Communion

[Roy5]

A few quick thoughts in response.

 (1) Sorry, but I do believe that traditional Catholicism continues to dignity certain

“medievalish” ideas that some observers surely would say involve superstition, and that it clearly is authoritarian in that it claims sole authority to present special and eternal truths that all Christians must accept to have the fullness of the faith. Certain forms of Protestantism such as fundamentalism suffer from the same problems.

   However, we can believe this or that and still show respect for other expressions of Christianity, just as I show respect for Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. I taught comparative religion in college and gained respect for and insight into a wide variety of spiritual expressions, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. For example, I respect Native American religions without embracing them. Millions of contemporary Catholics are as skeptical of some aspects of Catholicism as I am. Did St. Padre Pio actually levitate? bilocate? appear in the air to pilots flying planes? and on and on. For those who accept such miracles, fine. I can't, and I believe the credibility of Catholicism suffers when it canonizes such a person. I have the same problem with spectacular miracles claimed by certain Protestant evangelists, whether a Benny Hinn, an Oral Roberts, or a  Pat Robertson.

 (2) If we emphasize our individual freedom when it comes to spiritual matters, we are often accused of egotism, putting our own egos before doctrinal truth as proclaimed by Catholicism. Newbie's latest posting is one of many to bear this out. 

 (3) Contradictory views among Protestants doesn't normally disturb 'big tent' Christians, although there can be a road too far.  It's not a matter of one must be right and the other wrong. It's a matter of different viewpoints. I may be an Arminian theologically (free will). Other Protestants may be Calvinist with a bent toward predestination. This need not separate us as brothers and sister in Christ. As John Wesley said, "if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together." (Well, not a precise quote but close.) That reflects the thinking of 'big tent' Protestantiusm. I have been active in Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist congregations in different communities where we have lived and never had a problem with theological differences. They exist. So what? Most members don't let them serve to divide them. Many aren't that concerned about the finer points of theology. They see theologies as mostly 'man-made' anyway.

 (4) Protestantism biggest 'evil' is not the differences that exist within it. Many of us believe that we can have the spirit of Christian unity without insisting that only one set of doctrines or only one church is/are true. Religion is like art and music. Don't ask: is that painting or song true, but what is its impact upon or meaning for the viewer or hearer? If our beliefs lead us closer to Christ that's a good test. My own position (as stated already) is that God is far less interested in our dogmas and church affiliation than our love of him and of one another. "Now abide faith, hope and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love."  

  Big tent Christianity strikes me personally as the way to Christian unity - not union. I have serious doubts about any union that might restrict freedom of belief.

  God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

A few quick thoughts in response.

 (1) Sorry, but I do believe that traditional Catholicism continues to dignity certain

“medievalish” ideas that some observers surely would say involve superstition

Of course you would Roy because the beliefs are affronts to your relativism. Furthermore this opinion of yours shows just how unaccepting you and your big tent theory is. Again beliefs that you do not agree with are considered, “medieval superstitions”. I care not what, “some observers” would think especially when such observers are so lost in relativism that their opinion is meaningless. Why should I even take into consideration someone’s opinions on anything who comes with a mind set that nothing really matters in the first place? If you have no convictions of your own, why should I care what your opinion of my convictions are?

, and that it clearly is authoritarian in that it claims sole authority to present special and eternal truths that all Christians must accept to have the fullness of the faith. Certain forms of Protestantism such as fundamentalism suffer from the same problems.

As does your relativism, which I have said, is every bit as close minded and authoritarian than the beliefs you condemn. In fact your theory is even more close minded because things are not simply wrong to your theology, no they are much much worse. Things are affronts to your, “intellectual freedom” and are “medieval superstitions” they cause you to, “leave your brain at the door”. I love when relativists try to come off as open minded and “accepting” when in the end they are anything but. It was this irony which caused me to question my own relativism and skepticism.

  However, we can believe this or that and still show respect for other expressions of Christianity

Which you have failed to do.

