/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>543252

>What's the probability of salvation for a person that does not receive communion/eucharist?

If they have faith they're saved no matter what

>He descends to earth and makes Himself Bread of life and Drink of immortality

No, God does not descend again, we do not eat Him on this earth, by the Spirit we are raised up to heaven and we feed on Christ there.

>>543255

Imagine being this deceived.

>>543259

Quality post

>>543255

if they had faith they would seek holy communion, just like they would seek to do good deeds.

otherwise their faith is not salvific, but just mental noise.

>God is not here, we only feed on Christ up in heaven

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

>>543265

false-flagging is bearing false-witness, a deception, and hypocrisy.

>>543267

Not false flagging, so . . .

>>543263

You know what actually is quality? Jesus said "this is my body" not "this is a symbol of my body"

>>543268

so what are you implying and are you the guy who keeps saying 'sky ethiopians' ?

>>543266

>if they had faith they would seek holy communion

I agree

>And surely I am with you always

By His Spirit, not in the flesh

>“Take, eat; this is my body.”

This was spoken as a metonym. We should understand the word "is" to mean "signifies" or "represents". This is clear from His words and actions. He told us that the wine was His blood, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly a figure of what He would soon do, pouring out His blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And He took unleavened bread, which represents His sinless body, and broke it, which represents the suffering of His passion, and gave us it to eat, representing our partaking of the merit of His sacrifice.

>>543273

>"take this object and do this with it" *mimics the action*…*hands you the object*

>no you're just talking symbolically or something, that's a hard saying…

>and the protestants quarreled among themselves and many left him.

-_-

>We should understand the word "is" to mean be symbolic because what he says is hard and I can't believe it

now this is mental gymnastics, ya even if he said "this is literal, indeed, literal and true, do this, literally…." you would interpret "literal" and "true" to be a hyperbole, a figure of speech, and not actually literal.

baseless nonsense.

>>543275

take your own advice then and remain silent.

>>543273

"MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK INDEED"

and you still do not understand? Pah!

>What's the probability of salvation for a person that does not receive communion/eucharist?

Low but not because its necessary but because it a requirement but because it is a important part of Christian living.

To put it another way the probability of salvation for people born in the Americas is extremely low compared to those born in Eastern Europe. This is not because the land there is magical but because the Orthodox Church is small outside this region.

>>543277

>-_-

not an argument

>now this is mental gymnastics

no it isn't, i gave an exegetical argument for it. the symbolism is undeniable.

>>543279

His blood is drink indeed, but we don't drink it out of a cup

>>543281

>the symbolism is undeniable.

it was denied for 1500 years quite readily and easily and universally. Learn your history. Only lunatic gnostics questioned it, and they were put in their place very early on by the church fathers, like St Ignatius bishop of Antioch and St Justin Martyr.

The scripture can't get any clearer. Do this. this is true drink. Eat this. This is my body. True indeed.

The protestants bickered among themselves saying how can this man give us his body to eat and they left him because they were protestants and materialists and had no faith or intellect.

>>543283

>nobody believed this, my priest told me so

go ahead and actually read early church fathers lad

>>543287

Saint Ignatius, bishop of Antioch

"They (gnostics/heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

Saint Justin Martyr

""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D .

>>nobody believed this, my priest told me so

go read history, the idea of a symbolic eucharist was a brief gnostic heresy, no one took it seriously, in the early church it was repudiated. It didn't appear seriously or beguile many people until the protestant deformation.

>>543287

>>543292

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him." – St. Justin Martyr

"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". – The Didache, - Ch. 9:5

The Didache or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date .

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." - St Paul

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." St Paul

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

>>543287

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

>>543292

>>543293

>>543294

>>543296

You misunderstood me, when I said "actually read" I meant go read the books they wrote and the sermons they preached, not go grab lists of prooftexts off polemics websites.

>>543311

> he implied not all fathers agreed. His statement is very hard to debunk

no it's not, the symbolic/metaphor interpretation of the eucharist never caught on because no one took it seriously except gnostic heretics, and protestants circa 1500s. Which church fathers rigoroursly taught and defended the "protestant" interpretation?

the real presence interpretation was well supported by pre-eminent fathers like Ignatius, Justin, Iranaeus, Chrysostom, and the didache.

>>543321

>Yes all five of your sources validly defend our Eucharistic doctrines, but that is only meaningful when you can show that these are the majority opinion of the time period and that their exegesis is more meaningful and accurate than any others which were in disagreement.

