Q
Qwikness
Guest
On the Reformed view
William Lane Craig:
William Lane Craig:
- Status
Q
Qwikness
Guest
Here is that thing about Cyprian again. I don’t know where he is getting this, that Cyprian didn’t hold the literal view.
William Lane Craig:
William Lane Craig:
William Lane Craig:
This was pretty good when the Catholic spoke up. And Craig was saved by the bell.
William Lane Craig:
B
bmoran
Guest
Bingo…ding…ding…ding…
That is the correct answer LOL
Craig is a bright guy but he is never going to admit to Catholic Doctrine he would lose to big an audience.
Just like Ravi Zacharias another great speaker and defender of the Christian faith, who quotes Chesterton and Muggeridge more the any Catholic I know of. But he to will never come to Catholic doctrine he would lose his audience.
I believe this is why D’Souza is out gallivanting around Non Catholic churches. When I asked him why he left the Church he quietly told me he didn’t leave but he was trying to appeal to a larger audience.
Now those aren’t good reasons and are pretty dangerous but I think they are real.
It becomes pride and practicality. For Lewis it was culture. And lets face it Catholic are not engaged we may have more numbers but we are far less active then self proclaimed Christians.
Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice
Pray and pray hard
T
thenobes
Guest
The best explanation of why John 6 refers to Transubstantiation is given, in my opinion, by Peter Hardeman Burnett, former Governor of california who converted to the Catholic Church from Protestantism. He wrote a book in 1880, “The Path which led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church” which has a chapter on Transubstantiation which has that explanation.
A transcript of the book is here:
books.google.com/books?id=mxS4VvoCkDcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
The chapter is from pages 520-611.
His main point is that while Jesus did use figurative language in some of His teaching, He never failed to explain the figurative speech when the salvation of one’s soul was on the line if the meaning of His teaching could be misunderstood.
The book is great! Read it if you have the time!
Regarding Cyprian, on pgs 596-597 of the same book we find:
St Cyprian 248: “The mouths sanctified with heavenly food, after the body and blood of the Lord rejected the profane contaminations and the leavings of idols.”
“The fallen against the upright, and the wounded against the sound, utters threats; and because he does not at once receive with defiled hands the Lord’s body, or drink with polluted mouth the Lord’s blood, the sacrilegious is wrathful against the priests.” (De Lapsis, p372, 377, 380-382.)
Since therefore, he says, that whosoever shall eat of his bread shall live forever; and as it is manifest that those live who touch his body, and receive the eucharist by right of communication, so, on the other hand, it is to be feared, and is matter for prayer, lest any of us, who while cut off is separated from the body of Christ, remain far from salvation according to his threat and word: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall have not life in you." (De Orat. Dom. p. 420-1)
peace
steve
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Hey, haven’t posted here in a few years. I’m a huge fan of WLC (as he is called in the ‘apologetics’ world 
) but I’m afraid he is relying on Schaff for his views on Tertullian and Cyprian. Schaff was a great well-respected 19th century Presbyterian historian but very anti-Catholic in his views (just read him, available online). JND Kelly and the older Anglican work by Darwell Stone counter Schaff’s biased views against Catholic doctrine. Let’s summarize Tertullian and Cyprian (both of Carthage):
The one ‘symbolical’ passage from Tertullian (remember, he is not a ‘saint’
) normally quoted, in context reads:
TERTULLIAN, AGAINST MARCION 4:40
“Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, ‘This is My Body’ – that is, the ‘figure of My Body.’ A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: ‘They have devised a device against Me, saying, “Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,”’ – the cross, of course, upon His Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:40:3, from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1, pg 141)
However, even Schaff says: “Yet Tertullian must NOT be understood as teaching a MERELY symbolical presence of Christ; for in other places he speaks, according to his GENERAL REALISTIC turn, in almost MATERIALISTIC language of an EATING of the body of Christ, and extends the participation even to the body of the receiver.” [4] (Schaff, volume 2, page 243)
Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist on ‘figura’ in Tertullian:
“A scholar of great authority as to the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts that in Tertullian ‘figura’ is equivalent not to -schema- but to -charakter- [see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii,596], that is, it would approach more nearly to ‘ACTUAL and distinctive NATURE’ than to ‘symbol’ or ‘figure’ in the modern sense of those terms…The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.” (Stone, vol 1, pg 31)
SUMMARY OF TERTULLIAN ON THE EUCHARIST
(1) It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground (De cor 3).
(2) It was the Lord’s body which the disciples received at the Last Supper (Adv Marc iv,40).
