XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

You may also like...

37 Responses

  1. Nonnie says:

    Agree ! “It is finished.”

  2. The last sentence is calling the Roman Catholic mass blasphemous, right?

    I mean, I’d agree with that, but doesn’t seem to sit right with most here.

  3. I agree that the RCC mass is blasphemous.

  4. Baptists, Anglicans, and Lutherans joining hands as one. Brings a tear to the eye.

  5. Gary says:

    This non-denom/denom semi charismatic not quite reformed part time fundie agrees. Offering Christ up again is blasphemous and very deceitful. We are His workmanship.

  6. Nonnie says:

    I don’t believe Anglicans are saying that a Catholic is not saved, but we have to remember that this statement (and the articles) were written during the reformation and making a statement of faith, as well as how the Church of England (AnglicanChurch) was differing from Rome, such as this article. It was a tumultuous time and people were being burned at the stake, dependant upon who was reigning monarch of England. Both Protestants and Catholics died during this time. ( mid 1500’s). Currently, there is no animosity between the CofE and the RCC ( that I am aware of). More of a live and let live, to God be the glory , through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

  7. Babylon's Dread says:

    This was a necessary rebuke when offered as a defense of parting with Rome. It has little relevance to us because free association is so normal. We face no consequences by departing Rome and need no justification for not being Roman.

    I am not sure that I think the mass to be blasphemous. I think it errant.

  8. Xenia says:

    I completely disagree with this article but it’s Good Friday and I will be at Church all day and cannot stick around for a discussion. There might be more to “the other side” than you all realize.

  9. Gary says:

    When I parted with Rome it was over essentials- They were a sad misguided lot. And I’m talking about the nuns and priests I knew personally.

  10. Bob says:

    I’ve been reading your threads from the Church of England and it seems to me that much of the doctrinal statements are as much political as they are attempting to define the faith.

    Isn’t this from Paul a bit simpler?

    “For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,”Ro 6:10-12

    And Peter said this,

    “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;” 1 Peter 3:18

    Why is there a need for the corporate (and in the case the National) organization to define and judge what is simply put down in scripture?

  11. Bob,
    The RCC uses the same Bible.
    Read the Augsburg Confession by the Lutherans – it predates the 39 Articles – but it was done for the same purpose, to make the distinction.

    The Augsburg Confession was presented to the Emperor to show what Lutherans believed, to show that they held to the Christian faith … thus avoiding having their heads removed.

    You need to look back to those who did the heavy lifting back in the Reformation to make it easy for you to say what you said. That was not the common held belief back in them that days.

  12. Gary says:

    I’ll take the most (seemingly) obscure scripture verse to any subsequent confession or council or diet whatever. I can’t wait to find out all the “other sheep” Jesus has had throughout history. The RCC has their own versions of the bible. For instance, read Ex 20:4 in the Douay version. Compare to any other version.

  13. Lutheran says:

    Bob,

    Hard to argue with God’s Word. I wouldn’t dare!

    Confessions are ways to sharpen up our Christian confession. And as MLD said, it’s often done at certain points in history to make distinctions.

    Another purpose is to summarize the Faith. That way, you major on the majors, not on the minors. So, an historical detail from the book of Esther isn’t on the same par with what you believe, teach and confession about, for example, the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

    Confessions should be based on God’s Word. The 39 articles are.

    “Officially the Church of England accepts the full and final authority of Holy Scripture as the basis for all that it believes. Some of these beliefs were summarised in the historic creeds, and at the time of the Reformation the Church adopted the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as giving a concise and systematic statement of the teaching of Scripture.”

    http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39a/iss_doctrine_39a_intro.asp

  14. Bob says:

    “You need to look back to those who did the heavy lifting back in the Reformation to make it easy for you to say what you said.”

    I have, but you affirm and miss my point. What you affirm is how the organization and government used doctrine in a political sense to dominate a large group of people and build new laws which establish their authority. To say they use the scriptures and affirm them is an easy thing to say, but difficult do in practice. The scriptures only establish one nation and organization and yet here we have the English and the Anglican Church and by your confession the Lutheran church and in particular the Missouri Synod, both end up in conflict ans separation (no fellowship).

