Evangelicals, can you answer these questions?

[VinnyC]

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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

Like what?

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

VinnyC response:
Let’s go to the scriptures. John 6 is self explainatory. He said his flesh counts for nothing but rather the Spirit gives LIFE. He says that his words are Spirit and Life. Again, His words are Spirit and Life. John 7:38 says, “If anyone is thirsty let him come to me and drink.” To any intellectually objective person, it’s clear that Jesus is speaking sympolicaly. He did not ask us to become cannibals. The passover meal showed his work on the cross. It did not show a new rite or sacrament, which is why he told them of it in the passover meal. He was showing who he was and the fulfillment of the passover meal in his sacrifice for them.

You are right to say that the 1st century church leaders did not wear suit and ties. They wore the common clothing of the time, which is what evangelical protestants generally do.

You are right in that those who claim to be Protestant leaders can be just as sinful as Catholics. In my personal experience, the Word in me renewed my mind to Christ. As with any true Christian, I receive the salvation He provides through His shed blood for me on the cross. I see no evidence in scripture that we are to become cannibals to receive the life of Christ. We receive Him spiritually - in our heart. Read the book of acts and see how folks received Christ and were filled with the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel alone. Jesus said I am the door, I am the true vine. Does this mean that we are now to worship doors and vines? Jesus does not expect us to become cannibals to be saved.

Don’t presume to know me. I had 12 years of RC education. I know more than most about the RC religion.

 

[Nicea325]

VinnyC response:

Let’s go to the scriptures. John 6 is self explainatory. He said his flesh counts for nothing but rather the Spirit gives LIFE. He says that his words are Spirit and Life. Again, His words are Spirit and Life. John 7:38 says, “If anyone is thirsty let him come to me and drink.” To any intellectually objective person, it’s clear that Jesus is speaking sympolicaly. He did not ask us to become cannibals. The passover meal showed his work on the cross. It did not show a new rite or sacrament, which is why he told them of it in the passover meal. He was showing who he was and the fulfillment of the passover meal in his sacrifice for them.

Sorry,but your interpretation is flawed. Jesus never says **HIS FLESH **counts for nothing, but says THE Flesh counts for nothing. So Jesus’ contradicts Himself by saying EAT His Flesh and a few moments later says His Flesh counts for nothing? I do not think so! You have fallen for the Protestant belief of a symbolic Eucharist. Oh by the way,go ahead send me the overwhelming historical writings clearly showing the early Christians taught and believed a symbolic Eucharist?

You are right to say that the 1st century church leaders did not wear suit and ties. They wore the common clothing of the time, which is what evangelical protestants generally do

.

But they did not have altar calls,own bibles,take bibles to services,etc…did they?

You are right in that those who claim to be Protestant leaders can be just as sinful as Catholics.

Well that is not how you came across and if you do not believe me go back and read your own words.

In my personal experience, the Word in me renewed my mind to Christ. As with any true Christian, I receive the salvation He provides through His shed blood for me on the cross.

Sorry again,but you did not receive salvation,but redemption as ALL humans did.Salvation is after we are long gone and not all will be saved.

I see no evidence in scripture that we are to become cannibals to receive the life of Christ. We receive Him spiritually - in our heart. Read the book of acts and see how folks received Christ and were filled with the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel alone. Jesus said I am the door, I am the true vine. Does this mean that we are now to worship doors and vines? Jesus does not expect us to become cannibals to be saved.

No offense, again you exactly like the Jews who walked away when Jesus mentioned they MUST eat His Flesh and Blood. Why would they walk away,if Jesus only spoke symbolic? Yes Jesus said I am the door and the true vine,but did the disciples walk away because they believed it literally? Nope! But guess what? Scripture does not state Jesus touched or placed His hands on a door or vine as He did with bread. Does not Scripture Jesus took bread IN His hands and blessed it and broke it? Hhmmmmm…sound familiar else where?

Don’t presume to know me. I had 12 years of RC education. I know more than most about the RC religion.

And do not presume you know the entire Catholic Faith like the back of your hands,because you don’t. You more than most about the RC religion? Most accounts for who? Evangelical Protestants? You do not know more than I and that much I know is a fact.

 

[JohnnyReb]

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.

20 churches, wait a minute, Christ only founded one Catholic and Apostolic church LOL Ok I am being fasicious

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. I know this already but thanks for the reminder.

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.

 

[freedomwriter]

My problem with Evangelicals is their insistence that the Bible is the entirety of everything and somehow an owner’s manual made by God that encapsulates EVERYTHING about ecclesiology, morality, christology, soteriology, and every other important “ology” there is. The Bible is a HUGE piece of the equation, but not all of it.

