New "Real presence" argument?

[JRKH]

Thank you so much everyone for the information and comments! My friend attended a bible school, and is leading our prayer group in a sort of evangelization course. I’m the only Catholic in the group, and I’ve been providing them with insight on the Catholic perspective.

There is A LOT of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches. I’m trying to remedy that as best I can, and the folks in the group are open to hearing what I have to say - so that’s encouraging.

Again, thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Wow - what a great opportunity. The Spirit is at work in such a gathering for sure.

Peace
James

 

[Boulder257]

Thank you so much everyone for the information and comments! My friend attended a bible school, and is leading our prayer group in a sort of evangelization course. I’m the only Catholic in the group, and I’ve been providing them with insight on the Catholic perspective.

There is A LOT of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches. I’m trying to remedy that as best I can, and the folks in the group are open to hearing what I have to say - so that’s encouraging.

Again, thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Keep at it. Pray hard before each meeting that the Holy Spirit will work through you. You are doing fantastic work for the kingdom of God!

 

[fhansen]

I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!

Jesus would lie? He wanted only fools to stay with Him?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Deceiving is a form of lying. God may allow us to deceive ourselves or let Satan deceive us, but I do not think He deceives us.

God neither deceives nor can He be deceived…

God deceived Abraham, and allowed him to believe that he would have to kill Isaac.

God also “duped” Jeremiah.

 

[Jon_S_1]

God deceived Abraham, and allowed him to believe that he would have to kill Isaac.

Not at all.

God ordered him to do something. He then allowed him not to do it. M

It’s not like God told him. " Human sacrifices are required for salvation" and then later said, “nah just kidding bro”

 

[Jon_S_1]

God deceived Abraham, and allowed him to believe that he would have to kill Isaac.

God also “duped” Jeremiah.

Lying/deception is sin. It is the absence of truth. God cannot have these as part of his nature as they are contrary to God.

 

[aceroraptor]

One of the many problems with that argument is that why would he leave something that would lead so many to confusion including St. Paul who reiterates the doctrine of the real presence throughout 1 Corinthians.

When you are trying to shoe horn an incomplete Christian theology logical lapses are necessary.

 

[mlz]

Thank you so much everyone for the information and comments! My friend attended a bible school, and is leading our prayer group in a sort of evangelization course. I’m the only Catholic in the group, and I’ve been providing them with insight on the Catholic perspective.

There is A LOT of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches. I’m trying to remedy that as best I can, and the folks in the group are open to hearing what I have to say - so that’s encouraging.

Again, thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I’ve been on the other side of the fence and YES, there is a LOT of misunderstanding, you are right there. But praise be to God He will use you where you are to help them understand better. Just do so with love slowly and gently with humility

Blessings,
mlz

 

[zz912]

This argument doesn’t even pass the logic or smell test. The gospel of john was written LAST. That would have to mean that Paul, Matthew, Mark AND Luke ALL intentionally left out the most important explanation of the Last Supper that they all wrote about. That just makes NO sense, especially if you consider the case of Luke, who was specifically writing to someone to introduce them to the faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not at all.

God ordered him to do something. He then allowed him not to do it. M

OK, let’s consider what deception is. Deception is leading someone to believe something that is not true. Now let’s consider Abraham’s belief: “God requires me to sacrifice my son.” This is a false belief, based on his true belief that God *told *him to sacrifice his son. Who led him to believe this first belief? God did.

God did not lie, but God did deceive. At the very least, he allowed Abraham to be deceived. (But if you are deceived, it seems that *someone *must be deceiving you.)

Look, I don’t think this is a problem. God is not a deceiver. But God, in His infinite wisdom, sometimes acts in ways that bring people temporary false beliefs which are resolved by future evidence. He sometimes deceives, for the individual’s benefit.

Lying/deception is sin. It is the absence of truth. God cannot have these as part of his nature as they are contrary to God.

No, deception is not the absence of truth. It is allowing someone to believe a falsehood. If I tell my daughter, “Get your swimming suit on under your clothes,” and then we leave the house to go to a movie, I have deceived her – since she reasonably believes that we are going swimming. Clearly God did this sort of thing to Abraham.

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK, let’s consider what deception is. Deception is leading someone to believe something that is not true. Now let’s consider Abraham’s belief: “God requires me to sacrifice my son.” This is a false belief, based on his true belief that God *told *him to sacrifice his son. Who led him to believe this first belief? God did.

God did not lie, but God did deceive. At the very least, he allowed Abraham to be deceived. (But if you are deceived, it seems that *someone *must be deceiving you.)

Look, I don’t think this is a problem. God is not a deceiver. But God, in His infinite wisdom, sometimes acts in ways that bring people temporary false beliefs which are resolved by future evidence. He sometimes deceives, for the individual’s benefit.
L

No, deception is not the absence of truth. It is allowing someone to believe a falsehood. If I tell my daughter, “Get your swimming suit on under your clothes,” and then we leave the house to go to a movie, I have deceived her – since she reasonably believes that we are going swimming. Clearly God did this sort of thing to Abraham.

The Catholic Church teaches the opposite:

“Some, however, were not content merely to point to the patriarchs and saints of old, but went so far as to impute lying and deception to God himself. The gross impiety of such a claim need hardly be mentioned, for God “can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Dei Filius 3, CCC 156). The very thought of accusing Truth himself of uttering falsehood befits not the mind of a Christian.”

