Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself? I was talking to those here who are engaging in this discussion. I am curious where they are coming from.Swanni said:
Do you talk to yourself a lot?
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
262,965 Views |
3172 Replies |
Last: 38 min ago by Realitybites
Some people make the assumption that people are born into this world as Sons and Daughter's of God. They aren't. People were created that way, yes, but because of the fall of man, sin has separated us from God. The only way to become a Son (or Daughter) of God is by Faith in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross for our sins.
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Acts 13:10
And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
God doesn't want to send anyone there, even though legally, as King of the Universe, He must send sinners there. He went so far out of His way to save us that He sent His only Son, to leave His throne in heaven, being worshipped by innumerable angels, riches and comfort, to be humiliated, suffer and die for our sins and then rise from the dead, so that if we trust in Him as your Sacrifice for your sins, you will be saved. Read this first post.
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Acts 13:10
And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
God doesn't want to send anyone there, even though legally, as King of the Universe, He must send sinners there. He went so far out of His way to save us that He sent His only Son, to leave His throne in heaven, being worshipped by innumerable angels, riches and comfort, to be humiliated, suffer and die for our sins and then rise from the dead, so that if we trust in Him as your Sacrifice for your sins, you will be saved. Read this first post.
Interesting, but your testimony only says that you wanted to "become" a Christian after reading a bit about it. It's missing the most important part - did you ever become one? In other words, when and how did you come to believe in the gospel and put your faith in Jesus?Realitybites said:
My Testimony - Or How I Became A Christian Without Ever Setting Foot In A Church
I thought some of you may find this interesting.
I grew up in an era before TV and before the internet in a home where my parents were nominal followers of an eastern religion. Growing up in such a setting you are generally aware that Christmas is a thing and is associated with Santa Claus, reindeer, people giving presents to each other, time off from school, and occasionally you hear something about a fellow named Jesus.
I distinctly remember a time at school in 6th grade when a friend of mine named John showed me a bookmark that his (SBC) church had produced listing the ten commandments, which I read. I told him "Hey, these are really good ideas. Your church should print more of these and hand them out." thinking that the ten commandments were something his church had invented.
In high school, I ended up doing a project on ancient Rome. My project partner handed me a little Gideons New Testament (first time I had even seen a Bible) and suggested reading Romans for some background. So i went home and did. Read the whole thing. Went back to the first page and read half of Matthew.
The next day I went to school and told him that I wanted to become a Christian. He handed me off to a friend who happened to go to the same church that my other friend went to many years before.
...and so began the 35 years I spent as a Southern Baptist.
1st Corinthians 3:6
When you hear the gospel and believe, you are a Christian. You do not "become" one by attending a church and going through a process.
Salvation is the gift of God. Faith is a choice to believe God when He reveals it to us. I do agree that a man must be drawn to God by the Holy Spirit, but you are misinterpreting this passage. Salvation is the topic, therefore, Salvation is the gift of God. Grace is something that God does for you that you cannot do for yourself. That is the gift of God. Faith is our choice to believe God. We gain access to God's Grace through our choice of Faith (Believing and Trusting God)
Romans 5:2 (KJV)
by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Ephesians 3:12 (KJV)
in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
Romans 5:2 (KJV)
by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Ephesians 3:12 (KJV)
in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.Realitybites said:4th and Inches said:
Josey has had some life experiences that have negatively colored his world..
Instead of leaning into Christ, he has fallen away..
We all have experiences, both good and bad.
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)
Actually all of chapter 11 is relevant.
Like Josey, I came to a fork in the road where I realized that Russell Moore's SBC (and evangelicalism and protestantism* more broadly) as well as Roman Catholicism had not preserved the faith once delivered to the saints. It is unsettling to re-evaluate something you have been committed to for decades with time and treasure.
Unlike him, I went looking for the original.
* - I give confessional Lutherans bonus points for trying. If you live somewhere that doesn't have a parish of the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Russia, etc you would do well to seek out a confessional Lutheran (not ELCA) parish that still has the Divine Service. As their service is rooted in the pre-tridentine mass, they actually get closer to the church of the first millenium than post-Vatican II Roman Catholicsm.
