The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).
Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.
Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:
The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.
Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:
Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.
If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.
Modernity does make its demands.
Old Life 
DGH: Tom, Beza’s views about predestination have not stopped you from claiming him as a major influence on the so-called Calvinist American Revolution. You do blow hot and cold on Calvinism.
Darryl, I like Calvinism, especially Calvinist resistance theory, which freed mankind. Roman Catholicism objected to the Divine Right of Kings for its own ecclesiastical reasons, but Calvinism put boots on the ground. First it freed England/Scotland in the 1600s, then America in the late 1700s. We can do the history together whether or not you’re in accord theologically.
To respond directly to
Beza’s views about predestination have not stopped you from claiming him as a major influence on the so-called Calvinist American Revolution.
Of course not, D. It’s 2K, Two Kingdoms theology—American Calvinists such as Samuel Adams keeps separate the concerns of this world from the concerns about the next. Your salvation is between you and God and no government can save your soul.
The Calvinist Americans [via Locke] figured that much out well before the Papacy did. Although it is antithetical to our positions that
_______
Brian Lee
Posted May 30, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
DGH, spoiler alert.
He became an Augustinian priest and preached for the conversion of the Jews across Europe and in New York. He died at 88 in Belgium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
________
The last laugh is always God’s.
Peace, brother DGH, a smile without the wink. 🙂 Thx for being you.
LikeLike
Michael,
Sure. So, let’s assume that protestants have everything the Catholics do (apostolic succession, “infallible” magisterium, yadda yadda yadda). You never know, maybe we do. Please point out exactly where the protestant’s faith is deficient to the Roman Catholic’s.
AB
LikeLike
Tom,
I read that Van Til interview — at least the first 10 pages that I was able to print, anyway. I assume your point is that Van Til was in agreement with Norman Shepherd.
The rambling nature of the interview makes an Old Bob blog comment look clear and concise. With all due respect to Dr. Van Til, there probably needs to be an age at which our theologians graciously retire and are left alone when it comes to making public comments. Have you heard of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Jerry Falwell? No one has ever claimed that theologians and intellectuals do their best work after 80 (I know, Falwell didn’t make it that long — Baptists like their red meat).
LikeLike
Hart,
I will say I have wondered about the often greater brilliance of converts to Catholicism over many cradle RCs. I haven’t found it so common on the ground level, but more on the popular level, but any how I know what you mean. I think it has a lot to do with just plain old human nature. We tend to take for granted what we have always had, while we are more grateful for gifts we receive; especially when it God gives that gift through suffering. The struggle of the soul to resist the gift seem quite common in the Catholic converts. That is some of my thought on it anyway.
Peace,
MicahelTX
LikeLike
Erik, Not to mention Billy Graham, J.I Packer and dare I say J. Vernon Mcgee.
LikeLike
“… there probably needs to be an age at which our theologians graciously retire and are left alone when it comes to making public comments. Have you heard of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Jerry Falwell? No one has ever claimed that theologians and intellectuals do their best work after 80 …”
Yup. Packer and his twist over ETC, Stott and his coming out with annihilationism, and so on. But the worst of these might well be Graham and some of the wacky things he’s said in recent years.
LikeLike
Sorry John, our posts crossed like ships in the fog. BTW, are you any relation to Jack Reacher?
Sorry again, I just couldn’t resist that one…
LikeLike
AB,
“Please point out exactly where the protestant’s faith is deficient to the Roman Catholic’s.
It isn’t. It would be just like the Catholic who doesn’t know the fullness taught by the Spirit, therefore doesn’t live in light of it, so also the Protestant who lives fully to what God has revealed to them.
Neither of these two faithful followers of Christ, Protestant or Catholic, is the same as the unfaithful who know what is revealed to them and ignores it. They shut the door to the greater peace and freedom God wishes to give through the knowledge of greater Truth. There is only One who gives true peace and joy that the world can not crush out, His name is Jesus. He is God with us, and He shows more as we seek more. This is the wonder of our God, we can never exhaust the well of His wonder. Though He always gives more than the old wine skin can take, therefore we are called to be new wine skins that stretch with the revelation of Truth instead of resisting it.
