The Reformation...reforming to What?

[Isaiah45_9]

But, I feel that the argument, however flawed you may feel it, that the reformers had was that the ancient church did not teach transubstantiation. Depending on what sources from the very ancient church you look at, you can draw that conclusion, though I know the Roman Catholic church believes this to be heresy.

From Justin Martyr in his 1st Apology (Its hard to get earlier than him outside the Apostles ).

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

(Emphasis mine)

You can find it here:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

While he uses the word transmutation here, you can see how later the Fathers would develop into transubstantiation.

I am happy with it being a mystery as I believe our Lord’s Words

 

[Contarini]

From Justin Martyr in his 1st Apology (Its hard to get earlier than him outside the Apostles ).

(Emphasis mine)

You can find it here:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

While he uses the word transmutation here, you can see how later the Fathers would develop into transubstantiation.

I am happy with it being a mystery as I believe our Lord’s Words

The problem is that the word isn’t describing the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but the transformation of bread and wine into us, which nourishes us.

Now arguably there’s a hint here that a similar transformation takes place, enabling the Eucharist to nourish us spiritually as common bread and wine do physically.

But that isn’t actually what he’s saying here. You jump on the word “transmutation” without looking at how it’s actually being used, or so it appears.

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The problem is that the word isn’t describing the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but the transformation of bread and wine into us, which nourishes us.

Now arguably there’s a hint here that a similar transformation takes place, enabling the Eucharist to nourish us spiritually as common bread and wine do physically.

But that isn’t actually what he’s saying here. You jump on the word “transmutation” without looking at how it’s actually being used, or so it appears.

Edwin

Thanks Edwin,

But not common bread and wine, but “food which is blessed by the prayer of His word” it transforms into “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

That’s why I made the distinction about the transmutation, perhaps I should have left it out.

But the entire statement does lead to the concept of the Real Presence, at least it does for me . And further criticizes a copy of ones imitating a similar practice.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin,

But not common bread and wine, but “food which is blessed by the prayer of His word” it transforms into “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

That’s why I made the distinction about the transmutation, perhaps I should have left it out.

But that’s precisely what it doesn’t say. It may hint at it, but it never says that the bread is transformed–it says that it is the body and blood.

This of course is already explicitly in the NT, and thus the debate over the Words of Institution themselves applies to this passage as well.

I agree that he may be gesturing in the direction of the later idea that whereas ordinary food is transformed into us, the Eucharist (having itself been transformed) transforms those who receive it rightly.

But the fact is that the word “transmutation” isn’t used of bread transforming into Jesus.

I find your interpretation oddly similar to the purely symbolic interpretation of what 1 Peter 3 has to say about baptism. I’ve argued that passage a number of times with protestants who jump on the word “symbol” and don’t notice that the Flood is said to be a symbol of baptism, not baptism of regeneration.

In both cases, what has become a key “loaded word” is present, but not actually used in ways that clearly support the theological point people want to use it for.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Another point where Reformed theology clearly contradicts historic Christian belief is the new-fangled doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints.” Not to mention the concept of imputation. . . .

Edwin

As far as perseverance of the saints, The LCMS and I think Luther himself isn’t quite fully in Calvin’s camp. We can fall from faith, but as one of the more colorful people in our church puts it: “God does all the savin’ 'round here”

From the LCMS:

Q. Can you lose your salvation and if you can, what do you need to do to regain it again?

A. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God’s judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud “security” based not on God’s grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to “do as they please.”

By the same token, the LCMS affirms and treasures all of the wonderful passages in Scripture in which God promises that He will never forsake those who trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation (John 10:27-29; Romans 8; Heb. 13: 5-6, etc.). To those who are truly repentant and recognize their need for God’s grace and forgiveness, such passages are powerful reminders of the true security that is ours through sincere and humble faith in Christ alone for our salvation.

A person may be restored to faith in the same way he or she came to faith in the first place: by repenting of his or her sin and unbelief and trusting completely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation.

Whenever a person does repent and believe, this always takes place by the grace of God alone and by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God’s Word in a person’s heart.

