Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Thank you, Sam.
So who got to decide what was 'venial', and what is 'fatal', and on what grounds?
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Thank you, Sam.
So who got to decide what was 'venial', and what is 'fatal', and on what grounds?
A good question. The best answer I can give off-hand is that the nature of the distinction is what was first comprehended. Mortal sins are understood as grave offenses committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Particular acts are categorized based on the application of this principle.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThe mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?
Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.
There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.
No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.
So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?
I didn't think so.
No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.
So, just to be clear - you're denying that according to the RC view, one's venial sins committed since the last mass was not forgiven in that mass, but can only be forgiven through the next mass one partakes in?
Yes.
Then why does RC view the Eucharist as a propiatory sacrifice? What is it propiating for?
All the sins of the world, past, present, and future. Remember, it's nothing more or less than a re-presentation of Christ's propitiatory, once-and-for-all sacrifice.
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Saying this is talking about a "mortal sin" that sends you to Hell even if you are a believer, is one of a very long list of Roman Catholic non sequiturs.
James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it"
Scripture makes no distinction between sins regarding it's ultimate price.
FLBear5630 said:
They are just as bad.Sin, cry, accept Jesus as Savior. Rinse repeat....
I have known too many Protestants.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Saying this is talking about a "mortal sin" that sends you to Hell even if you are a believer, is one of a very long list of Roman Catholic non sequiturs.
James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it"
Scripture makes no distinction between sins regarding it's ultimate price.
"Not all sin is fatal." See also Luke 12: "Yet it is the servant who knew his Lord's will, and did not make ready for him, or do his will, that will have many strokes of the lash; he who did not know of it, yet earned a beating, will have only a few. Much will be asked of the man to whom much has been given; more will be expected of him, because he was entrusted with more."
The point of James 2 isn't that there are no degrees of sin. It's that you can't excuse one transgression by pointing to all the sins you haven't committed. Sin is still sin.
FLBear5630 said:
Doesn't change the truth. The RC clergy and the Protestant clergy are not much different. Sure they have areas they believe different facts, but the way they act, their motivations are the same.
Same with the congregations, there is no difference between a Protestant congregation and a Catholic one. Sure, titles and some processes, but same people. To say one is different than the other is folly.
We are there in Political Parties as well, just some different areas of interest. But, more of the same...
FLBear5630 said:
Doesn't change the truth. The RC clergy and the Protestant clergy are not much different. Sure they have areas they believe different facts, but the way they act, their motivations are the same.
Same with the congregations, there is no difference between a Protestant congregation and a Catholic one. Sure, titles and some processes, but same people. To say one is different than the other is folly.
We are there in Political Parties as well, just some different areas of interest. But, more of the same...
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Oldbear83 said:FLBear5630 said:
The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.
Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?
Sam?
Not Jesus, but the 1st Epistle of John: "There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal."
Saying this is talking about a "mortal sin" that sends you to Hell even if you are a believer, is one of a very long list of Roman Catholic non sequiturs.
James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it"
Scripture makes no distinction between sins regarding it's ultimate price.
"Not all sin is fatal." See also Luke 12: "Yet it is the servant who knew his Lord's will, and did not make ready for him, or do his will, that will have many strokes of the lash; he who did not know of it, yet earned a beating, will have only a few. Much will be asked of the man to whom much has been given; more will be expected of him, because he was entrusted with more."
The point of James 2 isn't that there are no degrees of sin. It's that you can't excuse one transgression by pointing to all the sins you haven't committed. Sin is still sin.
FLBear5630 said:
The part I think we disagree is I don't think they are malicious in their understanding. That is their interpretation of the same texts and traditions that we read. We all honestly believe we have the correct interpretation.
The best example on here is BusyTarp-guy, he focuses on specific phrases and words convinced he is the one that got it right. He honestly thinks he has it. My view is he does, for him. It helps him be closer to God, so more power to him. He needs to be the shining intellect in the City of God. That works for him, more power to him.
I tend to focus on the day-to-day process and the Sacraments. The Mass to me is the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. That works for me. Brings me closer to God.
You are much more congregational; my Lutheran in-laws fall in this category. The Congregation works well for you and brings you closer to God.
I honestly believe there are alot of ways to get to the same the narrow gate. All the scenarios above come to the point of Jesus. We are arguing style over substance. The bottomline is we all believe in Jesus and God the Father.
