Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $70 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Saturday, December 7, 2013
Posts: 34
Forum Stats
791 Members
30 Forums
5890 Topics
47254 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13355
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3910
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2484
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1908
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
chestnutmare 10
Pilgrim 10
Tom 8
Robin 6
John_C 5
rstrats 3
Dvan34 1
jonboy 1
Recent Posts
The love of Christ constraineth us.
by chestnutmare
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:20 AM
Eternal justification
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:05 AM
Wholly Other
by Pilgrim
Monday, October 20, 2014 10:37 AM
What must I do to be saved?
by chestnutmare
Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:07 PM
13 October 1605 A.D. Theodore Beza Dies
by chestnutmare
Monday, October 13, 2014 4:14 PM
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Dr. Michael Horton
by Pilgrim
Thursday, October 9, 2014 5:00 AM
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#43428 - Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:24 AM Re: Irenaeus on Transubstantiation [Re: AC.]
patricius79 Offline
Journeyman

Registered: Thursday, September 10, 2009
Posts: 50
Loc: U.S.A.
Quote:
There is no unanimity in church history on this issue which the Roman State Church can rest upon and which you are desperately trying to argue from.


What falsity! Basic facts:

You can't produce a single example of a formal rejection of this doctrine which was clearly taught by Mark,John, Matthew, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyril, Augustine,Athanasius Chyrstostom, etc--along with the other Catholic Biblical mysteries such as 1 Tim 4:14 and Heb 6:2--so you just assert the opposite, even though there is nobody that generally believeed what you do Church history before 1100 A.D, as you tacitly admit.

Cf.Mt 5:14, which says that we, the Church, cannot be hid.

You also seem to say that the Church at some points did not have unanimity, as though the Lord's prayer for unity was answered, even in His Own Body,which is the fulness of God the Son. Cf. Eph 1:23, Jn 17:11. This is contrary to faith.

You also say that Irenaeus did not believe in Transubstantiation , even though Irenaeus was much clearer than Clement of Alex., which gave you a weak excuse to evade Scripture. But even Clement said:

And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul."
Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,2(ante A.D. 202),in ANF,II:242

And Irenaeus is explicit:
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?"(ibid., 5:2).

What more do you want? Where is your faith?

This is a good example of how some "reformed" traditions habitually don't see what the Scriptures or basic Church historical facts indicate: namely that the Church always believed in the Truth--though I fully endorse the idea of doctrinal and Regal development (Cf. Luke 2:52, Mr 4:31-32)--as to Communion and Apostolic Succession through this on Communion.

If men look for too much precision in history--as though men weren't men; or as though the Catholic Church calls the fathers "infallible at all times"--and, to add to the error, do not take the Word at his plain, (albeit entirely Mysterious), words (Cf. Jn 6:51-57etc, Mk 14:22, Mt 26:26)....then where is their relationship to the Holy Ghost?

Here is Athanasius, who--like the other fathers I mentioned--taught an honest and interpretation of Scripture, and was a true believer in the Trinity:

"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body."
Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

Lastly, why do you call people who follow the Trinity alone "spiders"?


Edited by patricius79 (Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:57 AM)

Top
#43445 - Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:58 PM Re: Irenaeus on Transubstantiation [Re: patricius79]
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Registered: Saturday, September 13, 2003
Posts: 2375
Loc: Virginia
Patricius,

We have already presented the scriptural arguments against the doctrine of transubstantiation. You have not yet produced a substantive response. We have also shown that the early church fathers were not clearly unanimous in teaching any doctrine of transubstantiation. We do not have to prove that any of the explicitly rejected that particular doctrine. The burden is on you to prove that they taught & accepted it. But more importantly, the burden is on you to show this doctrine from Scripture - this you have not done. Parading your "literalism" before us is meaningless inasmuch as you clearly do not take the passages we have discussed in a strictly literal manner - in fact, there is no one who does. Christ's words with regard to the body & blood were, as I have already demonstrated at length, plainly symbolical.

