Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Rick Bates
Rick Bates
Charlestown, R.I. US
Posts: 205
Joined: January 2020
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,668
Posts54,363
Members973
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,318
Tom 4,342
chestnutmare 3,244
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,852
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 45
Pilgrim 21
jta 6
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Another Attack on the Scripture
by Tom - Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:06 PM
The Golden Idol of Freewill
by chestnutmare - Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:03 AM
"Old Landmarks" by Archibald G. Brown
by Pilgrim - Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:31 AM
Trudeau on Unvaccinated Canadians
by Tom - Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:07 AM
Genesis 1:1
by Tom - Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:12 PM
To gain the favor of the people by flatteries
by chestnutmare - Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:18 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#38865 Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
AC. Offline OP
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
I feel I can hold my own in defending and refuting against the Catholic Faithful.

But when it comes to the Lord's Supper I get bombarded with quotes from the ECF's that seem to support some type of Real Presence.

Obviously, I believe your alters, masses, tabranacles, priests, and terms like transubstantiation and accidents are all RCC creations that have no foundation in the Lord Jesus' Last Supper ordinance - but what about these ECF's?

Does anyone know any sources that places a more objective analysis on the histroy of the Lord's Supper and it's evolution under the authority of the RCC?

I know some early ECF's were making a case against the Gnostics - does the ECF's words scream Transubstantiation or some type of real 'physical' presence?

Thanks!

AC


The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine

AC. #38866 Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:42 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
AC,

It's always important to read in context. A lot of quotes from the ECFs I have found are picked out of context to support whatever position is being argued. That said, the ECFs have a number of their own problems. They certainly were not infallible interpreters of Scripture.

Can you provide us with some specific quotes you're thinking of? I believe that would be the best way for us to aid you.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
AC. #38867 Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Early Christians were often accused of cannibalism and derided with statements like "They eat their God every Sunday." This came about because of the fervent belief early on that Christ becomes physically present in the host bread and wine during a miracle called transubstantiation.

The accepted theology is that every practice and ritual in the old covenant finds its mirror in the new covenant, for the entire Old Testament testifies of Jesus. So there are no accidents, especially in regard to the passover lamb which undeniably forshadows the Lamb of God. After being roasted over fire, the flesh of the pasch was to be consumed as the blood on the door posts caused death to pass over. This is in no way a coincidence.

Jesus maintains a constant theme throughout his ministry. When asked to provide a sign comparable to the provision of mana in the desert Jesus audaciously declares that He is the Bread from Heaven:

Quote
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

It's no accident either the words Jesus chooses at the last supper. He says, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," with no symbolic or figurative indicators. Paul continues to emphasize this point:

Quote
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. (1Corin 10:16,17)

Christians continued to meet every Sunday for eucharista and service was centered around the weekly Eucharist, not the sermon or power point projector contemporary worship. The Roman empire, in an effort to crack down on Christianity, forbade the word eucharista and so the weekly gathering was renamed to the word for dismissal (go in peace to love and serve the Lord) which was missa today translated to Mass.

Of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the early Christians were of no doubt. They continued in the oral traditions they were given by the Apostles who taught the Real Presence of Christ. These beliefs in such close proximity to the earthly ministry of Christ and the Apostolic age are far more compelling than the vain arguments of men 2000 years later:

Quote
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Quote
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Quote
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

continued....


Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.
via_dolorosa #38868 Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
.....continued

Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Quote
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Quote
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Quote
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Quote
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Quote
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


Quote
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).


Quote
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


continued....


Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.
via_dolorosa #38869 Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
.....continued

Quote
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


Quote
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Quote
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Quote
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

Such a continuity of witness is irrefutable. Glory to God!


Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.
via_dolorosa #38870 Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
AC. Offline OP
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
See what I mean


The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine

via_dolorosa #38871 Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
via_dolorosa said:
Early Christians were often accused of cannibalism and derided with statements like "They eat their God every Sunday." This came about because of the fervent belief early on that Christ becomes physically present in the host bread and wine during a miracle called transubstantiation.

Or, it came about because pagans wished to deride and persecute Christians with anything they could get their hands on. No surprise that the language used in the Lord's Supper was quickly turned against the Christians. Do you think that Christians were accused of drinking the blood of infants because they believed that Christ became physically present in the Supper? Christians were also accused of sexual perversion because of their "love feasts." Do you suppose this is because Christians fervently believed that they were sexually united by eating fellowship meals?