(3) It is the Lord’s body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home (De orat 19).
(4) It is the Lord’s body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist (De pud 9).
(5) It is Christ’s body and blood with which “the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God” (De carn res 8).
(6) Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend (De idol 7).
From JND Kelly and Darwell Stone, on the earliest Christian views:
“The belief that the Eucharist is a SACRIFICE is found EVERYWHERE. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations of carnal sacrifices; and is SAVED from being JUDAIC by the recognition of the elements AS CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD, of the union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly life and service and action of the community as the body of Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system.” (Darwell Stone, conclusion of Ante-Nicene period, volume 1, page 54)
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier.” “The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such.” (Kelly, page 196, 214)
From my ‘symbolical’ article on Tertullian, Cyprian, and the ‘Alexandrian’ writers
to be continued…
) but I’m afraid he is relying on Schaff for his views on Tertullian and Cyprian. Schaff was a great well-respected 19th century Presbyterian historian but very anti-Catholic in his views (just read him, available online). JND Kelly and the older Anglican work by Darwell Stone counter Schaff’s biased views against Catholic doctrine. Let’s summarize Tertullian and Cyprian (both of Carthage):The one ‘symbolical’ passage from Tertullian (remember, he is not a ‘saint’
) normally quoted, in context reads:TERTULLIAN, AGAINST MARCION 4:40
“Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, ‘This is My Body’ – that is, the ‘figure of My Body.’ A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: ‘They have devised a device against Me, saying, “Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,”’ – the cross, of course, upon His Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:40:3, from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1, pg 141)
However, even Schaff says: “Yet Tertullian must NOT be understood as teaching a MERELY symbolical presence of Christ; for in other places he speaks, according to his GENERAL REALISTIC turn, in almost MATERIALISTIC language of an EATING of the body of Christ, and extends the participation even to the body of the receiver.” [4] (Schaff, volume 2, page 243)
Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist on ‘figura’ in Tertullian:
“A scholar of great authority as to the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts that in Tertullian ‘figura’ is equivalent not to -schema- but to -charakter- [see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii,596], that is, it would approach more nearly to ‘ACTUAL and distinctive NATURE’ than to ‘symbol’ or ‘figure’ in the modern sense of those terms…The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.” (Stone, vol 1, pg 31)
SUMMARY OF TERTULLIAN ON THE EUCHARIST
(1) It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground (De cor 3).
(2) It was the Lord’s body which the disciples received at the Last Supper (Adv Marc iv,40).
(3) It is the Lord’s body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home (De orat 19).
(4) It is the Lord’s body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist (De pud 9).
(5) It is Christ’s body and blood with which “the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God” (De carn res 8).
(6) Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend (De idol 7).
From JND Kelly and Darwell Stone, on the earliest Christian views:
“The belief that the Eucharist is a SACRIFICE is found EVERYWHERE. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations of carnal sacrifices; and is SAVED from being JUDAIC by the recognition of the elements AS CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD, of the union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly life and service and action of the community as the body of Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system.” (Darwell Stone, conclusion of Ante-Nicene period, volume 1, page 54)
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier.” “The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such.” (Kelly, page 196, 214)
From my ‘symbolical’ article on Tertullian, Cyprian, and the ‘Alexandrian’ writers
to be continued…
P
PhilVaz
Guest
continued from previous…
SUMMARY OF CYPRIAN ON THE EUCHARIST
(1) The Eucharist is received daily and is called “the food of salvation”
(2) A Christian receives Christ in the Eucharist, the heavenly Bread
(3) We eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist (John 6:53ff)
(4) The Eucharist is essential to salvation and is how Christians live, abide, and remain in Christ’s Body and continue in His sanctification
(5) The Eucharist is called “the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord”
(6) At the Last Supper, Christ the High Priest OFFERED SACRIFICE to God the Father, in the form of bread and wine “which is in fact His BODY AND BLOOD”
(7) The Christian priest “truly functions in place of Christ” and OFFERS SACRIFICE just as Christ commanded in commemoration of Him.
See for these: Cyprian, The Lord’s Prayer 18, Letters 63:4, Letters 63:14, etc.
Here’s more from Protestant church history scholar J.N.D. Kelly –
“Clearly his [Tertullian cited before] assumption is that the Savior’s BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares [De laps 16; cf. Ep 15:1], ‘DO VIOLENCE TO HIS BODY AND BLOOD, and sin more heinously AGAINST THE LORD with their hands and mouths [from which they received Communion] than when they denied Him’” (Kelly, page 211-212).
