The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

For once we agree on something.

 

I was stating an abstract principle regardless of what denomination you belong to. I simply used "Baptist" and "Catholic" to state the principle but you could fill in any denomination you like.

 

Well the baptist church I go to is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention in that we pay our cooperative. It's a bible believing church. The whole bible mind you and doesn't exclude living rightly as an act of faith. I haven't confused Justification and sanctification. In fact my words were that you are justified with faith at the moment of belief. However, sanctification is a life long process not to be neglected. You place on me something I did not say sir. And I didn't say that justification is inseperable from good works. The apostle James said that. I said the bible doesn't make the distinctions you make. Thus if you (like those people I mentioned from Tennessee earlier in this thread) live abhorant lives I may judge that indeed you are not saved or justified. I know of no Christian who believes that all you do is believe something and live abhorantly and are saved. You can live abhorantly, believe in christ repent and never do those things again and you are judged as saved. But the distinctions you make aren't the distinctions the apostles make. Thus if you believe something good for you. If james lived today he would say something like whoop dee doo! You believe something well I'll show you my faith by what I do. I think this is the center issue with the church today. Easy believism. All I have to do is believe and its a done deal I can live my life without consequence. Yet the scriptures constantly tell us this is not so. There is the judgement and we will all saved and unsaved alike will be judge by what we do. It just so happens that the only difference is that the saved will have the attoning sacrifice of Jesus christ who covers them but their works are still judged and they will still go to heaven. The unsaved no matter how many or good their works don't have that opportunity. So you've miss quoted me and scriptures if you believe that belief is all. REPENTANCE means to turn around and do something different. Not just believe something.

 

from someone that's taken 8 months or so of Roman Catholic RCIA classes and a year's worth of Orthodox Catechesis...I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that statement...there's defiantly differences...some major and some minor...and not that there aren't some similarities, there are, but the two are not in communion with the other for a reason...

In XC
-

 

Not only does he, the good doctor, misrepresent what I've said. He also shows his lack of knowldege regarding history of Christianity it is evident that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are astranged. Though I believe they have more in common than they are credited for. If he studied history he would know that his view of the trinity is of Catholic origin especially when it comes to the nature of the Holy Spirit who "proceeds from the Father and the Son" the very words that separate Orthodox from Catholic. And he would have to question what it is he really believes about the nature of the Holy Spirit. He would also know That the Orthodox have nothing to do with the Reformation and that Trent or indeed any Catholic council after 1054. We would understand the differences in liturgical practices between the east and the west. He would understand the Assumption of Mary does not apply to the Orthodox but the dormition of Mary and what that means. He would understand that the Orthodox have a differing view of original sin and that it doesn't exist in the sense of Augustinian view like the west Catholic and protestant alike believe. And how this applies in our salvation. However, He doesn't know these things because he studies a fictional account of history or a history that never existed because history has to match his theology and ecclesiology. That God may opperate out of Dr. Walter's theological box may not occur to him.

 

You are in fact the one who said justification is inseparable from works as you are the one that asserted that James was backing up your assertion.

You build a straw man argument. My position does not take the extreme examples you give of obviously ungodly professors. May I suggest that your position does not produce PEFECT lives just as my position does not produce the UNGODLY examples you set forth. That sir, is a false contrasting alternative. I have never said that all you have to do is believe and then go out and live abhorantly lives! However, that is exactly what Paul is charged with by his opponents (Rom. 6:1) as they seem to understand Paul's position to logically lead to that just as you do my position.

You did in fact deny any cause versus consequence relationship between "works" in Ephesians 2:10 and "being created in Christ Jesus.' You did in fact deny any cause versus consequence relationship between justification at the point of faith and works. You are a bright enough man to know that when you remove all cause versus consequence distintions between these things what you have is ultimately the doctrine of justification by the Roman Catholic church vindicated as that is precisely how they view justification and good works as inseparably related.

I placed before you the two oldest and most widely accepted Baptist Confessions of faith and as you can plainly see they clearly distinguish justification by faith from good works in a cause and effect relationship. The SBC "Baptist Faith and Message" is founded upon the New Hampshire Confession.

What you fail to see is the distinctive purpose for the judgement of the works by the saved. It is not to determine entrance into heaven or escape from hell as that was already determined at the point of faith (Jn. 5:24). Indeed, they are promised that they "shall not come into" literal judgement in regard to any future decision over life and death as they have already passed from death to life. The future judgement of the believers works are for rewards in heaven (I Cor. 3:11-15).

