tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post5330344738968612053..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: An array of Reformed tetimony of the ahistorical nature of Sola ScripturaNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76071152406026003182011-04-16T12:49:57.277-07:002011-04-16T12:49:57.277-07:00Hey, I wanted to apologize for my delinquency. I...Hey, I wanted to apologize for my delinquency. I'm heading in to finals and haven't had time to read any of the comments since my last post. Lord willing, I would like to respond before the end of the semester, but certainly after that.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JLJohn Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-20818622997799125052011-04-14T21:11:37.610-07:002011-04-14T21:11:37.610-07:00@ Jim,
Peace to you and thanks.
I'm just di...@ Jim, <br /><br />Peace to you and thanks.<br /><br />I'm just disturbed by the sad reality facing our protestant brethren.<br /><br />They keep on pointing to the Scripture as the final Authority when in fact the very disagreement arose from the Scripture itself. The Book can't decide and pass a judgment of who is right and wrong between disputants.<br /><br />It's like asking the Book of U.S. Constitution to make a judgment on a case. IT IS THE JOB of a the Supreme Court - a Living Organic Authority to interpret and pass judgments and not the book of U.S. Const.<br /><br />You are right, it's SOMEBODY and not SOMETHING who is an Authority.<br /><br />Now the question is WHO? Because everybody's interpretation is just a mere human opinion even how eloquent.<br /><br />This is the only characterestic of the Catholic Church who proclaimed and CLAIMED to have an Apostolic Succession With the Chair of Peter in the helm. Even the orthodox churches who appeal to Sacred Tradition (as rebuttal of the prots) don't even dare to claim this ONE.<br /><br />Ther must ONLY be ONE! One God, One Truth, One Church, One Shepherd.<br /><br />Peace.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-74555067831191491422011-04-14T14:51:36.818-07:002011-04-14T14:51:36.818-07:00@Jae
I believe that Mathison completely misses th...@Jae<br /><br />I believe that Mathison completely misses the pink elephant which sits in the Protestant Church. <br />You pointed out that interpretation is what humans do. But the fact is that Protestantism is built on the belief that an inanimate object infallibly interprets itself. <br /><br />Mathison asks the question "Is there any way to ever resolve the hermeneutical chaos and anarchy that exists within the Protestant church"<br />The simple answer is for the Protestant Church to get a grip on reality. It's the 21st century, so surely people are educated enough to realise that inanimate objects cannot "infallibly" interpret themselves. My 1yr old knows that. Amoeba on Mars would know that. So it should be no surprise to find the Protestant Church in complete disarray. <br /><br />Ps, nice post.Jim Patonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18168804362228185132011-04-14T00:43:36.279-07:002011-04-14T00:43:36.279-07:00@ John Lollard,
Peace of Christ be with you.
I r...@ John Lollard,<br /><br />Peace of Christ be with you.<br /><br />I read your comments which basically boils down to and in the same position as Reformed theologian Dr. Keith Mathison's dilemma as admitted:<br /><br />"Is there any way to ever resolve the hermeneutical chaos and anarchy that exists within the Protestant church largely as a result of its adoption of radical individualism? Most Protestants do not seem to have taken this question seriously enough if they have considered it at all. If we proclaim to the unbelieving world that we have the one true and final revelation from God, why should they listen to us if we cannot agree about what that revelation actually says? Jesus prayed for the disciples that they would be one (John 17:21a). And why did He pray for this unity? He tells us the reason, “that the world may believe that You sent me” (17:21b). The world is supposed to be hearing the Church preach the gospel of Christ, but the world is instead hearing an endless cacophony of conflicting and contradictory assertions by those who claim to be the Church of Christ." <br /><br />Basically "sola scriptura" doctrine in reality and real practice is each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture. Dr. Mathison and the famous side kick of James White Mr. TurrentinFan also admitted that “primacy of conscience” doctrine, where if one christian finds in his conscience that his current church contradicted his own interpretation of the Scripture, he is allowed to leave it- and thus basically maybe setting-up a new church.<br /><br />This is the root cause of the “radical individualism” that Mathison deplores as being the cause of the “chaos and anarchy that exists within the Protestant church.” And yet Mathison affirms the Reformer‘s novelty of the “primacy of conscience!<br /><br />Contradiction? This is a big problem that in reality of things well, even heretics appeal to Scriptures.