Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
Not.
It is light, a story, a travelogue even, and yet it perfectly conveys much of our viewpoint and mindset after some years within Orthodoxy.
No, it is not. For it to be that, you'd have to be able to prove that all churches that use that term (and they are all foreign to me) believe as you do. For you to do that would be impossible as I've debated with Protestants on this forum who have assured me that their "Lord's Supper" is nothing more than a symbolic memorial (It's JUST BREAD!). That the term is used widely is a good thing. When someone says the words "Holy Eucharist", I know where they are coming from (even if it doesn't mean they are in 100% agreement with me).
By the way, using labels such as "Red Herring Logical Fallacy" might be interesting to those who have studied their use but they are wholly without meaning the to the rest of us. To us, it seems that your intent is more on finding a way to apply the label than to actually deal with what is being said.
Figuratively, yes. We believe He was being literally true when He said "This is my body." All that you have been able to offer to refute that is that he sometimes made statement that were only figuratively true. That is not a logical argument!
What is there besides your Church's tradition (i.e. Scritpurally) to indicate without a doubt that he was being "literally true" regarding "This is my body."?
"All that you have been able to offer to refute that is that he sometimes made statement that were only figuratively true. That is not a logical argument!"
On the contrary, I have given scriptural evidence that Jesus sometimes rather simple, clear statements were communicating spiritual truths -just as I contend regarding "This is my body".
Furthermore, I have shown Scriptural evidence that Christ's likening himself to "bread" is to be understood as a Spiritual likeness. The Scriptures inform us that many Jews were mistaken when they took Christ literally.
In other words, Scripture has established for us the idea that Christ's body is for our Spiritual nourishment -not our Physical nourishment.
In the end, it is Scriptural evidence rather than a philosophical rational evidence that I have presented. I could not care less about a purely "logical" argument. I want Scriptural evidence.
You, on the other hand, have only given me, "I believe Christ was telling the truth". You gave no scriptural support for your conclusion.
And when I showed you that Jesus makes the same claim about "truthfullness" in informing us that he is a "door", you changed your argument to "I believe he was being literally true." -as if Jesus was not being "literally true" when he "truly" informed us that he was a "door".
Could you tell us what the difference between someone being "literally true" and someone being "figuratively true"?
Jean
As for the traditional believers in Christ:
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.
When using a metaphor, someone can make a statement which is not literally true (Jesus was not a 6' x 3' piece of wood with hinges) while remaining figuratively true because the meaning of the metaphor is accurate (Christ is the one who permits us to enter the presense of the Father). It isn't difficult, you see.
By the way, stringing them together creates a statement that is self-contradictory. How can it be anything "alone" when it is immediately followed by yet another thing which must also be "alone?" They must either be taken together to represent a whole, as you have done by connecting them, or they must be taken alone as they each proclaim. Which is it?
Please explain why you believe a human body was included, but not mentioned, on the sheet shown to Peter in Acts 11. We can begin talking about the validity of transubstantiation once you offer your reading of that chapter. Until then, bon appetit!
If anyone can let me know what this is supposed to mean, please let me know. LOL!.
We can begin talking about the validity of transubstantiation once you offer your reading of that chapter...
Ah, YOPIS again!
You: If anyone can let me know what this is supposed to mean, please let me know. LOL!.
Hey ArrogantBustard - here's a prime example of the biblical illiteracy I was talking about, on our other thread. Maybe you can help this poor, misguided Catholic see the connection (at least from a Protestant POV) between Acts 11 and the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Ditto for me as well, FL. I thought you were arguing the Catholic position.
Ah, what a wonderful outpouring of Christian love. It just radiates from this posting.
How proud you must be!
Oh, and sorry I couldn't discern whatever meaning you were attempting to attribute to Acts 11. It really looks as if it would be a dusie!
But yes, you were wrong about both the Roman Catholic aspect as well as the illiteracy.
"And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." After such great things, "they of the circumcision contended:" not the Apostles; God forbid It means, they took no small offence. And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection--for frigid indeed it is--takes his stand on that great argument, If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why didst thou eat with them? Besides, the difference is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, "But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa, praying:" he does not say why, nor on what occasion: "and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto the, Arise, Peter; slay and eat." As much as to say, This of itself was enough to have persuaded me--my having seen the linen sheet: but moreover a Voice was added. "But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth." Do you mark? "I did my part," says he: "I said, that I have never eaten aught common or unclean:" with reference to this that they said, "Thou wentest in, and didst eat with them." But this he does not say to Cornelius: for there was no need to mention it to him. "But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven." The essential points were those (that ensued at Caesarea); but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them. "At no time," says he, "has aught common or unclean entered into my mouth.--And, behold--this too was part of his defence --three men stood at the house in which I was, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting." Do you mark that it is to the Spirit the enacting of laws belongs! "And these also accompanied me"--noticing can be more lowly, when he alleges the brethren for witnesses!