Posted on 10/17/2015 2:05:16 PM PDT by NYer
If it weren’t for St. Ignatius of Antioch, I might not be a Catholic today. How could a first century bishop so influence an American guy two thousand years later? Well, I first learned of this saint at my Baptist university where, in addition to my program’s coursework, we were required to read books from a list of the Western Canon. The list covered everything from ancient to modern so I started my reading at the beginning. I wandered from the Fertile Crescent to Ancient Greece and Rome. I moved through the New Testament and soon found myself in the Early Church Fathers, reading a little blue book with the collected letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote these letters on his way from Antioch to Rome, a journey he made in chains, fully aware of his impending martyrdom.
As a committed Protestant, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from this first century saint (Ignatius was born near 35 AD and died sometime around the turn of the century). At first, St. Ignatius’ writing seemed familiar. The greetings with which he begins his letters are very similar to the way St. Paul often introduces his epistles. And many of his phrases along with some of his style is reminiscent of other New Testament books I’d read many times. He also exhorts his readers to remain strong in faith and charity and to imitate Jesus Christ. But, soon, he began to use language I wasn’t quite sure of.
I had always believed early Christianity was probably a lot like my Evangelical Christianity and that Catholic beliefs in Church authority and transubstantiation were later inventions. But, very quickly, I saw that St. Ignatius not only accepted these two points of doctrine but that he believed passionately in their essential role in the life of the Christian.
Growing up Baptist, we’d always spoken of communion as “the Lord’s Supper,” simply a memorial where we remembered Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Communion was, at most, a symbol. Yet St. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Ephesians, describes the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ.” At first, I guessed that Ignatius was speaking metaphorically and that something was being lost in translation. But, in his Letter to the Romans, he emphasizes the point again, declaring, “Bread of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is; incorruptible love.” I know these passages aren’t proof enough to convince all Protestants of the truth of Transubstantiation. And I certainly wasn’t convinced yet either. However, the description caught me so off guard that I found myself reevaluating what communion might mean.
Yet, to me, more strange than Ignatius’ words on communion were his instructions on hierarchy and unity in the Church. In his Letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius encourages his fellow Christians, “Let there be nothing among you tending to divide you, but be united with the bishop and those who preside – serving at once as a pattern and a lesson of incorruptibility.” To the Ephesians, Ignatius writes, “Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ.” Then he goes on to say, “Certain it is that your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it harmonizes with the bishop as completely as strings with a harp.” In all of his other letters – to the Philadelphians, the Trallians, the Smyrnaeans – Ignatius stresses the importance of allegiance to the bishops as well as the tradition handed down from the Apostles.
As a Baptist, the foundation of my faith was individuality. Salvation depended only on a personal relationship with Jesus. All Scripture could be understood and correctly interpreted by every individual Christian. The “Church” was simply a kind of collective noun for Christians so there was no need for an institution – much less a hierarchy. Yet, here was a first century Christian telling me that submission to someone else’s authority was absolutely crucial for the life of the Church. So important, in fact, that he would spend his last days pleading this point.
Of course, for St. Ignatius, the Eucharist and ecclesiology were not just dry doctrinal points with which to wrestle or speculate on. They were a matter of life and death. During the terrible persecution of his time, Ignatius could clearly see how both were inseparable from a life in Christ; Jesus fully present in the bread of the altar and truly active in his bride, the Church.
As Ignatius stresses these points in his multiple letters, there is certainly a sense of urgency. Afterall, he knew he would be killed soon. However, Ignatius never falls into panic or worry. In fact, he writes with fondness of his pending death, even asking the recipients of his letters not to interfere. In his Letter to the Romans, Ignatius writes, “I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”
St. Ignatius did become this bread of Christ and was torn apart in the Roman Colosseum. He was a martyr for Jesus and he remains a martyr in the original sense of the word. Martyr means “witness” and, even today, St. Ignatius of Antioch is a witness to the vital nature of the Eucharist and the Church. So much so that he can convince a Baptist who happens upon his words.
LOL! You don’t even have the whole Bible.
“When the Bible was initially compiled, there were - after much prayer and discussion - 72 books, 45 Old Testament and 27 New. Luther removed several books to suit his view. That abridged Bible is the one now commonly attended by protestants and evangelicals.”
Refuted many times on FR
“LOL! You don’t even have the whole Bible.”
We agree on 66 books.
Why don’t you start your study there for salvation?
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways.