<br /><br />Further reading between Dr. Mathison (Reformed) and Dr. Cross and Dr. Judisch (catholics) could be found:<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/<br /><br />John, the ultimate problem of making Scripture the authority is that it is of necessity subject to interpretation. INTERPRETATION IS A HUMAN ACT, therefore authority (interpretive authority included) must rest in humans. Now, if everyone is their own authority, nobody can claim authoritative interpretation, because their authority is no higher than anyone else's. But this entails subjectivism, and not a "faith once delivered".<br /><br />You must now seek the ONE characteristic that Jesus ordained to His Church that would settle this problem.<br /><br />Don't appeal to Scripture because this is an appeal to one's interpretation of Scripture beside, the problem and dispute started from the Scripture itself and thus also it can not pass and make a judgment of who got it right and who got it wrong.<br /><br />Seek and you find the Truth.<br /><br />PeaceJaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17756744072240597982011-04-11T10:07:08.276-07:002011-04-11T10:07:08.276-07:00Wow, I've been so busy I've not been able ...Wow, I've been so busy I've not been able to keep up with this. What I've seen through the years is that most Protestants tend to fall onto the slippery slope to total ahistoricism in their attempt to banish all traces of non-Biblical influence on the faith. <br /><br />The biggest error/fallacy I see with John's position is that he's embracing the very same "sola ecclesia" paradigm he accuses Catholics of embracing en route to establish his doctrine of Sola Scriptura. <br /><br />As others have pointed out, it's not approaching the situation correctly to ask the question "Show me a doctrine the Apostles taught that is not found in Scripture" with the IMPRESSION Apostolic teaching can ONLY be found in one or the other source. <br /><br />The typical informed convert from Protestantism to Catholicism can see a stronger case for Real Presence in Scripture than Sola Scriptura in Scripture.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89367598605136586562011-04-11T07:40:39.824-07:002011-04-11T07:40:39.824-07:00@John
(I POSTED 4 COMMENTS AND 1 OR 2 OF THEM HA...@John <br /><br />(I POSTED 4 COMMENTS AND 1 OR 2 OF THEM HAVE GONE AWOL. I WILL WAIT AND SEE IF THEY APPEAR LATER)If they don't show I will re-post. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67312088346163975092011-04-11T07:37:48.827-07:002011-04-11T07:37:48.827-07:00@John
(2)
You wrote: “Are you saying that John&#...@John <br />(2)<br /><br />You wrote: “Are you saying that John's written theology would have been different from his spoken theology?”<br /><br />No not at all, that’s totally Catholic. What it means is that the ONLY way to understand John’s theology is through the spoken and the written, not the written alone. But the real question is – is how is one to know what John taught? The answer is through the bishops of the Church as Ignatius teaches e.g. “It is necessary, therefore, and such is your practise, that you do nothing without the bishop. . . Be subject to the bishop. . . it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop Damas. . . We must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself. . . Let us be careful then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop. . . the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. . . with the bishop presiding in the place of God” <br /><br />It was the bishops who had the correct teachings of the apostles, not anything or anyone else. <br /><br />Now, if you we be so kind, could you show me from John’s Gospel where “these two godly men” would have found in John’s Gospel this description of the bishops? Or did they make this up all by themselves? It’s one or the other.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-82535417769325631392011-04-11T07:34:11.101-07:002011-04-11T07:34:11.101-07:00@John
(4)
You wrote: “I won't argue with J.N...@John <br />(4)<br /><br />You wrote: “I won't argue with J.N.D. Kelly because I am not learned enough. If Ignatius did believe that, did he believe it because John taught this to him? Can you show that John taught this to him? I can show you what John did for sure teach on eucharist.”<br /><br />Ignatius was taught by John and the same John wrote that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, that’s how I know what John taught. Simple! <br />Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch and his letters were sent all over. There isn’t one cry of foul play or heresy coming from anyone, which means that either the Church completely apostatized after John’s death. Or, this was a teaching of John’s. Again, who am I going to listen to? The men who knew him, or YOU? I will give you two guesses.<br /><br />You wrote: “Eucharist is one of the means by which God reveals his grace and sanctification.”<br /><br />So it isn’t faith alone. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that we are saved by faith alone and there be something else other than faith that provides immortality. 1+1=2. It is obvious from this that faith alone isn’t enough. In fact, Ignatius states that obedience to the bishop is needed also: <br />“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.” No faith alone found here. <br /><br />You wrote: “I don't belong to a denomination. And I'm not non-denominational either. I am from a Methodist background and I tend to align with Wesleyan theology. I'm also charismatic and fairly emergent. But my beliefs aren't what are being discussed, and trying to refute what I believe isn't the purpose of this conversation. Rather, it is to discover the oral teachings of the Apostles. Whatever those oral teachings are, I will have to believe them. Let's stick to those”<br /><br />I just wanted to know what your theology was, that’s all. But thanks anyway.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-48264563071440852672011-04-11T07:31:12.731-07:002011-04-11T07:31:12.731-07:00@John
