Skip to comments.Southern Baptist Pastor Leaves Everything for the Eucharist
Posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:35 PM PDT by annalex
click here to read article
Allusions, "foreshadowing", vague references - but not one direct quote! Not one instance of Jesus saying, "But what saith the Scriptures..." and quoting a Deuterocanonical book.
Many of the references you listed are also related to passages in the OT.
Take your first one for example...
"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.
After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him. And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, Out of Egypt I called my son.
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: A voice was heard in Ramah,weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children;she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.
But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead. And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: He shall be called a Nazarene. "
Do you see that? You strain to find a reference to "Scripture" in the supposed Wis. 11:7 sitation, but the writer, Matthew, has surrounded you with real quotes of real Scripture. The fact that the Wis. 11:7 is not cited as scripture when so many others are should be a real eye-opener to someone holding your position. Matthew went to great length to identify Scriptural support, why did he fail to reference Wis. 11:7???
"What do you mean around? There werent copy machines or electronic data records. Handwritten letters and not many of them since 98% of the early Christians were illiterate, poor and persecuted."
What I mean is that the written record of Jesus words existed very early in the Church. All of the Gospels were completed before 100AD and very likely before 70AD. All of Paul's writings circulated in the church during that same early period. You make it sound like the church was wandering, Scriptureless, for 300 years. That's just not the case.
"Jesus taught that the authority of His teachings resided in the Church and not in writings of any kind."
Do you think John disobeyed his Lord when he wrote...
"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
The thing that bothers me most about this argument, (which I hear from many Catholics), is that you seem to believe you must diminish the authority of the Scriptures so that you can enhance the authority of the traditions and heirarchy of the RCC. When I see Catholics arguing things like"Jesus never told anybody to write anything", if feel sick to my stomach and sorry for them.
No one motivated by the Spirit of God ever attacks or diminishes the importance of the Scripture. Go and search the Bible and see if what I said isn't true.
One would think that at the time of the cononization...done to fight heresy, that all things necessary to understand the Lord's complete revelations and live according to the way He deems right, would have been contained in the scriptures...else, why canonize at all? No, the rcc uses 'traditions' as the camels nose in the tent to unload all manner of ungodly rules upon humanity. As stated in Matthew Henry's commentaries....
"The Thessalonians are exhorted to stedfastness in their Christian profession, to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, or the doctrine of the gospel, which had been delivered by the apostle, by word or epistle. As yet the canon of scripture was not complete, and therefore some things were delivered by the apostles in their preaching, under the guidance of the infallible Spirit, which Christians were bound to observe as coming from God; other things were afterwards by them committed to writing, as the apostle had written a former epistle to these Thessalonians; and these epistles were written as the writers were moved by the Holy Ghost. Note, There is no argument hence for regarding oral traditions in our days, now that the canon of scripture is complete, as of equal authority with the sacred writings. Such doctrines and duties as were taught by the inspired apostles we must stedfastly adhere to; but we have no certain evidence of any thing delivered by them more than what we find contained in the holy scriptures."
Not according to a Soveriegn Lord. Nobodys right hand can save themselves (Job). Some free will protestant do think that [their salvation occurs when THEY make a decision]. Their way of thinking tries to rob the Lord of His glory [and allows themselves to take credit for a miraculous event! Only He can redeem depraved individuals and make them pure as snow and therefore] having mercy upon whom I will have mercy [and instead places the final activating event within the power of the created being].
Branching out a bit into your other thoughts regarding the purseverance of the saints and how our salvation IS NOT able to be lost, but is imperishable:
In 1 Peter, Peter describes life after the spiritual rebirth....
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith
It is not the re-birth that takes a life time. That happens in an instant. It is the testing of that faith that lasts a lifetime. We reborn ELECT are not insulted from the ramifications of sin, Inherited or otherwise. However, perseverance of the saints is always in effect. Nothing can pluck My sheep from My hand. AND that salvation, once sealed is forever....
1 Peter 1:23 states, For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Romans 10:17 states, So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Therefore, faith is a gift of God arriving through the WORD of Christ. Not Catechism. Not tradition. Not some druid-looking priest that slips a wafer into your mouth. By the WORD, through the Power of Christ, according to Him. Period.
Through good humanism (satan LOVES humanism) you do feed and materially help many in third world countries and here at home. Unfortunately, you have veered WAY off the Christian path with imposed rules-of-men and misrepresentation of scriptural truths, all pushed onto these same people whom you materially help.
It appears Catholics do a great job keep people very comfortable on the way to hell.
keep = keeping
Testing and strengthening, yes. So?
"All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever."
And this word is the good news that was preached to you."
- St. Peter, 1 Peter 1:23,ff
Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
Scriptural proof that baptism and being born again by hearing the Gospel and believing are not the same thing.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 4 claims to have begotten the Corinthians through the Gospel:
"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
... but a few chapters earlier, Paul specifically said the he baptized only a few people...
"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
Paul clearly sees a distinction here between baptism (which he was not call to do) and preaching the Gospel (by which the Corinthian believers were begotten).
Scriptural proof that people are when people hear and believe the Gospel, the Holy Spirit enters their life:
"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?"
