Could the Philosophical & Interpretive Approach of Reformed Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

rakovsky · Feb 3, 2016

(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Presbyterianism, Evangelicalism, etc.) have a solid, clear, direct basis in 1st to 3rd century Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion food is in itself "only" a symbol* and to reject Jesus' "real" presence in the elements?

*Note that Hedrick clarified that for Calvin the Communion food serves not only as a symbol of Christ's body, but also a vehicle for the ritual, a ritual that involves spiritually carrying the believer to heaven where they experience Christ's presence. (For Luther, there was an emphasis on Christ being ubiquitous and being in the form of bread).

(We discussed this First Question in detail on the old thread by the same title in the main Semper Reformanda section.)

(2) Does Protestantism have a clear, direct basis in those early traditions and writings to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?

(3) Could the" Reformed" approach to theology lead out of and away from mainstream Biblical Christianity?

For Question 3(A) On how the Reformed approach could lead away from Biblical Christianity on the issues of the Eucharistic bread being Christ's body and of relics, see here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-of-christianity.7931022/page-2#post-69233277
For Question 3(B) On how the Reformed approach could lead away from Christianity more generally, see here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-of-christianity.7931022/page-3#post-69256162

I propose that we spend a little bit on each question and then move to the next question one by one. This thread is not debating whether Reformed Protestantism teaches a version of Christianity, rather the thread is investigating the implications of this theological approach.

This thread is continued from the main "Semper Reformanda" Community section in order to comply with the forum's rules on debates. (The old thread is here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...otestantism-lead-out-of-christianity.7930064/) I would like to discuss this issue and chose to come here because the reformed themselves are most informed on this topic. I did not primarily start the thread in order to debate and am not really looking for some kind of "combat", and don't have some intense opinion that the Reformed must be purely wrong on all these questions. But since the question itself does have a debative aspect, I decided to move it to the "debate" section.

rakovsky · Feb 3, 2016

The first question was as follows:
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism have a clear, direct basis in 1st to 3rd century traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' "real" presence in its elements?

I was confirmed in the PCUSA and went to an Evangelical Christian school. We were taught that the Communion food was "only" a symbol of Jesus' body, that it did not have Jesus' spiritual presence (like Lutherans claim), and was not Jesus' physical body (as Catholicism teaches).

The only reason I remember that the "Reformed" Protestants gave me was that Jesus said to take the communion meal in "memory" of him. But when I think critically about this reason, it looks weak. Just because Jesus says to do something in his memory does not mean that He is not present in it. It seems reasonable that even if Jesus were in the Communion meal that you would eat it "in His memory."

Another response the Reformed Protestants give is to debunk Catholicism's reasons. Catholicism says that because Jesus says in John's gospel that you must eat His body, then the communion meal must be his body. The Reformed Protestants argue back that Catholics take this too literally. My reaction is that it's true that Jesus spoke in parables sometimes, but other times he really did mean things literally like the resurrection of his body. So just because the Reformed Protestants show possible weaknesses in Catholicism does not actually directly show that the "Reformed" version must be right. Just because Catholicism hasn't proved its case doesn't mean that the Reformed side has either.

Typically when we want to find out what an ancient religious community thought, we look at their writings. And the early Christians of the 1st to 2nd centuries AD - the time of the apostles or right after it - did produce writings commenting on religion. Does Reformed Protestantism have any solid, direct basis from these writings to show that they believed the Communion meal was "only" a symbol?

It seems instead that the first clear, recorded interpretation of Communion elements as "only" a symbol and not physically or spiritually Jesus' body was made in the rationalistic "Enlightenment Age" when Reformed Protestantism began - about 1400 years after the apostles' time. It looks rather then that this position is a "modern" or rationalistic re-interpretation of what Jesus said and not actually something that the apostles wrote or passed down.

Below you will find the Center for Reformed Theology's explanation that Calvin viewed the Communion meal's elements as not actually being Christ's body physically or spiritually like the Catholics and Lutherans taught:

============================================================

Calvin rejected any notion of a local presence of Christ in the Supper. Labeling the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ's body a "phantasm,"... Calvin's opponents, Westphal and Tileman Heshusius, accused him of ambiguity and subtlety. They sought a sacramental theory in concrete language but did not find it in Calvin. ...

