J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
LBKat
Guest
Good questions.What, in your opinion, is so “very different”?
By the way, Catholics do not teach that transubstantiation is necessary.
And also, regarding the Bible, how can you possibly claim the Bible supersedes tradition, when the Bible was obviously a product of tradition?
However, my opinion wouldn’t be helpful–because it would just be an opinion. Here is what Communion is for Conservative Evangelical Christians (As taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology–he says it much better than I could):
Symbolizes Christ’s Death (1 Cor 11:26); Our Participation in the Benefits of Christ’s Death (Matthew 26:26); Spiritual Nourishment (John 6:53-57); Unity of Believers (1 Cor 10:17); Christ affirms his love for me (the invitation of the Lord’s Table extended to the individual); Christ affirms that all the blessings of salvation or reserved for me; I affirm my Faith in Christ;
Grudem also states that a clear difference between the above and Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper is this: “The Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear New Testament teaching on the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice once for all time for our sins: the book of Hebrews emphasizes this many times, as when it says, ‘Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself . . . Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many’ (Heb. 9:25-28) . . . When we realize that Christ’s sacrifice for our sins s finished and completed ( “It is finished,” John 19:30; cf. Heb. 1:3), it gives us great assurance to us that our sins are all paid for, and there remains no sacrifice to be paid. But the idea of a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice destroys our assurance that the payment has been made by Christ and accepted by God the Father, and that there is ‘no condemnation’ (Rom:1) now remaining for us.”
You’re second question I will answer more simply for now:
To imply that the Bible is the product of tradition is to imply that God is merely a tradition (and I don’t think, and sincerely hope, you didn’t mean to imply that). To imply such is wrong (and blasphemous) since the Bible (not including the Apocrypha–since Protestants do not consider the Apocrypha to be scripture) is solely the product of God. Tradition may have been helpful in its canonization–but tradition did not “produce” the actual words (meaning the autographs) of God–God did that (or else the Bible woudn’t actually be the Word of God).
I hope that made some sort of sense, and hopefully helps you to understand the differences between Protestantism (mainly Conservative, Biblical Evangelicalism–excluding Liberal [non-Biblical] Evangelicalism) and Roman Catholicism.
=Jon Hus;6731600]JonNC,
The OP asked a question: **“For those of you who do not believe in transubstantiation, how do you explain the Eucharistic Miracles the Catholic Church has approved?”
Indeed, but you went beyond Transubstantiation. You said it is just a wafer, and I am responding to that. When consecrated, it is not just a wafer, but the true and substantial body of Christ.I believe my response covered the OP.**
There is no doubt that Lutherans and Catholics view the sacrifice of the mass differently, but I don’t believe, someone correct me if I’m wrong, that Catholics place this power simply in the hand of the priest, but correctly in the power of the Holy Spirit, and Luther would have agreed with that.I also believe that Luther rejected Transubstantiation. I don’t believe that Luther thought it possible for sinful man to say a few words and cause a Holy God to take residence in a man-made wafer. That man could then take that wafer now transformed into God and actually handle it. Jaroslav Pelikan writes that Luther taught that Catholics come to the mass to offer a sacrifice but that Lutherans come to the Lords table to receive God’s grace. Big difference.
And I do, too, and I’m not questioning you faith, even though in regards to the Eucharist, you seemed to make it contingent on seeing a particular event (perhaps I misunderstood). I have faith that Christ meant what he said, “This is my body.”My friend, I serve a living God who’s Son is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intersession for me with the Father and providing all of my needs and who also paid for my salvation in full 2000 years ago. The just live by faith. Faith in a unseen God.
Jon
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, I’m just pointing out that in the miracle you referenced, Jesus did not create food out of nothing. At least, that is how Scripture presents it. That’s all.According to the Bible, Jesus Christ, the second person of the triune Godhead and thus fully God spoke the word and “created all things that were created”.
Is it your position that Jesus needed some small “source material” to expand into a larger meal? Did Jesus need the help of a small boy and his lunch?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Grudem (whoever he is) does not seem to understand Catholic teaching. So while I respect his opinions, they are not definitive regarding Catholic understanding and teaching on Eucharist.Good questions.
However, my opinion wouldn’t be helpful–because it would just be an opinion. Here is what Communion is for Conservative Evangelical Christians (As taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology–he says it much better than I could):
Symbolizes Christ’s Death (1 Cor 11:26); Our Participation in the Benefits of Christ’s Death (Matthew 26:26); Spiritual Nourishment (John 6:53-57); Unity of Believers (1 Cor 10:17); Christ affirms his love for me (the invitation of the Lord’s Table extended to the individual); Christ affirms that all the blessings of salvation or reserved for me; I affirm my Faith in Christ;
Grudem also states that a clear difference between the above and Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper is this: “The Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear New Testament teaching on the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice once for all time for our sins: the book of Hebrews emphasizes this many times, as when it says, ‘Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself . . . Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many’ (Heb. 9:25-28) . . . When we realize that Christ’s sacrifice for our sins s finished and completed ( “It is finished,” John 19:30; cf. Heb. 1:3), it gives us great assurance to us that our sins are all paid for, and there remains no sacrifice to be paid. But the idea of a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice destroys our assurance that the payment has been made by Christ and accepted by God the Father, and that there is ‘no condemnation’ (Rom:1) now remaining for us.”
You’re second question I will answer more simply for now:
To imply that the Bible is the product of tradition is to imply that God is merely a tradition (and I don’t think, and sincerely hope, you didn’t mean to imply that). To imply such is wrong (and blasphemous) since the Bible (not including the Apocrypha–since Protestants do not consider the Apocrypha to be scripture) is solely the product of God. Tradition may have been helpful in its canonization–but tradition did not “produce” the actual words (meaning the autographs) of God–God did that (or else the Bible woudn’t actually be the Word of God).
I hope that made some sort of sense, and hopefully helps you to understand the differences between Protestantism (mainly Conservative, Biblical Evangelicalism–excluding Liberal [non-Biblical] Evangelicalism) and Roman Catholicism.
Saying the Bible is a product of Tradition is in no way the same as saying God is a product of Tradition. Every Protestant I know understands that difference. Sorry.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes, Catholics absolutely do not place this “power,” as you say, in the hands of the priest. God (Christ) is the actor/agent.Indeed, but you went beyond Transubstantiation. You said it is just a wafer, and I am responding to that. When consecrated, it is not just a wafer, but the true and substantial body of Christ.
There is no doubt that Lutherans and Catholics view the sacrifice of the mass differently, but I don’t believe, someone correct me if I’m wrong, that Catholics place this power simply in the hand of the priest, but correctly in the power of the Holy Spirit, and Luther would have agreed with that.
And I do, too, and I’m not questioning you faith, even though in regards to the Eucharist, you seemed to make it contingent on seeing a particular event (perhaps I misunderstood). I have faith that Christ meant what he said, “This is my body.”
Jon
I
Izdaari
Guest
I don’t have a problem with Eucharistic miracles or any other kind of miracles. God is sovereign and may step in and override the normal physical workings of the universe any time and place He sees fit. I believe that happens every day, though often it’s very subtle and mostly unnoticeable.
And I believe in the Real Presence in a spiritual sense. It isn’t merely commemorative, but Jesus is present in the bread and wine, not physically, but spiritually and mystically.
And I believe in the Real Presence in a spiritual sense. It isn’t merely commemorative, but Jesus is present in the bread and wine, not physically, but spiritually and mystically.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Wayne Grudem is a well-known and highly respected conservative evangelical theologian. He wrote a very good systematic theology textbook, which I don’t own yet, but I plan to. He is mostly Calvinist, though not cessationist. (Come to think of that, that kind of describes me, though I’m less conservative.) But I don’t think he’s right on everything, and I agree he’s not an expert on Catholicism.Grudem (whoever he is) does not seem to understand Catholic teaching. So while I respect his opinions, they are not definitive regarding Catholic understanding and teaching on Eucharist.