 (2) If we emphasize our individual freedom when it comes to spiritual matters, we are often accused of egotism, putting our own egos before doctrinal truth as proclaimed by Catholicism. Newbie's latest posting is one of many to bear this out.

Again Roy, I have been commenting on your ideas. You seem to want to make it something personal If you are so concerned about your ego, then that is something you must work out with God.

 (4) Protestantism biggest 'evil' is not the differences that exist within it. Many of us believe that we can have the spirit of Christian unity without insisting that only one set of doctrines or only one church is/are true

Which means that even this statement does not need to be true. Relativism and skepticism are always fun

Religion is like art and music. Don’t ask: is that painting or song true, but what is its impact upon or meaning for the viewer or hearer? If our beliefs lead us closer to Christ that’s a good test.

unless of course those beliefs, which lead people closer to God, are steeped in, “medieval superstitions” and ask us to, “leave our brains at the door” and infinge on our, “intellectual freedom”. I am finding big tent threory to be one thing and one thing only, hypocritical. “beliefs don’t matter if they bring you closer to God… you believe what!!!”

My own position (as stated already) is that God is far less interested in our dogmas and church affiliation than our love of him and of one another.

Your position, that you hold, you only grant to yourself. For instance, you will not allow the Methodist church the possibility that they teach Christ is truly present in the elements of the bread and wine. You cannot accept that the Methodist church teaches that their communion is more than just a rememberance. In this area, to you, God is very, “interested” in what the Methodist church teaches even though you are dead wrong in what you believe they teach. If you really believed what you stated above, you would not care what the Methodist teach. You would not care if you found a belief authoritative or if it infringed on your, “intellectual freedom” but since you have already said you could not be a part of a church which believes like the Catholics do or the Methodists do or the Lutherans do, you, at least, are very interesting in dogmas. True, in your hodge podge of relative beliefs, you may not be interested in your own doctrines and dogmas but you have a lot to say, and condemn, about other’s.

God bless

 

[Jon_Hus]

ChadS, a former Methodist, is right. As I mentioned, Methodists permit a far wider variation in belief than Catholicism does, and I’m sure that a representative panel of Methodists would offer somewhat different interpretations of communion. Fine. This latitude is permitted, and it’s a primary reason why I admire Methodism and other mainline Protestant churches which allow and even encourage individual thinking. This freedom is a cornerstone of Protestantism.

Frankly, I tire of those few Methodists who keep trying to make their denomination into a lock-step, prayerbook-mentality, top-down church and lose the Holy Spirit which was so pronounced and treasured in original Methodism. ........

… Like many others, I am one of those who enjoys reading and reflecting on various theologies, etc., never concerned about whether or not they are ‘heretical,’. Two of my favorite Church Fathers are Origen and Tertullian whom have been judged to be heretics by the Catholic Church. I regard individual freedom of conviction as I regard national freedom of religion - indispensible in my life and in our society. As for Church Fathers, by the way, they have much to teach us, but - let’s face it - they lived long before modern telescopes and microscopes and much of what they wrote is archaic, contradicted by knowledge learned since their eras. So this notion of going back to the Church Fathers to gain spiritual insight has some merit, but should not be over-rated.

Roy, I agree with much of what you say, which is strange for me on this forum. I do think you are being a little harsh on the fundamentalists though. I, like you enjoy studying various theologies and have 10 or so multi-volume systematic theology sets in my collection.

I would be courious to know who you consider a represenative theologian in the Methodist camp and your comparison views between Methodist and Wesylan theologians. Around this part of the country, the United Methodist churches are fall off the cliff liberal, however a local Wesylan church is almost fundamental by comparison.