St. Paul - Ga. 3:1, 2
"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."
St. Paul - Ephesians 1:13,14
(I apologize for taking a while to get back with you. I hope you have a chance to respond. I look forward to your thoughts.)
Wrong on all counts. And the capping argument about oral tradition is that CHRIST HIMSELF taught from non-written JEWISH oral tradition (which fact IS recorded in Scripture). The tradition that the RCC teaches is what it has ALWAYS taught, and a bit of study of the church fathers will prove that. And of course, you will never see the scriptural foundation for purgatory (Maccabees) in the poor eviscerated excuse for a Bible that you Protestants use, as the relevant books were jerked out and discarded by Martin Luther.
It is to laugh. The RCC is FAR more scriptural than any Protestant variety. Yes, there are very few doctrines that are not contained in Scripture, but MOST of those are logical necessities that result from things that ARE taught in Scripture. Protestants use an eviscerated Bible, and out of that, they only "see" a select few verses that agree with the teachings of their particular "magisterium", whether that be Martin Luther, or some other Johnny-come-lately "deformer" (I prefer the term "Deformation" to "Reformation", because the only thing that Protestants have accomplished is twisting the truth totally out of shape.)
So... it is not necessary to earn salvation over and over again.
Like everything the rcc espouses that is not contained in scripture. One of many...transubstantiation, but the list is long.
"Such doctrines and duties as were taught by the inspired apostles"
The blind and power grubbing rcc can't keep tacking on 'traditions' at your whim and still call it 'holy'! The 'traditions' you force on others were NEVER taught by the apostles. Merely added later by men alone.
My daughter was told at her first communion that, "Now that you have Jesus in you, you will be more willing to clean your room and obey your parents". Ha! What a load and demonstration of a COMPLETE lack of understanding by the rcc clergy as to the meaning of re-birth. AND, it wasn't just Luther that had questions about the deuterocanonical texts. MANY early Christians questioned their use as scripture....but it appears that by 393 the rcc was already trying to establish their political order and empire over Christianity....and the seed of corruption was sown. BTW...the deuterocanonical is not accepted by Jews either. You rcc are all by yourselves on this one.
Ah..so you then you must wholeheartedly agree with the rcc decision to burn William Tyndale at the stake, alive, because he dared translate the Bible for the masses instead of keep it strictly relegated to the holy rcc ‘magisterium’?
Gosh...Jesus had it wrong. He should have just taught the academically educated ‘magisterium’ instead of the masses. Nice.
My objection is not to the idea that the Gospel allows for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and makes man a new creature. My objection is to the particular concept of being born again that is common in many Protestant communities, which makes the "born-again" a single event after which one is securely saved, and of which baptism is an outward sign. The Catholic, as well as patristic and Orthodox theology is that initial decision of faith must be followed by sacramental baptism, at which point the Holy Spirit begins His work of continuing conversion and continuing rebirth (if you will), which work, however, needs be cooperated with by the free will of man himself, and which is not complete till the last breath and the particular Judgement at death. Only at that time is one securely saved.
Since there is indeed one baptism, that is one act most closely resembling a new birth of water and spirit (John 3).
However, just as out baptismal promise to reject satan can be renewed as often as we will, so our rebirth is a continuing process of conversion in fuller obedience to the Gospel. This is the kind of process St. Peter speaks of in 1 Peter 1:23f. He concludes his analogy in the next chapter:
Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, as newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation
This indeed enables us to say that the Gospel is our rebirth, but this does not allow us to proclaim the born-again as a single state that endures once acheived. Babies grow. Some of them, sadly, die.
St. James is even more forthright in pointing out the danger of this Protestant presumption of salvation:
be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.
This, of course, directly follows your born-again prooftext from St. James.
Does St. Paul contradict any of this in 1 Cor 4? Indeed, perseverance in the faith is not the same as initial conversion and baptism. The former follows the later; preaching follows baptism. However, does Paul say that the Corinthians' baptism was on no consequence? Not at all, both to them and to Romans (Rm 6:3) he points out that it was the baptism that opened the channels of grace to them.
Transsubstantiation is straight from the gospel of Luke, see the supper at Emmaus episode.
You earn it once with your life as you free yourself from sin.
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
(2 Peter 1:10)
In Luke 24, the Sovereign Lord chose to hide himself from their recognition and then reveal Himself as the Master of the meal. The spirit is wind, no one knowing from whence it comes. God does not need to hide the spirit in bread for us to consume it. If this life changing bread has the power you attribute to it by relating this story, why is Christ not effectual for ALL that receive the rcc host? I'm sorry, but Christ's call is effectual 100% of the time. Christ does not fail.
If Christ really wanted people to eat His flesh and drink His blood, don't you think the last supper would have been an ideal time for them to consume them?
He said, “do THIS” in memory of me. And what was He doing at the EXACT moment He said, “do THIS”? He was breaking bread and drinking wine. He made no indication that anything had been transformed. He was still man. His flesh was not separate from His body at that time, nor His blood. THAT experience was the ‘THIS’ He talked about. Now that the rcc pretends the bread and wine are actual flesh and blood of Jesus, they are not doing the ‘THIS’ anymore, but something different and NOT according to His instruction. By necessity then, the rcc misinterpretation that now ADDS some magical priest necessitating conversion of material.