Saying the Bible is a product of Tradition is in no way the same as saying God is a product of Tradition. Every Protestant I know understands that difference. Sorry.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
First you say that Jesus didn’t need the “source material” to expand into a larger meal then you say he didn’t create the meal out of nothing. I beg to differ with you. It would take 1000s of pounds of food to feed this crowd, where did it come from?No, I’m just pointing out that in the miracle you referenced, Jesus did not create food out of nothing. At least, that is how Scripture presents it. That’s all.
The answer to this is simple, the boy’s lunch represents man’s ability to solve the problem. Jesus, who is the creator of all things that were created spoke the word and instantly there appeared the solution to the problem. Jesus solution is much better than man’s solution.
Could he have done this without the boy’s lunch? Yes, of course. If Jesus is who he tells us he is, it would be no problem. But there were men who were there and ate the loaves and fishes and still they didn’t believe so don’t feel special that you don’t either.
Jon
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
JonNC,There is no doubt that Lutherans and Catholics view the sacrifice of the mass differently, but I don’t believe, someone correct me if I’m wrong, that Catholics place this power simply in the hand of the priest, but correctly in the power of the Holy Spirit, and Luther would have agreed with that.
Now that we know what you don’t believe, tell us what you Sir, what do you believe. And a separate question, is it possible that God will have two (or 3 or 4) separate but proper theological outcomes (that is pleasing to God) resulting from the various churches (denominations) who incorporate the Lord’s Supper into their worship?
Jon
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, I simply noted that according to John’s Gospel, Jesus did not create the meal out of nothing. He could have, yes, certainly. But, according to the Gospel account, he didn’t. That’s all.First you say that Jesus didn’t need the “source material” to expand into a larger meal then you say he didn’t create the meal out of nothing. I beg to differ with you. It would take 1000s of pounds of food to feed this crowd, where did it come from?
The answer to this is simple, the boy’s lunch represents man’s ability to solve the problem. Jesus, who is the creator of all things that were created spoke the word and instantly there appeared the solution to the problem. Jesus solution is much better than man’s solution.
Could he have done this without the boy’s lunch? Yes, of course. If Jesus is who he tells us he is, it would be no problem. But there were men who were there and ate the loaves and fishes and still they didn’t believe so don’t feel special that you don’t either.
Jon
If I remember correctly, the claim was made that Jesus created this meal out of nothing. I was simply pointing out that such an explanation is at odds with the Gospel account.
C
Carlan
Guest
Yep Jon,and the miracle at Cana, easy to believe what we see! where’s your faith??? How’s that? We walk by faith not by sight! So you walked away during the Last Supper,as so many did then and still do today. Read all of John6 and ask for faith. Peace, CarlanIn John Ch 6, Jesus spoke the word and instantly created (out of nothing) enough loaves and fishes (food that had the genuine look, feel and taste) to feed 1000s of hungry people complete with leftovers. This was the real thing and could be rightly called a miracle.
The day that a Roman Catholic priest turns 1 wafer and 1 cup into a meal for 1000s of hungry people, I will instantly become a believer in the Roman Catholic mass. Until then it is just a wafer.
Hi Jon,=Jon Hus;6735319]JonNC,
Now that we know what you don’t believe, tell us what you Sir, what do you believe.
Jon
What I do believe is this: "On the night he was betrayed, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “Take and eat. This is my body…”
Christ gives us no further explanation regarding the mystery of how mere elements of bread and wine become the true and substantial body and blood.
I believe God has one proper method as to how the miracle of the Eucharist takes place. It, frankly, seems merely interesting how we humans attempt to describe how bread become His body, or wine becomes His blood, for us to eat and drink. John of Damascus said, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”.And a separate question, is it possible that God will have two (or 3 or 4) separate but proper theological outcomes (that is pleasing to God) resulting from the various churches (denominations) who incorporate the Lord’s Supper into their worship?
For me, the doctrine is the real and substantial presence, as that is clearly Christ’s words.
Jon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.