The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans against those who deny the True presence in the Eucharist

newadvent ^ | 110 AD | Ignatius of Antioch

[21twelve]

I recall a sermon by that gal on youtube that is so well-versed in the original languages. She said there were three different original words for “works”. Dynamos (from which we get dynamite) is the word for “works” when it is God’s work (God working through us). And that is the fruit - or the evidence, that we are saved - God working through us.

There is another term for man’s works, and then iirc a third term used for Satan’s works. It sure helped to clear up some of those scriptures.

[ealgeone]

Recall many of his followers abandoned him when he doubled down. If he meant it symbolically he would have cleared up the misunderstanding.

Actually....this is why they left.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Note Peter's reply to Jesus....we have believed. Nothing about the flesh and blood issue.

*****

And, Jesus was not one to chase people down and force them to believe. He has let many walk away because they have chosen not to believe....and He continues to allow people to walk away today if they do not believe.

[ealgeone]

One has to believe to be saved. But “Believe” is a pregnant word. There are many things that constitute the belief. It more than a state of mind. After all, Satan “believes” as well.

True.

As an example...I believe a guy named Muhammed lived in the 7th century. However, I do not believe in his teaching.

In my example I'm acknowledging Muhammed lived but am unwilling to follow him.

When it comes to Christ, I believe He lived, was crucified and resurrected and is alive today. I am following Him and His teachings.

IMHO that's the difference in "believe".

[funwithfood]

True,

But there is a lot more to it in my view.

[linMcHlp]

the man on the other cross had faith

[HereInTheHeartland]

I wash my cast iron skillet in the dishwasher .
Tell me why that’s wrong

[fishtank]

Bethlehem water

[fishtank]

The scandal of Rome is they don’t teach that Jesus’s death paid for all sin past present and future.

[linMcHlp]

my prayer
please give us this day, our daily bread, and help us to digest it

- - -

Believers in Works . . .
Follow these rules, and you will live.

- - -

Jesus is living water
Live by faith

[Petrosius]

The issue for the Roman Catholic is the contradicting positions of the ECFs on many of the issues near and dear to Roman Catholic theology.

The early Church Fathers are not scripture so we do not place our faith on individual writings. Rather, we use the consensus of the Fathers to show what the early Church believed. And an honest reading of them shows that the early Church was Catholic, not Protestant.

[Petrosius]

if you are thinking of Romans well all scholars acknowledge that Luther added “alone” when translating into German in the sixteenth century, —but alone is not in the original Greek text.

True enough but the real issue is what Paul meant by "works of the law." If you read Romans from the beginning and let him develop his argument it is clear that he is speaking of the Jewish Mosaic law and circumcision, not obedience to the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments. The whole point of Romans is a polemic against the Judaizers who in Rome who wanted to impose the Jewish law on the gentile Christians. This is true also of Galatians. If anything, Paul praises those gentiles who obey the moral law without the aid of the Mosaic law. In Galatians he explicitly warns that those who sin (disobeying the moral law) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Luther got the whole point of Romans wrong.

[Petrosius]

The scandal of Rome is they don’t teach that Jesus’s death paid for all sin past present and future.

Neither did Jesus.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25:31-46)

Just one of many times that Jesus tells us that we will be judged by our actions.

[ealgeone]

There is no unanimous consensus among the ECFs on many of the dogmas of Roman Catholicism.

[Petrosius]

There is no unanimous consensus among the ECFs on many of the dogmas of Roman Catholicism.

Consensus is an aid, not a requirement. But what is clear is that they did not hold to 16th century Protestant beliefs.

[ealgeone]

Consensus is an aid, not a requirement.

During Vatican I (1870), Rome put forth this statement:

“Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.” Session 2:2, Jan 6, 1870.

*****

Unanimous consent was a requirement per Vatican I.

[ealgeone]

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB 95

Paul in this passage was not addressing the Law.

Paul is clear there is nothing an individual can do work wise to gain or keep salvation.

And if you read Romans from beginning to end you will also see that it is God Who does the saving of the individual and that it is God Who does the keeping of the individual.

Why is this important? Because apart from His intervention none seek after God per Paul in Romans...and the Bible in general.

Luther got it absolutely correct. It is Roman Catholicism that has sorely missed the boat.

[Petrosius]

All that means is that we cannot not go against the unanimous consent of the fathers. The sense which Holy mother Church held and holds Sacred Scripture is also a rule of faith even when the consensus of the fathers is lacking.

[ealgeone]

All that means is that we cannot not go against the unanimous consent of the fathers. The sense which Holy mother Church held and holds Sacred Scripture is also a rule of faith even when the consensus of the fathers is lacking.

Jimmy Aiken, a RC apologist, says there is no unanimous consent among the ECFs.

But Rome has gone against the unanimous consent of the ECFs on a good number of its dogmas. In other words, Rome has ignored its own rule of unanimous consent when it isn't in their favor.

[Petrosius]

Paul in this passage was not addressing the Law.

You cannot isolate one passage from everything else that Paul says. Later in Ephesians he states:

So be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma. Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. (Ch. 5:16-21)

That Paul is writing against the Judaizers, as he does in Romans and Galatians, and espousing salvation by faith alone is clear in the closing remarks which he emphasizes by writing with his own hand:

It is those who want to make a good appearance in the flesh who are trying to compel you to have yourselves circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those having themselves circumcised observe the law themselves; they only want you to be circumcised so that they may boast of your flesh. But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither does circumcision mean anything, nor does uncircumcision, but only a new creation. (Ephesians 6:12-15)

We can also see this clearly in Galatians:

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well; who hindered you from following [the] truth? That enticement does not come from the one who called you. A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. I am confident of you in the Lord that you will not take a different view, and that the one who is troubling you will bear the condemnation, whoever he may be. As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!(Galatians 5:1-12)

Paul is clear there is nothing an individual can do work wise to gain or keep salvation.

Paul would disagree. We cannot earn salvation—even Catholics believe in "by grace alone"—but we can loose it:

I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ [Jesus] have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit. Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envious of one another. (Galatians 6:16-26)

Here he writing to believing Christians, not to pagans.

Why is this important? Because apart from His intervention none seek after God per Paul in Romans...and the Bible in general.

Agreed. As I said above, Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone.

[ealgeone]

Paul would disagree. We cannot earn salvation—even Catholics believe in "by grace alone"—but we can loose it:

Then it is not by grace alone. You're arguing you have to work to keep your salvation which contradicts Scripture.

As the individual did nothing to earn salvation they cannot unearn salvation.

That would contradict the passages where Paul notes the believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Remember...Paul noted in Ephesians we were dead in our sins and trespasses. It is God Who has made us alive in Him.

If God has saved us, He doesn't unsave us.