Posted on 11/11/2005 5:51:08 AM PST by NYer
I respect you for saying so, and concur with your sentiments that society is devolving from God's principles.
Which is exactly what I said...Your comment about Catholics thinking that they roast hotdogs and don't know we are to make decisions made no sense, since it is obvious why Councils come together. You're preaching to the choir.
The ONLY reason the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 got together and established the doctrine of the Eucharist was because there must have been disputes about the Eucharist
Perhaps you should read the documents from the 4th Lateran Council. The issue was over HOW Christ become present, not IF He became present. Transubstantiation merely is the philosophical definition of the HOW. By using Aristotlean philosophy, the Fathers said that the accidents, the outward form, did not change, while the substance, the essence, the "breadness" changed to the essence of Christ.
I believe I posted at least one reference to a Church Father showing that it was not unanimous. There are others
I have refuted the Tertullian idea twice. Tertullian use of the word "represents" and "figure" does NOT discount the REALITY, despite what you say. I need to see something from a Father that says that Christ IS NOT PRESENT. Tertullian doesn't say that, nor does Clement. Neither does Augustine. You are confusing either/or with both. We believe that Christ is BOTH actually physically present in the form of bread, and symbolically present as well (since bread is not what He looked like while walking the earth).
To be intellectually honest, your mission is to show that Scripture denies the Real Presence. Where the Fathers deny this. NONE deny it. Saying it is a symbol IS NOT PROOF. I have already said we believe BOTH. YOU must show it is ONLY a symbol. The proof is upon you since you must explain WHY you go against ALL the Fathers, without ANY Scriptural basis whatsoever. It is strictly your own belief, while ignoring everything else. Why?
But again, out of curiousity, what led you to convert from 30 years of one form of Christianity to another "opposite" form?
Regards
There is no “How” or “If”. It makes a general statement about the Eucharist. This is an important statement from the Church because it simply confirms that there must have been a need for clarification. Although the documentation of this need is spotty it is there. While there ARE some early fathers who had disagreements, as late as the 9th century two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus wrote opposing views on the Eucharist. Radbertus believed it to be the Real Present and Ratramnus believed it was symbolic.
BTW-I did find it interesting that you must call a priest first before a doctor can administer health remedies, you need to pay your tithes to the Church before you pay your taxes and that if you right now charge off to the Holy Lands you will not have any indulgences.
To be intellectually honest, your mission is to show that Scripture denies the Real Presence.
From your perspective, I am in mortal danger of losing my soul. From my perspective I couldn’t give two hoots whether you believe it to be the actual blood and body or not-you accomplish the same thing by proclaiming the Lord’s return.
But again, out of curiousity, what led you to convert from 30 years of one form of Christianity to another "opposite" form?
The Bible doesn’t fit together any other way. You can’t get the Old Testament to match the New Testament; explain why the God pours out His wrath on some and not others; or understand key doctrinal concepts like “You did not choose me but I chose you.” I know because I’ve tried. People invent doctrine to fit their soteriology and make excuses saying the heathens who never hear the gospel are saved, God changed from the Old Testament to the New, and Satan is at war with God but God will be victorious. While these may sound good to some for thirty years I found them impossible to understand against an omniscience and omnipotent God. I don’t invent things. These various theologies are like jigsaw puzzles with too many pieces missing. While I attended many different churches (simply because I moved around a lot) there were always holes. The Old Testament is relegated to moral stories rather than the way God works with individuals.
When I first heard about the Reformed view two years ago I was horrified because I understood exactly what it meant-that I was essentially denying God’s complete and absolute sovereignty in my salvation. Quite frankly I always thought everyone believe in the 5-points. When I started seeing resistence I questioned myself and wondered how I and so many people could be wrong. I thought this was too important an issue to sweep under the rug. As an analyst I research history; studied the various creeds and, most importantly, I reread the scriptures all the way through a Reformed perspective.
Other people will say they did the same thing and reach a different conclusion. I don’t think they are being true to scripture or themselves. Regardless of what people may think about the Calvinism theology, though not perfect, it is the ONLY consistent explanation of scripture. It’s the only one that ties the loose ends together linking the God of wrath in the Old Testament with the God of love in the New. It explains why God called Abraham, Issac and Jacob and not Fred, Sam and Joe. It compares the calling out and rising up of the nation of Israel to God calling out His elect. It explains why God saved Saul when He was persecuting the church and chooses some people and not others. It explains verses such as “Jacob I love but Esau I hate”.
While there has been this debate throughout history I’ve come to the firm conclusion this was always the historical teaching of the western church based upon MANY of the early writings. What confirms my feelings is that never reading Calvin, I could articulate Calvin’s position through my readings of Augustine. There is not much difference although I find Calvin elaborates and enhances Augustine’s view.
