Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Robbinson]

The Apostles, 12 of them really represents the whole of humanity, as the number 12 is an earthly representation of things.

This is a cool idea - but I dont know where this concept is coming from - certainly not from scripture! The Apostles do not represent the whole of humanity, they were the designated leaders of the Church by Christ expressly given authority (an authority not given to all men/women).

As the church body begin to grow both in body and in spirit, the original Apostles would eventually die off thereby giving charge to furtherance of the Gospel of Christ by selecting and of laying of hands.

But that in itself was not meant leaders, to become lords or to keep people under bondage.

Again - this is also not stated in scripture - but in any event, doesn’t make much sense. The Apostles themselves didn’t act as lords over people or keep people in “bondage”, they acted as spiritual guides and leaders in order to discern truth and resolve disputes. That is the same role played by their successors. There is no evidence that “spiritual discernment” has increased in the last 2,000 years over that of the early Christians. In fact, I’d hazard an educated guess that we are much less spiritual discerned (overall as a population today) then the early Christians were.

Paul warned about pride in it’s members, seeming that they felt better than, higher than and more righteous than the average believer and apt to condemn those who believed not as they.

This is true, and Church leaders must always be wary of the sin of pride - but again, the purpose of Church leadership is guidance and discernment, not lordship. There is a big difference. By the same token, Peter warned us of those who would resist authority and twist Paul’s words to their own destruction! (Ironic - because that is really what many protestant groups do - resist authority of the Church and say they can interpret scripture on their own and they are their own authority). The Eunich knew better and acknowledged the need of spiritual guidance from the apostle Philip. Are you your own interpreter of God word? And if so - is your interpretation better than your neighbors? or their neighbors? (thus the 30,000 interpertations among disparate Protestant groups).

If an established institution was to be the only mode of knowledge to it’s congregation about God, then put away the bible.

Not at all - the Bible is the inerrant word of Christ and as the Catholic Catechism says, ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. The Church has not offerred an interpretation on the vast majority of scripture, but rather on key doctrines of faith. And an understanding of scripture in its entirety is critical to a full understanding of those doctrines, of Christ and of the gospel.

But there is something greater than an institution, a practice, a dogma, a tradition, and that is the Spirit of God in it’s church, the people, which go out to the ends of the earth without restrictions operating only with the desire to reach souls for the kingdom of God.

I’m all for individualism and spreading the gosepl. But the key is “the gospel”. The mormans, JWs and other similar groups are all sincere, but they are not preaching the gospel because they are their own teachers and have adopted a different gospel.

I am at awe many times when I realize the magnitude of God’s wisdom and love.

I rejoice at His wonderful ways and my finding out.

Truly, an awesome God!

I agree completely with this

Blessings,

Brian

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

If all that is needed is the Bible, how come everyone who reads it has a different interpretation of what Scripture means? If the message is so obvious, why all the confusion? The Bible needs an interpreter (the Magisterium) much like the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Early Christians did not even have access to the Bible. It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that the Bible was readily available. The early Church Councils were held when errors arose in regards to fundamental doctrine(people doing there own thing) in order to protect the truths of the Faith. When we decide what the Bible means from our own personal viewpoint, we can come up with some wild ideas which can be used to justify just about anything (spiked kool-aid anyone?). We are suppose to be a community of believers as the Body of Christ, not a loose federation of people believing whatever they want.

“…that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me…”

If we can agree to worship God in spirit, meaning that you and I together, kneeling down and praying as our spirit leads us, is it not the same self spirit of God in us at the same time?

The key to unifying all the different divisions of what mankind constitutes as God’s church, is the self same spirit being one in all of us.

That spirit is justified by our acknowledgment of each others discernment of God in us.

If we see a form of Godliness in another, is it not an indication of Gods spirit presence in them?

If we focus on our differences, we will miss the point of unity of spirit entirely.

Is my prayers less important as a non Catholic, than a Catholics?

Then a Mormon?

God is omnipresent only in each of our hearts. And hearts are every where, of every nation, kindred and religious beliefs.

Your choice of worship is with the catholic Church where mine is directly as an independent.

But that is not to say that my prayers are any less important than say yours, for if the heart speaks, the Lord listens.

If my independent strength lies in Jesus, what more could I want.

Psa 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.

I have want of nothing, for I have all that I need in Jesus.

Psa 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

You and I could pray together anytime, anywhere and be as one in spirit, for where two or three are gathered together, there He is in our midst.

Continue on your walk with thanksgiving in your heart, for truly the Lord is gracious.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Robbinson]

If we can agree to worship God in spirit, meaning that you and I together, kneeling down and praying as our spirit leads us, is it not the same self spirit of God in us at the same time?