By the way, for the Methodist viewpoint I read Thomas Oden (I have his 3 volume theology set), whom I consider a “conservative mainliner” for Wesylan I have Carter’s 2 volume set. I plan on reading some of Wesleys material in the future as I’m interested in the Calvin/Arminian debate. BTW, I consider myself a “mild calvinist”. I admit that Oden is a little hard for me to swollow at times and some of the entries in his bibliography make me wince, but he is informed and I believe he is troubled by the direction of the UMC.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Your position, that you hold, you only grant to yourself. For instance, you will not allow the Methodist church the possibility that they teach Christ is truly present in the elements of the bread and wine. You cannot accept that the Methodist church teaches that their communion is more than just a rememberance. In this area, to you, God is very, “interested” in what the Methodist church teaches even though you are dead wrong in what you believe they teach. If you really believed what you stated above, you would not care what the Methodist teach. You would not care if you found a belief authoritative or if it infringed on your, “intellectual freedom” but since you have already said you could not be a part of a church which believes like the Catholics do or the Methodists do or the Lutherans do, you, at least, are very interesting in dogmas. True, in your hodge podge of relative beliefs, you may not be interested in your own doctrines and dogmas but you have a lot to say, and condemn, about other’s.

God bless

Roman_Catholic,

Actually no. If I may speak for Roy which I do not have his permission to do, but in my opinion, he is exercising his freedom in Christ and freedom of conscience, both of these doctrines are Biblical. He is also allowing you the same freedom and leaving the judging to the Lord.

With all due respect, many RC’s on this forum are experts at shouting down sola scriptura, this is a fact. What is apparent to me though is that those who are against it have basically no real working knowledge of how it is put into practice by those who believe it. Myself as a person who believes in predestination and election would differ from Roy (a free willer) on some issues, none of these are show stoppers as far as salvation is concerned. Roy, who takes the Bible just as seriously as Jon Hus, gets his definition of God from the Bible. He also gets his definition of man and draws the distinction between the two (God and man) from the Bible. Based on his (and mine) study of the Bible, I think we would both agree that man is both unable and does not have the need to injest the wafer tuned into flesh. Freedom, previously spoken about allows you to believe the opposite and that is your right.

 

[Roy5]

Roman Catholic

 It's difficult to discuss with you because you come to the discussion with the insistence that if one doesn't have firm, air-tight convictions that person must be a relativist. When I speak of 'big tent' I mean that I may have some views on theology and my brother or sister may have different ones, but that doesn't mean I don't respect those opinions or that we are relativists. When I use the term relativism I refer to ethnics not theology. Apparently you want to assign the label to people like myself who have our own theological perspectives but don't claim to have exclusive truth. 

  Let me be specific. I happen to be part Native Canadian - "First Nation" is the term used in Canada. Not much - a great-great grandmother on my paternal side. I have read about the original beliefs of that tribe, before most of them became Catholic in Quebec. Now, I certainly don't embrace those early Indian beliefs, but I don't disrespect them either. They were worshiping God in their own way. And I also think that probably most of those ancestors have made it to eternal life. Probably I'm wrong in some of my beliefs. But that's okay. We're not saved by our theology.

  As for communion, the subject of this thread, why did you jump to the conclusion that I think of it only as a sacrament of remembrance? Where did I say that? I would have to go back - I think maybe to post #6 - not sure - where I outlined in some detail my view of communion. True, I don't believe that Jesus is physically present in the bread or wine. I do believe that he is spiritually present at communion and "wherever two or three are gathered together." I recall a story of a woman who lived by herself. When someone expressed sympathy that she 'lived alone' she was quick to respond. "Alone! I'm never alone. Christ is always with me." That capsulates my personal view on the continuous presence of Christ. Now, as for Methodist belief, again you try hard to pigeonhole Methodists, when there would be a wide variation of interpretations about communion. The notion that a mainline Protestant church has to have a hard-and-fast doctrine on such matters seems - frankly - like it reflects a Catholic way of thinking. Actually, most of my Catholic friends are far more open-minded than that.

