Do you agree with the traditional doctrine of original sin?

Teofrastus said:

What theological justification distinguishes the adoration of the reserved sacrament from idolatry?

Click to expand...

Back to the old tactic of name-calling. Catholics believe John 6, like the rest of the Bible, is God breathed--“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” The words of Jesus, do require deep faith to believe. Many disciples walked away, had they misunderstood Jesus would have corrected them.

The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr, circa A.D. 155-157)
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

Teofrastus said:

No, this passage explains why Jesus cannot physically "enter" the bread—which the author incorrectly assumes is the Lutheran position. The author attempts to refute the Lutheran view by appealing to spatial and temporal limitations:

It is clear that Christ does not begin to be present in the Eucharist through local motion, and this is for several reasons. First, if that were true, His Body would cease to be present in heaven, which is false. Second, His Body would have to pass through all the intervening places to get there, which would require some time. However, after the consecration of the Eucharist, we do not have to wait for Christ's Body to arrive from heaven. Third, His Body could become present only in one place at a time, and thus He could not be present simultaneously in all the consecrated hosts throughout the world. The reason for this is that it seems contradictory for one and the same body to be in several entirely distinct places at the same time while still remaining one undivided body. (p. 312)​

The Church Fathers held a participatory understanding of the Eucharist—that is, they believed the elements participate in the transcendent reality of Christ's body, and through this participation acquire their sacramental being in the material realm. Christ's body belongs to a higher, more perfect reality that transcends earthly existence, including its manifestation in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, within the material realm, the Eucharistic presence is as real as anything can be.

Modern Catholic Eucharistic theology has significantly departed from traditional teaching. It now treats being univocally—that is, it assumes Christ's heavenly body exists in the same mode as earthly things. This shift is evident in Feingold's reasoning, which relies on purely physical and spatial categories to analyze the Real Presence.

What theological justification distinguishes the adoration of the reserved sacrament from idolatry?

Click to expand...

Maybe you could give an example of a participatory understanding stated by the early fathers. Also, how would adoration be idolatry if Christ is really present? I tend to think Luther was only attempting to appease rationalism, somewhat ironically perhaps, regarding the Eucharist, anyway- and that really only amounted to speculation. Not worth dividing over on that point IMO. And the EO consider the consecrated host to continue to be sacred, BTW.

Valletta said:

Back to the old tactic of name-calling. Catholics believe John 6, like the rest of the Bible, is God breathed--“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” The words of Jesus, do require deep faith to believe. Many disciples walked away, had they misunderstood Jesus would have corrected them.

The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr, circa A.D. 155-157)
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Click to expand...

When Justin writes "...from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished," he is not referring to transubstantiation. The Greek phrase "kata metabolēn" (which T. B. Falls translates as "assimilation" in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 6, 1948) simply describes the natural process of metabolizing bread. Theologians have long puzzled over Justin's meaning here—after all, how can one metabolize the body of God? Some modern scholars, including Kilmartin, suggest that Justin's writing represents an early stage of Eucharistic theology, before the development of more sophisticated metaphysical frameworks in later centuries, and that he had not yet fully worked through the philosophical implications of his position.

I have not engaged in name-calling. I simply posed the question: "What theological justification distinguishes the adoration of the reserved sacrament from idolatry?" This is a legitimate theological inquiry, given that idolatry is traditionally defined as identifying a material object as God. Therefore, how does Eucharistic adoration avoid this definition?

How can we understand "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:55)? Christ's human flesh and blood is always united to his divine person. While Christ's flesh and blood are truly human, their union with his divine person means they are not "ordinary" human flesh and blood. This hypostatic union gives Christ's human nature unique properties and dignity, without changing its essential humanity.

This is why the Church Fathers often spoke of Christ's flesh as "life-giving"—not because it ceased to be human flesh, but because it is the flesh of the divine Person. This same principle applies to how we understand the Eucharist—it is truly Christ's human flesh and blood, but because these are personally united to the divine Word, they communicate divine life. The flesh remains human flesh while being far from "ordinary" due to its personal union with divinity.