The key to unifying all the different divisions of what mankind constitutes as God’s church, is the self same spirit being one in all of us.

That spirit is justified by our acknowledgment of each others discernment of God in us.

If we see a form of Godliness in another, is it not an indication of Gods spirit presence in them?

If we focus on our differences, we will miss the point of unity of spirit entirely.

Is my prayers less important as a non Catholic, than a Catholics?

Then a Mormon?

God is omnipresent only in each of our hearts. And hearts are every where, of every nation, kindred and religious beliefs.

Your choice of worship is with the catholic Church where mine is directly as an independent.

But that is not to say that my prayers are any less important than say yours, for if the heart speaks, the Lord listens.

If my independent strength lies in Jesus, what more could I want.

Psa 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.

I have want of nothing, for I have all that I need in Jesus.

Psa 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

You and I could pray together anytime, anywhere and be as one in spirit, for where two or three are gathered together, there He is in our midst.

Continue on your walk with thanksgiving in your heart, for truly the Lord is gracious.

Peace>>>AJ

Hi AJ:

The problem with this broad type of ecumenical thinking (though its attractive to all of us on some level as we have love in our hearts for all mankind and want to be sensitive to other religious views) is that it is contrary to the scriptures and specifically to Jesus’ teaching.

Ironically, the Catholic Church is much more ecunmenical in its thinking that most Protestant denominations

I guess I’ll have to ask the “big” question (it will be helpful in framing future responses) - do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[look3467]

This is a cool idea - but I dont know where this concept is coming from - certainly not from scripture! The Apostles do not represent the whole of humanity, they were the designated leaders of the Church by Christ expressly given authority (an authority not given to all men/women). >>>Brian

For your personal reference only, you might look into numbers in scripture. You will be pleasantly surprised.

Many things in the bible are deduced or implied, such as the word “mountain” to imply a government, a seat of authority.

If we can identify the objects of those words other than what they mean, we shall gain some valuable insight into the word of God.

One observation concerning given authority, the Apostle spoke in tongues, why is it not conveyed to every priest?

Is it perhaps because at the time the Gospel was in its infancy and needed a Godly shot of the Holy Spirit utterances, to jump start the ministry?

There is allot more depth to Gods word that is available to those who seek diligently understanding for the mere reason of a personal relationship with God.

Falling in love with the author of the bible is to seek and to know all there is about Him.

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

God glories in concealing? And the honor of kings is to search them out?

Truly, my searchings have glorified my God of which I am honored to have found them.

Is that not like a father to glory of his children when they seek him out and what makes him tick?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Robbinson]

For your personal reference only, you might look into numbers in scripture. You will be pleasantly surprised.

Many things in the bible are deduced or implied, such as the word “mountain” to imply a government, a seat of authority.

If we can identify the objects of those words other than what they mean, we shall gain some valuable insight into the word of God.

I have no doubt that there are many rich layers of treasures within the bible - but your conclusion that the apostles stand for all of humanity due to the number 12 is speculative - so I wouldn’t suggest basing any doctrinal/theological beliefs or decisions on something like that.

One observation concerning given authority, the Apostle spoke in tongues, why is it not conveyed to every priest?

Actually - scripture speaks to this in part, telling us that no all speak in tounges and they we all have different gifts - some tounges, some prophecy, some healing. There is no reason from scripture to believe that the fact that an Apostle spoke in tounges but his ordained successor did not has any bearing whatsoever on authority or the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Is it perhaps because at the time the Gospel was in its infancy and needed a Godly shot of the Holy Spirit utterances, to jump start the ministry?

Perhaps - or perhaps not - I think my reply immediately above addresses this question, which is really just speculation. Measured against the scriptural basis for apostolic succession, this looks a little like grasping at straws

There is allot more depth to Gods word that is available to those who seek diligently understanding for the mere reason of a personal relationship with God.

Amen - I agree. We can’t possible hope to fully understand all of scripture even after a lifetime of study and even for those devoted to studying every single day. All the more reason why God made provision for the Church to provide spiritual guidance and dicernment on key doctrines of faith - less we waunder aimlessly in the desert so to speak getting lost in any number of odd doctrines.

You have a very loving soul, I can tell. So please understand I love your fellowship - but you didn’t answer that “big” quesiton about whether you believe in the inerrancy of scripture (I suspect not from these replies). I’m not being judgemental, but if that is the case, then I recognize my appeal to scripture will not be as relevant to you.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[look3467]

I guess I’ll have to ask the “big” question (it will be helpful in framing future responses) - do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? >>>Brian

The spiritual message in scripture is perfect, without flaw.
The only way to discern it’s message is by the Holy Spirits guidance.

