When/ how did Zwingliist symbolism/ memorialism enter mainstream evangelicalism?

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Far from being "good exegesis," your post would fail in any entry level Bible class. It simply fails to read the passage and use the words as the passage does.

Oooo..."I know you are but what am I?"
Namecalling, aside I believe that yours is the position which fails to account the full passage in context.

If Christ was talking about his literal flesh and blood, then why didn't Peter say "To whom shall we go? You have the flesh of eternal life."

First, Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh. He says it write there in the passage:
"I am the living bread which comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the the world". (John 6:51)
Wow...there it is in black and white. Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh since it is the same flesh He was going to give for the life of the world...unless you are going to suggest He really didn't literally do that--give His flesh for the life of the world--either.

And again regarding Peter's response, it does nothing to take away what Christ just said in which He defined the bread as His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world. In fact, those "words" to which Peter was referring certainly includes what Christ had just said--that the bread is His flesh and that we must eat it (and drink His blood) to have life(!).

This is a very simple passage and you refuse to believe it. You give an explanation that simply won't fit.

Nope. My explanation fits nicely. You refuse to accept that Christ was talking about His literal flesh despite the fact that He says just that in the passage.

John 6:32-35 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

But Christ doesn't end there. He starts vague and general and proceeds to clarify what He means by "coming" and "believing" via becoming more literal and specific as the discourse progressed. You continue to ignore this fact in the desperate attempt to maintain your incorrect interpretation of the passage.

Until you are willing to deal with the words of Scripture apart from your tradition, you will continue to be deceived.

Again, I'll say the same to you.

This is basic Bible study. It isn't seminary level in the least. All you need to do is read and study with a mind to believe it.

It's when I stepped outside of denomination's traditional interpretation and began to read the passage with an open mind, that I had to abandon the false memorialist position and embrace the truth of the real presence.

Actually, Larry, after reading your attempts to defend memorialism, I am even more convinced about how weak a position it is and how the Real Presence is the truth. Thanks.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The level of theological knowledge in professing Christendom is greatly distressing. It is even more so after the issues have been laid out and the truth has been shown, and still refused to be believed.

This is especially true of those who tenaciously hold to memorialism despite being shown the truth. How sad.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Namecalling, aside I believe that yours is the position which fails to account the full passage in context.

The only name calling that has gone on here is from your side calling me a Nestorian and a Docetist, both of which are incorrect. But on to the point, I have demonstrated from teh text that my position is the only tenable one. You saying it isn't doesn't change that.

First, Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh. He says it write there in the passage:
"I am the living bread which comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the the world". (John 6:51)
Wow...there it is in black and white.

Which is irrelevant to the point at hand.

The question at hand is what does it mean to "eat" that, or "drink" that? Christ told us in v. 35, and you deny it. He also remind us that it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. If you study John 6, you will not find any eucharistic meaning in it. It is about something different ... namely, salvation.

And again regarding Peter's response, it does nothing to take away what Christ just said in which He defined the bread as His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world. In fact, those "words" to which Peter was referring certainly includes what Christ had just said--that the bread is His flesh and that we must eat it (and drink His blood) to have life(!).

Yes, but you don't believe his body, or blood. You believe his words. THe words are what give life (v. 63).

But Christ doesn't end there. He starts vague and general and proceeds to clarify what He means by "coming" and "believing" via becoming more literal and specific as the discourse progressed. You continue to ignore this fact in the desperate attempt to maintain your incorrect interpretation of the passage.

Surely you don't think "coming" and "believing" are the difficult part to understand do you? That was the clear part, and it is the part that was rejected. They were after him for the food, for the miracles which they saw. But Christ said that following him was much more ... It was coming to him and believing him.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Until you are willing to deal with the words of Scripture apart from your tradition, you will continue to be deceived.

Again, I'll say the same to you. </font>[/QUOTE]But you would be wrong. I have argued from SCripture, refuted your position from Scripture.

]It's when I stepped outside of denomination's traditional interpretation and began to read the passage with an open mind, that I had to abandon the false memorialist position and embrace the truth of the real presence.