I have never in my life thought that I would meet with the Christian resistance I have in asserting God is sovereign in our salvation. However, now that I studied the issue I have no other choice but to reject the synergist concept if I want to remain true to God’s word. Trust me. It’s not easy to say all other theologies are simply wrong. I KNOW I sound pious, self-righteous, and exclusive. But the evidence is too overwhelming if one is objective.
Harley, I wish you would start a Bible study thread for us. (and lead it)
Amen, that is a cult like form of humanism with all the self interpretation. Christ gave is the Bible, established his Church and established the Authority of the Church.
" Watch it, American boy"
I knew you would like that!!!!
Or that of Nehemiah:
Either way I think the Rogaine people would be pleased. :O)
"While there has been this debate throughout history I’ve come to the firm conclusion this was always the historical teaching of the western church based upon MANY of the early writings. What confirms my feelings is that never reading Calvin, I could articulate Calvin’s position through my readings of Augustine. There is not much difference although I find Calvin elaborates and enhances Augustine’s view."
HD, in light of the foregoing, do you believe that the Christian East, not having the benefit of +Augustine's theology until the 14th century and then rejected much of it, simply got it wrong and has persisted in error ever since?
Personally I think the eastern view IS the other view of scripture. Of course I think it is in error otherwise I would be an Eastern Orthodox today.
"Personally I think the eastern view IS the other view of scripture. Of course I think it is in error...."
How do you suppose that the Eastern Fathers got it so wrong, +Augustine got it so right and how did the Latin Church go off the rails? Influence from the Eastern Fathers? Finally, what earlier Fathers, in your opinion, shared +Augustine's view of the Fallen nature of mankind, if any?
"... otherwise I would be an Eastern Orthodox today."
Having discussed these issues with you for sometime, I don't doubt that in the least! :)
Just out of curiosity, when Jesus tells us that we can't follow him unless we "hate" our mothers and fathers, he uses the same greek word for "Hate" that Paul used in Romans where God is saying he hated Esau.
Are we supposed to hate our parents with the same intensity of hate that God hated Esau? Are we not also commanded to love our parents?
Let's assume the verse actually means that God loved Jacob but He loved Esau less. Would that help?
Makes sense to me. Especially in light of John 3:16.
"Let's assume the verse actually means that God loved Jacob but He loved Esau less. Would that help?"
God "loves" less? Isn't that just a tad anthropomorphic for Christians? Now of course, if one rejects the idea that God is totally and completely transcendant and that we are the authors of our own damnation, then I suppose one would believe in a God like that. That God becomes the author of damnation, doesn't he, and if one has doubts about one's status as one of the elect, wouldn't that, or rather couldn't that, lead one to hate God?
PM, how does God loving Esau less conform to John 3:16?
PM, I forgot to ping you to #654; sorry!
The fact remains that while God loved Esau (and you and me --John 3:16), he also voiced his hatred of Esau in the context of his sovereign election. In the context of Jacob's election as the Chosen or elected Firstborn of Issac, God expressed a love for Jacob that was so quantitatively different (for whatever reason) to whatever love he had for Esau, that it could be referenced as "hatred" in the same manner that Jesus expected us to Love him in a quantitatively different way than we love our parents.
Thus the contrast between the love that God had for Jacob and Esau would be comparable to the contrast that we should have between our love of God over anyone else.
That's a fair question. Personally I believe the eastern and western views are bi-polar (opposite ends). If that's the case one has to be wrong and one has to be right. With all due respects for the Eastern Orthodoxs, I think you fellows are on the wrong side of the fence. (Of course you feel the same way about me so it's a wash.) I can appreciate the fact that a VERY long time ago the eastern church people looked at both the synergistic and monergistic views and rebraced synergism. But I think moving away from the monergistic approach leads to errors.
The Latin Church slowly over the centuries (600AD on) moved away from monergism towards the eastern synergistic view until they formally declared this at Trent. How this happened is very complex. I believe it was establishing one bad tradition after another until it arrived at the eastern church's position, if you'll forgive me.
The Protestants are no better. The more error they introduce to their theology, the closer they become like the eastern position.
I certainly don't mean any disrespect. This is simply how I see the situation. Monergism is almost all but erased today and many are coming around to the Eastern Orthodox position. Time for you guys to move into the Vatican. :O)
Funny, I thought God was no respecter of person. You forgot the rest of the scripture around this text:
If your interpretation was correct, that this was only in the context of being Chosen, then the rest of what Paul writes makes no sense. What on earth is he talking about "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."? The fact is Paul is saying God was merciful to Jacob and not to Esau and that is God's perrogative.
Thanks for the reply, HD and I know you mean no disrespect, my friend.
You say that a VERY long time ago the East looked at monergism. Off hand, do you know when? I can't find a thing on it.
Now it is apparent to me that Calvinism bases much if not most of its theology on +Augustinian theology. Aside from him, is there any, Eastern or Western patristic thought which supports monergism? What about Western scholasticism, any support there? Is it fair to say that at Trent the Latin Church merely "codified" its own pre-schism patristic heritage in this regard?
