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."
Thanks for the typo correction. With that correction, I withdraw my agreement with your statement. The link between the Eucharist and the Incarnation is not true of Protestantism at all.
You might make a case in the "celestial flesh" theology of Menno Simons (forefather of the Mennonites) or Melchior Hoffman. But these Anabaptists rejected the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification among other key doctrines.
The article and your clarification has no historical merit to my knowledge. It is a cheap shot. (A parallel would be a linking of belief in transsubstantiation and justification of cannibalism. That would be foolish and unfair -- for similar reasons).
- 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." 61 posted on 07/12/2003 7:18 AM PDT by drstevej
- Walvoord was right, of course. ~~ 63 posted on 07/12/2003 8:16 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Oh, Hell's Bells and Bull's Bollocks -- NO!!
Walvoord was absolutely not right. The Debater seeks PRECISION, whereas the typical Arminian Pre-Mill Dispensationalist of Walvoord's ilk only creates CONFUSION.
You wanna talk about "Confusion"? How about the fact that Arminian Protestant Dispensationalists of Walvoord's ilk are largely reponsible for the "division" of Protestantism into our much-reviled "25,000" denominations?
In fact, even counting the ethno-lingustic "divisions" between Swiss Calvinists and Dutch Reformed and Scot Presbyterians, (and of course, Anglicans versus English Baptists), the Western Protestant Confession would be (despite Roman criticisms) very nearly as Fraternal as the Eastern Orthodox, were it not for Arminian Dispensationalists such as Walvoord.
I'm an Orthodox Scot Presbyterian, myself. But I'll gladly take Communion with a Swiss Calvinist or a Dutch Reformed without hesitation, or even (God help me) a London-Confession English Baptist... and they'll take Communion with me. Call me "Orthodox" -- that is, Western Protestant Orthodoxy.
But Walvoord?? For the Love of Christ, he has made Dispensationalism a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP amongst Protestants...
- Do you imagine for one second that the Chiliast Romans would ever make their Eschatology a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP in the Roman Confession?
- Or that the Chiliast Orthodox would ever make their Eschatology a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP in the Greek Confession?
But this is exactly what the Dispensational Protestants have done among the Orthodox Protestant Confession. Which rancorous division largely accounts for our "25,000 denominations", considering that Swiss Calvinists and Dutch Reformed and Scot Presbyterians (and yes, Old-School English Baptists) are willing to trade Pastors like baseball cards.... almost like we're not really much divided AT ALL, aside from Walvoord and his Dispie Brigade.
- I have said before: In order to take on Scott Hahn in formal Debate -- My opinion is that I'd need at least three weeks, and the help of some of the better Minds in Protestantism as "Prep Coaches".
- Of course, there's also Matatics: IMHO, in order to take on Gerry Matatics -- My opinion is that I'd need at least... three months.
But to take on WALVOORD?
- Good grief. His "literal" approach to Revelation is hopelessly flawed, even he is not true to a "literal" reading of Revelation (at all), Rome is NOT Babylon, the Pope is NOT the False Prophet, the Beast has ALREADY COME, most of Revelation was fulfilled in 66-70 AD, and if I had three days to prep, I'd spend most of the time drinking.
"Walvoord was right, of course" -- No, Patrick, he wasn't.
Debaters strive for Precision; Walvoord strives to sell a lot of books (many of which repeat the embarassingly-bad Prot arguments against the Papacy which we have encountered before).
Best, OP