You are deceived. There is no truth in the "real presence." You can believe it if you wish, but that will not make it true.

Actually, Larry, after reading your attempts to defend memorialism, I am even more convinced about how weak a position it is and how the Real Presence is the truth. Thanks.

This is becuase you have refused to deal with the text. I can fully understand why you say this (although I doubt that it is really true). You have consistently refused to deal with the text apart from your presuppositions that you brought to it.

 

[Chemnitz]

I know Christology well, very well. In his desire to preserve the immutability of God Nestorius did divide up scripture by saying at certain points it is only the human nature acting and at others it is only the divine nature. You have done something very similar in order for you to hold your supposition of locality, which contrary to your opinion is not the purpose of the incarnation. Rather the purpose of incarnation is the redemption of man.

Martin Chemnitz, my namesake, writes concerning the person of Christ, " The knowledge of the person of Christ is described in the Word of God as the knowing that He is true God and equal to God (jn 5:8, Phil 2:6, 1Jn 5:20), and that He is made a partaker of flesh and blood as we are, except for sin (Heb 4:15). That is, there are two natures, the divine and the human, in the incarnate Christ. Scripture expressly teaches that these two natures do not subsist by themselves, but that they have been united into the one person of the Logos: (Gal 4:4), "God sent forth His son, born of a woman:; (Lk 1:32), that which is born of Mary shall be called the son of God; (matt 16:16), the Son of Man is "the Son of the living God"; (jer 23:5), the Seed or Branch of David is YHWH; (jn 1:14), "The Word was made flesh." Thus there are not two persons but one Christ, one Lord, one Mediator (1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Tim 2:5). Furthermore, Scripture teaches that from the hypostatic union a communication of attributes results whereby those things which are the properties of the one nature are attributited to the person, as when 1 Cor. 2:8 says, "They crucified the Lord of Glory," and as Acts 20:28 says, "God redeemed the church to Himself by His own blood." For although the Deity does not die, yet God was made man and suffered and died in His own flesh (1 Pt 3:18 and 4:1).

Scripture also shows that in the works of Christ as Mediator and Savior, because of the hypostatic union, each nature performs in communion with the other that which is proper to it, so that, as in Heb 2:14, "Through death He destroyed him who had the power of death," and acts 20:28... On this basis Scripture then leads us to the communication of the majesty for although cleansing from sin an and vivification are essentially properties of the majest of the divine nature of Christ, yet Scripture predicates vivification, or making alive to the flesh of Christ (Jn 6:54). It is written in 1 Jn 1:7: "The blood of the Son of God cleanses us from sins." Moreover, this communication of majesty does not take place through the commingling (confusio), conversion, or equating of the natures, but through the plan of the hypostatic union, as the ancients used to say." (The Two Natures of Christ, p 16)

he did not partake of deity in that respect. God knows all things, but Jesus did not know the time of the second coming

That is not orthodox Christology, that is kenoticism. Jesus didnot make use of his divine abilities in the instances but he was still partaking in the diety because as full God and full man he never stops taking part in either nature.

As I have pointed out, you are extremely inconsistent. You acknowledge that the "this cup" statements do not refer to the cup, but to something else, namely what was in teh cup. You have been shown that the similar metaphors in Scripture do not demand this interpretation of yours. You have been shown that the elements were still bread and wine afterwards. You are simply unwilling, for whatever reason, to leave the teaching of man and abide by Scripture. You have resorted to false accusations that reveal your lack of understanding of orthodox theology.

The synecdoche of the cup is obvious whereas, a metaphorical meaning of "This is my body" is not. There is no grammatical evidence giving clues to a possible metaphorical meaning. Again I have never stated that the bread and wine stop being present. If you had bothered to read my "fyi" statement and others you see that I have said they are still present. What I have insisted is that scriptural evidence is that the Body and Blood of Christ are also present.

Nope, not if you read the text. But even at that, perfection requires inability. Perfection cannot be less than perfect. If it could, then it would no longer be perfect.

Perfection does not require inability, merely the refraining from imperfection.

BTW, Larry, I have never once called you a name. I have merely referred to the arguments you are using as Nestorian in nature.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I know Christology well, very well.