I have neither misquoted you or the scriptures. You simply do not grasp the distinction between justification by faith and regeneration. Regeneration secures a changed life whereas justification by faith secures a changed position before God and eternal destiny. You make no difference between "faith" versus "faithfulness." Faithfulness TO Christ is a product of regeneration and the indwelling Spirit IMPARTING the righteousness of Christ THROUGH your life. Justification by faith is IN the works of Jesus Christ as the complete satisfaction of the law of God that declares you righteous in His sight and obtains the approval of the law which is LEGAL eternal life which guarantees future heaven, just as those without Christ stand under the Disapproval of the law and obtain the LEGAL condemnation of the law or the sentence of death which will be carried out in the future.

James is addressing justification by works BEFORE MEN as demonstratable of a mouth profession of salvation before men. James is not speaking about the completed act of justification before God at the moment of faith in Christ. James message is "SHEW ME.....and I will SHEW YOU." His examples, demonstrate this is a horizontal rather than a vertical justification. Abraham demonstrated his justified position before men. Before his servants and before Isaac he demonstrated his profession by faithfulness. Rahab demonstrated her faith before the two spies and later before all Israel by hanging out the red cord. James is concerned about being justified by faithfulness before men whereas Paul is concerned about being justified by faith before God. The latter is a completed action that satisfies the law of God fully in behalf of the believer while the former is an incompleted ongoing action that satisfies the court of human observation. Confuse the two and you come up with the essentials of Romanism rather than the Biblical and historic position of Baptists.

 

I think Roman and Orthodox Christians tend to see each other as 'kissing cousins'. Don't you think we agree on the essentials of the faith?

 

Lets have a looksy Post 212 on Sola Scriptura I said exactly

Mispelling and wrong word use all there So you did misapply what I said. I also said in post 237 of Sola Scriptura

Ah hah! Do you see a trend in how you missapply everything I said to get on your soap box? You put on me things I haven't said. I never said James backs up my assertion but makes his own independent assertion that in post 242 of Sola Scriptura

I didn't say that but James did showing he didn't make the distinctions you make. A saved person will thus act saved rather than just believe something. You just want to believe well James said

Are you in good company?

. Not at all. Your positions leads to the logical conclusion.

But you have.

Thats not a distinction scripture makes anywhere. In Fact you cannot do works unless you are created in Christ Jesus

The fact is you don't even know what Rome Teaches much less understand what I've been saying to compare the two. You assert you think you know what Rome teaches put like a shmorgeshboard pick and choose items you think you understand what it is they are saying when in fact you have no idea. So how can you compare what I've said to Rome if you don't even know what one side is saying much less see the differences. BTW you always go back to Rome. I don't. I think you are a bit obsessed with that Church.

.

Statements of faith are nice however baptist by nature are not Creedal. I am not Creedal. I don't hold to a Creed because its man made.

And your point is what? The national anthem is based on a poem by Francis Scott Key. I wonder if I'm related my mother's maiden name was key. Probably not. Niether here nor there.

again its sad to see you misapply scripture. You quote 1 Cor 3:11-15 for your eschatological view but fail to notice its context include verse 9-16 and you get a better picture

Its self explanitory in context. and note verse 15 doesn't exclude from the judgement of the things we do but says we are "saved, but only as one escaping through the flames". In other words, if not for Jesus we would be left in the burning house that is our corrupted deeds.

. I have shown how you've misquoted me. And I never said misquoted scriture but misapplied them two very different things.

No I don't grasp there is a difference between the things you do and the faith you have.

No you make no difference between belief and faith.

Finally you say something correct.

Everything good up until the term Legal. I don't want LEGAL eternal life. I want REAL eternal life. Not a legal document. Therefore my faith is real demonstrated by the things I do. Just like James says.

You've put words into James proverbial mouth. James did not say that. He in fact says

Therefore he doesn't see the distinction you make. Kind of like you can talk the talk but if you don't walk the walk your nothing.

 

If you mean by punching each other in the face as kissing yep. The very core is somwhat the same but there are significant differences. The Nature of the Holy Spirit. What is meant by original sin and how that applies to salvation. The Pope isn't seen as a unifing figure of Christianity but a seperatist one. Those are some of the majors.

 

It is true that I do not know all the detailed distinctions between the Roman and Orthodox churches and especially their termonological distinctions. However, I do understand the essential difference between them and between them and evangelical positions concerning justification and the ordinances? What you do not realize is that Apostate history is fictional in regard to the reality and truth of the Lord's churches.

You are wrong that my view of the Trinity comes from Rome. I came to the doctrine of the Trinity long before I knew of Athansius or the debate about the nature of Christ and of God. I know this may be new to you, but I actually received it by studying the Bible when confronted by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses at a very young spiritual age.