Who disagreed? What churches were they bishops of? What tracts did they write, to whom? Did their heresies warrant an ecumenical council for correction? Where is the debate?

Are there Cathodox apostolic countries that believe in a symbolic eucharist? Do Armenians, ethiopians, copts, asyrians? If such a teaching had any strength and history it would've persisted…where is it?

I only see it pop up in early gnostic heresies, and then in the Protestant deformation.

I also recall a guy in the 11th century try to push it, but he was rejected and branded a heretic quite quickly.

Proving that the "protestant interpretation" has historical precedence shouldn't be as hard as you make it. Where is the proof?

>>543321

sorry I doubted you, but there's a guy who keeps making snide remarks, using an ortho flag, just to be an annoying devil's advocate.

>>543322

I think it's just too late for me to communicate well. I don't think there is a good argument against the Orthodox Church's Eucharistic doctrines, but I think to proven that this was the belief of the Church at all times and in all places requires lengthy discussion and argument and that it is not the same as proving and important person or some small quantity of them believed this or that

>>543329

>>543321

It's a good thing the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim then. If anyone wants to demonstrate that at any point in any apostolic church there was ever serious weight behind the idea that the Eucharist is just meaningless symbolism, they're very welcome to do. Until then the evidence is completely one-sided regardless of how seldom some of the church fathers may be cited.

>>543348

>It's a good thing the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim then

I didn't make a claim, I responded to a claim with advice

>the idea that the Eucharist is just meaningless symbolism

That is a complete misrepresentation of my belief

>Until then the evidence is completely one-sided

Of each the prooftexts cited, none of them are in contradiction with what I said, some are not relevant, and one actually supports it. But I can give you a very explicit statement which seemingly can only be explained away with "Well he was a heretic anyway". Tertullian, in Against Marcion, writes "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified!"

>>543367

Any other Church Fathers or is it just him?

>>543367

That quote from Tertullian is against Marcion's "phantom-Christ" heresy, the idea that Jesus was just an ethereal-spirit without a flesh-body. Tertullian argues that if that is the case then Jesus "pretended that the bread was His body, because he lacked a bodily substance" so if Phantom-Christ's real body was bread the joke is that bread would've been crucified, not flesh. He isn't denying the Eucharist, he's just trying to show the absurdity of Marcion's Phantom-Christ idea in light of Jesus saying "this bread is my body"…

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

<Tertullian – Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):

<The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.

<Tertullian – On Modesty, chapter 9:

<He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord's body—the Eucharist, to wit.

>>543371

Tertullian did not deny the real presence. That quote is just a bit convoluted.

>>543380

>so if Phantom-Christ's real body was bread the joke is that bread would've been crucified, not flesh

That isn't a joke, it's an argument. The argument is that if Christ's flesh didn't exist, bread should be crucified, because that which it represents does not exist, so it is the closest thing.

><Tertullian – Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):

Firstly, stop reading CatholicAnswers. Secondly, if you are going to read CatholicAnswers, please actually read CatholicAnswers. As the article you are relying upon correctly notes, this quote is from Augustine, not Tertullian.

><Tertullian – On Modesty, chapter 9:

I believe Christians feed on Christ in the Eucharist, so this is not relevant.

>That quote is just a bit convoluted

How would you know? I see no reason to believe you've ever read anything Tertullian wrote. I again suggest you stop relying on polemics websites and go read what the fathers actually wrote.

>>543371

Plenty others.

>>543401

>Convoluted? How would you know?

It's apparent since you think his argument denies the real presence of the Eucharist, but Tertullian does not.

What Tertullian's argument does is show the absurdity of Marcion's Phantom-Christ idea in light of Jesus declaring "the bread" to be "his body" as if his authentic body were just bread, not flesh, then it follows that bread would have been crucified.

>"<Tertullian – On Modesty, chapter 9:" – I believe Christians feed on Christ in the Eucharist, so this is not relevant.

So does Tertullian, which is why the quote you presented doesn't argue what you think it does.

> I again suggest you stop relying on polemics websites and go read what the fathers actually wrote.

I explained your misinterpretation of Tertullian and gave you a clear quote of him endorsing the Eucharist. I'll be reading more Tertullian as I get time. Until then I suggest you do the same.

>Plenty other church fathers denied the real presence.

Who? You haven't shown 1.

