Featured per Hebrews/Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?

GE:

Well, I have a big fella of RC theology who WROTE, denying the Sacrifice of Christ atones for sins, asserting the blood and flesh in the mass do.

 

GE:

Yes, First Sheaf was WAVED BEFORE THE LORD through Christ's Resurrection from the dead --- having left behind dying, death, and blood.

Re:
"RCC should stop regarding their dogmas above the Bible itself. They must discern any theology according to the Bible, about whether they are correct or not."

Forget it; it's predetermined they for ever, must. If it were not for Judas, who would betray the Lord?

That would scare the hell out of me ... If there are Elect among them, that will surely scare them clean out of that mother of harlots church.

 

Woe the day Protestant won't call the Roman Catholic church anti-Christ!

Woe the day Protestants start to fear persecution, loss, or death for the sake of the Faith of Jesus Christ.

 

Yeah?

Nothing. Except he still offers us a choice to follow him or not. The Cross doesn't force our thoughts

Nothing, which is why we re-present it every Mass. Not re-sacrifice. That's just stupid.

Your premise is wrong. We don't find it lacking. You don't understand what we mean by sacrament or merit or how it works in the overal view of Catholic Soteriology. So, I'll explain as to a child. Once you repent, believe in Jesus Christ, and are baptized into the faith you are "Saved". When you purposely sin against God willfully after this point you have apostized and seperated yourself from God. In order to be made right again you must repent and return to the faith. All sins when repented are forgiven because of the Cross.

Now once you are "saved" then you willingly attempt to live the most sanctified life you can which pleases God every sacrament draws you closer to God every Grace Transforms you into the image of God every Good Deed Merits God's good pleasure. This is the result of Calvary. However, if you are not "saved" no matter what you do you cannot earn salvation. And at the end of your life if you remain in Jesus you die in God's grace and your heavenly reward awaits you. That in the nutshell is the catholic faith as explained to a child.

 

I have never seen an infant do that yet. Thus I conclude that all in the RCC are lost.

All have sinned; all are lost.

In the RCC system it is the priest that forgives sins. The Bible says that only God forgives sins. Thus all in the RCC remains lost.

All your good deeds the Bible describes as "filthy rags" (Isa.64:6). Your sins are still unforgiven. Sacraments are frivolous, unbiblical. Grace is God's free unmerited favor, something Catholics know nothing about. They have redefined it.

What bunk!! "However if you are not saved...you remain in Jesus...and your heavenly reward awaits you."
The RCC believes that even Muslims are saved.
They deny the truth of John 14:6 that Christ is the only way; that no man comes to the Father but by Him.

 

That is a stupid non siquitur DHK. I haven't seen a Canadian do it either. Are all Canadians lost? You obvioulsy don't understand Covenant theology or what Peter means when he says this promise is for you and your Children. Nor do you understand the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Again a statement that doesn't follow. Primarily because you don't read a whole statement. Just like the bible you latch on to a phrase and not an entire context. AFTER YOU ARE SAVED IF YOU WILLFULLY SIN YOU HAVE APOSTATED FROM THE FAITH.

Again you show your ignorance. I can't believe you were ever catholic. The priest doesn't forgive your sins. JESUS FORGIVES YOUR SINS. The preist acting on behalf of the Church gives voice to what Jesus has already done.

Another statement that doesn't follow. AFTER YOU ARE SAVED YOUR GOOD DEEDS MERIT GOD'S PLEASURE. You believe this though you won't admit it. How do I know this because of your eschatology. You believe God will give you crowns of Glory for the Good things you have done.

Which is why Jesus established each one.

Again wrong. God's grace is free unmerited favor (as well as other things) which brings you to salvation. Once saved you grow in sanctification which pleases God. I guess you don't believe in Sanctification.

They authored the term. You honestly should study.

I never said that. You miss quote me. You are full of bunk!

Not true.
What the church says is that the Muslims say they believe in the same God of Abraham. So do the Jews.

Again you are wrong and false. The Catholic Church says that Jesus is the only way. So once again you are wrong and have shown your ignorance.

 

Paul said "..all have sinned." If all have sinned then Jesus must have sinned. Either that, or "all" really doesn't mean"all". Hmmm...