“Later he [St. Cyprian] expatiates [De laps 25f] on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the REAL PRESENCE LITERALLY.” (Kelly, pg 212)
This passage from Jurgens FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS reads in context –
“The Apostle likewise bears witness and says; ‘You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. You cannot be a communicant of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils’ [1 Cor 10:21]. And again he threatens the stubborn and perverse and denounces them, saying: ‘Whoever eats the bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor 11:27]. But they spurn and despise all these warnings; and before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest [sacrificio et manu sacerdotis], before the offense against an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, they do VIOLENCE TO HIS BODY AND BLOOD; and with their hands and mouth they SIN AGAINST THE LORD more than when they denied Him.” (Cyprian, The Lapsed 15,16)
to be continued…
SUMMARY OF CYPRIAN ON THE EUCHARIST
(1) The Eucharist is received daily and is called “the food of salvation”
(2) A Christian receives Christ in the Eucharist, the heavenly Bread
(3) We eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist (John 6:53ff)
(4) The Eucharist is essential to salvation and is how Christians live, abide, and remain in Christ’s Body and continue in His sanctification
(5) The Eucharist is called “the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord”
(6) At the Last Supper, Christ the High Priest OFFERED SACRIFICE to God the Father, in the form of bread and wine “which is in fact His BODY AND BLOOD”
(7) The Christian priest “truly functions in place of Christ” and OFFERS SACRIFICE just as Christ commanded in commemoration of Him.
See for these: Cyprian, The Lord’s Prayer 18, Letters 63:4, Letters 63:14, etc.
Here’s more from Protestant church history scholar J.N.D. Kelly –
“Clearly his [Tertullian cited before] assumption is that the Savior’s BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares [De laps 16; cf. Ep 15:1], ‘DO VIOLENCE TO HIS BODY AND BLOOD, and sin more heinously AGAINST THE LORD with their hands and mouths [from which they received Communion] than when they denied Him’” (Kelly, page 211-212).
“Later he [St. Cyprian] expatiates [De laps 25f] on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the REAL PRESENCE LITERALLY.” (Kelly, pg 212)
This passage from Jurgens FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS reads in context –
“The Apostle likewise bears witness and says; ‘You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. You cannot be a communicant of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils’ [1 Cor 10:21]. And again he threatens the stubborn and perverse and denounces them, saying: ‘Whoever eats the bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor 11:27]. But they spurn and despise all these warnings; and before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest [sacrificio et manu sacerdotis], before the offense against an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, they do VIOLENCE TO HIS BODY AND BLOOD; and with their hands and mouth they SIN AGAINST THE LORD more than when they denied Him.” (Cyprian, The Lapsed 15,16)
to be continued…
P
PhilVaz
Guest
continued…
From St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 63 (cited by Stone):
2, ‘nor can His blood, by which we have been redeemed and quickened, be seen to be in the cup, when wine, which is shown (ostenditur) to be the blood of Christ, is absent from the cup’;
4, ‘our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the very same thing as Melchizedek, that is bread and wine, namely His body and blood’;
6, ‘when the blood of the grape is spoken of, what else is shown than the wine of the cup of the Lord which is blood?’;
7, ‘mention is made of wine that by wine may be understood the blood of the Lord, and that what was afterwards manifested in the Lord’s cup might be foretold in the predictions of the prophets.’ (Cyprian, from Stone, volume 1, page 40, footnote)
"Communicants are said to receive and to be sustained and protected by the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST [De laps 2; De dom orat 18; Ep 11:5; 57:2; 58:1,9; 63:7]. When any communicate unworthily the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD are taken and drunk with defiled hands and polluted mouth, and are outraged and profaned [De laps 16,22,25; Ep 15:1; 75:21].
"Sacrificial phraseology then occurs throughout the second century in different parts of the Church. The sacrificial idea receives somewhat more definite expression in the third century from the Carthaginian writers, Tertullian and St. Cyprian. In a description of Christian life and worship Tertullian says 'We annually offer oblations (oblationes facimus) on behalf of the DEPARTED on the anniversaries of their deaths [De cor 3]. Elsewhere he mentions among the duties of a Christian husband that he ‘offers sacrifice’ on behalf of his wife [De exhort cast 11], and of a Christian widow that she ‘annually offers sacrifice on behalf of the SOUL’ of her husband ‘on the anniversary of his DECEASE’ [De monog 10].
