Expect someone to be along shortly to tell you that it's not a Proper Baptist Church then...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Catholics, and the Eucharist.
- Thread starter Joshua Patrick
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
How? Its scriptural. Where 3 or more are gather in Jesus' name he's present. Now we don't believe that we are somehow intaking God's essense when we have communion. I was explaining what Catholics believe. However, at communion we believe because there is a gathering of believers Jesus is present with us. How can that not be a proper baptist church?
Not to derail the topic, but that is an incorrect view of the "three or more" passage. It is dealing with church discipline, not Jesus' actual presence. He is just as present with me by myself on a deserted island as He is with me with my church family. He will never leave me nor forsake me regardless of who is around.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
So you're saying Jesus isn't specially present when his people are gathered together in his name? I would disagree. Your claim (though it is true in one respect) is the same I hear from people who claim that Church is not necissary and they can worship God by themselves in nature an can avoid all church gatherings and generally shun other christians and fellowship.
That's not what I'm saying, that's what the context of the passage is saying. It is not a point on Jesus being present on special occasions, but church discipline.
My claim has nothing to do with the excuse some use to "forsake the assembly" of believers. I would question the motives of those who use that excuse as it violates Scripture and is unnatural for a believer.
Are you saying to have some kind of special presence I must be with at least one other believer?!?
I think you misunderstood. He was explaining a Catholic belief - not his church's belief.
Well, they are wrong because they are disregarding Paul's direction about not failing to get together regularly.
But Webdog is correct in saying that the passage's context is church discipline. It's in Matthew 18.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Well, they are wrong because they are disregarding Paul's direction about not failing to get together regularly.
But Webdog is correct in saying that the passage's context is church discipline. It's in Matthew 18.
I didn't disagree with the context. I'm just saying I think Christ is specially present in a gathering of believers.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Though I believe Christ is with you no matter what I believe he is participating in a special way when there is a gathering of believers.
I don't think so: he said "I'm Baptist and my church believes..."
Is Christ specifically not present when there is only one present?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
not but his participation is different.
I was aware of that; my comment ("expect someone to tell you it's not a proper Baptist church") was directed at the belief that for them the Real Presence is where two or three are gathered together.
You don't get that definition from the Bible. Mat.18:20 is in the context of church discipline, not defining what a church is. It is a verse that is ripped out of its context much of the time.
How? Is there Scripture to support that? Not trying to be defiant, just curious on how you arrive at that.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You. Difiant person you!
:smilewinkgrin:
Now I think the verse in use for discipline shows the presence and operation of christ differently than it is for an individual. The fact that its for discipline doesn't deminish that its pointed for a group. Also its of Note that the Holy Spirit came down upon the apostles as they were gathered together. Not individually in diverse locations. Which would have been a better hidding method than grouped all in one place where they all could be arrested at once. The OT God covenented with Abraham to create a peoples and then covenented with a peoples rather than just Moses. Remember the 70 elders went part way up the mountain and ate in the presence of the Lord. There seems to be a special dynamic when a group is gathered in faith. This doesn't mean there isn't an individual special relationship each has with God but I believe there is a covenant for the body of Christ as it gathers together in his name beyond just discipline. I think there is a healing aspect to it etc...
what has the Church taught consistently for the past 2,000 years on the subject of the Real Presence?
I don't debate much regarding the Real Presence, b/c as an Orthodox Christian it's more about faith and reason and that we don't attempt to reconcile the two...
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. Orthodoxy makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics, biology, chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, the Church does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. The Church does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.
St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.
For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek)". For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world." The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.
I don't debate much regarding the Real Presence, b/c as an Orthodox Christian it's more about faith and reason and that we don't attempt to reconcile the two...
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. Orthodoxy makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics, biology, chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, the Church does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. The Church does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.
St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.
For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek)". For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world." The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.
The reconciliation of the two comes through a proper understanding of Scripture. It is foolishness to believe that Christ offered his disciples his fleshly body, his actual blood to eat and drink. They knew that he was metaphorically speaking, as he was throughout the chapter--as he was when he spoke to them on many other occasions:
I am the door.
I am that manna.
I am the bread of life.
I am the living water.
I am the light.
I am the way.
Do you think that the disciples misunderstood each and every time he said these things. Was he a literal door in their minds? Was their no room for metaphors in their thinking? You have reduced the intelligence of the disciples to morons. That is a sad outlook that you have on them and on Scripture.
Christ's Apostles and His Disciples were like first graders and thus Christ had to explain things to them using terms and illustrations that made sense to them...usually in parable form. There's plenty of examples were Christ had to follow up on a teaching, or times when the Disciples themselves inquired further on a teaching and in those cases Christ would try and explain it in another way.
St. John's Bread of Life disclosure we see in Chapter 6 is no different...Christ was in the Temple, not some mountain side dirt road...The Apostles/Disciples didn't UNDERSTAND His teaching...said it was a HARD teaching...why? Because of the language Christ was using...Christ was blunt and straightforward...Christ didn't try to explain His teaching any other way.
Christ was often called "Rabi", which means TEACHER...How many teachers you know would let people walk away from class based on a misunderstanding? The teacher would do whatever it took to better explain himself to his students...This wasn't the case in John 6...There was no other way Christ could explain His teaching...sadly many left Him that day and followed Him no more...
It was a teaching they couldn't and wouldn't accept...and it continues to this very day.