 

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Or that the Holy Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father? With regard to authority and Personhood?

 

You are a very very dishonest man. You begin dishonestly by pointing to post 212 and posts 237, 242 in "sola Scripure" when it was actually post #239 in the "Sola Scriptura" thread which reads:

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
This is why I asked you previously if you distinguished between faith "in" the gospel versus actions you perform "by" faith..

I don't see the distinction. - ThinkingStuff


Quote from Dr. Walter:
In the former there are no actions you perform but rather you simply receive what Christ has done FOR YOU while in the latter is your consequential response to what you have received that moves you to take actions out of love "by" faith

I see this as one thing rather than two things. The consequence is just as applicable as the cause. I can agree that "you simply receive what Christ has done for you." actually I go a step further. "you simply receive Christ entirely" but the cause is Jesus actively choosing me and seeking me out. The consequence only speaks to the cause but with out it shows no cause has occured. I see them one in the same inseperable from each other. - ThinkingStuff


Again in post 241 under "Sola Scriptura" you said:

I don't think it makes the distinctions you have. You created distinctions not in scripture. - Thinkingstuff


Again in post 248 under "Sola Scriptura" you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

You are saying the same thing in two fashions. Whats the difference practically speaking? And James is very clear as I've quoted you are adding to both Paul and to James - Thinkingstuff


I was not the only one to understand you to say and mean this as Gerhard Ebersoehn in post 253 under "sola Scriptura" responded to your post saying:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
You are saying the same thing in two fashions. Whats the difference practically speaking? And James is very clear as I've quoted you are adding to both Paul and to James.


GE:
No, Thinkingstuff. You must go think about this; Dr Walter is here ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

....'evangelically', absolutely correct.


You responded back to Gerhard in post 254 in "sola Scriptura" as follows:

Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
GE:
No, Thinkingstuff. You must go think about this; Dr Walter is here ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

....'evangelically', absolutely correct.

You're going to have to explain the distinction. - ThinkingStuff.


I correctly represented your position as any reader can see above by your own words and by Gerhards response to your own works and your reply to him.

Furthermore it was you that challenged my identification with historic Baptists beliefs first in post 243 under "sola scriptura" where we read:

You're dealing with someone who believes in living by the scriptures which I quoted directly. You seem to hold to a creed - Thinking Stuff

Quote:
every Baptist confession of faith - Dr. Walter

which is not baptistic. Hmmm. Interesting turn of events. - Thinkingstuff


I have not misapplied or miscontrued a single word you have said and Gerhard is a witness to that as he replied to you the very same way at the very crux of our argument.

You are a very deceptive and arrogant individual and guilty of the very thing you wrongly charge me with.

 

I Cor. 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 ¶ For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Paul was fulfilling his calling as a child of God. He preached the gospel, baptized beleivers and formed them into churches. Not everyone had his calling. Some plant, some water, but God gives the increase. However, the foundation that Paul laid in the lives of those he preached the gospel and baptized and formed into a New Testament Church was Jesus Christ (v. 11). No other foundation can any man lay in the life of a person that serves to build their life upon. Any other foundation is sand and any person as well as their life built upon sand will fall. However, the foundation that Paul laid in the lives of those he preachdd, baptized and formed into a local visible assembly at Corinth is solid for them to build their lives upon. Paul can take responsibility for laying this foundation but he does not take responsibility for what is built upon that foundation - that is the individual's responsibility.

Definitions:

1. gold, silver and precious stones, wood, hay and subble represent good and bad works that form the life built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ as Savior.

2. Fire represents the judgement of God that will try the works to see what sort they are.

3. Gold, siliver and precious stones are works that will not only endure fire but will be more refined by fire. - good works

4. Wood, hay and stubble are works that will be destroyed by fire - bad works

Paul's point is that the judgement of the saint is not about their salvation and whether they go to heaven or hell. The foundation secures heaven. The judgement is about their works and the consequences are REWARDS or NO REWARDS in heaven.

Paul considers a person whose whole life of works are judged bad and he suffers the loss of all rewards. However, HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED, even so as by fire. Why as "by fire"? Because the foundation upon which his life was built STANDS THE TEST OF FIRE - all the works of Christ will be judged SINLESS and GOOD and that is what obtains salvation - SO HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED even though all his works go up in smoke.

 

well the essentials of faith in regard to the Creed? Sure, but even then Orthodoxy and Catholicism disagree with the Creed in regard to the addition of the filioque ("and the Son") to the Creed. Which was made by the authority of the Pope, in the 11th century, not any Council of the whole Church (Ecumenical Council).