“The words ‘SACRIFICE’, ‘PRIEST’, and ‘ALTAR’ are all used by him [Tertullian] in a Christian sense [E.g. -sacrificium- in De orat 18,19; -sacrificare- in Ad Scap 2; -sacerdos- in De bapt 17; -ara- in De orat 19]; and in a case which he contemplates of a communicant on a fast day receiving the Sacrament in his hands but not consuming it till later in the day at home, he speaks of the communicant having taken part in the SACRIFICE [De orat 19]” (Stone, vol 1, pg 47-48).
"The writings of St. Cyprian are FULL of allusions to the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE. The priestly terms for the ministry, -sacerdos- for the bishop, -sacerdotium- for his office, are found. To celebrate the Eucharist is to ‘OFFER’ and to ‘SACRIFICE’. The Eucharist itself is the ‘SACRIFICE’, or the ‘OBLATION’, or ‘THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD’, or ‘THE VICTIM OF THE LORD’. The place where it is offered is the ‘ALTAR’.
[E.g. -sacerdos- in De unit 17; Ep 1:2; -sacerdotium- in Ep 17:2; -offerre- in Ep 16:2; -sacrificare- in De laps 25; -sacrificium- and -oblatio- in Ep 1:2; -sacrificium dominicum- in Ep 63:9; -dominica hostia- in De unit 17; -altare- in De unit 17].
"In a remarkable sentence, occurring when he is dealing with the point of practice that both wine and water are to be placed in the Eucharistic cup, St. Cyprian writes –
‘If our Lord and God Christ Jesus is Himself the High Priest of God the Father and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father and commanded this to be done for a memorial of Himself, certainly that priest truly performs his office in the place of Christ who imitates that which Christ did, and then offers in the Church to God the Father a real and complete sacrifice when he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself offered’ [Cyprian, Ep 63:14 Latin quoted earlier].
“St. Cyprian quite definitely connects the Eucharist with the commemoration of the passion, and says that ‘the passion is the sacrifice of the Lord WHICH WE OFFER’ [passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus – Ep 63:5,9,17]” (Stone, pg 48,50).
More from J.N.D. Kelly EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES –
"The priest, it would appear, sacramentally re-enacts the oblation of His passion which the Savior originally presented to the Father. Further, it is clear from what he says elsewhere about offering it on behalf of people in need [Ep 15:1; 17:2], and especially on behalf of the dead [Ep 1:2; 12:2; 39:3], that Cyprian conceived of the eucharistic sacrifice as possessing OBJECTIVE EFFICACY.
"A further point Cyprian makes [Ep 63:13] is that, when Christ suffered for us and thus offered His sacrifice, we were in Him inasmuch as He was bearing our sins. Thus in His physical body and blood the people of God were being offered to the Father.
“In the eucharist there is a parallel union between Christ and His people, so that the rite is in effect the offering of the whole Church, both its Head and the faithful who in it have been made one with Him.” (Kelly, page 215-216)
That should do it.
I do not know how you can get ‘symbolical’ out of all that.
Let me say, I appreciate Craig, I love Craig’s debates, but I do not think he is looking too deeply into this. As I said, he is relying on Schaff (and others who quote Schaff) without going further. Kind of a ‘blind spot’ in his evangelical apologetics, unfortunately. But I recommend ALL his debates with atheists on the existence of God, and resurrection. In my opinion, he wins them all, with few exceptions (perhaps Tabash, or Shelly Kagan on morality, or Ray Bradley on hell, some say he ‘lost’ those but even these were ‘close’).
PhilVaz Apologetics
From St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 63 (cited by Stone):
2, ‘nor can His blood, by which we have been redeemed and quickened, be seen to be in the cup, when wine, which is shown (ostenditur) to be the blood of Christ, is absent from the cup’;
4, ‘our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the very same thing as Melchizedek, that is bread and wine, namely His body and blood’;
6, ‘when the blood of the grape is spoken of, what else is shown than the wine of the cup of the Lord which is blood?’;
7, ‘mention is made of wine that by wine may be understood the blood of the Lord, and that what was afterwards manifested in the Lord’s cup might be foretold in the predictions of the prophets.’ (Cyprian, from Stone, volume 1, page 40, footnote)
"Communicants are said to receive and to be sustained and protected by the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST [De laps 2; De dom orat 18; Ep 11:5; 57:2; 58:1,9; 63:7]. When any communicate unworthily the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD are taken and drunk with defiled hands and polluted mouth, and are outraged and profaned [De laps 16,22,25; Ep 15:1; 75:21].