Thus, what we receive in the Eucharist is Christ's resurrection body. When Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection body as a "spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44), he's describing a human body that has been transformed by divine life. The risen Christ retains his human nature but in a glorified state.

This understanding helps address the question of how we can receive Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. What we receive is not simply his historical flesh as it existed before the resurrection, but his glorified humanity. This glorified body, while remaining truly human, possesses new properties and capabilities as seen in the resurrection appearances—passing through walls, appearing and disappearing, etc.

This view was developed by several Church Fathers who saw the Eucharist as communicating the life-giving properties of Christ's resurrection body. It helps explain how Christ's body can be received sacramentally without being consumed in a crude physical sense.

fhansen said:

Maybe you could give an example of a participatory understanding stated by the early fathers. Also, how would adoration be idolatry if Christ is really present? I tend to think Luther was only attempting to appease rationalism, somewhat ironically perhaps, regarding the Eucharist, anyway- and that really only amounted to speculation. Not worth dividing over on that point IMO. And the EO consider the consecrated host to continue to be sacred, BTW.

Click to expand...

Augustine did not use the term transubstantiation because ancient understanding did not sharply divide symbol from reality. In his framework, symbols functioned as sacraments, where the sacramental sign (sacramentum) participated in the reality (res) it signified. This sacramental understanding makes transubstantiation conceptually unnecessary.

Paul's use of koinonia (participation) in 1 Corinthians 10:16 NIV supports this view. The relationship between the bread and Christ's body is therefore better understood as mutual participation rather than transubstantiation. Catholic Eucharistic theology appears to diverge from Paul's understanding of participation.

The theological debate over Eucharistic adoration centers on the question of idolatry. Catholic tradition defends the practice by distinguishing between worshipping the elements themselves and worshipping Christ present through them. However, this distinction becomes problematic when considered alongside Catholic metaphysical claims about the identity of being between the elements and Christ's presence.

Reformed theology, particularly Calvin, rejects Eucharistic adoration as "bread-worship" (artolatria), arguing that it misdirects worship towards created elements rather than God directly (Institutes IV.17).

BelieveItOarKnot said:

The sinless seat had only a One Person Reservation. None of the balance of us have that very important distinction. Zero, zilch, nada one.

Click to expand...

fhansen:
Agreed

Click to expand...

How then are infants made sinless at baptism? Just askin

fhansen said:

Paul resolved it here:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

But there's still a bit of a conundrum. If righteousness is required, and other passages suggest this even more strongly, does that mean that perfect sinlessness is required, at least in this life? And the answer, as we agreed, is no,

Click to expand...

IF we understand that we are all to some certain extents, fought against "internally" by our adversary, the tempter, we really have to factor that matter into all of our equations, don't you think? Any efforts to just completely cover ourselves with whatever good things of God should be equally offset with the other side of the equation, God working against the evil we bear in ourselves that is a direct cause of the presence of our adversary.

In other words, all scripture is a zero sum game to everyone. It's FOR and behalf of all people and AGAINST all devils simultaneously.

The bread we eat at communion is therefore FOR us and AGAINST our adversary, as an easy example.

fhansen said:

even as it should also be understood that man was never created to sin to begin with, as a sidenote.

Click to expand...

Satan was made to sin in mankind and to eventually terminate the flesh of all of us, as Paul delineated in 1 Cor. 15:42-46 and other places. This present flesh was never made to be our permanent habitation. There if first the natural body and the natural man, and then, afterwards, the spiritual. This is a binding principle of God.

We all too often just try to make it into a one sided story. And that never works out.

fhansen said:

But we're here to learn for ourselves, to directly experience, something of the nature of good and evil- and this world is a perfect teacher for this as it contains gobs of both-and to decide between the two.

Click to expand...

Deciding between life and death, good and evil, never eliminates either side of the equation.

Paul landed on this exact fact when saying when he did do good he understood that evil was still present with him. Romans 7:21

BelieveItOarKnot said:

How then are infants made sinless at baptism? Just askin

Click to expand...