Jan Hus

I like the name you've chosen as Jan Hus is a hero of mine, and I've been to Prague and seen the monument in his honor and know well the story of his cruel martydom because of his pre-Reformation 'heresy'. Sadly. the Czech Republic seems to all but lost its religious tradition. I believe I read that it has one of the highest percentage of atheists of any nation in the world.

Now, I am not a theological partisan in particular, largely because I admit to the inability to figure out the secrets of life and death, but also because along the way I've come to the conviction that theology is too often a weapon used against 'free thinking' Christians like me. I put my trust in Christ, journey though life by faith, marvel at the glory and mystery of the universe, respect people of other faiths even if and when I strongly disagree with them ("but for the grace of God"), and have a particular admiration for Quakers, Mennonites and others who really try to follow Christ's Sermon on the Mount. A book that influenced me years ago was entitled, as I recall, the "Christian Agnostic". It was written by an English Methodist minister - hm! name slips my mind - who said essentially that he lived on two levels. He accepted Christ and the gospels and their concept of life and death and their code of ethics. At the same time, he felt that we really don't have much of a clue as to the deeper meaning of the world, etc. So, he encouraged faith but also tolerance. 

   I'm reminded of the story of two monks. They were good friends but disagreed on heaven. Brother John insisted that it was to be like a monastery, constant prayers, chants, praising the Trinity. Brother James would reply: "Hey, that's all we're doing here. When we get to heaven we'll have some great parties, singing, laughing, having a wonderful time." They finally agreed that the first one to die would return and then they would know who had won the argument. Brother John died and returned the next night in a dream. "Brother James," he said, "we both were wrong. But it won't do me any good to try to describe what heaven is really like. The mortal mind cannot possibly understand it. All I can say that eternity is nothing for you to fear." I tend to go along with that.

   Now, Methodists, as you know, have never been noted for their theology. They have emphasized personal experience, opening their hearts to the working of the Holy Spirit. Some even trace the modern Pentecostal movement to Methodism. I share this emphasis. I will leave the theology to the theologians and praise God enthusiastically for the beauty of creation and this opportunity to live and love. I also anticipate eternal life. One of my favorite gospel hymns (I savor such hymns) begins: "This world is not my home, I'm just apassin' through...." Now, as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't view myself so much as a Methodist as a 'big tent' Protestant. I have also been involved in Presbyterian and Congregational churches with no sense of conflict. In Canada, as you doubtless know, the Methodist, Congregationalist and most Presbyterian parishes merged way back in 1925 to become what is now the United Church of Canada. 

   Sorry to be so long-winded. God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of every creed, color and country.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman Catholic

 It's difficult to discuss with you because you come to the discussion with the insistence that if one doesn't have firm, air-tight convictions that person must be a relativist.

I am the easiest guy in the world to have a discussion with. I believe you have a relativists mindset because you have a relativists mindset.

When I use the term relativism I refer to ethnics not theology. Apparently you want to assign the label to people like myself who have our own theological perspectives but don’t claim to have exclusive truth.

But you do have exclusive truth! Comment such as:

Many of us believe that we can have the spirit of Christian unity without insisting that only one set of doctrines or only one church is/are true

Your exclusive truth is that there is not one set of doctrines that are true. As I said, you are every bit as authoritative and close minded as the fundamentalists that you condemn. Here is another “exclusive truth” of yours:

God is far less interested in our dogmas and church affiliation than our love of him and of one another.

I say again, why should anyone listen to your opinion of their convictions when you have none of your own? It’s like a man without teeth who points out how crooked he thinks the guy’s teeth standing next to him are.

Now, as for Methodist belief, again you try hard to pigeonhole Methodists, when there would be a wide variation of interpretations about communion.

I have not tried to pigeonhole Methodists. I have let the Methodist Church say exactly what it teaches. You have been the one who has talked about your meetings with individual Methodists who do not follow Methodist teaching and therefore that must mean that the Methodist Church doesn’t teach that Christ is truly present through the elements of the bread and wine.