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
This claim contradicts the disagreements between church fathers.
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
This truth claim is universal and unprovable, and as such is a logical fallacy.
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
This argument presumes its own premise and is a logical fallacy. The premise is unproven and unprovable.
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
Your argument is a straw man against Protestantism, incorporating perjurative language. This too, is a logical fallacy.
(Slow morning here in London!)
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
“Contradictory doctrines” and “shallow interpretations” are both perjurative and meaningless assertions that are undefined straw men arguments.
“For over 1500 years before the scourge of Protestantism that let loose a thousand contradictory doctrines of shallow interpretations, the entire galaxy of theologians, historians, saints, scholars “
“You claim of 1500 years before” assumes continuity on all doctrines, which contradicts church history, the history of doctrinal development, and the teaching of your pope Ratzinger.
It also contradicts the absence of a great many doctrines from before 100 ad.
Ms,
It is simply a false claim you made.
Daniel, rather than me starting from scratch on the issue of the canon, do you have previous material our FRiend can examine?
Where should I start? The papacy ; the Cath Eucharist ; ensured magisterial infallibility; praying to created beings in Heaven; the priesthood ; Cath Mariolatry ; clerical celibacy; purgatory ; hindering personal Bible reading; a separate class of believers called “saints, a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles; teaching that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs; the overall fruit of Catholicism ; the changeability of RC doctrine , the centuries of disagreement on the canon , the disputes on tradition in Catholicism, etc?
This should suffice right now:
|
Partial list of contrasts between the New Testament church and Roman Catholicism. |
||
|
Leadership |
NT church |
Commentary (a short summary, as by God's grace, defenders of Rome have been refuted time and time again into silence or there recourse to spitwads, as can be shown). |
|
|
• No apostles elected by voting. • No successors after Judas, with the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office by way of ordination being that of presbuteros/episkopos. • Peter as as non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, with no succession or preparation for one. • No corporate view of Peter as their first of supreme infallible popes in Rome. • Nowhere in the NT, interpretive of Mt. 16:18, is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. • No leadership claiming/possessing ensured perpetual infallibility. • No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice. • No leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests): only presbuteros/ episkopos (same office: Titus 1:5-7). • No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice. • The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God. • No required celibacy for leadership. Most were married. |
• There were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Peter was the initial, non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, once even listed after James (who provided the conclusive judgment in Acts 15) in Gal. 2 as one of 3 present who appeared to be pillars. To whom Rome's ensured perpetual formulaic infallibility is nowhere promised, and in contrast holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle directly publicly rebuked. • No succession for Peter or preparation for one is seen in the NT, an incongruous conspicuous omission for a cardinal doctrine, while ordination of leaders is described and taught. For the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7) • Nowhere is the church described as looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome, nor told to even in any of the church epistles or in the Lord's commendations and criticisms of the 7 churches of Asia. • Nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) • Nowhere is leadership/magisterial office promised ensured perpetual infallibility. RCs extrapolate support for this out of promises of God's presence and preservation, but which Israel has as well. They also hold that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God (writing and men) and their meaning, but which was never required before, and is contrary to how the church began. • Nowhere is leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests), which distinctive title is only used for Jewish and pagan priests. Catholics try to defend the use of priests by relying on an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy ">etymological fallacy </a>, since "priest," from old English "preost," etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," but which is not what the latter means. Instead the use of the title priests was a latter development due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they did not. • Nowhere is leadership even shown distributing food as part of their specific ordained function, (Acts 6:3,4) and is nowhere is the Lords' Supper shown to be led by priests conducting it, let alone offering it as a sacrifice for sins to be consumed to obtain eternal life. The command to “do this in memory of Me” is nowhere shown to be specifically and uniquely given to leadership, let alone a class titled “priests.” • The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God, (Acts 6:3,4) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) • Nowhere is celibacy a requirement for leadership, as in contrast marriage was the norm for pastors, include most of the apostles. Paul and Barnabas under a vow to stay single. (1Cor. 9:4; 1Tim. 3:1-7) |
|
The Lord's Supper |
• The Lord's Supper is ordained as an ordinance by which that believers remember the Lord's death and show fellowship with Christ by a commemorative shared meal. • Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical. Instead, spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace. |