Calvin avoided the language of "physicality" employed by the Lutherans. Christ's body and blood were to be "understood in terms of Christ's act of reconciliation, not in themselves." Although the believer, through the Supper, possesses a true communion with Christ's natural body and blood, it is not in terms of substantiality but rather in terms of the spiritual, redemptive benefits inherent in the resurrected and ascended body of Christ. Hence, for Calvin, a local presence is not necessary. The body of Christ remains in heaven.
...
Although, on one hand, Calvin denies the descent of Christ's body to us (absentia localis), he paradoxically speaks of such a descent by the Holy Spirit as the source of real presence (praesentia realis) in the Supper.
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/an...bfiles/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_presence.html

==============================================================

The Reformed writer Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church comments in details with very helpful citations on the difference between the Lutheran and Calvinist positions:

The Eucharistic Theories compared. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin.
They differ on three points,—the mode of Christ’s presence (whether corporal, or spiritual); the organ of receiving his body and blood (whether by the mouth, or by faith); and the extent of this reception (whether by all, or only by believers).

I. The Lutheran Theory teaches a real and substantial presence of the very body and blood of Christ, ... in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine, and the oral manducation of both substances by all communicants, unworthy and unbelieving, as well as worthy and believing, though with opposite effects.
...
The earthly elements remain unchanged and distinct in their substance and power, but they become the divinely appointed media for communicating the heavenly substance of the body and blood of Christ.

the augsburg confession of 1530.
"ART. X. Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the [true] body and blood of Christ are truly present (under the form of bread and wine ; The German text has this: unter der Gestalt des Brots und Weins),
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.xi.html

formula of concord (1577).
"II. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacra-mental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ.
...
"Fourthly: That God knows and has in his power various modes of being in any place, and is not confined to that single one which philosophers are wont to call local or circumscribed.
"VI. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaitically, but after a spiritual and heavenly manner, by reason of the sacramental union. For to this the words of Christ clearly bear witness, in which he enjoins us to take, to eat to drink; and that this was done by the Apostles the Scripture makes mention, saying (Mark 14:23), ’And they all drank of it.’ And Paul says, ’The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ;’ that is, he that eats this bread eats the body of Christ.
"To the same, with great consent, do the chief of the most ancient doctors of the church—Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo the First, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustin—bear witness.

III. The Calvinistic Theory.
Calvin... He accepts the symbolical meaning of the words of institution; he rejects the corporal presence, the oral manducation, the participation of the body and blood by unbelievers, and the ubiquity of Christ’s body. While the mouth receives the visible signs of bread and wine, the soul receives by faith, and by faith alone... It is the Holy Spirit who unites in a supernatural manner what is separated in space, and conveys to the believing communicant the life-giving virtue of the flesh of Christ now glorified in heaven.
...Calvin requires the communicant to ascend to heaven to feed on Christ there....

Institutes (Book IV., ch. XVII. 10 sqq.),
10. though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions... ...let faith conceive; viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.

18. Christ... can feed [his people] with his own body, communion with which he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.

19. The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to his true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.

heidelberg catechism (1563).
Q. 79. Why, then, doth Christ call the bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the New Testament in His blood; and St. Paul, the communion of the body and blood of Christ?
by this visible sign and pledge to assure us that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood, through the working of the Holy Ghost, as we receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of Him;
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.xi.html

We had a pretty thorough discussion on this topic, which you can see here:
(Same topic in the Presbyterian section)
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...otestantism-lead-out-of-christianity.7929995/
(I was invited to discuss it on the Semper Reformanda section and opened the old thread here)
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rotestantism-lead-out-of-christianity.7930064

rakovsky · Feb 3, 2016

Next, we began to discuss the Second Question:
(2) Does Protestantism have a clear, direct basis in those early traditions and writings to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?

If a holy person or Catholic saint gave people his clothes for healing or other miracles, I think the Reformed would take a dim view of this. They would also be very skeptical if people kept or used, say, clothes from Peter or Paul and treated them like "holy" objects.

I think the Reformed reasoning would be that objects are not "holy". It would add that faith can be part of miracles and people can pray and God can make miracles, but it doesn't have anything to do with objects or holy peoples' physical presence or bodies.

