Argument in Defense of the Real Presence

[john.s]

I'll ask a similar question that I asked in another thread mere seconds ago. Was the Bible written by infallible men?What a strange question, Rusty! Why would the men who put pen to paper in the Bible need to be infallible? Did any of them claim infallibility?

Can I ask you a question in return? Do you believe the Bible had an infallible author or had infallible authors?

You say, "Let us let the Holy Spirit teach us." But you seem to forget that the Holy Spirit never stopped teaching the Church - that the "traditions" you so belittle are the same ones that kept the doctrines of the apostles intact. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I presume that the "traditions" you refer to are the "Real Presence" traditions under discussion here.

As far as I am aware, Roman Catholic traditions (including Real Presence - Roman par excellence!) are precisely that, Roman Catholic, and have been considered unbiblical by Christians since the emergence of the Papacy. The Reformation brought about the public rejection of these traditions and the public establishment of the Bible as the only authoritative, infallible, source of guidance and doctrine for man.

Incidentally, would you not agree that any traditon that presents itself as equal in authority to Scripture already stands condemned? And that the denomination that procaims such equality stands condemned with it?

Furthermore, how could the Real Presence traditions have their origin in apostolic times (as your statement suggests)? It is no secret that the Real Presence traditions, in the form they have come down to us, emerged out of the obscurity (and apostacy) of the Dark Ages.

Remember that Paul said for us to hold fast to what we've learned through epistle and word. Yes, and that is why we reject (as contrary to epistle and word) the grossly carnal, man made, idolatrous, literalistic, Real Presence traditions.

Also remember that many truths were defined only later to combat heresy. The Real Presence tradition was not one of them, unless you hold that the Council of Trent was a source of truths, which I am sure you do not, unless you are a Roman Catholic.

The post apostolic definitions of truth were found necessary by men who were ceasing to rely exclusively on the Word of God. By men who believed God's Word needed buttresssing by human tradition. Does God's Word need Church Councils to define the truths it so clearly lays out? Only if the Holy Spirit's efficiency as teacher is put in doubt!

And your post would indicate (correct me if I am wrong) that you are one in the long tradition of men who would caution against allowing the Holy Spirit to teach and guide simple sheep. Much preferring, instead, to put trust in the traditions of men.


And furthermore -never forget the obedience to the Church taught by the New Testament

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
And never forget also John's words, concluding his long 1John2 teaching on the antichrists in the church.

The anointing which you have received of him abideth in you and you need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abaide in him

Should we obey churches/denominations which do not proclaim this truth as foundational and which do not urge their sheep to rely exclusively on the Holy Spirit as teacher?

Sadly, most denominations have, following Rome's example, substituted themselves for the Holy Spirit. Would you not agree?

[tizzidale]

What a strange question, Rusty! Why would the men who put pen to paper in the Bible need to be infallible? Did any of them claim infallibility?
No, they didn't need to be infallible, nor did they claim to be. That was my point.

Can I ask you a question in return? Do you believe the Bible had an infallible author or had infallible authors?

You didn't ask a question in return, you asked the same question I asked you which you didn't answer. But to answer yours: No, the men who wrote the Bible were fallible. But this only underscores what I've been saying. You say that the "traditions of men, yada yada yada. . ." (sorry if I sound sarcastic, it's very late and I wanted to do this b/f bed - i'm in a hurry not in a bad mood). But you believe that the Holy Spirit could guide men to write Holy Scripture, but not to practice Holy doctrine?

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I presume that the "traditions" you refer to are the "Real Presence" traditions under discussion here.
In part. But that will suffice. But the "real presence" isn't really an Eastern Orthodox (from whose perspective I'm trying to speak from) term. If we are talking about the wine and bread being the Very Blood and Body of the Lord present in the Eucharist, then yes.

As far as I am aware, Roman Catholic traditions (including Real Presence - Roman par excellence!) are precisely that, Roman Catholic, and have been considered unbiblical by Christians since the emergence of the Papacy.
I would suggest you study the early Church once again. It would not take long until you begin to see the doctrine of the "Real Presence" (again it's in the thread title, so I'll use it) is taught prominently in the Early Church. I have pasted several quotes from various Church Fathers, and I will do so again if I need to, but I'd recommend reading the thead in its entirety. (which I always try to do before I jump in on an ongoing conversation)

The Reformation brought about the public rejection of these traditions and the public establishment of the Bible as the only authoritative, infallible, source of guidance and doctrine for man.
Well, as I'm sure the Lutherans will tell you (and as I've learned recently) - they do not necessarily see it this way. Nor would the Anglicans (I'm guessing). But irregardless, you may disagree with the Roman Catholics, but you still have to deal with the Early Fathers and the testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church and her doctrines.

Incidentally, would you not agree that any traditon that presents itself as equal in authority to Scripture already stands condemned? And that the denomination that procaims such equality stands condemned with it?
I would be a heretic! God forbid! Or as the Russians like to say, "Is Outrage!"

Furthermore, how could the Real Presence traditions have their origin in apostolic times (as your statement suggests)? It is no secret that the Real Presence traditions, in the form they have come down to us, emerged out of the obscurity (and apostacy) of the Dark Ages.
I do not doubt that many doctrines such as transubstatiation (it's too late for spell check, but I think I got it), were defined later in the Roman Church as a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. I would recommend studying early church history. Read the discription of worship by St. Justin Martry for example.

Yes, and that is why we reject (as contrary to epistle and word) the grossly carnal, man made, idolatrous, literalistic, Real Presence traditions.
That may be what you reject it and why you reject it, but your foundation is weak and your roof is crumbling. Change houses.

The Real Presence tradition was not one of them, unless you hold that the Council of Trent was a source of truths, which I am sure you do not, unless you are a Roman Catholic.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, as I've made clear. This is why I recommend you read the entire thread in its entirety. I've tried my best to read everything written in this discussion, but I haven't responded to everything because some things were specifically addressed to others.

The post apostolic definitions of truth were found necessary by men who were ceasing to rely exclusively on the Word of God.
You are wrong. Such things as the Creeds and the 7 Ecumenical councils were formed to battle heresies - and I would dare say that were it not for these martyrs and theologians, we would not be Christian today. But lucky enough for you and me, God worked through these 'post apostolic' (as if the Church died with the apostles!) men.

By men who believed God's Word needed buttresssing by human tradition.
Who said this! Surely not the Early Fathers. Is Outrage! (I love that expression now)

Does God's Word need Church Councils to define the truths it so clearly lays out? Only if the Holy Spirit's efficiency as teacher is put in doubt!
This is ridiculous (not you)! You are saying instead that the Holy Spirit stopped working in the Church after the scriptures were written. Should I remind you who set the canon of the scripture!?

And your post would indicate (correct me if I am wrong) that you are one in the long tradition of men who would caution against allowing the Holy Spirit to teach and guide simple sheep. Much preferring, instead, to put trust in the traditions of men.
You are wrong. I am in a long line (God Willing!) of men who believe that the Holy Spirit never stopped working in God's church. That when the Bible says to be in obedience, that I should. That when Paul wrote that some are set as teachers, that I should be a student. That when Paul wrote that some are set as pastors - that I should be a sheep. There is not dichotomy between these two things - I personally can be the temple of the Holy Spirit - led and guided by the Holy Spirit, but only in context of God's Holy Church.


And never forget also John's words, concluding his long 1John2 teaching on the antichrists in the church.

The anointing which you have received of him abideth in you and you need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abaide in him

Should we obey churches/denominations which do not proclaim this truth as foundational and which do not urge their sheep to rely exclusively on the Holy Spirit as teacher?
Any Church that does not teach the doctrine of the apostles (may they be accursed!) should not be followed - for it is the Spirit of God working in the Church that guides and directs all men, and all men as they are joined to the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Spirit of God.

Sadly, most denominations have, following Rome's example, substituted themselves for the Holy Spirit. Would you not agree?
I'd say that the majority of Protestant denominations, in trying to flee Rome, have shed also the apostolic faith that Rome had draped in un-Orthodox dogma and doctrine. But the Protestants have never became what they wanted to be - instead they became scattered and divided. It is sad. It is a shame. God have mercy on us all.

Rusty

[Maxentius]

Hello john.s

Here is my exposaition on John 6 and whether or not it refers to Communion.

I read the passage a few times and I also consulted some comentaries and I think that part of John 6 refers to Communion and part does not. Here is why:

In the beginning of the chapter (verses 1-15) we have an account of Jesus feeding the 5000. Naturally, those who were fed were astonished and believed Jesus was the Prophet God had promised.

The next section describes Jesus walking on water. Finally, we get to the "bread of life" discourse. In verswe 25 Jesus says that all they wanted was to fill their bellies and that he would givwe them food from God the Father. It is important to note that Jesus mentions that they should labor for the food that will not perish (v. 27). So what should they do? Believe in Jesus Christ. So far I do not think Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper--he is speaking about faith in him as the means to eternal life. The others say that they want a sign (v. 30) and Jesus says that he is the bread of life who came down from heaven. Jesus, the bread of life is like the manna in that he is from heaven, but unlike the manna in that Jesus is the true bread from heaven.

So far I still do not think Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper because he is making a comparison between which kind of bread saves and which does not. Jesus is still the bread from heaven who gives eternal life to those who believe in him.

In verses 41 to 48 Jesus begins to dispute with the grumblers : "So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died."

Just as Jesus told the crowd, he compares himself to the manna from heaven, but I still don't think he is speaking about the Lord's Supper because his remarks are still in the "compare beliefe in me, which brings life, and other bread you seek..." The Jews did not believe in him which is why he rebukes them, stating that only those tought by the Father will believe in him.

Finally,as the argument between Jesus and the Jews progresses, Jesus answers them in a way to stop themin their tracks: Not only is Jesus the bread from the Father, not only must one believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, but "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."("gnaw", in the Greek!) his flesh and drink his blood. His flesh is true, i.e. real, food--the same with his blood.

Whoever eats Jesus' flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. Now I believe he is speaking about his Supper.

[Maxentius]

As far as I am aware, Roman Catholic traditions (including Real Presence - Roman par excellence!) are precisely that, Roman Catholic, and have been considered unbiblical by Christians since the emergence of the Papacy. The Reformation brought about the public rejection of these traditions and the public establishment of the Bible as the only authoritative, infallible, source of guidance and doctrine for man.