If you're saying there is some element of the Christian faith that the Orthodox Church has that Protestants do not, then what is that faith, and what is your evidence that it traces back to original apostolic tradition, since it's not in Scripture? And more importantly, does that missing element of faith affect salvation? If it doesn't, then why does it even matter?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.Realitybites said:4th and Inches said:
Josey has had some life experiences that have negatively colored his world..
Instead of leaning into Christ, he has fallen away..
We all have experiences, both good and bad.
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)
Actually all of chapter 11 is relevant.
Like Josey, I came to a fork in the road where I realized that Russell Moore's SBC (and evangelicalism and protestantism* more broadly) as well as Roman Catholicism had not preserved the faith once delivered to the saints. It is unsettling to re-evaluate something you have been committed to for decades with time and treasure.
Unlike him, I went looking for the original.
* - I give confessional Lutherans bonus points for trying. If you live somewhere that doesn't have a parish of the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Russia, etc you would do well to seek out a confessional Lutheran (not ELCA) parish that still has the Divine Service. As their service is rooted in the pre-tridentine mass, they actually get closer to the church of the first millenium than post-Vatican II Roman Catholicsm.
If you're saying there is some element of the Christian faith that the Orthodox Church has that Protestants do not, then what is that faith, and what is your evidence that it traces back to original apostolic tradition, since it's not in Scripture? And more importantly, does that missing element of faith affect salvation? If it doesn't, then why does it even matter?
Many go by the Traditions of the Church and hold them over Scripture but God condemns such things. Traditions are okay as long as they don't take precedence over the word of God, the Bible:
Matthew 15:3 KJV
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Colossians 2:8 KJV
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Mark 7:13 KJV
[13] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:8 KJV
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Essentially you post 80% of the posts here. Admit it. You like to hear yourself talk. That suggests that you talk to yourself s lot. It's ok. We all do it.
Swanni
If you go back and look at the posts, I actually post a small percentage of them. You obviously haven't been paying attention for too long. If you want to discuss this topic, then do it. If not, then why do you click on this thread? Why are you so worried about what I am doing? There are many other threads for you to go to. Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to stay and discuss this topic, but you are being petty the last couple of days with the ridiculous comments about me rambling. I don't talk nearly as much as others do in here and that's ok because I am happy that they are discussing this topic. This is a topic that needs to be discussed. Did you at least take the time to read this first post?Swanni said:
Essentially you post 80% of the posts here. Admit it. You like to hear yourself talk. That suggests that you talk to yourself s lot. It's ok. We all do it.
Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet
If you are able to verify any of this, it would be amazing. Check it out and get back with me please.Realitybites said:
""The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our times."
This is an extremely interesting observation by Eusebius (260-340 AD), indicating that those who Christ raised from the dead went on to live unnaturally long earthly lives sort of like the patriarchs from Genesis. So he literallly left living proof of his miracles for several hundred years.
Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
You're debunking your own "simple chronological fact" with the first sentence in your second paragraph. It doesn't matter how chronologically long a church was "founded" after the time of the apostles, what matters is whether there was an incorrect belief system that was ultimately corrected towards that of the original apostles. However long that takes, is however long it takes. Chronology isn't relevant.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
Rather than arguing it's a chronological impossibility, you seem to be arguing that it's a biblical impossibility for erroneous beliefs to develop in Jesus' church after its founding, based on your (flawed) interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But this interpretation is obviously wrong because it's directly debunked by Paul's own letters and the book of Revelation, where both Paul and Jesus himself are shown correcting the church for their wrong beliefs and practices. You are making the same error that CokeBear is by believing that a church having erroneous beliefs and practices is an indicator that the "gates of Hell" has "prevailed" over Jesus' church. If that were true, then Jesus himself is admitting that his church had already been defeated by Satan by the time of the seven churches of Revelation.
And still, you're not answering my question. I'm asking you what in particular about the Protestant faith is NOT the original faith of the apostles? You're not providing specifics. Name it - the beliefs on salvation, justification, worship...what?? What does orthodoxy get right with regard to the orginal faith of the apostles that Protestantism gets wrong?
