The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I didn't see what scripture you used.

But I will amply show you the opposite with scripture:

Exo 20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Right there in the ten commandments; which everyone ought to know.

It is a shame that there is such biblical illiteracy in the Catholic Church.

If I might interject here; the serpent on the pole was made when Israel was in the wilderness being plagued by vipers. It was to be set up in the middle of the camp so when any one should be bitten by a viper, they just need to look at the serpent on the pole and be saved. Later on in Isreal's history as a nation, that said serpent on the pole was turned into an idol of worship for which it had to be destroyed.

There is also an image on the Covenant of the ark.

I reckon my point here is that it is not just the making of the image but turning it into an idol of a god to worship.

Which I would think Catholics would think twice about when turning the bread in communion into a god, but they don't... well.. I am sure some have departed from Catholicism for that reason, but none that I have heard of lately.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I probably should have included verses 5&6:

Exo 20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enow

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Israel is in Heaven?
Where in Revelation 12 does it say that the woman is in heaven?

From what I see with the shortest of glances, the last verse in the chapter has the woman just escaped from the flood that comes out of the mouth of the dragon.
 
Last edited:

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Israel is in Heaven?
No silly, it was a vision, originating there.

Israel is on earth, being chased around on earth....


2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered....

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days....

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death....

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:

It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is NOT the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.
After reading YOUR post - I see the same lack of faith in the words of Christ.


There was no such thing as a Eucharist used back then.....


19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


They were reprimanded for not sharing their memorial "potluck" with the poor.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There was no such thing as a Eucharist used back then.....


19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


They were reprimanded for not sharing their memorial "potluck" with the poor.

If one is hungry and another is drunken, I believe it is not about the sharing with the poor but believers misusing what communion was for in church as some were using communion to fill themselves thus not leaving enough for others to participate in communion ( whom also thought to satisfy their hunger by too ) just as some drank all the wine ( guess it wasn't fermented ) and got drunken by it too. There was that mentality where the members of the church was not doing communion in remembrance of Him but to satisfy their hunger & thirst before somebody else consumed it all.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If one is hungry and another is drunken, I believe it is not about the sharing with the poor but believers misusing what communion was for in church as some were using communion to fill themselves thus not leaving enough for others to participate in communion ( whom also thought to satisfy their hunger by too ) just as some drank all the wine ( guess it wasn't fermented ) and got drunken by it too. There was that mentality where the members of the church was not doing communion in remembrance of Him but to satisfy their hunger & thirst before somebody else consumed it all.
The end of chapter, 1 Cor 11:33 explains the passage. It was a feast day, just like the Jews had a pascha(Passover) feast day on the same day.
They killed a lamb etc. and ate it.

The Christian version of this feast was shared food similarly.

The RCC made it into a dry flat cookie thingy and the Protestants never fixed it either.

The Jews pascha feast became the Christian pascha feast, simultaneously.
 
Last edited:

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I didn't see what scripture you used.

But I will amply show you the opposite with scripture:

Exo 20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Right there in the ten commandments; which everyone ought to know.

It is a shame that there is such biblical illiteracy in the Catholic Church.
It's a shame you have no Biblical definition of "idol", so you make one up.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Well, in context of what Paul was talking about, that unworthy manner was how they were not eating or drinking at home, but coming to church to seek their fill there for their meals at communion.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So in context, that was the unworthy manner that Paul was talking about, and since he reaffirmed for what communion was for, to "do this in remembrance of Me", then yeah.. it is just a symbol, brother.

Well, in context of what Paul was talking about, that unworthy manner was how they were not eating or drinking at home, but coming to church to seek their fill there for their meals at communion.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So in context, that was the unworthy manner that Paul was talking about, and since he reaffirmed for what communion was for, to "do this in remembrance of Me", then yeah.. it is just a symbol, brother.