Now, the bible is written by man with imperfect qualification but inspired by God’s Spirit.

To the world, the message is hidden, but to them that seek God, the message is revealed.

The bible can be literally taken anyway mankind chooses to interpret it for other reason than to seek God.

To them it is hidden.

To give you and example: this verse: Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

To the simple faith minded soul, that is all that is needed for acceptance.

For the ones with designs to segregate, become puffed up and or condemn as the only way (Their way) is is clouded.(Not seeing clearing)

But to the astute student of Gods word, the revelation is: that God wanting to graft in the gentiles, he must cut off the branch.

Meaning: Christ must be rejected (Cut off) in order to include both the Jews and the Gentiles as one in Him.

Ref: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

That message was primarily addressed to the Jewish leaders as they knew only God of Moses to go to, but when Jesus cut them off by declaring His authority as God, they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy.

Hence, the reason, the purpose of His rejection in fulfillment of Gods works in saving mankind.

Forgive me, if I present to deep information. But you will have to judge for yourselves what to make of it.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Protestant101]

I am a Protestant who believes that Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine every Sunday at my Anglican church. Do you believe this or do you feel that it is truly a symbolistic example of the Lord’s Supper?

To believe this is only magical thinking - If one believes this, they become guilty of believing in the tenets of Pantheism. And Pantheism is a deadly heresy.

 

[pneuma07]

Did those gnostics even participate in a eucharist or have a eucharist of their own? Ignatius’s comment that they abstained caused me to think that they didn’t participate in the Eucharist b/c for them it made no sense at all…if Jesus had no body he could not have instituted such a sacrament
I would go even further and say that Ignatius IMHO tells us that rejection of the sacrament the Eucharist is but a natural consequence of the rejection of Incarnation, ie of the real presence of body and blood in the historic Jesus…and of course of the rejection of a real bodily crucifixion.

.

Dear Radical,

agreed here. Do you agree that the opposition against a supposed NRP Eucharsit by docetists
Would have been of a lesser degree than to a real presence of the One who had had no real presence at all ? . Since what they proposed was a NRP Christ, a RP Eucharist was the utmost nonsense. The link Incarnation-Eucharist is essential. Let’s read St. Justin again on this.

“but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Here Real Presence is IMHO most explicitly connected to that central pillar of Christianity which is Incarnation. In like manner as Jesus had flesh …the food blessed by the prayer … is the flesh …of that Jesus.
It seems, then, that we have to say according to Justin that, if the blessed food is not His real flesh, the Word became flesh only figuratively, and Jesus had no real flesh. Ie, the docetists had it.

*good point, “sarx” can indeed mean the entire body
As you note, the change is only substantial if Ignatius is not speaking symbolically. If he is speaking symbolically, then there is no change whatsoever. The insertion of “symbolically or spiritually” is the same addition I would make to Jesus’s words in Luke where he says, “This is (symbolically or spiritually) my body which is given for you…” If my insertion is appropriate in Luke then it is appropriate in the letter to the Smyraeans unless Ignatius had already deviated from the truth.**Notwithstanding my weak example of RC an insertion, my point remains exactly the same. The RCC is not in a position to claim foul with respect to my insertion simply b/c it is an insertion, for they would make the same insertion for “I am the true vine…” against the fellow who takes those words of Jesus literally. I would suggest that “making insertions” is commonplace on both the RC and the Protestant sides when the proper interpretation of scripture is at issue. *

Somehow we agree that your additions, whether to scripture or Ignatius, are the expressions of a postulate. Our question is about the postulate. …
BTW don’t you consider it peculiar, that in noone of the four tales of the Institutions Scripture gives us, there is no shadow of a figurative explanation. Maybe even an incidental one ?
You see, the four expositions have different targets: jewish background believers, hellenized peoples, greeks. Authors did know their target. And in no case, in no cultural context, they felt it necessary or even useful inserting let’s say an incidental caveat.

The structure of the sentence: “I am the vine”, isn’t quite the same as “That is my body”.
Should I make the “same insertion” it would come out: “That is the mere symbol of my body”, and “I am the mere symbol of the true vine”. Of course we share the point that non litteral connections exist.

Bless you

 

[Radical]

Greetings Pneuma, tis a good day…plus 8C and sunny

Do you agree that the opposition against a supposed NRP Eucharsit by docetists
Would have been of a lesser degree than to a real presence of the One who had had no real presence at all ? . Since what they proposed was a NRP Christ, a RP Eucharist was the utmost nonsense.