Apparently not.

" The knowledge of the person of Christ is described in the Word of God as the knowing that He is true God and equal to God (jn 5:8, Phil 2:6, 1Jn 5:20), and that He is made a partaker of flesh and blood as we are, except for sin (Heb 4:15). That is, there are two natures, the divine and the human, in the incarnate Christ. Scripture expressly teaches that these two natures do not subsist by themselves, but that they have been united into the one person of the Logos:

It was good right up to her. The Logos is the divine nature, not the human, or the combination of the them. The Logos existed before the incarnation.

Thus there are not two persons but one Christ, one Lord, one Mediator (1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Tim 2:5). Furthermore, Scripture teaches that from the hypostatic union a communication of attributes results whereby those things which are the properties of the one nature are attributited to the person, as when 1 Cor. 2:8 says, "They crucified the Lord of Glory," and as Acts 20:28 says, "God redeemed the church to Himself by His own blood." For although the Deity does not die, yet God was made man and suffered and died in His own flesh (1 Pt 3:18 and 4:1).

You like it when he says it but rejected it when I said it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems you were going after me while agreeing with me.

he did not partake of deity in that respect. God knows all things, but Jesus did not know the time of the second coming

That is not orthodox Christology, that is kenoticism. Jesus didnot make use of his divine abilities in the instances but he was still partaking in the diety because as full God and full man he never stops taking part in either nature.[/quote][/qb]What I expressed was the docrine of the kenosis, as outlined in Phil 2, and demonstrated during the life of Christ. Jesus did not give up his deity. The Kenosis teaches that he gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. There is a clear difference.

The synecdoche of the cup is obvious whereas, a metaphorical meaning of "This is my body" is not.

There is no evidence of this, apart from your need to find it.

There is no grammatical evidence giving clues to a possible metaphorical meaning.

Clues to metaphors are not found in grammar, but in context and in the use of language.

What I have insisted is that scriptural evidence is that the Body and Blood of Christ are also present.

But the scriptural evidence does not point to that.

BTW, Larry, I have never once called you a name. I have merely referred to the arguments you are using as Nestorian in nature.

OK, but your assertions were incorrect at that. It's fine ... I am not bothered in the least by the heat of this discussion, although after seven pages, I have other things I need to be doing. For you to call my arguments what you have indicates that you either don't understand those historic teachings, or you don't understand my position. What I have said is the orthodox theology you will find any virtually any orthodox theology text. It is the position that the church has held for two millennia as it developed.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Alexander:
Webdog,

I would say that you are you and God is God. God is the One who spoke the entire universe into being by the Word of His mouth, who sustains it moment to moment, who knows the number of hairs on the head of every person who has ever lived and who will ever live, who knows every sparrow who falls to the ground, who knows all the stars and their names.

You are a created being who is frail, fallible and limited.

Many, many, many things are impossible for man - but not for God.

Alexander

You said a lot without answering my question. Do you deny God's power to talk to man using symbolism?

 

[Chemnitz]

It was good right up to her. The Logos is the divine nature, not the human, or the combination of the them. The Logos existed before the incarnation.

The Logos at the point of incarnation is no longer just the divine. It is both the human and the divine natures. To say otherwise is to deny the humanity and divinity of Christ as Jesus is at once both Human and God. Chemnitz and others before him have used the Logos to indicate the second person of the Trinity.

You like it when he says it but rejected it when I said it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems you were going after me while agreeing with me.

But you have never said that. You have stated that communion could not be a partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ because it is impossible for a human to be in more than one place. This assertion of yours seperates the divine and the human natures. You do not ascribe to the whole person of Christ all actions.

The Kenosis teaches that he gave up the independent use of his divine attributes.

Which again is not Orthodox Christology. Jesus did not make use of His divine attributes at all times, but He did not give up anything. To say that he has given up divine attributes is to make him less then full God.

But the scriptural evidence does not point to that.

No there isn't just Jesus calling it His Body and Blood and Paul saying that we are partaking of the Body and Blood. In addition, Paul warning us against profaning the Body and Blood by how we approach communion. If there was only metaphor involved there would not be these assertions.