This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Paul correct a behavior NOT a belief. Peter also (at the first council) declared that circumcision wasn't necessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Rather than arguing it's a chronological impossibility, you seem to be arguing that it's a biblical impossibility for erroneous beliefs to develop in Jesus' church after its founding, based on your (flawed) interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But this interpretation is obviously wrong because it's directly debunked by Paul's own letters and the book of Revelation, where both Paul and Jesus himself are shown correcting the church for their wrong beliefs and practices. You are making the same error that CokeBear is by believing that a church having erroneous beliefs and practices is an indicator that the "gates of Hell" has "prevailed" over Jesus' church. If that were true, then Jesus himself is admitting that his church had already been defeated by Satan by the time of the seven churches of Revelation.
The fact remains that Jesus came to earth to save us and create a visible Church. That Church is the Catholic church.
If that Church had failed (which it hasn't) then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it.
In John 17:20-21, Jesus prays, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
He wanted one church. That's the Catholic church. Not all the other churches that broke off.
I've listed several for you in the post above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And still, you're not answering my question. I'm asking you what in particular about the Protestant faith is NOT the original faith of the apostles? You're not providing specifics. Name it - the beliefs on salvation, justification, worship...what?? What does orthodoxy get right with regard to the orginal faith of the apostles that Protestantism gets wrong?
Paul corrected the belief of the "Judaizers" who believed that justification came first by obeying the Law (circumcision) and then having faith in Jesus. He even corrected Peter for promoting this belief. Your supposed first pope.Coke Bear said:Paul correct a behavior NOT a belief. Peter also (at the first council) declared that circumcision wasn't necessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Rather than arguing it's a chronological impossibility, you seem to be arguing that it's a biblical impossibility for erroneous beliefs to develop in Jesus' church after its founding, based on your (flawed) interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But this interpretation is obviously wrong because it's directly debunked by Paul's own letters and the book of Revelation, where both Paul and Jesus himself are shown correcting the church for their wrong beliefs and practices. You are making the same error that CokeBear is by believing that a church having erroneous beliefs and practices is an indicator that the "gates of Hell" has "prevailed" over Jesus' church. If that were true, then Jesus himself is admitting that his church had already been defeated by Satan by the time of the seven churches of Revelation.
The fact remains that Jesus came to earth to save us and create a visible Church. That Church is the Catholic church.
If that Church had failed (which it hasn't) then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it.
In John 17:20-21, Jesus prays, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
He wanted one church. That's the Catholic church. Not all the other churches that broke off.I've listed several for you in the post above.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And still, you're not answering my question. I'm asking you what in particular about the Protestant faith is NOT the original faith of the apostles? You're not providing specifics. Name it - the beliefs on salvation, justification, worship...what?? What does orthodoxy get right with regard to the orginal faith of the apostles that Protestantism gets wrong?
Jesus definitely corrected the beliefs and practices of several churches, giving harsh rebuke to them. So your belief that his church engaging in error means that Satan defeated his church is absolutely wrong. You aren't dealing with this fact.
You continue to make the error in believing that Jesus' one church is the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus' church is the entire body of true believers, not an organizational rule. And what's extremely sad is how you can't see how the Roman Catholic Church's outright heresy and idolatry make it quite clear that they are not part of his church. They are in serious, serious error, as I have been making clear throughout this forum.
Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Jesus didn't say that he was going to found a belief system. He said he was going to found a church.
Clearly, there wasn't a 1600 year gap between his ministry on earth and the church he founded becoming active on earth.
Chronology is everything.
Clearly, there wasn't a 1600 year gap between his ministry on earth and the church he founded becoming active on earth.
Chronology is everything.
Quote:
The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.
Communion with Jesus prior to his ascension took a much more direct form...as in the thief actually spoke to him. Also, the time between his conversion and death was measured in hours nailed to a cross. His experience is hardly normative for the vast majority of Christians.