I suspect that would have been the case, but not necessarily. Such a gnostic may in fact turn around and use a RP view as a means of affirming his position. The argument (from the gnostic) would be that God came to communicate with man, but did not cloak himself in matter for that purpose. This should not be something hard for the orthodox christian to understand, after all they argue that Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist, but Christ’s body is not cloaked in matter in its presence. In both cases Jesus is present without a physicality. Further, Jesus appeared to be present (but really wasn’t), just like the bread appears to be present, but really isn’t. Come on, become a gnostic, you are already half way there.

“but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Here Real Presence is IMHO most explicitly connected to that central pillar of Christianity which is Incarnation. In like manner as Jesus had flesh …the food blessed by the prayer … is the flesh …of that Jesus.
It seems, then, that we have to say according to Justin that, if the blessed food is not His real flesh, the Word became flesh only figuratively, and Jesus had no real flesh. Ie, the docetists had it.

It is not a clean argument to make as indicated above. If one argues against the gnostic that Jesus came in the flesh at the incarnation in the same way that he comes in the bread of the eucharist, is one actually arguing that Christ came materially? In the Augustine thread I described the RC view as a real “otherworldly” presence, which I would say is quite a contrast from a real material presence.

BTW don’t you consider it peculiar, that in noone of the four tales of the Institutions Scripture gives us, there is no shadow of a figurative explanation. Maybe even an incidental one ?

I could not help but smile upon reading this…so much is determined by perspective. In the two threads we have shared I have often wondered if you (and yours) don’t consider it peculiar that Jesus didn’t take the time to explain why reality was contradicted by their senses…you know, something along the lines of, “I am not speaking figuratively here despite what you see. This isn’t like the time that I changed the water into wine. At that time the water became wine, it was changed to wine including all the physical attributes such as colour, smell, taste and alcohol content. I know some of you are but simple fishermen and don’t have the greek philosophical background that distinguishes between the substance and the accidents of a thing, but this bread I hold is really, really my body…”

You see, the four expositions have different targets: jewish background believers, hellenized peoples, greeks. Authors did know their target. And in no case, in no cultural context, they felt it necessary or even useful inserting let’s say an incidental caveat.

yep, I would make that same point about inserting an incidental caveat concerning the claim that it has really changed despite what you see and taste. Regarding everything else their audiences did, their audiences trusted their senses to determine reality…yet no caveat that this was the exception to that rule. They asked their audiences to believe them as they reported what they saw and experienced…yet no caveat that, in this case, they should not be influenced by what they see and experience. Those caveats only come from fathers many years later. Perspective.
God bless you

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Please pardon the interruption. There are many “so-called” Christians and then there are Christians that have the personal relationship with Christ, that is why there are some many lose interpretations and cafeteria Catholics…for that matter. The real question is that of discernment. Look at Matthew 7:13-end of the chapter and you will get the understanding of the FEW and MANY…keep in mind when reading that Jesus is talking to very religious people. Enjoy the read! God Bless!

**Hi Non,

:coffeeread: I think that “Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it.” Means that “christians” are called by Jesus to go through the narrow gate prepared for and traveled by Catholics and those others that do what He commanded. The wider gate was made to entice people who want to follow their own beliefs, doctrines and dogmas rather then acknowledge and follow the teachings of Jesus’ one true church that He founded 2,000 years ago. What corruption do does your self interpretation of our sacred scriptures provide you? Whatever it is probably comes under the theological classification of happy horse manure! Got it? If it isn’t what the Catholic church teaches, that’s what that is. That’s bologna, absolute bologna! :compcoff: **

 

[Realcatholicgk]

To believe this is only magical thinking - If one believes this, they become guilty of believing in the tenets of Pantheism. And Pantheism is a deadly heresy.

**

Hi Protestant101,

Hey, Aren’t you the same Protestant101 that claims God can do what he wants and divided the day from night before He even made the sun and the moon? And the same Protestant101 that claims God did this all in 6 days and rested on the 7th day because the Bible says so and says that God can do anything he want?

If so, Why do you now want to limit God’s powers? And to us meir humans wouldn’t all those other things seem like magical thinking? Panthetheism would be the belief that everything is God and God is everything! Of course God can be among us when two or more are gathered in His name. Does that make two or more of us believing that, believers in Panteretheism? If someone claims they are full of the Holy Spirit just because you are full of Satin does that mean they are a heretic because they believe The HS is in them? When a priest, by the commandment of Jesus and apostolic succession, actually transforms the bread and wine into Jesus’ Body and Blood who are you to insult Jesus by calling it a magic trick?