And the only one who has done any pigeonholing has been you. By saying that, because I believe there is an ultimate truth, I can’t respect other view points, or that I have, “left my brain at the door”. I can respect them and in fact do. Furthermore if any one is disrespecting a person’s beliefs it is you. Not only have you been condescending towards Catholics beliefs but with your big tent theory of Christianity you are essentially telling people that what they believe, what they hold most dear, is not important.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

This thread has been so badly thrown off track. Roy feel free to have the last word, but I am not going to respond to you.

Here is the OP:

Before I ask this question let me make it clear that I’m not looking for debate. These are sincere questions. I’m looking for answers in the form of someone pointing me in the direction of a source for me to learn more.

During the reformation, both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that the bread and wine at the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

• When did the popular belief among protestants become that Jesus was speaking figuratively?

• Was there someone in particular who promoted this belief? Who?

Links to sources are appreciated.

So, to get this thread back on track, does anyone have any other suggestions or is Zwingli really everyone’s final answer?

God bless

 

[JonNC]

So, to get this thread back on track, does anyone have any other suggestions or is Zwingli really everyone’s final answer?

Hi R_C,
Even if I were completely convinced that Calvin believed in the real presence, Zwingli came first. So while there may have been others, it is Zwingli.

Jon

 

[Roy5]

Sorry, Roman Catholic, but you’re not easy to dialogue with. Because my view is that there should be room within Christianity for differing interpretations and viewpoints in the realm of theology, that somehow makes me a relativist? I may be dense, but I don’t get that. Are Americans who disagree on various political issues all relativists? Mainline Protestantism provides plenty of room for diversity of opinion. Actually, most Catholics I know exercise that same freedom - known, I guess, you might dismiss them cafeteria Catholics.

 Somehow, you want to insist that if we don't demand a unified viewpoint on theology we are relativists. I suggest that this is playing games with the English language. Now, if I believed that there are no ethical standards, that what's immoral for you might be moral for me - well, then I would be a moral relativist. But to apply the term to our prized freedom to have various opinions in the theological realm is - well, unusual and/or bizarre.

  You embrace a faith which you believe embodies the one and only true version of the Christian faith. Fine. Freedom of religion and all that. Part of our great American tradition - thank God. I embrace a different sort of Christian perspective that has considerable room for various opinions, without the need to conform to the truth as passed along by any church, including our own. Methodism is a broad-based faith with people of widely differing views among its members. I know because I have spent years experiencing it, and I'm not inclined to let a person of another denomination tell me what I am expected to believe. A vague statement on communion by one conference doesn't change that. I believe you misunderstand the freedom to differ within mainline Protestantism because Catholicism doesn't grant the same degree of freedom.

  But, God bless you anyway, and God bless people of every creed, color and country. Wouldn't it be great if religion became a bridge to better understanding rather than a barrier between people? Christ must grieve at this pettiness.

 

[josie_L]

Of course you would Roy because the beliefs are affronts to your relativism. Furthermore this opinion of yours shows just how unaccepting you and your big tent theory is. Again beliefs that you do not agree with are considered, “medieval superstitions”. I care not what, “some observers” would think especially when such observers are so lost in relativism that their opinion is meaningless. Why should I even take into consideration someone’s opinions on anything who comes with a mind set that nothing really matters in the first place? If you have no convictions of your own, why should I care what your opinion of my convictions are?

As does your relativism, which I have said, is every bit as close minded and authoritarian than the beliefs you condemn. In fact your theory is even more close minded because things are not simply wrong to your theology, no they are much much worse. Things are affronts to your, “intellectual freedom” and are “medieval superstitions” they cause you to, “leave your brain at the door”. I love when relativists try to come off as open minded and “accepting” when in the end they are anything but. It was this irony which caused me to question my own relativism and skepticism.

Which you have failed to do.

Again Roy, I have been commenting on your ideas. You seem to want to make it something personal If you are so concerned about your ego, then that is something you must work out with God.