***Sorry for poor wording..had to auto text***Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
The Non Catholic Church was driven under ground by the Catholic Church for Centuries, losing essential Doctrine because they refused to conform to the false Doctrine of the Catholic Church upon penalty of death and torture. So, the Catholic Church had the backing of the Government. That doesn't make them the correct Church. The correct church is the one who's believes most closely lines up with sound biblical doctrine. The Bible writings were the original apostles writings and Doctrine given by the Holy Spirit not the Catholic Church. There is a reason why the Catholic Church would not allow its members to read the Scriptures. They did not want people to believe anything contrary to what they were teaching. There are many churches that were underground during those centuries. Anabaptists are one such group. But they were many more.
Much of this information is chronicled in the book foxes Christian book of Martyrs and another book called The trail Of blood.
For me, it's simple.
Christ supports the Catholic Church, but not the Roman Catholic denomination.
Any more than Christ prefers Baptists or Episcopalians.
It's the Gospel. Start there, stick there.
Christ supports the Catholic Church, but not the Roman Catholic denomination.
Any more than Christ prefers Baptists or Episcopalians.
It's the Gospel. Start there, stick there.
How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Jesus went on to say that the Words He was speaking were Spirit. He wasn't talking about eating Physical Flesh.Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jesus was founding a body of believers based on faith in him. That what his church is.Realitybites said:
Jesus didn't say that he was going to found a belief system. He said he was going to found a church.
Clearly, there wasn't a 1600 year gap between his ministry on earth and the church he founded becoming active on earth.
Chronology is everything.
Your error is your assumption that Jesus' church wasn't active UNTIL protestantism. His church was always active, but many, many times along the way it was in error, and was in dire need of constant correction. The HUGE problem with the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy is that they claim errancy within their church is impossible, because it would mean a failure of Jesus' church and a defeat from Satan, thus falsifying Jesus' words in Matthew 16 - but this is based on a very wrong interpretation. One only needs to read a little further after Matthew 16:21 to see that Peter (the so-called foundation of Jesus' church) was harshly rebuked by Jesus who told him, "Get behind me, SATAN". Do you see what just happened there? Only a few moments after Jesus' purported establishment of Peter as the founder of his church, Jesus said he was taken over by SATAN. If that isn't an indicator of the sure fallibility of even church founders and the need for constant monitoring and correction, then I don't know what is. The RCC system does not allow for ecclesiastical error to be addressed and corrected, due to their circular reasoning - "only we (the magistrate) have the authority to interpret Scripture...it says so in Scripture, because that's how we interpret it." And then they control their believers by threatening hell on them if they don't toe the line and follow. And like frodo already mentioned, they used violence to ensure full adherence.
Your point about chronology makes no sense, considering you even debunked yourself in the very same comment. If we take for example, the interpretation of the Constitution - suppose that for 1600 years leftism took over the U.S. and the Constitution was abused and interpreted far, far away from the original intent of the original drafters. Even after all that time, the U.S. can still return to being originalists. The time gap would have nothing to do with whether or not they have returned to following the original meaning.
Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Have you considered that perhaps the figurative meaning of "eating Jesus' flesh" is entirely figurative and doesn't have to involve the literal eating of anything, i.e. communion?Sam Lowry said:Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Only recently, and it leads back to my question. If that is the case, then why is the thief on the cross a problem? He would have been saved whether or not there was Real Presence in communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Have you considered that perhaps the figurative meaning of "eating Jesus' flesh" is entirely figurative and doesn't have to involve the literal eating of anything, i.e. communion?Sam Lowry said:Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Because if "eating Jesus' flesh" is figurative, then there is no basis for "This is my body" to necessarily be literal either. Any more than "I am the door" or "destroy this temple and in three days I'll raise it up" should be literal. In fact, it'd make it more likely to be figurative too.Sam Lowry said:Only recently, and it leads back to my question. If that is the case, then why is the thief on the cross a problem? He would have been saved whether or not there was Real Presence in communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Have you considered that perhaps the figurative meaning of "eating Jesus' flesh" is entirely figurative and doesn't have to involve the literal eating of anything, i.e. communion?Sam Lowry said:Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
Does not the RCC teach that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation based on the literal interpretation of "unless unless you eat my flesh...."? And does it not teach that water baptism is also necessary for salvation? You'd also have to claim that the thief on the cross also somehow got water baptized.
"You'd also have to claim that the thief on the cross also somehow got water baptized."
Maybe it rained that afternoon?
Maybe it rained that afternoon?