Q. One of your FAQ answers states that it is possible for one to lose his salvation. However, in your Theses on Justification (1983) on this website it says plainly that believers have eternal assurance (paragraph 58). Which is it?

A. Lutherans believe both are true and Scriptural: It is possible for a believer to fall from faith and lose salvation, and it is possible for a believer to have complete assurance of eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If this seems paradoxical to human reason, then (Lutherans say) this is only because the teaching of Scripture itself on this issue (as on many other issues) appears paradoxical to human reason.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But that’s precisely what it doesn’t say. It may hint at it, but it never says that the bread is transformed–it says that it is the body and blood.

This of course is already explicitly in the NT, and thus the debate over the Words of Institution themselves applies to this passage as well.

I agree that he may be gesturing in the direction of the later idea that whereas ordinary food is transformed into us, the Eucharist (having itself been transformed) transforms those who receive it rightly.

But the fact is that the word “transmutation” isn’t used of bread transforming into Jesus.

I find your interpretation oddly similar to the purely symbolic interpretation of what 1 Peter 3 has to say about baptism. I’ve argued that passage a number of times with protestants who jump on the word “symbol” and don’t notice that the Flood is said to be a symbol of baptism, not baptism of regeneration.

In both cases, what has become a key “loaded word” is present, but not actually used in ways that clearly support the theological point people want to use it for.

Edwin

Hey, you left my quote where I said that it does for me

 

[mackbrislawn]

You friend is mistaken. The words “in, with, and under” are intended to speak of Sacramental Union, not consubstantiation. Think of it; Transubstantiation was rejected by the reformers becaus eof its philosphical/metaphysical construct. Consubstantiation also uses that construct. The reason for the historic rejection of Transubstantiation (and consubstantiation) is the philosophical construct, not that we don’t recognize Christ’s words - this [bread] is my body. Ask your friend where he finds any Lutheran theologian or any of the reformers speaking of consubstantiation.

Notice the context here - First - the bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Secondly, - we do not presume to understand how this takes place. Finally, we recognize physical elements - that somehow, in, with and under physical elements - God gives us His true body and blood of Christ for tthe forgiveness of sins.

Jon

Jon, to continue a bit on the idea of the Eucharist (I think it is okay in this thread because the topic of the Reformation is a broad one)–
I do find the Lutheran view of the Eurcharist to be a bit more reasonable than the Catholic. The Catholic view does away with the bread and wine entirely, but the Lutheran view, if I understand it correctly, retains the bread and wine. After all, as you have said above, Christ’s words are–“this [bread] is my body.” That is, this here hunk of bread is my body. So in this view, Christ’s body becomes bread, not bread becoming Christ’s body. And why not? After all, Christ became flesh! So why can’t He become bread and wine also? This way there is more of a parallelism between the Incarnation and the Eurcharist.

In the Catholic view, two miracles take place–the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, plus they become the body and blood of Jesus. Two miracles when only one is really needed.

The Catholic idea that the bread and wine only appear to be bread and wine also seems to be a little bit Docetic. The Docetic heresy said that Jesus only appeared to have a real body, and only appeared to suffer and die. Just like the bread and wine only appear to be bread and wine.

I don’t know if Luther reasoned this way or not. You mention transubstantiation’s philosophical/metaphysical construct–what is that? And that consubstantiation has that same construct. It is possible to concisely elaborate more on this construct?

It surprised me though when you said consubstantiation was not a Lutheran view. The dictionary, for what it is worth, defines consubstantiation as the actual substantial presence of and combination of the body of Christ with the eucharistic bread and wine according to a teaching associated with Martin Luther. The date given is 1597 which would be after Luther’s own time.

In regards to in, with, and under, I always thought of the ‘con’ in consubstantiation as meaning ‘with, together, jointly.’ So it would mean that Jesus’ body is with, together, and jointly with the bread.

What are your thoughts on this?

Mack

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But that’s precisely what it doesn’t say. It may hint at it, but it never says that the bread is transformed–it says that it is the body and blood.

This of course is already explicitly in the NT, and thus the debate over the Words of Institution themselves applies to this passage as well.