What happened everyone run you off the SDA sites because of your faulty beliefs? They will do the same here. These people are really christians. Why even the Protestants here worship God on Sundays like Jesus commanded, well except if there is a 7th day Baptist here or another cult developed since I last checked.estimated to be 21 more denominations each month. That puts them over 61,000 groups . Do the real protestants get mad at your name? Shouldn’t it be 7thDayAdventest101? so as not to lie? Oh, I read somewhere that your cult has divided up into 11 or more groups so far? Is that true? Do they all still follow the 28 or so fundamental beliefs? Are you guys going to make a pope to imitate the real church? Are any of those groups expected to join any of the real Protestant denominations? If so they will probably have to become some other type of protestant group. That shouldn’t be a problem because they do divide and multiply all the time. I am sure some evangelical group can morph to adapt many of your beliefs and create another division. That would put your authority going back 500 years instead of to the 1860s. They may make you lay your Prophet Ellen G. White to the side because of the “scandles”. But some of you do that already don’t you? Several groups even deny knowing who she was don’t they?

Click On: Prophet Ellen G. White
Most people knew she was lying anyway, right?

Well, God luck, Remember Jesus realy does love you.

God Bless**

 

[With_Questions]

To believe this is only magical thinking - If one believes this, they become guilty of believing in the tenets of Pantheism. And Pantheism is a deadly heresy.

I would love to see you attempt to disprove the Real Presence scripturally.

I don’t think you can, although who knows, I could be wrong.

I think that the best you can do is to weaken the prooftexts of those who believe in it; in other words show that their prooftexts do not quite proove their case. Shooting holes in their prooftexts, however, is not the same as disproving it.

Remember that I am undecided on this.

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant101,

**If so, Why do you now want to limit God’s powers? **

---

**When a priest, by the commandment of Jesus and apostolic succession, actually transforms the bread and wine into Jesus’ Body and Blood who are you to insult Jesus by calling it a magic trick? **

**What happened everyone run you off the SDA sites because of your faulty beliefs? They will do the same here. These people are really christians. Why even the Protestants here worship God on Sundays like Jesus commanded, well except if there is a 7th day Baptist here or another cult developed since I last checked.estimated to be 21 more denominations each month. **
Click On: Prophet Ellen G. White
**Most people knew she was lying anyway, right? **

Well, God luck, Remember Jesus realy does love you.

God Bless

I tried to make sense out of your post; but found it difficult. I think you are still recovering from too much Christmas turkey.

The Ellen White that you accuse of “lying” actually predicted what you have stated about most Protestants worshipping on Sunday. Isn’t it interesting that you go to a cult site to “prove” Adventists are a “cult;” and that Ellen White supposedly “plagiarized?”

 

[Radical]

Every argument from silence has to look for the possibility of …an artificial silence. I fully agree.

nicely said

But this cannot be stretched without limits. Else, we could buy almost any sort of historical myth with the
“ erased evidence” theory.

again, nicely said

We’re not speaking about destroying or just forgetting works by heathens or notorious heresiarchs. What we need is that those works by any otherwise revered ECF who could deal with NRP versus RP…It means the Church was not only 1) deliberately deceitful, and everywhere so. She was 2) extremely efficient. And she was 3) very, very lucky. I cannot believe she was any of the above.
You appear inclined to believe 1), but how could you bet on 2) plus 3) ?

For an argument from silence to have much merit, there must be absolute silence, and for it to be defeated there need only be one good exception to the silence. I am not suggesting that it is at all likely that there was a great confrontation over NRP vs. RP which saw a great number of participants and/or a great number of exchanges and/or a vast volume of copies produced. If such were the case, then yes, the RP group would have had to be extremely efficient and very, very lucky. I am suggesting that the possibility of a much more limited exchange can not be just dismissed. It seems that your argument is more that 1) if a RP view was introduced then 2) there where would have been a considerable (not just minor) confrontation and 3) since no evidence exists of such a major confrontation, we can 4) safely say that it is unlikely #1 occurred. If so, I disagree at #2.
One of the reasons that I disagree at #2 is that I would suggest that we properly place God on a high pedestal built from the things that we believe about him. If a view that chips away at that pedestal is introduced, it will typically be met with a great deal of opposition. On the other hand, if a view that adds to the height of that pedestal is introduced, it will often be warmly received. I see the RP view as falling into the second category. In a RP Eucharist God is performing a personal miracle each and every time. The participant has claim to an added means of communion with God. BTW this is how I would account for the appeal of the modern charismatic view. In both cases the believer is convinced that God is reaching out to touch him in a personal and miraculous way. That is a very attractive and empowering belief.