    What you miss is I believe today it is far easier to just point to the actual words of scripture and let them stand for themselves. We are blessed to live in a time where literacy and availability allow people to do so.

    BTW this discussion goes far beyond the threads question, “Do I agree?…” Not with the Anglican statement. Why? Because it is too filled with political and organizational rhetoric. I think I made that clear.

  15. Lutheran says:

    how the organization and government used doctrine in a political sense to dominate a large group of people and build new laws which establish their authority.

    Bob,

    What is your proof for that assertion?

  16. Bob,
    You miss the necessity that existed back then that does not exist today. Back then you HAD to “show” your hand or you were not allowed to exist. The government forced the issue.

    Here is a good example. In Prussia in the early 19th century, the Prussian government forced the Reformed and the Lutherans to be one church and to worship together. Now, for Evangelicals, this is no problem but for the Reformed and the Lutherans this was a grave issue.

    The Lutherans packed up and left, sailed across the sea to the free land, docked in New Orleans, boated up the Mississippi and stopped in Missouri – and there you have the beginning of the LCMS. 🙂

  17. I *think* Bob got that, MLD, and is just saying such statements are not unnecessary today, thereby making this article irrelevant.

  18. Lutheran says:

    yet here we have the English and the Anglican Church and by your confession the Lutheran church and in particular the Missouri Synod, both end up in conflict ans separation (no fellowship)

    ???

    Not sure what you mean. Of course Lutherans have fellowship with Anglicans! One of my long-time best friends is an Episcopal priest. Why would we not fellowship? We have a great deal in common.

    In my experience the sectarian groups are the ones that draw the fellowship line (“we’re definitely in, you’re most certainly out”) a lot more tightly than the Reformational churches. They’re the ones who are always judging the sacramental Protestants as dead, their pastors go to “semetary,” etc.

  19. Bob says:

    MLD:

    Yes I got that!

    Lutheran, you’ve got to be kidding me. I have to assume your statement querying me is in jest because every sophomore western history class covers this subject quite well.

    Even MLD points out the political nature and needs of these things. It is also common knowledge we live in what is known as a “post-Christian world.”

    Even Wikipedia (which is always correct 😉 ) knows it:

    “Thus defined, a post-Christian world is one in which Christianity is no longer the dominant civil religion, but that has gradually assumed values, culture, and worldviews that are not necessarily Christian (and further may not necessarily reflect any world religion’s standpoint, or may represent a combination of either several religions or none). Generally, therefore, post-Christian tends to refer to the loss of Christianity’s monopoly, if not its followers, in historically Christian societies. For instance, according to the 2005 Eurobarameter survey, the majority of Europeans (in general) hold some form of belief in a higher power, although relatively fewer point explicitly to the Christian God.”

    Additionally, Lutheran, the need to maintain differing and separate “confessions” does not bring groups together in fellowship.” However, they do the reverse and polarize the parties involved. If you don’t believe me just review the many threads and posts here on PP dealing with the subjects of baptism and communion.

  20. Bob says:

    Lutheran,

    It just occurred to me maybe you don’t understand the term “Fellowship” in the context I am referring to. Since you and I don’t agree on either communion or baptism from an official doctrinal standpoint, we don’t “fellowship.” Both of which are parts of church “confessions,” BTW.

    Now can we fellowship or enjoy company over the movie thread? You bet!

    I have many friends who are Lutheran, Catholic, Mormon and even strong Atheist/deist and we do not “fellowship” in our faith at all, but we do enjoy a other things together and even share most of the same political values.

    Got to go, thanks for the chart!

  21. Gary – to your #13 @ 9:12 am – I am having difficulty finding the “different” RCC translation of Exodus 20:4

    Help me out.

    Douay = Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

    ESV = “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    KJV = 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.

    NIV = “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

  22. Gary says:

    MLD,
    Maybe they revised it cuz my mom’s version eliminates the second commandment and divides the last commandment into 2. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Confraternity version that I grew up with, or perhaps it’s the Jerusalem bible. Why doncha put your scholarly mind to work and find it. Prolly take you about 4 seconds.

  23. Gary,
    You may just be talking about how the commandments are listed when you see a list of the commandments. If you look in the text they are not numbered 1, 2, 3 etc.