Baptism of Desire my man.

>>543405

>you think his argument denies the real presence of the Eucharist

No I don't, his argument denies your understanding of the real presence of the Eucharist.

>What Tertullian's argument does is show the absurdity of Marcion's Phantom-Christ idea in light of Jesus declaring "the bread" to be "his body"

Tertullian's argument is not of the absurdity of a phanton Christ, it's of its impossibility, and it is not about the words "this is my body" so much as the nature of Eucharistic bread. His argument is that if Christ had no physical body, the symbol of His body is what should have been crucified, because that is the closest thing to a body He would have. It would be the only thing of His called "body" which could be nailed to wood.

>I'll be reading more Tertullian as I get time

Please do. In fact, stop presuming to represent the views of men you haven't read.

>>543412

> it is not about the words "this is my body" so much as the nature of Eucharistic bread. His argument is that if Christ had no physical body, the symbol of His body is what should have been crucified, because that is the closest thing to a body He would have. It would be the only thing of His called "body" which could be nailed to wood.

so you see the argument was never a denial of the real presence of the eucharist, but a denial of Marcion's phantom-christ idea. Two totally separate issues. But his usage of the eucharist-bread example seems to have confused you, that's why you quoted it thinking it's an example of him denying the real presence…

>No I don't, his argument denies your understanding of the real presence of the Eucharist.

no need to double-down on a false reading. You got it wrong. Tertullian believed in the real presence.

>Please do. In fact, stop presuming to represent the views of men you haven't read.

So you still think he rejected the real presence or youre just being purposely obtuse?

>>543432

ya I provided one quote by augustine by accident, and one quote by tertullian, which was relevant.

the anon I responded quoted an argument against Phantom-Christ thinking it's also an argument against the real presence of the Eucharist. That's the issue.

>>543412

In conclusion your Tertullian quote does not reject the real presence of the eucharist at all, in any shape or form, instead it rejects Marcion's Phantom-Christ idea by relating the figure of the eucharist to Phantom-Christ's crucifixion. An understandable mistake on your part, you did not read the argument properly.

I provided a quote that indicates Tertullian 'did' accept the real presence of the Eucharist. I'll provide two more to make up for the Augustine quote,

>The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.

>Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station (fast) must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God?

<He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord's body—the Eucharist, to wit.

——-

Yes from a polemic site. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

What he said still remains.

And here is a quote from an author of another polemic site "Also, I want you to know that I did not include other Christians who believed in the Real Presence in this article because they later fell away from the Church for different reasons. Therefore, even though these Christians defended the Real Presence, e.g. Origen, Tertullian , Theodore of Mopsuetta, etc., I did not include their statements. "

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

———

Tertullian is your best example? and he did not even deny the real presence. If I was generous I would say it's "ambiguous" what he believed, but the quote you provided is so weak I can't even say that.

Present something substantial next time.

Good night.

>>543269

You know what else was said "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" and "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

>>543438

>takes notes

So, have faith in Christ while murdering babies and eating them since being a good person doesn't matter. Got it.

>>543367

>But I can give you a very explicit statement which seemingly can only be explained away with "Well he was a heretic anyway". Tertullian, in Against Marcion, writes "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified!"

Read the full argument in context. It argues the total opposite of what you claim. Tertullian is saying real Eucharistic bread and wine affirm the realiry that Christ had a real flesh and blood, since he couldn't give us his body if it had no substantial existence to it. Christ's flesh in turn shows that he had a true body. He consecrated the wine thus fulfilling OT typology as well.

Your reading misses the point entirely, read the whole context not just the snippet u posted.

>>543455

So sanctification and justification are inseparable?

>>543478

Most likely yes.

>>543478

Yep! Israel was God's sanctified nation and they still sinned. God put them into captivity though.

>>543455

I admire your consistency.

>>543495

/shrug

I guess.

Don't lose sight of the big picture though, my property. You're still in the flesh and you will still continue to sin and be tempted to sin.

God's grace is what saves us from the condemnation of our flesh that causes us to sin.

That's why all of the animal sacrifices have the "flesh and the hide burned without the camp."

It's God's grace alone that sanctifies us. If we try to convince ourselves that we have to completely stop sinning, all we're doing is burying our sinful nature downward and relying on our own righteousness. Even a saved person can participate in this delusion; but my observation is that it's mostly papists and cults that do.