At this point, I am issuing an ultimatum to you: If you submit any further responses to this thread without addressing the biblical arguments that have been presented against your position, the thread will be locked & any other threads you might create in the future on this subject will be deleted.
_________________________
Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.

Top
#43458 - Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:13 PM Re: Irenaeus on Transubstantiation [Re: CovenantInBlood]
patricius79 Offline
Journeyman

Registered: Thursday, September 10, 2009
Posts: 50
Loc: U.S.A.
You didn't provide any clear biblical evidence, you simply asked if I though certain other verses were symbolic. I said "yes" in regard to at least one. But I didn't say that any of them are symbolism or "only symbolic"

Likewise, Jn 6 is symbolic, but it gives no evidence of symbolism--i.e., "only a symbol." Jn 6:51-56...well, the Holy Spirit testifies to these words, which are clear, as are Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, etc.

This "only a symbol" idea is not anywhere in Scripture. Rather, Scripture says that that "the cup of blessing which we bless" is "our participation in the blood of Christ." Nowhere is there a statement of "it's just a symbol". Thus, your argument is adding to Scripture, rather than do exegesis of it.

As far as the burden of proof...

As I've said, the Catholic Church does not claim that the fathers all give explicit testimony to Transubstantiation. So your point is moot. Neither does she say that they always taught the truth infallibly. (Chrysostom was obviously Catholic, but he made a mistake that I know of; but it was not formal heresy).

Moreover, the Church, being Christ's Body, the "fulness of the One who fills all things in every way" (Eph 1:22-23), obviously had one soul, and one Spirit.

So, as a Christian if you say the Catholic Church was not unanimous--which I think is false--you must show another visible (Ps 48:11-end; Mt 5:14; Luke 1:31-32) historical Body which was. (The Bible doesn't teach the invisible Body idea.)




Edited by patricius79 (Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:59 PM)

Top
#43460 - Friday, October 16, 2009 9:35 AM Re: Irenaeus on Transubstantiation [Re: patricius79]
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Registered: Saturday, September 13, 2003
Posts: 2375
Loc: Virginia
Patricius,

The fact that you describe my position on the Lord's Supper as "only a symbol" is more than enough to indicate that you have not paid sufficient attention to what I have actually written. This is reflected in yet another non-response on your part.

There is no doctrine of transubstantiation in Scripture. The only one here adding to Scripture is you. Scripture nowhere states that the elements of bread & wine are changed into the substances of the flesh & blood of Christ, while maintaining the accidents of bread & wine. John 6 nowhere mentions the Lord's Supper, which had not even been instituted by our Lord at that time. The only Scriptures that describe the Lord's Supper have our Lord Jesus saying that the bread IS His body, not that it HAS TRANSFORMED INTO His body; and that the wine IS His blood, not that it HAS TRANSFORMED INTO His blood. Indeed, in Luke's Gospel our Lord says that the cup - the physical object in which the wine is held - IS the new covenant (sealed in His blood); but the Roman Church does not teach that the chalice in which the wine is held is transformed in physical substance to the new covenant while maintaining only the accident of a chalice! Your position, besides being an addition to the Word of God, is thus inconsistent with itself.

The Highway is dedicated to the promulgation & defense of the Reformed faith, which is in accordance with the Word of God in Holy Scripture. You are not seriously responding to the arguments that have been presented against your position. Instead, you continue to reassert Roman Catholic teaching with the use of proof-texts & quotes from church fathers, on which you do not elaborate. I am therefore locking this thread. Furthermore, any further posts by you on the subject of transubstantiation will be deleted without notice.


Edited by CovenantInBlood (Friday, October 16, 2009 9:49 AM)
_________________________
Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3



Who's Online
0 registered (), 21 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
jonboy, Kyle Russell, nathan douglas, Leonard, samfromindia
791 Registered Users
Shout Box

October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Jeremiah
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 472548
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 369910
Westminster Larger Catechism 345817
The importance of going to church 265219
Roman Catholicism and salvation 263220
Double predestination 252289
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 227573
Gospel truth 203666
Creation 182696
Continuity in Old and NT 151834