• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 3 of 56 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
    Results 21 to 30 of 559
    1. #21
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      For over 1500 years, all accepted the inseparable Two Natures of Christ and thus could accept the Scriptures in the opening post without hesitation. But in the mid 16th century, Zwingli questioned that historic, ecumenical doctrine of The Two Natures of Christ and thus Real Presence.

      The Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed this issue in detail. It is IMPORTANT to remember that in 451, ALL Christians (all those bishops involved) accepted Real Presence in the Eucharist - the Zwinglianview were virtually unheard of at that time ...
      Thank you for that, it was enlightening and informative.
      Allow me to be VERY clear in my criticism.

      With respect to Trans-anything (substantiation, substitution) or even the symbolic-only view of at least one Baptist Church I attended ... I am completely and utterly indifferent. I have many deep opinions on the issue of the sacrament of communion and I value it at one of the primary reasons for the existence of the local church, but I will gain and impart no grace by debating such matters that belong exclusively in the realm of God. So I have no opinion that I am willing to share on the ground you have chosen to trod.

      That said, your historicity defense of a position seems a dangerous and flawed argument. Let's apply the same criteria to Petrine succession and the Bishop of Rome. How early was that believed? How widely accepted? How universally acknowledged? Should Lutherans, then, return to the mother church and apologize for rejecting the earliest councils for the radical new views of this contemporary of Zwingli, this German Monk named Luther? (I am obviously employing hyperbole to make a point).

      My advice on this topic is two fold. Tradition and the writings of the fathers is important, but do not overvalue it ... the church did manage to get some things very wrong for over a thousand years. Second, beware in our rush to embrace the mystery of the divinity and spirit of Christ that we do not fall into the heresies of denying his humanity (both before and after his resurrection). I believe that Church Councils also dealt with that.

      Truly, God Bless you all.

    2. #22
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Thank you for that, it was enlightening and informative.
      Allow me to be VERY clear in my criticism.

      With respect to Trans-anything (substantiation, substitution) or even the symbolic-only view of at least one Baptist Church I attended ...

      My position is that ALL the attempts to distance from what Jesus said and Paul penned ("Trans"- anything, "subs" anything) is something I reject. I find no textual (or biblical or theological) reason to distance myself from what Jesus said AT ALL. I just accept all as true (not "spiritually" true or "metaphysically" true or "symbolicly" true or "if-spun-MY-way" true - just true). I accept "This..... is....... my...... body...... blood....." (while realizing the "is" applies to bread and wine as well after the Consecration). I just accept it. As is. No denials, no substituions, no philosophy, no spins. HOW it happens, I don't have a clue - and that couldn't matter less.

      I can understand some who (with NOTHING in the context to so suggest) want to take this metaphorically - I just think that's ENTIRELY unnecessary and opens a "box" probably best not opened. I have a MUCH bigger problem with those whose entire position is "IT CAN'T BE!"




      That said, your historicity defense of a position seems a dangerous and flawed argument.

      I don't use that argument. I use "the words are" argument. But yes, those whose position is: "IT CAN'T BE SO!" must destroy Calcadon and the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ to do so (which, IMO, is a WHOLE lot more dangerous than simply spinning it metaphorically - insisting it COULD be "as is" true but it's not, it's metaphor). Yes, in THAT, there is Tradition - there is the Council of Calcadon that all Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and nearly all Evangelicals accept - and it often gets denied. True - I'm appealing to Traditions "take" on Scripture but then any Trinitarian also does that when speaking of the Trinity.


      Let's apply the same criteria to Petrine succession and the Bishop of Rome
      A point never affirmed by any Ecumenical Council and never accepted by any but one, singular, individual denomination (and it not made dogma until 1870) - a whole other enchilada. The Two Natures of Christ is obviously biblical (if we accept all the verses as just TRUE - that's it, the WORDS are TRUE) and accept the Council of Calcadon that affirmed that and accept ALL denominations for over 1000 years on that (and nearly all for 1500 years - through now).



      Pax Christi
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    3. Likes Confessional Lutheran liked this post
    4. #23
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      SATIRE...... just SATIRE....