(3)
You wrote: “ Because I'm saying tha...@John<br />(3)<br /><br />You wrote: “ Because I'm saying that whatever John said out loud to these two godly men about the eucharist, it will be coherent and cohesive with what he also taught in writing, which teaching we can go and read.” <br /><br />That would be like saying that if the apostle Jude had taught both men then we should be able to find everything that these men teach should concur with what Jude wrote. You’re assumption makes no sense because Jude preached as well as wrote. So the fact is, that because John’s Gospel doesn’t say that Christ flesh is bread and wine and that it doesn’t give us a description of the bishops as Ignatius gives; we can only conclude that both “these godly men” were in fact nothing more than liars. And you have no basis for calling them godly men if they teach something alien to John’s gospel. But I don’t believe they were liars and so it shows that John’s Gospel isn’t formally sufficient. That took the written and the spoken plus the bishops of the Church who John taught to convey his entire message. <br /><br />You wrote: “ We know what John taught about the eucharist because, again, we have John's writings on the eucharist. We don't know what John taught about thetans, because there exist no writings on thetans from John.”<br /><br />But let’s say for argument sake that the fathers did teach thetans, we have to ask where they got that teaching? If we say that because John doesn’t mention thetans in his Gospel, then according to you we must conclude that this cannot be a teaching of John. But you would first have to prove that everything that John wished to convey to the fathers is expressly set down in writing. But you have no way of knowing that. Therefore you are in no position to dictate dogmatically that belief in thetans isn’t apostolic. So it comes down to this, who am I going to listen to, you or those who were taught by John? That’s what it boils down to.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-87735987564157064982011-04-11T07:20:15.939-07:002011-04-11T07:20:15.939-07:00@John
(2)
You wrote: “Are you saying that John&#...@John <br />(2)<br /><br />You wrote: “Are you saying that John's written theology would have been different from his spoken theology?”<br /><br />No not at all, that’s totally Catholic. What it means is that the ONLY way to understand John’s theology is through the spoken and the written, not the written alone. But the real question is – is how is one to know what John taught? <br />The answer is through the bishops of the Church as Ignatius teaches e.g. “It is necessary, therefore, and such is your practise, that you do nothing without the bishop. . . Be subject to the bishop. . . it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop Damas. . . We must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself. . . Let us be careful then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop. . . the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. . . with the bishop presiding in the place of God” <br /><br />It was the bishops who were in possession of the correct teachings of the apostles, not anything or anyone else. <br />Now, if you we be so kind, could you show me from John’s Gospel where “these two godly men” would have found in John’s Gospel this description of the bishops? Or did they make this up all by themselves? It’s one or the other.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-3180323331288256732011-04-11T07:17:02.265-07:002011-04-11T07:17:02.265-07:00@John
(1)
You wrote: “He said that he was the bre...@John<br />(1)<br /><br />You wrote: “He said that he was the bread that came down from heaven, that whoever ate this bread would live forever, that this bread was his flesh that he was giving this bread for the life of the world. I've noticed Nick's blog has the awesome Bible verse roll-over feature, so look at John 6:51.”<br /><br />I have no problem with John 6 my friend. My problem is that you said Christ said in John 6 that the flesh of Christ is truly bread and truly wine. That’s my problem because Christ doesn’t say that in John’s Gospel which means that for men like Ignatius, John’s gospel wasn’t formally sufficient.<br /><br />You wrote: “As to John teaching Polycarp and Ignatius: it is possible that John taught them something that he did not write down in his writings. So far the only things you have shown me are things that he did write down in his writings, in particular in his gospel.”<br /><br />Two things I would like to point out, first, show me where Christ says that the flesh of Christ is truly bread and truly wine in John’s Gospel? This will show that John didn’t possibly teach them something that he didn’t write. But rather, he did teach them something which he didn’t write down; meaning that you don’t have a leg to stand on. Second, is the role of the bishops (as shown below) This blows your pet theory out of the water.<br /><br />You wrote: “John develops a theology of eucharist in his gospel, Polycarp and Ignatius seem to convey that same theology of the eucharist.”<br /><br />But since John doesn’t say what you said Christ said in his Gospel, then we can only conclude that since it isn’t in there, then Ignatius is either holding to both the written and un-written Gospel and not the written alone. Or, he is a liar. Or, you are wrong.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-42805006640853702972011-04-10T16:21:21.654-07:002011-04-10T16:21:21.654-07:00Hey Jim,
