question for evangelical Protestants..

[Anoetos]

So then, Josiah, it is your position that, since the Bible does not define the real presence, the Church is wrong to have done so?

 

[Albion]

No, because I do not see that the OP or the quotes from the ECF's marshalled to substantiate the position the OP asks about either mention or imply that particular view.

Very well. The answer to your question in that case I think has to be this:

The majority of Evangelical Protestants DO accept the Real Presence. The OP was mistaken in its apparent assumption that they do not. Some, of course, do not, and they are not susceptible to an argument based upon what any mortal might have pondered or speculated in the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth centuries (the ECFs) since they place their trust soley in the Word of God.

 

[DeaconDean]

My last post here.

In the OP's subsequent posts, in support of her first post she said:

From St Cyril of Jerusalem

Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ.

Post #2

St Justin Martyr

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

Post #3

And:

Ignatius of Antioch



"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus



"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).

Post #4

Post #5, 6, and 7 go on to support that there is a real presence in the elements.

The discussion is about the elements and not the service itself.

I believe that Jesus is as much in the church when we get there as He is in our lives.

However, the elements of communion, as for the bread actually being His body, and the wine being His blood, as is it being literally the body and blood of Christ, I reject as it goes against scriptural teachings as it is a sin in OT law to partake of blood, and it is a sin in the NT to partake of blood.

That is why I reject "Real Presence" in the elements.

And that is another reason why I do not post in GT any more.

I addressed the OP's statements and get attacked for it.

So I'll repeat this for those who may have missed it:

My presence here can only serve to disrupt the peace and harmony here, therefore, let me say that whatever your beliefs are on this matter, they are yours, and evidently you have been blessed by them. The same applies to me. AS to the real presence in the bread and wine, no I personally do not believe it as it goes against scriptural teachings. However, if that is your beliefs, God bless you, and I sincerely mean that. They just are not mine.

I shall bow out gracefully.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Anoetos]

Very well. The answer to your question in that case I think has to be this:

The majority of Evangelical Protestants DO accept the Real Presence. The OP was mistaken in its apparent assumption that they do not. Some, of course, do not, and they are not susceptible to an argument based upon what any mortal might have pondered or speculated in the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth centuries (the ECFs) since they place their trust soley in the Word of God.

Then it may be that the question was asked not for Lutherans, some Anglicans and even Presbyterians but rather for the common run of Evangelicals who are, effectively, Zwinglian in their view.

 

[Albion]

And how much of the entire Protestant theological outlook represents a (perhaps self-consciously unconscious) outworking of traditional theological themes and loci according to Nominalist understandings common among educated Northern Europeans in the 16th century?

Probably no more than the entire Roman Catholic theological outlook represents a (perhaps self-consciously unconscious) outworking of traditional theological themes and loci according to Realist understandings common among educated Southern Europeans in the 13th century?

And now, back to the topic of the thread...

 

[Anoetos]

Probably no more than the entire Roman Catholic theological outlook represents a (perhaps self-consciously unconscious) outworking of traditional theological themes and loci according to Realist understandings common among educated Southern Europeans in the 13th century?

And now, back to the topic of the thread...

Agreed and a great point but the assumption seems to be that in the case of Roman Catholics such use of philosophical matrices to understand things is wrong.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So then, it is your position that, since the Bible does not define the real presence, the Church is wrong to have done so?

No, that's the position of the Catholic opening poster. It was HE who implied that it's WRONG to hold a doctrine never taught by the RCC's own "fathers." Well, it's true, some Evangelical Protestants' doctrine of the Eucharist was not tuaght by the RCC's own "fathers." But then the RCC's dogma wasn't either. THUS, the opening poster is rebuking the RCC's dogma equally with the Evangelical Protestants. He's pointing one finger at some Protestants and not noticing he's pointing 3 back at this own denomination.

But then I don't accept his premise. IMHO, a denomination's own "fathers" is not the norma normans for theology (whether such be the RCC or LDS or WELS "fathers") - but that's another discussion for another day and thread, we cannot hijack this one with that discussion. I accepted his premise for the sake of the discussion he desired: I simply pointed out the OBVIOUS - he is rebuking the RCC right along with the "Evangelical Protestants." I don't know if he realizes that, but I think all the rest of us do.




.



.

 

[boswd]

Then I may have misunderstood it. It did seem from the original tenor of the conversation, which the author of the OP was guiding that this was the intent.




No, because I do not see that the OP or the quotes from the ECF's marshalled to substantiate the position the OP asks about either mention or imply that particular view. The first mention of "Transubstantiation" appears to have arrived with Josiah's turgid defense of the Lutheran perspective as "something other and yet what more capable of reconciling what the ECF's meant with Scripture" and this despite an attempt by Catholics to present Transubstantiation as a later attempt to cast the belief in philosophical terminology.