Was the little metal cup the ‘New Covenant’ too?
Christ intended we eat His flesh and drink His blood in exactly the manner He instructed us at the Last Supper.
I never said you earn salvation even a single time. And if that is true, re-earning it is not necessary or productive either. Salvation is a gift from God. Annalex right arm can not save him. It is only through the atoning, propitiation of Christ's work on the cross that Annalex can stand before a Holy God. Your ‘good works’ are as dirty rags to Him.
“brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. “
Ah yes, note that one's ELECTION is demonstrated by fruit-of-the-spirit. And in producing fruit one does not sin....but this text in no way declares that one will lead a sinless life in other respects.
Not infant baptism, surely. Which I don’t disparage, as long as it s considered a welcoming into the Christian family or somesuch. It is not being born again.
I have no interest in how you interpret Luke 24, or any other scripture. You said that transsubstantiation is not scriptural and I corrected you. If you have questions, I’d be happy to answer.
You may recall that these were not infants.
This is, again, your interpretation and I have no interest in it. The plain text in the verse quoted supports what I said: election is made sure when one does not sin at any time. If you have your own interpretations of scripture, start your own denomination, -- this is a free country.
This is an arrogant assertion, as some of your others have been also. It is common among Catholics, however. Since they cannot see the real reason, they assume it must be for selfish motives.
If baptism saves, and St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21) teaches it does, then it saves whoever is baptized, infant or adult.
Where’s the arrogance?
What about the words “I am”? Not “the Church is,” you will notice.
Good. We agree.
Just like Paul pointed out to the Corinthians....let's not chow down and leave nothing for your fellow Christan. That is not brotherly love. But celebrate the Lord in breaking of BREAD and WINE to symbolize the Lord provides sustenance for the body and cleansing of sins for the spirit. Would have been a good time in that letter to point out and expand upon the GRAND sacredness of the bread actually becoming Christ's flesh. He doesn't. He merely repeats what Christ said. Paul doesn't expand and explain what would surely be such a huge issue if people were pigging out on Christ's flesh, only reiterates Christ's statement about how Christ satisfies OUR flesh and spirit.
Give us this day our daily bread.....
.....If a sparrow won't fall without God caring and the flowers of the field are arrayed in splendor, won't the Lord care for your needs as well?
Darwinism — a belief in unguided undesigned evolution producing all life — is not OK. A belief in theistic evolution, that is, a process of divine creation in which evolutionary mechanisms of speciation played a role given them by creator God is OK. A belief in literal 6-day creation is OK also. There is no softening or hardening of any dogmas: within the above-mentioned brackets all it is is pure speculation.
What about God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him spirit and in truth"? What about "By their fruits you shall know them"?
Yes, but also the Church is pillar and ground of all truth; Jesus called her “his” and St. Paul called her His body; when Saul persecuted the Church Jesus said, he was persecuting Him.
So? He is also the Spirit Who inspired the Holy Scripture.
Your good works are dirty rags. Sorry.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Annalex....the Lord sees even the INTENTIONS of the Thoughts of your mind. And without His influence your intentions are evil continually. Without Christ you can do nothing. The flesh is profitable for NOTHING.
You didn't need Christ. Annalex saved himself! That is not the theology of the original Christian church bro. Nor is it what the Lord forcefully told Job.
I don’t remember anything in Darwin about “unguided” or “undesigned.” He didn’t deal with these issues. Scientists deal with science. Don’t be confused by people like Dawkins, who think evolution proves the nonexistence of God.
You are getting circular. The Church says the Church is the pillar of all truth. Oh. Okay. Just admit it’s circular. Ties people’s brains up in knots.
I never said I saved or will save myself.
Like I said, start your own denomination. I am Catholic, I read what’s written.
Ah, OK. I know, — Darwin himself was, they say, quite religious. I was simply commenting what was the motivation behind proclaiming the Immaculate Conception dogma at the time it was proclaimed. I did not mean it as a complete explanation of what is and what is not wrong with darwinism. Surely SOMETHING is wrong with it.
Deal with the spirit and truth of worship. That was my point, after all.
St. Paul says it, to be precise, in 1 Timothy 3:15. Yes, it is circular: the Church produced the Holy Scripture and she now relies on it to explain herself.
OK. Will do.
In any case, it is not being born again.
Try John's gospel.
I would also add that it is not always easier on the lifestyle. Usually much the opposite, but that is not my main point.
No, there is nothing wrong with Darwinism. It does not preclude God’s intervention.
John 3 defines born again as being baptized: born of the water and spirit. There is no mentioning of age.
Now, baptism is salvific, like the Eucharist, until such time that it is followed by a mortal sin. Naturally, many people regardless of the age of their baptism commit sins and need absolution in order to be restored to the state of sanctifying grace.
The concept of being saved by a single proclamation of faith regardless of other works, is what is presumptious. I am just pointing it out.
Start your own denomination.