Featured Savior versus Sacrament

He showed you!
1 Corinthians 11:2

The Greek term is "paradosis" not "musterion" in 2 Thessalonians 3:6! Ooops! Try again!

 

Again, the Greek term is still not "musterion" no matter how many translations you quote! Sorry, but the argument is over the use of "musterion" in relationship to baptism, the Supper and the like.

Look at the Greek term used in 1 Cor. 11:2 translated "ordinance" in the KJV and see how it is translated elsewhere and what Greek etymologists view its primary meaning and you will discover it has no relationship to the meaning of "sacramentium" or "musterium."

Oooops try again!

 

First, you are wrong that "all of the other bibles" read "traditions." Are you familiar by chance with the Douray Version????

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

Or the BBE, or Websters or Weymouth, or Youngs or etc.

Finally, and again, the Greek term is not "musterion" and so your argument falls flat!

Ooooops!

 

This argument began with the statement that the terms "sacrament" or Latin "sacramentium" or the Greek term "muterion" or the Latin "musterium" are NEVER once used to describe or even associated with Baptism or the Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

Westministerman first tried to counter this fact by challenging one of the posters to find any scripture where "ordinance" was found in connection with baptism and the Lord's Supper. That challenge was met by citing the KJV of 1 Cor. 11:2.

Westministerman responded by citing other translations which use the word "traditions" instead of "ordinances." However, Westminister could not cite any translations that used "sacraments" and wrongly concluded that only the KJV read "ordinances." However even the Douray version reads "ordinances" along with many other English Translations.

Hence, there is a difference between scholars concerning the proper translation of 1 Cor. 11:2 but NONE OF THEM translated it "sacraments" and many translated it "ordinances."

Indeed, the Greek term paradosis is referring to the doctrine and practices handed down to the churches by the apostles.

However, the word "sacrament" from the Latin translation "sacramentium" translating the Greek term "musterion" is NEVER ONCE used by New Testament writers as a descriptive term or used even in relationship to either baptism or the Lord's Supper.

 

Show me scripture that refutes the Trinity or incarnation?

However, we can show scripture that openly and explicitly repudiate sacraments. See thread entitled "The Blessedness - Rom. 4:6-12"

 

Think about what you just said? You are admitting that there are many translations that support my position and so there are many Translators/scholars that support my position, so, how do you figure it is simply MY language skills versus the Greek plural scholars?????

1. The KJV had many Greek scholars
2. The Douray Rheims version had many Catholic Greek Scholars
3. The other versions include many Greek scholars

So again, how is it a contrast between the Greek scholars of your translations and just ME and my Greek scholarship? Your reasoning skills are no better than your argument!

However, when all the dust settles your problem remains - no Greek scholar translates it "sacrament" and no Greek text uses "musterion" - Ooooops!

 

The Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments as defined by Rome in connection with Circumcision is completely repudiated by the Apostle Paul:


1. Here is Rome's explicit confession:

"Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, IS THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is THE SIGN of his submission to THE LAW and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate through his life. THIS SIGN PREFIGURES that 'circumcision of Christ' WHICH IS BAPTISM." - #527 Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 133

"CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves the cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a SIGN OF THE COVENANT between God and his people Israel and PREFIGURED THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION IN BAPTISM. " - Glossary, Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 871

"SIGNS OF THE COVENANT. The Chosen People received from God distinctive SIGNS and SYMBOLS tht marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, SYMBOLS of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical SIGNS FROM THE OLD COVENANT are CIRCUMCISION, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church SEES IN THESE SIGNS A PREFIGURING OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT." - #1150, Catholic Church Cathechism, 2nd Edition, p. 297


2. Here is Paul's Response:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


3. Here is the consistent application of Rome's Confession to Paul's Words:

Again, Catholic Church Catechism makes it very clear that circumcision plays the same sacramental role under the Old Covenant that baptism does under the New Covenant .

Therefore, if we replaced the words "circumcised" and "circumcision" with any of the New Testament SIGNS and SYMBOLS in Romans 4:9-12 we would have the Apostles view of the Roman Catholic application of such signs in regard to justification by faith:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or in UNBAPTISM? Not in BAPTISM, but in UNBAPTISM.
11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he being yet UNBAPTIZED.

Here is a clear and unequivocal repudiation for sacramentalism by the Apostle Paul.

The "blessedness" of justification "had" been received by Abraham through faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" and more importantly "NOT IN CIRCUCMISION."

4. Here is Paul's Universal Application of this principle to ALL OF FAITH regardless of their relationship to circumcision/baptism

This kind of definition of justification by faith is set forth by Paul as the STANDARD for ALL who are OF FAITH regardless whether they have already been circumcised or never will be circumcised, since circumcision has absolutely no participation, no effect, no connection with receiving literal justificaiton whatsoever:

that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he being yet UNBAPTIZED

John the Baptist was the father of baptism and yet was justified without baptism just as Abraham was the father of circumcision and was justified without circumcision.

This is a flat repudiation of the doctrine of sacramentalism and with the fall of sacramentalism is the fall of Catholicism as Catholicism stands upon that foundation - an unbiblical foundation.

 

Think about what you are saying. For example, do you believe there are truely saved people in local churches that do not administer the ordinances correctly? The Universal Invisible church theory claims that all true Christians within all denominations, local congregations make up this universal invisible body of Christ. How many local congregations out of all Christendom do you think administer the ordinances correctly? How many local congregations out of all Christendom contain true Christians? Are they equal in number?

Your kind of chuch is nothing but CONFUSION and DIVISION.

Answer this question:

How can there be a Church that INCLUDES what Christ commanded local churches to EXCLUDE and still be His church?

 

That is my point precisely!

He commands His churches to EXCLUDE the "brother" that walks contrary to apostolic doctrine (2 Thes. 3:6) but YOUR CHURCH includes them.

He commandds His churches to EXCLUDE unbaptized christians but YOUR CHURCH includes them.

He command His churches to EXCLUDE the "brother" that commits open and public sin (1 Cor. 5:11-13) but YOUR CHURCH includes them.

How can you say they are "one body" same in kind?