• Nowhere, interpretive of of the gospels, is the Lord's Supper itself described as offering for sin, or to be consumed in order to obtain essential spiritual life. Instead is only described in one epistle and in which it is analogous to pagans having fellowship with their gods, not by consuming their flesh, but by the communal meal done in dedication to the object of worship. By which believers remember the Lord's death and fellowship with Christ by a commemorative communal meal, sharing food in recognition of each other being part of the body of Christ which He purchased with His own sinless shed blood. Only the metaphorical See here. By God's grace. • Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical, as per transubstantiation. Spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace, which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32) |
|
Baptism |
• Baptism is ordained by which souls confess the Lord Jesus, identifying with Him in His death by full immersion. • It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, not the act itself effecting it. • Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized. |
• Souls confess and identify with the Lord Jesus in baptism by full immersion, as that alone corresponds to burial (as a liquid grave) and is what the Greek word means. (Acts 8:38; Rm. 6:1ff) • It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, as Peter preached and described, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) not the act itself effecting it. As baptism requires and evidences faith, so it is promised that those who will repent and baptized will be saved, just as whosoever shall call upon the Lord, who believe in their heart and confess with their mouth faith in the gospel are promised salvation. (Rm. 10:9-13) • Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized, the stipulated requirements for which are repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) . |
|
Gospel and soteriology |
• Preached the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith, which is counted for righteousness, but which is a faith that is (normally) confessed first in baptism. |
• Believers are promised forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith in the Lord Jesus who died for us and whom God raised up. As a result, their faith (a living faith, such as is confessed in baptism and following the Lord) is counted for righteousness, and the believer is washed, sanctified and justified on account of thew sinless and perfect Christ, not their own righteousness. (Rm. 3:10- 5:1; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) • The merit of works is excluded as the basis for justification, with “works of the law” usually being used as that is the epitome of salvation by merit. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) When Abraham believed God to do what he could not do then it was counted unto him for righteousness, though he had done works before that. Likewise we must believe God to do what we cannot not do, that is, to justify ourselves by becoming good enough to be with God, which God does by imputation of righteousness by faith in the Jesus Christ the righteous. • In contrast, Catholicism teaches that the one is formally justified by his own holiness, first effected by the act of baptism, leaving the subject holy enough to be with God. Thus Rome holds that most believers must spend an indeterminate postmortem time suffering “purifying torments” in mythical “Purgatory” until the subject becomes good enough, free of character defects, to be with God (and atone for sins). • Works/holiness do have a justificatory effect, that of justifying one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace, with God rewarded faith in recognition of its works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35; Rv. 3:4) even though in conversion, man is both enabled and motivated (Jn. 6:44; 16:8-11; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, and then enables and motivates the believer to live for God. (Phil. 2:13; 1Co. 11:32) • However, believers can choose to sin, and are warned against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, falling from grace, drawing back into perdition, making Christ of no effect/profit, falling from grace. (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) Thus God works to chasten wayward souls to repentance, lest they “be condemned with the rest of the world.” (1Co. 11:32 |
|
Afterlife |
• All true believers go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, the latter being the next transformative effect believers look to. After which is the only suffering believers will realize, that being the loss of rewards. |
• What Scripture teaches wherever it manifestly speaks about the next life, is that since believers are forgiven on account of Christ, on His merit, then all true believers presently are “accepted in the Beloved,” and made to sit together with Christ in the heavenly, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) and go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. it is always with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3;2) And which is the next transformative event believers look to, that of being conformed to Christ. (2Cor. 5:2,3; 1Cor. 15; 1Jn. 3:2) • At/after which coming ( versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death) believers at the judgment seat of Christ (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) will gain or lose rewards based on the quality of the material they used to build the church with, which loss is only (and momentary) suffering (along with the grievous displeasure of the Lord) believers will realize after leaving this world. Scripture also only reveals growth in grace and overcoming and prolonged suffering as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15) |
|
Scripture |
• Scripture is manifest as being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. • Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for the veracity of Truth claims. • Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity |
It is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes subsequent to being spoken, and that as written, the written word of God became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.) Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for Truth claims, not the premise of ensured papal/magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere seen or promised nor necessary to preserve faith. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity as per Rome, if available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was. |