Hardly. I believe Jesus at His word how to receive the bread of life and that is by coming to & believing in Him. He was not talking about communion here at all but how to receive the bread of life; hence Him, by coming to and believing in Him. That is what He said plainly at the beginning of the topic of the bread of life and that is how He ended it with His disciples by noting how not every one will believe in Him as that one will betray Him namely Judas Iscariot.

But I know that it is on God to cause the increase to help you see the truth in His words in John 6:35 because if He was talking about communion, then for His promise to be true that we would never hunger nor thirst any more, then we would be taking communion only once. So obviously, He was not talking about communion.

Hardly. I believe Jesus at His word how to receive the bread of life and that is by coming to & believing in Him. He was not talking about communion here at all but how to receive the bread of life; hence Him, by coming to and believing in Him. That is what He said plainly at the beginning of the topic of the bread of life and that is how He ended it with His disciples by noting how not every one will believe in Him as that one will betray Him namely Judas Iscariot.

But I know that it is on God to cause the increase to help you see the truth in His words in John 6:35 because if He was talking about communion, then for His promise to be true that we would never hunger nor thirst any more, then we would be taking communion only once. So obviously, He was not talking about communion.
So you escape the literal verb "trogon" by ignoring it.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The end of chapter 11:33 explains the passage. It was a feast day, just like the Jews had a pascha(Passover) feast day on the same day.
They killed a lamb etc. and ate it.

The Christian version of this feast was shared food similarly.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Can't be about a meal there, brother. It is solely about communion in the eating of the bread which is cited and the drinking of the wine which was to be done in remembrance of Him; nothing more and certainly not to be used to satisfy their hunger as if having a meal.

1 Corinthians 11:0 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So I hope you are not treating communion by holding a feast.

The RCC made it into a dry flat cookie thingy and the Protestants never fixed it either.

The Jews pascha feast became the Christian pascha feast, simultaneously.

The RCC has made the bread and the wine as an idol. Some Protestant churches treat the bread and the wine as if Christ's Presence is in them, thus not really reformed from the teachings of the errors in the RCC. Some Protestant churches announce the service of communion by saying "We come into His Presence today.." which is a lie and work that denies Him as being in us and with us always for surely, we are not walking away from His Presence after communion. Believers should say what they mean in regards to their faith and not say anything that denies Him or that faith.

But somewhere along the way, you seem to have been misled into thinking that communion is a feast to satisfy hunger by. Not so.

Truly, if you are holding communion in that manner, you should ask the Lord Jesus Christ for help to see the truth in His words and repent.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Can't be about a meal there, brother. It is solely about communion in the eating of the bread which is cited and the drinking of the wine which was to be done in remembrance of Him; nothing more and certainly not to be used to satisfy their hunger as if having a meal.

1 Corinthians 11:0 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So I hope you are not treating communion by holding a feast.



The RCC has made the bread and the wine as an idol. Some Protestant churches treat the bread and the wine as if Christ's Presence is in them, thus not really reformed from the teachings of the errors in the RCC. Some Protestant churches announce the service of communion by saying "We come into His Presence today.." which is a lie and work that denies Him as being in us and with us always for surely, we are not walking away from His Presence after communion. Believers should say what they mean in regards to their faith and not say anything that denies Him or that faith.

But somewhere along the way, you seem to have been misled into thinking that communion is a feast to satisfy hunger by. Not so.

Truly, if you are holding communion in that manner, you should ask the Lord Jesus Christ for help to see the truth in His words and repent.
Read verse 33. It defines this event as a feast.
It was a feast per the Jews at the Passover...

It is also a feast at the Christian Passover.

Protestants bought into the RCC version of the bread crumb or wafer every Sunday, rather than a first century annual feast.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So you escape the literal verb "trogon" by ignoring it.

If you are going to go Greek on me, you best explain that for you to show how I am ignoring that Greek word.

As it is, it is symbolic because all that communion is done for is in "remembrance of Me" of remembering what He has DONE for us so we can rest in Him continually that we are saved as He had promised simply by believing in Him.