This is why most people with common sense have insight to avoid almost all organized religion nowadays. It's all just baseless religious form at this point. Glad I answered your question =)

>>543436

>so you see the argument was never a denial of the real presence of the eucharist

Which, of course, I explicitly denied

>but a denial of Marcion's phantom-christ idea

Yes, and the way he does that is by utilizing a view of the Eucharist (his own) which is the same as my own.

>no need to double-down on a false reading. You got it wrong. Tertullian believed in the real presence.

>So you still think he rejected the real presence or youre just being purposely obtuse?

At this point you are bearing false witness if you accuse me of thinking that he rejected real presence or if you accuse myself of rejecting real presence.

>>543443

>Present something substantial next time.

How about you represent me accurately next time? My point stands, since you have refuted a strawman

>>543457

>Tertullian is saying real Eucharistic bread and wine affirm the realiry that Christ had a real flesh and blood, since he couldn't give us his body if it had no substantial existence to it

You seem to have misread Tertullian. He said He gave the figure of His body, which proves He had a real body because otherwise it could not have a figure.

>>543566

You said he denies MY understanding of the real presence, here :

>>543412

>No I don't, his argument denies your understanding of the real presence of the Eucharist

So he denies the traditional orthodox view while somehow affirming your view?

> is by utilizing a view of the Eucharist (his own) which is the same as my own

Which is????

>>543583

>You said he denies MY understanding of the real presence

Yes, and your understanding of real presence is not the same as real presence

>Which is????

http://www.creeds.net/Tigurinus/tigur-bunt.htm

>>543593

>Calvin

In the trash it goes.

>tertullian taught Calvin's view of X

The quote you showed did not do any of that or specify any detailed Eucharist teaching .

Terrible.

>>543401

>Plenty others.

Can you share them please

>>543322

>I also recall a guy in the 11th century try to push it, but he was rejected and branded a heretic quite quickly.

So if the state-church people call it a heresy, it doesn't count then? So more or less, you're defining yourselves as correct and this isn't actually about historical precedence?

You're likely thinking of either the so-called Petrobrusians or the Waldenses by the way, of which few literary sources survive. But I guess we're assuming the Catholic descriptions of all these churches is exhaustively accurate; so nevermind.

We have always maintained the only evidence we need is the word of God viewed through the Holy Spirit. It was never our practice to rely on entirely fallible writings of earlier churches.

>>543452

>>543492

If someone else was doing that, I would doubt their faith because Jesus told us to judge others by their fruits. I would not want to be misled by a false prophet. However, speaking in the first person, theoretically I could commit murder and I still know I would be saved. That doesn't mean my Father in heaven would not severely punish me, but it does mean my Father would never disown me once He knows me. That would be a broken word of God.

>>543252

if they are baptized 100%

>>543607

euphoric

>>543631

What if they don't have faith(since you guys (((baptize))) babies which can't believe)?

>>543637

Because baptism isnt about belief

>>543640

Oh but you are wrong lost one

Acts 8

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

>what doth hinder me to be baptized?

>If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

>>543637

Because a) Children were baptised by apostles "And when she was baptized, and her household"

b) Children are holy and you cannot be holy without justification "otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy."

c) Christ commands us to do it: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God."

Baptism is sacrament of Faith but Faith is gift of God and he by his Church can give it to who he pleases.

http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/infant-baptism/

>>543644

Their Bibles simply remove Acts 8:37.

>>543691

>No clear statement of baptizing babies

Your assuming the woman had infants when it does not say

>>543742

Yeah it makes no sense then because he then doesnt answer the question

>>543830

And you are assuming that household cannot possibly include infants, even though by definition it include children and (children of slaves).

"Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou (Christ) hast perfected praise"

When you say that children are ought not to be baptised you are a) saying that Old Covenant was superior to New for it included children of eight days b) saying that Children are not humans for they have no orginal sin that need to be washed by grace of baptism and from Romans we know that all men have orginal sin c) saying that faith is not supernatural but natural if the infants can be infused with it and makeing yourself a Pelegian

>>543742

>What is Vulgate

lol

>>543850

Again you're assuming things that are not said. Shiw me where it clearly says a baby(not a child because children still can) was baptized. Babies can't believe so they can't be baltized.

Also you sprinkle babies which literally had 0 that say anything even close to it.

>>543850

>Again you're assuming things that are not said.

I can accuse it for the same thing

>Shiw me where it clearly says a baby(not a child because children still can) was baptized.