Quote
The accepted theology is that every practice and ritual in the old covenant finds its mirror in the new covenant, for the entire Old Testament testifies of Jesus. So there are no accidents, especially in regard to the passover lamb which undeniably forshadows the Lamb of God. After being roasted over fire, the flesh of the pasch was to be consumed as the blood on the door posts caused death to pass over. This is in no way a coincidence.

No one considers it to be a coincidence. But by the same token, the blood of lambs does not atone for sin. The blood of lambs prefigured the one, final, bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Passover did not prefigure an ongoing spilling of Christ's blood every time the sacrament is celebrated! Nor indeed do we expect that the water of baptism is somehow physically the blood of the infant being baptized, or the blood of Christ being poured on us. Yet circumcision is the Old Testament's baptism, is it not?

Quote
Jesus maintains a constant theme throughout his ministry. When asked to provide a sign comparable to the provision of mana in the desert Jesus audaciously declares that He is the Bread from Heaven:

Quote
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

Roman Catholics never seem to read on to verse 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Christ is not literally offering his flesh for them to chew, swallow, and digest. This is what the disciples who left Him misunderstood, to their own stumbling.

Quote
It's no accident either the words Jesus chooses at the last supper. He says, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," with no symbolic or figurative indicators.

Have you never read Luke 22:20? "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." The fact that He is standing before them, flesh and blood, is indicator enough of the figurative—or, better, spiritual—nature of the sacrament which He is instituting. There is no indication anywhere that the disciples thought that He meant that the bread had been transformed into His flesh, or the wine into His blood.

Quote
Paul continues to emphasize this point:

Quote
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. (1Corin 10:16,17)

The communion of the blood; the communion of the body. Indeed, are members of the church also literally transformed into Christ's body and blood? Because that must be what Paul means, to apply your hermeneutic consistently! For he says, "we are one bread and one body."

Quote
Christians continued to meet every Sunday for eucharista and service was centered around the weekly Eucharist, not the sermon or power point projector contemporary worship. The Roman empire, in an effort to crack down on Christianity, forbade the word eucharista and so the weekly gathering was renamed to the word for dismissal (go in peace to love and serve the Lord) which was missa today translated to Mass.

Documentation?

Quote
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Here.

"The Prince of this world is resolved to abduct me, and to corrupt my Godward aspirations. Let none of you, therefore, who will then be present, assist him. Rather, side with me, that is, with God. Do not have Jesus Christ on your lips, and the world in your hearts. Give envy no place among you. And should I upon my arrival plead for your intervention, do not listen to me. Rather, give heed to what I write to you. I am writing while still alive, but my yearning is for death. My Love has been crucified, and I am not on fire with the love of earthly things. But there is in me a Living Water, which is eloquent and within me says: "Come to the Father." I have no taste for corruptible food or for the delights of this life. Bread of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible love."

So Ignatius apparently believed that he had an actual fountain of water within him, judging by the Roman standard of interpretation.

Quote
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Again, what here is he actually saying? This snippet hardly proves the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. In fact, if you bother to read the entire letter, it becomes rather evident that Ignatius is countering the claims of the docetists, who denied that Christ is the divine Word made flesh; who denied that He suffered and died, that His body was broken and His blood shed, on our behalf. He has nowhere in mind the doctrine of transubstatiation.

"He is really of the line of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God by the will and power of God; was really born of a virgin, and baptized by John in order to comply with every ordinance. Under Pontius Pilate and the tetrarch Herod He was really nailed to the cross in the flesh for our sake--of whose fruit we are, in virtue of His most blessed Passion. And thus, through the Resurrection, He raised a banner for all times for His saints and faithful followers, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles, that they might be united in a single body, that is, His Church.

All these sufferings, assuredly, He underwent for our sake, that we might be saved. And He suffered really, as He also really raised Himself from the dead. It is not as some unbelievers say, who maintain that His suffering was a make-believe. In reality, it is they that are make- believes: and, as their notion, so their end: they will be bodiless and ghostlike shapes!

For myself, I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection. And when He came to Peter and Peter's companions, He said to them: 'Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.' Immediately they touched Him and, through this contact with His Flesh and Spirit, believed. For the same reason they despised death and, in fact, proved stronger than death. Again, after the Resurrection, He ate and drank with them like a being of flesh and blood, though spiritually one with the Father."

As for Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, they are briefly dealt with here, in the fourth paragraph, as are many others of the ECFs.

So, it is hardly needful to state that Rome does not have a monopoly on the ECFs.

