MacArthur

[benhur]

Not only is he in our Hearts but we actually get to hold his precious body in our hands and follow his command to eat his body and drink his blood. You just can not get a more personal relationship with Jesus than that.

As a great Catholic Father wrote, leave your teeth and bellies behind…we eat Him by faith, in His incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and soon to return.

Not too worry, all churches quote this father as representing their eucharistic view, including Catholics.

 

[estesbob]

As a great Catholic Father wrote, leave your teeth and bellies behind…we eat Him by faith, in His incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and soon to return.

Not too worry, all churches quote this father as representing their eucharistic view, including Catholics.

No we eat his physical body and drink his blood. Just as he instructed us to.

 

[estesbob]

C.S. Lewis wrote a bit about the unity we really show thru out the world and to the world in Eucharisting, by any fashion, by any authority.

On what authority do Protestants base their view on the Eucharist and when they first adopt this view? What gave them greater insight than that had went before them?

 

[benhur]

On what authority do Protestants base their view on the Eucharist and when they first adopt this view? What gave them greater insight than that had went before them?

Obviously a different authority and accountability than the CC. But you know all this .You know how the debate goes . Not sure how Mac discussion turned into eucharist debate.

 

[estesbob]

Obviously a different authority and accountability than the CC. But you know all this .You know how the debate goes . Not sure how Mac turned into eucharist.

And what Authority was that?

 

[Porknpie]

C.S. Lewis wrote a bit about the unity we really show thru out the world and to the world in Eucharisting, by any fashion, by any authority.

Lewis was VERY Catholic on the Eucharist writing (quick google search here)

• don’t know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood…I find ‘substance’ (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think…On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern , in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…the command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.*

 

[commenter]

(from Commenter) All of them rely on some kind of visible human authority: these books are the New Testament, those are not canonical; this doctrine or moral teaching is guided by these passages; those other passages don’t apply here. This ambiguous Bible verse is interpreted in this way, those other interpretations are not true. This new situation facing the church is interpreted in the light of this tradition; those other seemingly relevant traditions don’t apply. (end Commenter)

I do not know of one Magisterium, big or small, that has not done all this…

The problem is that MacArthur doesn’t tell his listeners or readers that his views are (unconsciously) filtered through an implicit magisterium(s). He presents his teachings as coming directly from Scripture, and he attacks those who obey any man-made Magisterium, (other than the ones he more or less obeys). He hides behind his hazy, implicit assumptions, which are changeable to fit whatever book he is writing. This is unlike Catholic apologists, whose Magisterium is clear, and out in the open.

 

[benhur]

Lewis was VERY Catholic on the Eucharist writing (quick google search here)

• don’t know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood…I find ‘substance’ (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think…On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that*…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern , in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…the command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.

yes ,he was a real presence believer ,but does not do away with statement of unity in "remember“…

" the very last thing I want to do is to unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts – for him traditional – by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine. I could wish that no definitions had ever been felt to be necessary; and, still more, that none had been allowed to make divisions between churches.”
― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer brance’.

 

[Kliska]

yes ,he was a real presence believer ,but does not do away with statement of unity in "remember“…

" the very last thing I want to do is to unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts – for him traditional – by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine. I could wish that no definitions had ever been felt to be necessary; and, still more, that none had been allowed to make divisions between churches.”
― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer brance’.

I’ve said elsewhere that it does become a stumblingblock between brothers and sisters what labels we humanly choose to put onto things.

 

[benhur]

Lewis was VERY Catholic on the Eucharist writing (quick google search here)

• don’t know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood…**I find ‘substance’ (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think…***On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern , in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…the command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.

Again Lewis was more Anglican than Catholic on this.

"he can not think "in terms of CC transubstantiation and further said of it: "My effort to do so produces mere nursery-thinking–a picture of something like very rarefied plasticine. "

That quote went between “I can not think…and on the other hand” of your posted quote.

thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/in-defense-of-c-s-lewis/ for entire paragraph .

But a real presencer he was and definitely not a symbolic only holder of it.

 

[benhur]

I’ve said elsewhere that it does become a stumblingblock between brothers and sisters what labels we humanly choose to put onto things.

Hi Kliska , been awhile.

Can’t find quote of his I read once, where to the outside world , Christian “communion/eucharist” is seen as universal and unifying.

I am also reminded of Paul in not being legalistic about some things, keeping the main thing the main thing.

Or of Jesus saying ,“what is that to you ? (what your brother does before Me)”

 

[Magdalena59]

Lewis was VERY Catholic on the Eucharist writing (quick google search here)

• don’t know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood…I find ‘substance’ (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think…On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that*…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern , in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…the command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.

CS Lewis was also very Catholic in his views regarding the sacrament of confession, though in an Anglican church he would frequently confess his sins to his Anglican priest.

 

[benhur]

CS Lewis was also very Catholic in his views regarding the sacrament of confession, though in an Anglican church he would frequently confess his sins to his Anglican priest.

yes.
But this too,

“He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift.”

English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama.

 

[Magdalena59]

yes.
But this too,

“He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift.”

English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama.

but still again, CS Lewis, was one man, not a church and not an authority. I was only commenting because s

only the Catholic doctrine avoids the heretical extremes of “good works alone are enough” and “faith alone is enough,” while, at the same time, guarding the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[Magdalena59]

yes.
But this too,

“He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift.”

English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama.

*Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions,
or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, CS Lewis.

But you will find that even those who insist most strongly on the importance of
good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith
tell you to do good actions. CS Lewis.*
Does the Catholic Church teach that Faith is not necessary and only good works are? No. Do we believe that a man can “save himself” by performing good works? No. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2: 8-9) Faith comes to us through God’s grace, and the ability to perform salutary good works comes to us through God’s grace as well. Without our cooperation with God’s grace, we can do neither. Both are necessary.

Any non-Catholic who tries to parrot the Catholic position by claiming that we believe man can “save himself” is dishonestly setting up a straw man. He is also confounded by numerous Church documents (both ancient and recent) including texts of the Council of Trent, which clearly show that Faith, coming to us through God’s grace, is necessary before man can do anything in relation to his own eternal salvation.
…

only the Catholic doctrine avoids the heretical extremes of “good works alone are enough” and “faith alone is enough,” while, at the same time, guarding the inerrancy of Scripture.Brother Andre Marie
*

catholicism.org/faith-and-good-works.html

 

[Indifferently]

I am a great fan of my holy brother John Macarthur. Don’t agree with him on everything - he has got some weird views on the eschaton, and doesn’t subscribe to covenant theology - but he’s a great pastor and gospel preacher nevertheless.