Hello, AMR! I did not see any references to "relics" there, only to images and art.
Thank you.
Upvote
0
Hello, AMR! I did not see any references to "relics" there, only to images and art.
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.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.
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.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.
The "internal substance of the" ritual could be the believer's union with Christ. And that goes together with the visible signs.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;