All converts have a story...not knowing your story fully, I do know you were a former Baptist, that's now a practicing Roman Catholic...how your story unfolded I'm not sure...or why you chose Roman Catholicism or if you even investigated Orthodoxy.

For myself as a former Baptist too, I never heard of the Orthodox Church...I heard plenty about the Roman Church and were familiar, albeit mislead as to what Catholics believed...so naturally when I began my journey, after investigating the other mainline Protestant denominations, I searched out the NT Church in Catholicism, still without any knowledge of Orthodoxy...

During my Catholic RCIA experience, I wasn't really taught much about history of the Church...very little, b/c our class was made up of Protestants wanting to convert or people marrying a Roman Catholic or lapse Catholics...so the majority of our time was spent clearing up misunderstandings in regard to Catholic theology and understanding the Sacraments on the surface...meaning not much theology behind each sacrament...

My Orthodox Catechesis class was made up of surprisingly enough, former protestant clergy, Roman Catholics and protestant laypeople...most have been reading history, the ECF's...ect and that's what brought them to Orthodoxy...

Once I discovered the Orthodox Church, I read of various conversion stories of people converting to Catholicism and later to Orthodoxy and vice versa...I personally didn't want to wake up 5 years from now thinking, "I should've gave Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) an honest look"...so spending my time in Catholic RCIA and Orthodox Catechesis and spending numerous hours meeting with clergy from other Protestant denomination...the whole process took me over 5 years to Pentecost of 2008 when I was Chrismated an Orthodox Christian.

But personally, and I know I've taken you the long way around just to answer your question, there was more to it than the "essentials" that influenced my decision to become Orthodox and not Roman Catholic and those essentials go way beyond your typical "Pope" or "Purgatory" issues...

And since Vatican II and the revisions of canon law, the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have widened. And since Vatican II a lot of former Catholics are now Orthodox clergy.

But here are some differences and I'm free to discuss any of these privately or in the open forum here, as long as we can weed out the unnecessary and irreverent posts that will pop up:

1) Development of Doctrine
2) God (in regard to human reasoning)
3) Christ (Why God became man)
4) The Church (Ecclesiology)
5) The Holy Canons
6) The Mysteries / Sacramental Theology
7) The Theotokos
8) The Nature of man (his fall and human condition)
9) Icons

Now please don't think that I feel being an Orthodox Christian, I have it all figured out and that you as a Catholic are in error...I still consider you my sister in Christ and that we Orthodox Christian do not have God solely in our pocket.

But the above are what I found to be different...enough anyway that I chose Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism or any other protestant denomination for that matter.

In XC
-

 

I believe the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the Biblical sense of Authority in regard to the administration of the covenant of redemption. However, I don't believe the Biblical sense has anything to do with derived Personhood or derived deity proceeding from any Person in the Godhead as they are eternally co-equal and co-existent in regard to their absolute deity.

I do not believe the terms "Father" or "Son" are descriptive of an eternal begetting but are anthropormorphic terms restricted to the eternal covenant or economy of redemption. In Isaiah 9:6 the term "Father" is attributed to the Second Person of the Godhead. The Triune Being is properly known as "Yahweh" and in relationship to creation the Second Person of the Godhead is known as "the Word" and all three Persons are "spirit" as to their substance and "eternal" as to their duration.

I am fully aware that my position is not the standard position and therefore in all honesty you can clearly see that I am not a product of Athanasius or His creed.

 

How have I been dishonest? Did I not say

and again

. I did not lie when I said these things. So you application of other things I said must be misapplied. You failed to show my dishonesty.

Yes, I fail to see the difference between what you do and the faith you have. Do you?

Yes scripture does not differentiate between the things you do and the faith you have. It doesn't make that distinction anywhere as you must know.

ditto. Nothing contradictory or deceptive so far. I maintain again and again I don't see the distinction between what you do and the faith you have.

Again in post 248 under "Sola Scriptura" you said:

[

Again you've only reiteratted what you said in two ways. You haven't said anything different. Being created in Christ is being created to do good works in Christ. Wait. When I read being created in Christ I'm talking about being born again. Are you talking about something differently? Maybe that's where the confusion lies.

And I asked him to clarify the differences. He hasn't as yet. I'm waiting for it. No inconsistency here either. No deception. He sees your difference. I don't.