Moreover, while any confrontational work, or quotation, or passage was burnt, the very texts which in your view are indicative or even clear supports of the defeated party were carefully preserved. Why were they not considered embarassing at all ?

I would account for them by suggesting that not all of the ECFs bought into the RP view. Some held their ground, but b/c of their stature their works which can (and I think should) be read as a challenge for the RP view could not be simply tossed away after the RP view began to dominate…

I may add: if the conspiracy deleted every and any evidence of controversies, were are at the very least friendly rebukes ?

friendly (or less than friendly) rebukes and the general works describing a figurative understanding would be as confrontational as I think it could have gotten. We have Marcarius the Magnesian asserting in 400 AD: “[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”
(hey, my cohorts may have been of petrified mind, but at least they rhapsodized! )

And the Eucharist is central to the faith and liturgy of Apostolic Churches, not a matter to be forgotten to go after any other sort of controversies ( or rebukes).

Again please keep in mind that at the time two other views where giving the orthodox a great deal of grief: Gnosticism and Arianism. Both of those chip away at the height of the pedestal and were (rightly) opposed vigorously. The Eucharist was used as an argument against Gnosticism. In such an environment, would the prudent church father (who was inclined to symbolism) think it wise to criticize the kindred church father (who was inclined to RP) rather than maintaining a united front against Gnosticism?

 

[Radical]

…continuing

You can and should expect variations about the explanation and development of a principle. That is by far another matter than controversies about the principle itself being there or not. Introducing a new principle is not a development. It is full innovation.

I see it differently. I see the doctrine being derived via accretion. There was a progression such as:
a) bread being symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice
b) bread being spiritual food whereby something more was gained than could be attained by the mere commemoration of the Lord’s sacrifice
c) there being a presence (more than merely spiritual) that could somehow be properly viewed as a bodily presence or at least a connection to the body of Christ in heaven
d) there being a definite claim to a bodily presence (however it was a total mystery as to how that could be possible)
e) transubstantiation.
I do not think that (d) or (e) was introduced into a sea of (a). Rather claims were introduced, accepted and then enhanced, becoming more and more grandiose in the process. Further, there were other aspects to the Eucharist where the orthodox could find common ground (and also build up doctrine). An example would be: (i)Eucharist = commemorative of Christ’s sacrifice; (ii) Eucharist = a sacrifice ( in that, as per Tertullian, good works such as prayer are all sacrifices) (iii) Eucharist = presentation again of Christ’s sacrifice. Common ground could also be found in the aspects such as (I) the Eucharist serves to join us spiritually together/to the one body/to Jesus himself; (II) the Eucharist as being a remembrance of the sacrifice needed for our salvation/ a thing that we are commanded to do and therefore must do for our salvation/ a means of receiving grace for our salvation. Shared views with respect to other aspects of the Eucharist and the gradual enhancement of the level of a presence would reduce the likelihood of a confrontation arising. I don’t envision it to be the drastic innovation that you describe.

While your guess about the geography of the early RP may be as reasonable as another one, I wonder what modern works of church history deal with this rise of RP and its features.

I am still looking…perhaps there could be a Phd in it for someone. I do believe that the gradual development of various doctrines is a generally held view.

But I was not looking for involuntary sources, rather for whom was “really” RP.
Which ante-nicene ECFs, if any, according to your criteria and readings and of their works, would awarely accept and spread RP ? Who was the first one ?

first one what? The first at (b)? Probably the Didache. In general, it seems to me that the fathers of the mid forth century (being mostly at (d)) assert a presence in a much bolder and concrete manner than the fathers of the mid to late second century (being not yet at (d)). (Again, my candidates for the symbolic/spiritual holdouts are Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine in Carthage and Clement and Origen in Alexandria. )

May God bless you

 

[mabibleteacher]

Realcatholicgk:
I have so many objections to how you have responded AND insulted me that I could not possible address everything is this forum. .

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I tried to make sense out of your post; but found it difficult. I think you are still recovering from too much Christmas turkey.

**Hi Protestant101,

There are some weird people on this site aren’t there? They pick at nits all day long! I was so glad to see you arrive. I get bored to tears reading their dissertations on RP and NRP.
We do Christmas Ham, thank you very much! Turkey on Thanksgiving, ham or duck on Christmas and ham or turkey on New Years Day! Christians love MEAT!

Don’t apologize, with your vision of the truth being blinded by Satan, and your mind clouded by your corrupted learnings how could anyone expect it not to be difficult for you to understand the truth? We are here for you! I am always glad to help. I am here for you. Remember, you are loved!