Right after you show me that children were not baptised

>Babies can't believe so they can't be baltized.

O vain Pelagius, you again make grace nothing! First have you tried to destroy grace in merits and now you attack faith? Do we have to remind you, o thou that say that salvation comes from us that Faith is Gift of God? "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God" declares apostle yet you say that of ourselves we have faith and thus through it we are saved! You try to make "the precious gift of faith" somehthing out of us and thus makeing us saviors our ourselves. And agian about Christ it's written: "the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all" yet you say that he cannot give faith to those who were to give him "perfected praise" to those "for of such is the kingdom of God" who "receive the kingdom of God", who are called "Holy" and whose angels see face of God. Begone, o Pelagius and do not come back.

>Also you sprinkle babies which literally had 0 that say anything even close to it.

Ezekiel 36:25 is prophecy about Baptism and thus we can use sprinkle for baptism. Not to mention that now you are moving goalpost

>>543896

It never me tions babies being baptized and says you have to believe

>Ezekiel 36:25

Not very clear that's literally for baptizem that's in the NT. And everytime it describes so eone being baptized it says something about them going into ir coming out of the water. Especially because baptizem represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Jesus didn't just get dirt sprinkled in his head.

Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

>>543901

>It never me tions babies being baptized and says you have to believe

It never mentions babies NOT being baptised ans says that Faith is from God and not man.

>Not very clear that's literally for baptizem that's in the NT. And everytime it describes so eone being baptized it says something about them going into ir coming out of the water. Especially because baptizem represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Jesus didn't just get dirt sprinkled in his head.

Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water.

Also, you would have to be really stupid to think that in Acts 2:41 three thousand were baptised by immersion (there were not enough water in Jerusalem not to mention that neither Jews nor Romans would allow three thousand to pollute water supplies of capital of province)

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

>>543850

>What is Vulgate

>lol

You think that helps your case? So you can't even decide whether Acts 8:37 is scripture or not, because some of your approved Bibles exclude it.

I guess you won't know unless the Pope clarifies it. Enjoy waiting.

>>543927

>Also, you would have to be really stupid to think that in Acts 2:41 three thousand were baptised by immersion

Acts 2:41-42

>Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

>And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Notice verse 42. Did infants continue stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers?

>>543933

>It never mentions babies BEING baptized.

It never mentions babies NOT BEING baptized.

>And again it says you mist first believe.

And again it says that faith comes from God and not our natural abilites.

>Even if you (((baptize))) a baby by dunking it under water it wasn't baptized.

It was. To baptise one must have proper form and matter i.n. Water and Trinitarian formula. For Baptism is not from man but from God and thus it works ex opere operato.

>???

It's simple fact. There weren't enough water to perform immersion baptism for three thousand people and their families and their children.

>Also it mentions John the Baptist(not catholic) baptizing because there was much water.

<Jerusalem is at Jordan

Really nigger?

Also, funny you mention John the Baptist, who received grace and faith before he was even born.

>So every household on earth has babies?

So out of three thousand none had it?

>>543942

>You think that helps your case?

It alredy destorued your argument my friend.

>So you can't even decide whether Acts 8:37 is scripture or not, because some of your approved Bibles exclude it.

Our Bibles do not do that though, for we have this little thing called footnote'

>I guess you won't know unless the Pope clarifies it. Enjoy waiting.

Council of Trent

"If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

>Acts 2:41-42

You cut this passage in half.

>For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

>And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

>Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

>And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Who are "they"? "You and your children".

>doctrine and fellowship

All that were baptised are in fellowship as many members of one Body

>and in breaking of bread

It's still practice in East Churches

> and in prayers?

"Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings Chris have perfected praise"

>>543953

Alright then why would you also use a version that removes the verse entirely? Why does anyone allow people to read a Bible that removes it? Are you just making sure everyone is happy before preserving integrity of Scripture?

>Who are "they"? "You and your children".

WRONG.

"They that gladly received his word" were baptized.

Your treatment of "they" is not just satanic, it's downright silly. They that gladly received his word are the ones who were baptized.

>It's still practice in East Churches

Oh this is too much. Alright then, how about 1 Corinthians 16?

1 Corinthians 16:15

<I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Have infants addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints also? Explain how are they doing that?

>>543953

>So out of three thousand none had it?

Again stop ASSuming shit.