Catechism 156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “mottdtives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

Entire article: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/03/god-who-can-neither-deceive-nor-bxe.html?m=1

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Catholic Church teaches the opposite:

“Some, however, were not content merely to point to the patriarchs and saints of old, but went so far as to impute lying and deception to God himself. The gross impiety of such a claim need hardly be mentioned, for God “can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Dei Filius 3, CCC 156). The very thought of accusing Truth himself of uttering falsehood befits not the mind of a Christian.”

Catechism 156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “mottdtives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

Entire article: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/03/god-who-can-neither-deceive-nor-bxe.html?m=1

OK, I submit to these teachings. But I do not understand them. Explain to me how God did not deceive Abraham.

 

[ahs]

OK, I submit to these teachings. But I do not understand them. Explain to me how God did not deceive Abraham.

God basically said (gross paraphrasing here), “prove your love for Me by doing the unthinkable”.

Abraham -“Okay…I’ll do it…here goes…”

God - “Okay, you have proven yourself, you don’t have to go through with…I see that you are truly willing, so I release you from the obligation.”

Where’s the deception?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

God basically said (gross paraphrasing here), “prove your love for Me by doing the unthinkable”.

Abraham -“Okay…I’ll do it…here goes…”

God - “Okay, you have proven yourself, you don’t have to go through with…I see that you are truly willing, so I release you from the obligation.”

Where’s the deception?

Did Abraham believe “I will have to sacrifice my son”? If he did, he was deceived, since he would not need to sacrifice his son.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Did Abraham believe “I will have to sacrifice my son”? If he did, he was deceived, since he would not need to sacrifice his son.

No, he would have been deceived if he had been told to sacrifice his son for a reason, when in fact there was no reason.

Instead, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son for the reason that Abraham had put his son before God. Especially in light of the miracle God performed to give him a son. If Abraham had refused he would have proven that his son was more important to him then God and God would have punished him or not blessed him. Instead, Abraham proved his faith in Gods providence and did everything to sacrifice his son up til the moment the dagger was falling and an angel stopped him. God commanded him to do something. And he did.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Did Abraham believe “I will have to sacrifice my son”? If he did, he was deceived, since he would not need to sacrifice his son.

To go back to your swim suit analogy. Of you told your kid to put the swimsuit and then on the way to the pool you decide it is not on the best interest of your kid to go swimming (attitude issue, or pools dirty, or something changed in the plans) then you would not have deceived her, you would have changed the plans for her best interest.

That is what God did for Abraham.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To go back to your swim suit analogy. Of you told your kid to put the swimsuit and then on the way to the pool you decide it is not on the best interest of your kid to go swimming (attitude issue, or pools dirty, or something changed in the plans) then you would not have deceived her, you would have changed the plans for her best interest.

That is what God did for Abraham.

So God changed His mind?

Now THAT certainly sounds like it’s not in God’s nature.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So God changed His mind?

Now THAT certainly sounds like it’s not in God’s nature.

Maybe the swimming analogy didn’t work.

God did not change his mind. He set a task for Abraham. Without saying prove your devotion to me. God set a trial for Abraham in which Abraham exercised his free will to show faith in God or to chose himself. Just because God tested his obedience without telling Abraham his whole plan does not mean God deceived.

Perhaps it’s more like telling your child to get their good clothes on. You don’t need to tell them why, and you don’t have to go some place elegant, but since you are their parent you can tell them to do something and they should obey.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Maybe the swimming analogy didn’t work.

God did not change his mind. He set a task for Abraham. Without saying prove your devotion to me. God set a trial for Abraham in which Abraham exercised his free will to show faith in God or to chose himself. Just because God tested his obedience without telling Abraham his whole plan does not mean God deceived.

Perhaps it’s more like telling your child to get their good clothes on. You don’t need to tell them why, and you don’t have to go some place elegant, but since you are their parent you can tell them to do something and they should obey.

Maybe we can make a distinction here. In ordinary English, “to deceive” is to intentionally cause someone to believe a falsity. I think God did this. But “to act deceitfully” is to act in such a way to achieve your own ends by deceiving others. I would say that God deceived, but did not act deceitfully.

At any rate, I continue not to see a problem with God deceiving sometimes. But I don’t really have time to hash it out in excruciating detail.

Nice talking with you, Jon! God bless!

 

[ahs]

Did Abraham believe “I will have to sacrifice my son”? If he did, he was deceived, since he would not need to sacrifice his son.

No, he would have been deceived if he had been told to sacrifice his son for a reason, when in fact there was no reason.

Instead, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son for the reason that Abraham had put his son before God. Especially in light of the miracle God performed to give him a son. If Abraham had refused he would have proven that his son was more important to him then God and God would have punished him or not blessed him. Instead, Abraham proved his faith in Gods providence and did everything to sacrifice his son up til the moment the dagger was falling and an angel stopped him. God commanded him to do something. And he did.

Yes, that. Abraham DID make the sacrifice that God commanded of him…to place God above the person. Abraham did do that, and proved it by going the distance…willing to put an end to his son’s earthly life. But God did not need Isaac’s blood…He only “needed” Abraham to show where his true Faith lies. No deception that I see…only a man showing God that he loves God above ALL else…and God not demanding that he shed blood in order to make the statement of faith.