He said that he was the bread that came ...Hey Jim,<br /><br />He said that he was the bread that came down from heaven, that whoever ate this bread would live forever, that this bread was his flesh that he was giving this bread for the life of the world. I've noticed Nick's blog has the awesome Bible verse roll-over feature, so look at John 6:51.<br /><br />As to John teaching Polycarp and Ignatius: it is possible that John taught them something that he did not write down in his writings. So far the only things you have shown me are things that he did write down in his writings, in particular in his gospel. John develops a theology of eucharist in his gospel, Polycarp and Ignatius seem to convey that same theology of the eucharist.<br /><br />Are you saying that John's written theology would have been different from his spoken theology? Because I'm saying that whatever John said out loud to these two godly men about the eucharist, it will be coherent and cohesive with what he also taught in writing, which teaching we can go and read. If John had taught Polycarp about thetans and how to use them to fly, that isn't in John's written theology and so I wouldn't be able to make the comparison I am making now. That isn't explicit or implicit in John's gospel. I wouldn't be able to say "yes, they believed what John taught in the Xth chapter of his gospel" like I can with the teaching that Jesus is the bread of life. Further, whatever Polycarp and Ignatius are intending to say about the eucharist, they are most likely intending to be saying it in a manner coherent with what we know John would have taught them about the eucharist. We know what John taught about the eucharist because, again, we have John's writings on the eucharist. We don't know what John taught about thetans, because there exist no writings on thetans from John.<br /><br />I won't argue with J.N.D. Kelly because I am not learned enough. If Ignatius did believe that, did he believe it because John taught this to him? Can you show that John taught this to him? I can show you what John did for sure teach on eucharist.<br /><br />No, it is not faith plus eucharist that conveys immortality. The body of Christ, the true Bread from heaven, is indeed the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, just as Ignatius says in line with what the Apostle says. We are saved by God's grace (Romans 3:21-26, Ephesians 1:4-8, Ephesians 2:4-10), who calls us to faith and repentance (John 6:37-40, Romans 5:1-2, Galatians 1:6) that we might be justified - that is, the punishment that is owed to us is imputed to Christ - , and having been so justified we receive the gift of the Spirit who sanctifies us and works in us to complete the calling of Christ that we received. Eucharist is one of the means by which God reveals his grace and sanctification.<br /><br />I don't belong to a denomination. And I'm not non-denominational either. I am from a Methodist background and I tend to align with Wesleyan theology. I'm also charismatic and fairly emergent. But my beliefs aren't what are being discussed, and trying to refute what I believe isn't the purpose of this conversation. Rather, it is to discover the oral teachings of the Apostles. Whatever those oral teachings are, I will have to believe them. Let's stick to those.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JLJohn Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-68389700472805609842011-04-10T13:47:15.342-07:002011-04-10T13:47:15.342-07:00@John
(2)
“Mark me if I'm wrong, but every si...@John<br />(2)<br /><br />“Mark me if I'm wrong, but every single Roman Catholic I have ever spoken to has agreed with me on this meaning of John 6.”<br /><br />There is a first for everything :) here’s a tip; Catholics believe that verses 1-47 are symbolic. Verses 48-58 are non-symbolic and verses 59-71 are the reasons for disbelief. <br /><br />“Ignatius says:<br />"...and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."”<br /><br />Tell me John, is it faith plus the Eucharist that conveys immortality? Or is it faith alone? <br /><br />“Looking at Irenaeus, I actually don't see this quote as propounding what you claim it is, but rather using the eucharist as an example of how the eternal is capable of taking on a material form to argue against the gnostics who do not believe that Jesus had a physical body.”<br /><br />They were called Docetists. Ignatius fought against them. Anyway, I was arguing that the Eucharist conveys immortality which you state that Ignatius believes. But now you are arguing that Irenaeus doesn’t. <br />Ok, can you tell me what is meant by Irenaeus when he wrote that: <br /><br />“if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member?"<br /><br />Please explain how Irenaeus can state that the gift of eternal life is given through the Eucharist if the Eucharist doesn’t convey eternal life? <br /><br />Could you please tell me what denomination you belong to? Thanks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-34340586485187932732011-04-10T13:44:32.724-07:002011-04-10T13:44:32.724-07:00@John