    Lutherans number the same way the Catholics do. What you consider the 2nd commandment, we see as part of the first – worshiping God and we split the coveting into 2 parts – coveting property and coveting people.

    The graven image part is incidental – the command is against worshiping the graven images. If you read further in Exodus God commands images to be carved.

    Jews list them differently also – they are I am the Lord your God as part of the 1st commandment and not as a preamble.

  24. And besides, we all know that there were originally 3 tablets with 15 commandments

  25. Gary says:

    Oye! The childrinks of Is reel drank from the Mel Brook.

  26. mrtundraman says:

    I don’t understand the Catholic position on the mass. Do they really consider it a re-sacrifice of Christ? Or is it somehow linked to their belief that Christ is really present in the elements of communion? If He is really present, then in some sense isn’t He being offered up at the Eucharist? If that’s how they understand what is happening then how do the other churches who also hold to the real presence avoid the same conclusion? I am asking honestly because I don’t know the answer.

  27. Lutherans would look at the Supper as one of Jesus’ chosen methods of delivering to us what He won for us on the cross. No re sacrifice.

  28. Gary says:

    RCC believes that the eucharist becomes the real body and blood of Christ. It’s called transsubstiantion. They are offering Christ as a sacrifice every mass hence the name “the sacrifice of the mass”. I don’t know about other religions.

  29. All the political stuff aside, I agree with the statement that “there is none other satisfaction for sin.” If there is any other satisfaction, then Jesus is not the way, the truth and the life, and people can come to the Father in other ways than through Him.

  30. mrtundraman says:

    Just got back from the 3+ hour service (St Basil’s liturgy) at the Eastern Orthodox Church. What a beautiful service. One of my kids asked about the incense and I showed him the passage in Malachi 1:11.

    For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

    For me this is one of the many proofs of the Eastern Orthodox faith. They offer incense as Malachi says will be offered at every place that God is glorified. Not sure what churches which don’t have incense do with that passage. Probably just pretend it doesn’t exist.

  31. Lutheran says:

    Lutheran, you’ve got to be kidding me. I have to assume your statement querying me is in jest because every sophomore western history class covers this subject quite well.

    Bob, you’re the one who doesn’t get it. It’s obvious you’ve never cracked open the Book of Concord. If you did, you’d find that it’s THEOLOGY that’s being discussed. Unless you want to argue that any historical Confession is totally historically conditioned. If that’s your argument, knock yourself out.

    That means we’d have to throw all the ecumenical confessions out. The Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, et. al.

    That would be an act of real stupidity.

  32. mrtundraman says:

    The Orthodox use these words “Accept us as we draw near to Your holy altar, according to the multitude of Your mercy, that we may be worthy to offer You this spiritual sacrifice without the shedding of blood, for our sins and for the transgressions of Your people.”

    Oh, and part of the reason that the Orthodox Pascha service on Holy Saturday is long is that they do 15 Old Testament readings. The story of Shadrack, Meschack, and Abendego, the story of Elijah and the widow, the entire book of Jonah, plus more. Very inspiring. Nearly every word in the service is Scripture or a summary of Scripture.

    I really loved the part where the priest goes around throwing flower petals on everyone. We ended up with a lot of them in our hair, etc. The lights were off and the candles were all off. They they get replaced with white candles and the lights come on.

    He is risen.
    He is risen, indeed.

  33. mrtundraman says:

    “That means we’d have to throw all the ecumenical confessions out. The Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, et. al. That would be an act of real stupidity.”

    Makes sense if the church started in the mid 1960s.

  34. mrtundraman says:

    If the “pure offering” of Malachi is the communion elements then it’s an offering, not just a remembering of the offering of Christ. Our worship and the lifting of the elements is our act of worship, ie, our sacrifice. Christ is really present in our sacrifice.

  35. mrtundraman says:

    Today Hades tearfully sighs: “Would that I had not received him who was born of Mary, for he came to me and destroyed my power; he broke my bronze gates, and being God, delivered the souls I had been holding captive.”

    O Lord, glory to your cross and to your holy resurrection!

    Today Hades groans: “My power has vanished. I received one who died as mortals die, but I could not hold him; with him and through him I lost those over which I had ruled. I had held control over the dead since the world began, and lo, he raises them all up with him!”

    O Lord, glory to your cross and to your holy resurrection!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.