[

You haven't I believe in justification by faith. I believe that there is no distinguishing factor between how you behave and the faith you have. Ie you can't act in a manner contrary to your faith. That is an intrinsic impossiblity. Thus belief isn't seperated by how you behave. You said that I add works. Two very differing propositions. Because you disect faith into component parts you think, logically, belief is all that faith is. In fact for you Belief and faith is synominous to you. I suggest it is not that belief is an aspect of faith and acting on that belief is another aspect of it. Thus your behavior is consistent with faith. You seem to ultimately believe that you can act contrary to your faith. In which case I say there is no faith. Or at least faith in something else.

Very true. I don't hold to creeds. It seems you do.

Again you have. You implied works to gain justification and no where did I ever say that. That is misconstrued.

I"m arrogant. Look in the mirror. You've placed yourself into the position of Grand Inquisitor trying to suggest I'm Roman in belief and practice and when I disagree with you and tell you the truth you become more obstinate. I just quote scritpures and believe in them you are the one quoting creeds. I haven't decieved anyone. I've been consistent. You just fail to understand my position. Why? Because you have a preconceived notion of what you think I believe. You don't base it on what I've said but how you've understood what I said. I'm not deceptive. Its you. And note in Hebrew Ha Satan means the Accuser. Which is what you've been doing acting as the Grand Inquisitor. If you were to get a Catholic to look at what I've said I believe do you thing they would agree? Ask Lori or Brianna. Justification by Faith, We are in the real presence of God since we are his temple no matter where we are or are doing? Do you think a Catholic has this view in regard to the Eucharist? Not at all because for them The Eucharist gives grace. I suggest we live in constant grace in its fullness. So again who's being deceptive? You or I? A Catholic might call me a heretic. And how do I know this? Because I'm in constant accusation from my own family and have been called a heretic by them. I suffered more under Rome than ever you have. Your just a soap box preacher who points to others and not themselves who suffered under Rome. What price did you pay for leaving the Catholic Church? None. Because you never had to. I left. And because of it I was estranged from my mother who wouldn't speak to me for almost 20 years. Not a word! From a father who disinhereted me so that I had to watch my immoral syblings have their free cars and colleges payed for. I made it on my own with out any family support. Every time my family got together and invited me (rare as that was) I was introduced as the heretic son. My father didn't even see his grandchildren from me until 2 years ago. But he pours on the affection to every one else grandchildren. I am excommunicated. And not just from a church but from my family as well. If anyone here has a reason to hate the Catholic church its me who actually suffered under it. However, I don't. Because these things must be Jesus said he would divide father from son. And so he has. You are an Arrogant Man! To attempt to find things of further accusing me of being Catholic! For Shame! You sit in your white tower espoucing noxious venom at me with out yourself paying for your decisions. How hypocritical. I've been consistent. You've consistantly accuse and act as though you're questioning in good faith when really you are trying to trap me. Who know who else did that? Pharisees. Again do you keep good company?

 

It's nice you are aware of athenasius and understand anthropormorphic terms being used. Let me ask you this. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father as well or just the son? And where do you find this in scripture? If scriture as you've said defines your position on the nature of the Holy Spirit. How do you put it together?

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do have questions regarding some of these differences. I think it best to ask you privately as they would be considered off topic.

 

Again, you misrepresent my charges against you. Just go back to the posts I listed and you will see exactly what I was referring to and where my charges originate from. I never made any charges against the words you list. My charges were made against the posts that I listed and which you continue to ignore.

There is no confusion by what you meant in Ephesians 2:10 as I believe being "created in Christ Jesus" refers to regeneration also just as the context demands. That is the crux of the damning error you preach. Regeneration is the cause of good works and good works is not inclusive of regeneration. However, just as Gerhard and I together pointed out to you, that is precisely what you are saying when you deny cause and effect relationships between regeneration and good works - that is the crux of Romanism pure and simple. They believe that justification and good works are inseparable with regeneration in baptism. They believe regeneration occurs in baptism. They believe justification at least begins in baptism. They believe that grace is infused in baptism. They believe this because they fail to make the same cause and effect relationships between regeneration and good works that you do. It is that position that provides the theological basis for Romanistic soteriology.

 

You show your arrogance. Again you're in no position to call me a heretic Or Damning me as you put it. Based on how I view faith. You are acting like Rome. Doctor inquisitor. Not I. Nor does my belief equate with Rome. You are suggesting just by your statement about that if you are regenrate you don't do good works. And if you don't do good works that doesn't mean you are not regenerate. That is in essence what you are saying.
I maintain that if you are regenrate you do good works. Not that you do good works to be regenerate but it is the natural object of Regeneration and if you do not do good works you are not regenerate. Period. Faith without works is dead. Simply put. I am not alone in my belief either. Again what price did you pay for leaving Rome? Where you excommunicated and austrisied by your family? Selah.