I agree that he may be gesturing in the direction of the later idea that whereas ordinary food is transformed into us, the Eucharist (having itself been transformed) transforms those who receive it rightly.

But the fact is that the word “transmutation” isn’t used of bread transforming into Jesus.

I find your interpretation oddly similar to the purely symbolic interpretation of what 1 Peter 3 has to say about baptism. I’ve argued that passage a number of times with protestants who jump on the word “symbol” and don’t notice that the Flood is said to be a symbol of baptism, not baptism of regeneration.

In both cases, what has become a key “loaded word” is present, but not actually used in ways that clearly support the theological point people want to use it for.

Edwin

BTW - I am entirely fine with it being a mystery .

To clear up, I am not saying that the bread transmutes into Jesus but that the nourishment analogy brought up by Justin is adequate enough for me to see how the Fathers would in time develop an explanation for the miracle.

I love the way Justin puts it, more so considering this is before 200A.D. And I think it bears a valuable witness to what the Early Church believed and practiced. In short, a Real Presence.

It comforts and nourishes )) me to see/read these Early witnesses and their testimonies.

While he uses the word transmutation here, you can see how later the Fathers would develop into transubstantiation.

This was poorly worded, and what I meant was that the Fathers would later develop the mystery into something else and not the same. Just in *not *so many words

Peace,

Jose

 

[Radical]

The specific point where the Reformed tradition most clearly breaks with patristic Eucharistic teaching is adoration….
Yet the Fathers of the fourth century and later, including Augustine, consistently speak of Eucharistic adoration (within the context of the Liturgy) as routine and admirable, even obligatory.

in which passages do you see Augustine speaking consistently of Eucharistic adoration? I am aware of Enn. Psalms 98/9 where Augustine tried to justify worshipping the footstool and in the process stated:
For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.”
Did you have any other passage in mind? I am also aware that Augustine, in Tractates John XI, when considering the eating of Christ’s flesh wrote:
Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, “It is the Spirit that quickens.” After He had said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him,” lest they should understand it carnally, He said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.”
…and when explaining how we should understand eating Christ’s flesh wrote in OCD III:
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
In summary, we have Augustine saying:

A) Peter ate Christ’s flesh on the day of the bread of life discourse;

B) One can not eat Christ’s flesh unless one first worships that flesh; and

C) Eating Christ’s flesh now means sharing in Christ’s sufferings and retaining a memory of his sacrifice.

From (A) we can understand that (for Augustine) the Eucharist is not necessary for the eating of Christ’s flesh. From (A) and (B) together we can understand that (for Augustine) Peter would have worshipped Christ’s flesh before he ate it w/o any Eucharist involved (for either the eating or the worshipping). Combine the ideas of all three points one arrives at this for Augustine’s position:

** One can not share in Christ’s sufferings and retain a memory of his sacrifice unless one first worships that flesh and no Eucharistic presence is necessary for such sharing, retaining or worshipping to occur**

…the last bit is rather obvious…one can obviously worship God w/o God needing to be physically present in the room with the worshipper. Given that, I wonder in which other passages you see Augustine speaking consistently of Eucharistic adoration?..b/c, I don’t see Enn. Psalms (by itself) as doing the job.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ahs,

I think Luther was initially motivated by the public scandal given by members of the Catholic Church. Had he advanced on this idea, like St. Catherine of Siena, then I think we would have a St Martin Luther today! (Just a personal opinion ) But, he moved off of this topic and landed on several others.

It would be a mistake to only look at the clerical abuses and think this answers or at least makes Luther more understandable to today’s readers. 16th Century Europe was a complex environment in general and Germany in particular. Ultimately the political subdivisions resented untaxed Church lands, and what money was raised to be spent on Germans - started to leave Germany and head off to Rome where it was being used to build and decorate St. Peter’s very large church. Then there was the political instability where one group would fight against another - and Luther now had a chance to actually influence political decissions. No easy answers here - but, there is a simple one: learn all you can about Christ - and do so with real objectives in mind.

Hope this healps.