(1)
“Does John 6 not state that the flesh o...@John<br />(1)<br /><br />“Does John 6 not state that the flesh of Christ is truly bread and truly wine, and that whoever eats thereof will have eternal life?”<br /><br />Actually no, He didn’t. He said His flesh was really food and that His blood was drink. Not bread and wine. <br /><br />“Did John not teach Ignatius and Polycarp?”<br /><br />Yes! But you are assuming that everything that John had to say to Ignatius and Polycarp is what is explicitly set down in John’s Gospel. That’s complete nonsense and you have no proof of that either. <br />But what I really want you to do is give me the verse from John where our Lord says that His flesh is truly bread and truly wine? <br /><br />This will prove your line of argumentation is fallacious<br /><br />Let me ask this: When Ignatius wrote that “Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar of sacrifice, as there is one bishop and presbyter and my fellow servants the deacons” <br /><br />Patristic scholars such as J.N.D Kelly noted that Ignatius’ reference to “one altar of sacrifice” shows that Ignatius as the entire Church did, believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice. <br />Now can you show me from John’s Gospel were he states that the Eucharist was a sacrifice since it was John who taught Ignatius?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226972073171419506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-2453511147457466002011-04-10T11:22:10.911-07:002011-04-10T11:22:10.911-07:00@Jim,
Does John 6 not state that the flesh of Chr...@Jim,<br /><br />Does John 6 not state that the flesh of Christ is truly bread and truly wine, and that whoever eats thereof will have eternal life? Did John not teach Ignatius and Polycarp?<br /><br />Mark me if I'm wrong, but every single Roman Catholic I have ever spoken to has agreed with me on this meaning of John 6.<br /><br />Ignatius says:<br />"...and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."<br /><br />John in his gospel quotes our Lord as saying:<br />"But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."<br /><br />Looking at Irenaeus, I actually don't see this quote as propounding what you claim it is, but rather using the eucharist as an example of how the eternal is capable of taking on a material form to argue against the gnostics who do not believe that Jesus had a physical body.<br /><br />@scotju<br /><br />Good. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31.John Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45964030429610791942011-04-10T06:52:02.462-07:002011-04-10T06:52:02.462-07:00John, sure I noticed that "Lollard" was ...John, sure I noticed that "Lollard" was a pseudonoum. And I know all about the Lollards. They were followers of the heretic Wychiff, who had some very strange beliefs. For example, they believed God ought to obey the devil. Yes, you are indeed a fool!Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-74959341842053429122011-04-10T01:55:20.883-07:002011-04-10T01:55:20.883-07:00@John
(2)
You wrote: “Thank you for the full Iren...@John<br /><br />(2)<br />You wrote: “Thank you for the full Irenaeus quote. I note that he uses Scripture, which isn't a problem. The problem is that he doesn't use a reference to an oral teaching that he has learned from the Apostles.”<br /><br />Not one of the fathers tells us what apostle told him that the gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew. In fact no one says that ANY apostle (told them) who wrote what book. So using your logic, since they don’t state that this is an oral tradition (and it has to be since NOWHERE in the Gospel of Matthew does it say that it was Matthew) then we can be sure that the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t written by Matthew since no one claims to have received this from the apostles. Give one reference to ANY father stating that this knowledge was passed to them from an apostle. You cannot, and thus proves your line of argumentation fallacious.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-27823968505091099942011-04-10T01:30:55.728-07:002011-04-10T01:30:55.728-07:00@John
(1) Can you show me from Scripture where it ...@John<br />(1) Can you show me from Scripture where it says that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ? <br />(2) If Irenaeus and Ignatius believed the Eucharist to convey eternal life (which you are not arguing because you know they both did) can you show me from Scripture where it teaches that the Eucharist does convey eternal life?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39091139913803379992011-04-09T17:57:30.372-07:002011-04-09T17:57:30.372-07:00scotju,
I don't know if you realize this, but...scotju,<br /><br />I don't know if you realize this, but my name is a pseudonym. I actually chose it with specific reference to the Lollards.<br />http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=lollard&searchmode=none<br />I want to be associated with their "heresy" and their ignorance, and at my judgment I hope to be found among the foolish and uneducated. So thank you for noting as much.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JLJohn Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26540085901397837472011-04-09T17:39:42.946-07:002011-04-09T17:39:42.946-07:00Jim,