Which truth didn’t you understand? I noticed you didn’t answer the questions were they really that difficult? Should I type slower? Since you always ‘claim’ God can do anything. I asked why limit His ability when you don’t agree with what he did? Is that understandable? Let me try another way ~ Who dies and elected you God? Better? **

The Ellen White that you accuse of “lying” actually predicted what you have stated about most Protestants worshipping on Sunday.

**Oh, “Lets throw Ellen Write over to the side: throw her to the side …” Did I say that right? I have always wondered is that some kind of esoteric SDA salutation? You guys seem to throw your poor Prophet all over the place!

Anyway, IF I understand your point correctly, Your Prophet predicted that Most Protestants would worship Jesus on Sundays 300 hundred years after they actually started doing it? Wow! Is she good, or what? Scarely isn’t it! She was so accurate. How could she do it? Oh I know it was written in many books like the Bible, but she wouldn’t cheat and plagiarize anything would she? I mean if she did that she could “write” 10,000 writings and 2900 books or more, couldn’t she? Did she also predict that Jesus would be put to death on the cross for our sins? The sunday stuff actually started around 2,000 years ago when the true chuch started obeying Jesus’ commandment to worship Him. So the Protestant can actually be given credit. That would be like saying they wrote the real bible rather than plagiarized our! Hey, can’t you guys become real Protestants? You do seem have a lot of things in common! **

Isn’t it interesting that you go to a cult site to “prove” Adventists are a “cult;” and that Ellen White supposedly “plagiarized?”

**
Oh, you silly goose! You are so funny We all knew SDA was a cult long before that non denominational one ever existed! Isn’t it cute that they don’t want to use any name because then their lies could be tracked like the SDAs. They hang signs up saying “Christians Worship Here” I agree it is false advertising. I am betting they will eventually be classified as some kind of Protestant Non denominational group called the “CWHs”! If they joined in with your cult you could make an anagram of “The SDA CWHs**” You could be called the ‘Watch Sheds.’

You do realize that if I would have went to a Catholic site you could have said “Well what can we expect from the real church, but the truth”? Or if I went to a Protestant site you could say “They are against us because we corrupted their false beliefs and we don’t worship or follow the bible correctly” They don’t either, but that is a different thread!

I actually did go to several SDA sites but none of them will admit that Ellen White was a Plagiarizer. Many even deny following her teachings! Kind of reminded me of Peter with Jesus in a preverted kind of way!
I did find several more sites repeating the truth, do you want me to send the links? In fact that site has excellent links to follow. What about the vision and comprehension problems your false faith causes?

Isn’t to say that "Ellen White supposedly “plagiarized?” along the lines of “Jesus supposedly rose from the dead” or “God supposedly created the World”? Truth is truth, isn’t it? Oh, wait I am so sorry I forgot :doh2: The SDA actually make your own truths don’t you?

Even though it was proven back in 1980 you still deny it? It it just you or the entire SDA? Does that make the truth go away? We still tell the truth about the Protestant reformation and that has been 500 years! Is the SDA planning to make a new creed, doctrine, dogma, or Fundamental to explain her plagiarzing? That would be the 29th right. That might work better then just pretending it wan’t true. That you could at least say "Our church fundamentals support the she received revealed truths and prophecies which were magically projected into past writings by the Holy Spirit thereby thereby proving they were her original writings. THAT MIGHT WORK! It actually sounded like other SDA teachings! If I was you I would recommend it anyway. It is worth a try You might be elected head wizard or whatever you cult leader is called. Remember your cult fell apart twice before bacause of lies. You know who, help get it restarted again. This one can be covered up better then by just denying it happened. Be creatinve like she was. Pick her up and dust her off! Now days too many people can read, so confuse them!

Click on: ELLEN G. WHITE

Isn’t to say that "Ellen White supposedly "plagiarized?"along the lines of “Jesus supposedly rose from the dead” or “God supposedly created the World”? Truth is truth, isn’t it? Oh, wait I am so sorry I forgot :doh2: The SDA make your own truths don’t you?

You are loved! Keep praying, the truth may eventually make it through. You are in my prayers. I truely believe in the RP of Jesus, and Thank God, He believes in Me!

God Bless

 

[pneuma07]

I suspect that would have been the case, but not necessarily. Such a gnostic may in fact turn around and use a RP view as a means of affirming his position. The argument (from the gnostic) would be that God came to communicate with man, but did not cloak himself in matter for that purpose. This should not be something hard for the orthodox christian to understand, after all they argue that Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist, but Christ’s body is not cloaked in matter in its presence. In both cases Jesus is present without a physicality. Further, Jesus appeared to be present (but really wasn’t), just like the bread appears to be present, but really isn’t. Come on, become a gnostic, you are already half way there.

