Originally Posted by patricius79
I read your posts. It sounds like you do agree that there is no formal protestant in regard to Transubstantiation (as articulated for example by Irenaeus and many others) between 100 and 1000 A.D.
It has already been shown that Irenaeus, Clement and others did NOT articulate, i.e., believe nor teach the doctrine of transubstantiation. 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. This is another one of Rome's pernicious errors to which J. Henley Thornwell addresses here: The Argument for an Infallible Body as did William Webster here: Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition.

Let me ask you a very simple question. If Rome, after much study and contemplation, officially declared that Jesus Christ was not completely sinless, would you relinquish what you hold to be true now and embrace that pronouncement? Why? or Why not?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]