Can the Philosophical/Interpretive Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks for explaining about the rules, AMR. I have been enjoying the discussion, but am not sure I can continue it then. After all, the title of my thread is:
"Can the Philosophical/Interpretive Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?"

And as I explained, one of the common reasons that the Reformed give for teaching "symbolism only" is that they disagree with the Roman Catholic view. But this is not a direct proof of the Reformed view, and besides, even if the Catholics are wrong, it doesn't automatically mean the Reformed(symbolism only) are right either, because the Lutherans (inner presence of Christ's body in the food) could be right.

It's also true that to me, the Reformed position is more modern and rationalist than the Catholic or Orthodox interpretations.

If I can't make these comments or ask these questions, I don't know how I can continue what is for me an interesting discussion. I was in the PCUSA from 7 to 17 years old and I generally have a positive view of the PCUSA, but in these kinds of issues I came to think that the Orthodox view better matched the beliefs of the early Christians.
As long as you continue to assert what the Reformed position is, especially when you are patently wrong in so doing, there are those of us within the conservative Reformed tradition (which is not the PC(USA) position) that are going to take exception. I get that you are winsomely just asking for clarifications, but the underlying rhetoric that implies how rationalistic or modern, or logical, not aligned with Scripture, etc., we Reformed are is not being lost on the discerning. Your behavior needlessly provokes divisiveness within the community of Presbyterians participating or viewing this discussion. After all, we are all unprofitable servants, and often given over to sin borne of inflamed passions about that which we hold dear. I prefer we avoid the near occasion of sin wherever possible. Your approach is making that problematic. Those of us within conservative Presbyterianism (see NAPARC) are being tempted by your methods to weigh in, said responses will, unfortunately at times, be at the expense of the views of mainline PC(USA) denomination. I would prefer to keep the peace within Presbyterianism where possible.

Our confessions explain what we hold to be accurate summaries of the teachings of Scripture on this topic and many more. In another thread I pointed you to them as relates to the OP. If you have a question about the specifics of these confessional summaries of Scripture, then ask and you will be answered. If you want to weigh in on the veracity of these confessional summaries, seeking "proof" beyond what they offer perspicuously therein, I am afraid that just will not do. You rhetorical tactics are quite close if not already brinking herein. I have asked you as politely as I am able to not practice these methods. There are plenty of CF forums wherein you are free per the rules to take Reformed views to task and, if we are so moved, we will respond. This particular forum is not the place for the methods you are using.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As long as you continue to assert what the Reformed position is, especially when you are patently wrong in so doing, there are those of us within the conservative Reformed tradition (which is not the PC(USA) position) that are going to take exception. I get that you are winsomely just asking for clarifications, but the underlying rhetoric that implies how rationalistic or modern, or logical, not aligned with Scripture, etc., we Reformed are is not being lost on the discerning. Your behavior needlessly provokes divisiveness within the community of Presbyterians participating or viewing this discussion. After all, we are all unprofitable servants, and often given over to sin borne of inflamed passions about that which we hold dear. I prefer we avoid the near occasion of sin wherever possible. Your approach is making that problematic. Those of us within conservative Presbyterianism (see NAPARC) are being tempted by your methods to weigh in, said responses will, unfortunately at times, be at the expense of the views of mainline PC(USA) denomination. I would prefer to keep the peace within Presbyterianism where possible.

Our confessions explain what we hold to be accurate summaries of the teachings of Scripture on this topic and many more. In another thread I pointed you to them as relates to the OP. If you have a question about the specifics of these confessional summaries of Scripture, then ask and you will be answered. If you want to weigh in on the veracity of these confessional summaries, seeking "proof" beyond what they offer perspicuously therein, I am afraid that just will not do. You rhetorical tactics are quite close if not already brinking herein. I have asked you as politely as I am able to not practice these methods. There are plenty of CF forums wherein you are free per the rules to take Reformed views to task and, if we are so moved, we will respond. This particular forum is not the place for the methods you are using.
Sure, I understand. In case you didn't agree with my understanding of the Reformed tradition, eg. my quoting from Schaeff, it's OK, and you and Hedrick can correct me. Let's move on to the Second Question, please. I think that if we just keep the discussion moving it won't get bogged down into "back and forth" where I end up debating you on the same question repeatedly.

Take care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
My concern about the discussion of communion is that you keep coming back to various versions of "only a symbol," when Reformed (even traditional ones) specifically reject that.

This is from a treatise on communion by Calvin:

"We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings. For seeing we have him, all the riches of God which are comprehended in him are exhibited to us, in order that they may be ours. Thus, as a brief definition of this utility of the Supper, we may say, that Jesus Christ is there offered to us in order that we may possess him, and in him all the fulness of grace which we can desire, and that herein we have a good aid to confirm our consciences in the faith which we ought to have in him."

It seems to me that by saying that as the bread is distributed Christ's body is communicated to us is going may beyond "symbolism only." The document I took this from is http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html. Note that approach there. He is trying to be undogmatic. He criticizes Zwingli and Luther both for not communicating well, and thus giving the impression of more disagreement than actually exists.

Staff (or your citation of him) has used the quotation about being raised to heaven with Christ as if it denied his presence in the sacrament. I think this is taking it out of context. The text is from an agreement between Zurich and Geneva. (https://books.google.com/books?id=HsBKAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA240&lpg=RA1-PA240&dq=raises+us+to+heaven+to+himself,+transfusing+into+us+the+vivifying+vigour+of+his+flesh&source=bl&ots=8bqPdoh0Nf&sig=v7K7MrFONEY4ULfX-mbUntWxjVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj55NuYhtDKAhUG6SYKHXWfBnIQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=raises us to heaven to himself, transfusing into us the vivifying vigour of his flesh&f=false) It is a paragraph talking specifically about the Lutheran view, in which Calvin says that he thinks they substantially agree.

He says, “Christ then is absent from us in respect of his body, but dwelling in us by his Spirit he raises us to heaven to himself, transfusing into us the vivifying vigor of his flesh… But a sense of piety clearly dictates that he infuses life into us from his flesh, in no other way than by descending into us by his energy.”

So even though his body is physically present only in heaven, he is still present in the sacrament. Furthermore, he asserts that in his opinion this is equivalent to the Lutheran position. Take a look at the text yourself to see why. It is not just the modernist PCUSA who think the disagreement between Reformed and Lutheran has been overblown. It's Calvin himself.




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
This is from a treatise on communion by Calvin:

"We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs;
The "internal substance of the" ritual could be the believer's union with Christ. And that goes together with the visible signs.
But what is the exact nature of this "conjoining"? Does it mean 1. that something like a "substance" of Christ's spirit is "in"/under the bread? (Consubstantiation?)
Or is this like saying 2. that the inner substance of some activity is conjoined to the tools used in an activity? We use such analogous expressions in real life, but we would not say that the performer's own substance or "spirit" is present inside that tool. In a way, the substance of playing golf joins to the golf clubs that we use, but our own essence is not inside the golf clubs.

So for me, unfortunately it is not clear from this passage which is meant. But I can agree with you when you say more generally "It seems to me that by saying that as the bread is distributed Christ's body is communicated to us is going may beyond "symbolism only." Naturally, Calvin believed that Christ's body was communicated to the believer during the ritual, which involved the use of bread.

In any case, I'll move on to the second main question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.