How do Catholics hear the Gospel?

It is a rule to close a thread once it has reached 9 pages?

And by the way, where are the rules of the board? I looked for them and could not find them...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

[ October 16, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Let us moderators worry about that.

You will notice we do very little moderating, until the thread completely breaks down into name-calling and insults. In this thread, where everybody is CONVINCED they are right, you better have a thick hide, or you will probably get your feelings hurt. I enjoy the debates here, and I think Brother Clint and I have a good grasp on what is happening.

Carry on....

 

Mal 1:10
Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
Mal 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:12
But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

The Catholic Mass is akin to what Malachi was talking of here. You have profaned it. It is profanity. It is polluted. The fruit thereof is contemptible. The Lord says "I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept an offering at your hand."

It is good to keep verses 10 and 12 in mind isn't it? They were sacrificing a profane, polluted, contemptible sacrifice, that the Lord did not want any part of it. That reminds me of the Mass. There is no mass in the New Testament. Mal.1:11 certainly doesn't speak of one either. God's name would be made great, not through the Catholic Church. It doesn't say that. Not through the Mass, it doesn't say that. God's name is made great because of pure offering of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, and none other. There is no other sacrifice for sins besides that. It is the only "pure" sacrifice. He is the only one that perfectly fits that description. The Catholic Church only offers profane and polluted sacrifices which God does not want. The incense spoken of in verse 11, possibly refers to the prayers of the saints, as incense is symbolic of prayer in other Scriptures as well. It is not the Catholic Church that shall be great; it is God's name that shall be made great among the heathen. That was done by the preaching of the gospel.
DHK

 

Wow, DHK!!! Then you are saying that the sacrifice of our Lord is profane???

Further, since Malachi tells us that "from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same" there will be "a pure offering", either you can tell us where that continuous pure offering can be found, or you call Scripture a lie.

Which is it?

Why so quick to say this? We are merely starting with Malachi. We will get to the New Testament soon enough.

Ron

[ October 17, 2002, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Wow, DHK!!! Then you are saying that the sacrifice of our Lord is profane???

Further, since Malachi tells us that "from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same" there will be "a pure offering", either you can tell us where that continuous pure offering can be found, or you call Scripture a lie.

Which is it?

Why so quick to say this? We are merely starting with Malachi. We will get to the New Testament soon enough.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed!

But a little heads-up for DHK would have him study the gospels in the New Testament and note the Last Supper discourses Jesus has with His apostles on the night before he was betrayed.

And then a good close examination of the "bread of life" discourse in John 6 would be in order as well.

But then, that will have to wait until this busines with Malachi in the Old Testament is complete, of course........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

-St. Vincent Pallotti -

[ October 17, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Why do you add the word 'continuous'? That is not what the text says. It would be erroneous or worse dishonest to equate the two phrases 'continuous pure offering' and 'pure offering' with each other.

The blessing is that we can compare scripture to scripture to interpret this verse. What is "a pure offering"?

Hebrews 10
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"
17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

It is vs. 18. When we are made whole (vs. 14) through Christ, there is no more need for offering.

Your interpretation of Mal 1:10 contradicts Hebrews 10:10 therefore your interpretation is incorrect.

Why so quick to say this? We are merely starting with Malachi. We will get to the New Testament soon enough.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]There are two reasons I would offer:
1- An OT passage standing alone cannot establish ordinances for the NT Church.
2- The Bible is to be interpretted by the Bible in context. You can support all types of false doctrines by taking scripture out of context and/or isolating text and interpretting them without regard to other scripture. Sound doctrines are derived by observing the agreement between different texts relating to a topic when read within their normal context.

[ October 17, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

"From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same" - that doesn't mean "continuous"?

Please show the error, or worse, the dishonesty.

Sure, just so long as you get to pick and choose the verses to compare it with, right?

That is what "sola scriptura" means isn't it?

"I get to pick the verses."

Then why does Mal 1:10 say "from the rising of the sun until the going down of the same" and "pure offering".

Perhaps another possibility could be that you are incorrect?

Who said it did? If you read carefully, I have said we will move to other Scripture once we have talked a little about this passage.

Great, explain why Malachi says "from the rising of the sun until the going down of the same" and a "pure offering".

You have not adressed the verse at hand at all.

You have merely picked a different verse that you think supports your belief and said that is the controlling text.

Ron

 

The phrase refers to it being universal/every place, not continuous.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. From "east to west" is commonly used in the Bible to mean everywhere.

Even if we allowed that time was the meaning, it would only mean one day or daytime, not continously. To say that something with a beginning (sun rises) and an end (sun sets) means continuous in time makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, just so long as you get to pick and choose the verses to compare it with, right?

That is what "sola scriptura" means isn't it?

"I get to pick the verses."</font>[/QUOTE] No. It means that scripture is the ultimate authority. Scripture interprets scripture. All true doctrine comes from that one source.

If I have used these verses out of context or if you know of other scripture that should work to change my view then please feel free to cite it. But please use it within its local context and within the overall context of the Bible.

 

"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering..."

From rising to going down... shall be.