God bless

But, I think you may be complicating the process … by calling those who lead the revolt - as ‘reformers’ They reformed nothing - they broke away from the Catholic Church

The Reformers, or at least Luther, claimed to be fighting abuses in the Church. Why, then, did Luther not address the abuses without trying to change Doctrine? But then again, Luther did not claim to ONLY be fighting abuses, he also claimed that many of the Church’s Doctrines were wrong.

But what did he, and other Reformers, base this on? The Papacy, the Sacrament of Penance(aka Reconciliation/Confession), Scripture AND Tradition, etc…were rejected by all the Reformers…but on what precedent, or on based on what standard, on what authority?

And the main point I’d like to drive home is this: Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…or they changed what Christianity had always been…in which case we should be able to see some proof of their authority to do this. Right?

 

[ahs]

…But, I think you may be complicating the process … by calling those who lead the revolt - as ‘reformers’ They reformed nothing - they broke away from the Catholic Church

Thanks for the great feedback as well, and to everyone. I have read all the posts and am learning much.

Radical, it’s wonderful that you have read some of Augustine on the Eucharist. I recommend you start a new thread on that topic in the “Apologetics” subforum where it can be more deeply discussed. The purpose of this thread is for a general look at why some men revolted against the Church and what their goals were/are. Contarini brings it up to point to what they were looking at as they developed doctrines…but to delve more deeply into Augustine on the Eucharist is a topic deserving its own thread.

 

[Radical]

Radical, it’s wonderful that you have read some of Augustine on the Eucharist. I recommend you start a new thread on that topic in the “Apologetics” subforum where it can be more deeply discussed.

I am not really interested in doing that again…I only want to know what other passages Edwin might have in mind.

The purpose of this thread is for a general look at why some men revolted against the Church and what their goals were/are…

understood…I wasn’t planning on participating much and don’t want to derail this thread…that being said, you started by declaring:

Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…

…I get the feeling that you and I understand the content of some early Christian writings very differently…Augustine for one. Further, I would suggest that if you want to determine what “Christianity had been from the beginning” then you shouldn’t merely look at “early Christian writings”, but you must look at the very earliest Christian writings. For example, the contrast between how the very earliest Christian writings dealt with Mary and how the still early (but later) Christians dealt with Mary is very dramatic. The considerable development of doctrine is undeniable and if one comes to the conclusion that the development is not inspired, then one must eliminate those developments to eliminate error…You asked what authority do Protestants have to determine and then eliminate error…to me that is kinda like asking: By what authority did the boy declare that the emperor had nothing on, after all the emperor and the Court weavers had authoratively declared that the emperor was wearing a fine set of new clothes.

 

[Contarini]

As far as perseverance of the saints, The LCMS and I think Luther himself isn’t quite fully in Calvin’s camp.

He’s not in Zwingli’s camp at all on this one.

Zwingli prioritized predestination above faith. He believed that you could be saved without ever having faith (if you had never heard the Gospel) because God had chosen you. Hence, he believed that faith and regeneration were simply consequences of election (when an elect person encountered the Gospel), which obviously meant that only the elect ever had faith. I think that’s actually the best way to put it, though it’s the other way round from the way it generally gets put today (if you have faith you won’t lose it).

Even Luther, who was a lot more “Calvinist” than many later Lutherans seem to be, did not connect election and faith so directly. He was, in that respect as in others, more medieval–election remained a mystery that lay behind soteriology but didn’t dictate its structure. For Luther, as for Catholics, you can be in a state of grace (in Luther’s terms, have saving faith) without being one of the elect.

Calvin combined themes from Zwingli and Luther (or, I’d argue, more directly from Bucer and Melanchthon) in a number of aspects of his theology, and this is one of them.

as one of the more colorful people in our church puts it: “God does all the savin’ 'round here”

I didn’t know Rob Bell was LCMS

I believe that Johann Gerhardt and one of the late-sixteenth-century Reformed theologians (I’ve forgotten which one) had a big debate about the perseverance of the saints, focusing on David. Gerhardt denied that David was still in a saving relationship with God while living in sin with Batsheba; the Reformed guy said that he was. Ironically, Luther took the “Reformed” position on this, at least in his Galatians commentary. He believed that if you persistently went on giving in to the works of the flesh you would eventually cease to be a believer, but he seems to have thought that you’d have to do this for a very long time and that David’s year or so didn’t qualify. Though probably I’m pushing Luther’s thought on this farther than it will go–setting a “time limit” or any other specific limit would be totally contrary to his understanding of salvation. . . . (hence the statement that our RC brothers and sisters love to quote on this forum, about committing adultery 100 times a day!)