But I must warn you, Via Dolorosa, that if you continue to promote transubstation as true doctrine, you will be in violation of the Board rules.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
AC. #38872 Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
AC. said:
See what I mean

AC,

I commend this article to you: "The Eucharist," by William Webster. Calvin also has an excellent short treatise on the Lord's Supper which beautifully explains the nature and purpose of the sacrament. It is also helpful to make use of a compendium of ECF writings. This link may prove helpful.

I don't have time to respond to every quote which Via Dolorosa can no doubt copy and paste from any of a hundred Roman Catholic apologetics sites. In my opinion, it is more than enough to note that the fathers frequently disagree among themselves, and sometimes the same father will state different opinions in different of his own writings.

I would not let these words trouble you too greatly. Even so famous a father as Justin Martyr gets some things quite wrong. For example, ch. 61 of his First Apology, he writes, "in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe". We well know from Scripture that this is desparately incorrect. For concerning the new birth, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "The wind (representing the Spirit of God) blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where is comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). Does Jesus say that the wind blows into the man who chooses to be born again? Then also Paul writes, "So then it depends not on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom. 9:16).

Last edited by CovenantInBlood; Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:11 PM.

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #38873 Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
AC. Offline OP
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Yes Kyle,

I agree - I really believe the ECF's who seemed to struggle with even the basics - did get almost as much wrong as they got right, I guess much can be misinterpreted over a century and when Constantine entered the picture and allowed paganism to influence & infiltrate Christianity it seemed it all went out the window.

Look at poor Augustine, he was all over the map with his writings - quite a confusing time. But look at the great influence he had on Luther & Calvin - we must be thankful for that!

peace,

AC


The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine

CovenantInBlood #38874 Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Kyle said:
Quote
Roman Catholics never seem to read on to verse 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Christ is not literally offering his flesh for them to chew, swallow, and digest. This is what the disciples who left Him misunderstood, to their own stumbling.

Of course he wasn't, but Jesus was purposely using such imagery to sift out the pretenders. Of Jesus it says, "The winnowing fan is in his hand," And Jesus confirms his divisive ministry in saying, "Do not think that I came to bring peace...I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Quote
Have you never read Luke 22:20? "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." The fact that He is standing before them, flesh and blood, is indicator enough of the figurative—or, better, spiritual—nature of the sacrament which He is instituting. There is no indication anywhere that the disciples thought that He meant that the bread had been transformed into His flesh, or the wine into His blood.

This is the "ace up the sleeve" that Protestants often use, but it only makes sense in the linear/temporal/sequential mindset of our earthly existance. We don't re-sacrifice Jesus at every Mass, it's impossible to crucify Christ again (Hebrews 6:4-6) But Christ's sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist even though, from our perspective, it's a past event, and from the Apostles' perspective, it was a future event. Such is the wonder of a God who is outside of time.

Quote
But I must warn you, Via Dolorosa, that if you continue to promote transubstation as true doctrine, you will be in violation of the Board rules.

I have said before that I have reason to question this board's commitment to a free discussion. One would think that the good folks here would be thankful for my presence as a Catholic. I could hear the pitchforks and torches being readied as I submitted my first post. I know that, in spite of how serious sounding the discussion can become, you're all very human and I can imagine some of you chuckling at the image of going after the Catholic with torches and pitchforks like he's an ogre. I know that my presence here and my Catholic responses has got to make this board a little more entertaining. After all, I represent what you're protesting. And nobody builds up an arsenal (and this board's arsenal is impressive) without desiring an occasional skirmish.

So Kyle, I plan to test the limits of this board's tolerance for opposing ideas. I don't fear being banned, as it would only serve to buttress the conclusion that Reformation theology cannot withstand rigorous debate. I seek the conversion of nobody here, nor do I believe such a conversion is necessary. But as iron sharpens iron, both are made stronger, and I value fervent, orthodox theology (such as represented in this board) over "feel good" Christianity that sacrifices truth for pleasure. I think it would be sad indeed if you passed up this opportunity.

P.S. Have patience with the avatar, I'm working out a technical kink with Pilgrim


[Cleaned up a "quote" tag. CiB]

Last edited by CovenantInBlood; Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:36 PM.

Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.
via_dolorosa #38875 Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
via_dolorosa said:
Kyle said:
Quote
Roman Catholics never seem to read on to verse 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Christ is not literally offering his flesh for them to chew, swallow, and digest. This is what the disciples who left Him misunderstood, to their own stumbling.

Of course he wasn't, but Jesus was purposely using such imagery to sift out the pretenders.

Of course He was. But we're still a long way from transubstantiation.

