Protestant who believes in the real presence

[Agathon]

If correcting doctrine through the application of scripture is revolt, that says far more about you than it does the reformers. We can agree to disagree here.

We assess doctrine through Scripture AND Tradition. We don’t do either or or.

 

[Thom18]

If you insist on following the traditions of men over fifteen centuries separated from Christ over those Traditions handed down by the apostles themselves and preserved by the Church that Jesus founded, far be it from us to lead you away from them. If you insist that Christians taught falsely until your particular teacher came along, far be it from us to show you the Fathers of the Church. There’s no changing your mind.

 

[AugustTherese]

Ireneaus use of apostolic succession is far more in line with our epistemology than yours.

You mean Irenaeus. No offense, but why would anyone believe your claim if you don’t know how to spell his name correctly? And, there’s this:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”. - Saint Irenaeus ( Against Heresies, 3:3:2).

 

[Hodos]

So do we. However, tradition takes a supportive role, not the determinative role.

 

[Hodos]

Actually its spelled Eipnvaios (Greek font not working) but the facts have never stopped you before, have they?

 

[Hodos]

He also said this: WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith (so much for the statement from your pizo claiming the Bible didn’t exist and the NT scriptures weren’t authoritative).

He then excoriates the gnostics as follows: When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.

Sound familiar? Sounds exactly like your argumentation.

 

[Agathon]

Is that in Scripture?

 

[steve-b]

1. Revolt is what happened
2. Indulgences are perfectly good and correct.
3. The Church has never approved of simony. Just like Judas, some in the Church in every age over stepped the bounds. And it was corrected and the Church moved on.

Don’t confuse that with what Protestants did and continue to do.

Hodos:

If correcting doctrine through the application of scripture is revolt, that says far more about you than it does the reformers. We can agree to disagree here.

You demonstrated nothing. Your personal opinion abounds

Hodos:

Not my personal opinion. It’s the argument provided by the author of Hebrews that condemns your interpretation.

I quoted the passage that proves my point, AND I quoted from the Church that was there at the time of the writing of Hebrews.

Not finished = no bible was in place

Hodos:

Again a completely facetious line of argument that is refuted by the tons of apologetic and theological documents we have in the second and third century. Ireneaus refers to the Pauline corpus, Hebrews, and gospels as scripture just as an example.

Irenaeus, is a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church Bk 1 Chapter 10 par 3

He relies on the Church of Rome that everyone is to agree with because of it’s preeminent authority and shows why that is Bk 3, Chapter 3, paragraphs 1-3

This he wrote ~a.d. 180. There was no bible at that time.

Hodos:

Completely aware of the move by Ireneaus to refer to apostolic succession. However, I have actually read Ireneaus. Ireneaus based his argumentation and defense on the scriptures, citing scripture over and over again to demonstrate his point…. [snip ]

Irenaeus used writings from the apostles, AND the tradition of the Catholic Church. Both sources are used, Neither source is alone. Irenaeus was one man, in time, away from the apostle John.

 

[Hodos]

Yes it is. Whereas scripture is touted as God-breathed, tradition is shown as uncertain and often in opposition to the word of God.

 

[Hodos]

First, the passage opposes your point because it isn’t remotely about the mass. And quoting bad eisegesis is still bad eisegesis no matter whose name is on it.

 

[Hodos]

Irenaeus used writings from the apostles, AND the tradition of the Catholic Church. Both sources are used, Neither source is alone. Irenaeus was one man, in time, away from the apostle John

I have no issue with that methodology. We frequently do the same. However the support that he gives from tradition is primarily the quotation of scripture.

 

[steve-b]

First, the passage opposes your point because it isn’t remotely about the mass. And quoting bad eisegesis is still bad eisegesis no matter whose name is on it.

Wrong. The Church that was there, the Catholic Church, says it is about the mass. But you won’t accept that fact.

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another. " Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer. . . . Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal. . . . We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it. "

What did they do at the divine liturgy? They celebrate the Eucharist.

How else would Hebrews say for those who deliberately fail to meet on “the Day”

THEN

• there no longer remains, a sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant for THEM The underlined words were used by Jesus instituting the Eucharist
• They Spurn the Son of God
• They outrage the spirit of grace
• a fearful prospect of judgement awaits Them
• and a fury of fire will consume these adversaries

Ignore this at your own peril

 

[Agathon]

Whereas scripture is touted as God-breathed, tradition is shown as uncertain and often in opposition to the word of God.