|
Oral tradition |
• Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths, as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation as well as wholly inspired preaching of the word of God. • Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. |
Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths by the whole church,(Acts 8:4) as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation and Divinely revealed Truths as the wholly inspired preaching word of God (which is uniquely powerful: Heb. 4:12). neither of which Rome claims to do (she claims her oral tradition is inspired, but not the written promulgation of it). Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but Scripture was the standard by which all was tested by. (Acts 17:11) |
|
Prayer |
• Prayer directly to God by the blood of Christ, who is the only heavenly intercessor between God and man. • Never prayed to any created beings in Heaven. |
• Nowhere in all of Scripture, with its over 200 recorded prayers, did any believer pray to anyone else in Heaven by God, who alone is shown to be able to hear and personally respond multitudinous prayers to Heaven. The Lord's own instructions on prayer was to “Our Father who art in Heaven,” to whom the Spirit in believers cries out to, never “Our Mother.” • Communication between created beings always required both to be in the same realm, even if via a vision. Christ is taught as being the only and wholly sufficient and accessible heavenly intercessor between God and man. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:18 4:14-16) |
|
Mary |
• Mary simply presented as a holy devout vessel of God, used to provide the body God had prepared for His Divine Son, whom she owed her existence to. • No prayers were made to her, while she prayed directly to the Lord, nor are many other things taught of her that are said of the Mary of Catholicism. |
• Mary presented as a holy vessel of God used to provide the body God had prepared, (Heb. 10:5) owing her very breath to the Son of God who was incarnated through her, (Jn. 1:1-3) and whom she was a mother to. Which Christ said all obedient believers were. • Scripture never records her as a women who never sinned, and or as a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving), nor as one who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as the Queen of Heaven, as an almost almighty demigoddess. • Scripture does not teach the Mary of Catholicism, to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to. Whose [Mary] merits we are saved by; who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin;" whose power now "is all but unlimited," "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," so much that she "seems to have the same power as God," that “even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin” since her prayers and requests are as commands, and that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse," and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess." |
|
Worship |
• Worship was to God alone, with such things as making supplication to other being in heaven being idolatry. |
• Worship was to be to God alone in spirit and in Truth, (Jn. 4:24) with ascribing uniquely Divine attributes to created beings, including the ability to hear and personally respond to prayer in Heaven, and bowing down as before them (or their representative images) and making supplication to them, constituting idolatry, (Jer. 44; Acts 7:43) even if it was an instrument used by God. (Num. 21:9; 2Ki. 18:4) |
|
Miscl. |
• “Saints” denoted all believers. God was distinctive from that of the known God of pagans. • Did not rule over those without, nor use the sword of men for church purposes. |
• The NT never called a separate class of believers “saints,” which term denoted all believers. • Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs. • Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters, as instead disfellowship and the spiritual power was their recourse, and relegated dealing with those without the church to being outside their realm. (1Cor. 5:4,5,11-13; 1Tim. 1:20)
|
Thus the questions must be asked, just where do you ever see believers obtaining this salvific spiritual life in themselves by consuming the Lord supper, versus regeneration?
How can you hold that this statement is no less an absolute imperative then other "verily, verily" statements, yet affirm those who deny it as being born again children of God? Or are all such presently lost, and Lumen Gentium 16 does not apply to them? Be consistent in your error.
And how do do we see the Lord living by the Father, that being analogous to how believers live by Christ?(v. 57)
And where do we see in the NT church a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" changing bread into the Lord's body as a sacrifice for sin, that being a unique sacerdotal function of them, and to be consumed to obtain spiritual life (not in 1Cor. 11), or even dispensing food as part of their primary ordained functions?
Instead of teaching something as radically new as literally physically consuming Christ in person, or even literally physically consuming anything in order to obtain spiritual life, only the metaphorical sense of the language of Jn 6 easily conforms to the rest of Scripture, and it is the word of God that is said to nourish souls, (Acts 20:32; 1Tim. 4:6) with doing God's will and work being "meat" and how one lives by God. (Mt. 44; Jn. 4:34)
So THEY are the ones that started carrying the small statue of the crucified Christ on a staff. I always wondered where that all started. It helps make one look religious.
(It should be noted that the brazen serpent was used for divine deliverance in only one case, and later destroyed by king Hezekiah, because people had turned it in to an idol).
Thanks Daniel. We do our best to help others think. God alone opens eyes.
:o)
How can one NOT be inspired by those words?
Anyway, it's a good thing that this gent didn't rely upon Origen for his inspiration.
St. Ignatius
Shame that this Baptist wasn't more careful in his review of Ignatius' writings. This is, after all, the understanding of all Protestants-that Jesus Christ alone oversees us.
Good post. Accurately reflects our current historical understanding of the Saint’s writings.
Speaking of Galileo...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.