Obviously without the first seven ecumenical councils, where would we be? For the first centuries, Christology was being laid-out and understood by the Church. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophosytism all threatened the truth of who Christ is. Without the unified Church (not some merry band of elders, but bishops embued by the holy spirit) we wouldn’t have had the Creeds hammered-out, the definitive statements of who Christ is, etc. We’d be a mess. And without apostolic Fathers where would we be? Augustine did so much to help us understand grace, sin, original sin, predestination and free will, the role of the Church and sacraments, fight pelagius and donatus, etc. The Catholic Church took the reigns and edited and compiled the Bible at the Council of Carthage and we have her to thank for that. We have the apostolic succession to thank for keeping the truth of the Church alive. It isn’t until Calvin and company come on the scene that we see an individualistic renaissance-minded (and later, sadly an Enlightenment-oriented) selfish approach to history and sacraments and christology done in a vacuum rather than in the general councils and confines of the Church. Men like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement actually lived during the age of the apostles!! It’s pretty blasted hard to believe that after living amongst the apostles that they fell to apostasy as the radical evangelicals seem to believe.

The loss of the proper undertanding of the Eucharist, Confession/Penance, Mariology, ecclesiology, apostolic succession, the communion of saints, and the nature of sin, etc. is what I dislike most about Evanglicalism and why I could never be a Calvinist.

The Word of God is a manual of how we should live our lives as a Christian. Nothing should be taken out or in the Word of God. We are to believe the entire Bible not only what fits our needs.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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?

Hello…I am an Evangelical but I must be somewhat of an odd duck since I believe in some sense anyway it is more than symbolic. Jesus could have spared a lot of confusion if He had just chosen the verb “represents”. But for some reason He did not.

That having been said there is a wide range of possibilities that fit the verb “is” other than some type of chemical or physical or any other type of transformation. In fact one valid devinition of the verb is…well is “represents”. So I don’t think Scripture is quite as clear on this point as you claim it to be.

What works for me is interpreting the verb as a personal approach and leaving what does or does not happen up to the Lord Jesus Christ.

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?

Seriously, you really believe us evangelicals believe that those who have gone on before us in the Lord are not alive and well in heaven? Where did you get this misconception?

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.

I appreciate any and all dialogue. Thanks.

Well if we are wrong, then it appears that the earliest Christians in the book of Acts are wrong since I see nothing of that in their worship.

Oh except Eucharist, Lord’s supper, breaking of bread or whatever you want to call that. Except we do that too.

There is a wide diversity of worship in the Bible and an even wider diversity of worship styles and practices that have been used throughout history. For one organization to say to another organization “Why don’t you do it the way we do it” quite honestly smacks of arrogance.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did you notice the context explicitly in what I said was “ecclesiastical.” In other words, polity, etc. I obviously agree with your statement and wouldn’t seek to add, change, or delete a letter from the sacred Scriptures. Please notice the context of my statement. Blessings to you.

The Word of God is a manual of how we should live our lives as a Christian. Nothing should be taken out or in the Word of God. We are to believe the entire Bible not only what fits our needs.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If I may referree for a moment on the topic of vestments, Rightly Divide is simply stating that as far as wardrobe is concerned, there was not much (if any) difference between clergy and laity (and that is what his or evangelical churches still follow).

Yes, Third Day, there is no mention of suits and ties in the Bible or the writings of the Early Church Fathers, but that is missing Rightly Divide’s point just as he seems to be missing your point that clothing changes with culture and that the clothing of clergy (Catholic) has remained relatively unchanged.

It seems to me that you are actually both right if you could just step back and see each other’s points.

I do understand that clothing changes. I think that taken in moderation it is certainly not a big deal. It was brought up by the OP.

 

[dougfreed]

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.

I think most would agree with some of The Creed but not all.

Check this out Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith

 

[Nicea325]

I think most would agree with some of The Creed but not all.

Check this out Post-Creeds

The heading reads:

Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Ultimately, the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Church developed finished statements of Christian beliefs known as “creeds.”

Does not read: Post-Creeds

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

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.

I congratulate you, sir, for a professional dance around giving a real response to that statement. You put la cucaracha dancers to shame.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello…I am an Evangelical but I must be somewhat of an odd duck since I believe in some sense anyway it is more than symbolic. Jesus could have spared a lot of confusion if He had just chosen the verb “represents”. But for some reason He did not.

That having been said there is a wide range of possibilities that fit the verb “is” other than some type of chemical or physical or any other type of transformation. In fact one valid devinition of the verb is…well is “represents”. So I don’t think Scripture is quite as clear on this point as you claim it to be.

What works for me is interpreting the verb as a personal approach and leaving what does or does not happen up to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Would analyzing the original greek or hebrew text make a difference? I think the problem some have is they are analyzing the current translations which may have lost some meaning from the original text. I myself haven’t done any study on the Greek text of John 6 and the Last Supper. But it may capture the actual essense of what is actually meant. The English “is” could mean several different things to us. But it could also be the only faithful translation of what is originally meant in the original text. So an analysis of the original text would yield us the proper meaning of the phrase. Do you agree?

