Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
Uh...no. If the head of the household could bind the individual with his choice, where is the "saving faith?" Not present. And what would baptism accomplish without saving faith? Even a good sacramentalist has to answer, "Not a single thing." In addition, Jeremias' argument is still weak.
Truthfulness is not defined by how we state things but what we state. I think truth could have been communicated without invoking something as non-related and horrible as the terrorist attacks.
I'm sure the Baptists will be as interested in your suggestions for their doctrine as you are for their suggestions for Catholic doctrine.
So the Didache is inventive? Tertullian? Gregory of Nyssa? St. Basil? If you say so. I never thought of them as inventive. (Though no doubt, this is part of Tertullian's "bad stuff" in that anything he writes that affirms your points you unhesitatingly accept while anything that contradicts is obviously from his middle to late "heretical" period.) In addition, there is not a single scriptural instance of infant baptism nor a single command to baptize infants. In fact there's not a suggestion. So who's the inventive one? (hint: look for a reflection)
Unfortunately for you, there is no explicit delineation of that doctrine from the beginning. (We obviously disagree on the meaning of John 6. I don't hold your interpretation to be invalid, just incorrect. In other words, both interpretations give account of the evidence at hand. You think yours does better. I, mine.)
But, apart from the statements of Scripture and your accompanying interpretation, you have no oral tradition that explicitly delineates the doctrine (in fact, one has to wait a bit to even get it in writing). When someone asks for the oral tradition (and this is the entire point of my challenge), we are told to look at the Tradition. They are not equal. Your Tradition has developed, oral tradition does not. Your Tradition is not "from the beginning." Oral tradition was. Your Tradition equals Roman Catholic doctrine. That's not wrong. It's not even bad. Tradition brings stability and structure. I am not against tradition. But the claim that Tradition is equal to the oral tradition of the early church is unsubstantiated.
How's about the fact that Christ told him he would die of old age, so old in fact that others would have to lead him about, and help him get dressed?
Jn 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
Are you proposing that he had two drafts?
I never actually maintained one. Where did I ever say Christ had no human reason?
As so often happens with Scripture, this can and has been interpreted to refute your contention and to support the traditional story of his martyrdom. Your interpretation assumes the falsity of that story, even though it is also supported by 1 Clement, which we believe to have been published around the same time as John.
In all honesty, I didn't either.
I'm at your service. I reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 in particular and the Eucharist in general because, in the Bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody manner and to destroy him. See Psalms 27, Isaiah 9:20; 49:29, Micah 3:3. Due to the Biblical prescident of symbolically using "eat my flesh", are we to believe that we must hate and persecute Jesus in order to have eternal life? No, this is why the standard line of Protestants using John 6:63 to invalidate the clear, literal teaching of Christ in the proceeding verses is wrong. BTW verse 63 is talking about human thinking vs. thinking with the eyes of faith.
I also reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 because of the way the listeners of Jesus reacted to His statements. They understood him literally as is evident in their question in verse 52; a understanding which Jesus did not take to correct as he had done on other occasions (see Matthew 16:5-12; John 3:3-7, 4:31-34) But they understood only in the human sense(Is He going to hack off His arm and feed it to us?) and not in the supernatural sense as is evident in Christ's explaination in verses 60-63. They left Jesus over a matter of supreme importance and if we are believe in a symbolic Eucharist, they abondoned Jesus over a gross misunderstanding with possible eternal consequences. My Lord is not that reckless.
Also, the Greek word used for "eat" is trogo which literally means "to gnaw". Pretty graphic, and dare I say literal, description, if you ask me.
Also, OT types are fullfilled in a greater manner by their NT counterpart realities. The manna of the Exodus which is a type of the Eucharist is just bread. Supernatural, but bread none the less. If a symbolic Eucharist is true, then all we is just plain old natural bread, inferior to its OT type(manna).
When it comes to the Last Supper, the fact is that is where Christ's Passion began. The Crucifixtion is an extension of the Last Supper and the Last Supper is only completed by the Crucifixtion. (which is a whole other post in itself :) )
Because of those reasons and due to the fact that the historical understanding and teaching of Christianity is that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, I reject a symbolic or metaphorical Eucharist.
Pray for John Paul II
in other words, "don't excommunicate him, he still buys the 'trust us' stuff" LOL.
No, that disclaimer was meant for any yahoos on your side of the isle who might have the idea of taking one of my statements which I was using to make a point and extend it to "See, I knew the Catholic Church didn't believe that the Resurrection happened."
What I find fascinating is that you see the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, the Crucifixtion, the Resurrection, and the Trinity as "trust us stuff".
Pray for John Paul II
This was worth repeating. I'm afraid you are right, Havoc. Thanks.
That, obviously, should read "on your side of the aisle".
Pray for the Servant of the Servants of God
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.