Quote:
suppose that for 1600 years leftism took over the U.S. and the Constitution was abused and interpreted far, far away from the original intent of the original drafters.
God never said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the United States. You and I both know what the test of a prophet of God is and what the implication is of an ecclesiastical history that says the church became corrupted in 400 AD and remained in that state for 1200 years until Gutenberg and the Reformers came along to restore it.
Not that I blame Luther's motivations; 550 years after its founding Roman Catholicsm had reached a deplorable state. But the correct response to looking at your denomination and realizing that it has gone off the rails isn't let me grab a bible and forge yet another one in my own image. The correct response is we have to go back.
The Trail of Blood is a work of fiction. It basically collects a list of heretics, including the Albigensians, Cathars, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, and others. These groups would not be eligible to join a Baptist church of the 20th century. For example the Cathars and Albigensians taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body, whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible. It relies on the historical ignorance of the reader for acceptance.
It is also a historical fact that the institution known as the Roman Catholic church did not exist in that form prior to its founding in 1054 A.D and the excommunications of the Great Schism when the Church of Rome began its departure from Christianity.
Oldbear83 said:
"You'd also have to claim that the thief on the cross also somehow got water baptized."
Maybe it rained that afternoon?
Blood is 80% water. No need for rain. A martyr for Christ or foxhole convert who has not been baptized brings his own water to the occasion with him.
"If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Savior is wont to call a baptism, saying, "Can you drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with" [Mark 10:38]? And the Martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men [cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9."
- Saint Cyril of Jerusalem
Who said that Jesus's words had to do with Communion? It had to do with giving yourself completely to Christ in faith. Communion is just a symbol of what Christ did on the cross to pay for our sins.Sam Lowry said:Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
It's definitely not physical, it may be literal, but it is Spiritual. Jesus said so.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Have you considered that perhaps the figurative meaning of "eating Jesus' flesh" is entirely figurative and doesn't have to involve the literal eating of anything, i.e. communion?Sam Lowry said:Because the thief never took communion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why would the thief being saved by his faith make Jesus' words figuratively untrue?Sam Lowry said:So when Jesus says, "You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," that's not true in any sense at all? Neither literal nor figurative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How would it be a problem? Protestants don't believe the thief needed communion, real or symbolic, in order to be saved. Or any other sacrament for that matter, including water baptism. He was saved by his faith.Sam Lowry said:If that were a problem, wouldn't it be equally so for Protestants? The thief never took communion in any form, real or symbolic.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Elders are the same as "bishops" in the church of Acts. There were only elders and deacons in Acts.Coke Bear said:This 100%.Realitybites said:Quote:
In what way is protestantism NOT the preserved faith of the original apostles? Protestantism is based solely on Scripture, which is the only record we have that is original apostolic tradition, and is therefore the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
The protestant churches were founded in the 16th century. Nothing founded a millenium and a half after Christ's ministry on earth can claim to be the original preserved faith of the apostles. That's a simple chronological fact.
Protestants can claim - like Joseph Smith does - that the church was corrupted and the faith of the apostles was lost, and they reconstituted it. But that runs headlong into what Christ says in Matthew 16:18.
They have abandoned the three-fold offices as described in ACT (Bishops, priests, deacons.) They have NO apostolic succession (Acts) . Many have rejected baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 2:38, etc.). The lost the Real Presence (John 6 and the synoptic gospels. The deny confession (John 20:21-23).
The Protestant faith is NOTHING like the original Church. It's been watered down to a Hymn-sandwich.
The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice. A Protestant service is not worship. It's praise. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just not worship.
Apostolic succession is not biblical. Neither is baptismal regeneration or the real presence. Confession is towards God/Jesus, not a priest.
Offices and apostolic succession has nothing to do with salvation. If baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are true, then how was the thief on the cross saved? How did he get water baptized and how did he eat Jesus' flesh? The only answer you can give is that "God is not bound by his sacraments" but that is a cop out answer, and it would mean that Jesus is false ("unless you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE in you"). So how then did the thief on the cross eat Jesus' flesh? That thief will always be a problem for Roman Catholic beliefs.
John 6:63 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.