I’ve read those commentaries as well. What he is referring to are words in Scripture where it’s “assumed” by Christians that a word means something, but that assumption can’t be backed up by either that particular passage on its own, or from Scripture in general. Do you have any specifics?
May I ask where in John 6 does it say the bread & wine “becomes” the body & blood of Christ, as it does in John 2 when it says the water “became” wine? In fact, where in John 6 does it say that Jesus is talking about communion, or that communion is even occuring? What about John 6:53 where Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh & drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you”? What happens to baptized babies who die, those invincibly ignorant, those baptized by desire (like the repentant thief on the cross) or those baptized of blood (martyrs) who die without receiving communion? Since Jesus said “unless,” which in Greek means “except, or if not,” then wouldn’t Jesus be saying “except, or if not” you eat Jesus’ flesh & drink His blood, you have no life in you"? Wouldn’t these people end up in Hell?If he can’t get John 6 right on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and in doing so he disagrees with apostolic faith for 2,000 years, then I don’t want anything to do with him.
Such is the outcome of the error of Sola Scriptura. In the case above, he is a solo scripturist, conforming his denomination to his own personal views.
Actually, I have (“Getting To Know the Church Fathers” by Bryan Litfin). And I still stand by what I previously wrote.That’s only because you haven’t read John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Irenaeus or Ignatius
Actually, it came from reading the Bible.
Neither of these things affected my decision, because when I was Catholic I believed in natural family planning which is a form of contraception. I also believed that if a person received an annulment, you could get remarried. So, neither of these things personally affected me.
You do realize that the ECF’s disagreed on numerous theological issues, including ECF’s who were contemporaries of each other, such as Augustine & Jerome.
Let’s get specific. We can start with The Eucharist/ The Lords supper.
I asked another poster about this. Would you mind commenting on it?
I think you’d surprised that not “all” of the ECF’s, as well as other early Christians, believed this. Here are some quotes from some of them, such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theophilus of Antioch, as well as Augustine. Although this isn’t a Catholic Web site, the sole reason to post this isn’t to be “anti-catholic,” but to address your specific question about this particular issue:
MacArthur would actually agree with Ignatius, because there is nothing that Ignatius is saying in his non-inspired writing that assumes a literal presence of Jesus in the communion bread. In his letter to the Romans, Ignatius is equating love incorruptible with “drinking,” or “desiring” His Blood, which refers not to the wine, but His shed blood on the cross. When He says “flesh,” Ignatius is not using it any different than Jesus did in John 6, which elsewhere in Scripture refers to Christ’s “nature” or His “life” that He sacrificed on the cross for us. Eucharist in Scripture simply means “thanksgiving.” But it never refers to the actual communion bread itself. So, when Ignatius refers to “Eucharist,” he’s referring to the “thanksgiving” for the “nature” or “life” (“flesh”) that Christ “suffered for our sins,” not the actual communion bread itself. Try replacing “Eucharist” with “thanksgiving” in the above writings of Ignatius, & you’ll see what I mean.
Yes, and which rose again incorruptible. He didn’t leave his human nature behind.
Yes Eucharist is a Greek word that was used in scripture by meaning “giving thanks” but Ignatius is using it in the way it was later used, to refer to Holy Communion.
I know all about John MacArthur. I was a Baptist for almost twenty years and spent some of those years in a pulpit spouting some of the same anti-Catholic garbage you do now.Well, if that’s true, then it would a benefit to get his study Bible & compare his study notes, which include cross-references to other related passages to the particular text he is commenting on. I think that would a good test for your opinion on him.
Yeah, I used to say that too.
I will link a fuller set of quotes. Take a look at what some of those Fathers quoted by Carm have said.
So McArthur believes that scripture is inherent word of God and is sufficient in and of itself to impart all the wisdom of the Lord . So my question is based on whose interpretation of Scripture ? For instance you and I obviously disagree on the interpretation of John:6. How do we resolve that? Is endless verse wars and arguments over what the meaning of “is” is really what Jesus intended when he founded his church? When Jesus ascended to heaven were his last words “I left your book ,now figure it out for yourself”?And if McArthur is right why did God wait 1500 years to reveal this to his people ?Speaking as a former devout Catholic, there are a lot of Catholics who don’t agree with ECT too, because they feel it compromises Catholicism. As far as MacArthur goes, I’ve listened to him for years, & even had the privilege & honor to meet him, who - in person is a very, very humble & friendly man - I understand “why” Catholics don’t like him. But, in terms of Biblical exposition & knowledge of Church history, including the beliefs of ALL the ECF’s, I haven’t heard anyone - Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc - that is more knowledgeable & consistent in Christian theology. The MacArthur Study Bible is an invaluable tool. So, even if you don’t necessarily agree with everything he teaches, the benefit of having it, is if you adamantly disagree with his exegesis of Scripture, his footnotes (over 20,000) are backed up by directing you to cross-reference other Scriptures - in context - to back up what he writes & teaches.
Funny thing after reading the bible that made me catholic, so that kind of disproves bible alone 1 Tim 3:15
And did either one of them start a new denomination? Or did both of them submit to the pillar and bulwark of truth?