Edwin

 

[ahs]

I am not really interested in doing that again…I only want to know what other passages Edwin might have in mind.

understood…I wasn’t planning on participating much and don’t want to derail this thread…that being said, you started by declaring:

Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…

…I get the feeling that you and I understand the content of some early Christian writings very differently…Augustine for one. Further, I would suggest that if you want to determine what “Christianity had been from the beginning” then you shouldn’t merely look at “early Christian writings”, but you must look at the very earliest Christian writings. For example, the contrast between how the very earliest Christian writings dealt with Mary and how the still early (but later) Christians dealt with Mary is very dramatic. The considerable development of doctrine is undeniable and if one comes to the conclusion that the development is not inspired, then one must eliminate those developments to eliminate error…

Yes, we probably do understand them differently, and obviously so did those who rejected the Church in the 16th century. But I see nothing for them to go “back to” in terms of Doctrine wihtout changing Doctrine. As you mentioned, the earliest writings carry a message that alomst seems to contrast with later writings. But here is where you and I will start to see in different light. Wha tI see is a maturation of Doctrine…like the unfolding of a leaf, or a tree spreading its branches. A development that is undeniable, as you noted. But when ity comes to one concluding these developments were not inspired…how did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc…come to this conclusion? What basis? Are there writings that match the earliest of writings yet contradicts the later, yet still early, writings? I don’t see any. I see no objections to the Doctrines regarding Mary, no objections to the Authority of a Pope (even when some disagrees vehemently with the Pope…they still subjected themselves to his Authority), etc… Not until the 16th century does anyone reject Church Doctrione excepting the Arians, Gnostics, Pagans. Am I to conclude that the so-called “reformers” are in line with these?

You asked what authority do Protestants have to determine and then eliminate error…to me that is kinda like asking: By what authority did the boy declare that the emperor had nothing on, after all the emperor and the Court weavers had authoratively declared that the emperor was wearing a fine set of new clothes.

I disagree. For your example to pan out, those who rejected or change Doctrine would have had to see clearly a Truth. What they could see clearly was the corruption among the men who were selling indulgences, etc… But to make a connection between the sins of man and Doctrine of the Church is a logical fallacy. The Chruch is not made dependant upon the man…for Christ guaranteed His Church would prevail and it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth…a Church (ekklesia) which, when mentioned in Sctripture, is NEVER shown to be some* invisible *collection of believers…but is visible…as on a mountain top for all to see. So what I 'm asking is NOT like your example, but is more like this: By what authority do I proclaim my desk to actually be a chair? Such a declaration would be based soley on my own interopretation of what a chair is…it si completely subjective. I believe this is what Calvin, et al. did…they subjected Doctrine to their own views of what it should be and determined that they were right…not based on objective truth, but on subjective reasoning.

 

[EricFilmer]

The only thing I think is true about these claims are, “…the saints in heaven are incapable of intervening on our behalf”. I think once they are in Heaven, they cannot talk to those here on earth. I think all other doctrines are true though. I think talking about them helps them and makes you more alive with the spirit though.

Hi Eric,
StudyChristian’s post reference yours here reminded me to respond to it.

First, I think you make a valid point that all Lutherans should ponder. Are our differences such that they justify continued separation from the Bishop of Rome?

On the points you made…

studychristian & JonNC, I’m sorry for the delay in responding to your posts (I spent the past several days moving to a new town and I forgot to keep an eye on this thread during my brief visits to CAF). As a former Protestant, I know and appreciate the variety of doctrinal outlooks within Protestantism. The things I briefly mentioned in Post #9 (such as Purgatory, marriage as a sacrament, Sola Scriptura, etc.) were simply to point out to DLM that the Reformers were concerned with reforming doctrinal issues in the Church as well as moral abuses. The OP was addressing the former but DLM seemed to be focusing on the latter.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your collective (name removed by moderator)ut on the nuances within Protestantism concerning the doctrinal matters that I mentioned.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I think you have a thoughtful issue and one that deserves careful attention.