Which means that even this statement does not need to be true. Relativism and skepticism are always fun

unless of course those beliefs, which lead people closer to God, are steeped in, “medieval superstitions” and ask us to, “leave our brains at the door” and infinge on our, “intellectual freedom”. I am finding big tent threory to be one thing and one thing only, hypocritical. “beliefs don’t matter if they bring you closer to God… you believe what!!!”

Your position, that you hold, you only grant to yourself. For instance, you will not allow the Methodist church the possibility that they teach Christ is truly present in the elements of the bread and wine. You cannot accept that the Methodist church teaches that their communion is more than just a rememberance. In this area, to you, God is very, “interested” in what the Methodist church teaches even though you are dead wrong in what you believe they teach. If you really believed what you stated above, you would not care what the Methodist teach. You would not care if you found a belief authoritative or if it infringed on your, “intellectual freedom” but since you have already said you could not be a part of a church which believes like the Catholics do or the Methodists do or the Lutherans do, you, at least, are very interesting in dogmas. True, in your hodge podge of relative beliefs, you may not be interested in your own doctrines and dogmas but you have a lot to say, and condemn, about other’s.

God bless

It’s nice to see you put him down a peg or two.

 

[josie_L]

Sorry, Roman Catholic, but you’re not easy to dialogue with. Because my view is that there should be room within Christianity for differing interpretations and viewpoints in the realm of theology, that somehow makes me a relativist? I may be dense, but I don’t get that. Are Americans who disagree on various political issues all relativists? Mainline Protestantism provides plenty of room for diversity of opinion. Actually, most Catholics I know exercise that same freedom - known, I guess, you might dismiss them cafeteria Catholics.

 Somehow, you want to insist that if we don't demand a unified viewpoint on theology we are relativists. I suggest that this is playing games with the English language. Now, if I believed that there are no ethical standards, that what's immoral for you might be moral for me - well, then I would be a moral relativist. But to apply the term to our prized freedom to have various opinions in the theological realm is - well, unusual and/or bizarre.

  You embrace a faith which you believe embodies the one and only true version of the Christian faith. Fine. Freedom of religion and all that. Part of our great American tradition - thank God. I embrace a different sort of Christian perspective that has considerable room for various opinions, without the need to conform to the truth as passed along by any church, including our own. Methodism is a broad-based faith with people of widely differing views among its members. I know because I have spent years experiencing it, and I'm not inclined to let a person of another denomination tell me what I am expected to believe. A vague statement on communion by one conference doesn't change that** I believe you misunderstand the freedom to differ within mainline Protestantism because Catholicism doesn't grant the same degree of freedom.**

  But, God bless you anyway, and God bless people of every creed, color and country. Wouldn't it be great if religion became a bridge to better understanding rather than a barrier between people? Christ must grieve at this pettiness.

I’m glad Catholicism doesn’t play fast and loose with the TRUTH, but you can stick to your relativism if it pleases you.

 

[twldr2002]

God gave man free will, a blessing for some perhaps and for some a curse.

If you are a Catholic and you receive the body and blood of Jesus at Mass but do not believe that it is truly him , his living body and blood… then woe to you when you stand before Jesus at the end of life to be judged. Who is God, you or Jesus? Saint Paul said that anyone partaking of Holy Communion in an unworthy manner - do not believe - or are in the state of mortal sin at that time… would be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.

As to non Catholic’s… one continues to believe what they as individuals believe is right… that is why there are better then 16,000 different Christian faiths out there with every one saying that their understanding of the bible is the correct one… even if they ignore John 6-53 to 58… and when one says that they believe only what is written in the bible… and not what the Catholic church teaches… the Gospel (the new testament) came from the Catholic church as there was no other until Martin Luther and others appeared on the scene…

So what is there to debate… if you believe that the host and wine becomes the living body and blood of Jesus and thus you will have eternal life… or you do not… then that is your choice, the same choice made almost 2,000 years ago …From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Being a true follower of Jesus means that you accept all of his teaching especially one that is so clear and not only those that one agrees with… again who is God us as the person or Jesus? If we truly love Jesus and trust in him we will do our best to follow and embrace al of his teachings.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It’s nice to see you put him down a peg or two.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hi R_C,
Even if I were completely convinced that Calvin believed in the real presence, Zwingli came first. So while there may have been others, it is Zwingli.

