How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[SyCarl]

What Paul is speaking of here is the spiritual gift of faith, not the original justifying faith. This is clear if you read chapters 12-14 together, remembering that the originals weren’t divided. In chapter 12 he is going over the gifts of the Spirit. Faith is given as one of those. These gifts come only to those who already believe. He then uses the analogy of the body to show all these gifts work together. Then he goes on in chapter 13 to say these gifts of the Spirit are nothing without love. In chapter 13 he explains which gifts are the most important.

Justifying faith should result in true love but the faith to move mountains is not that faith.

 

[Isearch]

Our Lord has clarified long ago that this was literal

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

John 6:55

 

[EZweber]

Justifying faith should result in true love but the faith to move mountains is not that faith

Which opens up the possibility of eating his flesh and blood being necessary for salvation. Can we define faith?

 

[ReadTheBible]

Welcome to the circle

My last comment on this topic. I understand what Catholicism believes about John 6. I don’t agree with their understanding of the scripture and given my reasons (in the same chapter) as to why. This is one of the disagreements between Catholicism and Protestantism.

If you are Catholic, you are bound by the Church to believe what the Church tells you to believe regarding scripture. I am not Catholic. I along with millions of others have different beliefs than Rome when it comes to scripture and a great many of Rome’s traditions.

 

[Isearch]

Well, I am not necessarily defending the doctrines of the Roman Church; I am simply defending the doctrine of the Real Presence held by all the churches with apostolic lineage.

 

[SyCarl]

Well if you take His statements in John 6 literally He appears to also say that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is sufficient in itself for salvation.

(Joh 6:51) I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
(Joh 6:52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(Joh 6:53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
(Joh 6:54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

If transubstantiation is correct anyone who receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church eats His flesh and drinks His blood. Jesus gives no exceptions here so His statement would apply to anyone no matter what they believe.

Augustine used John 6 as an example of figurative language.

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

However I believe that if a believer receives communion he receives in some way what was promised. I do not pretend to know how.

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God

Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraphs 15, 17, &18)

CHURCH FATHERS: Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[steve-b]

We’ve already went over all of that.

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:

Whose flesh profits nothing when it is eaten? Jesus flesh? Nope. THEIR flesh profits nothing including those called “disciples” that left Jesus over His teaching on the Eucharist… So what is Jesus stressing? keep reading

ReadTheBible:

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

IOW spirit and life = the seen and unseen. There are no other realities. His words cover every possibility that He just spoke of. AND as He stated, Consuming HIS flesh and blood, is mandatory. NOT a suggestion. He gave an unconditional statement. Do this or else.

The Eucharist, His flesh and blood, is what’s important to consume. AND Jesus knew in advance before He even gave them (those called “disciples”) the bread of life discourse, that they would leave Him because He knew in advance they had no faith.

ReadTheBible:

Jesus plainly tells all his disciples that he is not literally talking about his flesh

Nonsense. That is why those called “disciples” left Him. They took Him literally and couldn’t accept it. The apostles OTOH stayed. They believed.

ReadTheBible:

but it is his words (teaching) that give life. You will not accept that as Catholicism defines for you that Jesus is being literal. I think we can move on.

If they (the apostles) were as clueless as you paint them, they would have also left with the others (the others called "disciples) who Jesus said had no faith. IOW, Those that left took Jesus literally. AND they were offended. They weren’t going to accept what Jesus just taught.

Here’s an important point. Did Jesus go after THEM? Nope! He let them go. THAT IMV is one of the scariest passages in all of scripture. Jesus didn’t go after them. IOW they didn’t follow through with that command Jesus just gave them. Meaning, Jesus would not abide in them and they wouldn’t abide in Jesus. They were dead. No Life in them. And what did Jesus say was the consequence? They would NOT be raised to heaven.

When Jesus asked Peter, how about you (plural) are you going to leave Me Too? Jesus askes a question He already knows the answer to,

Peter said where will we go you have the words of everlasting life.

Peter our first pope gets it. Those that left, …Well… it ain’t good for THEM as Jesus warned them and in extension all who leave

 

[Hodos]

I wasn’t citing a study. What do you mean by “sect” of Catholicism? Many Catholics are not submissive to the Magisterium.

I would have to go back and read the study to understand how they determine denominations or sects. I just remember the same study you are alluding to, the one usually cited in this forum states there are over 900 Roman Catholic sects or denominations, which should make you question the validity of the study I would think.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

as it turns out today, 60%+ of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are now in schism from the rest of Orthodoxy

I do not mean to disagree with anything else other than this in this post- Orthodoxy have this “dual communion” thing where Church 1 and Church 2 can both be in communion with Church 3 but not with each other. But then again, I heard about scenario where Moscow Patriarch did not commemorate any other Patriarch at Liturgy yet Ukrainian Patriarch did commemorate even Moscow. Orthodox communion right now is very, very complicated, sloppy and I doubt anyone really understands it- they just kinda pretend. Moscow and Constantinople send priests to each other jurisdiction as if there was no one present and it’s a mess of messes- even during Great Schism this did not happen, only during Chalcedonian one.