>>543957

>Alright then why would you also use a version that removes the verse entirely?

I do not. Footnotes, ever heard of?

>Why does anyone allow people to read a Bible that removes it?

We have no power over protestants that do. Catholic don't do that.

> Are you just making sure everyone is happy before preserving integrity of Scripture?

A Baptist boasting about integrity of Scripture, while using "Bible" that change words to fit anglican doctrine, a joke of month.

>Your treatment of "they" is not just satanic, it's downright silly. They that gladly received his word are the ones who were baptized.

I.e. "You and your children"

For "the promise is to you, and to your children". What promise? "Promise of the Holy Ghost". And so "every one of them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins". For by it they "received the gift of the Holy Ghost.". The promise of that gift is to them "and thier children".

So why then, o vain man, do you suffer not the little children, and forbid them to come to Christ, even though the kingdom of heaven is for such?

>Oh this is too much.

Too much is that you want to block the little ones from fount of grace and want them to live in sin of Adam.

>Alright then, how about 1 Corinthians 16?

You moving the goalpost that's why about it, but know Catholic mercy

>1 Corinthians 16:15

>Have infants addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints also? Explain how are they doing that?

You are confusing house of Stephanas with first fruit of Achia who were Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus as you can read from next verses.

>>543966

>So there wasn't even a bathtub worth if water in all of Jerusalem? Are you retarded?

<Cleansing water is reusable

Hebrews 10:22 my man. Water have to be clean.

>>543981

>Again stop ASSuming shit.

You are first to assume that out of countless of households mentioned none had infants.

Also:

>ASSuming

Lo and behold, Baptist spirit.

>>544003

>Catholic don't do that.

You approve of translations that do. There's no getting around it. Same thing with 1 John 5:7.

>For "the promise is to you, and to your children". What promise? "Promise of the Holy Ghost". And so "every one of them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins". For by it they "received the gift of the Holy Ghost.". The promise of that gift is to them "and thier children". So why then, o vain man, do you suffer not the little children, and forbid them to come to Christ, even though the kingdom of heaven is for such?

You seem to be experiencing a breakdown in communication.

"They" in Acts 2:41 is "They that gladly received his word." It says it right there. You can't get around this. The ones who gladly received his word were baptized.

Acts 2:41

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

>Too much is that you want to block the little ones from fount of grace and want them to live in sin of Adam.

You just trivialized faith.

>You are confusing house of Stephanas with first fruit of Achia who were Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus as you can read from next verses.

1 Corinthians 16:15 says the house of Stephanas is the firstfruit of Achaia.

>(ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Your smokescreen is easily removed by directly quoting the verse. Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

>>543303

not really partaking in this conversation, but many thanks for that mighty fine website you posted!

>>543252

Why are you asking?

>>543277

The funny thing is that Jesus did reiterate several times to the crowd that they had to eat and drink his literal true flesh and blood. And yet the protestants just like the Jews find this too hard a saying

>>544856

The flesh profiteth nothing.

>>544859

What I don't understand about this meme is how it's supposed to be a rejection specifically of transubstantiation when surely even "symbolically" the flesh profiteth nothing. If you're going to reject the Eucharist, go the whole nine yards and say Jesus was wrong to speak of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Very sad that no one has said

>it's 100%, specifically because they have not taken of this Satanic "Eucharist" and cannibalistically worshipped wine and bread instead of God

>>544873

>What I don't understand about this meme is how it's supposed to be a rejection specifically of transubstantiation

It isn't, it's a rejection of physical eating

>when surely even "symbolically" the flesh profiteth nothing

When Jesus says "the flesh", He refers to the Jewish interpretation of His words, which in fact Catholics not only admit but also incorporate into their arguments is the same as their own.

>If you're going to reject the Eucharist

The Eucharist is a sacrament by the institution of our Lord, I do not reject it

>go the whole nine yards and say Jesus was wrong to speak of eating his flesh and drinking his blood

What He said is true. What you think He said is false.

>>544884

>It's a rejection of physical eating

So you just pretend to drink grape juice and eat crackers? That's even more hardcore than I thought.

>When Jesus says "the flesh", He refers to the Jewish interpretation of His words, which in fact Catholics not only admit but also incorporate into their arguments is the same as their own.

So is the Catholic understanding of His words what He meant right or not? Either the Jewish understanding is the same as our own or it isn't.