As Christians we believe that Christ is True God and true man. Christ knew all things - and this is something I thnk we can all agree upon. Christ knew that in about 50 AD the Judiazers would initiate the first heresy - and this would cause a real crisis in the early Catholic Church. What I want to point out is that at any time Christ could have stated that circumcision was not necessary to be a Christian - and this would have immediately resolved the issue. But, Christ chose not to do this. And that is my focus. So, since Christ is not recorded in the Gospel as having provided the necessary answer - we need to examine how this matter was resolved. And how this doctrinal matter was resoved really sets the tone for how other doctrinal matters.

The Church - and not Scripture - is, “…the pillar and bulwark of truth…” (1Tim 3:15) and it is the Church kthat called the First Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15 - here is a link with Commentary: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_15

If the matter was viewed as doctrinal issues can only be resolve using Scripture - this the Judiazers would have undoubtedly been given the nod of approval - because, Scripture identifies circumcision as the sign of covenant between God and Abraham and his descendents. There is no written record in the OT where this sign was suspended or abrogated.

Now, let’s carry this concept of the Church actually resolving doctrinal issues - as opposed to trying to have Scripture do this - or, trying to find some written Scripture that supports or condems a particular view. The Divinity of Christ was challenged by the Arians - and in 325AD the Council of Nicea resolved the issue. Now, I am not saying that Scripture is banned from providing insight and information into the decision making process - but, it is not the controlling force - that would be the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church.

There have been many issues identified by the Catholic Church from Acts 15 forward - and the Church has resolved them all.

God bless

I am not really interested in doing that again…I only want to know what other passages Edwin might have in mind.

understood…I wasn’t planning on participating much and don’t want to derail this thread…that being said, you started by declaring:

Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…

…I get the feeling that you and I understand the content of some early Christian writings very differently…Augustine for one. Further, I would suggest that if you want to determine what “Christianity had been from the beginning” then you shouldn’t merely look at “early Christian writings”, but you must look at the very earliest Christian writings. For example, the contrast between how the very earliest Christian writings dealt with Mary and how the still early (but later) Christians dealt with Mary is very dramatic. The considerable development of doctrine is undeniable and if one comes to the conclusion that the development is not inspired, then one must eliminate those developments to eliminate error…You asked what authority do Protestants have to determine and then eliminate error…to me that is kinda like asking: By what authority did the boy declare that the emperor had nothing on, after all the emperor and the Court weavers had authoratively declared that the emperor was wearing a fine set of new clothes.

 

[benjohnson]

t the Lutheran view, if I understand it correctly, retains the bread and wine. After all, as you have said above, Christ’s words are–“this [bread] is my body.” That is, this here hunk of bread is my body. So in this view, Christ’s body becomes bread, not bread becoming Christ’s body.

Not quite how I was taught as a Lutheran. We don’t say the bread becomes Christ, or Christ becomes bread, or that that it’s bread mixed with Christ or anything else really. It’s more simple than that:

We simply say that whatever it is that our pastor is holding in his hands and distributing, Jesus told us what it is - “this is my body.”

Questions of How, What and Why are sort of meaningless. We have faith that “this is my body.”

…

On a personal level - I’ll admit that it sure tastes like bread that one of our sweet ttle-old ladies lovingly baked the night before in the 38 year old oven that was a gift from her husband who has now passed on.

But when I start to think of the miracle and how it could happen, I think “this is my body.” and I’m content with that.

 

[Radical]

But I see nothing for them to go “back to” in terms of Doctrine wihtout changing Doctrine.

I have no idea what this means….as to what one could go “back to”, one might strive to return to the original rule of faith as specified by Irenaeus or Tertullian and as supported by the very earliest writings. Seems like a good start to me.