The Roman doctrine is that the bread and wine are no longer present--only Jesus' body and blood. Thus the RCC believes we receive Jesus' body and blood, they just add Aristotalian categories to try and explain what is going on.

Also, within the tradition os the early church, it was not unheard of for Scripture to have a higher authority than other parts of the tradition. Also, the Orthodox (feel free to correct me tizz!) see Scripture as part of the tradition, not opposed to Tradition. For them their whole tradition does not contradict Scripture.

Incidentally, would you not agree that any traditon that presents itself as equal in authority to Scripture already stands condemned? And that the denomination that procaims such equality stands condemned with it?

I think you have the more radical Sola Scriptura doctrine in mind. For Lutherans, Scriptutre is the sole source of teachings we can hold other to. But it is OK to believe something if it does not contradict Scripture. Some examples are:

Some Lutherans believe that Mary was always a virgin. (The word used for brothers may mean cousins etc.)

Some Lutherans believe that the elements in Holy Communion remain Jesus' body and blood afterward (consecrationists), some say that is not so (receptionists).

There are Lutheran monastaries.

Furthermore, how could the Real Presence traditions have their origin in apostolic times (as your statement suggests)? It is no secret that the Real Presence traditions, in the form they have come down to us, emerged out of the obscurity (and apostacy) of the Dark Ages.

If yo umean the RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation, yes. But as Tizzdale pointed out, beliefe in the Real Presence was unanimous as far as we can tell.

This brings up another point. lutherans do not discard Tradition--traditions are fine as long as they do not contradict Scrioture. Thus Lutherans accept the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed from the early church because they are correct expositions of Scripture. As a matter of fact, if it was possible to convene a real world-wide church council, Lutherans would be bound by that too.

Yes, and that is why we reject (as contrary to epistle and word) the grossly carnal, man made, idolatrous, literalistic, Real Presence traditions.

What is idolatrous about receiveng Jesus body and blood according to his promise and copmmand?

I wonder, you you think that Jesus' words "Take and eat, this is my bldy" and "Take and eat, this is my blood" were meant to be believed or explained away?

The Real Presence tradition was not one of them, unless you hold that the Council of Trent was a source of truths, which I am sure you do not, unless you are a Roman Catholic.

There is more than one doctrine of the Real Presence. I think it is more convenient if we concentrate on whether Jesus' body and blood are distributed because of the differences in RP doctrines.

[Jezz]

But you are rock solid certain that somehow Jesus can call the bread His literal broken body, even through His body had not yet been broken,
Here we go again. This is a false contradiction, as I have demonstrated about 7 times already. Allow me to demonstrate it again for about the 8th time.

Your error lies in the fact that you say we "call the bread His literal broken body". You keep inserting the word "broken" in there. That word does not appear in the text. Jesus simply said "This is my body", and that is the key premise of Real Presence. The key premise is not "the bread is Christ's broken body", but simply "the bread is Christ's body".

So start from that premise: we believe that the bread is literally Christ's body.

Now, a couple of direct questions for you:

1. The bread that Jesus handed out to His disciples to eat - had it already been broken?
2. Given the premise of Real Presence (ie, that the bread is literally Christ's body), then according to Real Presence, had Christ's body already been broken?

I note that I've asked you several direct questions in my last posts to you and you consistently avoid them. I don't understand what was so hard about these questions that you avoided answering them altogether. Perhaps you mistook them for rhetorical questions...

In an effort to actually get you to answer this direct question on this occasion, I'm going to offer you pearls - 1 pearl for each answer (right or wrong), + 1 pearl for each right answer + a bonus pearl for getting both of them right - for a maximum of 5 pearls. Think you can manage that? Or will you avoid answering my questions yet again?
Well Muz - I've left this for a few days. I know that you've been posting a lot elsewhere. Surely it can't take you that much effort to reply to two simple yes/no questions? :smile:
(Btw, this makes 9 times I've had to ask you for a response...)

[George Blaisdell]

As far as I am aware, Roman Catholic traditions (including
Real Presence - Roman par excellence!) are precisely that,
Roman Catholic, and have been considered unbiblical by
Christians since the emergence of the Papacy.


Sounds kinda Romophobic... Call it Roman, and then everybody gets to spit on it...

The Problem is, when you just call it Biblical, you've suddenly got as many opinions as you have Bible believers... And we both know that there were not, in Apostolic times, thousands of differing individual Biblical opinions in Christ's Church, yes?


The Reformation brought about the public rejection of these
traditions and the public establishment of the Bible as the
only authoritative, infallible, source of guidance and doctrine
for man.


Yup - And now, it's every Bible-believer for his own idiosyncratic point of doctrinal view, and everyone argues with everyone - Ever see THAT in the Bible??


Incidentally, would you not agree that any traditon that
presents itself as equal in authority to Scripture already
stands condemned?


Well, I would tend to take the Bible at it's word, when it says that it is the EKKLESIA [the Church] that is the ground and pillar of truth... It NEVER says that the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth... And when those words were written, there was one faith, one Church, one God in three Persons, one Gospel, and the only Bible was the lxx...


It is no secret that the Real Presence traditions, in the
form they have come down to us, emerged out of the
obscurity (and apostacy) of the Dark Ages.


You need to study Church History... All you seem to have is anti-Roman Reformational prejudices without much knowledge... Read some of Jezz's stuff on this thread - He did his homework on Church history, and seems to have a flair for it, and is very knowledgable - Much more than me - And I really think you will be astonished at what you will find... Christianity is not defined by western post-Enlightenment Christianity, but by the Historical Apostolic Church - And Rome was, for the first thousand years, a part of the communion that IS that Church. She split off from that Communion in 1054, and sadly we have not been able to reconcile ever since, and your Reformation enlightenment was and is a response to Her apostatic excesses.


Yes, and that is why we reject (as contrary to epistle and
word) the grossly carnal, man made, idolatrous, literalistic,
Real Presence traditions.


We must be reading different Bibles...


Does God's Word need Church Councils to define the truths it so clearly lays out?


The Truth it clearly lays out is that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, so that IF you want the truth, the Church is the Biblical place to seek it... Your options are the Church, or your own human opinions of what correct doctrine is... Because your doctrines of men are those of men interpreting Scripture, but the Church is the one that the Bible tells us to believe and obey... Don't you believe the Bible when it tells us to obey the Church Elders, and that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth??


Only if the Holy Spirit's efficiency as teacher is put in doubt!


It is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church as One...

Who is guiding the individual and privatized opinions of men reading the printing press Bible? There are as many doctrines as there are people forming their own opinions of what they are reading.... THAT is why the Bible says to look to the Church for the Truth, and not to a bunch of arguing individuals proclaiming their own opinions about a Bible they didn't write... Members of that early Apostolic Church wrote the New Testament...


And your post would indicate (correct me if I am wrong) that you are one in the long tradition of men who would caution against allowing the Holy Spirit to teach and guide simple sheep. Much preferring, instead, to put trust in the traditions of men.


It is individual and private personal opinions of Scripture that are the "traditions of men" that you so rightly reject... The Church is the one established by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and is theanthropic, for the Holy Spirit has never abandoned Christ's historic and Apostolic Church...


Sadly, most denominations have, following Rome's example, substituted themselves for the Holy Spirit. Would you not agree?


Pretty much almost all the Protestant churches have - The way it is now, every person is their own Pope - All they need is a Bible and their own personal interpretation given them by their ***private*** and "spiritual" revelation... Scary stuff...

I will take Christ's historic and apostolic Church over the personal opinions of the Bible given to me by individual and private men any day... I don't trust your opinions or theirs, and more, I especially do not trust my own. The Church has ironed out most of the doctrinal issues over the past 2000 years, and the veracity of the Church that wrote the Bible is well attested by the Bible -

Nowhere in the Bible will you find individuals reading their own Bible and correcting the Apostles... Paul corrected Peter - That is the Church correcting Herself... And THAT is very Biblical...

[geo] Arsenios

[john.s]

There you go with "how". Let us look at a previous exchange .............. ....................................

since you just asked me to explain "how" can we receive the body and blood of Christ "if...". In this case, you want to know how what we receive is the live Christ................................. ........................

I cannot explain "how" to you because Jesus Christ did not explain "how." ....................... ....................


You're welcome. But if you keep asking "how" I cannot help you, since I don't know how.Thank you very much for the detailed replies to some of my comments in your #233. However there is one matter I must clarify before continuing this discussion.

You have done this before and you are doing it again. Five times (see above) in your #233 you interpret my remarks/queries as being questions about "how" God does things.

May I draw your attention to my previous #185 where I said:

.....my enquiries are not about how or why God does things, but about why LUTHERANS do things.

Can I stress that again?

My questions are not about "how God does things"; it would be as foolish to ask such a question of a man as it would be to expect him to be able to answer it......

All my questions are about why Lutherans believe and do as they do, and how they justify their doctrines and customs.

So, if you see a "how" question (and I will try to phrase them differently to avoid further confusion) please assume that I am asking you how (based on Scripture, not guess work) Lutherans justify the doctrines under scrutiny.

The problem we are facing in this discussion is with the Roman church and its Lutheran followers' assumptions about the "hows" of God. In the doctrine under scrutiny, they have institutionalized their outlandish assumptions about the "how" of God's administration of the Last Supper and then foisted these assumptions, in the form of "Real Presence", on simple sheep; the latter, having never been taught by their pastors to be "Berean" sheep, are unable to distinguish the true from the false.

We have already seen the sybilline answer ("it is a mystery") that their pastors have prepared to answer these poor sheep's questions about "how can God do such a strange thing?".

Set your mind at rest, Maxentius, my questions are about Lutheran doctrines, not about God's "hows", and so you will not be obliged to invoque "mysteries"!

I have had some problems with my computer, hence the delay in replying, but I will shortly respond in detail to your comments.

Thank you also for the patience with which you are defending a difficult position.

[themuzicman]

Gee, Jezz, let's just assume the conclusion and be done with it!

Assume for a moment that Jezz is a featherless chicken.

Does Jezz eat grain based products? I believe he eats bread.
Featherlss chickens eat grain based products, therefore, based upon our assumption, Jezz is a featherless chicken.

So start from that premise: we believe that the bread is literally Christ's body.

Now, a couple of direct questions for you:

1. The bread that Jesus handed out to His disciples to eat - had it already been broken?

The bread, yes.

2. Given the premise of Real Presence (ie, that the bread is literally Christ's body), then according to Real Presence, had Christ's body already been broken?

If the bread is assumed to literally be His body, then yes.