LikeLike
Michael, Protestants are coming out of a propositional and word-based religious expression over into an visual, pageant and rite oriented expression in RC. This is why I term them ‘prot-catholics’. They tend to be traditional, pretty much ignore Vatican II intentions, and seek to harmonize(like they did when they read the scriptures) the “T” tradition. They also do some making up of RC as they go along( ‘I can keep all the best of what I believed as a protestant’). They don’t really know yet what Cradles already assimilated; it’s not about propositional truth( there’s no harmonizing 850 page catechisms), it’s about ontological change per the sacraments, all the way down to last rites, priestly mediation and venerating/worshiping Mary.
LikeLike
Michael,
No offense, but your answer to my question seems to be, “it isn’t, but it is.” I’m no logician like your friend Bryan Cross, but I can’t make sense of what you are saying. I’m left with feeling that a trip to Rome would leave me with only more questions. I’ve met other theological systems that don’t have answers, but only lead to more questions, so this is not uncommon. My two sense is, as someone else said, clean up your own house before worrying about ours. Courtesy to Tom, I think.
AB
LikeLike
Tom, how exactly does Calvinism liberate mankind and send half of humankind to hell? That’s the dilemma your emoticons avoid.
LikeLike
AB,
I agree with you that it is not our job to clean up someone else’s house. We must always be dealing with our house. God in dealing with our house shines out to the world.
It is not “it ins’t, but it is”, it is God has more for us both and if we turn away from it we need to repent and believe in God. We reject truth or receive truth in the same way. We must believe “God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”; “Jew or Greek,” Catholic or Protestant. Did the Paul, the Jew, believe himself to have more revelation that the Greek? Yes. Does this make His faith better than the Greek? No. God is no respecter of men, but places men in different situations and places that we may seek Him to the fullness of what He reveals to us. It is the One Spirit effecting both the Protestant seeking Truth and the Catholic seeking Truth. I thought Catholic teachings were in error before I study actual Catholic teaching, the Greek thought the Jew was in error too. All find unity in following Truth, Christ. But, each in his own capacity as God gives grace.
Hope that helps some.
LikeLike
Well, George, I have been told that I have a Cruise-like smile to go with my Gibson blue eyes. Now if I could do something with this Karl Malden nose ……..
LikeLike
Sean,
I think I can see your point, but I’ve read the 850+ pages CCC. I’m in, VII post and pre; still rejecting error and embracing truth, while looking for errors and seeking more truth; Still loving the One Lord and the Holy Scriptures, still rejecting idols unless you can prove from Scripture it is not our Lord I receive in Holy Communion.
I can understand with your history why someone like me would be a thorn in yours side, but I am willing to be corrected from error and have yet to be.
You said, it’s about ontological change
Is this not the whole of why Christ came?
“I have come that you may have life and have it to the full.”
I’m guessing that you disagree that God uses Baptism and Communion to accomplish this new life?
LikeLike
Michael, I was only trying to provide a response. I’m glad you stick around.
LikeLike
AB,
You should know by now I do all I can to “provide an answer to the hope” that I have. Leave a crack in the door and I’ll be talking through it.
Enjoy the day,
Mike
LikeLike
Tom, how exactly does Calvinism liberate mankind and send half of humankind to hell? That’s the dilemma your emoticons avoid.
U and L respectively, Darryl. 😦
LikeLike
Michael, you’re being protestant. In the words of one of your own, who knows it to be true but struggles to wean himself off his protestant leanings; ‘You catch more than you learn’. I don’t consider you a thorn in my side at all. As has been noted, at least the catholics are dealing with the text as it regards the lord’s supper. But no, I don’t believe transubstantiation is being taught in scripture. Particularly a conversion brought upon by the priest’s charism. And you should know from your protestant days, that my salvation is secured outside of me in another not per my ‘becoming’. Though one day I will be glorified. And no, I don’t believe my baptism works ex opere operato nor that it removes original sin. If we’re going to be honest in our discussions we need to start working with the concepts behind the language and not just throw the verbage out there.