But when ity comes to one concluding these developments were not inspired…how did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc…come to this conclusion? What basis? Are there writings that match the earliest of writings yet contradicts the later, yet still early, writings? I don’t see any.

have you looked at Tertullian? He denies the perpetual virginity of Mary and indicates that she was denied by Christ…he also described a rule of faith that doesn’t include a lot of “Catholic” stuff.

Not until the 16th century does anyone reject Church Doctrione excepting the Arians, Gnostics, Pagans. Am I to conclude that the so-called “reformers” are in line with these?

you tell me….do you think that:

a) Where Joe disagreed with David with regard to matter X; and
b) where Bob disagreed with David with regard to matter Y;
c) and when Joe is wrong on X;
d) then Bob must be wrong on Y.

BTW your list of exceptions seems to be lacking

I disagree. For your example to pan out, those who rejected or change Doctrine would have had to see clearly a Truth. What they could see clearly was the corruption among the men who were selling indulgences, etc… But to make a connection between the sins of man and Doctrine of the Church is a logical fallacy.

that connection is a logical fallacy? Really? The scriptures describe a good number of men (and some women) who God used to reveal his truth to mankind…and, if it is as you say, then, in scripture, we should find no connection between righteousness and the one selected to be God’s spokesperson…if you are right we should find a willy nilly hodge podge of spokesmen with about as many righteous as unrighteous in the mix….so tell me, how does your assertion hold up?

The Chruch is not made dependant upon the man…for Christ guaranteed His Church would prevail and it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth…

yep, the author of 1 Tim said that** the church of his day** was the pillar and foundation of truth. That is far from saying that the Catholic Church of the 5th or 16th or 21th century is the pillar and foundation of truth. That author envisioned a church that appointed overseers in accordance with the requirements that he penned. Saying that the church that he knew was the pillar and foundation of truth is far from saying that a church (that has often utterly ignored the requirements that he penned) is the pillar and foundation of truth. That author knew a church that had undergone persecution. Saying that the church that he knew was the pillar and foundation of truth is far from saying that a church (that has often taken on the role of persecutor) is the pillar and foundation of truth. That author knew a church that had a relative short body of doctrine/rule of faith. Saying that the church that he knew was the pillar and foundation of truth is far from saying that a church (that has added and added and added to the original rule) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

…a Church (ekklesia) which, when mentioned in Sctripture, is NEVER shown to be some invisible collection of believers…but is visible…as on a mountain top for all to see.

I assume that you have read the book of Romans…if so, then you should have noted that Paul described those who were the true children of Abraham…it wasn’t those who had undergone a visible circumcision…it was those who had undergone the invisible circumcision of the heart. Simply apply that insight to the Church

So what I 'm asking is NOT like your example, but is more like this: By what authority do I proclaim my desk to actually be a chair?

hmmm….ironically that sounds a lot like declaring that what started out as bread and what can still be seen to be bread is actually a body of flesh and blood.

. I believe this is what Calvin, et al. did…they subjected Doctrine to their own views of what it should be and determined that they were right…not based on objective truth, but on subjective reasoning.

or is it that a rite (founded on a Jewish rite) was subjected to Greek philosophical views to arrive at a bad interpretation… “not based on objective truth, but on subjective reasoning.”

 

[ahs]

I have not read anything form Tertullian or Irenaeas that directly rejects that authority of the Church. Are you sure you haven’t been cherry-picking? I’ll admit, I have not ready much of them, so if you want to post a new thread about some of their teachings and provide some links/references I’d be eager to read them.

…that connection is a logical fallacy? Really? The scriptures describe a good number of men (and some women) who God used to reveal his truth to mankind…and, if it is as you say, then, in scripture, we should find no connection between righteousness and the one selected to be God’s spokesperson…if you are right we should find a willy nilly hodge podge of spokesmen with about as many righteous as unrighteous in the mix….so tell me, how does your assertion hold up?

Yes, a logical fallacy. My assertion holds up because God chose sinners and simple men to lead and proclaim His Message. Amos was a simple shepherd, David was a simple shepherd…who sinned greatly against God, etc…, Peter, the one and ONLY man to whom the Keys of the Kingdom were given, denied Christ 3 times. Paul hunted down Christians before his conversion and suffered from a sin that he had to battle against and which he begged God to remove form him. All sinners…not one of their transgressions affected the Gospel or God’s Message. So, yes, to make a connection between the sins of man and Doctrine of the Church is a logical fallacy.

yep, the author of 1 Tim said that** the church of his day** was the pillar and foundation of truth. That is far from saying that the Catholic Church of the 5th or 16th or 21th century is the pillar and foundation of truth.