Michael

[Jezz]

Gee, Jezz, let's just assume the conclusion and be done with it!

Assume for a moment that Jezz is a featherless chicken.

Does Jezz eat grain based products? I believe he eats bread.
Featherlss chickens eat grain based products, therefore, based upon our assumption, Jezz is a featherless chicken.
*sigh* We've been over this three times already. :smile: Never mind, I will try again.

Firstly, I need to remind you what I am actually trying to get you to admit here. From this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=13&pp=16#post637113):

"Real presence is a contradiction. The bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken. The blood was poured out, but it wasn't yet poured out."

[snip]

Will you finally admit that this particular argument against the Real Presence is flawed?

Note what I am not asking you to do here: I'm not asking you to admit that Real Presence is correct. I'm not asking you to admit than any of your other arguments are flawed. Rest easy knowing that any admission here will not be taken as a concession on any other point. I just want you to admit that on this one point, you were wrong, and therefore acknowledge that you should stop using this flawed argument. Can you do that? The pearls are still available...

The same applies here. Because I'm not trying to prove Real Presence, any complaints that you have about me "assuming what I am trying to prove" (such as the one above about me being a featherless chicken) are strawmen. Why, then, do I insist on assuming Real Presence to make this argument? Because you are trying to prove Real Presence false using a proof by contradiction. You explicitly state that this is your intention: "Real Presence is a contradiction", the implied conclusion being "therefore, it is false".

As I pointed out in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=9&pp=16#post630720), in order to construct a valid proof by contradiction, one must assume the negation of the premise to be proved. Given that you wish to prove that Real Presence is false, the negation of this premise is "Real Presence is true". You must assume this when you construct your proof by contradiction, otherwise your proof is invalid.

As your answers below to my direct questions show, when one tries to establish a valid proof by contradiction, the alleged contradiction ("the bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken") disappears.

1. The bread that Jesus handed out to His disciples to eat - had it already been broken?

The bread, yes.

2. Given the premise of Real Presence (ie, that the bread is literally Christ's body), then according to Real Presence, had Christ's body already been broken?

If the bread is assumed to literally be His body, then yes.
Hooray! Finally, you directly answered my direct questions! :smile: You receive full marks for your answers, and your pearls are on their way, as promised.

Now, onto the next set of questions:

3. Given that, according to Real Presence doctrine, the body had already been broken, do you admit that your statement "but it hadn't been broken" is incorrect?

4. Do you therefore acknowledge that no contradiction exists?

5. Having acknowledged that no contradiction exists, do you therefore admit that this particular argument fails as a disproof of the Real Presence?

6. Having acknowledged that the argument fails, will you commit to cease using it in arguments against the Real Presence?

I will award 2 pearls for each concession, + 2 bonus for conceding all = a total of 10 pearls.

Again note: I am not asking you to admit that Real Presence is true. As you quite rightly point out, none of what I have done here proves Real Presence at all.

[themuzicman]

Do you want the questions answered in the context of "Real Presense says" or in the context of "in reality"?

Michael

[Maxentius]

You have done this before and you are doing it again. Five times (see above) in your #233 you interpret my remarks/queries as being questions about "how" God does things.

Actually, you did ask "how", as I quoted in my reply to you.


All my questions are about why Lutherans believe and do as they do, and how they justify their doctrines and customs.

We "justify" our doctrine by Jesus' words "take, eat, this is my body" and "take, drink, this is my blood". I also do not think we have to "justify" our doctrine since the words are what they are. It is incumbent on the one asserting figurative language to show that the language is figurative.

But here is a thumbnail:
Jesus was not being poetic so we should be careful if we want to change the meanings of any words.
The context is not a figurative one, i.e. Jesus is not teaching in parables. Jesus did not teach his disciples in parables he did not explain to them, that was for public teaching. The Last Supper was a private affair. There is no explanation of the "hidden" meaning behind his words, his disciples did not ask him to explain this difficult thing, so the words are literal.

If basically the whole Church believed Jesus' words were literal for over 1000 years why should we believe otherwise without clear indications from the text itself?

So, if you see a "how" question (and I will try to phrase them differently to avoid further confusion) please assume that I am asking you how (based on Scripture, not guess work) Lutherans justify the doctrines under scrutiny.

I told you several times why we believe as we do. But you just assert "figurative" because you say it cannot be, this is because you ask the question "how" even if it is only implicitly. Since you cannot explain "how" Jesus' body and blood are in the bread and wine you re-interpret his words as figurative to fit within your intellectual paradigm. When I say it is a "mystery" am not being sybelline (:hehe: I did like that rhetorical flair!), it is just a fact that I cannot explain, and as a slave of Jesus Christ it is not my place to force my Lord and Master into a box I can "understand."

The problem we are facing in this discussion is with the Roman church and its Lutheran followers' assumptions about the "hows" of God.

Lutherans are not followers of the Roman doctrine here, I have explained that before too. The RCC adds philosophical categories to explain "how" the Real Presence occurs. We do noat ask "how", we do not teach "consubstantiation." We teach that the bread and wine are Jesus' true body and blood because that is what Scripture says--that the bread is Jesus' body and the wine is Jesus' blood.

In the doctrine under scrutiny, they have institutionalized their outlandish assumptions about the "how" of God's administration of the Last Supper and then foisted these assumptions, in the form of "Real Presence", on simple sheep; the latter, having never been taught by their pastors to be "Berean" sheep, are unable to distinguish the true from the false.

I fail to see where the assumptions are outlandish since his words are his words and we all agree about what he actually said.

We simply take Jesus ast his word. I also do not think we need clever people to explain Jesus' plain words. (More below) Incedentally, the Bereans checked what St. Paul said against Scripture they did not just believe him.

I have explained several times to Vfarris01 that merely asserting that Jesus used figurative language when he instituted his supper is just that, a mere assertion. There is no reason in the text to assume that Jesus was speaking figuratively; it is only when we begin to ask "how" and do not like the answers (or lack of answers) we receive that some question his simple words "this is my body" and "this is my blood."

I asked this question before but I will try again--In context, were Jesus' words meant to be believed or explained?

You see, all those "simple" people would be led astray if Jesus meant his words to be figurative, i.e. explained to them by the better educated. If they were figurative and his words are so confusing don't you think he would have explained them? He did not. St. Paul uses similar "confusing" language without explanation. It is only when clever people come along and say "God can't.." that the doctrine is called into question--all based on their own reason and strength I might add.

Set your mind at rest, Maxentius, my questions are about Lutheran doctrines, not about God's "hows", and so you will not be obliged to invoque "mysteries"!

OK, ask about Lutheran doctrines, but please to not say we follow Rome, we do not.

I have had some problems with my computer, hence the delay in replying, but I will shortly respond in detail to your comments.

Thank you also for the patience with which you are defending a difficult position.

You are welcome, and there is no rush, no one is trying to "win" a debate here. :smile:

[john.s]

Thank you very much, Maxentius, for answering questions in much detail, although unfortunately your answers raise more questions than they provide Scriptural answers. Please see my responses below:

Christ is present everywhere two or more are gathered in his name. He is also present because he is omnipresent. He is specially present during Holy Communion because he promised he would be there--"This is my body...this is my blood." .Please show me the Scriptural basis for the Lutherans' assumption that some of Jesus' presences would be more "special" than others. This is very much "Roman Catholic" thinking. Rather like the belief that some sins are more mortal than others.

I will say it again: Christ is risen (He is risen indeed!) He is alive today and forevermore. If you say that his body is dead you make a division in the person of Christ.I don't quite know what you are getting at, since no one has denied Jesus' resurrection! What we are discussing is your denial that the Lord's Table is a celebration of His death.

Jesus Last Supper words clearly point to His death, when His body would be broken and blood shed, and He clearly identifies the former with the bread and the latter with the wine. Thus here you have a division for starters, or do you deny the body was seperated from the blood?


Now, it seems that you say that if the Real Presence is true that it must be Jesus' dead body and separated blood we receive. Exactly! Dr Watson..... Isn't that what Jesus Himself made clear in every Scripture passage that quotes His Last Supper words?


I do not think such a thing is necessary. Not necessary? Is obedience to Christ's commands not necessary? Please explain how you/Lutheran doctrine can deny the necessity of the above fundamental, Christ-defined, identification and distinction: bread=dead body/wine=shed blood.

Lutherans do not believe that we sacrafice during the Mass, ala the RCC--thus a "dead" body is not necessary.Nobody is asking Lutherans to go even further in their adaptation of Catholic dogmas (than they are already doing) by turning the Lord's Table into a "sacrifice"! However one would expect Lutherans to obey Jesus' instructions. And these instructions categorically identify the bread with His dead body and the wine with His shed blood.

Since you follow Rome in taking everything (in Jesus'Last Supper teaching) literally you must take the consequences literally, and these are that in your and the Roman Eucharist the dead body and shed blood of Christ MUST be present.

To say that this is "not necessary" indicates a "mix and match" Eucharistic theology. You take and mix what you like and leave out what you don't find "necessary". Very audacious, to say the least.

His body and blood is something we receive for our benefit,.Literal body and blood? or figurative/symbolical? Please clarify and provide Scriptural evidence for your conclusions.

Thus your questions are of no more than acedemic interest, if even that.,So I must assume that the Lutheran doctrines we are probing are also of no more than academic interest. I must confess that for me, nothing that has to do with God and His Word is of academic interest. What I place my faith in and what I reject is, for me, a matter of life and death.




Your protestations of incoherence place your reason above God's revelationI am trying to communicate with you on the level of human reason (illuminated by the Holy Spirit). But, from what you say, you obviously rank Lutheran Eucharistic tradition and your explanations of it on a par with divine revelation. Another leaf you have taken from Rome.

Are you going to invoque infallibility next? And hurl anathemas? (Just pulling yr leg Max, I don't think yr that crazy)


Jesus said "This is my body..this is my blood" and you write reams of posts to "prove" that he didn't really mean it. Why?As already pointed out above, it is YOU/Lutherans, not me, who deny the literal meaning of "my body...my blood" when it doesn't suit you.


Regarding your point above, I fail to see how we exclude his body and blood from the altar, since we say he is present. I think your question re: "is it Christ's live or dead body" is irrelavent. Since you refuse to identify the bread with His dead body and the wine with His shed blood you have virtually EXCLUDED them from your Eucharist.