"Time for you guys to move into the Vatican. :O)"
Nah, I hear its a b*tch to heat! Besides, there's already a very nice patristics scholar living there! :)
The Council included only one canon on the Eucharist, as you rightly point out. All it does is repeat the formula used by the Church in its Liturgy from the beginning. What we have here is the use of the word "transubstantiation". The ONLY reason the Eucharist was even mentioned has nothing to do with Ratramnus, who was an ordinary monk of no ranking. His opinion was universally refuted and was never taken seriously. The Fourth Lateran Council is addressing Berengar of Tours, a leader of the St. Martin of Tours school - thus, he had a bit more standing.
The fundamental difference between Berengar and his opponents over the real presence lay in interpretation of the "conversion" that took place through the consecration of the bread and wine (Berengar of Tours, On the Holy Supper, 21). Berengar prefered the word "change", pointing out that "it is not a simple matter to say what the word "to be converted to" means, since a thing could be "converted" by its objective and physical transformation into something that it had not been before, whereas "through the consecration at the altar bread and wine become the Sacrament of faith, not by ceasing to be what they were, but by remaining what they were and being changed into something else" in addition. (Berengar of Tours, On the Holy Supper, 42)
Berengar of Tours, evidently, believed in what is called consubstantiation - which Luther did, as well - the species of bread and wine remaining, while the Body and Blood ALSO inhabited the species. Thus, after debate, the Fourth Lateran Council dubbed the word "transubstantiation", the HOW of what happens at the Eucharistic table - the bread and wine, although still appearing as such (retaining its accidents), ACTUALLY is not longer bread, but becomes ONLY the Body and Blood of Christ.
I don't see this discussion as having anything to do with denying the Real Presence. Also, please remember our latest conversation regarding Councils; the Faithful had believed a particular doctrine and it is only with disagreement where a Council will even consider mentioning some sort of correction so that the faithful knows the proper definition on that topic. Is it surprising to you, then, that the Eucharist is NEVER mentioned in a Council, after knowing that the Church Fathers NEVER deny the Real Presence, NEVER deny that the Eucharist is a SACRIFICE?
BTW-I did find it interesting that you must call a priest first before a doctor can administer health remedies, you need to pay your tithes to the Church before you pay your taxes and that if you right now charge off to the Holy Lands you will not have any indulgences.
Darn...I was just getting ready to pack.
From your perspective, I am in mortal danger of losing my soul.
Perhaps. As I wrote to you about 300 posts ago, I explained what the Church believed about "WHO" is the Church. This includes men who have a relationship with Christ but are invincibly ignorant of the Fullness of the Catholic Faith. I cannot answer where you stand regarding your own personal ignorance. However, to actually reject Christ's teachings DOES endanger your soul. This, too, is Scripture, specifically, John 3. When Christ says "UNLESS you eat my flesh", you better find out what that means, if you desire to follow His teachings, rather than your interpretations.
The Bible doesn’t fit together any other way. You can’t get the Old Testament to match the New Testament
Of course, I disagree. I came to Christianity with no such "lenses" to look through. I first explored the historical claims of the pertinent churches and found that only Orthodoxy and Rome could make any claims to the Church of Christ. The rest were formed by people, not by God. Thus, it was enough for me. Either I trust those people were guided by God or I can't even trust that the Bible is the Word of God. If the Catholic Church was full of it in 200 AD, so was the "Scriptures". I personally have found that the Church has always made common sense on issues - once I knew their point of view. I find that there is a particular beauty on how all the doctrines interact and fit together. If you take one out, it effects so many other things. Sort of like an ecosystem. Remove one thing, and the whole place suffers.
What led you to even consider the Reformed point of view? What was it that lit the light bulb, so to speak? Was it one issue, or perhaps a combination of problems within your then current church? It is interesting to me on how God works in other people to move them to faith.
Other people will say they did the same thing and reach a different conclusion. I don’t think they are being true to scripture or themselves.
Ditto to you. I think we will have to agree to disagree, because despite all the issues that I have raised and your refusal to answer them satisfactorily, I can only believe that God is not moving you to change at this time. I find Calvinism far away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is an innovation that picks and chooses what it wants to believe. It ignores hundreds of years of writings of Christians to pick out one that tickles their ears - Augustine in your case. Let's ignore everyone except Augustine - and even him on the Eucharist... And this is honest research?
Perhaps you will actually read the Church Fathers with an open mind, not through the lenses of Calvinism. This is clouding your vision. Read the Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, Clement of Rome. The second and third generation of Christians should give you a pretty clear picture of what Christianity believed and interpreted the writings of the Apostles. Ignore them, and you ignore the ONLY continuity we have between us and the Apostles. The question to ask oneself is "Are we following God, or our own opinion of what God is?"
Regards
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.