--"these six men, and we entered into the man's house: and he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." And he does not mention the words spoken by the Angel to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God, that he may not disgust them; but what says he? "He shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved:" with good reason this is added. Also he says nothing of the man's fitness. "The Spirit," he might say, "having sent (me), God having commanded, on the one part having summoned (me) through the Angel, on the other urging (me) on, and solving my doubt about the things, what was I to do?" He says none of these things, however: but makes his strong point of what happened last, which even in itself was an incontrovertible argument. "And as I began to speak," etc. Then why did not this happen alone? Of superabundance this is wrought by God, that it might be shown that the beginning too was not from the Apostle. But had he set out of his own motion, without any of these things having taken place, they would have been very much hurt: so that from the beginning he disposes their minds in his favor: saying to them, "Who have received the Holy Ghost even as we." And not content with this, he reminds them also of the words of the Lord: "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." He means, that no new thing has happened, but just what the Lord foretold. "But there was no need to baptize?" But the baptism was completed already. And he does not say, I ordered them to be baptized: but what says he? "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" He shows that he had himself done nothing: for the very thing which we have obtained, he says, that same did those men receive. That he may more effectually stop their mouths, therefore he says, "The like gift." Do you perceive how he does not allow them to have less: when they believed, says he, the same gift did God give unto them, as He did to us who believed on the Lord, and Himself cleanses them. And he does not say, To you, but to us. Why do you feel aggrieved, when we call them partakers (with us?) "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Do you mark that it all came of Peter's discourse, by his admirably skilful way of relating the facts? They glorified God that He had given repentance to themselves also: they were humbled by these words. Hence was the door of faith opened thenceforth to the Gentiles. But, if you please, let us look over again what has been said."While Peter yet spake," etc. He does not say that Peter was astonished, but, "They of the circumcision:" since he knew what was in preparation. And yet they ought to have marvelled at this, how they themselves had believed. When they heard that they had believed, they were not astonished, but when God gave them the Spirit. Then "answered Peter and said," etc. And therefore it is that he says, "God hath shown that I should not call common or unclean any human being." He knew this from the first, and plans his discourse beforehand (with a view to it). Gentiles? What Gentiles henceforth? They were no longer Gentiles, the Truth being come. It is nothing wonderful, he says, if before the act of baptism they received the Spirit: in our own case this same happened. Peter shows that not as the rest either were they baptized, but in a much better way. This is the reason why the thing takes place in this manner, that they may have nothing to say, but even in this way may account them equal with themselves. "And they besought him," it says, "to tarry certain days." "And the Apostles and brethren, etc. And they of the circumcision contended with him." Do you remark how they, were not kindly disposed towards him? Saying Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Do you note what zeal they had for the Law? Not Peter's authority abashed them, not the signs which had taken place, not the success achieved, what a thing it was, the Gentiles having "received the word:" but they contended about those petty things. For if none of those (signs) had taken place, was not the success (itself) enough? But not so does Peter frame his defence: for he was wise, or rather it was not his wisdom, but the Spirit that spake the words. And by the matter of his defence, he shows that in no one point was he the author, but in every point God, and upon Him he casts the whole. "The trance," he says--"it was He that caused me to fall into it, for "I was in Joppa," etc.: the vessel--it was He that showed it; I objected: again, He spake, and even then I did not hear: the Spirit commanded me to go, and even then though I went, I did not run: I told that God had sent me, and after these things, even then I did not baptize, but again God did the whole. God baptized them, not I." And he does not say, Was it not right then to add the water? but, implying that nothing was lacking, "What was I, that I should withstand God?" What a defence is here! For he does not say, Then knowing these things, hold your peace; but what? He stands their attack, and to their impeachment he pleads--"What was I, to be able to hinder God?" It was not possible for me to hinder--a forcible plea indeed, and such as might well put them to shame. Whence being at last afraid, "they held their peace and glorified God."
This certainly tells us many things, but to me it mostly speaks to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit being available to all believers and not only the circumcised (i.e. it is available to the Gentiles).
Illiterate, I believe you called me?
And you have only been able to quote Scripture according to your own church's interpretation and then claim it means only what YOU say -oh wait!-, that's right, you never quoted any Scripture -you just rehashed what a bunch of people told you to believe. That's not a very Berean attitude (Acts 17:11).
"And I bet you guys have the audacity to give the Roman Catholics grief for them claiming the Pope is infallible in his interpretation of Scripture."
I guess that might be a valid criticism if I claimed that my understanding of Scripture was infallible.
"At least they only claim to only have one of them! There are millions of Protestants proclaiming the infallible faith of YOPIS!"
The problem is that Reformed theology does not accept "Your Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture". As I have already shown in Post #264, we believe that the correct understanding of Scripture is given by the Holy Spirit. This might help you in understanding the near unanimous agreement of Doctrine in confessing Reformed churches.
The Continental Reformed Churches (Dutch, German, Swiss) happen to subscribe to the "Three Forms of Unity" (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt) while the confessing Presbyterians subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Quite frankly, give me the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity -it doesn't make a bit of difference. That is as true today as it was 400 years ago. So, in reality, your desperate "millions of Protestants" argument does not work with respect to reformational churches.
On the other hand, while it is amusing to see you pull out the "YOPIS" defense (I knew that would be your last resort and it's no wonder that you don't care to follow a logical argument as YOPIS defense is both a "straw-man" and a "red-herring" at the same time.), there is far more unity among the clergy and laymen in confessing Reformed Churches than there are in Roman Catholic Churches. I find total ignorance (and I mean total) to be the status quo among most every single "Catholic" I know. The knowledgable Catholics that one finds here on FR are in the vast minority.
In contrast, the knowledge you see in the Calvinists here on FR is quite typical of the individuals in confessing Reformed churches and always has been. (We are not known for "Christmas and Easter only" church attendence like so many many of my Catholic friends are. Church twice a Sunday is the norm with nearly full attendence at both services.)
But while you are at it, perhaps you could give me the rational, as you understand it, behind the insistance that ONLY the church is authorized to Interpret the Scriptures? -in other words -where did you ever get that idea?
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.