This appears to be talking about time, not location.

Why is it that "from rising" to "going down" is metaphorical when you want it to mean place, but must mean "one day only" if it is talking about time?

From rising to going down could just as easily mean "for all time".

So you say. But the truth of it is that in practice you do pick and choose the verses, so in reality, it is you who is the authority, not Scripture.

My point was, you ignored the verse we were discussing and simply picked another and declared it to be controlling.

Ron

[ October 17, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Actually, even the accompanying phrase "and in every place..." supports the idea of place rather than time. Paraphrased- from east to west by name shall be great...and in every place...

Because if it is time then the very meanings of the words set the limitations, "From" and "to".

However, as a metaphor we know that east and west are directions not destinations and would include all space in both directions. From east to west has no literal meaning. Just as 'from the place where the sun rises to the place where it sets' has no literal meaning. However, 'from the time the sun rises to the time it sets' has an obvious, literal meaning. The period between sun up and sun down is definite. The area between east and west is not.

Even if you say it is metaphorical for a span of time longer than a day, you can not deny that it is limited. You are also left with the problem of biblically defining what that time period is...by comparing scripture to scripture as well as how any of this relates to a ritual of the RCC.

Not without denying the meaning of both the words and the sentence as a whole. How can you claim this is metaphorically "continuous" when by definition the sum of the words means something contradictory?

Can you cite another example from the Bible or from literature where this phrase means continuously?

You have not demonstrated that I pick and choose verses while rejecting scriptural cases against my doctrinal views.

I challenged you to prove me wrong but instead you have tried to incite an argument again. If you can build a scriptural case which proves your point without twisting scripture or taking it out of context then please do so. But regardless of your evasion, scripture is the reliable interpreter of scripture so expect me to evaluate your interpretations of isolated passages by other passages.

My point was, you ignored the verse we were discussing and simply picked another and declared it to be controlling.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Not controlling. Interpretting. Malachi prophecies Christ's sacrifice. Hebrews points back to that sacrifice and tells us what the meaning of the prophecies were. I didn't ignore the verse I dealt with both the meaning of its words and phrases and also cross-referenced it to determine its doctrinal significance. I did not simply "pick". I found a passage that dealt with the same issue and compared it.

I then pointed out that your interpretation of Malachi 1:11 created a conflict with Hebrews.

[ October 17, 2002, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Scott,

How do you incorporate the following into your arguement thus far?

Revelation 5:6
"And I looked, and behold,in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth."

Revelation 13:8
"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

John tells us of a slain Lamb in Heaven.

But doesn't Jesus sit at the right hand of the Father?

What is the meaning of this? If the "offering" of the sacrifice was a one time event, at a specific period of time (namely at the crucifixion), why is the Lamb still present in Heaven?

Ron

 

Jesus is the lamb but this language is obviously symobolic since He is not literally a sheep. Further, these passages say absolutely nothing about a continual practice of offering a sacrifice on earth.

Note the following:
Ephesians 1:4
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

God chose the elect before the foundation of the world to be redeemed by the sacrifice of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Someone earlier referred to God not being limited by our time. He operates both in and out of our time. The fact that He can choose us and provide the necessary sacrifice outside of time does not change the punctuated nature of our earthly existence.... nor does it change implications of Hebrews.

Earthly offerings are no longer necessary. Your citations do nothing to disprove this fact nor do they remotely point to or support the ritual of the Mass.

Yes.

It means that God's redemptive plan was established from the foundation of the world.

Because the language is a symbolic representation of who the Son is irrespective of time.

 

We may be making so progress here.

I have not been arguing a support of the Mass.

I have been arguing a support for the belief that Jesus continues to offer the sacrfice to the Father. (Note that I did not say that Jesus continues to make the sacrifice, but that He continues to offer it.)

In light of your above words, would you agree with this?

Ron

 

No. Not in any sense that would equate to mortal time or actions performed in mortal time.

Christ's sacrifice was offered once in time. However, the sufficiency is not limited by time. A continual offering is not necessary outside of time to suffice the needs of the redemptive plan within time and for all time.

 

You are still putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing about "actions performed in mortal time".

Is God unchanging?

If God is unchanging then the "offering" would then necessairly be eternal would it not?

Also, why do you limit the redemptive plan to within time?

If your sins are merely "covered" they will have to stay that way in or outside of time would they not?

Ron

[ October 18, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

No. I am qualifying my response. Your question was loaded.

Yes.

No. Not in any sense that the incarnation, the miracles, the creation, the appearance to Moses, my salvation, Pentecost, etc. are not "eternal." The sacrifice of Christ was an act of God, not God Himself.

Outside of time, I believe God looks at history like a still photo. I don't think any event in linear history as we know it is any more or less tangible to God than any other.

I don't. Perhaps I wasn't clear or maybe you didn't understand me clearly.

Who said they were merely "covered"? The term "covered" is figurative pointing back to the sacrifice of lambs. The NT also says our sins are forgiven and forgotten, paid for by Christ on the cross... and that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the born again believer.

It is far more than being merely covered.

[ October 18, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]