Evangelicals, can you answer these questions?

[Jim_Dandy]

There are a few things that I have some issues with when I speak to some Evangelicals regarding their beliefs and what Scriptures says. If you noticed, I am not Roman Catholic, I am Anglican. Here are a few of those issues and please do respond to them.

1. Scripture clearly talks about the Body and Blood of Christ and how Christ professed the bread and wine at the last supper to be his Body and Blood. How do you explain it down to symbolism when Scripture is clear on several accounts that it is much more than that?
2. How can you not believe in the saints being alive and well in Heaven when the Transfiguration proved that Moses and Elijah were absolutely alive and well years and years after they physically died?
3. Why do you not worship in the ways that Early Christians worshipped? Why are altars, vestments, incense and the Eucharist all absent from your worship? I don’t understand how it can be beneficial to strip away all of the Early Church tradition from worship.

I appreciate any and all dialogue. Thanks.

The answer to your questions is that Evangelicals (and other non-Catholic Christians, including Anglicans but excluding Orthodox) treat the Bible as their own property and interpret it any way but the right way. That’s why there are now thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations, each based on the incomplete 66-book Bible cut by Martin Luther, but no two of them agree on what the Bible means. Oy veh!

 

[Nicea325]

Clement you say? What is your evidence that he met or corresponded with an apostle?

And what is yours that he never met him or corresponded with an apostle?

Also, is it your position that the “resurrection” of the phoenix is an apostolic teaching?..or is it that Clement introduced some non-apostolic stuff? Oh dear, I hope not as that might make it somewhat difficult to know where we should draw the line…and Ignatius too? I hope you realize that it is far from certain that Ignatius ever met John (the apostle as opposed to the other John).

You ask of evidence,yet you cannot even provide your own claims that Igantius never met John.

BTW: The ECF were not writing personal diaries about their daily run-in with every person they met.

Do you write it down every time you meet someone? I doubt it!

 

[Nicea325]

The answer to your questions is that Evangelicals (and other non-Catholic Christians, including Anglicans but excluding Orthodox) treat the Bible as their own property and interpret it any way but the right way. That’s why there are now thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations, each based on the incomplete 66-book Bible cut by Martin Luther, but no two of them agree on what the Bible means. Oy veh!

Notice how they WILL NEVER ADMIT IT! It is called spiritual pride.

 

[VinnyC]

I’ll try to answer your questions from an RC turned Evangelical perspective.

1. How do you explain the Lord’s Supper down to symbolism when Scripture is clear on several accounts that it is much more than that?
   Answer - I believe the conclusion of Jesus’ discourse on eating His flesh and drinking His blood can be found in John 6:63. In my personal life and experience I can attest that my eating the Word, i.e., eating scripture, has given me Life. If taking the Eucharist changed people then myself and many of my RC friends who received communion on a regular basis would not have been whoremongers, drunks and drug addicts. Also, if taking the Eucharist has the power to change a life then why so many homosexual and pedophile RC priests? Having said that, I will tell you that I take communion very seriously and it’s not because I believe I’m eating that literal body and body of Christ (that would make me a cannibal). The communion elements remind me of the price paid for my salvation. His sacrifice for me and my salvation is why I love Jesus, which is why I frequently weep when I receive communion.
2. How can you not believe in the saints being alive and well in Heaven when the Transfiguration proved that Moses and Elijah were absolutely alive and well years and years after they physically died?
   Answer: I believe that all born-again Christians who died are alive and well and in heaven.
3. Why do you not worship in the ways that Early Christians worshipped? Why are altars, vestments, incense and the Eucharist all absent from your worship? I don’t understand how it can be beneficial to strip away all of the Early Church tradition from worship.
   Answer: Give me a break. Do you really think the apostles, disciples and 1st century Christians wore all that “stuff”, burned incense, made gold monstrances, adhered to untold volumes of rules, regulations dress codes and other stuff that has nothing to do with the Gospel but everything to do with the RC church. Not! Mutation generally creates an ugly creature. The RC church is the result of centuries of evolution - some led by the Holy Spirit and some not. I don’t say these things to be offensive. I’m simply telling you what I understand to be true. The RC church has gotten to the point where there’s too much stuff that has nothing to do with true Christianity IMHO. I’m sorry but the simplicity of the gospel is lost in all the stuff.

 

[VinnyC]

Clarification: My earlier reply was meant for “Cranmer2010”.