You're right. Whether or not the Apostl...Jim,<br /><br />You're right. Whether or not the Apostles taught your beliefs on the eucharist are aside the point in this discussion.<br /><br />Thank you for the full Irenaeus quote. I note that he uses Scripture, which isn't a problem. The problem is that he doesn't use a reference to an oral teaching that he has learned from the Apostles.<br /><br />I don't remember arguing that Ignatius and Irenaeus didn't believe the eucharist to convey eternal life. For all it really matters they believed the eucharist was a flying saucer from outer space. I'm trying to figure out what the Apostles taught. One source of what the Apostles taught is Scripture. You claim that there is a second source - tradition. I'm trying to get you to show me the things that the Apostles taught that are passed down in tradition. You have shown me things that all kinds of people taught, but as of yet not one thing that the Apostles taught - except those things the Apostles taught as recorded in Scripture.<br /><br />The two most likely oral traditions thus far are Justin Martyr's description of the liturgy and Ignatius' description of the Eucharist. Neither of these are what your church teaches (which is aside the point) and both of these are actually found in Scripture, and only Justin Martyr makes claim to having received this tradition from the Apostles (which he almost certainly did).<br /><br />Again, I can do better than this with Irenaeus telling us that the Apostles taught that Jesus lived to be over 50.<br /><br />Trying to argue with me about my (supposed) beliefs isn't going to help you. For one, you don't know my position on the eucharist, and for two, I am not one of the apostles. This conversation is about what the apostles taught and believed.<br /><br />Aside from the things in Scripture that Justin Martyr and Ignatius later affirm, what else did the Apostles teach and believe?<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JLJohn Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-5407801325292516442011-04-09T16:01:00.275-07:002011-04-09T16:01:00.275-07:00Jim, I just knew ol' JL was going to slip and ...Jim, I just knew ol' JL was going to slip and slide around giving a clear answer to or questions. You gave him solid proof about the Eucharist being the food of eternal life as an apostolic tradition and he just hemed and hawed like he usaully does. He can't bring himself to admit, for whatever reason(s) that the Catholic Chrch has the true doctrine on the Eucharist being the food of eternal life. He is indeed a Lollard, a holder of false doctrine in the style of John Wyciff.Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-88994521275893537732011-04-09T14:25:57.145-07:002011-04-09T14:25:57.145-07:00@John
(3)
You wrote: “So yes, the early church ...@John <br />(3) <br /><br />You wrote: “So yes, the early church believed the Gospel of John and the real presence of the eucharist as taught in Scripture. Any of the writers you cite who go further than what is said by Justin, Irenaeus and Ignatius are doing so based on their own fallible philosophy and not on something taught by the Apostles or Scripture, and many of the people in your list are actually deriving their understandings by interpreting Scripture, not by citing Apostolic teachings that had been passed on to them intact.”<br /><br />And your proof for this is? <br /><br />The fact of the matter is that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ which conveys immortality. Read both Ignatius and Irenaeus to see that. You cannot make them say that they didn’t believe the Eucharist didn’t convey immortality because it is clear as the nose on your face that they believed that it did convey immortality.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18143612200773678802011-04-09T14:21:40.553-07:002011-04-09T14:21:40.553-07:00@John
(2)
You wrote: “To my knowledge, St. Iren...@John <br />(2) <br /><br />You wrote: “To my knowledge, St. Irenaeus - having met and learned from Polycarp - is the only other person in your entire list capable of reliably reporting on oral teachings which originate in the Apostles, and Irenaeus' statement really says less than Ignatius'. Irenaeus also doesn't claim to have received this belief from the Apostles, nor that the Apostles ever taught it, a claim that he is not shy to make in his apologetic writings. But I can't find the document you are citing in any form but the snippet you cited, so maybe I am missing most of the picture.”<br /><br />Here is most of the quotation. Keep in mind that Irenaeus uses Scripture as he does in his other apologetics works to prove his case and he does this with the Eucharist conveying immortality e.g. <br />"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." (Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3)<br /><br />The question Irenaeus asks is “how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member?” This was my point, the Eucharist conveys eternal life because as Ignatius says before him, the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-55506554709448383852011-04-09T14:15:17.673-07:002011-04-09T14:15:17.673-07:00@John
(1)
Thanks for your reply.