You guys tend to go back and forth between your old protestant mind and your new RC becoming. That’s why otherwise bright protestants keep getting suckered into ECT documents and manhattan declarations. You use the same words but don’t mean the same thing by them. I’m trying to be a thorn in the side of such negotiations.
LikeLike
Tom, have you ever wondered why Rome can’t produce it’s own apologists but needs ex-Protestants?
Did I say that, Darryl? Let’s see, hmm, no I didn’t. Are you saying that? I don’t think it would hold up to closer inspection.
LikeLike
Sean,
You’ll have to explain more clearly how I’m Protestant and have accepted the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and I receive the instructions and anathemas of the councils as coming with the protection of the promised Holy Spirit. We must clear have a different definition of qualifies one as a Protestant.
I did not ask if you could get to transubstantiation from Scripture alone. I asked if from Scripture you can prove it is not true. That is a big difference. Scripture does say it is profitable for correcting. I am willing to be corrected by Scripture.
Sean,
If true salvation includes “one day I will be glorified,” then true salvation does include “becoming.” It can still not be of you, but truly be for your “becoming” holy. This is ultimately what salvation from rebellion, sin and death is, right?
If baptism is not united to effectual unity with Christ, what is it?
LikeLike
Michael, I think I explained it clearly earlier. You’re a traditionalist, you largely reject the interpretations coming out of Vat II(though not to the degree maybe CTC would; “they regard the last 50 years, or at least till Ratzinger, the lost generation). Your still propositionally bound by and large, but you run it between pietistic protestantism to RC dogmatism. Rarely do you speak, at least here, of the sacerdotalism of Rome.
Michael, sure you point me to the NT biblical concept of priestcraft. You get that straight from “T” tradition. Don’t you dare jump to a gospel narrative in John about ‘eating my flesh’. You have to get the priesthood before you even go there. And don’t give me old wineskins Judaism.
I believe baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. Not operating ex opere operato nor contingent upon the moment of time it is administered. Additionally, as said before, it does not by proper execution, remove original guilt and sin.
Michael, certainly there is an ‘ontological’ aspect but it’s first and finally legal and forensic. If we wanna use the bride of Christ illustration, it’s a familial arrangement bound up and preceded by a legal declaration, if you don’t believe me try leaving your wife. We aren’t initially justified and then further justified per infusion of grace dependent(as ground) as it were on my cooperation in my becoming.
LikeLike
Michael, if you want, you can respond to me offline seansgame@gmail.com
LikeLike
That e-mail address is getting sold to 100 companies selling penile implants…
LikeLike
As if
LikeLike
Sean,
I don’t have a problem dealing with the priesthood. It just hasn’t come up in any conversations. Sounds good about emailing. I’ll try and get with you tomorrow probably. I prefer chatting one on one anyway. Less tendencies for me to be a puffed up show off. Sorry if I have come across that way at any time.
I will mention one thing that seems odd about not considering baptism effectual is that it seem to be against the WCF. I know definitions are formulated different between us, but it says the ordinances of the NT are:
held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews
and Gentiles.
Does this not mean that the WFC teaches there is a reality with Christ’s actual work encountered in the NT ordinances by that “sign and seal”?
I guess anybody could answer.
I come out of a more “just symbolic” background myself. Am I wrong about the WFC?
I’ll get with you by email.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Tom, T liberates?
LikeLike
Tom, I asked a question because you never seemed to consider it. So how could I possibly be saying you said something you never thought.
LikeLike
“Anybody can answer?”
Anybody, but the ex prot romanists evidently.
Come on Michael. Get serious.
Transubstantiation? Correction by Scripture? Easy.
“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Lk. 22:20
According to Rome’s literal fundamentalist hermeneutic ala the bread, Christ here can’t be referring to the wine, but to the cup itself. But then evidently cups bleed and we drink the cup itself, not what’s in the cup or from it.