 

[VinnyC]

Notice how they WILL NEVER ADMIT IT! It is called spiritual pride.

I think it fair to say that all true Christians believe in the Apostles’ Creed. Spiritual pride is something that Jesus hated more than anything. He rebuked Pharisees and Sadducees who were blind but believed they had the corner on truth.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll try to answer your questions from an RC turned Evangelical perspective.

1. How do you explain the Lord’s Supper down to symbolism when Scripture is clear on several accounts that it is much more than that?

Answer - I believe the conclusion of Jesus’ discourse on eating His flesh and drinking His blood can be found in John 6:63. In my personal life and experience I can attest that my eating the Word, i.e., eating scripture, has given me Life.

Poor biblical exegesis.Jesus never says to eat His Words,but he does say one has no life unless they EAT and DRINK His Body and Blood.

If taking the Eucharist changed people then myself and many of my RC friends who received communion on a regular basis would not have been whoremongers, drunks and drug addicts.

False and biased. I know how many Protestants who ‘eat’ scripture as you stated and are still drunks,pot-heads,drug addicts,etc.

Also, if taking the Eucharist has the power to change a life then why so many homosexual and pedophile RC priests?

Biased and again false. You mean to tell me no Protestant minister is gay or has not been convicted of being a pedophile? BTW: Episcopalians and certain Lutherans ordain openly gay and lesbians as clergy. Time to clean your Evangelical shades.

Having said that, I will tell you that I take communion very seriously and it’s not because I believe I’m eating that literal body and body of Christ (that would make me a cannibal).

Precisely why you are a Protestant,because you are like the Jews who could not accept Jesus’ literal teaching of the Eucharist and walked away. BTW: Show me one historical writing teaching the early church taught the Eucharist was only symbolic?

The communion elements remind me of the price paid for my salvation. His sacrifice for me and my salvation is why I love Jesus, which is why I frequently weep when I receive communion.

U-huh you love Jesus so much,but you have the nerve to believe the RCC has so many homosexuals and pedophiles? Did you take a survey asking priests if they are gay or pedophiles?

1. How can you not believe in the saints being alive and well in Heaven when the Transfiguration proved that Moses and Elijah were absolutely alive and well years and years after they physically died?

Answer: I believe that all born-again Christians who died are alive and well and in heaven.

Define born-again?

1. Why do you not worship in the ways that Early Christians worshipped? Why are altars, vestments, incense and the Eucharist all absent from your worship? I don’t understand how it can be beneficial to strip away all of the Early Church tradition from worship.

Answer: Give me a break. Do you really think the apostles, disciples and 1st century Christians wore all that “stuff”, burned incense, made gold monstrances, adhered to untold volumes of rules, regulations dress codes and other stuff that has nothing to do with the Gospel but everything to do with the RC church. Not!

Give me a break. Do you really think the apostles,disciples and 1st century Christians wore all the “stuff” (suits and ties) altar calls,carried bibles at services,owned bibles with 66 books, attended bible studies,founding thousands of different churches,setc,denominations,non-denominations,etc that has nothing to do with the Gospel,but everything to do with the rebellion called Protestanism,Evangelicals,fundamentals,etc. Not!

Mutation generally creates an ugly creature.

Yep! Thousands upon thousands of differenet churches teaching conflicting things.

The RC church is the result of centuries of evolution - some led by the Holy Spirit and some not.

Like what?

I don’t say these things to be offensive. I’m simply telling you what I understand to be true. The RC church has gotten to the point where there’s too much stuff that has nothing to do with true Christianity IMHO. I’m sorry but the simplicity of the gospel is lost in all the stuff.

Not offensive at all,but a clear sign you knew very little about Catholicism as a Catholic. Nothing new from so many ex-Catholics.

 

[Third_Day]

=VinnyC;6981809]I think it fair to say that all true Christians believe in the Apostles’ Creed

.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
**the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints, **
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN

The Apostles Creed was written somewhere around AD 200 which means that it was written by Catholics since Protestantism didn’t exist. When they said the “Holy Catholic Church” they meant the One Church established by Christ and built upon Peter not a denomination built upon Luther or Calvin.

When they said “communion of saints” they meant the saints living and those in purgatory and in those in heaven.