Your claim that my insistence on this point is "irrelevant" demonstrates a remarkably cavalier approach to God's Word and, sadly, disrespect for Jesus' clear instructions.


I do not really know, all I know is that it is his body and blood I receive.Good, thank you for being frank about it - you are none the wiser about what you are receiving. Let me enlighten you: you are (under your literalistic interpretation of Jesus' Last Supper instructions) receiving the dead flesh and the shed blood of Christ!

And it is also possible to commemerate his death by actually eating his body and drinking his bloodPlease explain what you mean by "actually eating his body and drinking his blood". I thought only Roman Catholics did that.

Finally, we participate in calvary by eating his flesh and drinking his blood.Please quote the Scripture/s where "participation in calvary" is linked to such eating.

More to come on subsequent posts.

Shalom

[Jezz]

Do you want the questions answered in the context of "Real Presense says" or in the context of "in reality"?
For question three, you need to assume that Real Presence is true. As I took great pains to explain to you, that is how proof by contradiction works.

For the others, the truth or otherwise of Real Presence is irrelevant. As I said, I am not at this stage trying to prove to you that Real Presence is correct - my immediate goal is much more modest. I'm trying to prove to you that it is not contradictory.

Allow me to repeat the questions for your benefit:

3. Given that, according to Real Presence doctrine, the body had already been broken, do you admit that your statement "but it hadn't been broken" is incorrect?

4. Do you therefore acknowledge that no contradiction exists?

5. Having acknowledged that no contradiction exists, do you therefore admit that this particular argument fails as a disproof of the Real Presence?

6. Having acknowledged that the argument fails, will you commit to cease using it in arguments against the Real Presence?

A revised rewards scheme, too - I will award 1 pearl for each answer, + 1 pearl for each concession, + 2 bonus for conceding all = a total of 10 pearls.

[themuzicman]

For question three, you need to assume that Real Presence is true. As I took great pains to explain to you, that is how proof by contradiction works.

For the others, the truth or otherwise of Real Presence is irrelevant. As I said, I am not at this stage trying to prove to you that Real Presence is correct - my immediate goal is much more modest. I'm trying to prove to you that it is not contradictory.

OK, misunderstanding in "contradiction". I didn't mean internally contradictory, but that it contradicts reality. :doh:

Allow me to repeat the questions for your benefit:

3. Given that, according to Real Presence doctrine, the body had already been broken, do you admit that your statement "but it hadn't been broken" is incorrect?

Incorrect in that Real presence thinks it was broken yes. This is where it disconnects from reality.

4. Do you therefore acknowledge that no contradiction exists?

Internally, yes.

5. Having acknowledged that no contradiction exists, do you therefore admit that this particular argument fails as a disproof of the Real Presence?

No. You're pushing me into a proof of internal contradiction, whereas my argument was for a disconnect between the doctrine of real presence and reality.

6. Having acknowledged that the argument fails, will you commit to cease using it in arguments against the Real Presence?

As an internal contradiction, yes. As a disconnect from reality, no.

Michael

[john.s]

Many thanks for trying to clarify the Orthodox position (and no doubt its twin, the Lutheran). However, much of what you say, religious though it may sound, does not really make any sense, Scripturally or in terms of our God-given sense of logic.

Why is there this disconnect by what is "figurative" and "real"; "symbolic" and "actual". This is not the teaching of the Church. What do you mean by "this disconnect" that goes against Church teaching?

If you would have read the quote from Fr. Thomas Hopko on the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, Sorry to trouble you but could you indicate under what sequence number the Hopko quote was given as I cannot find it!

you'd know that the Lutheran as well as the Orthodox teaching is that we should not interpret the Eucharist carnally, but spiritually.Actually, there is not much difference between the Orthodox/Lutheran and Roman Catholic interpretations; the belief that a "special" presence of Jesus Christ (be it physical or spiritual) can be conjured up by a specific prayer is about as grossly carnal as one can get........... This kind of conjuring up is common among pagans and demon worshippers and obviously has no place among Christians.

The true spiritual interpretation is the one held by the majority of Protestants - that the Lord's Table is a commemoration, not a visitation.

During the consecration prayers, we acknowledge that the presence of Christ in the bread and wine is performed through the working of the Spirit of God.What you mean is that, according to your doctrine, someone speaks the right words and God obediently turns up; please quote the Scriptures that instruct God's people to conjure up the presence of Christ in this way.

This is why there is no "Gotcha!" when Paul is quoted using the terms 'bread' and 'body', 'blood' and 'wine' interchangeably. We'd say, "Well, duh!"You are contradicting yourself! Your previous sentence has just described how the Orthodox (and no doubt the Lutherans also) get their "Gotcha" (their "real presence"), simply by making a consecration prayer!

[Maxentius]

Please show me the Scriptural basis for the Lutherans' assumption that some of Jesus' presences would be more "special" than others. This is very much "Roman Catholic" thinking. Rather like the belief that some sins are more mortal than others.

The Scriptural basis is that Jesus promised his body and blood in Communion. Because he is God he is also present generally because he is omnipresent. He is also present whenever two or three of his people are gathered in his name. These are not the same types of presence as hie presence in his supper.

Also, Jesus dwells in his believers, isn't that a "special" presence too?

I don't quite know what you are getting at, since no one has denied Jesus' resurrection! What we are discussing is your denial that the Lord's Table is a celebration of His death.

You asked if we receive Jesus' resurrection body and I said yes. Is Communion a celebration of Jesus' death? Yes it is. But it does not follow that therefore the flesh and blood we eat and drink are "dead" in the normal sense of the word. More in this vein later.

Jesus Last Supper words clearly point to His death, when His body would be broken and blood shed, and He clearly identifies the former with the bread and the latter with the wine. Thus here you have a division for starters, or do you deny the body was seperated from the blood?

Jesus is beginning his sacrifice at the last supper--remember, he gives up his life, no one takes it away from him. The work of his bodily self sacrafice begins at his supper and ends when he says "it is finished." There is a continuum here. In a similar way, St. John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This was long before Jesus was set to die, yet in a way the work was already begun--he was already taking away the sin of the world, and the main part of that work is Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross.

Do do I deny his body and blood are separate in the bread and wine respectively? No, I do not. In my remark I was still pondering Vfarris01's belief that Jesus does not have a body and you assertion sounded like a sort of denial of Jesus' presently having a body. I am sorry if I mininterpreted you.

Exactly! Dr Watson..... Isn't that what Jesus Himself made clear in every Scripture passage that quotes His Last Supper words?

No, it is not clear at all. Jesus does not say "Take, eat, this is my dead body" or "Take eat, this is the body I will sacrafice tomorrow..", he says "Take, eat, this is my body" because he already, as High Priest, began his self sacrifice. If Jesus Christ himself, God in the flesh, says that something is is flesh and orders me to eat it, I will believe him and do as he says.

Not necessary? Is obedience to Christ's commands not necessary? Please explain how you/Lutheran doctrine can deny the necessity of the above fundamental, Christ-defined, identification and distinction: bread=dead body/wine=shed blood.

This is a main point of yours, so I will not respond to every specific occurance.

I do not think that it is necessary, even if I grant your assumption, that Jesus must for ever give us his dead body in his supper. When he said "do this" he meant eat his body and drink his blood--the particular kind of body is not directly revealed in Scripture. When Jesus said "This is my body/blood" he was performing a wonder, like the way he created wine out of water or the way he multiplied fish and bread. Is it really a pertinent question to ask "what kind of fish were they, did they have bones, did those who ate have to prepare them?" or "What kind of grape did Jesus use to crerate his wine? Doesn't wine require yeast too? Was there any yeast in the wine Jesus created?" These types of questions are interesting, but Scripture does not answer them. And I think that is the type of question you are asking. Scripture says that Jesus created wine, and Scripture says that the bread in Communion is his body and the wine is his blood. As per my earlier question to you, I think these passages were meant to be believed rather than explained, or explained away.

You may be trying to derive a cobtradiction by stating that if we receive Jesus' body and blood in his Supper it must be his dead body and separated blood, but I do not grant your assumption that it must be his dead body throughout history we eat, it is his body, which he promised to us in his words of institution.

Does the separation of the body and blood mean death? Yes, I can grant that. But Jesus' body is food indeed and his blood is drink indeed. Eating his flesh and drinking hos blood is partaking of God's perfect Paschal lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Since you follow Rome in taking everything (in Jesus'Last Supper teaching) literally you must take the consequences literally, and these are that in your and the Roman Eucharist the dead body and shed blood of Christ MUST be present.

1) I do not follow Rome, please stop saying that I do. I explained this to you before.
2) Just because Rome teaches something does not make it wrong. For instance, Rome teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus Crhrist. Do you deny the bodily resurrection because it is "Romish?"
3) As I stated above, it is not necessary that Jesus' flesh and blood be dead in the Eucharist (though I give you credit because I have never heard that argument before!). The sacrifice began there, and he was doing the work of reconciling God and mankind even before this, as per St. John the Baptist.

To say that this is "not necessary" indicates a "mix and match" Eucharistic theology. You take and mix what you like and leave out what you don't find "necessary". Very audacious, to say the least.

Actually, I use the analogy of faith to interpret Scripture.

Literal body and blood? or figurative/symbolical? Please clarify and provide Scriptural evidence for your conclusions.

You already know the answer to that. I wrote it up a bit in my previous response to you above, #261.

I am trying to communicate with you on the level of human reason (illuminated by the Holy Spirit). But, from what you say, you obviously rank Lutheran Eucharistic tradition and your explanations of it on a par with divine revelation. Another leaf you have taken from Rome.

I have quoted Scripture extensively, all you have argued is the impossibility of the Real Presence either by pure reason or dismissing it because it is "Romish." In other words, you believe that Jesus' words "This is my body/blood" were meant to be explained by clever theologians, not to be believed because they are God's revelation to us.

Are you going to invoque infallibility next? And hurl anathemas? (Just pulling yr leg Max, I don't think yr that crazy)

You had me going for a second! :lmbo:

Please explain what you mean by "actually eating his body and drinking his blood". I thought only Roman Catholics did that.

The bread is Jesus' body, and the wine is his blood. When I eat the bread I eat his body, when I drink the wine I drink his blood.

Please quote the Scripture/s where "participation in calvary" is linked to such eating.

Matt 26:26-28:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The blood is poured out for the remission of sins, so we receive the remission of sins during Communion.

Luke 22:19-20

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Jesus' body is given for us and his blkood is poured out for us.

The theological signifigance is clear when we read St. Paul that the eating the bread is the sharing of the body of Christ and drinking the wine is the sharing of the blood of Christ. It is a means Christ himself instituted for the forgiveness of sins.

[Maxentius]

the belief that a "special" presence of Jesus Christ (be it physical or spiritual) can be conjured up by a specific prayer is about as grossly carnal as one can get........... This kind of conjuring up is common among pagans and demon worshippers and obviously has no place among Christians.

[snip]


You are contradicting yourself! Your previous sentence has just described how the Orthodox (and no doubt the Lutherans also) get their "Gotcha" (their "real presence"), simply by making a consecration prayer!

Hold on there, we do not "conjure" Jesus Christ be the invocation of his words. Communion occurs according to Jesus' promise and his ordinance. He is there because he promised to be there. When you invoke Jesus Christ in your prayers, are you "conjuring" him or are you praying according to his command?

[john.s]

In my 235 I asked you:Do you believe Jesus is talking literally, or figuratively, in His John 6:48-58 teaching?



And if both, then when the former, and when the latter?




You answered:




I think it is a bit of both, I will get back to this later on tonight.I haven't seen you answer. Could you please answer my 235 question, or direct me to where you answered it?

Your "a bit of both" is intriguing - although it does sound like something characteristic of that "mix & match" theology: "I'll take what matches my ideas and mix it into my theology, and reject the rest...."

Sorry to be insistant and thank you for your patience.

[tizzidale]

Many thanks for trying to clarify the Orthodox position (and no doubt its twin, the Lutheran). However, much of what you say, religious though it may sound, does not really make any sense, Scripturally or in terms of our God-given sense of logic.Yes, we all know how much God esteemed logic in scripture.

What do you mean by "this disconnect" that goes against Church teaching?I meant what I said. There is not such dichotomy.


Sorry to trouble you but could you indicate under what sequence number the Hopko quote was given as I cannot find it!
This is a link to the material I quoted from. Please take the time to read it, if you have it.

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Holy-Eucharist.html

Actually, there is not much difference between the Orthodox/Lutheran and Roman Catholic interpretations; the belief that a "special" presence of Jesus Christ (be it physical or spiritual) can be conjured up by a specific prayer is about as grossly carnal as one can get........... This kind of conjuring up is common among pagans and demon worshippers and obviously has no place among Christians. You are being absurd, if I can be so blunt. (I think I just was) It is not a "conjuring" of the Holy Spirit, but it is a prayer of thanksgiving. You do still pray don't you? Or have you reasoned it away?


The true spiritual interpretation is the one held by the majority of Protestants - that the Lord's Table is a commemoration, not a visitation.
Ah, yes, let's ignore everything about the issue until the Reformation. Even then, let's ignore those reformers who still held to the Real Presence. Let us pick and choose our doctrines for our reasons. It seems I've heard the term "Popes unto themselves" mentioned on this thread before.

What you mean is that, according to your doctrine, someone speaks the right words and God obediently turns up; please quote the Scriptures that instruct God's people to conjure up the presence of Christ in this way. Wrong. See above.

You are contradicting yourself! Your previous sentence has just described how the Orthodox (and no doubt the Lutherans also) get their "Gotcha" (their "real presence"), simply by making a consecration prayer!You are sadly mistaken if you think for a minute that the Orthodox Church believe that we can make God do anything. You are fighting against the wind, blindfolded, and only you will end up being hurt.

Rusty

[john.s]

Dear George,

I respect your passion for your (Orthodox) interpretation of the Lord's Table (as expressed in your 223 post). It reminds me of mine when, in my early Roman Catholic days, I would get carried away with a mystical view of the things of God. I thank Him that, by His grace, my view of things is no longer mystical but based on the renewing of the mind - and, yes, as you point out, on our having the very mind of Christ.

It is that new mind in me which has questions about some of your (ex 223 post) statements below:

You really might want to consider Paul's words, when he tells us, regarding those who are mature in Christ, that "We are holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience..." And "We have the *nous* of Christ..." [*mind*]AMEN!! and AMEN!!

Christ broke the bread, blessing it, and then said, "Take, eat, this is My body..." The bread that is now His body is broken for us... It is not a bloody chunk of raw meat chopped out of His arm, but bread that is blessed by Christ Himself that is His Body...Since you are bound (for some reason) to a literal interpretation of this text, and since a literal interpretation would mean exactly that: "a chunk of raw meat", and since this is obviously (and rightly) repulsive to you, you are obliged to theorize and speculate and end up by simply repeating what Christ said in the first place. Why don't you just leave it at that and stop speculating?

The interface of time and eternity, of materiality and Spirit, of man and God, lives in this taking of the bread by Christ,This sounds very deep, but is it Scriptural? Please show me where God expresses Himself to us in this way in His Word, in connection with the Lord's Table or in any other context.

and blessing it, and breaking it for us, and feeding us from His very body...

Christ tells us that if we do NOT eat His flesh and drink His blood, we wll have no Life IN us... And then He feeds us and gives us drink, His body and His blood... That should not give much cognitive difficulty... Actually it does give quite a lot of cognitive difficulty; for a start, the teaching you are referring to here was not given at the Last Supper at all but long before, and in a completely different context, after the feeding of the 5000 thousand.

You are referring to the John 6 teaching and, if you are using this as a proof text for interpreting Jesus' Last Supper words, then you are well in line with Roman Catholic theology in this regards.

Do you really believe 1) that Jesus' John 6 teaching about "eating flesh and drinking blood" is to be taken literally, as it would seem you do? and 2) that Jesus Last Supper instructions are linked to that John 6 teaching?

His body and blood were not poured out and broken prior to the Last Supper - They were broken and poured out AT the Last Supper, and at every Communion [koinonia - common-mind] thereafter... Again I must ask, is this Scriptural?

Please show me where God's Word teaches that Jesus' body is broken and His blood shed on innumerable occasions.

Was Christ not referring to Himself when He said in His Word "But this man after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb10:12)?

Is Christ double minded, is He confused, is He unclear?

Some of the apostles did not recognize Christ after the Resurrection until he broke bread with them, yes? Then they knew Who He was...

This is Christ feeding His sheep... And He told the Apostles to feed His sheep, and they do feed His sheep, to this very day, in His holy body, the Church, that has never stopped feeding Christ's sheep, and in the Mystery of the faith, it is Christ feeding His Sheep through His servants, the diakonia [deacons], the priests [presbyteria], and the episkopoi [bishops/over-seers]... It seems that you believe that the feeding of God's sheep takes place exclusively at the Lord's Table. Please confirm.

Communion is the greatest mystery of the faith [held by the mature in a pure conscience] that Christians have, for by it, we eat our God, and drink His holy Blood, and have Life in us... And without it, we do not...Again, nothing to do with Christ's Last Supper teaching, but obviously your extrapolation of His John 6 teaching into a proof text for determining the meaning of the former. Please confirm.

If you think that you can reduce the mystery of the faith to human intellectual and conceptual propositions, then all you will end up with is a human faith...going out into exponential theoretical directions... But don't you see, George, that everything you have expressed is the fruit of "human intellectual and conceptual propositions" and of "going out into exponential theoretical directions", with a good dose of mysticism to spice things up.

If you really deplore such things (and I certainly agree with you that we should) why do you practise them?

May God give us the grace to humbly abide under His Word and the Holy Spirit's illumination of it!

Shalom

[Jezz]

OK, misunderstanding in "contradiction". I didn't mean internally contradictory, but that it contradicts reality. :doh:
Hmm, ok. But I don't think that helps you much. It simply means that your "disproof" of Real Presence (hereafter RP) rests on a begged question, ie:

1. RP is not true in reality.
2. Therefore, RP is in contradiction to reality.
3. Therefore, RP is not true in reality.

So your argument, even in its revised form, still doesn't prove RP to be false. And hence, you should cease using it.

3. Given that, according to Real Presence doctrine, the body had already been broken, do you admit that your statement "but it hadn't been broken" is incorrect?

Incorrect in that Real presence thinks it was broken yes. This is where it disconnects from reality.
2 pearls.

4. Do you therefore acknowledge that no contradiction exists?

Internally, yes.
2 pearls.

5. Having acknowledged that no contradiction exists, do you therefore admit that this particular argument fails as a disproof of the Real Presence?

No. You're pushing me into a proof of internal contradiction, whereas my argument was for a disconnect between the doctrine of real presence and reality.
Ok, given that I asked the wrong question, I will award you one pearl and give you a chance for two more with my next question.

6. Having acknowledged that the argument fails, will you commit to cease using it in arguments against the Real Presence?

As an internal contradiction, yes.
2 pearls.

That's a total of 7 - I'll have to give them to you in two installments (can't give more than 5 pearls per day to one person!). The first is on its way.

As a disconnect from reality, no.
Ok, now I dispute this statement. How exactly has this "proved" that RP is a disconnect from reality? It doesn't! You've simply begged the question, as I pointed out above. You have not proven that RP is a disconnect from reality, because you have assumed that RP is not reality in order to "prove" the disconnect from reality.

So here are your new questions:

7. Do you acknowledge that this argument begs the question, and therefore it is invalid as a disproof of RP?

8. Will you therefore commit to cease using it in arguments against RP?

1 pearl per answer + 1 pearl per concession + 1 for conceding all = 5 pearls. :smile:

[themuzicman]

Hmm, ok. But I don't think that helps you much. It simply means that your "disproof" of Real Presence (hereafter RP) rests on a begged question, ie:

1. RP is not true in reality.
2. Therefore, RP is in contradiction to reality.
3. Therefore, RP is not true in reality.

So your argument, even in its revised form, still doesn't prove RP to be false. And hence, you should cease using it.

Other than ignoring the argument that led to #1 as its conclusion...


So here are your new questions:

7. Do you acknowledge that this argument begs the question, and therefore it is invalid as a disproof of RP?

No. You've not reproduced my argument.

What I said was:

Because of stated scripture X and conditions Y and Z, Real Presence contradicts reality.
Because Real Presence contradicts reality, it is a false doctrine.

It is like my featherless chicken example. Internally, it is consistent, but doesn't reflect reality.

(Scripture X = Matthew 26:27-29 "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.'" Condition Y is that His blood hadn't yet been poured out. Condition Z is that Christ wouldn't drink of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE.)

Michael

[Jezz]

Other than ignoring the argument that led to #1 as its conclusion...
I didn't ignore it. It's the same begged question you've repeated ad nauseum for about the 10th time.