According to whom? Which Scripture verse or teaching of the ECF’s led the “reformers” to believe this? Whose interpretation is that, and where’s they get authority to interpret Scripture if Scripture says that Scripture is no one man’s personal interpretation? That’s what I’m getting at. In the 1500’s, a group of guys decided to change Doctrine by subjecting Doctrine to THEIR interpretation. Where’d they get the aurthority?

That author envisioned a church that appointed overseers in accordance with the requirements that he penned. Saying that the church that he knew was the pillar and foundation of truth is far from saying that a church (that has often utterly ignored the requirements that he penned) is the pillar and foundation of truth…

Utterly ignored what (et cetera)? Your assertion is based on your opinion.

I assume that you have read the book of Romans…if so, then you should have noted that Paul described those who were the true children of Abraham…it wasn’t those who had undergone a visible circumcision…it was those who had undergone the invisible circumcision of the heart. Simply apply that insight to the Church

Yes, I’ve read Romans. Maybe I’m missing your point. Are you suggesting that Catholics believe we must be circumcised?

hmmm….ironically that sounds a lot like declaring that what started out as bread and what can still be seen to be bread is actually a body of flesh and blood.
or is it that a rite (founded on a Jewish rite) was subjected to Greek philosophical views to arrive at a bad interpretation… “not based on objective truth, but on subjective reasoning.”

No, that matter is objective. It isn’t something that a man decided or thought he recognized or perceived…in fact it remains a great mystery because so few (if any) perceive it. It’s a Truth taught be Christ, who cannot lie. It’s also taught by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-34. We may not understand how it happens, but we know that it is a Doctrine that Christ instituted and we trust that He can do all things. You are free to debate that all of course…in a separate thread. But for the purposes of this thread it suffices to say that in the eyes of a Catholic, Christ’s Presence under the appearance of bread and wine is an objective Truth and it was with all the Church until the 1500’s. (And again for another thread, if you want to debate Augustine or the other writers who emphasized the spiritual aspect of it…that still does not contradict the reality.)

 

[ahs]

Hi, Radical,

I think you have a thoughtful issue and one that deserves careful attention.

As Christians we believe that Christ is True God and true man. Christ knew all things - and this is something I thnk we can all agree upon. Christ knew that in about 50 AD the Judiazers would initiate the first heresy - and this would cause a real crisis in the early Catholic Church. What I want to point out is that at any time Christ could have stated that circumcision was not necessary to be a Christian - and this would have immediately resolved the issue. But, Christ chose not to do this. And that is my focus. So, since Christ is not recorded in the Gospel as having provided the necessary answer - we need to examine how this matter was resolved. And how this doctrinal matter was resoved really sets the tone for how other doctrinal matters.

The Church - and not Scripture - is, “…the pillar and bulwark of truth…” (1Tim 3:15) and it is the Church kthat called the First Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15 - here is a link with Commentary: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_15

If the matter was viewed as doctrinal issues can only be resolve using Scripture - this the Judiazers would have undoubtedly been given the nod of approval - because, Scripture identifies circumcision as the sign of covenant between God and Abraham and his descendents. There is no written record in the OT where this sign was suspended or abrogated.

Now, let’s carry this concept of the Church actually resolving doctrinal issues - as opposed to trying to have Scripture do this - or, trying to find some written Scripture that supports or condems a particular view. The Divinity of Christ was challenged by the Arians - and in 325AD the Council of Nicea resolved the issue. Now, I am not saying that Scripture is banned from providing insight and information into the decision making process - but, it is not the controlling force - that would be the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church.

There have been many issues identified by the Catholic Church from Acts 15 forward - and the Church has resolved them all.

God bless

Yes, this! Not just the bolded, but the whole post. The bolded is what really drew me into this post though.