      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    5. #24
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      According to the Council of Calcadon (accepted by virtually all Christians - Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic) Christ's body could ALWAYS be everywhere. But in any case, we agree it NOW can. So can it be present.... say..... with the bread and wine in Communion so that what Jesus said is fully true: This is my body? Is that possible, in your opinion?

      Just a historical point: All Christians accepted that it is true until a man named Zwingli in the 16th Century questioned it. Not saying that makes it true but it does make it historicallty accepted - universally, 100% - until the mid 1500"s.
      No, because He lives and when He said that to the disciples He hadn't even died yet and if you eat an animal you eat a dead body. His is transformed now. So then it would have to change to the body He had when he died 2000 years ago.
      He is present though, even if 2 or 3 gather. In their midst, like He was with the disciples, alive.

    6. Likes Snerfle liked this post
    7. #25
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Rens View Post
      No, because He lives and when He said that to the disciples He hadn't even died yet and if you eat an animal you eat a dead body. His is transformed now. So then it would have to change to the body He had when he died 2000 years ago.
      He is present though, even if 2 or 3 gather. In their midst, like He was with the disciples, alive.
      So, before His resurrection, the Two Natures were DIFFERENT. How so? What verse states that? When did this "different two natures" begin and end?

      And is your position that at the Last Supper His body and blood actually were NOT but now they ARE because now He can be anywhere He wants to be?
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    8. #26
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      So, before His resurrection, the Two Natures were DIFFERENT. How so? What verse states that? When did this "different two natures" begin and end?

      And is your position that at the Last Supper His body and blood actually were NOT but now they ARE because now He can be anywhere He wants to be?
      No. I just say if He said in His alive body to the disciples: this is my body that is broken for you then that bread didnt change into His body, cause He was there with His body, it didn't all of a sudden disappear and turn into the bread. Now His body is different, glorified, it can't die and shouldn't, He died once for all, so you can't eat that.

    9. Likes psalms 91, Snerfle liked this post
    10. #27
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      Looked it up.

      This is My body" is the Figure Metaphor: and the Figure lies in the Verb "IS", which, as in this case, always means "represents", and must always be so expressed. It can never mean "is changed into". Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb "represents" can always be substituted for "is". For example:
      "The field is (or represents) the world" (Matthew 13:38).
      "The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).
      "The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:39).
      "The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).
      "The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9).
      "This cup is (represents) the new covenant" (1Corinthians 11:25).
      "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?" (1Corinthians 10:16).

      http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app159.html

      it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matthew 16:18, the Pronoun "this" is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine.
      So here: the Pronoun "this" is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos (= bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter).
      In like manner, when He said (in verse 28) "this is my blood of the New Covenant"; "this", being Neuter, refers to poterion (= cup) and not to oinos (= wine), which is Masculine, and means:—"This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins".
      For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31—34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all, for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39).

    11. Likes atpollard, Snerfle liked this post
    12. #28
      Tigger's Avatar
      Tigger is offline Veteran Member
      57
      Married
      Mood:
      Piratey
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      1,178
      CH Cash
      56,880
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,795
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      80.39%
      Rep Power
      350
      It always amazes me how modern scholars interpret koine Greek better than the collective ancient writings of those that actually spoke the language at that time.

    13. Likes Confessional Lutheran liked this post
    14. #29
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
      It always amazes me how modern scholars interpret koine Greek better than the collective ancient writings of those that actually spoke the language at that time.
      Which church father writing contradicts what Rens posted about Greek tenses?

    15. Likes Snerfle, Rens liked this post
    16. #30
      Tigger's Avatar
      Tigger is offline Veteran Member
      57
      Married
      Mood:
      Piratey
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      1,178
      CH Cash
      56,880
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,795
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      80.39%
      Rep Power
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Which church father writing contradicts what Rens posted about Greek tenses?
      All the ECF's writings attest to the real presence of Chirst in the elements of the Eucharist. The question is why is that and why don't they mention that the elements are purely symbolic as being the counter argument made on this thread?

    17. Likes Josiah liked this post

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •