"I fought the Church, and the Church won"

[Rusty T]

Referencing this article: http://goo.gl/VN0cg

Not having come from a Reformed background, I don't have a complete frame of reference to grok his experiences completely. Just thought I'd share.

[RBerman]

Stellman started in Calvary Chapel, moved through conservative Presbyterianism, has had doubts about that for years, and finally jumped ship for Rome based on his readings of the Early Church Fathers. Makes sense, if you think the Early Church Fathers get a controlling vote in the meaning and direction of Christianity. Which I don't.

[robrecht]

Sounds interesting, but link doesn't work. From what I was able to find elsewhere, sounds like this Jason Stellman was a Calvinist minister and leader that eventually abandoned sola scriptura and sola fidei. Protestantism was a reaction to flaws in European Catholicism, but it remains defined as a reaction to Catholicism. I can understand that some Protestants would desire a deeper and broader foundation for communion. For me, it's not that the early church fathers get a controlling vote in the meaning and direction of Christianity, but they do take us back to a time in the historical development of the Church when sola scriptura would need to be questioned every bit as much as papal authority.

[Adrift]

Stellman started in Calvary Chapel, moved through conservative Presbyterianism, has had doubts about that for years, and finally jumped ship for Rome based on his readings of the Early Church Fathers. Makes sense, if you think the Early Church Fathers get a controlling vote in the meaning and direction of Christianity. Which I don't.

You know it's weird. I'm currently reading through the Apostolic Fathers (I'm working through Irenaeus' Against Heresies right now) and I don't get that feeling at all. I think most Protestants could read the Fathers (up to the end of the 2nd century at least), and be in agreement with most of what they teach. I haven't seen anything that made me feel I should convert, that's for sure.

[One Bad Pig]

You know it's weird. I'm currently reading through the Apostolic Fathers (I'm working through Irenaeus' Against Heresies right now) and I don't get that feeling at all. I think most Protestants could read the Fathers (up to the end of the 2nd century at least), and be in agreement with most of what they teach. I haven't seen anything that made me feel I should convert, that's for sure.

It's not weird that you're pretty much in agreement with them. On the topics that were then in dispute, Protestants pretty much hold the same positions. An exception is monergism, which you're unlikely to find before Augustine. The ECF expressed repeatedly that we have the free will to turn to God; it was Greek philosophy that argued we have no control over our fate.

The main difference is in praxis and church government - and as RBerman indicated, the reliance on Reformation tradition rather than that of the early church.

[Adrift]

It's not weird that you're pretty much in agreement with them. On the topics that were then in dispute, Protestants pretty much hold the same positions. An exception is monergism, which you're unlikely to find before Augustine. The ECF expressed repeatedly that we have the free will to turn to God; it was Greek philosophy that argued we have no control over our fate.

Ah, I see. Thanks. As far as monergism... that'd mostly only be an issue for Calvinists wouldn't it?

The main difference is in praxis and church government - and as RBerman indicated, the reliance on Reformation tradition rather than that of the early church.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I quite understand, but okay.

[One Bad Pig]

Ah, I see. Thanks. As far as monergism... that'd mostly only be an issue for Calvinists wouldn't it?

Pretty much, but for them it's rather significant.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I quite understand, but okay.

Pretty much everyone follows a tradition of some sort; few people arrive at a truly independent form of Christianity (or even interpretation of scripture). Protestants usually follow a tradition stemming from the Reformation, whether directly (Luther, Calvin, etc.) or indirectly (Methodism, fundamentalism).

[Rusty T]

Irenaeus taught pretty clearly on the Eucharist. Reading him was a strong reason for my eventual conversion.

[Adrift]

Irenaeus taught pretty clearly on the Eucharist. Reading him was a strong reason for my eventual conversion.

Hmm, I haven't really read anything by Irenaeus on the Eucharist/Communion that most Protestants would vehemently disagree with, but maybe I just haven't gotten to it yet. I did find his assertion that Jesus was in his 50s before going to the cross sort of strange.

[Rusty T]

Define "most Protestants" . . . lol. They're too diverse in my opinion. Maybe some more tradition-minded Protestants would have no problem with what he says, but I know that, for example, my former community - the Assembly of God - would definitely have issues.

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins. And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. Against Heresies, Book 5, 2:2

Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. , etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.Against Heresies, Book 4, 17:5

Clearly he is teaching the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He's also teaching the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. These two teachings alone would be rejected by most Protestants that I know.

[robrecht]

Luther certainly accepted the real presence in the Eucharist; it may still be true that 'most Protestants' do not, don't really have those figures.

[Adrift]

Define "most Protestants" . . . lol. They're too diverse in my opinion.

Hehe, yeah... Well I sort of like that freedom of diversity. Anyways...

Maybe some more tradition-minded Protestants would have no problem with what he says, but I know that, for example, my former community - the Assembly of God - would definitely have issues.

Huh.

Clearly he is teaching the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He's also teaching the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. These two teachings alone would be rejected by most Protestants that I know.

Hmm. I don't really see it. From the context, it seems to me Irenaeus is arguing against Gnostic teachings that denied the physical nature of the incarnate Christ Jesus, and salvation through his physical death on the cross. He's specifically pointing out the bread and wine as markers to that very real physical incarnation by saying something like "why else do you think we have communion if it didn't represent a real person?". In fact, by saying "For blood can only come from veins and flesh", it seems to me he's saying something maybe completely opposite of what the Real Presence teaches, he's saying that the cup and the bread point back to an actual flesh and blood human being.

Other than that, it doesn't appear he's saying anything more than what Christ himself declared, and which all orthodoxy affirms,

Luke 22:17-20 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 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.

I think you really have to read into it to see any more than an argument against heretical belief, but heck I may be completely off base here.

[Maxentius]

We should be careful not to treat the term "protestant" as a confessional word, but rather we should treat it as a historical designation. There is a significant difference between and the radical reformers, and the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers. The latter were much more "conservative." For instance, a Calvinist could say he believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist--he just has a different, and to Lutheran eyes an incorrect, way of expressing it. So a Calvinist could read Irenaeus and assent to Irenaeus' teaching re: the real Presence. The same could be said of Lutherans and RCs--both of whom would assent to the RP, but mean different things by it.

It may be convenient, but it is illegitimate to take different theologies, lump them together and then wonder at the "diversity" one finds.

Regarding the Fathers--my own testimony is that reading them has confirmed me in my "heresy." :-)
I

[Rusty T]

Hmm. I don't really see it. From the context, it seems to me Irenaeus is arguing against Gnostic teachings that denied the physical nature of the incarnate Christ Jesus, and salvation through his physical death on the cross. He's specifically pointing out the bread and wine as markers to that very real physical incarnation by saying something like "why else do you think we have communion if it didn't represent a real person?". In fact, by saying "For blood can only come from veins and flesh", it seems to me he's saying something maybe completely opposite of what the Real Presence teaches, he's saying that the cup and the bread point back to an actual flesh and blood human being.

Talking about "reading into" a text. He clearly states that the bread is the body of Christ. Doesn't "represent" His body. That the cup is His blood. Not symbolic of His blood. And you see the complete opposite.

And the second quote? Where he uses the Old Testament prophecy of Malachi and teaches the Eucharist as the fulfillment of this prophecy? The Eucharist as a sacrifice is rejected by many Protestants (most I know of).

Rusty

[Rusty T]

Regarding the Fathers--my own testimony is that reading them has confirmed me in my "heresy." :-)

Where would a Lutheran go to Church in AD800?