I would just let it go with CJ, the OP is just referring to the Real Presence in the Eucharist and because he believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist he finds himself at a crossroads because "for shame" to be siding with Catholics on this issue, so how can he have his cake and eat it too? Hijack the thread and make it about Transub. Which I get a kick out of it. especially when all Transub says that though the properties of the bread and wine taste like bread and wine they are become Christ's Blood and Body. and the Catholic Church always has maintained that the "How" is a Mystery of God.
But you see he can not for one minute find himself on the same side as the Catholics though he agrees in principle on the Real Presence of the Eucharist sooooooooooo Hijack away!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Albion]

Then it may be that the question was asked not for Lutherans, some Anglicans and even Presbyterians but rather for the common run of Evangelicals who are, effectively, Zwinglian in their view.

So you are saying that the OP inquires into the minority of evangelical Protestants which do not accept the Real Presence. Well, was there something wrong with my answer to that? They do not agree that the early Church did believe what the OP theorizes that it did.

 

[Albion]

Agreed and a great point but the assumption seems to be that in the case of Roman Catholics such use of philosophical matrices to understand things is wrong.

But the OP begins by assuming that there is something wrong with Protestants for not being guided by the Catholic matrices, as though they ought to recognize that they are flauting the authority that any Christian has to accept. It wasn't the other way around.

 

[boswd]

So you are saying that the OP inquires into the minority of evangelical Protestants which do not accept the Real Presence. Well, was there something wrong with my answer to that? They do not agree that the early Church did believe what the OP theorizes that it did.

or they don't believe in any form of real presence at all. To most Christian faiths that have been classified as Evangelical Church's it is only just a symbolic act.

The Protestant Christians that I know of that except the Real Presence in one shape or form that I now of are

UMC
Anglican's
Lutherans
Presb.? (not sure on that one)

please add if you know anymore

 

[Anoetos]

No, that's the position of the Catholic opening poster. It was HE who implied that it's WRONG to hold a doctrine never taught by the RCC's own "fathers." Well, it's true, some Evangelical Protestants' doctrine of the Eucharist was not tuaght by the RCC's own "fathers." But then the RCC's dogma wasn't either. THUS, the opening poster is rebuking the RCC's dogma equally with the Evangelical Protestants. He's pointing one finger at some Protestants and not noticing he's pointing 3 back at this own denomination.

Not exactly. He is saying that the ECF's believed in a Real and not a symbolic, spiritual or representative Presence in the Lord's Supper.

You know that his view is actually Transubstantiation so you've presupposed an intent where none has been stated.

So you have hi-jacked the thread to go all Lutheran on us.

But then I don't accept his premise. IMHO, a denomination's own "fathers" is not the norma normans for theology (whether such be the RCC or LDS or WELS "fathers") - but that's another discussion for another day and thread, we cannot hijack this one with that discussion. I accepted his premise for the sake of the discussion he desired: I simply pointed out the OBVIOUS - he is rebuking the RCC right along with the "Evangelical Protestants." I don't know if he realizes that, but I think all the rest of us do.

All that is being done here is asking whether they were wrong or mistaken.

You appear to be advancing the discussion beyond its original intent into a field you are interested in arguing about.

I will try to nutshell it for you:

1. The ECF's appear to have been unanimous in their belief in a (to quote myself) "Real and not a symbolic, spiritual or representative Presence in the Lord's Supper".

2. Were they wrong?

I'll invite the author of the OP to correct me if I am wrong about this.

 

[Anoetos]

But the OP begins by assuming that there is something wrong with Protestants for not being guided by the Catholic matrices, as though they ought to recognize that they are flauting the authority that any Christian has to accept. It wasn't the other way around.

I disagree. All the OP "assumes" is that the ECF's should form something of a common matrix.

ETA: But I must say that I appreciate and admire your ability to think analogically.

 

[Albion]

Post #4

Post #5, 6, and 7 go on to support that there is a real presence in the elements.

The discussion is about the elements and not the service itself.

You're right about that, DD, but I don't see the problem. The sacrament is celebrated and administered only within the service, so it is virutally impossible to speak of the one without the other.

I believe that Jesus is as much in the church when we get there as He is in our lives.

I agree. This, however, says nothing about the Lord's Supper.

However, the elements of communion, as for the bread actually being His body, and the wine being His blood, as is it being literally the body and blood of Christ, I reject as it goes against scriptural teachings as it is a sin in OT law to partake of blood, and it is a sin in the NT to partake of blood.

Well, that's a valid POV held by some of Protestants, and worth stating for the benefit of the thread, as you done here.

That is why I reject "Real Presence" in the elements.

Thanks.