Jon

Hello again Jon,

I at least expected to see some attempts at quoting some Church Fathers to try and support the notion that the belief came much earlier. I really didn’t expect it to be conceded that Zwingli was the first so easily.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman_Catholic,

Actually no. If I may speak for Roy which I do not have his permission to do, but in my opinion, he is exercising his freedom in Christ and freedom of conscience, both of these doctrines are Biblical. He is also allowing you the same freedom and leaving the judging to the Lord.

Hello Hus

I am not sure how you can read his posts and come to the determination that he is not judging beliefs. Saying that something appears to be a “medieval superstition” is a judgement. Saying that people who are members of a certain church have to, “leave their brains at the door” is a judgement. If that is the conclusion you came to, so be it. I disagree though.

With all due respect, many RC’s on this forum are experts at shouting down sola scriptura, this is a fact.

Not sure how sola scriptura came up Jon?

What is apparent to me though is that those who are against it have basically no real working knowledge of how it is put into practice by those who believe it.

I have found some Protestant who have no real working knowledge on it either.

Roy, who takes the Bible just as seriously as Jon Hus, gets his definition of God from the Bible.

I find this a very very interesting comment. You have probably studied Jon Hus more than I have so you tell me if Hus would really fall in line with the following:

Roy5:

To begin with, one can read the scriptures and come up with a variety of theological ideas - as people have for centuries. Anyone who claims that the Bible promotes one clear and premise theology is naive.

Roy5:

However, the Bible has many weaknesses.

Both quotes from Post #3 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=384882

Roy5:

Among fundamentalist Protestants and, apparently, orthodox Catholics, the entire Bible is error-free. This has led to all sorts of fanaticism and injustices over the centuries.

Post #18 from above link

Roy5:

Our problem with sola scriptura (and this applies to traditional Catholicism, too) is that there are many fables, legends, myths and false history in the Bible (e. g., Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood) and some concepts are simply anti-Christian (e. g., endorsement of slavery, ‘suffer not a witch to live’, and much more).

Post #807 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5624952#post5624952

Roy5:

we find considerable wisdom and inspiration in the Bible, we are not Sola Scriptura Christians because there is simply too much in the Bible which is unacceptable.

Post #19 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5609469#post5609469

Roy5:

I also cannot subscribe to that variety of Protestantism which embraces sola scriptura, as there is much in scripture that must be dismissed as extra-Christian, even anti-Christian.

Post #430 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5591358#post5591358

I am not going to continue but to recap your premise is that Roy takes the Bible just as seriously as Hus did. So then Hus believed the Bible contained errors? That it wasn’t inerrent? That the Bible has weaknesses? That the Bible contains false history? Anti-Christian doctrines? That there is a lot in the Bible which is unacceptable? Hus denied Sola Scritpura?

You tell me? Remember, Roy is just, “exercising his freedom in Christ and freedom of conscience” which means that him denying sola scriptura is perfectly okay with you. And appearantly Jon Hus too since he took the Bible just as seriously as Roy does.

God bless you

 

[Jon_Hus]

Roman_Catholic,

Take this for what it is worth…

I have learned over the years that in this kind of setting that spending a lot of time defending my beliefs with brilliant well thought out and researched responses is not a valuable use of my time. Not to offend, but the responses under your name to Roy illustrate this very well as you are not really taking his statements head on in any real intellectual way, which is again your right to do if you so choose. Roy for example illustrates in very clear language how there is room for theological debate within protestant circles on some areas not specifically addressed in the Bible and what follows are responses repeating old tired 30K protestant groups response. R_C, the only person that I’m responsible for when I face the music is me and all I can do on this earth is humbly witness to what the Bible teaches and let God do the rest.