Now that I think about you have made a big deal about God being incapable of lying or deceiving. Did Jesus lie when He said, "This is my Body"?

OK, but your assertions were incorrect at that. It's fine ... I am not bothered in the least by the heat of this discussion, although after seven pages, I have other things I need to be doing. For you to call my arguments what you have indicates that you either don't understand those historic teachings, or you don't understand my position. What I have said is the orthodox theology you will find any virtually any orthodox theology text. It is the position that the church has held for two millennia as it developed.

I have noticed that the more you are backed into a corner the more insulting you become of people's intelligence.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />First, Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh. He says it write there in the passage:
"I am the living bread which comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the the world". (John 6:51)
Wow...there it is in black and white.

Which is irrelevant to the point at hand. </font>[/QUOTE]You're the one that asked that question. Here's what you said:

If Christ was talking about his literal flesh and blood, then why didn't Peter say "To whom shall we go? You have the flesh of eternal life."

That is why I demonstrated (yet again) that the flesh to which Christ was referring was the very same that He gave for the life of the world.

The question at hand is what does it mean to "eat" that, or "drink" that? Christ told us in v. 35, and you deny it.

No, you have the cart before the horse, as I will show (yet again) below. Christ starts from abroad, general statement and precedes with a specific clarification of that statement. In fact, He starts with a metaphor ("I am the bread of life") and then becomes more and more literal. ("The bread is my flesh; you must eat my flesh")

He also remind us that it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing.

But surely you don't mean that Christ's flesh profits nothing, do you??? Are you seriously suggesting that after Christ spent all that time talking about His flesh is the bread we must eat, flesh that He gives for the life of the world, and the same flesh that Christ said they would see literally ascend back to Heaven (v.62), that He turned around and said that (His) flesh profits nothing??? (I hope you're not suggesting this. If you are, then you are a docetist afterall) No, you misunderstand--"flesh" in verse 63 is not referring to His material body, but to the carnal ("fleshly") way in which the unbelieving Jews were hearing Christ, ie in terms of crass cannibalism. Yes, He was literally telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, but not in the carnal way they were supposing. He would indeed give His flesh for food and His blood for drink under the forms of bread and wine as He revealed to the disciples at the Last Supper--not by hacking off an arm or leg and throwing it to them. (The unbelieving Jews were thinking carnally in terms of the latter.)

If you study John 6, you will not find any eucharistic meaning in it. It is about something different ... namely, salvation.

But it's not either the Eucharist or salvation. It's "both/and" as Christ clearly teaches in the passage.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And again regarding Peter's response, it does nothing to take away what Christ just said in which He defined the bread as His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world. In fact, those "words" to which Peter was referring certainly includes what Christ had just said--that the bread is His flesh and that we must eat it (and drink His blood) to have life(!).

Yes, but you don't believe his body, or blood. You believe his words. THe words are what give life (v. 63).</font>[/QUOTE]Christ was referring to the words He just uttered ("the words that I speak to you are spirit and are life") which includes such truths as: "the bread that I shall give is My flesh" (v.51); "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (v.53); "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (v.55); "He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him" (v.56). It seems that you and other memorialists want to believe all of Christ's words except for these.

Surely you don't think "coming" and "believing" are the difficult part to understand do you? That was the clear part, and it is the part that was rejected. They were after him for the food, for the miracles which they saw. But Christ said that following him was much more ... It was coming to him and believing him.

Yet many "came" to, or physically approached, Christ while He walked the earth, but many left Him unsaved. What does "come to" mean exactly? It's sort of vague and general and needs further clarification. Likewise, many are said to have "believed in His name" (John 2:23-25) yet Christ did not commit Himself to them. While "believing in Him" is essential, it too is somewhat broad and needs clarification. In the John 6 discourse did He clarify by saying: "To come to Me and believe in Me you must say the sinner's prayer and ask Me into your heart?" Nope, but that seems to be the assumption many modern day evangelicals bring to the text. No, Christ proceeds to become quite specific that one must eat His flesh (lit. "to munch or chew") and drink His blood to have Life and to abide in Him.