Are not little children free to come to the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes. So what can they do but take Jesus at His word and trust Him that they are saved for believing in Him as He has said.

Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Look at Abraham for how he was justified by God; and it wasn't by his works either.

Romans 4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

So how do you explain those words by Paul?
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't need a scriptural leg to stand on...my position is based on common sense. People who are about to get married generally intend to have relations with their soon-to-be spouse. What makes Mary an exception to this rule?
Generally, yes.
Not in Mary's case, however.

People who are about to get married don't usually get puzzled about somebody telling them that the will have a baby - UNLESS they intended NOT to have children.
How about Ezra 4:21...
Ezr 4:21, Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.

Now, in context, the king of Medo-Persia would have very likely never given a commandment later to build the city again.

However, history bears out that the city was indeed rebuilt with its temple. So that "until" turned out to be fulfilled when it seemed to all that it never would be.
And that's fine - but not necessarily "normal".

I gave you FOUR Biblical examples of the use of this word that DIDN'T include a subsequent action.
How do you explain those??
I have not departed from the creeds in my definition of the Trinity.

I hold that there is a distinction to be made between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Nevertheless the three are one; and to say otherwise is to be in danger of being Tritheistic in your theology.
WRONG.

The definition of the Trinity is as follows:
The Father is a distinct Person but is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is a distinct Person but is NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person but is NOT the Father or the Son.
The Three distinct Persons are ONE God.

If YOUR definition strays from this definition - you are in heresy.
1 Timothy 5:20 does not nullify 1 Timothy 5:1-2. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:1-2 helps us to interpret 1 Timothy 5:20.
NO verse of Scripture "nullifies" another verse.
They compliment each other.

The elderly ARE to be treated with respect - but that does NOT mean that they are free to publicly LIE and sin without rebuke.
EVERYBODY is to be held accountable.
So then, why are you judging these Protestants for committing idolatry when you are guilty of the same thing; and were guilty first?
They baited you so that you would judge them...and in judging them you must realize that you are also judging yourself: for now you agree that it is idolatry.
WRONG again.

NEITHER is guilty of idolatry.
I was pointing out the FALSE charge of idolatry by showing that Protestants also have statues and images.

An image is NOT an "idol" unless it is worshiped as a god.
Get your facts straight on that.
Exo 20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Jhn 5:17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Jhn 5:18, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

It is John's estimation under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that Jesus had broken the sabbath; it does not say in the verse above that it was the Pharisees' estimation of Him that He had done so; but John declares plainly that, from his perspective, as he writes the holy scriptures (moved by the Holy Ghost), Jesus broke the sabbath.

The sabbath law declares that you shall not do any work on the sabbath. Jesus declared on the sabbath day (see John 5:9 as context) that He was working on that day (John 5:17). That is a violation of the letter of the sabbath day law.

I am not saying that Jesus sinned in doing this. Because 1) Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28); 2) He came not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life (Hebrews 7:16); 3) where there is a change of priesthood (as Jesus was High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec) there is of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:12 and context); and 4) the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27).

And also, Jesus taught us by example what would become a norm for Christian obedience in the church; that we are no longer condemned by the letter of the law but rather are obedient to the spirit of it (Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6).
WRONG.

Jesus, who is GOD, CREATED the Sabbath and is Lord OVER it - so He CAN'T violate it.
That's why He said:
John 5:17
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Read verse 33. It defines this event as a feast.
It was a feast per the Jews at the Passover...

It is also a feast at the Christian Passover.

Protestants bought into the RCC version of the bread crumb or wafer every Sunday, rather than a first century annual feast.

Should always read the verses in context, brother, to know what Paul is talking about as opposing how you are applying that verse out of context to mean.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not when it is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by GOD Himself.

It wasn't a celibate priest that did that? Is it true that a married priest could not perform the Mass but only communion? If so, it does testify that a celibate priest had done that. If God really had done that, then why say that about a married priest that he can only perform communion?

BTW.. still comes off as an idol.