Romans 3:23-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

Is your exegesis for these verses that all have committed personal sin? Paul is quoting the old testament here (Psalm 14: 1-7). Those passages make a distinction between “evil doers” and “my people” also called therein, the “company of the righteous”. The context of these verses clearly shows that not all have sinned, but all “evil doers” have sinned. If all have sinned, then there are no righteous, a scenario that would put this scripture in conflict with itself. Clearly, this cannot be and only happens when verses are taken out of context.

If, however, in Romans, you believe that Paul is referring to personal sin, then you must make exceptions for infants and small children as they cannot have committed personal sin. Thus, making such an exception, invalidates Paul’s use of the word “all”.

Hmmm...

Matthew 9:5-8
New International Version (NIV)

5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”
7 Then the man got up and went home.
8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Matthew 18:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed in heaven.

John 20:21-24
New International Version (NIV)
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Incorrect! The RCC makes no judgement on who is in heaven or who in hell. Even the saints are thought to be in heaven because of their exemplified life.

I don't believe that they deny any such thing.

WM

 

It is not Non sequitor. I didn't use "American." I said I haven't seen anyone, and I mean that. I have never seen, not heard of any individual in all the earth in all ages since the beginning of mankind who has had an infant who has the ability to understand the gospel, believe, and repent. Those were your conditions. The RCC believes in infant baptism--baptismal regeneration. More than 90% of its members enter the Catholic Church that way. The only rational conclusion is that they all must be lost. Infants cannot believe and repent. And yet they are baptized. These are your words:

But I have never seen an infant do that. So all must be lost. That is the only conclusion I can come to. They are your words.

Semantics. All sin is willful. All Catholics (all mankind) are sinners. All Catholics have apostatized from the faith. By your own words you have not only condemned yourself but your own religion. It is apostate and no longer Christian. Glad to see you have finally come to your senses.
[qutoe]Again you show your ignorance. I can't believe you were ever catholic. The priest doesn't forgive your sins. JESUS FORGIVES YOUR SINS. The preist acting on behalf of the Church gives voice to what Jesus has already done.[/quote]
1. If Jesus forgives my sins (according to the RCC), then their is no need to go to Confession. I can go straight to Christ, not to a priest.
2. The priest cannot act on behalf of any church to voice what Jesus has done. Jesus himself is my Great High Priest to whom I can go directly.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Good deeds do follow salvation. I believe that whole-heartedly. But according to your theology salvation takes place, first at infancy, and second at baptism. Therefore I conclude that Catholics are not saved, and their good works are good for nothing--filthy rags as the Bible describes them. It has nothing to do with eschatology at all, but everything to do with soteriology.

You make a lot of sense there??
You are saying that sacraments are frivolous and unbiblical and therefore Jesus established them. Right!
BTW, you can't demonstrate a single "sacrament" in the Bible.

God's grace is not "among other things." God's grace is "free unmerited favor." God demonstrated his grace when he allowed the rain to shine upon the just and the unjust alike. We both don't deserve it, but he gave it anyway. It was free and unmerited. Did you ever labor for God to give you sunshine?? It comes only as a result of his grace.
I did not mention sanctification. That is a red herring that you just took.

Now tell me: Are you trying to be humorous or ignorant?
Grace, the Greek word "charis" is not authored by the RCC.
It is a Biblical word, a theological word, God's Word.
It is something you need to study from the Bible apart from the RCC. The RCC is woefully ignorant of God's grace and certainly didn't author it.

Go back and read carefully what you posted. I took portions, direct quotes from your post. That is what you said. Even the unsaved will go to heaven. Astounding isn't it. I don't think you believe that, but that is what you ended up posting.

Have you read your own Catechism lately?
Apparently not. Muslims say if they blow themselves up they will go to paradise. Do you naively believe that as well? So you take them at their word that Abraham is their spiritual father? I suppose all the Hindus can make the same claim and you would believe them too?

If that is true then they wouldn't say that Muslims also have salvation.
Do you also believe that Allah is the way to salvation??

 

I will tell you what is stupid, the whole concept of the Roman Mass is what is stupid!