But you would be wrong. I have argued from SCripture, refuted your position from Scripture.

Sorry, but you have failed to do so numerous times now.

You are deceived. There is no truth in the "real presence." You can believe it if you wish, but that will not make it true.

I believe it because it is true...unlike the memorialist position which is not true, however much you'd like to believe otherwise.

You have consistently refused to deal with the text apart from your presuppositions that you brought to it.

Nope, once again you are describing yourself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Logos at the point of incarnation is no longer just the divine.

Incorrect. The God man is the union. Most, I believe, continue to talk in terms of the Logos and the humanity. The Logos certainly is the second person of the Trinity however.

You have stated that communion could not be a partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ because it is impossible for a human to be in more than one place. This assertion of yours seperates the divine and the human natures. You do not ascribe to the whole person of Christ all actions.

You are incorrect.

Jesus did not make use of His divine attributes at all times, but He did not give up anything. To say that he has given up divine attributes is to make him less then full God.

Shameful on your part. You keep saying things I didn't say. I said your first sentence, not your second. Go back and read it. I said he gave up the use of his attributes, meaning that he didn't use them. (This seems to be typical of your use of language.)

No there isn't just Jesus calling it His Body and Blood and Paul saying that we are partaking of the Body and Blood. In addition, Paul warning us against profaning the Body and Blood by how we approach communion. If there was only metaphor involved there would not be these assertions.

Sure there would be. The metaphor is why he says these things.

Now that I think about you have made a big deal about God being incapable of lying or deceiving. Did Jesus lie when He said, "This is my Body"?

No, I have fully affirmed what Jesus said and did.

I have noticed that the more you are backed into a corner the more insulting you become of people's intelligence.

I haven't yet been backed into a corner, and I haven't insulted your intelligence. I pointed out some things about which your understanding is deficient, not your intelligence. I am quite confident that your intelligence is perfectly capable of understanding these things.

That is why I demonstrated (yet again) that the flesh to which Christ was referring was the very same that He gave for the life of the world.

No one disputes that.

Christ starts from abroad, general statement and precedes with a specific clarification of that statement. In fact, He starts with a metaphor ("I am the bread of life") and then becomes more and more literal. ("The bread is my flesh; you must eat my flesh")[/qutoe]So which is it? When Christ says "I am the bread of life" it is a metaphor. When he says This is my body, it isn't a metaphor. I think you can see the inconsistency there. Jesus did not start general and get more specific. When you study the context, you see that "eating" is believing and coming. You are not reading the Scripture in its context.

Christ was referring to the words He just uttered ("the words that I speak to you are spirit and are life") which includes such truths as: "the bread that I shall give is My flesh" (v.51); "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (v.53); "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (v.55); "He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him" (v.56).

Yes, and those words were what must be believed. To believe them was to eat of him. It was a radical step of commitment.

It seems that you and other memorialists want to believe all of Christ's words except for these.

Nope, we believe them all.

Yet many "came" to, or physically approached, Christ while He walked the earth, but many left Him unsaved. What does "come to" mean exactly? It's sort of vague and general and needs further clarification.

Nope. IN the context, it is used in parallel with "belief." That helps to define it. It is used of full acceptance of who Christ is and what he did.

You are right that many people were there. But you still haven't explained why no one tried to eat his flesh. Surely, if they understood it as you do, there would have been a line of people ready to take a bit of his arm. And yet not one person did that. That shows that their understanding is what my understanding is.

While "believing in Him" is essential, it too is somewhat broad and needs clarification.

Nope, not really. IT is pretty simple.

No, Christ proceeds to become quite specific that one must eat His flesh (lit. "to munch or chew") and drink His blood to have Life and to abide in Him.

Which are not the words used in teh eucharistic passages. It means to believe. That is what is necessary for salvation.

I have dealt with the text ad nauseum. I am going to bail out. We have run the course here. You have failed to show the text supporting you. YOu have failed to explain why Jesus called it bread and wine when it was really something else. You have failed to explain why Paul called it bread and wine when it was really something else. You have failed to explain why Jesus called it the fruit of the vine when it was allegedly his blood. You have failed to show that John 6 is anything other than belief. You have failed to explain why no one sitting there listening to Jesus took your view of it. In short, you have failed at every turn to explain the text. And that speaks volumes.