“If baptism is not united to effectual unity with Christ, what is it?”
It is a sign and a seal of that spiritual reality accomplished by faith, but for those that walk by sight, whether the FV or Rome, baptism actually is what it signifies. IOW read WCF 28:5 & 6 particularly. Hint, it does not teach ex opere operato even in Doug Wilson says so.
Any further questions, read Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. He deals with the distinctions between signs/symbols and what they signify/symbolize. It is that elementary.
Priesthood? Read Hebrews. Christ alone is the sinless sacrificer of the order of Melchizedek, as well the sinless and final sacrifice. There are no more sacrifices or sacrificial priests of any order, never mind Aaronic in the Christian economy. The only priests are those who belong to the priesthood of believers, who as a congregation offer the sacrifice of praise, whatever the Romish priests pretend to be doing in front of their altar. IOW the Jews may have been guilty of unbelief, but at least they had the command of God for their ceremonial worship. Rome not a shred.
I know. Nobody likes being lectured at or patronized.
But then you might refrain from it yourself as the by now standard/typical ex prot who assumes Romanism is eminently scriptural, as well as reasonable and historical, but obviously can’t tell us what protestantism actually teaches – again whether you believe it or not.
And it’s that ignorance which renders your advocation of Rome rather hollow/unpersuasive.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Since we are talking of Transubstantiation, let me ask:
If the Wafer of the Eucharist gets eaten by a church mouse, does that mean that God would be inside the mouse? If the Wafer was poisoned, would it kill the mouse?
LikeLike
Michael, on the one hand the WCF says:
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.
But, having said that, the WCF does not describe a sacrament of mere memorialism:
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
LikeLike
Bob S,
I’ll try and get to some of those thoughts this week. I’m no Catholic genius over here, but I’ll do my best.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
MikeM,
I’ve read through those as well, and it seems the WCF is trying to back peddle on some of its claims to me. This balance is actually closer to the Catholic view as I understand. Depending on how you were to take some of the statements. It is not like we got an arm in our mouth, but truly the Body of Christ. Christ’s glorified body does not leave the right of the Father to come into us. We join the glorified perfected body in time and eternity, though within the veil of temporal and physical union in the reception of Christ’s body. It is a marriage of temporal and eternal truths in the same way Christ is the union of the eternal God with the temporal man, Jesus. Totally divine and totally human. There is no separation. Total union, yet having distinction. You could not see a divine God when he walked by, but a man who was discernible by the gift of grace as the divine Son of the Father.
How does the WCF deal with the un-discerner being truly “guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ”?
LikeLike
MikeTX, there are 8 enumerated paragraphs on the Lord’s Supper in the Westminster Confession. Much of the content of those 8 paragraphs is concerned with distinguishing from the RCC position. If you go to opc.org, you can click on the Westminster Confession on the right side then go to Chapter 29.
The WCF actually has a higher view of the church and sacraments than, for example, the baptistic view. It is more then memorial, for Christ is spiritually present, and there is spiritual nourishment and growth for the believer. Then you have to go through the various disclaimers about what that doesn’t mean, such as not meaning the substance or nature of the elements are changed.
The last paragraph of chapter 29 deals with judgment for wrongfully taking the Lord’s Supper.
LikeLike
MikeM,
I’ll read over it again. It has been a few weeks. I did come out of a more Baptist background. In your view how do you reconcile Christ’s being united with a resurrected glorified body in heaven and the reception of Him spiritually not being a union with the spiritual and physically post resurrected reality of Christ?
LikeLike
Michael, from the reformed side we are dealing with real presence, we’re not mere memorialists. But as with many distinctions with RC’s, we’re united to Christ by faith we’re not imbibing in metaphysical ‘matter’. We aren’t dealing with exchanges total or partial between bread and body or wine and blood. Furthermore the charism of the protestant pastor isn’t engaged in the transference. Their is no incantation that makes it so, and continues to remain because consecration has taken place. We feed really but spiritually by faith. The distinction is best seen in that we have no altar, no ciborium, no tabernacle.