For what it is worth, I have spent huge amounts of time trying to find a historical paper trail linking the RCC teaching on communion from the NT writers to what is taught today and I cannot find it. If it is that important to the faith as Catholics insist, finding this historical evidence should be as easy as falling off of a chair. But you view things differently which is your God given right.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Now, Methodists, as you know, have never been noted for their theology. They have emphasized personal experience, opening their hearts to the working of the Holy Spirit. Some even trace the modern Pentecostal movement to Methodism. I share this emphasis.

Actually, Methodists WERE known for their theology and discipline… hence, the labeling as METHODists. Personal experience was coupled with holiness, and the evangelical was balanced with the sacramental. Those were clearly delineated by John Wesley. American Methodists embraced infant baptism, and when other Protestants were neglecting the Lord’s Supper, Methodists were known for the traveling elders who tried to make sure it was offered at least quarterly in the beginnings of America’s history.

You are correct that holiness of heart and mind was a distinct Methodist emphasis. But it would be historically incorrect to say that Methodists weren’t known for their theology; indeed, the emphasis of personal holiness was in the context OF theology. “Being saved” was not preached as a one-time event, but as a journey that continued throughout one’s life while lived out in community. You can read camp meeting sermons during the Great Awakening to see what was being preached by Methodists, as opposed to Calvinistic and Reformed theology.

The Pentecostal movement did branch off from Wesleyan roots, but divorced itself from matters sacramental, which was clearly at odds with Wesleyan theology. Indeed, Wesley was labeled a “bible moth” and a “sacramentalist” by those in the Anglican Church while he was at Oxford.

 

[ChadS]

For what it is worth, I have spent huge amounts of time trying to find a historical paper trail linking the RCC teaching on communion from the NT writers to what is taught today and I cannot find it. If it is that important to the faith as Catholics insist, finding this historical evidence should be as easy as falling off of a chair. But you view things differently which is your God given right.

If I may interject for Roman_Catholic, finding that paper trail is actually easier than falling off of a chair. Numerous quotes abound from the earliest Christians and other Church Fathers regarding their beliefs in the real presence. It really isn’t difficult to find that sort of material gathered together in either book form or online somewhere.

ChadS

 

[O.S.Luke]

As far as the OP, I would agree about Zwingli starting the concept of the “Real Absence” of Christ at the Eucharist (that’s not an original phrase; I borrowed that from Anglican sacramental scholar Dom Gregory Dix). Some of the modern understanding of communion as “symbolic” came from poor teaching/catechesis as well as misunderstandings about the Anglican/Methodist Article of Religion regarding transubstantiation and the (false) assumption that Luther believed in consubstantiation (he did not). Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation are metaphysical concepts of Thomism and Aristotelian philosophy, and neither were embraced as adequate explanations for the Real Presence as theologians such as Luther, Cranmer, and Wesley were concerned.

Historically, as I believe RC noted in a post, both John and Charles Wesley wrote over 150 eucharistic hymns. An excellent paper on this can be found by clicking here, which talks about how American Evangelicalism (not to be confused with the Evangelical movement that began in the Church of England) distanced itself away from sacramental theology and practice.

O+

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman_Catholic,

Take this for what it is worth…

I have learned over the years that in this kind of setting that spending a lot of time defending my beliefs with brilliant well thought out and researched responses is not a valuable use of my time. Not to offend, but the responses under your name to Roy illustrate this very well as you are not really taking his statements head on in any real intellectual way, which is again your right to do if you so choose.

So then Jon Hus did view the Bible how Roy5 does? I really didn’t know that

I thought that maybe you had commented not knowing who you were agreeing with. And Catholics are usually the ones who are told that they have a low view of the Scriptures.

God bless you