All of us really believe, there is not an evil, deceptor leading all Baptist to hell...
I should have been more specific with my statements.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.
"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?
Not sure how you're reading the Didache or the Scriptures as a symbolic-only reading. John 6 is explicitly clear that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said (no less than 6 times). The Last Supper narrative confirms this.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.
Wow. You are projecting your views onto the early Church that are clearly untrue.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.
FLBear5630 said:
Free will, baby... It is an us thing, not an God thing.
We keep making decisions, we sin, we keep falling away. You have to come back. Every day is a new day, "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior" yesterday and then sinning last night does not do a lot for today. Got to keep re-affirming.
Who you are today, may not be who you were yesterday or will be tomorrow. You guys act like life and your relationship with God is a static situation, you said you believe, God forgives. In that snapshot in time, yes. As time moves, no.
At 24 after Jump School I could have completed Ranger or other advanced training. 4 years later, in Baylor? No way. Why, I was a different person, different mind-set. Time changes us. Just because we do something once, does not give Carte Blanche for the rest of our life's.
Seems you Protestants seem to believe because you accepted JC 25 years ago, all is cool. Us Catholics, believe it is a day to day reaffirmation. That is my view anyway.
FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
So, you don't have to ask for forgiveness? It is just done. Why have a Church? Why worship? It is all taken care of and you have to do nothing.
Catholics believe Jesus sacrificed himself for all mankind, the Eucharist is how we experience that forgiveness. It is in memorial.
You don't have to go to a Catholic Church. Don't go.
Play Luther with your Bible Study, maybe drink symbolic grape juice if your feeling extremely bold. Why the obsession? Why do you feel obsessed to tell people that you know more than those that actually go to the Church? REally is strange.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Catholics would not disagree with any of this. Yet the old sacrifices were a type of the new. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between Jesus' one-time sacrifice and the continual offering he commanded at the Last Supper. Do Protestants believe Jesus' blood is shed all over again every time it serves to blot out your sins?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Catholics would not disagree with any of this. Yet the old sacrifices were a type of the new. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between Jesus' one-time sacrifice and the continual offering he commanded at the Last Supper. Do Protestants believe Jesus' blood is shed all over again every time it serves to blot out your sins?
I'm sorry - if Roman Catholics are "re-presenting" Jesus sacrifice in the Eucharist hundreds of thousands of times every day across the world, which RC views each one to be an actual, propitiatory sacrifice, then they simply DO NOT believe Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a finished work, once for all time.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Catholics would not disagree with any of this. Yet the old sacrifices were a type of the new. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between Jesus' one-time sacrifice and the continual offering he commanded at the Last Supper. Do Protestants believe Jesus' blood is shed all over again every time it serves to blot out your sins?
I'm sorry - if Roman Catholics are "re-presenting" Jesus sacrifice in the Eucharist hundreds of thousands of times every day across the world, which RC views each one to be an actual, propitiatory sacrifice, then they simply DO NOT believe Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a finished work, once for all time.
Yes, we do.
As for venial sins, the mass is not the sort of time-bound bookkeeping exercise that you seem to think. It is a way of receiving the grace that Christ offers us.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Catholics would not disagree with any of this. Yet the old sacrifices were a type of the new. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between Jesus' one-time sacrifice and the continual offering he commanded at the Last Supper. Do Protestants believe Jesus' blood is shed all over again every time it serves to blot out your sins?
I'm sorry - if Roman Catholics are "re-presenting" Jesus sacrifice in the Eucharist hundreds of thousands of times every day across the world, which RC views each one to be an actual, propitiatory sacrifice, then they simply DO NOT believe Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a finished work, once for all time.
Yes, we do.
As for venial sins, the mass is not the sort of time-bound bookkeeping exercise that you seem to think. It is a way of receiving the grace that Christ offers us.
If you do, then it's yet another example in a long list of Roman Catholic double talk. It just isn't rational or tenable to believe that Jesus needs to be re-presented in actual, propiatory sacrifice hundreds of thousands of times all over the world every day that can forgive venial sins commited since the last mass... and then also believe that Jesus' sacrifice 2000 years ago was "once for all time" and "propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins."
And we don't need to receive Jesus' grace by performing rites and rituals. We receive it by faith.