No. You've not reproduced my argument.
1 pearl for answering.

What I said was:

Because of stated scripture X and conditions Y and Z, Real Presence contradicts reality.
Because Real Presence contradicts reality, it is a false doctrine.

It is like my featherless chicken example. Internally, it is consistent, but doesn't reflect reality.
That Real Presence contradicts reality remains an unproven assertion on your part. The arguments you adduce to "prove" it are, as I am demonstrating, flawed. One at a time though - let us deal with condition Y, and I'll get to condition Z once you have admitted that condition Y does not constitute a valid argument.

(Scripture X = Matthew 26:27-29 "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.'"
Yes.

Condition Y is that His blood hadn't yet been poured out.
And this condition begs the very question at issue!!!!! As you admitted in post #238 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=659597#post656318), if RP is true, then His blood had been poured out. Therefore, you can make this assertion only if RP is false! Making this assertion is equivalent to asserting (not proving) that RP is false:

1. RP is false. (assumption)
2. Therefore, His blood had not yet been poured out. (you cannot make this assertion without assuming 1)
3. According to RP, His blood had been poured out.
4. Therefore, RP contradicts reality.
5. Therefore, RP is false.

The conclusion is a begged question, as it was assumed at 1.

Condition Z is that Christ wouldn't drink of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE.)
Condition Z is a completely different argument. I've made it quite clear, on several occasions, that I am focusing on condition Y (and its counterpart "His body hadn't yet been broken", found in 1 Corinthians). Please, try and stay focused.

[themuzicman]

And this condition begs the very question at issue!!!!! As you admitted in post #238 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=659597#post656318), if RP is true, then His blood had been poured out. Therefore, you can make this assertion only if RP is false! Making this assertion is equivalent to asserting (not proving) that RP is false:

I haven't asserted that it is false. In fact, I assumed it to be true for the sake of the argument.

1. RP is false. (assumption)
2. Therefore, His blood had not yet been poured out. (you cannot make this assertion without assuming 1)


Incorrect.

1. IF RP is true, then Christ's blood must have already literally been poured out at the last supper.
2. Christ's blood had not been literally poured out. (Historical fact. The last supper took place before the crucifixion.)
3. Therefore, RP is not true.

Condition Z is a completely different argument. I've made it quite clear, on several occasions, that I am focusing on condition Y (and its counterpart "His body hadn't yet been broken", found in 1 Corinthians). Please, try and stay focused.


OK, but let's remain focused both ways. I didn't assume RP was false. In fact, I assumed it true for the sake of the argument.

Michael

[Jezz]

I haven't asserted that it is false. In fact, I assumed it to be true for the sake of the argument.
Actually, you've asserted both - which is why you end up with a contradiction. :smile: The "false" assertion is implicit in a later assertion, which is probably why it is not immediately obvious to you.

Incorrect.

1. IF RP is true, then Christ's blood must have already literally been poured out at the last supper.
2. Christ's blood had not been literally poured out. (Historical fact. The last supper took place before the crucifixion.)
3. Therefore, RP is not true.
Ok, I think we're getting somewhere. :thumb:

Yes, I fully agree with you that the last supper took place before the crucifixion. No disagreements there. However, where I believe your argument fails is that this historical fact does not prove premise 2. You are relying on the assumption that the "pouring out of Christ's blood" literally refers to the crucifixion in order to derive premise 2. It is this assumption that is equivalent to asserting that RP is false. That is why your argument (IMO) begs the question.

Think of it this way: the "blood that had been poured out" refers to one of two possible events:

a. The pouring of the wine into the cup (the RP view).
b. The crucifixion (the non-RP view).

If we make no a-priori assumptions about which of these two is the referent, then either view is possible. However, you are assuming "b" to arrive at your second premise, which is equivalent to stating "RP is false" - thus ruling out "a" a-priori, and hence begging the question of RP's falsehood rather than proving it.

OK, but let's remain focused both ways. I didn't assume RP was false. In fact, I assumed it true for the sake of the argument.
I promise to try and stay focused. :thumb: I'm sorry if it seemed I was going off topic - hopefully now you can see how my point is relevant? I realise that you assumed that RP was true for the sake of argument - that's not at issue. However, you are also assuming it to be false (implicitly, not on purpose) when you assert your second premise.

[themuzicman]

Think of it this way: the "blood that had been poured out" refers to one of two possible events:

a. The pouring of the wine into the cup (the RP view).
b. The crucifixion (the non-RP view).

If we make no a-priori assumptions about which of these two is the referent, then either view is possible. However, you are assuming "b" to arrive at your second premise, which is equivalent to stating "RP is false" - thus ruling out "a" a-priori, and hence begging the question of RP's falsehood rather than proving it.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RP say that the wine is literally Jesus' blood?

Michael

[john.s]

Dear Rusty,

Thanks for your #252.

No, the men who wrote the Bible were fallible. But this only underscores what I've been saying. You say that the "traditions of men, yada yada yada. . ." (sorry if I sound sarcastic, it's very late and I wanted to do this b/f bed - i'm in a hurry not in a bad mood). But you believe that the Holy Spirit could guide men to write Holy Scripture, but not to practice Holy doctrine?But Rusty, surely you know full well that the men whose RP (real presence) traditions you seem to be so keen to follow were not the same men who wrote the Scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!! The RP beliefs developed gradually during centuries, long after the men who wrote Scripture had gone (not without leaving dire warnings about the false teachings and antichrists already then invading the church).

The men who wrote Scripture are absolutely silent about your elaborate RP doctrine; there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever taught it or practised it. In fact Paul's Lord's supper teaching is clear about it being a memorial. And there is nothing in Scripture to even hint at what you are defending. If the Lord's Last Supper words were meant by Him to be interpreted as you do it is inconceivable that not a hint of it should appear in Acts, or any of the Letters, or the Book of Revelation!

Therefore, the source of today's RP doctrines can only be the false teaching and apostacy in the church about which Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and Jude gave such abundant warnings.

One only needs to look at the testimony of history to see that! The evidence of the ease and speed with which seducing spirits and doctrines of demons (1Tim4) took root and prospered in an increasingly apostate church is overwhelming and all practices not based strictly on Sola Scriptura are highly suspect. Beware of the traditions of men, Rusty, go back to Scripture while you can.

Strange how you guys build an incredibly complex RP edifice on a few N.T. words, which you have to twist completely out of context to support your theory, and ignore the wealth of warnings in N.T. Scripture about false doctrines, antichrists and the imminent (right at the outset of the church age) apostacy!

But the "real presence" isn't really an Eastern Orthodox (from whose perspective I'm trying to speak from) term. If we are talking about the wine and bread being the Very Blood and Body of the Lord present in the Eucharist, then yes.A sort of consubstantiation, yes?


I would suggest you study the early Church once again. It would not take long until you begin to see the doctrine of the "Real Presence" (again it's in the thread title, so I'll use it) is taught prominently in the Early Church."......taught prominently in the Early Church"??? Nothing could be further from the truth!! RP took centuries to develop to its present form and even so has no Church Father unanimity to back it up. Also, it is a typical Roman Catholic tactic to bombard those who don't follow their RP (or other) beliefs with Church Father quotations quoted superficially and out of context (I'm not saying you do that, but over-enthusiasm could lead there).


I have pasted several quotes from various Church Fathers, and I will do so again if I need to, Don't waste your energy there. I think William Webster summed it up so that all can understand (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 121-122)

The truth of the matter is that the views of the early Church on the meaning of the eucharist and its relationship to the person of Christ are very similar to those one finds today and in the days of the Reformation when one compares the different Protestant and Roman Catholic views.

There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be that taught by Irenaeus or Justyn Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius.
William Webster: The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 121-122



If there is one issue which demonstrates the unreliability and confusion of "church fathers" the Eucharist/RP/Lord's table is it!


If there is one tactic cherished by opponents of Sola Scriptura it is the invocation of the "church fathers"; they prefer to drift in the currents of traditions of fallible men (among whom there is no unanimity) than to fix themselves on the rock of the Word, Jesus Christ, in Whom there is no shadow of turning. Don't be found among those opponents, Rusty!

I'll have to leave further comment on your #252 for later.

Shalom,


John.s

[spl_cadet]

The RP beliefs developed gradually during centuries, long after the men who wrote Scripture had gone (not without leaving dire warnings about the false teachings and antichrists already then invading the church).

"From the Eucharist and the prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7

St. Ignatius was taught by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop of Antioch, Evodius being the successor to St. Peter when he went on to Rome.

[tizzidale]

The truth of the matter is that the views of the early Church on the meaning of the eucharist and its relationship to the person of Christ are very similar to those one finds today and in the days of the Reformation when one compares the different Protestant and Roman Catholic views. There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be that taught by Irenaeus or Justyn Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius.
William Webster: The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 121-122Since you would rather go to Webster than to the sources, I'll do it for you. I'm feeling inquisitive myself tonight. But before I do, if you would care to reread the quote (cited earlier) from Thomas Hopko. He made it clear that the language of "symbol" and "memorial" are used often in the Holy Fathers, but that is to be expected - in fact those very words are used in the Orthodox services to this day. Also, let me make it clear to you that the Orthodox church does not teach transubstantiation. Although some Eastern theologians later adopted the term, they do not define it as the Roman Catholics do. In fact, you'll find that the Easter Church does not have an over-riding desire to define anything but the boundaries of correct teaching. So, your arguments from Webster immediately do not apply to the Eastern Church, because it is Roman Catholicism and its doctrine of transubstantiation Webster is writing about in his polemic.

Also, before we continue, I'd like to paste a quote from a Lutheran scholar who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. This quote is from (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm), a very good site for this topic from a Roman Catholic perspective. Anyway, here's the quote:



Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran scholar who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, writes in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine series: "...the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist...did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile." (Jaroslav Pelikan, volume 1, page 166-7) (emphasis mine)
But let's examine these Fathers that Webster discusses and see if they take the view of the Eucharist so commonly held by Protestants today - that of it being simply a meal of remembrance.
Chrysostom
Webster seems to acknowledge he believed in the Real Presence, but so that he doesn't seem ignored:

"Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. "(Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! "(Homilies on Romans 8:8)

Iraeneus
"When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which flesh is nourished from the body and the blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?- even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that, ‘we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."

"If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...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 to our bodies."

