Can a Christian lose their salvation

[Idolater]

But that was the "most salient point."

I know. I was trying to save you time. But by all means go look again.

I don't think I want to bury Him who will never die again, nor certainly burn Him who deserves my worship. Plus, both of those things, including "dissolving", are speaking of types of corruption, which He certainly wouldn't be experiencing now.

So what is your idea? Make a steel man argument for the Real Presence, and give us your idea for what to do with consecrated host which accidentally falls on the floor, maybe into some mud.

All of this comes from a weird idea made weirder by treating the bread you eat like God.

Supra.

 

[Derf]

I know. I was trying to save you time. But by all means go look again.

I wrote that after I had revisited your cited thread. And I think I came to a similar conclusion, that the most salient point had no teeth.

So what is your idea? Make a steel man argument for the Real Presence,

I've tried. I can't do any better than I have already. The best I can offer is the same you started with, that Christ said we have to eat His body and drink His blood. But that wasn't His last word on the subject. He said, holding some unleavened bread and some wine, "This is my body...This is my blood" before His body was broken and before His blood was spilt. He was still whole when they ate. He is whole again now, like He was when He taught Paul about it. And, He further pointed out to Paul that WE are His body. If you think the bread and wine are His body, to be consumed, you better start nibbling on your fellow pew-mates.

and give us your idea for what to do with consecrated host which accidentally falls on the floor, maybe into some mud.

I can't see how the body of Christ would be on the floor when He is in heaven, bodily. So, sweep it up and throw it away, just like we do with the extra cups of grape juice in our church, there's no record of the vastly important clean-up duty, and to insert it is...wait for it...adding to scripture.

Supra.

Ok, "super-weird." I was trying not to insult your view anymore than it insulted itself.

 

[7djengo7]

I know, but the docetists did, and that Gnostic heresy persists even today in Islam (Jesus only appeared to be crucified in the Quran).

According to your institution's official handbook, Roman Catholics, instead of adoring God -- the Triune YHWH -- adore Islam's god:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

The god adored and called "Allah" by Islamists is Satan, not the Lord Jesus Christ. So, to refer to the god adored by Islamists by a phrase like "the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day", as Rome's catechism does, here, is rank Satan-worshiping, anti-Trinitarian blasphemy against God.

 

[Idolater]

I wrote that after I had revisited your cited thread. And I think I came to a similar conclusion, that the most salient point had no teeth.

OK.

... Christ said we have to eat His body and drink His blood. But that wasn't His last word on the subject. He said, holding some unleavened bread and some wine, "This is my body...This is my blood" before His body was broken and before His blood was spilt.

Paul called an altar a table, and he said the Eucharist is celebrated also at a table, meaning an altar.

He was still whole when they ate. He is whole again now, like He was when He taught Paul about it. And, He further pointed out to Paul that WE are His body. If you think the bread and wine are His body, to be consumed, you better start nibbling on your fellow pew-mates.

Sure. And so just as with the Real Presence, look to see if there are Scriptures which comport with the theory. And even better if the earliest Church appears to believe in it also. With your idea here, you get two strikes against it because there's no Scriptures which indicates anybody was eating their fellow parishioners, and that practice also seems to be absent from the entire historical record of the Church.

But that's only two strikes, so your idea could still be true, it hasn't been positively refuted anyhow. But now compare it with the Real Presence. Scriptures which do comport with it, and proof that the earliest Church believed in it, and uniformly too. I mean I guess the lack of evidence in Scripture and in the earliest Church records for parishioner-eating is an argument from silence. So there's that.

... I was trying not to insult your view ...

It's not as if you can point to Scriptures which refute the Real Presence; instead you're met with "This IS My body", John 6, and 1st Corinthians 10 & 11, all of which are unsurprising under the Real Presence theory of Holy Communion. And it's not as if you can point to ancient Christianity to show that the earliest Church did not believe in the Real Presence; instead you're met with Pope Clement and Bishop Ignatius who write things again unsurprising if and only if the earliest Church believed in the Real Presence.

It's your view that appears weird and super-weird. It's your view that appears to add to Scripture (through deletion). It's your view that all the atheists and Arians /JWs agree with.

According to your institution's official handbook, Roman Catholics, instead of adoring God -- the Triune YHWH -- adore Islam's god:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

The god adored and called "Allah" by Islamists is Satan, not the Lord Jesus Christ. So, to refer to the god adored by Islamists by a phrase like "the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day", as Rome's catechism does, here, is rank Satan-worshiping, anti-Trinitarian blasphemy against God.

I'm glad you quote the Catechism. Of course Catholicism is O.G. Trinitarianism, the Church defined Trinitarianism, and unless I miss my guess, you even believe the particularly Catholic Trinity and not the Orthodox Trinity, because you probably believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is only 100% Catholic and not Orthodox.

The Catechism is even a terrific source to learn precisely everything you ever wanted or need to know about the Trinity.

 

[7djengo7]

I'll try to check the Canon Law, see if there's something in there about the proper disposition of inedible Eucharist.