>The Eucharist is a sacrament by the institution of our Lord, I do not reject it

Either you're eating His flesh or you're imitating a ritual in which people believe they are eating His flesh. Doesn't sound like either case should profit anything in your view.

>What He said is true. What you think He said is false.

I believe unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53). Are those not His words?

>>544040

>You approve of translations that do. There's no getting around it. Same thing with 1 John 5:7.

Then prove it my nigger for I can guarantee that there are footnotes

>You seem to be experiencing a breakdown in communication.

I seem to talk with child as far as I am concerned

>"They" in Acts 2:41 is "They that gladly received his word." It says it right there. You can't get around this. The ones who gladly received his word were baptized.

What word? Word that "he promise is to you, and to your children".

You seem to be experiencing a breakdown in communication.

>You just trivialized faith.

And you want to block fount of faith.

>1 Corinthians 16:15 says the house of Stephanas is the firstfruit of Achaia. Your smokescreen is easily removed by directly quoting the verse. Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.

Your smokescreen is easily removed by directly quoting the verses. Ye know the Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.

>>544087

>And I baptized also the household of Stephanas

>>544093

>Acts 2:41-42, or maybe Acts 8:12 or Acts 8:37 or Acts 16:31-34, or maybe Acts 18:8 or 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 or Colossians 2:11-12

But anon, I am alredy Catholic. This very verses made me it!

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

-St. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp who was first of disciples of St. John

>>544907

>So you just pretend to drink grape juice and eat crackers?

Physical earing refers to the idea that the bread turns into flesh and we eat it like we eat anything else

>So is the Catholic understanding of His words what He meant right or not? Either the Jewish understanding is the same as our own or it isn't.

When Jesus says the flesh profiteth nothing, He means what the Jews thought He meant would profit nothing. If you take Jesus' flesh and clothe it under the accidents of bread and wine, and then chow down, it ain't doing you any good. He must be eaten spiritually through faith.

>>544912

In this >>543953 post, in response to me posting Acts 2:41-42

<Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

<And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

In response to that, you said

>Who are "they"? "You and your children".

Yet Acts 2:41-42 literally says "THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized."

You lied. You said "they" are "you and your children"!

But Acts 2:41 directly says "they" are "they that gladly received his word." You are downright wrong. They that gladly received his word were baptized. And in the next verse, it's the same ~three thousand people who were baptized who continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine.

You lied. You said "they" are "you and your children" from Acts 2:39. But Acts 2:41 directly says "they" are "they that gladly received his word."

And now you just lied again about 1 Corinthians 16:15.

1 Corinthians 16:15-16

<I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

The parenthetical comment directly identifies "the house of Stephanas" as "the firstfruits of Achaia." It DIRECTLY says this. Just read 1 Corinthians 16:15.

But instead, you literally just altered scripture to make it say what you want! In this >>544912 post, you literally altered 1 Corinthians 16:15 to say:

>Ye know the Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.

You have just changed Scripture to suit your needs! Open your Bible to 1 Corinthians 16:15 and tell me what it actually says. This post of yours is an abomination. The above green text from your post is NOT scripture, you have altered it by cutting out "the household" and pasting in parts of 1 Corinthians 16:17 into 1 Corinthians 16:15.

And it doesn't even make grammatical sense. "Ye know the Stephanas"?

So again, 1 Corinthians 16:15 directly says the house of Stephanas is the firstfruits of Achaia. You just changed it by inserting text from two verses later and skipped verse 16 completely. Not even Origen did that. Not even Satan did that. But you just did it.

>>545040

>You lied. You said "they" are "you and your children"!

Because they are

>Yet Acts 2:41-42 literally says "THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized."

And his word was about promise for them and their children.

>And now you just lied again about 1 Corinthians 16:15. The parenthetical comment directly identifies "the house of Stephanas" as "the firstfruits of Achaia." It DIRECTLY says this. Just read 1 Corinthians 16:15

I rather read whole context for using your satanic exegesis of taking stuff out of bible to suit my needs I could prove Atheism from Psalm. Rest is autistic screeching in response of me, poor man, trying to get through your thick skull what Bible acutallu says.

Hath thou not readeth Romans? Hath thou not readeth how Paul cuts stuff from Psalms to show what those means?

Congratulations you now just named Paul worse than Orgien. Ba, Worse than Satan you have named Paul, you clueless child.

>And it doesn't even make grammatical sense. "Ye know the Stephanas"?

Ye know the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.