"When, therefore, the mixed cup 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...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... "

Justyn Martyr
"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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. "(First Apology 66)

"Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it." (Dialogue with Trypho 41)

Augustine
"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
Eusebius: would you please paste any quotes from Eusebius used by Webster that seem to support this? I can't find any from Eusebius on the Eucharist other than his reporting of those who partook of it - not his interpretation of what it meant.

So, we see a consistency in the Early Fathers that you would like to ignore. I'd interested in seeing what 19th century author you will use to refute the irrefutable.

Rusty

[Maxentius]

The men who wrote Scripture are absolutely silent about your elaborate RP doctrine; there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever taught it or practised it. In fact Paul's Lord's supper teaching is clear about it being a memorial. And there is nothing in Scripture to even hint at what you are defending. If the Lord's Last Supper words were meant by Him to be interpreted as you do it is inconceivable that not a hint of it should appear in Acts, or any of the Letters, or the Book of Revelation!

The men who wrote Scripture wrote "This is my body..", "This is my blood...", "The bread we break ..is it not the body of Christ..." and "the cup which we bless..is it not the blood of Christ..."

So far all I have seen from you are philosophical speculations about what kind of body we are sharing and assertions that your doctrine is clearly tought in the Scriptures. So, please show how clear St. Paul's teaching is that the Lord's Supper is a memorial and not the communion, or sharing of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

As I stated earlier, there is no contradiction between a memorial and an actual sharing of Jesus' body and blood.

Therefore, the source of today's RP doctrines can only be the false teaching and apostacy in the church about which Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and Jude gave such abundant warnings.

If it is so clear, why did everyone get it wrong? If anything, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are pretty clear, unless we want to fit those words into our philosophies and change their clear meaning. You are begging the question, i.e. that the RP doctrine is false. If RP is true then the fact everyone believed it makes perfect sense. Basically you apeal to a conspiracy that was so effective that we cannot detect the resistance of the "orthodox" believers who fought against the "new" doctrine of the Real Presence. I am reminded of St. Augustine's critique of the Manicheans, who always said Scripture was corrupted by the early Church. Somehow, Augustine said, they never managed to produce uncorrupted copies. In the same vein, you apeal to an early church teaching, that the Lord's Supper is a memorial and not the sharing of Jesus' body and blood, for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

Strange how you guys build an incredibly complex RP edifice on a few N.T. words, which you have to twist completely out of context to support your theory, and ignore the wealth of warnings in N.T. Scripture about false doctrines, antichrists and the imminent (right at the outset of the church age) apostacy!

The doctrine is not complex, it is that we eat Jesus' body and drink his blood during Holy Communion. And Lutherans do not believe in "consubstantiation" (please see posts 12 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=614105&postcount=12) and 17 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=614105&postcount=17) in this thread, plus the link), or "impanation", or "transubstantiation." I am not an expert on the Orthodox :hehe:, but I think their view is very similar if not the same. How the RP is accomplished is a mystery we leave in God's capable hands.

Not very complex at all.

[George Blaisdell]

...seducing spirits and doctrines of demons (1Tim4) took root and prospered in an increasingly apostate church... ...all practices not based strictly on Sola Scriptura are highly suspect. Beware of the traditions of men

...you guys ... have to twist [scripture] completely out of context to support your theory, and ignore the wealth of warnings in N.T. Scripture about false doctrines, antichrists and the imminent (right at the outset of the church age) apostacy!



The men who wrote Scripture wrote "This is my body..", "This is my blood...", "The bread we break ..is it not the body of Christ..." and "the cup which we bless..is it not the blood of Christ..."


I think the defense can rest...

The prosecution has convicted itself...

The problem with finger pointing is that three fingers point back at oneself...

The Church successfully fought heresy for the first thousand years as one Church, which the Bible tells us is the ground and pillar of truth... And the Church has always believed, without a murmur, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of our Lord, just as He Himself said it is, for it is Christ Himself who serves us this spiritual feast, that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood, and thereby have life in us, for, as He said, apart from this, we have no life in us whatsoever...

[geo] Arsenios

[john.s]

Dear Rusty,

Here's more in response to your # 252:

The Reformation brought about the public rejection of these traditions and the public establishment of the Bible as the only authoritative, infallible, source of guidance and doctrine for man."


Well, as I'm sure the Lutherans will tell you (and as I've learned recently) - they do not necessarily see it this way. Nor would the Anglicans (I'm guessing). But irregardless, you may disagree with the Roman Catholics, but you still have to deal with the Early Fathers and the testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church and her doctrines. It would seem that you, alongside many others, are sitting on the fence between Sola Scriptura, on the one hand, and Tradition (as it developed over centuries when every kind of apostacy entered the church) on the other.


Incidentally, would you not agree that any traditon that presents itself as equal in authority to Scripture already stands condemned? And that the denomination that procaims such equality stands condemned with it?
I would be a heretic! God forbid! Or as the Russians like to say, "Is Outrage!"
Why then do you practice what you call "outrage"? Don't you realize that you continuously invoke your CFs/church tradition, as if it was equal to Scripture, thereby committing outrage!

It is no secret that the Real Presence traditions, in the form they have come down to us, emerged out of the obscurity (and apostacy) of the Dark Ages.
I do not doubt that many doctrines such as transubstatiation (it's too late for spell check, but I think I got it), were defined later in the Roman Church as a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. I would recommend studying early church history. Read the discription of worship by St. Justin Martry for example.
Any study of church history will confirm that a variety of unscriptural and idolatrous church practices (not least those linked to the Lord's table) grew out of the apostate church system that Jesus and all the NT writers warned was about to come. That church system was the leading power in Europe during the "Dark Ages", so aptly named (no true church would have led an entire continent into darkness, would it?) until the Reformation helped bring light into this darkness in the form of the true Gospel.

I would also recommend study of church history in the light of Biblical prophecy (something Luther was not to bad at himself), and vice versa; the danger of sitting in the fence between Sola Scriptura and church tradition might then become more real to you as it did to all the Reformers who decided firmly in favor of the former!

That may be what you reject it and why you reject it, but your foundation is weak and your roof is crumbling. Change housesYour are referring here to my rejection of RP. But don't you see that since my foundation and roof is God's Word, your advice is rather better directed to you, whose foundation and roof are the CFs and church traditions, the shifting sands of higly fallible human endeavor.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, as I've made clear. This is why I recommend you read the entire thread in its entirety. I've tried my best to read everything written in this discussion, but I haven't responded to everything because some things were specifically addressed to others. If you are not a Roman Catholic, why do you hold to the Real Presence doctrine? I recommend you study Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (Tertia Pars) "Holy Eucharist" section. Here you will not only find RP's full Roman pedigree but discover that your RP is a twin to Aquinas'; this explains why you don't see Roman Catholics arguing against you in this discussion, quite the contrary, they will always take sides with you.

The post apostolic definitions of truth were found necessary by men who were ceasing to rely exclusively on the Word of God.

You are wrong. Such things as the Creeds and the 7 Ecumenical councils were formed to battle heresies - and I would dare say that were it not for these martyrs and theologians, we would not be Christian today. But lucky enough for you and me, God worked through these 'post apostolic' (as if the Church died with the apostles!) men. The complete inadequacy of the early Creeds is demonstrated by the rapid fall into apostasy of the system that generated them, and is highlighted by the urgency with which the Reformers developped elaborate "Confessions". Though by no means perfect, the Reformers Confessions aimed at teaching the full range of Bible based doctrine rather than the superficial formulas of the Creeds.

A typical example of men looking for help outside the Word of God was their decision to use the unbiblical "theotokos" formula (which apostasy later changed to "Mother of God") to defend the divinity of Christ. The result of this reliance on man's ingenuity and human reasoning was to deliver millions into a system of idolatry more widespread, more universal, and more powerful than any heathen religion ever achieved! A success achieved primarily because it was, and remains, a system of idolatry grafted (illegitimately of course) on to Christian practices!

You say I am wrong. But just pause, please, and consider whether he who is wrong is not the one who trusts anything that came out of the post apostolic church system that gave birth to such abominations.

By men who believed God's Word needed buttresssing by human tradition.

Who said this! Surely not the Early Fathers. Is Outrage! (I love that expression now) Ï am glad you agree it is Outrage! Why then do you practise such outrage by condoning, for example, the "theotokos" formula, as prime an example of misguided human theological "butressing" of God's Word as one could ever find!

I will have to finish replying to your # 252 in a later post. Many thanks for giving me much to think about, and to respond to.

Shalom, john.s

[Jezz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RP say that the wine is literally Jesus' blood?
Yes. Which is precisely why you can't say that that RP contradicts reality in claiming that the blood had already been poured out - unless you assume that RP is not reality.

Is this making sense yet? Do you see my point about how this particular argument is flawed?

[George Blaisdell]

Tradition (as it developed over centuries when every kind of apostacy entered the church) on the other.


Hey John - You might want to look up the word apostacy - By definition it cannot "enter"...


You continuously invoke your CFs/church tradition, as if it was equal to Scripture, thereby committing outrage!


Well, who would you have us believe regarding what the Bible means? [Biblical interpretation] We can believe the Church Fathers and Holy Tradition, or we can believe you, or we can believe our own minds, or Luther, or Calvin, or the Pope. Now if I believe you, then I am believing in a doctrine of men, specifically one man, and that one is you...

Same problem if I believe myself and my own interpretation... And besides, the bible tells us that no revelation is a matter of private interpretation, yes? And the Bible is revelation, so my private interpretation is ruled out, yes?

And for that matter, so is yours...

And so is Luther's and Calvin's...

So who are we to believe for our understanding of the Bible? Certainly not you and me, and not any other doctrines of men, yes? So we go to the Bible, to find out who to believe, who we can get the truth from, where the truth is to be found and obtained... And what does the Bible say? Where is the truth? And the Bible says that it is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, and that we are to obey the presbyters of the Church - Remember those passages? And do you remember the passage that tells us of the reliability of the Church? That passage tells us that the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church. And the reason for that is that the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Church, which is His bride, and that for this reason the Church is holy and pure, and her members are a part of her insofar as they themselves are holy and pure...


Any study of church history will confirm that a variety of unscriptural and idolatrous church practices (not least those linked to the Lord's table) grew out of the apostate church system that Jesus and all the NT writers warned was about to come.


The word you want is heresy, not apostacy, and the warnings were not about the Church falling, but about the wolves waiting to attack the Church, and the assurance by Paul that NOTHING should ever prevail against Christ's Holy Body...