Not according to Paul. He told the Thessalonians to stand fast to the traditions he taught them “either by word of mouth or by a letter from us.”

 

[TULIPed]

Brothers and sisters - perhaps a rereading of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 is in order? Surely we can agree on this? Perhaps we might inject of bit of it into our discourse?

#iloveyouman

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Irenaeus used writings from the apostles, AND the tradition of the Catholic Church. Both sources are used, Neither source is alone. Irenaeus was one man, in time, away from the apostle John

I have no issue with that methodology. We frequently do the same. However the support that he gives from tradition is primarily the quotation of scripture.

What specific scripture quote did he quote?

 

[Hodos]

Not according to Paul. He told the Thessalonians to stand fast to the traditions he taught them “either by word of mouth or by a letter from us.”

Yep. And If you read the entire section it is quite clear that Paul is speaking of the gospel. The NT scriptures which were in the process of being written at that time are the apostolic record of that gospel. Christ however addresses the issue of oral traditions castigating his audience in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 because their traditions contradicted the scriptures. Similarly, Isaiah does so as well (Christ quotes Isaiah in his refutation of the Pharisees here). Here we see Jesus holding tradition up to the scrutiny of scripture. As you can see here, tradition is not afforded the same level of authority as scripture by Christ himself.

 

[Hodos]

Ireneaus quotes from all four gospels and much of the Pauline corpus if memory serves me well. Since he quotes scripture copiously throughout the multiple volumes that make up Against Heresy, I will simply recommend that you read through it. He also quoted extensively from the OT to refute the polytheistic aspects of Valentinian Gnosticism. It is also interesting to note that he frequently does so as he is discussing apostolical tradition making an almost equivalence between the two.

 

[Agathon]

Christ however addresses the issue of oral traditions castigating his audience in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 because their traditions contradicted the scriptures.

When you make this statement, you’re making an assumption. Jesus was referring specifically to the practice of Corban; He wasn’t speaking specifically about the practice of the Apostolic Churches and their regard for Tradition.

 

[Hodos]

When you make this statement, you’re making an assumption. Jesus was referring specifically to the practice of Corban; He wasn’t speaking specifically about the practice of the Apostolic Churches and their regard for Tradition.

First, I would make a distinction between the apostolic use of the word tradition, which usually meant the oral proclamation of the gospel, and the nebulous way that it is used at least in this forum. The fact is that the gospel that was orally proclaimed, was written by the apostolic generation so that the gospel could be faithfully handed down (Irenaeus actually uses it in just this way in Against Heresies). This is very different from some of the traditions that have been touted in this forum, some of which contradict scripture.

To your point, Jesus was speaking of Corban, ritual cleanliness laws, and in other cases observance of the Sabbath. In each of the cases the religious leaders of the day were making the claim that these traditions were binding obligations. And Christ, through the application of scripture demonstrated that not only were they not God-breathed revelation, but that they were actually contradicting scripture in how they were applied. If Christ himself used scripture as the standard by which we evaluate tradition, I see no reason why we would claim now that tradition should not be evaluated in the same light, especially in cases where the tradition is either not found in scripture, or worse, contradicts scripture.

You say I am making an assumption, but actually the opposite is true. You are making the assumption by saying that whatever you define as sacred tradition (which varies widely depending on who you ask) is apostolic in origin. My methodology says that a tradition must be examined in light of the scriptures to determine whether it is coherent with the apostolic teachings that they handed down in written form, faithfully preserved through the centuries. We both agree that the scriptures are apostolic in origin (unless you would make the argument that they are not), we just disagree on whether we can accept on face value that what someone claims as apostolic tradition is in fact apostolic in its origin. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Agathon]

First, I would make a distinction between the apostolic use of the word tradition, which usually meant the oral proclamation of the gospel, and the nebulous way that it is used at least in this forum. The fact is that the gospel that was orally proclaimed, was written by the apostolic generation so that the gospel could be faithfully handed down (Irenaeus actually uses it in just this way in Against Heresies). This is very different from some of the traditions that have been touted in this forum, some of which contradict scripture.

So would you consider Irenaeus’s statements on Mary as contradictory to Scripture? Because that is what Catholics believe.

For instance, “And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”