But as I said, it’s not exactly accurate that Russians are in Schism with everyone else- only with Constantinople.

Schism occurred. All Orthodoxy who is united to Istanbul, are now NOT in union with the Russians (60%+ of Orthodoxy) by the Russian’s own move.
here are some reference(s).

. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

 

[Hodos]

There might be better exegesis but this is one I heard is being used- anyway, infallibility of Pope and Church are logical consequences of Bible, not necessarily things stated in it (again, I am open to correction). Why else would Lord even establish Church on Peter or mention preserving him? Why would it matter if Peter was not to lead the Church? Why would Peter leading Church matter if such leadership ended with his death?

Right, and as we have discussed above, I would challenge the validity of this statement. I don’t believe that it logically follows that just because Christ established his Church that therefore she is infallible. The apostolic epistles demonstrate this to be an illogical conclusion as the early Church is constantly being corrected on its doctrine and practice. I think that when it can be shown that the teaching is faithful, by comparing the teaching vs what was handed down to us we can certainly make informed conclusions on whether a specific teaching is faithful in its doctrinal substance.

 

[steve-b]

OrbisNonSufficit:

There might be better exegesis but this is one I heard is being used- anyway, infallibility of Pope and Church are logical consequences of Bible, not necessarily things stated in it (again, I am open to correction). Why else would Lord even establish Church on Peter or mention preserving him? Why would it matter if Peter was not to lead the Church? Why would Peter leading Church matter if such leadership ended with his death?

Right, and as we have discussed above, I would challenge the validity of this statement. I don’t believe that it logically follows that just because Christ established his Church that therefore she is infallible. The apostolic epistles demonstrate this to be an illogical conclusion as the early Church is constantly being corrected on its doctrine and practice. I think that when it can be shown that the teaching is faithful, by comparing the teaching vs what was handed down to us we can certainly make informed conclusions on whether a specific teaching is faithful in its doctrinal substance.

Those who push back on infallibility do so because they think it means on everything. That is not, nor has it ever been , the case. Infallibility covers only matters of faith and morals. It’s confined to that area.

 

[Hodos]

Those who push back on infallibility because they think it means on everything. That is not, nor has it ever been , the case. Infallibility covers only matters of faith and morals. It’s confined to that area.

I am aware of this.

 

[EZweber]

Well if you take His statements in John 6 literally He appears to also say that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is sufficient in itself for salvation.

Christ often says similar things about things that are necessary for salvation but not sufficient in themselves. Again, look at what the reactions are. The disciples leave because they understand it literally and instead of correcting them, he reaffirms it with a solemn double Amen. Also, to “drink one’s blood” understood in an allegorical sense meant to abuse and revile them.

 

[EZweber]

I just remember the same study you are alluding to, the one usually cited in this forum states there are over 900 Roman Catholic sects or denominations, which should make you question the validity of the study I would think.

No one here will probably argue that there are not thousands of Protestant sects. When someone splits from the Apostolic Church however, they are not considered part of it, so there only can be one sect.

 

[SyCarl]

Can you give an example of where He says something is necessary but not sufficient? In addition in John 6 Jesus seems to be saying necessary and sufficient. He who eats and drinks has eternal life and unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Jesus often does not correct those who misunderstand him such as when He says if you tear down this temple I will rebuild it in 3 days.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Hodos:

I just remember the same study you are alluding to, the one usually cited in this forum states there are over 900 Roman Catholic sects or denominations, which should make you question the validity of the study I would think.

No one here will probably argue that there are not thousands of Protestant sects. When someone splits from the Apostolic Church however, they are not considered part of it, so there only can be one sect.

Take that up with the methodology of the study. You don’t get to say that its findings are accurate when they’re useful for bashing Protestantism but inaccurate when they say something you don’t like about Catholicism.

 

[Hodos]

No one here will probably argue that there are not thousands of Protestant sects. When someone splits from the Apostolic Church however, they are not considered part of it, so there only can be one sect.

So let me ask you something. Is a Protestant baptism valid and efficacious (supposing it is Trinitarian)? Likewise is an Eastern Orthodox baptism valid and efficacious?

 

[EZweber]

Take that up with the methodology of the study. You don’t get to say that its findings are accurate when they’re useful for bashing Protestantism but inaccurate when they say something you don’t like about Catholicism

It is generally agreed that there are thousands of Protestant denominations. I was not using that study. My point is that no one will argue about the former, but the latter is undisputed. I will be off the forum for a few hours in case you are wondering where my answer is to any other objections.

 

[EZweber]

This one is easy, so yes. Bye!

 

[HopkinsReb]

I was not using that study.

You used their number. Don’t want to have it thrown back at you, don’t use it. It’s lazy at best and dishonest at worst.