You wrote: “Fo...@John<br />(1)<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. <br /><br />You wrote: “For the sake of argument, suppose this statement is something that St. John did in fact teach (and it may have been). Notice what this statement is not - it is not the belief that a priest (and the word Ignatius uses is not "priest" by "elder") is capable of pronouncing certain special words on the proper kind of bread and wine that causes it to undergo a change in its substance while maintaining the accidents of bread, transforming in to the true blood, body and divinity of Christ and therefore worthy of the same adoration that we would give to Jesus Himself. Ignatius doesn't make this claim of eucharist, or if he does then it is not in the letter you cited.”<br /><br />This is beside the point. My point was that the Eucharist conveyed immortality. You completely missed the point. Or you are dodging it. It’s one or the other. Anyway, you wrote “Ignatius doesn't make this claim of eucharist, or if he does then it is not in the letter you cited.” <br />Ignatius states clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ: <br />“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." <br /><br />How clear do you need it to be? If the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ then, well, you know the rest.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-7096732119976199692011-04-09T13:42:56.266-07:002011-04-09T13:42:56.266-07:00Jim,
Thank you very much for taking me up on my r...Jim,<br /><br />Thank you very much for taking me up on my request. I do appreciate it.<br /><br />I have absolutely no doubt that St. Ignatius believed exactly what the Apostle wrote down in his gospel,<br />"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."<br />which is exactly what he seems to be saying.<br /><br />Notice, just for the point of clarity, what St. Ignatius is not saying. St. Ignatius is not saying that this is a doctrine that St. John taught him orally and that he has likewise transmitted in oral form. St. Ignatius is not saying that the Apostle ever used these words or taught these words. Not that John didn't say something like this out loud while teaching Ignatius - he certainly did - but the Ignatius makes no claim of relaying Apostolic oral teaching in this statement and might just as well be basing it off of Scriptural teaching.<br /><br />However, given that it agrees with what we know the Apostle taught (his letters and gospels), I think it is reasonable to receive Ignatius' statement "the medicine of immortality" as being indicative of the type of teachings the Apostle would have given Ignatius. Not an actual oral preaching of the Apostle, but an indication of what that oral preaching might have contained.<br /><br />For the sake of argument, suppose this statement is something that St. John did in fact teach (and it may have been). Notice what this statement is not - it is not the belief that a priest (and the word Ignatius uses is not "priest" by "elder") is capable of pronouncing certain special words on the proper kind of bread and wine that causes it to undergo a change in its substance while maintaining the accidents of bread, transforming in to the true blood, body and divinity of Christ and therefore worthy of the same adoration that we would give to Jesus Himself. Ignatius doesn't make this claim of eucharist, or if he does then it is not in the letter you cited.<br /><br />To my knowledge, St. Irenaeus - having met and learned from Polycarp - is the only other person in your entire list capable of reliably reporting on oral teachings which originate in the Apostles, and Irenaeus' statement really says less than Ignatius'. Irenaeus also doesn't claim to have received this belief from the Apostles, nor that the Apostles ever taught it, a claim that he is not shy to make in his apologetic writings. But I can't find the document you are citing in any form but the snippet you cited, so maybe I am missing most of the picture.<br /><br />So yes, the early church believed the Gospel of John and the real presence of the eucharist as taught in Scripture. Any of the writers you cite who go further than what is said by Justin, Irenaeus and Ignatius are doing so based on their own fallible philosophy and not on something taught by the Apostles or Scripture, and many of the people in your list are actually deriving their understandings by interpreting Scripture, not by citing Apostolic teachings that had been passed on to them intact.<br /><br />What you have shown is how the original doctrine of the real presence grew and changed with innovation, philosophy and insertions over the centuries from the Apostolic and Scriptural understanding evidenced from earliest writings to something non-apostolic that would eventually become what Rome teaches today.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to track down all of these sources, and for demonstrating that the Apostles did in fact covey the teachings of Scripture to their students, who did in fact believe them and teach others to do the same.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JLJohn Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.com