This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Matt Black
You assume incorrectly that I'm Catholic.


GE:

You deny you're Catholic, yet you dogmatise against the Final Authority of the Scriptures for the Church. You deny you're Catholic, yet you dogmatise against the Protestant faith with regard to the Lord's Supper. How can it be you're not Roman Catholic?

 

[Matt Black]

GE, I do try and live my life inseparably linked to the Word of God: Jesus Christ. I believe that that is what is meant by being a Christian.

Oh, you mean inseparably linked to the Bible? Well, yes, I follow that as my guide too. But I don't trust my individual interpretation, sinner that I am, as you do, but rather that of the Christian community throughout space and time.

You say that I dogmatise against the Protestant faith with my views on the Lord's Supper. I would ask which Protestant faith you mean? Do you mean the Lutherans, who preach consubstantiation? Or the Anglicans, early Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians who believe Receptionism? All of these believe in some form of Real Presence. Or do you mean the Johnny-Come-Lately Zwingliists on the fringe?

To answer yours and Eliyahu's questions about my views further, may I direct you both here and here , which set out something close to my position far more eloquently than I can.



To answer yours and Eliyahu's further questions to me on my views of the Eucharist, I would say that I'm pretty much on all fours with

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE, I do try and live my life inseparably linked to the Word of God: Jesus Christ. I believe that that is what is meant by being a Christian.

Oh, you mean inseparably linked to the Bible? Well, yes, I follow that as my guide too. But I don't trust my individual interpretation, sinner that I am, as you do, but rather that of the Christian community throughout space and time.

You say that I dogmatise against the Protestant faith with my views on the Lord's Supper. I would ask which Protestant faith you mean? Do you mean the Lutherans, who preach consubstantiation? Or the Anglicans, early Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians who believe Receptionism? All of these believe in some form of Real Presence. Or do you mean the Johnny-Come-Lately Zwingliists on the fringe?

To answer yours and Eliyahu's questions about my views further, may I direct you both here and here , which set out something close to my position far more eloquently than I can.

To answer yours and Eliyahu's further questions to me on my views of the Eucharist, I would say that I'm pretty much on all fours with

GE:

Well, you are a strange figure approaching through the desert phantoms.

I tax a man on two legs only, who has taken some stand with fellow-believers, who at the same time, trusts his own findings concerning the Scriptures through consideration of the other's views as far and as thoroughly as possible. I mean, one must be prepared to have his own convictions of what truth is. But that man is one who won't be ashamed of the Church or doubt it, its indefineability despite.

I believe the Church as I believe in the Holy Spirit, because the Church is His workmanship -- as is the Bible - as we as the Church of Christ have it.

So I'm not there to criticise all the time. I give my alliance where it is due. Alliance is not due with what clearly constitutes the antichrist, the Roman Catholic Church. Acceptance is not proper when undeniably the false, corrupts the Word of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ spoke in parables to leave the non-elect in darkness (Matthew 13:11, 15). In John 6, Christ preached in this cryptic language (a parable), knowing that His sheep would understand, but that the non-elect would be confused and ultimately disgusted. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and its daughter harlots have twisted this passage of scripture to support their pagan ritual. Let there be no mistake, my friends: the Mass is an abomination, and a mockery of the Cross!

Communion is symbolic...we eat in remembrance of Him. The substance of the bread does not transform into the substance of Christ's body; nor does the substance of the wine transform into the substance of Christ's blood. The teaching that the bread is the literal body of Christ, and the wine His actual blood, is a lie from the pit of Hell.

Thousands of Protestants were butchered by that whore of Babylon because they rejected the blasphemous Mass. I, for one, refuse to forget that!

GE:

I submit to what you say!

 

[Eric B]

To be honest I don't know and I don't particularly care; I leave that up to God. The sort of differentiation between the physical and spiritual, between the natural and supernatural, which your question implies is very much a Modernistic post-Enlightenment Western innovation and one which would have been unknown to the Early Church.

That whole "modernistic/enlightenment" line is the same old copout the Church (of all stripes) has used everytime it runs out of defenses for its hypotheses. And everytime, it is backed into that corner by overhypothesizing its doctrines.

If the body and blood are spiritual, then they are spiritual, and not physical. If it is supernatural, than it is not natural. The Bible does recognize a difference. Else, much of it is speaking nonsense. So there is no change in the elements; not at the prayer, or any other time. That basically is a spiritual memorial. Whatever "supernatural" aspect, there is to it then has nothing to do with the elements. Christ is spiritually present in us, His Body.
But the Church had to go further than that, and make something much more out of it, and then resort to the intellectual suicide tactic of attacking modernity and enlightenment when it could not defend it logically any further. But you've already added too much rationalization in hypothesizing such a thing out of the passages in question in the first place.

 

[PreachingTruth]

And your authority for this particular interpretation of Scripture is what, exactly?

I know my interpretation is the correct one based on the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 13:10-11, 15 and elsewhere. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. [...] 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Christ is the shepherd, and as such, He knows how to distinguish between His sheep and the goats. In John 10:27, Jesus declares, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me... In John 6, Jesus is speaking figuratively of His body and blood, knowing His chosen people would come to understand this teaching, whereas the non-elect would hear with their ears, but not understand.

Why do you attempt to add to the words of God?
Are you a Catholic, or some other kind of heretic?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That whole "modernistic/enlightenment" line is the same old copout the Church (of all stripes) has used everytime it runs out of defenses for its hypotheses. And everytime, it is backed into that corner by overhypothesizing its doctrines.