Jesus does not even address the Lord's Supper or the cross in John 6 but addresses the manna that fell in the days of Moses as a type of himself and the nature of saving faith in Him as the Messiah in metaphorical terms of eating and drinking. The introduction and conclusion of John 6 makes this so clear you have to have blinders on to fail to see it. Peter clearly understands that he is calling upon his hearers to simply believe in Him as the Christ and Son of God and it is the "words of life" that He is the Savior that are to be received by faith not literally eating and literally drinking his blood.

To say that the Roman Catholic Mass is merely a "re-presenting" of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is deception at minimum. The Lord's supper is certainly a REPRESENTATION of it but it is not a "re-presenting" of it as Rome defines it because having been offered up once for all there is no "re-presenting" it as that is exactly what the Levitical priests did EVERY YEAR:

Heb. 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Rome simply defines the offering and re-presents it in the very same manner as the Levitical Priesthood did "oftentimes" and their repeated "re-presenting" it is just as ineffectual.

Christ died once LITERALLY and was offered once LITERALLY and that is why He is seated in heaven now as there is no RE-PRESENTING His offering.


The Roman Catholic mass is in reality the REJECTION of the cross and of Jesus Christ!

 

The Catholic Church has been around since the begining. It was only re-examined in the 1500 by a few men and so they have been proven to be apostate allowing for the disunity of believers in over 35,000 denominations who disagree about everything save one thing. They don't have to worry about their sin because God has given them the divine wink of approval so now they can sin all they want and believe in no consequences. After all right here on this board there is a baptist who is saying its impossible for a believer to sin. So certain protestant can continue in their fornication, adultry, making themselves above scriptures because scriptures are interpreted not by the faithful from the begining but each man is his own God.


Many Protestants have ignored Jesus warning about not doing good for others and refuse to do what is right in Matt 25. Thats on you guys not me. I'm just trying to enlighten people but obviously like disobedient men from the begining you put your fingers in your ears yelling "la la la la" and saying what ever nonsense comes to your mind. When you should be worried about the oil in your lamps.

 

Not at all.

Yes he does and he's very clear about it.

Yes manna is a type of Eucharist.

jesus never said it was metaphorical. In fact when the disciples left him because they thought he was literal he didn't say "you miss understand, I was being metephorical." No he said only to the 12 "will you leave me too?".

Dude you're blind. John 6 continues the discussion about eating which started it off. People wanted to follow Jesus because of the free meal. But they didn't have faith. Which Jesus first establishes and then shows that he's the fulfillment of the man. "trully" he says "you must Trogo my flesh or gnaw chew to make it clear he was being particular not metaphorical.

you obviously miss read Peter because despite this unbelievable teaching of Jesus that you must eat him Peter actually thought about leaving because he say "Where can we go? You have the words of eternal life." He was in for the whole thing though he didn't understand it.

Its the truth. Thats like saying that to represent the actually passover is a deception. How foolish.

You Be carful, you will remember I said this one day. "Jesus said unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you." You refused his clear teaching and wear it as a badge of pride to your sorrow.

 

Ok, TS deal with the contextual evidence!

 

Ok, TS deal with the evidence

 

If that is the heresy that you believe you shouldn't be posting on this board.

No, Paul was making his point that all have sinned. The context is the Book of Romans. In chapter one he demonstrates that all Gentiles have sinned. In chapter two he demonstrates that all Jews have sinned. In chapter three he demonstrates that all the world--Jews and Gentiles alike have sinned--no one excluded. He is speaking of mankind, not Christ.

Even infants have a sin nature (Psalm 58:3)

The Man is the Man Jesus Christ, who is God. God alone has the authority to forgive sins. That was the whole point of this incident.

The context here is church discipline.
Whatever the local church had decided God was with them. Check verse 20.

This again refers to church discipline. Don't be brainwashed by your Anglican/Catholic upbringing. Read someone else for once. Here is Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown:

You just contradicted yourself and made a judgment didn't you.

Their Catechism believes that Muslims are saved. If so then Jesus is not the only way to heaven is He?

 

LOL....thats funny. Think he will read the book?

 

I do and I show you entire context but you rather eisegese the passage than deal with the proper meanings properly exegeting the passage.