna from heaven, but rather "as" the manna come down from heaven. Likewise, not the actual bread and wine. And if that makes them all idolaters, so be it.

Which rather puts the followers of the early church fathers in a precarious position. But I do not say so to win in this debate, but rather to come to the truth in our time - all truth. Yet, I can hear it in your response already, that means considering the matter like that of suffering children: "What kind of God would do such a thing?"

But, of course...there is perfectly good explanation.

 

[mjrhealth]

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gif

it is because you have no faith, but in your religion.

Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

How many men is it you have that you give lordship over you that come between you and God ?? and again,

Act 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

and your religion is guilty of all as are all mens religions.

and again

Rev_3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

and that is how teh religious are.. even today.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift.

I am neither a Catholic nor Protestant, so I don't have a personal dog in this particular disagreement here.
Still, I would say that this particular mindset is not a productive one: simply because a person in Catholic does not mean that they automatically have more or less faith than a non-Catholic person.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you want to put all the church fathers in one group, that is your choice, which is quite presumptuous...as if you knew each and every one's heart. But I would not.

But their numbers and votes do not count, nor do ours. The issue is not up for debate.

The problem is to have made a religious practice out of an example used by Christ, as if any inanimate object could be God. The scriptures say Christ has come in the flesh, and was not the actual manna from heaven, but rather "as" the manna come down from heaven. Likewise, not the actual bread and wine. And if that makes them all idolaters, so be it.

Which rather puts the followers of the early church fathers in a precarious position. But I do not say so to win in this debate, but rather to come to the truth in our time - all truth. Yet, I can hear it in your response already, that means considering the matter like that of suffering children: "What kind of God would do such a thing?"

But, of course...there is perfectly good explanation.

And there you go again dodging the issue.

I'm not putting the ECFs in "one group". On the contrary - I pointed out that they disagreed on MANY things - and THAT'S what makes their unanimous agreement on the Real Presence so profound.
It is on those points that they disagreed that I can understand Protestants having issues with. But - for matters that unanimously agree upon - YOUR position must be MUCH more compelling than their exegesis of Scripture because they learned from the Apostles themselves.

Ignatius of Antioch was a pupil of the Apostle John. He got this teaching straight from the "horse's mouth", as they say. What could YOU possibly glean differently from John 6 that the ECFs haven't already touched on - and agreed upon?

 

[ScottA]

And there you go again dodging the issue.

I'm not putting the ECFs in "one group". On the contrary - I pointed out that they disagreed on MANY things - and THAT'S what makes their unanimous agreement on the Real Presence so profound.
It is on those points that they disagreed that I can understand Protestants having issues with. But - for matters that unanimously agree upon - YOUR position must be MUCH more compelling than their exegesis of Scripture because they learned from the Apostles themselves.

Ignatius of Antioch was a pupil of the Apostle John. He got this teaching straight from the "horse's mouth", as they say. What could YOU possibly glean differently from John 6 that the ECFs haven't already touched on - and agreed upon?

As I have already explained, and should be obvious: Even among the twelve, one was a devil and another Jesus called Satan. As for the early church fathers, 5 out of 7 of the only group of churches that pertain, Christ had somewhat against - even in the first century.

You have no case.

Their unanimous agreement on an error does nothing to their credit - just the opposite. It means the church went from bad to worse, and the rest is history. And the fact that they did not discern from John 6 that Jesus is not a bread man, but "a life-giving spirit"...is really sad. It just makes it worse for them...and for you, if you believe in their error.

 

[epostle]

As I have already explained, and should be obvious: Even among the twelve, one was a devil and another Jesus called Satan. As for the early church fathers, 5 out of 7 of the only group of churches that pertain, Christ had somewhat against - even in the first century.

You have no case.

Connecting the 7 churches in Rev. with the Early Church Fathers is an act of desperation. You have invented your own religion; no Protestant on the planet has come up with this lunacy.

Moses, David, Paul, Matthew, and Peter wrote infallible Scripture, and they were all very great sinners at one time or another. You should be correcting God and the Bible, not Catholics.

 

[epostle]

I am neither a Catholic nor Protestant, so I don't have a personal dog in this particular disagreement here.
Still, I would say that this particular mindset is not a productive one: simply because a person in Catholic does not mean that they automatically have more or less faith than a non-Catholic person.