We're all made sinless at rebirth: forgiven, sins taken away, we're washed, cleansed, made new creations. You had responded to my objection to the idea that justification consists solely in God forgiving all sins past, present, and future carte blanc simply because one believes, as if sin no longer matters, or that He causes us to refrain from sin such that we can no longer sin after justification, here:

fhansen said:

God didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Duh, I guess these people aren’t ever going to become who I created them to be, so I’ll give up on that one now. I’ll just forgive them and let satan win the day with sin, or maybe I’ll change them into puppets who can’t sin anymore.

Click to expand...

BelieveItOarKnot said:

IF we understand that we are all to some certain extents, fought against "internally" by our adversary, the tempter, we really have to factor that matter into all of our equations, don't you think? Any efforts to just completely cover ourselves with whatever good things of God should be equally offset with the other side of the equation, God working against the evil we bear in ourselves that is a direct cause of the presence of our adversary.

Click to expand...

We don't want to give satan complete credit because his job is often made easy by the fact that we play a role as well, as: "each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed", as James put it in his first chapter. But here's how a teaching I'm familiar with addresses this matter-I may've already quoted it:

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man's life a battle:
"The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity."303

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Satan was made to sin in mankind and to eventually terminate the flesh of all of us, as Paul delineated in 1 Cor. 15:42-46 and other places. This present flesh was never made to be our permanent habitation. There if first the natural body and the natural man, and then, afterwards, the spiritual. This is a binding principle of God.

We all too often just try to make it into a one sided story. And that never works out.

Click to expand...

I'll just repeat that man was never created to sin to begin with. And add that God, foreknowing that man would sin, deemed it wise and good to create this world anyway, as He planned to ultimately bring an even greater good out of the evil that resulted. That is a well understood princicple. And God, by nature, is opposed to sin/evil in any case.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Paul landed on this exact fact when saying when he did do good he understood that evil was still present with him. Romans 7:21

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why he needed grace, he needed Christ (Rom 7:25), 'apart from whom we can do nothing' (John 15:5), to turn the tide, to finally give him the power to embark on that path to perfection, to deliverance from slavery to the sin (Rom 6) that would otherwise condemn us (Rom 8:1) as we're now in union with God the Trinity, led by the Spirit (Rom 8). It's the path to the perfection/holiness/wholeness that we were created for and that only the Vine, alone, can supply-and that we're sick, lost, unjust, and ultimately unhappy without. Like prodigals, we all need to come back out of the pigsty and head home. Our Father calls.

Teofrastus said:

Augustine did not use the term transubstantiation because ancient understanding did not sharply divide symbol from reality. In his framework, symbols functioned as sacraments, where the sacramental sign (sacramentum) participated in the reality (res) it signified. This sacramental understanding makes transubstantiation conceptually unnecessary.

Paul's use of koinonia (participation) in 1 Corinthians 10:16 NIV supports this view. The relationship between the bread and Christ's body is therefore better understood as mutual participation rather than transubstantiation. Catholic Eucharistic theology appears to diverge from Paul's understanding of participation.

The theological debate over Eucharistic adoration centers on the question of idolatry. Catholic tradition defends the practice by distinguishing between worshipping the elements themselves and worshipping Christ present through them. However, this distinction becomes problematic when considered alongside Catholic metaphysical claims about the identity of being between the elements and Christ's presence.

Reformed theology, particularly Calvin, rejects Eucharistic adoration as "bread-worship" (artolatria), arguing that it misdirects worship towards created elements rather than God directly (Institutes IV.17).

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 10:16 is about our participation in the body and blood, and "participate" spells out man's whole relationship with God quite well, the relationship that we were made for, that we enter into via faith, that is nurtured with the Eucharist and which we return to by metanoia, repentance, and confession if and as necessary.

Either way: "This is My body". The ancient churches understood this to mean that what we see is not what we get and that concept, worded slightly differently in the east as "trans-elemental", predates the popularity of Aristotelian Philosophy among theologians in the west. Likewise, the term "transubstantiation" predates Aquinas and is a Latin-derived term, not Greek, incidentally

fhansen said:

We're all made sinless at rebirth: forgiven, sins taken away, we're washed, cleansed, made new creations. You had responded to my objection to the idea that justification consists solely in God forgiving all sins past, present, and future carte blanc simply because one believes, as if sin no longer matters, or that He causes us to refrain from sin such that we can no longer sin after justification, here:

Click to expand...