What is it about Christ's Body that you find so idolatrous? Do you tell Christ how idolatrous His Body is?


That church system was the leading power in Europe during the "Dark Ages", so aptly named (no true church would have led an entire continent into darkness, would it?) until the Reformation helped bring light into this darkness in the form of the true Gospel.


The Latin Church, of which you are an illegitimate offspring, had apostacized from the communion of Christ's Church some 500 years before you were birthed from her abuses... Failing to reform, they each became different churches, and the divisions have multiplied endlessly, to the point that in this day and age, among Protestants, each man is his own Pope, so that you repeat the error of your parent, and hate the parent from whom you received your error...


I would also recommend study of church history in the light of Biblical prophecy (something Luther was not to bad at himself), and vice versa; the danger of sitting in the fence between Sola Scriptura and church tradition might then become more real to you as it did to all the Reformers who decided firmly in favor of the former!


The alternative is not between scripture and tradition, but is always between the Holy Tradition of the Church and those who speak for themselves outside that Holy Tradition. The Bible tells us that it is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, and not those outside the communion of the Church, and the Bible nowhere tells us that it is the Bible that is the pillar and ground of truth... The Bible came after the Church, through the Church, and is understood only from within the Holy Tradition of the Church. Just look at the hundreds of contradicting opinions of the meaning of scripture right here on T-Web by those who hold the man-made tradition of sola-scriptura - You do not find the doctrine of sola scriptura in Holy Scripture... You do know that, yes? It is a man-made contrivance...


[T]he CFs and church traditions [are] the shifting sands of higly fallible human endeavor.


If you believe this, then you do not believe the Bible, which tells us that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth, and that we are to obey our Church elders and presbyters... Why deny the Bible?


If you are not a Roman Catholic, why do you hold to the Real Presence doctrine?


The Real Presence doctrine has been held since Christ gave the Apostles His flesh and blood to eat and drink at the Last Supper. It was never denied by anyone until some 1500 years later or so... By men outside the communion of the Apostolic Church...


this explains why you don't see Roman Catholics arguing against you in this discussion, quite the contrary, they will always take sides with you.


They are not wrong just because they are the Latin Church...


The complete inadequacy of the early Creeds is demonstrated by the rapid fall into apostasy of the system that generated them, and is highlighted by the urgency with which the Reformers developped elaborate "Confessions". Though by no means perfect, the Reformers Confessions aimed at teaching the full range of Bible based doctrine rather than the superficial formulas of the Creeds.


The confession of the creed is not there to teach, although it CAN be used as a basis for teaching, but as a confession of faith - The "Bible based doctrines of the Reformers" are just that - Doctrines of men, and not of Christ's Holy Body, the Church, whose Head He is... The Church is the BIBLICAL pillar and ground of truth - Not a bunch of supposed reformers of an apostatic Latin Church who refused to enter the Apostolic communion of Churches of the East... They trusted their own minds, instead of the Holy Tradition of the pillar and ground of truth... Hence their doctrines are merely human...

It is not the Bible OR tradition, but the Holy Tradition of the Church OR the doctrines of private men outside the Church interpreting privately the revelation of God that the Bible most assuredly is...

Within the Church, every heresy was and is Bible based, and is nontheless wrong... And the Church purges heresy from herself, and has been doing so for 2000 years now...

[geo] Arsenios

[john.s]

Dear Rusty,

This time I hope to finish my replying to your # 252! My apologies for taking so long to do it......

Does God's Word need Church Councils to define the truths it so clearly lays out? Only if the Holy Spirit's efficiency as teacher is put in doubt!
This is ridiculous (not you)! You are saying instead that the Holy Spirit stopped working in the Church after the scriptures were written. Should I remind you who set the canon of the scripture!?Of course the Holy Spirit never stops working in the "Church"! But how do you define "Church"? I am sure you will agree that the true "Church" cannot be identified with any single one of the many groups that call themselves "church", be they Orthodox, or Roman, or Lutheran, or whatever. Undeniably the Holy Spirit works in them all. Working all the good and often allowing the bad (which men will think to be "good") to happen for our learning and chastisement, therefore for His good, but not the way men intended.

When all is said and done, just because men teach or define something in Christ's name, however wonderful and wise it may seem to them at the time (the "theokotos" formula being an example among many, the persecution & killing of supposed heretics, another!), can one affirm that it was "done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit"?

Only the evidence of the resulting fruit (impossible to demonstrate in the case of RP) can answer such a question, or the clear evidence of Scripture.

Based on the latter, RP is devoid of foundation, hence you must eternally claim (as Rome tirelessly does) that RP was established by the Holy Spirit through the CFs and Councils. And thus we end up in circular arguments.

Can we therefore please stick to examining RP on the basis of Scripture alone?!! I presume all of us here can agree that Scripture is exclusively the Holy Spirit's inspired work. A claim which cannot be made for the writings of the CFs or decisions of Councils!

By the way, I fully agree with you that the Holy Spirit guided men to define the Canon. I would go much further: it is also evident that God provided for His Canon/Word to be miraculously preserved during centuries in the Eastern churches so that it could form the basis for the Reformation's Bible translations and publications. Only the Holy Spirit could have inspired men to define the resulting "textus receptus". Yet the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the Reformers to base their Confessions on the CFs or the Councils. The Holy Spirit inspired the Reformers to define their Confessions exclusively on the basis of Scripture.
You are wrong. I am in a long line (God Willing!) of men who believe that the Holy Spirit never stopped working in God's church. That when the Bible says to be in obedience, that I should. That when Paul wrote that some are set as teachers, that I should be a student. That when Paul wrote that some are set as pastors - that I should be a sheep. There is not dichotomy between these two things - I personally can be the temple of the Holy Spirit - led and guided by the Holy Spirit, but only in context of God's Holy Church. A Church which no doubt, if it is doing God's will and teaching His Word, will never cease urging its sheep to be good Bereans, ever checking in Scripture whether the things taught be Scriptural! A Church which will never cease encouraging its sheep to go to the ONLY teacher it ever needs, the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle John urged:


1John2:27
The anointing which you have received of him abideth in you and you need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Any Church that does not teach the doctrine of the apostles (may they be accursed!) should not be followed - for it is the Spirit of God working in the Church that guides and directs all men, and all men as they are joined to the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Spirit of God. You will no doubt (to avoid falling under your own anathemas) be zealous to have 1Jn2.27 included among the apostles' doctrines to be taught in your church. By the way, I would urge caution in the wielding of anathemas, unless you are an apostle.


I'd say that the majority of Protestant denominations, in trying to flee Rome, have shed also the apostolic faith that Rome had draped in un-Orthodox dogma and doctrine. But the Protestants have never became what they wanted to be - instead they became scattered and divided. It is sad. It is a shame. God have mercy on us all.
RustyDon't worry too much about it, Rusty. God is well able to make all things work together for good, even the Protestant divisions. The latter, far from preventing, have rather stimulated a tremendous variety of evangelical and missionary activity around the globe. God is powerfully using the rich variety of Protestant experience and Sola Scriptura tradition to spread His Word, free of all unnecessary human tradition and dogma.

Shalom, john

[themuzicman]

Yes. Which is precisely why you can't say that that RP contradicts reality in claiming that the blood had already been poured out - unless you assume that RP is not reality.

Is this making sense yet? Do you see my point about how this particular argument is flawed?

My argument is that this assumption (that the wine is literally Christ's blood that had already been poured out) is false, and is demonstrated by historical fact (that Jesus' blood hadn't been poured out, yet.)

Michael

[tizzidale]

Of course the Holy Spirit never stops working in the "Church"! But how do you define "Church"? I am sure you will agree that the true "Church" cannot be identified with any single one of the many groups that call themselves "church", be they Orthodox, or Roman, or Lutheran, or whatever.
Well, to avoid a long, drawn out discussion that would tend to get off topic - I'll answer this: Yes. I do believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church -the Orthodox faith.

And I do not presume to judge the relationship of those outside of that faith (of whom I am one), neither do I dare to think that God cannot turn evil for good.

When all is said and done, just because men teach or define something in Christ's name, however wonderful and wise it may seem to them at the time (the "theokotos" formula being an example among many, the persecution & killing of supposed heretics, another!), can one affirm that it was "done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit"
You are ignorant of why Mary is called the Theotokos, and how it came to be so. As for as the killing of heretics - that has never been a practice of the Eastern Church - although I'm sure there have been instances where it has happened.

Based on the latter, RP is devoid of foundation, hence you must eternally claim (as Rome tirelessly does) that RP was established by the Holy Spirit through the CFs and Councils. And thus we end up in circular arguments.
We do not claim that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was founded by anyone other than Christ Himself.

Can we therefore please stick to examining RP on the basis of Scripture alone?!! I presume all of us here can agree that Scripture is exclusively the Holy Spirit's inspired work. A claim which cannot be made for the writings of the CFs or decisions of Councils!
Sure, there has been many discussions based on scripture in this thread. And obviously neither side is budging. But when we look outside of scripture and ask, "What did the earliest Christians have to say about all of this?" we find that they agreed with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Now, what you are arguing against is the RC definition of the Eucharist - which the Eastern Church has never endeavored to adopt.

By the way, I fully agree with you that the Holy Spirit guided men to define the Canon. I would go much further: it is also evident that God provided for His Canon/Word to be miraculously preserved during centuries in the Eastern churches so that it could form the basis for the Reformation's Bible translations and publications. Only the Holy Spirit could have inspired men to define the resulting "textus receptus". Yet the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the Reformers to base their Confessions on the CFs or the Councils. The Holy Spirit inspired the Reformers to define their Confessions exclusively on the basis of Scripture.
You are wrong on two counts. One is that hte canon was preserved in the Eastern Church for the purpose of later being used by the Reformers. This is anachronistic and limited in perspective. Secondly you maintain that the reformers based their reforms on scripture exclusively, but it has been proven in this thread and elsewhere that many of the Reformers themselves believed in the Real presence and held the Church Fathers in high regard.

A Church which no doubt, if it is doing God's will and teaching His Word, will never cease urging its sheep to be good Bereans, ever checking in Scripture whether the things taught be Scriptural! A Church which will never cease encouraging its sheep to go to the ONLY teacher it ever needs, the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle John urged:
I love how some love to quote this scripture, but ignore the scriptures on obedience to our elders in the faith, our leaders, etc. The Eastern church doesn't try to hide behind certain scripture - we know the fulness of truth (and struggle to live it).