You are taking me out of context.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Please see the original article.​

 

[tabletalk]

You are taking me out of context.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Please see the original article.​

"We simply have more faith than you guys do."
No. Protestants (speaking generally) have faith in the God they cannot see. The CC has 'faith' in a god they can see.
(Romans 8:24)
For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You are taking me out of context.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Please see the original article.​

I did read the context, and again I say:
I am neither a Catholic nor Protestant, so I don't have a personal dog in this particular disagreement here.
Still, I would say that this particular mindset is not a productive one: simply because a person in Catholic does not mean that they automatically have more or less faith than a non-Catholic person. Just because a non-Catholic understands a verse differently than a Catholic person, it does not not mean anyone automatically has more or less faith.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I have already explained, and should be obvious: Even among the twelve, one was a devil and another Jesus called Satan. As for the early church fathers, 5 out of 7 of the only group of churches that pertain, Christ had somewhat against - even in the first century.

You have no case.

Their unanimous agreement on an error does nothing to their credit - just the opposite. It means the church went from bad to worse, and the rest is history. And the fact that they did not discern from John 6 that Jesus is not a bread man, but "a life-giving spirit"...is really sad. It just makes it worse for them...and for you, if you believe in their error.

Careful - your ignorance is showing again.

The Seven Churches of Revelation were Churches based in TURKEY. It didn't include ANY of the Churches in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Pamphylia, Phryigia, Colossae, Rome, etc.

Funny how EVERY SINGLE Early Church Father exegeted John 6 as Jesus commanding His followers to eat His FLESH and drink His BLOOD, along with many of your Protestant Fathers - but YOU are correct in rejecting this teaching.

Funny how the Early Christians were called "cannibals" for this belief and were fed to wild beasts, crucified and set on fire - yet YOU say they were "wrong" even though they heard it from the Apostles themselves.

Funny how Jesus - the "Bread of Life" was born in Bethlehem - "The City of Bread" and laid in a manger - a feeding trough - yet YOU still don't get it . . .

 

[ScottA]

Careful - your ignorance is showing again.

The Seven Churches of Revelation were Churches based in TURKEY. It didn't include ANY of the Churches in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Pamphylia, Phryigia, Colossae, Rome, etc.

Jesus gave a pretty good sampling of His own choosing. It is sufficient. The point still stands.

As for the other churches...good luck defending them. Now, that's funny!

Funny how EVERY SINGLE Early Church Father exegeted John 6 as Jesus commanding His followers to eat His FLESH and drink His BLOOD, along with many of your Protestant Fathers - but YOU are correct in rejecting this teaching.

Funny how the Early Christians were called "cannibals" for this belief and were fed to wild beasts, crucified and set on fire - yet YOU say they were "wrong" even though they heard it from the Apostles themselves.

Funny how Jesus - the "Bread of Life" was born in Bethlehem - "The City of Bread" and laid in a manger - a feeding trough - yet YOU still don't get it . . .

Funny is not the correct word. The word is "brilliant."

But I will humor you: It's funny how every generation of church fathers since the church began has delivered just the right message to the next generation preserving the glass dimly, when it was promised to be lead into all truth. Funny how Israel has been held in a similar type of blindness during the same time period. Funny how the kingdom of heaven had come upon them then, but still isn't realized even now.

Just perfect, brilliant - but you, you are arguing for continued blindness!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus gave a pretty good sampling of His own choosing. It is sufficient. The point still stands.

As for the other churches...good luck defending them. Now, that's funny!

No - YOUR assumption that the 7 churches were ALL that existed at the time is really ignorant. They were but a small sampling of the churches at the time.

Funny is not the correct word. The word is "brilliant."

But I will humor you: It's funny how every generation of church fathers since the church began has delivered just the right message to the next generation preserving the glass dimly, when it was promised to be lead into all truth. Funny how Israel has been held in a similar type of blindness during the same time period. Funny how the kingdom of heaven had come upon them then, but still isn't realized even now.

Just perfect, brilliant - but you, you are arguing for continued blindness!

What is funny is that YOU believe Jesus to be a liar.

He told the Leaders of His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15).
He also guaranteed that gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18).

According yo YOU - it went horribly off the rails during the lifetime of the Apostles and never recovered until the 16th century - dooming untold millions - even billions of people to eternal damnation.

Now THAT'S funny . . .