Quote
Quote
Have you never read Luke 22:20? "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." The fact that He is standing before them, flesh and blood, is indicator enough of the figurative—or, better, spiritual—nature of the sacrament which He is instituting. There is no indication anywhere that the disciples thought that He meant that the bread had been transformed into His flesh, or the wine into His blood.

This is the "ace up the sleeve" that Protestants often use, but it only makes sense in the linear/temporal/sequential mindset of our earthly existance. We don't re-sacrifice Jesus at every Mass, it's impossible to crucify Christ again (Hebrews 6:4-6) But Christ's sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist even though, from our perspective, it's a past event, and from the Apostles' perspective, it was a future event. Such is the wonder of a God who is outside of time.

Are you admitting here that no transubstantian occured when Christ instituted the Eucharist? Or what?

Quote
Quote
But I must warn you, Via Dolorosa, that if you continue to promote transubstation as true doctrine, you will be in violation of the Board rules.

I have said before that I have reason to question this board's commitment to a free discussion. One would think that the good folks here would be thankful for my presence as a Catholic. I could hear the pitchforks and torches being readied as I submitted my first post. I know that, in spite of how serious sounding the discussion can become, you're all very human and I can imagine some of you chuckling at the image of going after the Catholic with torches and pitchforks like he's an ogre. I know that my presence here and my Catholic responses has got to make this board a little more entertaining. After all, I represent what you're protesting. And nobody builds up an arsenal (and this board's arsenal is impressive) without desiring an occasional skirmish.

So Kyle, I plan to test the limits of this board's tolerance for opposing ideas. I don't fear being banned, as it would only serve to buttress the conclusion that Reformation theology cannot withstand rigorous debate. I seek the conversion of nobody here, nor do I believe such a conversion is necessary. But as iron sharpens iron, both are made stronger, and I value fervent, orthodox theology (such as represented in this board) over "feel good" Christianity that sacrifices truth for pleasure. I think it would be sad indeed if you passed up this opportunity.

It is one thing to challenge and question what we believe, quite another to promote Roman Catholicism. We will gladly answer what questions you may have, and engage in friendly back-and-forth about interpretive issues and so on. But we will not endure you preaching Roman Catholicism to us or to our other guests here. This Board is not for "free discussion" in that sense. It is for the advancement of biblical, orthodox, Reformed Christianity. You are here as a guest and will abide by our rules. If you wish to complain about something in that respect, send one of us moderators a private message.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #38876 Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:14 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Kyle,

May I remind you that I didn't start this thread. The instigator is a member in good standing of this board.


Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.
via_dolorosa #38877 Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:43 AM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
AC. Offline OP
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Via,

I'm not looking to bait you into throwing anymore quotes - and I don't really take issue with any of these ECF quotes. I see the spiritual significance of the Lord's Supper - we are not talking ordinary bread & wine here.

If people view this wonderful ordinance as a bunch of people sitting around a table simply to break bread there's a problem. I do believe there is something supernatural going on here but to have such a narrow view or misplaced view that we make it all about 'accidents' or Jesus' physical flesh and blood that does not actually taste like flesh and blood but actually is His flesh and blood although from the carnal perspective it really doesn't seem to be flesh and blood - I think we begin to assign a value or emphasis that was not meant to be.

We are talking the fact that Jesus' sacrifice gives us spiritual life, that was the significance of the Last Supper - all this Mass, Transubstantiation & Altar stuff starts to place the process and authority over and above the true significance and benefit of the ordinance. Why does man always have to complicate matters with superficial grandiosity.

Last edited by AC.; Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:33 PM.

The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine

AC. #38878 Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
AC. Offline OP
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Also,

I can't think of any other example in scriptures where the Lord takes a symbolic perspective (bread-body/wine-blood) and means it literally while still having the natural elements of the tangible symbols remain. If Jesus wanted us to literaly eat/drink His body and blood why is He using symbols that remain intact, why doesn't the actual bread and wine change? The idea of 'accidents' while the bread and wine are actually what they no longer appear to be seems to have no Biblical basis, precedent or foundation. While the symbolic emphasis of Jesus' teachings is rampant throughout Scriptures! Why take a literal view then develop a term ('accidents') that explains a lack of literal support/evidence for the literal perspective.

Seems we're going from literal to actual to accidential. Anyone following my logic???


The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine

via_dolorosa #38879 Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:21 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
via_dolorosa said:
Kyle,

May I remind you that I didn't start this thread. The instigator is a member in good standing of this board.

What's your point? I don't see that AC promoted transubstantiation anywhere. Do you?


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 98 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry, Nana Dadzie Jr.
973 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
December
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,400,848 Gospel truth