Dear Radical,

Just consider again Justin, please:
In like manner as Jesus had flesh …the food blessed by the prayer … is the flesh …of that Jesus

In like manner as Jesus had…

Justin:
They were taught: RP historic Jesus → RP Eucharist.
Docetists, on the contrary: NRP Jesus → NRP Eucharist Many modern faith communities may indeed seem halfway between them. Christmas time inspired to me a little post on Incarnation a couple of weeks ago you may want to read.

It is not a clean argument to make as indicated above. If one argues against the gnostic that Jesus came in the flesh at the incarnation in the same way that he comes in the bread of the eucharist, is one actually arguing that Christ came materially? In the Augustine thread I described the RC view as a real “otherworldly” presence, which I would say is quite a contrast from a real material presence.

So RP is not enough to counter docetism ( the belief the there was no RP in the historic Jesus) , while mere spiritual symbolic presence is.
Radical, RP Eucharist is in a manner the continuation of Incarnation.

 

[pneuma07]

I could not help but smile upon reading this…so much is determined by perspective. In the two threads we have shared I have often wondered if you (and yours) don’t consider it peculiar that Jesus didn’t take the time to explain why reality was contradicted by their senses…you know, something along the lines of, “I am not speaking figuratively here despite what you see. This isn’t like the time that I changed the water into wine. At that time the water became wine, it was changed to wine including all the physical attributes such as colour, smell, taste and alcohol content. I know some of you are but simple fishermen and don’t have the greek philosophical background that distinguishes between the substance and the accidents of a thing, but this bread I hold is really, really my body…”
yep, I would make that same point about inserting an incidental caveat concerning the claim that it has really changed despite what you see and taste. Regarding everything else their audiences did, their audiences trusted their senses to determine reality…yet no caveat that this was the exception to that rule. They asked their audiences to believe them as they reported what they saw and experienced…yet no caveat that, in this case, they should not be influenced by what they see and experience. Those caveats only come from fathers many years later. Perspective.
God bless you

Your postulate seems to imply that for everyone in the Upper Room, and then in the believers to come, it is obvious that Jesus cannot mean what He says.

We should then explore the reasons why this is obvious and the opposite view unthinkable .
First you could claim a situational obviousness, such as ”This picture is my mother” “This point on the map is my town”: but we do not imagine they could see the bread as iconographic reproduction of His body or so.
A staunch reason to believe Jesus cannot mean what he says, can certainly be to believe He cannot do what He says. That could hardly be attributed to the Apostles at that stage or later, in view of their living alongside Jesus and His record ( or to those coming to the faith through them) .
Or that was in blatant contradiction with the trust of the Master’s teaching. How so ? Or ( you can for sure fill the blank better then I could…)

They of necessity would think: “It has to be symbolic, and that’s that”. Either we go on with the “that cannot mean what it says” approach, or we can accept that they, at least, could accept Jesus as proposing a mystery. If they just could, the lack of any contrary explanation in any tale is a peculiarity.

And they (we) do not need greek (or say indian ) philosophy to accept the existence of the mystery expressed by Jesus’ words, more than to reject it.

We need a conceptual and linguistic framework to elaborate what we can somehow say about the mystery ( as well as on any aspect of the Chrsitian message).
We cannot ( and have not to) escape culture-specific elaborations of Christianity more than we can say it is the product of a specific culture.

In the following posts you appear to explain how the unthinkable option ( which was such for everyone in any context), the one against the senses ( which appear to shape any view of ours in the present exposition) was not only a thinkable option, but the “attractive” one.

What nobody would even mind writing an incidental caveat against, would win the day.

Bless you.

 

[Radical]

So RP is not enough to counter docetism ( the belief the there was no RP in the historic Jesus) , while mere spiritual symbolic presence is…
Radical, RP Eucharist is in a manner the continuation of Incarnation.

Its that “in a manner” bit. The RP guy can’t grab a bit of bread off the communion table and say to the gnostic, “See, there is the very flesh of Jesus. That ends the argument, he was present on earth (in the flesh) just as he is present right here, right now in the flesh.” That argument might have some appeal amongst RPers, but would have no appeal to an outsider. To an outsider it is laughable.

As such, both the RP and the NRP are in the same boat vs. the gnostic in that they both argue that they are possessed of a tradition/belief/sacrament that goes back to Jesus himself, whereby Jesus made something his flesh (either symbolically or otherwise) and Jesus wouldn’t do that unless he actually had flesh whilst here…