If the body and blood are spiritual, then they are spiritual, and not physical. If it is supernatural, than it is not natural. The Bible does recognize a difference. Else, much of it is speaking nonsense. So there is no change in the elements; not at the prayer, or any other time. That basically is a spiritual memorial. Whatever "supernatural" aspect, there is to it then has nothing to do with the elements. Christ is spiritually present in us, His Body.
But the Church had to go further than that, and make something much more out of it, and then resort to the intellectual suicide tactic of attacking modernity and enlightenment when it could not defend it logically any further. But you've already added too much rationalization in hypothesizing such a thing out of the passages in question in the first place.

GE:

I also applaud what you're saying, Eric B!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why do you attempt to add to the words of God?
Are you a Catholic, or some other kind of heretic?

GE:

Much the same question I asked the man, but he cleverly wiggled out of it. Wonder what he thinks now that he sees I am not the only one who wonders.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Are you a Catholic, or some other kind of heretic?

Please.

Tell me you didn't just say Catholics are hereitcs.

Please.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Please.

Tell me you didn't just say Catholics are hereitcs.

Please.

GE:

I'm very slow when it comes to sarcasm - usually don't recognise it, trusting people too much.
So I don't know with what I have to do here.

 

[Matt Black]

That whole "modernistic/enlightenment" line is the same old copout the Church (of all stripes) has used everytime it runs out of defenses for its hypotheses. And everytime, it is backed into that corner by overhypothesizing its doctrines.

If the body and blood are spiritual, then they are spiritual, and not physical. If it is supernatural, than it is not natural. The Bible does recognize a difference. Else, much of it is speaking nonsense. So there is no change in the elements; not at the prayer, or any other time. That basically is a spiritual memorial. Whatever "supernatural" aspect, there is to it then has nothing to do with the elements. Christ is spiritually present in us, His Body.
But the Church had to go further than that, and make something much more out of it, and then resort to the intellectual suicide tactic of attacking modernity and enlightenment when it could not defend it logically any further. But you've already added too much rationalization in hypothesizing such a thing out of the passages in question in the first place.

Disagree - you yourself are falling into the same trap of drawing too much of a distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

GE and 'PreachingTruth', I'm not going to respond if you resort to that kind of vile bigotry.

 

[tragic_pizza]

GE:

I'm very slow when it comes to sarcasm - usually don't recognise it, trusting people too much.
So I don't know with what I have to do here.

Just reassure me that you are not calling your fellow Christians who are members of the Catholic Church "heretics."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just reassure me that you are not calling your fellow Christians who are members of the Catholic Church "heretics."

GE:

It's like our Afrikaans pioneer, CJ Langenhoven, who was a member of Parlaiment in his day. Interjected he during session : Half of this assemebly are asses. Reprimanded him the 'whip' ('sweep' or 'chair' - what's the word now?): Retract or leave. Answered he: Half of this assembly are not asses.

I am not calling our fellow Christians who are members of the Catholic Church 'heretics'; I am calling the members of the Catholic Church who are not our fellow Christians, 'heretics'.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I am not calling our fellow Christians who are members of the Catholic Church 'heretics'; I am calling the members of the Catholic Church who are not our fellow Christians, 'heretics'.

So GE, who left YOU the Authority to determine who is and isn't a Christian?

The more you spout on this thread, the more I'm convinced that you're....never mind...
-

 

[BobRyan]

GE:

I am not calling our fellow Christians who are members of the Catholic Church 'heretics'; I am calling the members of the Catholic Church who are not our fellow Christians, 'heretics'.

You seem to have a pejorative derogatory term for each subject thread.

Why not debate topics/subjects/doctrines instead of resorting to name-calling?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

So GE, who left YOU the Authority to determine who is and isn't a Christian?

This is my question as well.

 

[Eric B]

Disagree - you yourself are falling into the same trap of drawing too much of a distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

But the distinction is in the Bible. What is this "not too much distinction?" Anybody can come up with any sort of religious concept and slap the title "supernatural" on it to cover its incoherence, so that's why it needs to be distinguished.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not sure the Bible does give you the sort of clear blue water you'd like between the two. Take the healing miracles of Jesus for example: the Gospel writers seemed to have no difficulty in attributing supernatural causes (demon possession) to conditions which modern (with a small and large 'M') medicine would class as epilepsy and mutism etc.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

But the distinction is in the Bible. What is this "not too much distinction?"

I'm sure Matt will answer for himself, but he may be referring to either the (1) tendancy of some to make too radical a distinction between the spiritual and material, leading to Manichaeanism, gnosticism and the like; and/or (2) the tendancy to come up with artificial allowable categories of the 'supernatural' as if this somehow rules out ahead of time how God may or may not act "supernaturally". Both tendencies are based on a priori assumptions about what the God of the Bible can or cannot do with certain aspects of creation. However, all things were made by God--both visible and invisible--and He can pretty much use His creation as He in His loving, righteous wisdom sees fit.

Anybody can come up with any sort of religious concept and slap the title "supernatural" on it to cover its incoherence, so that's why it needs to be distinguished.

Which is exactly the same charge skeptical detractors have made against the orthodox concepts of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union through the years. However, neither the Trinity nor the Incarnation are incoherent when expressed correctly--and neither is the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist--although all of the above equally are mysteries to us. However, that which we finite humans cannot comprehend is no problem for God to "figure out".

(Oops--looks like Matt and I posted at the same time)

 

[Servent]

No Helen, what you showed us what your private interpretation of Jesus' teaching in John 6 is to be.

Give me one good reason why should I accept your private interpretation and neglect almost 2,000 years of Church History?

2Pe 1:20 Knowing1097 this5124 first,4412 that3754 no3956, 3756 prophecy4394 of the Scripture1124 is1096 of any private2398 interpretation.1955
2Pe 1:21 For1063 the prophecy4394 came5342 not3756 in old time4218 by the will2307 of man:444 but235 holy40 men444 of God2316 spake2980 as they were moved5342 by5259 the Holy40 Ghost.4151