R.C. Sproul's Objection to the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter lagerald24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lagerald24 said:
He is vera homo vera deus , that is, “truly man and truly God,”
Click to expand...
If Mr. Sproul wants his words to be taken seriously, he needs to take more care to get his quotations right. The adverb “truly” in Latin is vere, not vera. “Truly man, truly God” is Vere homo, vere Deus.
 
Last edited:
In fairness to Sproul, I don’t think he changed positions to be popular. He had some very basic convictions he held onto. It appears he believed in absolutes, not a relativist.

His view, historic Protestantism, is seldom heard now.
Instead we get fundamentalists, generic evangelicals, non denominationals, and mainline liberals, which I think all Protestantism is eventually moving towards.

Sproul was a throwback to an earlier time. I would trust an opponent like Sproul more than some of our friends, inside and out.

R I P brother
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
because why would so many disciples have abandoned him after what he said if he was speaking allegorically?
Click to expand...
Many people were following Him from the day(s) before when He miraculously fed thousands of people with bread. When Jesus told the crowd that He wasn’t going to provide any more meals for them they became disinterested and left when Jesus started talking about eating Him. I’m just guessing that there were some Gentiles in this group who weren’t really interested in religion and would have been completely lost in the Discourse other than to understand “I’m not going to feed you again”. The Jews who were present would have heard something different…

Others left because they had an uncertain understanding of what Jesus was saying. The Jews would have heard Jesus making veiled references to Himself being somehow divine. IMO, that’s why they thought it was a hard teaching. I think they would have undoubtedly heard Jesus’ words as being spiritual, not as actually referring to His flesh, because that would have made absolutely no sense to them. Even as hearing the Discourse in terms of spirituality not flesh, they still would have found Jesus’ words to be hard to accept. And so some Jews left also.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it’s called “Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism.” I’m currently critiquing it on my blog and just wanted to get some thoughts on this rather unique objection to the Eucharist.
 
Totally agree, Sproul is the ideal kind of Protestant to debate because he isn’t hung up on a lukewarm, relativistic Christianity and has said many times that if Catholicism were right, he would repent of his heresy and come join the Church. But, he is really really really firmly set on the fact that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness received through faith alone is the essence of the Christian life and because the Catholic Church condemned these doctrines, therefore we’re devils who pervert the Gospel and we’re prob going to Hell.
 
But, I’ll take that kind of Prot over any other when it comes to debating the truths of Catholicism b/c at least they don’t hide behind the idea of an invisible, purely egalitarian Church whose members cross all denominations, including all who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
 
The Roman Catholic view?

I was under the impression that the other Catholic Churches have a similar view to the Latin Rite Catholics.
 
Yeah, they do. Sproul likes to create confusion in Catholicism where there is none, it’s a common, stealthy method of debating he uses in the book.
 
lagerald24 said:
His physical body and blood, which are part of his human nature, not part of His divine nature,
Click to expand...
Christ’s human and divine nature are one.

One has to resort to the heresy of Nestorianism to say the above.
 
It takes a special kind of pride to think that the Church father’s were all wrong and he, Mr. Sproul, somehow got it right.

Did he think that the Holy Spirit was asleep when the Church, the bride of Christ, lost her way? Was her Bridegroom also asleep?
 
In Christ there is no separation or division but unity.

Christ came to unite humanity with the divine and it reflects in his nature, the divine and human perfectly united.
 
It’s pretty much the same pride we see on here every day when somebody decides they know better than the Pope on something, or they come up with some alleged “error” they think the Church made.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
I’m just guessing that there were some Gentiles in this group
Click to expand...
Unlikely. The Jews in the crowd wouldn’t have sat down and shared a meal with them.
Sarcelle said:
Christ’s human and divine nature are one.
Click to expand...
Hmm… no. He has two natures, but they’re united in one subsistence and one person. This doesn’t mean “only one nature”, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top