I would have swore we just agreed a post ago that no one is sinless. Have you changed your mind?

Not having sins counted against us (BUT having them count against the devil) didn't make anyone sinless.

Recall, only One Man, Jesus, was sinless, period. Anyone else claiming that seat is merely a poser and not a very honest one at that.

I'd suggest suggest trying to play it both ways remains problematic. The RCC may think that their baptismal ceremony makes sinless babies but that position is never shown in scripture.

The Seat of sinlessness was reserved for only One human.

To the OP - no, I don't agree with 'original sin' as is commonly taught. Rom 5 teaches that 'death passed to all men' becasue of Adam's sin, not 'sin passed to all men'. To me, scripture is clear that each bears the brunt and weight of his/her own sin. The reason we all sinned after Adam is because we had been permanently cut-off from the living presence of God in the garden. God being the Source of all goodness and righteiousness, we can't help from sinning apart from His living presence. Since Peneteocst that has been remedied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us Who enables us to live righteously without sin; but we still battle the flesh and it's desires. Ultimately, the flesh will be redeemed with our resurrection bodies being made in the likeness of Christ.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I would have swore we just agreed a post ago that no one is sinless. Have you changed your mind?

Not having sins counted against us (BUT having them count against the devil) didn't make anyone sinless.

Recall, only One Man, Jesus, was sinless, period. Anyone else claiming that seat is merely a poser and not a very honest one at that.

I'd suggest suggest trying to play it both ways remains problematic. The RCC may think that their baptismal ceremony makes sinless babies but that position is never shown in scripture.

The Seat of sinlessness was reserved for only One human.

Click to expand...

Mary was also without sin.

Valletta said:

Mary was also without sin.

Click to expand...

Most Protestant denominations reject the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, viewing it as lacking biblical support.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I would have swore we just agreed a post ago that no one is sinless. Have you changed your mind?

Not having sins counted against us (BUT having them count against the devil) didn't make anyone sinless.

Recall, only One Man, Jesus, was sinless, period. Anyone else claiming that seat is merely a poser and not a very honest one at that.

I'd suggest suggest trying to play it both ways remains problematic. The RCC may think that their baptismal ceremony makes sinless babies but that position is never shown in scripture.

The Seat of sinlessness was reserved for only One human.

Click to expand...

Adam & Eve were without sin, until they sinned. Being 'forgiven, with our sins taken away, washed, cleansed, and made new creations' places us back into the moral state of Adam & Eve prior to the Fall, not having sinned at that point but far from perfect anyway. Until we're "perfected in love", sin is just a stone's throw, a mere next thought, away. Baptismal vows must be lived out and, regardless, it's a battle, as I've said. But believers, those justifed, are now equipped, by grace, with the Holy Spirit, to win.

tharkun73 said:

To the OP - no, I don't agree with 'original sin' as is commonly taught. Rom 5 teaches that 'death passed to all men' becasue of Adam's sin, not 'sin passed to all men'. To me, scripture is clear that each bears the brunt and weight of his/her own sin. The reason we all sinned after Adam is because we had been permanently cut-off from the living presence of God in the garden. God being the Source of all goodness and righteiousness, we can't help from sinning apart from His living presence. Since Peneteocst that has been remedied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us Who enables us to live righteously without sin; but we still battle the flesh and it's desires. Ultimately, the flesh will be redeemed with our resurrection bodies being made in the likeness of Christ.

Click to expand...

In Catholicism that separation, being "cut-off from the living presence of God", sometimes referred to as "the death of the soul" is the state often called "original sin". It guarantees that the rest of us will sin and is the reason we must be reborn, which consists of our returning to God and away from this unjust alienation from Him. And your last two sentences, with the caveat that we can still fail, failing to remain in Christ, failing to continue to walk in the Spirit, is pure Catholicism as well.

fhansen said:

1 Corinthians 10:16 is about our participation in the body and blood, and "participate" spells out man's whole relationship with God quite well, the relationship that we were made for, that we enter into via faith, that is nurtured with the Eucharist, and which we return to by metanoia, repentance, and confession if and as necessary.

