Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Elsie:
The notion of Imputed Justification is consistent with God covering man or declaring man justified [Covering was my term] as opposed to God’s pouring out his love into the Human person thru Grace [Infused Grace] such that Man is truly in communion with God. Loving someone means an outpouring of oneself towards some other. I heard one Southern Preacher one time on a TV station or maybe I read it in the Paper saying God declares us righteous and that when we die, are sin is so bad, God can’t look at us but looks away at Jesus and says ok, I declared you justified thru imputed Grace. Now, I am no expert on Protestant justification but by the way it was presented, that is how it sounded to me.
So I think the notion of covering of Grace is more of term that I used as opposed to the Infused notion of Grace in the Catholic System of Justification. Again, I don’t know all the protestant terminology used by Lutherans, Calvinist, Arminians, etc but that was how I took it.
Yes, I've read all of it, and much more than that. And what I have explained is entirely accurate.
Augustine as I read him was talking to the Jews who were merely looking for food to eat that was of this world. So before he got to the notion of the Mana from heaven that God gave the ancient Jews thru Moses, he first had to challenge them that belief in him was essential and the first step before getting into the Eucharistic notions of the bread of life discourse. So on the Point where Saint Augustine is pointing out that Christ was trying to get the Jews to belief in him, once one believes, then the Eucharist becomes the next discussion and for believers, the Eucharist becomes the fullfillment of the mana in desert, so just as God gave the ancient Jews Mana to feed them in the desert on their journey from liberation from Egypt to the promise land, Christ sustains the believer with the sacrament of his body and blood during our journey from Baptism to our death when we will meet the Lord face to face.
Saint Augustine and Fr. Bartunek are making different theological points and while they are different they are not opposed to each other. I 1) Believe in the Holy Trinity [Faith in God] and 2) believe that God sustains me via the Eucharist.
Greetings:
No, what you have explained is a Reformed protestant understanding of it or your understanding of it from a Reformed Protestant perspective.
This is merely your faith pretending that Augustine is speaking in one way, and then reverts to some Transubstantiation language later, when none exist. You are imagining things. You are dreaming and hoping. If transubstantiation is true, and John 6 is a proof text, then Augustine would cite the same verses to give a "different" reading. He never does, but in fact doubles down on this interpretation throughout his tractes. You cannot make assertions like this without providing some kind of argument.
Augustine is quite clear in explaining how it is the Jews may "obey the precept" that Christ commands, and this Augustine says is obeyed by believing, without use of "teeth and stomach." If that is not how the precept is obeyed, then Augustine is either wrong or telling lies. One cannot then read the same text and then claim that "teeth and stomach" is mandated by Christ using the same precept. You are merely making an assertion without engaging in any analysis of what the text actually says. This, again, is just your catholic faith speaking, which molests not only the scripture, but even the church fathers too.
Yes I agree that only Peter answered, but there is no way to know without ‘adding words’ when or if Christ went from addressing Peter exclusively to going back to addressing the entire group. Either interpretation of that last sentence fits. In fact, although I believe that your interpretation is not unreasonable, I believe that since there was no clear change from single to group address, as Jesus had done when he switched to Peter exclusively, it is more likely that he was still addressing Peter.
I thought that Protestants didn’t believe in ‘adding words’. I thought this was the basis of the argument. I don’t think Catholics have a problem with Protestants ‘adding words’ to form their interpretations, as long as those ‘additions’ are based on context and other biblical references. Sometimes, (as above) it is necessary to clarify points.
I think Jesus was talking to Peter, you think he was talking to the group. I don’t have a problem with that, but one of us has to be wrong, and your replies haven’t convinced me that I should change what I believe. I also understand that what I have said has not been sufficient to change what you believe. But I recognize that your interpretation is possible and well thought out, even if I don’t believe it is correct. Is not my interpretation the same?
O2
Greetings:
Ok greetings, says you. But in reality, I could really don’t care what you Protestants think about the Eucharistic Doctrine of the Catholic Church. You think and believe what you want.
At the point of the discussion, the dialogue has not moved beyond eating and drinking food. They, the Jews were looking for food that only nourished them in the temporal sphere. Once he gets them open to believing how He {Jesus} is ,the dialogue moves into the bread of life discourse and the mana as a prefigurement of His Body and Blood is there, mana was something God gave the ancient Jews to eat that helped them live on their journey through the Desert, the Eucharist/Body and Blood of Christ is spiritual food for the soul that nourishes us on the journey of Life.
I stand by that understanding, you do not, fair enough, end of story.
I believe my post was referring to the early church fathers-not the scripture. And while, yes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites extensively from the Bible, so do the Mormoms, Jehovah Witnesses, and Joel Osteen.
I would not use that as a basis of correctness.
Well, actually i know i said "The term "Real Presence" is said to not originally be a Catholic term at all, but that it history is mostly Anglican. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence)
And i think Augustine seems to have said things that supported both, while Catholic author William A. Jurgenes comments on Justin Martyr, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).
But neither are what matters to me. Scripture is the wholly inspired word, not these CFs, which themselves can be open to interpretation.
Now you ruined the chorus with these off-key singers!
That (Tractate 25) isn’t even discussing the portion of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 where the concept of Transubstantiation is derived. So it’s disingenuous to apply it to the Dogma of Transubstantiation.
You should read from paragraph 15 of Tractate 26 onward. That would then truly be comparing apples to apples so to speak.
Oh well...
I would think the main website for the Mormons would make their Scriptures easy to find.
I gave up looking.
I want some EVIDENCE from Scripture.
As I read the BIBLE, they asked Him a DIRECT question and He gave them a DIRECT answer.
Learn to read! Verses 15 through 44 are covered here, and he quotes them explicitly. I know your faith in Catholicism blinds you to certain things, but do at least make the attempt.
I confused Anglican with Lutheran (because of the “an”).
Nope; KNOW.
The text is plain:
Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Chapters and verses were invented later; as we all know...When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Reading the text we can see that Jesus is talking to the GROUP of disciples; and He is answered by the impulsive one - SIMON Peter.After dealing with SIMON Peter, He states - to the group - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Catholic teaching limits this to SIMON Peter.
I didn't analyze your 'interpretation'.
I showed what THE TEXT says.
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.