 

[Alexander]

Pastor Larry,

Are you serious about bailing out of this thread?

We can only hope!

Alexander

 

[Matt Black]

So, let me get Pastor Larry's stance on this right, with particular reference to Scriptural interpretation re communion so there can be no misunderstanding...

Ignatius is wrong
Justin Martyr is wrong
Irenaeus is wrong
Clement of Alexandria is wrong
Tertullian is wrong
Hypollytus is wrong
Origen is wrong
The Council of Nicaea is wrong (perhaps it's also wrong about the Trinity, then?)
Cyril of Jerusalem is wrong
Ambrose of Milan is wrong
Theodore of Mopsuestia is wrong
Augustine of Hippo is wrong
The Council of Ephesus is wrong (never mind because it seems it was wrong on Nestorianism too)
Orthodox are wrong
Catholics are wrong (yeah, I guess we'd expect that - But see the next one)
Luther and all Lutherans are wrong (perhaps he was wrong about salvation by faith, too?)
The Westminster Confession and all Presbyterians are wrong
The Anglicans are wrong
The London Baptist Confession is wrong
The Methodists are wrong

AND

Zwingli is right
Pastor Larry is right

I rest my case

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have dealt with the text ad nauseum. I am going to bail out. We have run the course here. You have failed to show the text supporting you.

To the contrary, you have repeatedly failed to show the texts supporting you, so I don't blame you for bailing out.

YOu have failed to explain why Jesus called it bread and wine when it was really something else.

And you have failed to account for the fact that Christ called the bread, "His body", and the cup, "His blood". You have failed to explain Christ's statements to eat His flesh and drink His blood in the framework of alleged "memorialism".

You have failed to explain why Paul called it bread and wine when it was really something else.

And you fail to acknowledge that Paul called the bread the communion of Christ's body, and the wine the communion of Christ's blood.

You have failed to explain why Jesus called it the fruit of the vine when it was allegedly his blood.

And you amazingly ignore the fact that Christ called the fruit of the vine "His blood"(!).

You have failed to show that John 6 is anything other than belief.

And you have continued to ignore the fact that Christ doesn't stop at "belief", as if some intellectual assent was all that was in view here. He gets much more detailed, saying we must eat (lit. "munch" or "chew") His flesh, the same flesh He was to give for the life of the world.

You have failed to explain why no one sitting there listening to Jesus took your view of it.

And you have failed to support your assertion that they didn't take the realistic sense in which Christ was speaking. The fact that the unbelieving disciples left at that point, in the context of their specific questions and Christ answering by becoming even more literal, shows they did take Him that way.

In short, you have failed at every turn to explain the text. And that speaks volumes.

No, it speaks volumes that you continue to make the same unsubstantiated assertions which display an appalling disregard for the words and the contexts of the relevent passages.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, let me get Pastor Larry's stance on this right, with particular reference to Scriptural interpretation re communion so there can be no misunderstanding...

Ignatius is wrong
Justin Martyr is wrong
Irenaeus is wrong
Clement of Alexandria is wrong
Tertullian is wrong
Hypollytus is wrong
Origen is wrong
The Council of Nicaea is wrong (perhaps it's also wrong about the Trinity, then?)
Cyril of Jerusalem is wrong
Ambrose of Milan is wrong
Theodore of Mopsuestia is wrong
Augustine of Hippo is wrong
The Council of Ephesus is wrong (never mind because it seems it was wrong on Nestorianism too)
Orthodox are wrong
Catholics are wrong (yeah, I guess we'd expect that - But see the next one)
Luther and all Lutherans are wrong (perhaps he was wrong about salvation by faith, too?)
The Westminster Confession and all Presbyterians are wrong
The Anglicans are wrong
The London Baptist Confession is wrong
The Methodists are wrong

AND

Zwingli is right
Pastor Larry is right

I rest my case

Matt, I think that about sums it up.

 

[Alexander]

Matt,

Great summary.