Either way: "This is My body". The ancient churches understood this to mean that what we see is not what we get and that concept, worded slightly differently in the east as "trans-elemental", predates the popularity of Aristotelian Philosophy among theologians in the west. Likewise, the term "transubstantiation" predates Aquinas and is a Latin-derived term, not Greek, incidentally

Click to expand...

Indeed, we participate in the divine, following Plato's concept of participation (methexis, mimesis, koinonia). Yet this participation is mutual: the Eucharist creates communion both among believers and between humanity and God. While we participate in Christ's righteousness, He participates in our sinfulness, becoming the bearer of our sin. Luther describes Jesus Christ as maximus et solus peccator, the singular and greatest sinner (LW 26: 277–78). Yet due to his divinity, he embodies invicta justitia, invincible righteousness. As the Son of God, he is righteousness itself, possessing the power to bear the world's sins and triumph over Satan.

Christ's participation in human nature, accomplished without physically consuming human flesh, demonstrates that participation can occur without transubstantiation. Similarly, we share in Adam's sinful nature without consuming his flesh. Participation in Christ's righteousness does not depend on consuming the Eucharistic bread. Rather, the Eucharistic celebration is a ritual that enhances and strengthens a participation that continuously occurs through prayer, scripture reading, and other spiritual practices.

The Church Fathers emphasized participation. Cyril of Alexandria wrote that "He dwells in our hearts through the Spirit, and we participate in his holy flesh" (Commentary on First Corinthians) and that "We receive the life-giving blessing both spiritually and bodily in participation" (Commentary on John, Book IV). John of Damascus described the Eucharist as "communion and participation in both deity and humanity" through which we "participate in the divinity of Jesus" (De Fide Orthodoxa, Book IV).

fhansen said:

Adam & Eve were without sin

Click to expand...

Mark 4:15 happened to them both. So "they," the consortium of the 3, the 3rd being the tempter, were never sinless

fhansen said:

Being 'forgiven, with our sins taken away, washed, cleansed, and made new creations' places us back into the moral state of Adam & Eve prior to the Fall, not having sinned at that point but far from perfect anyway.

Click to expand...

A bit of a conundrum in logic there, but the point remains, not a one of us is ever sinless, period. That Seat was always solely for God in Christ as the Perfect Lamb

I consider the conveyance of being made sinless a neat and convenient story for those who sell it, but it's scripturally unsupportable.

fhansen said:

Until we're "perfected in love", sin is just a stone's throw, a mere next thought, away.

Click to expand...

Again, we are never sinless. Not even for a nanosecond. And the reason for that is because we all bear another party in our own minds that we battle termed our adversary, the tempter. Leaving the bad actor out of the pictures and conveying whatever state to half the parties involved isn't accuracy

We know from Paul we're no better than any other sin, thoughts and actions of same notwithstanding, Romans 3:9 and we know from Jesus and John that sin is in fact "of the devil," 1 John 3:8. Leaving that party unattended in the equations of sin is exactly part of what that party does "in people." The tempter deceives us into thinking "it's only me" when in fact it never was about "just me."

fhansen said:

Baptismal vows must be lived out and, regardless, it's a battle, as I've said. But believers, those justifed, are now equipped, by grace, with the Holy Spirit, to win.

Click to expand...

Exactly none of that pertains to our adversary and yes, it is a battle precisely because we have an enemy to contend with at all times.

Valletta said:

Mary was also without sin.

Click to expand...

A nice story but not specified anywhere in scripture. Which is why many denominations rightfully reject the story

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Mark 4:15 happened to them both. So "they," the consortium of the 3, the 3rd being the tempter, were never sinless

Click to expand...

They were in a different position than us before the Fall and, either way, they were not sinners until they sinned. Again, God does not create anyone as sinners -or He'd be the worst of sinners Himself.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

A bit of a conundrum in logic there, but the point remains, not a one of us is ever sinless, period. That Seat was always solely for God in Christ as the Perfect Lamb

Click to expand...