Next time you say the Apostles Creed remember what you are actually saying.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

When they said the “Holy Catholic Church” they meant the One Church established by Christ and built upon Peter…

Tell that to the Orthodox, Coptics, and various Eastern Christian churches, most of whom have the same creed. Specifically the Nicaean Creed, very similar and with the same wording “the holy catholic and apostolic church…”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get ready for a post about how the Orthodox, Coptics, and other folks are lost sad sheep without a clue and don’t have the Rock, lack unity and are incoherent, etc.

Tell that to the Orthodox, Coptics, and various Eastern Christian churches, most of whom have the same creed. Specifically the Nicaean Creed, very similar and with the same wording “the holy catholic and apostolic church…”

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Get ready for a post about how the Orthodox, Coptics, and other folks are lost sad sheep without a clue and don’t have the Rock, lack unity and are incoherent, etc.

I’ve heard those arguments before, and have never been impressed by them to be frank.

However, all this of course is off the topic of the original OP. Generally I have avoided most of these Protestant vs. Catholic threads because in the end they seem to just become people repeating tired arguments to one another.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I just left the Matthew 16:18 thread. Talk about an exercise in futility. Wow. Proof-text, cut and paste a few Patrick Madrid talking points, blast everyone as a wannabe pope of protestantism, accuse you of being your own interpreter, quote the “feed my sheep” and Matt. 16:18, cherry pick some ECF quotes out of context and ignore the men who didn’t agree with modern conclusions about the papacy, accuse people of not believing in papal primacy when they themselves don’t know what primacy is, yep, pretty standard stuff. Good times LOL You’re smart to stay clear. You can’t through anyway. Use the ignore button and just talk to the people who respect a different point of view with charity.

I’ve heard those arguments before, and have never been impressed by them to be frank.

However, all this of course is off the topic of the original OP. Generally I have avoided most of these Protestant vs. Catholic threads because in the end they seem to just become people repeating tired arguments to one another.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Agreed. I just left the Matthew 16:18 thread. Talk about an exercise in futility. Wow. Proof-text, cut and paste a few Patrick Madrid talking points, blast everyone as a wannabe pope of protestantism, accuse you of being your own interpreter, quote the “feed my sheep” and Matt. 16:18, cherry pick some ECF quotes out of context and ignore the men who didn’t agree with modern conclusions about the papacy, accuse people of not believing in papal primacy when they themselves don’t know what primacy is, yep, pretty standard stuff. Good times LOL You’re smart to stay clear. You can’t through anyway. Use the ignore button and just talk to the people who respect a different point of view with charity.

With regards to the ignore function, I generally use the ignore button only if it really, really, really becomes clear that the person will not listen nor interact with anything. Let me make something clear: disagreeing with Byzantine_Wolf won’t automatically end with you being on Byzantine_Wolf’s ignore list. To my knowledge, I’ve only put two people on ignore during my time here: planten, a wacky Muslim who not only didn’t listen to what you said but was very very dishonest; some random Baha’i member who took every post as a chance to talk about how great Baha’i was - I could say, “The Dow Jones went down today,” and he’d say, “Well that reminds me of what our founder said…”

But in general in these things, I’m often saddened because they start out with the potential for great discussion and degenerate really quickly.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Same here actually. I only have two on ignore. But I’m considering upping the list LOL

I agree with your sentiment about it though. Some of the people with whom I seriously seriously have disagreed and “had it out” turned out to be my best friend on here. I don’t mind being intellectually challenged and hearing a different viewpoint. I just hate the mudslinging and cliches and the people who have recently learned a few pieces of debating jargon who are really anxious to try them out.

It’s like a kid in my classroom who learns a new vocab word and wants to show off his knowledge and learn it. Same thing I see on here sometimes. It’s empowering to them or something.

“That’s a STRAWMAN argumen” (thinks, 'that’s right folks, I’m a philosopher! )
"I beg to differ. You’re making an A PRIORI statement (God I feel smart! Oh yeah! )
“You have indeed made your point AD NAUSEUM” (LOL)
“I digress. You’re starting to beg the question” (Take that y’all!)

With regards to the ignore function, I generally use the ignore button only if it really, really, really becomes clear that the person will not listen nor interact with anything. Let me make something clear: disagreeing with Byzantine_Wolf won’t automatically end with you being on Byzantine_Wolf’s ignore list. To my knowledge, I’ve only put two people on ignore during my time here: planten, a wacky Muslim who not only didn’t listen to what you said but was very very dishonest; some random Baha’i member who took every post as a chance to talk about how great Baha’i was - I could say, “The Dow Jones went down today,” and he’d say, “Well that reminds me of what our founder said…”

But in general in these things, I’m often saddened because they start out with the potential for great discussion and degenerate really quickly.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m more annoyed by some people (usually recent converts or people who just don’t do any research outside of what preaches to their choir) who reuse the same arguments that have been replied to over and over again.