So Jesus tells you to eat something inedible? If Jesus tells you to eat something that looks like a little round wafer of bread, it's interesting that you would instead call it "inedible" and disobey Him by not eating it. If Canon Law tells you the proper disposition of something Jesus supposedly commands you to eat is to not eat it, and deem it inedible, it seems Canon Law and Jesus are not quite on the same page.

 

[Idolater]

So Jesus tells you to eat something inedible? If Jesus tells you to eat something that looks like a little round wafer of bread, it's interesting that you would instead call it "inedible" and disobey Him by not eating it. If Canon Law tells you the proper disposition of something Jesus supposedly commands you to eat is to not eat it, and deem it inedible, it seems Canon Law and Jesus are not quite on the same page.

The ontology of the two offices Jesus established, the bishops and the papacy, are really the only things that matter in this dispute, and that includes the Orthodox too. Those two offices exist, and Jesus made them. We have near 1000 years of evidence, beyond what's directly out of the Scripture, which corroborates that these offices are real. Denying they're real is putting your head in the sand. idk why you do this, as you're obviously very sharp.

 

[7djengo7]

idk why you do this

"This"? All I am doing is asking questions about Romish falsehood and mumbo jumbo, to which you seem committed to demonstrating that you cannot respond rationally. No one in his or her right mind would ever mistake any of your responses in this thread for truth or reasonableness.

 

[Idolater]

"This"? All I am doing is asking questions about Romish falsehood and mumbo jumbo, to which you seem committed to demonstrating that you cannot respond rationally. No one in his or her right mind would ever mistake any of your responses in this thread for truth or reasonableness.

It's not like there's no Scriptural proof that the offices were established by Christ and the Apostles, it's obviously in there, and it's not like there's no historical proof that the earliest Church certainly acted like they believed the offices were real, because they certainly did.

It would be different if there weren't Scriptures consistent with the offices being real, but that history showed the Church enacting these offices anyway; that would be a good situation to argue accretion. The Church added to the Scripture, because the offices aren't in there; it came along later and it didn't come from Scripture and it's not recorded in Scripture.

And if on the other hand the Scriptures are what they are, but history showed that the earliest Church did not enact these offices, then that too would be a good situation to argue that it's a misinterpretation, misreading, and mistake, because the earliest Church could not have gotten something so obviously wrong, right from the start.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The ontology of the two offices Jesus established, the bishops and the papacy,

Jesus did not establish, at least not in the New Testament, any new offices.

To assert He did is nothing but Roman Catholic tradition.

Those two offices exist,

Bishops, sure.

But the office of the pope only exists within Roman Catholic tradition. It does not come from Scripture.

and Jesus made them.

False.

We have near 1000 years of evidence, beyond what's directly out of the Scripture,

I think you misspelled "tradition"....

"near 1000 years of tradition"

And "beyond what's directly out of Scripture" should tell you that it's not a guarantee of being correct.

which corroborates that these offices are real.

Supra.

Appeal to tradition.

Denying they're real is putting your head in the sand.

This is a case of "same word, different dictionary."

Yes, the office of "pope" is real.... within the Roman Catholic church. In that sense, and that sense alone, it exists.

But it is not a real office, as far as Scripture is concerned.

Why?

Because the head of the church is not a created bing.

The head of the church is Christ, not a pope.

idk why you do this, as you're obviously very sharp.

I don't know why you do this, Idolate, as you're (not as) obviously sharp enough to converse about this subject.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let me explain in intimate detail "how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church":

[SNIP]

Well?

I'm waiting...

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's not like there's no Scriptural proof that the offices were established by Christ and the Apostles, it's obviously in there,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

and it's not like there's no historical proof that the earliest Church certainly acted like they believed the offices were real, because they certainly did.

Not within the first three hundred years, no.

It would be different if there weren't Scriptures consistent with the offices being real,

Confirmation bias.

but that history showed the Church enacting these offices anyway;

By offices, you seem to be including "pope."

I reject that inclusion.

And with that said...

Yes, organization within the Body of Christ is a good thing, distribution of labor is a good thing. (cf 1 Corinthians 12-14)

that would be a good situation to argue accretion. The Church added to the Scripture,

No. The Roman Catholic Church added to scripture.

because the offices aren't in there;

Correct.

it came along later and it didn't come from Scripture and it's not recorded in Scripture.

Correct.

Thank you for conceding the entire discussion.

Now when are you going to become a member of the Body of Christ?

And if on the other hand the Scriptures are what they are, but history showed that the earliest Church did not enact these offices, then that too would be a good situation to argue that it's a misinterpretation, misreading, and mistake, because the earliest Church could not have gotten something so obviously wrong, right from the start.

They couldn't?

 

[Right Divider]

It's not like there's no Scriptural proof that the offices were established by Christ and the Apostles, it's obviously in there, and it's not like there's no historical proof that the earliest Church certainly acted like they believed the offices were real, because they certainly did.

The "earliest Church" was Israel.

Acts 7:38 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

A little ironic, since the RCC has tried to steal Israel's place.