The real point is that even if we're made sinless, as Adam and Eve began, we won't remain there perfectly in this life; we have to fight to do so-and it's a good and worthy fight. Sin lies in the will, not God's will but ours. If we will to sin, then we sin. Temptation to sin isn't sin in itself, and doesn't become sin until we give in. Only as our love grows towards perfection does the will begin to align increasingly with God's will-and then sin decreases. Adam and Eve weren't there yet. This is why Catholicism teaches that He created the universe in a "state of journeying to perfection"; it's a process. Man's perfection, his purpose or telos, is in coming to love as God does by first drawing near to and clinging to Him. That's how we were meant to be; that's the lesson we're here to learn: "Apart from Me you can do nothing."

This is why the Reformed position that the will of man plays no role is so wrong- just the opposite is true. God must draw and prompt us by His grace but we must respond, we must assent, and the wisdom to do so, also aided by grace, is necessary in order to overcome our "no" to Him. It's like prodigals gaining the wisdom to flee the pigsty,

Only God is perfect in the absolute sense. That doesn't mean that man is inherently bad or sinful, only that he's not God. And, again, that's what we need to learn: that we're not God. Our perfection, our righteousness, comes only as an attachment, so to speak, to His perfection, as a branch grafted into the Vine. That's how man is meant be, in a relationship of willing subjugation to God compelled by love.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Exactly none of that pertains to our adversary and yes, it is a battle precisely because we have an enemy to contend with at all times.

Click to expand...

The enemy has only as much power as we give him. "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." James 4:7

Teofrastus said:

Indeed, we participate in the divine, following Plato's concept of participation (methexis, mimesis, koinonia). Yet this participation is mutual: the Eucharist creates communion both among believers and between humanity and God. While we participate in Christ's righteousness, He participates in our sinfulness, becoming the bearer of our sin. Luther describes Jesus Christ as maximus et solus peccator, the singular and greatest sinner (LW 26: 277–78). Yet due to his divinity, he embodies invicta justitia, invincible righteousness. As the Son of God, he is righteousness itself, possessing the power to bear the world's sins and triumph over Satan.

Christ's participation in human nature, accomplished without physically consuming human flesh, demonstrates that participation can occur without transubstantiation. Similarly, we share in Adam's sinful nature without consuming his flesh. Participation in Christ's righteousness does not depend on consuming the Eucharistic bread. Rather, the Eucharistic celebration is a ritual that enhances and strengthens a participation that continuously occurs through prayer, scripture reading, and other spiritual practices.

The Church Fathers emphasized participation. Cyril of Alexandria wrote that "He dwells in our hearts through the Spirit, and we participate in his holy flesh" (Commentary on First Corinthians) and that "We receive the life-giving blessing both spiritually and bodily in participation" (Commentary on John, Book IV). John of Damascus described the Eucharist as "communion and participation in both deity and humanity" through which we "participate in the divinity of Jesus" (De Fide Orthodoxa, Book IV).

Click to expand...

Ok-and none of that has anything to do with "The relationship between the bread and Christ's body is therefore better understood as mutual participation rather than transubstantiation" (post #84), as near as I can tell. Again, you're speaking above about our participation in the Eucharist, in Christ.

fhansen said:

Ok-and none of that has anything to do with "The relationship between the bread and Christ's body is therefore better understood as mutual participation rather than transubstantiation" (post #84), as near as I can tell. Again, you're speaking above about our participation in the Eucharist, in Christ.

Click to expand...

(I don't understand what you mean.) Anyway, participatory theology better aligns with both biblical witness and lived Christian experience, while substance-oriented theology struggles with physical/metaphysical complications. Participatory theology reflects biblical language of koinonia (communion/participation). It connects naturally to early Church Fathers' emphasis on participation; it bridges Eastern and Western theological perspectives and preserves the mystery and reality of Christ's presence while shifting focus from metaphysical questions to the relational reality of communion with Christ.

Teofrastus said:

I don't understand what you mean.

Click to expand...

Well, your argument to begin with, from my understanding, is that Jesus participates in the elements, the Body and Blood co-existng with the bread and wine IOW. But that wasn't Paul's point at all in 1 Corinthians 10:16 with the use of the word koinonia.