Replies

***Rather, his comment should have been clarified to say that, assuming the doctrine of the Real Presence is true, as we Catholics believe, then a denial of the Real Presence along the lines he mentions in the article could entail an implicit denial of the EUCHARIST (my emphasis added).***

I have no problem with this statement. But he linked this with the INCARNATION. Gnosticism and docetism were denials of the incarnation. How did this paragraph ever pass editorial review? It is clearly inaccurate. It is not merely unclear.

Does Envoy "vet" these articles for theological / historical accuracy? I have only publuished two articles (Westminster Journal) and both received careful scrutiny and demanded clarity and accuracy. The editors comments to me prior to publication were specific and detailed. No way this kind of statement would have gotten past them.

Is Envoy scholarly or polemic in its intended purpose?

A former professor (Dr. John Walvoord) told us in seminary.

"The difference between a debater and a theologian is: a theologian seeks truth while a debater seeks to win an argument."

Walvoord was right, of course. And Envoy's mission is to win souls, not win arguments. I've already explained how his statement was unclear, and I'm not going to wrangle with you over it. Also, ironically, my post had a typo that made it inaccurate. It should have read: ". . . assuming the doctrine of the Real Presence is true, as we Catholics believe, then a denial of the Real Presence along the lines he mentions in the article could entail an implicit denial of the Incarnation."