 

[dougfreed]

Would analyzing the original greek or hebrew text make a difference? I think the problem some have is they are analyzing the current translations which may have lost some meaning from the original text. I myself haven’t done any study on the Greek text of John 6 and the Last Supper. But it may capture the actual essense of what is actually meant. The English “is” could mean several different things to us. But it could also be the only faithful translation of what is originally meant in the original text. So an analysis of the original text would yield us the proper meaning of the phrase. Do you agree?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…“La Cucaracha?” LOL…Now I’m picturing a matador with a rose in his teeth clapping his hands dancing in a circle around a credal argument LOL! while flamenco music plays…

I congratulate you, sir, for a professional dance around giving a real response to that statement. You put la cucaracha dancers to shame.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Apologies, that post comes across sarcastic, it was in poor taste for me. I simply couldn’t help but notice that my point (that the Orthodox, Coptics, and other Eastern Christians who are “apostolic” would contest that “catholic” meant embracing Peter as the head of the Church) was completely avoided.

 

[Third_Day]

=

AmateurPianist;6983908]Hello…I am an Evangelical but I must be somewhat of an odd duck since I believe in some sense anyway it is more than symbolic. Jesus could have spared a lot of confusion if He had just chosen the verb "represents". But for some reason He did not.

That having been said there is a wide range of possibilities that fit the verb “is" other than some type of chemical or physical or any other type of transformation. In fact one valid devinition of the verb is…well is "represents”. So I don’t think Scripture is quite as clear on this point as you claim it to be.

Bill Clinton had also had a problem with the word “is”.

AmateurPianist here is something for you to consider. In John 16:25 Jesus says this to His apostles "I have said this to you in figures, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures but tell you plainly of the Father.

In John 16:29 "His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures.”

The Greek for figures is paroimia and it also means “any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth 2a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying 2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons 2c) an allegory 2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor”

The Greek word for is -esti

Jesus could have taken bread, broke it and said “This paroimia my body”

He clearly knew the word for “symbol and figure” but He choose instead to say “This esit my body”

Seems to me He meant what He said. The bread He broke is His body.

 

[eeasterly]

Saving questions No. 1. and No. 2. for perhaps another time, let me address No. 3 (using your terminology, “Eucharist” in No. 3, I presume, reflects No. 1). If we are talking about “early Christians” in worship, let’s go back to the “earliest” Christians as we find them in the New Testament. There we find no reference to elaborate altars or to vestments or incense. EVERYTHING in tradition is not necessarily the best way to go about doing things, as Jesus had to constantly remind his Jewish leader adversaries. I cannot imagine Jesus or his disciples – or the apostle Paul – desiring or encouraging such items. The earliest churches as we find them in the New Testament seemed to get along fine without them, and probably used any extra cash to take care of the poor among them and pay their ministers a decent wage.
You mentioned what is “beneficial” to worship. For many, the absence of expensive fineries in worship (eye-catching resplendent clothing, shining utensils of precious metals, etc.) helps one to concentrate on the real reason for worship: a very personal connection with our Lord.
Thank you for your questions, which help us to think about why we do things.
Triple E

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I feel your pain!

=

Bill Clinton had also had a problem with the word “is”.

AmateurPianist here is something for you to consider. In John 16:25 Jesus says this to His apostles "I have said this to you in figures, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures but tell you plainly of the Father.

In John 16:29 "His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures.”

The Greek for figures is paroimia and it also means “any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth 2a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying 2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons 2c) an allegory 2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor”

The Greek word for is -esti

Jesus could have taken bread, broke it and said “This paroimia my body”

He clearly knew the word for “symbol and figure” but He choose instead to say “This esit my body”

Seems to me He meant what He said. The bread He broke is His body.

 

[Radical]

=

Bill Clinton had also had a problem with the word “is”.

AmateurPianist here is something for you to consider. In John 16:25 Jesus says this to His apostles "I have said this to you in figures, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures but tell you plainly of the Father.

In John 16:29 "His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures.”

The Greek for figures is paroimia and it also means “any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth 2a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying 2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons 2c) an allegory 2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor”

The Greek word for is -esti

Jesus could have taken bread, broke it and said “This paroimia my body”

He clearly knew the word for “symbol and figure” but He choose instead to say “This esit my body”

Seems to me He meant what He said. The bread He broke is His body.

So you have trotted out the “is” means “is” argument. To repeat what I said on another thread …To be very candid, the “Is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that figurative manner? So let me simply respond at this time by asking this question (which I have asked here before):

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” to mean “actually is” and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body?..surely can’t be b/c God wouldn’t have the ability to make such a thing happen.

Jesus could have taken bread, broke it and said “This paroimia my body”

do you think that Jesus was speaking Greek at the time?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Would analyzing the original greek or hebrew text make a difference? I think the problem some have is they are analyzing the current translations which may have lost some meaning from the original text. I myself haven’t done any study on the Greek text of John 6 and the Last Supper. But it may capture the actual essense of what is actually meant. The English “is” could mean several different things to us. But it could also be the only faithful translation of what is originally meant in the original text. So an analysis of the original text would yield us the proper meaning of the phrase. Do you agree?

Yes…if I knew the original languages.

Since I don’t, I have to rely on others and have no way of verifying their correctness.

I have encountered two folks using the original languages to make opposing arguments. I find that very confusing.