"Sacrificial phraseology then occurs throughout the second century in different parts of the Church. The sacrificial idea receives somewhat more definite expression in the third century from the Carthaginian writers, Tertullian and St. Cyprian. In a description of Christian life and worship Tertullian says 'We annually offer oblations (oblationes facimus) on behalf of the DEPARTED on the anniversaries of their deaths [De cor 3]. Elsewhere he mentions among the duties of a Christian husband that he ‘offers sacrifice’ on behalf of his wife [De exhort cast 11], and of a Christian widow that she ‘annually offers sacrifice on behalf of the SOUL’ of her husband ‘on the anniversary of his DECEASE’ [De monog 10].
“The words ‘SACRIFICE’, ‘PRIEST’, and ‘ALTAR’ are all used by him [Tertullian] in a Christian sense [E.g. -sacrificium- in De orat 18,19; -sacrificare- in Ad Scap 2; -sacerdos- in De bapt 17; -ara- in De orat 19]; and in a case which he contemplates of a communicant on a fast day receiving the Sacrament in his hands but not consuming it till later in the day at home, he speaks of the communicant having taken part in the SACRIFICE [De orat 19]” (Stone, vol 1, pg 47-48).
"The writings of St. Cyprian are FULL of allusions to the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE. The priestly terms for the ministry, -sacerdos- for the bishop, -sacerdotium- for his office, are found. To celebrate the Eucharist is to ‘OFFER’ and to ‘SACRIFICE’. The Eucharist itself is the ‘SACRIFICE’, or the ‘OBLATION’, or ‘THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD’, or ‘THE VICTIM OF THE LORD’. The place where it is offered is the ‘ALTAR’.
[E.g. -sacerdos- in De unit 17; Ep 1:2; -sacerdotium- in Ep 17:2; -offerre- in Ep 16:2; -sacrificare- in De laps 25; -sacrificium- and -oblatio- in Ep 1:2; -sacrificium dominicum- in Ep 63:9; -dominica hostia- in De unit 17; -altare- in De unit 17].
"In a remarkable sentence, occurring when he is dealing with the point of practice that both wine and water are to be placed in the Eucharistic cup, St. Cyprian writes –
‘If our Lord and God Christ Jesus is Himself the High Priest of God the Father and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father and commanded this to be done for a memorial of Himself, certainly that priest truly performs his office in the place of Christ who imitates that which Christ did, and then offers in the Church to God the Father a real and complete sacrifice when he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself offered’ [Cyprian, Ep 63:14 Latin quoted earlier].
“St. Cyprian quite definitely connects the Eucharist with the commemoration of the passion, and says that ‘the passion is the sacrifice of the Lord WHICH WE OFFER’ [passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus – Ep 63:5,9,17]” (Stone, pg 48,50).
More from J.N.D. Kelly EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES –
"The priest, it would appear, sacramentally re-enacts the oblation of His passion which the Savior originally presented to the Father. Further, it is clear from what he says elsewhere about offering it on behalf of people in need [Ep 15:1; 17:2], and especially on behalf of the dead [Ep 1:2; 12:2; 39:3], that Cyprian conceived of the eucharistic sacrifice as possessing OBJECTIVE EFFICACY.
"A further point Cyprian makes [Ep 63:13] is that, when Christ suffered for us and thus offered His sacrifice, we were in Him inasmuch as He was bearing our sins. Thus in His physical body and blood the people of God were being offered to the Father.
“In the eucharist there is a parallel union between Christ and His people, so that the rite is in effect the offering of the whole Church, both its Head and the faithful who in it have been made one with Him.” (Kelly, page 215-216)
That should do it.
I do not know how you can get ‘symbolical’ out of all that.Let me say, I appreciate Craig, I love Craig’s debates, but I do not think he is looking too deeply into this. As I said, he is relying on Schaff (and others who quote Schaff) without going further. Kind of a ‘blind spot’ in his evangelical apologetics, unfortunately. But I recommend ALL his debates with atheists on the existence of God, and resurrection. In my opinion, he wins them all, with few exceptions (perhaps Tabash, or Shelly Kagan on morality, or Ray Bradley on hell, some say he ‘lost’ those but even these were ‘close’).
PhilVaz Apologetics
Q
Qwikness
Guest
Phil
That was great. I think you’re right, it is clear, Cyprian was a real presence guy. I hope others don’t parrot him about Cyprian. How many are going to look it up themselves? I suppose the Tertullian, “figura” could be complicated to explain, but WLC didn’t bring him up. WLC also mentioned Augustine as a symbolist for some reason, I think in his first lecture. He didn’t cite anything about that either. I agree Craig is good at debates with the atheists but he has a real problem with this and the sacramental nature of Baptism.
- Status