I've sensed for a long time that many Christians place their private interpretation of Scripture and tradition above everyone else's, and when that interpretation varies with the vast majority of Christian experience, wisdom and knowledge, the private intepretation wins out. Somehow this goes under the rubric of 'soul competency' or the 'priesthood of the believer', even though neither of those concepts have anything to do with it.

I suppose part of it is due to the exaltation of the individual over against the community and its received wisdom. We're reaching the point where people are so alienated from one another (both those now living and those of the community of faith in prior generations), that many people now attend the 'Church of Me and My Cat'.

Alexander

 

[Matt Black]

Yup. Sola Scriptura is ultimately sine ecclesia (when all you need is one man and his Bible and his private interpretation of said Bible, where is "Where two or three are gathered in My Name"?)

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, let me get Pastor Larry's stance on this right, with particular reference to Scriptural interpretation re communion so there can be no misunderstanding...

Ignatius is wrong
Justin Martyr is wrong
Irenaeus is wrong
Clement of Alexandria is wrong
Tertullian is wrong
Hypollytus is wrong
Origen is wrong
The Council of Nicaea is wrong (perhaps it's also wrong about the Trinity, then?)
Cyril of Jerusalem is wrong
Ambrose of Milan is wrong
Theodore of Mopsuestia is wrong
Augustine of Hippo is wrong
The Council of Ephesus is wrong (never mind because it seems it was wrong on Nestorianism too)
Orthodox are wrong
Catholics are wrong (yeah, I guess we'd expect that - But see the next one)
Luther and all Lutherans are wrong (perhaps he was wrong about salvation by faith, too?)
The Westminster Confession and all Presbyterians are wrong
The Anglicans are wrong
The London Baptist Confession is wrong
The Methodists are wrong

AND

Zwingli is right
Pastor Larry is right

I rest my case

Yep, you got it right! But there are a WHOLE lot more names to go along with the measly two you posted.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. Sola Scriptura is ultimately sine ecclesia (when all you need is one man and his Bible and his private interpretation of said Bible, where is "Where two or three are gathered in My Name"?)

Where is the correct use of scripture in context?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, let me get Pastor Larry's stance on this right, with particular reference to Scriptural interpretation re communion so there can be no misunderstanding...

Ignatius is wrong
Justin Martyr is wrong
Irenaeus is wrong
Clement of Alexandria is wrong
Tertullian is wrong
Hypollytus is wrong
Origen is wrong
The Council of Nicaea is wrong (perhaps it's also wrong about the Trinity, then?)
Cyril of Jerusalem is wrong
Ambrose of Milan is wrong
Theodore of Mopsuestia is wrong
Augustine of Hippo is wrong
The Council of Ephesus is wrong (never mind because it seems it was wrong on Nestorianism too)
Orthodox are wrong
Catholics are wrong (yeah, I guess we'd expect that - But see the next one)
Luther and all Lutherans are wrong (perhaps he was wrong about salvation by faith, too?)
The Westminster Confession and all Presbyterians are wrong
The Anglicans are wrong
The London Baptist Confession is wrong
The Methodists are wrong

AND

Zwingli is right
Pastor Larry is right

I rest my case

Yep, you got it right! But there are a WHOLE lot more names to go along with the measly two you posted. </font>[/QUOTE]Such as...? And on what basis would they be right? What are their credentials? And are there any prior to the Enlightenment?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. Sola Scriptura is ultimately sine ecclesia (when all you need is one man and his Bible and his private interpretation of said Bible, where is "Where two or three are gathered in My Name"?)

Where is the correct use of scripture in context? </font>[/QUOTE]That's kind of what I'm asking on this thread...

 

[Matt Black]

Zwingli's error was in exploring the meaning of the Latin sacramentum and coming to the conclusion that it was just a symbolic (usually soldier's) oath and that therefore a 'sacrament' was devoid of any supernatural content? Of course, IMNSVHO, he erred in merely looking at the meaning of sacramentum in that he overlooked the fact that it was a (pretty poor) Latin substitute-word for the Greek &mu;&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu; which means a lot more than just 'oath'...