LikeLike
“In your view how do you reconcile Christ’s being united with a resurrected glorified body in heaven and the reception of Him spiritually not being a union with the spiritual and physically post resurrected reality of Christ?”
I suggest a clean break with that analytic loop. Instead, think of how are believers blessed by a sermon. They are spiritually blessed when hearing in faith. The Lord’s Supper is a demonstrative, tangible sermon by which we are blessed when receiving and hearing in faith.
LikeLike
Sean,
We feed really but spiritually by faith.
Ok, you feed really on what?
I really am just trying to find the line over there. I when straight from symbolic to true presence. From a remembering to a actuality.
Do you understand why I’m might be having trouble distinguishing the differences?
LikeLike
Michael, I know it’s sincere. BTW, I don’t think you’re a showoff. Michael, both of our camps say more about what it’s NOT then what it is. There’s mystery here. It’s not dissimilar to the Trinity in that way. We know a lot more precisely about what it’s not. Here’s one of the places where I am a Calvinist precisely. IOW, it doesn’t get any better for me than Calvin on the sacraments and also I misued real presence, for our purposes, in my previous comment;
“Calvin avoided the language of “physicality” employed by the Lutherans. Christ’s body and blood were to be “understood in terms of Christ’s act of reconciliation, not in themselves.”[11] Although the believer, through the Supper, possesses a true communion with Christ’s natural body and blood, it is not in terms of substantiality but rather in terms of the spiritual, redemptive benefits inherent in the resurrected and ascended body of Christ. Hence, for Calvin, a local presence is not necessary. The body of Christ remains in heaven. There is no “descent” of Christ to earth. “Flesh must therefore be flesh; spirit, spirit — each thing in the state and condition wherein God created it. But such is the condition of flesh that it must subsist in one definite place, with its own size and form.” [12] The human properties of Christ’s body are not impaired. Moreover the elements of the Supper retain their full, substantial identity as bread and wine.
There is however a descent of the Holy Spirit who constitutes the connection between the risen Christ and the souls of believers. “No extent of space interferes with the boundless energy of the Spirit, which transfuses life into us from the flesh of Christ.”[13] “It is certainly a proof of truly divine and incomprehensible power that how remote so ever He may be from us, He infuses life from the substance of His flesh and blood into our souls so that no distance of place can impede the union of head and members.” [14] The manner in which Christ’s flesh is eaten is spiritual. The Holy Spirit communicates the life-giving benefits of Christ’s natural body to us.
Although, on one hand, Calvin denies the descent of Christ’s body to us (absentia localis), he paradoxically speaks of such a descent by the Holy Spirit as the source of real presence (praesentia realis) in the Supper. Calvin would only allow the word “real” (reali) to be used if it meant that which was not fallacious and imaginary or the opposite of that which was deceptive and illusory. On the whole he preferred the word “true” (vero) to describe Christ’s presence. In normal speech “real” connotes something that is existent, objective, and in the external order. When used with reference to the Supper, “real presence” implies “local presence,” and, of course, this is denied by Calvin. So then, Calvin would allow the phrase praesentia realis only if “real” was used for “true” as is sometimes the case in common or vulgar parlance.[15] As for the mode of “descent” (modum descensus) Calvin maintains that it is the Holy Spirit who descends but not alone. Christ “descends” by His Spirit. But again Calvin employs paradoxical language when he maintains that the manner of descent is that “by which he lifts us up to himself.[16] There is, so to speak, a simultaneous descent and ascent. What is in view, here, is sacramental “proximity” effected by the Spirit upon the ground of the mystical union of Christ and His people.