“40,000 DENOMINATIONS!”
“Dude, Protestant apologists have responded to that argument a thousand times over. Can you at least do something new with it?”
“Uh…um…uh…40,000 DENOMINATIONS!!”

And on the flip side (just to be fair and balanced )…

“CATHOLICS WORSHIP THE POPE-GOD!”
“OK, you read a Chick tract. Very good. Now…did you bother reading the Catholic side of this issue?”
“Um…uh…er…CATHOLICS WORSHIP THE POPE-GOD!”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Usually it’s 26,000 denominations, then another says 33,000 and another 44,000. It goes up by the minute!

You’re right. The anti-Catholics are just as crazy. They’ll do the “yeah, well look at Pope Suchinsuch VI! He fathered three kids with a prostitute! Infallible? I think not!” as if that moment of sinful behavior or moments has anything to do with official moral teachings LOL Then there’s the crowd who use child molestation as somehow an official church teaching LOL And then there’s the group who is so dang mad about Mary no matter what the topic is.

On the anti-Protestant side we get, “here we go again! Sola Scriptura!”

I’ve even heard people call Luther “Martin Loser”

Then you get the confusion between Zwingli, Calvin and Luther’s views on the Eucharist. So many people confuse them!

And then there’s Apostolicae Curae. When you throw in the “Dutch Touch” they’re totally confused and still ignore the point LOL

And naturally people don’t know much about Anglicans so they think the Episcopal Church represents all of Anglicanism so suddenly “ALL” Anglicans want gay ministers and women ‘priests’ :shrug:

I’m more annoyed by some people (usually recent converts or people who just don’t do any research outside of what preaches to their choir) who reuse the same arguments that have been replied to over and over again.

“40,000 DENOMINATIONS!”
“Dude, Protestant apologists have responded to that argument a thousand times over. Can you at least do something new with it?”
“Uh…um…uh…40,000 DENOMINATIONS!!”

And on the flip side (just to be fair and balanced )…

“CATHOLICS WORSHIP THE POPE-GOD!”
“OK, you read a Chick tract. Very good. Now…did you bother reading the Catholic side of this issue?”
“Um…uh…er…CATHOLICS WORSHIP THE POPE-GOD!”

 

[Dpoc41]

Quote:

1. Scripture clearly talks about the
   Body and Blood of Christ and how
   Christ professed the bread and wine
   at the last supper to be his Body and
   Blood. How do you explain it down
   to symbolism when Scripture is clear
   on several accounts that it is much
   more than that?
   Jesus also said if your hand offend
   you (cause you to sin), cut it off. He
   also said if your eye offend you
   (cause you to sin), cut it off. Have
   you taken Jesus literally?
   When Jesus instituted Communion,
   He did NOT give them His actual
   Body and Blood. His Body and Blood
   were all contained in Him and He
   took it all to the Cross.
   Didn’t Paul tell us Jesus said to, ‘do
   this in remembrance of Me’?
   Rememberance tells us it’s symbolic.------------------

If it was symbolic why did some of His followers get up and leave at this teaching? Jn 6:67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Why didnt Jesus say “come back I was only talking symbolically” because He was not.

 

[hizstory]

Correction: They think their interpretation of the scriptures is reliable and that the CC and its tradition isn’t.

Peace, Jim Dandy

Nice correction

 

[Third_Day]

Get ready for a post about how the Orthodox, Coptics, and other folks are lost sad sheep without a clue and don’t have the Rock, lack unity and are incoherent, etc.

More than 20 Eastern Churches remained with Peter. The others have retained apostolic succession and valid sacraments something that is lacking in the Protestant world.

 

[Third_Day]

Tell that to the Orthodox, Coptics, and various Eastern Christian churches, most of whom have the same creed. Specifically the Nicaean Creed, very similar and with the same wording “the holy catholic and apostolic church…”

IN the early centuries when the Nicaean and Apostles Creed were formulated everyone was Catholic so when they said the Creeds they were refering to themselves not to a sect called Protestantism that was still over a thousand years away from being created by men.

THe Orthodox are still apostolic yet separated from the unity that Christ desires. Over 20 over the Eastern Churches remained with Peter.