 

[epostle]

I did read the context, and again I say:
I am neither a Catholic nor Protestant, so I don't have a personal dog in this particular disagreement here.
Still, I would say that this particular mindset is not a productive one: simply because a person in Catholic does not mean that they automatically have more or less faith than a non-Catholic person. Just because a non-Catholic understands a verse differently than a Catholic person, it does not not mean anyone automatically has more or less faith.

You are still missing the point. It's not a matter of understanding a verse differently. It's a matter of dismissing what the Bible says about the Church based on man made traditions. Same thing applies to the Eucharist. The non Catholic views the Real Presence the same as Jews and Muslims view the Incarnation. It boils down to a lack of faith. But the CC does not hold accountable the Protestants of today the separation caused by their forefathers.

 

[epostle]

"We simply have more faith than you guys do."
No. Protestants (speaking generally) have faith in the God they cannot see. The CC has 'faith' in a god they can see.

Yes, that is correct. We call it the Incarnation. Since the visible Church is an extension of the visible Incarnation (united by the visible Eucharist), It is quite visible. Does your invisible church extend from an invisible incarnation?

(Romans 8:24)
For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?

That verse is about salvation, not your man made tradition of a fallible church.

 

[epostle]

As I have already explained, and should be obvious: Even among the twelve, one was a devil and another Jesus called Satan. As for the early church fathers, 5 out of 7 of the only group of churches that pertain, Christ had somewhat against - even in the first century.

You have no case.

We don't make any case based on distorted private interpretations of Revelation.

Their unanimous agreement on an error does nothing to their credit - just the opposite. It means the church went from bad to worse, and the rest is history. And the fact that they did not discern from John 6 that Jesus is not a bread man, but "a life-giving spirit"...is really sad. It just makes it worse for them...and for you, if you believe in their error.

How the Satanic Black Mass Proves the Truth of Catholicism

At least we know who you are in league with.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You are still missing the point. It's not a matter of understanding a verse differently. It's a matter of dismissing what the Bible says about the Church based on man made traditions. Same thing applies to the Eucharist. The non Catholic views the Real Presence the same as Jews and Muslims view the Incarnation. It boils down to a lack of faith. But the CC does not hold accountable the Protestants of today the separation caused by their forefathers.

To me, what you're saying here is a huge dismissal of the VERY real faith a non-Catholic person has, simply because their views are not Catholic. It would greatly disturb me to hear a Baptist (for example) just dismiss your very real faith simply because you are Catholic, and equally so you just dismiss a Baptist's faith simply because he's Baptist

 

[epostle]

To me, what you're saying here is a huge dismissal of the VERY real faith a non-Catholic person has, simply because their views are not Catholic. It would greatly disturb me to hear a Baptist (for example) just dismiss your very real faith simply because you are Catholic, and equally so you just dismiss a Baptist's faith simply because he's Baptist

Again, you miss the point. The Church does not hold Protestants today accountable for the errors of the reformers. A non Catholic can have lots of faith in the Bible, but when it comes to believing what the Bible says about God preserving an infallible, indefectible, hierarchical, supernatural CHURCH, where is their faith? Where is yours? Suddenly the truth of Scripture becomes relative.

The so called reformers started this mess, the historic Church didn't separate from anyone. The gates of Hades have come against the historic Church in many ways, but it has not prevailed. Jesus is not a liar. One either accepts what the Bible says about the Church IN FAITH, or the man made tradition of the Protestant fallible church. The Council of Jerusalem as a model for all future councils is perpetual as is the truth of Scripture, not merely historical, and neither is the truth of Scripture merely historical.
IMO, one has to be called by God to Catholicism, responding to the grace of conversion.

If Catholicism is in doctrinal error, why are so many Protestant scholars and ministers becoming Catholic? Is it because they don't know their Bible???

The Coming Home Network - Discover Catholicism, Come Home

 

[mjrhealth]

, hierarchical, supernatural CHURCH, where is their faith? Where is yours?

well yours is not super natural it is run and built by carnal men just like this bit.

Act 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

and just like those religious men you will get angry and gnash your teeth.

 

[tabletalk]

Yes, that is correct. We call it the Incarnation. Since the visible Church is an extension of the visible Incarnation (united by the visible Eucharist), It is quite visible. Does your invisible church extend from an invisible incarnation?

That verse is about salvation, not your man made tradition of a fallible church.

The god of the CC is the bread and the wine (visible). So, the CC worships a god it can see.
The Scriptures indicate that one should not 'hope for what one sees', as that is not hope.
Protestants hope for, and have faith in, the God they cannot see.