 

[Albion]

or they don't believe in any form of real presence at all.

That's right. But the point of the OP was that they should have--on the say-so of the ECFs (as explained in the follow-up). My response was that this was asking them to feel conflicted because of an authority that they do not consider to be a vaid authority.

To most Christian faiths that have been classified as Evangelical Church's it is only just a symbolic act.

I hoped to set that possible misunderstanding to rest. Most Evangelical Protestants belong to churches which officially accept the Real Presence. When you speak of "Christian faiths" instead, there's no specificity to the claim and can mean any number of things.

The Protestant Christians that I know of that except the Real Presence in one shape or form that I now of are

UMC
Anglican's
Lutherans
Presb.? (not sure on that one)

please add if you know anymore

Well, there are some more, but you've covered the bases pretty well. The upshot of it...? That's a clear majority of all Evangelical Protestants (unless a person means "charismatic" or some Rick Warren kind of preaching when the word "evangelical" is used--which doesn't seem to be the OP's intention).

 

[Anoetos]

That's right. But the point of the OP was that they should have--on the say-so of the ECFs. My response was that this was asking them to feel conflicted because of an authority that they do not consider to be a vaid authority.

I can't be too critical of you for this because you appear to be doing something I often do and which, I think, a lot of people do:

You seem to be assuming a motive or intent on the part of the author of the OP.

Now, I cannot deny that it is very likely that he believes that the ECF's were right and that everyone else should too, but none of this comes out in the question he asks which is simply whether those Christians who disbelieve in the Real Presence believe that the ECF's (who clearly did believe in it) were wrong.

It might be best to allow him to do the follow up and argument advancement.

 

[boswd]

That's right. But the point of the OP was that they should have--on the say-so of the ECFs (as explained in the follow-up). My response was that this was asking them to feel conflicted because of an authority that they do not consider to be a vaid authority.


I hoped to set that possible misunderstanding to rest. Most Evangelical Protestants belong to churches which officially accept the Real Presence. When you speak of "Christian faiths" instead, there's no specificity to the claim and can mean any number of things.



Well, there are some more, but you've covered the bases pretty well. The upshot of it...? That's a clear majority of all Evangelical Protestants (unless a person means "charismatic" or some Rick Warren kind of preaching when the word "evangelical" is used--which doesn't seem to be the OP's intention).

yeah I find the term Evangelical Christian to be something of a hijacked term. That is like saying that the only Christians who Evangelize are the Baptist's, the Pentacostals etc. So the UMC, Lutherans, Anglican's, RCC, EO's Christians don't spread the word of Christ or have missionaries world wide?

But that would be really hijacking this thread and vearing Way off topic

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

All that is being done here is asking whether they were wrong or mistaken.

The premise is that it's wrong to not be in agreement with the RCC's own "fathers."

I agree, some Evangelical Protestants hold to a doctrine of the Eucharist that was NOT taught by your denomination's own "fathers." But then your dogma wasn't either. So, if they are wrong to teach a view the RCC's "fathers" didn't teach, well.....





.

 

[Albion]

yeah I find the term Evangelical Christian to be something of a hijacked term. That is like saying that the only Christians who Evangelize are the Baptist's, the Pentacostals etc. So the UMC, Lutherans, Anglican's, RCC, EO's Christians don't spread the word of Christ or have missionaries world wide?

A good point. However, the term means Gospel-centered more than it relates to evangelism. But since that's the case, who can say who is Gospel-centered and who is not? Obviously, everyone is going to think his own POV is Gospel-based while the next guy's faith, being different in some ways, is suspect. No wonder the word has lost its meaning. And...it's a nice word. Who wouldn't want to be called "evangelical?"

 

[Anoetos]

The premise is that it's wrong to not be in agreement with the RCC's own "fathers."

If there is an assumption here it is that the ECF's form a common heritage to all Christians, or that they at least should do so.

I do not at all see that there is any necessary polemical intent in the question. It seems very simple:

The ECF's believed in the Real Presence, were they mistaken?

I agree, some Evangelical Protestants hold to a doctrine of the Eucharist that was NOT taught by your denomination's own "fathers." But then your dogma wasn't either. So, if they are wrong to teach a view the RCC's "fathers" didn't teach, well.....

Well, that's a sticky one.

It is certainly true that the ECF's did not explicitly teach Transubstantiation, but it is also true that Transubstantiation in no way militates against or obscures or denies what they did actually believe, teach and confess.

It represents an attempt to put into the philosophical language of the day (a later day admittedly) what happened in the Eucharist.

In precisely the same way that Lutherans make use of Nominalist casting to describe it as a Sacramental Union, in, with and under the elements of bread and wine.

The argument, from our perspective, then becomes one of who has the right and duty to make these definitions.