Calvin maintains that the sacrament’s effect is more than a mere stimulation of the intellect, imagination, and emotions at the sight of the portrayal of the spectacle of the Cross. It is this and more. “In participation in the Supper faith connects itself with something outside of itself and other than a mere idea, and, in so doing, effects in the spiritual realm a real communication between itself and the earthly reality such as that figured in the act of eating the bread.”[17] Calvin distinguishes between eating and believing. Faith or belief receives Christ and the promises, but eating implies more. Eating is the result or consequence of faith. [18] The spiritual transaction which occurs possesses the nature of nourishment or vivication. “…the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing because it is made ours by faith…”[19] Hence, the eating (nourishment) follows from believing (appropriation). Or, in other words, faith is a vessel that receives something from outside — the benefits of Christ’s flesh and blood which nourish the believer and impart to him eternal life.”
LikeLike
To put it another way, MTX, we don’t meditate on the bread and wine. His body was broken for us, his blood was spilled for us; this is our meditation. Taking the elements is an outward manifestation of believing in his gospel and receiving him. We meditate on the gospel / that which is spiritual, not that which is physical. So he spiritually blesses.
LikeLike
No doubt we got a mystery going on here, no matter which camps glasses you are looking with. I do have trouble working through that paragraph though. It often says exactly the Catholic view then turns and says “no” not the Catholic view. It is hard for me to assimilate. But, in essence if I catch it correctly Calvin says by our faith we truly incorporate the effects of true union with Christ, while the Catholic view is true union with the God-man occurs therefore my faith is effectual. Basically?
LikeLike
Michael, not being exhaustive or book length precise, but yeah what you seem to be hitting on here is a denial of ex opere operato from the protestant side. There’s other distinctions as well such as metaphysical/ontological transference or priestly charism.
LikeLike
MikeM,
You and I would be in agreement there. One thought I would stipulate in there though is regarding you saying:
“that which is spiritual, not that which is physical. So he spiritually blesses.”
I wouldn’t be able to separate Christ who is both truly God the Son and consubstantial with the Father for all eternity and totally spiritually and physically man since His birth in Bethlehem. Therefore union spiritually is union physically and vise versa by His choice, by my understand now anyway. Spiritual union looks forward to physical union while physical union discerns true spiritual and physical union with God in Christ.
Help?
LikeLike
MTX, now a question for you. The RCC seems inclined to impute spiritual power to that which is physical. I’m thinking of the eucharist and relics. Can you explain that? Is that your position?
LikeLike
Sean,The priestly charism would be something that would seem more of a Lutheran divide to me. Lutheran real presence language gets real close to Catholic but still denies the need or God’s wish for a priesthood. So I see it in the topic we are on but not necessarily needing to be addressed for understanding what we are saying.
LikeLike
MTX, Christ’s physical body is in a certain location. Mine is in another location. Why must they be merged? And you if you are going to talk about physical merging you have entered the realm of the empirical, so we’ll assume your data will be forthcoming.
LikeLike
MikeM,
If the Holy Communion is true communion with Christ how could it not be effectual. It was the spiritual/physical union of God the Son in Christ with Man that is the effectual president for all redemption. It is the accually incorporation of me with Him, who in His mercy came to save us from our destruction and separation from God both physically and spiritually.
LikeLike
Michael, I don’t know how you divide out priestly charism from transubstantiation. Maybe this is what I was getting at when I see you bouncing between your baptistic background and your now RC affiliation. Particularly when the RC is trading on ex opere operato. Conversion of elements is so pronounced in the understanding that RC has ‘holding vessels’ for the converted material.
LikeLike
No more physical evidence than that of the faith I have in the written Word and the witness of a transforming life in Christ that is by grace willing to die as my Lord did for me. Galations 2:20 “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. The life I live now I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
Not trying to being sharp I promise.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not saying the priesthood and the command of Christ to it is not necessary for my Faith. What I am saying is it is not necessary for the divide between Protestant and Catholic, because Lutherans(Protestants) except essentially a Catholic view while being accepted as not being Catholic but categorically Protestant. So, I don’t see the need in me seeking to understand that part from from a Calvin’s fellas. Understood a little?
LikeLike
Before Adam and Eve sinned they were physically distinct from God. Mankind never lost physical union with God because we never had it. You would have us redeemed to a state we were never in to begin with.
LikeLike