In Acts 19:11-12, it says:
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:

So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

At face value, this suggests that you could actually take clothes from a holy person like Paul and they could serve to cure illnesses or drive out demons.

The[Protestant] Pulpit commentary says:
It might well be the Divine purpose, in the case of both Peter and Paul, to invest with such extraordinary power the very persons of the apostles who were to stand forth as his messengers and preach in his Name. In St. Paul this parity of miraculous energy stamped his apostleship with an authority equal to that of St. Peter.

However, this does not really address the potential contradiction between the Reformed looking down on caring about holy peoples' clothes and Christians using them in Acts 19 for healing.

So this goes back to the question of whether there are early Christian writings against caring about holy peoples' clothes, bones, etc.

So on this thread, let's start with this Second Question.

AMR · Feb 3, 2016

Thank you (and others, including myself, that were inclined to engage you notwithstanding the rules of safe-haven forums in defense of that which we hold dear) for abstaining from the safe-have forums for these sort of discussions and opting for a debate forum where more leeway is given.

The poll's question as worded is not worthy of a response, as it presumes philosophical notions where none are in evidence. Hopefully, no one will take the bait by granting the erroneous premise assumed therein.

And before someone with little understanding of the man, chimes in and claims Calvin's view of the Supper was identical to the Lutheran view, let it be known that Lutherans insist on a corporeal or tangible presence attached to the elements--not the Roman transubstantiation view, but still a mediating view in which the partakers manducate and swallow the body and blood of the Lord (matter) in a physical or "corporeal" manner. This is not Calvin's view by any straining of what he wrote on the topic. Lutherans will claim that the Reformed view is indistinguishable from the Zwinglian or memorialist view. But this we conservative Reformed deny, since we affirm a true participation in that body and blood, and do not engage at the meal in mere reflection on the death of Christ.

Section 5. How Christ, the Bread of Life, is to be received by us. Two faults to be avoided. The receiving of it must bear reference both to faith and the effect of faith. What meant by eating Christ. In what sense Christ the bread of life.

It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 51); doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates. Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life. Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined. but there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine. According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them, eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, (Eph 3: 17), no one will interpret that dwelling to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith, because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.

Section 10. No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacraments.

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1Co 10: 16). There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

Per Calvin, the Holy Spirit makes us present to Christ such that the believer is lifted up to sup with Christ and feed on His body and blood and receive spiritual nourishment from Him. Grace is not a metaphysical substance to be conceived of as existing apart from Christ but it is Christ and His indestructible life that nourishes and strengthens the believe.

Further, on Calvin...

John Calvin (1509-1564): I come now to the question out of which such violent and bitter conflicts have arisen,―of what nature is the communion of our Lord’s body and blood in the holy supper? We have not given a definition of it before refuting the figment of a local presence, and explaining the meaning of the words of Christ, as to which there has heretofore been too much contention. But our purpose is to meet the objections of captious and unlearned men, who are borne headlong by a blind impulse to slander, or to pacify the honest and simple whom they have imbued with their deleterious speeches, I will now begin with that third article.

First, then, we acknowledge that Christ truly performs what he figures by the symbols of bread and wine, nourishing our souls with the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Away, then, with the vile calumny, that it would be theatrical show if the Lord did not perform in truth what he shows by the sign; as if we said that any thing is shown which is not truly given. The Lord bids us take bread and wine. At the same time he declares that he gives the spiritual nourishment of his flesh and blood. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), pp. 237-238.

John Calvin (1509-1564): None of us denies that the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us. But the question is, what is the nature of this communication of our Lord’s body and blood? I wonder how these men dare to assert simply and openly that it is carnal. When we say that it is spiritual, they roar out as if by this term we are making it not to be what they commonly call real. If they will use real for true, and oppose it to fallacious or imaginary, we will rather speak barbarously than afford material for strife. We are aware how little strivings about words become the servants of Christ, but as nothing is gained be making concessions to men who are in all ways implacable, I wish to declare to peaceful and moderate men, , that according to us the spiritual mode of communion is such that we enjoy Christ in reality. Let us be contented with this reason, against which no man, unless he is very quarrelsome, will rebel, that the flesh of Christ gives us life, inasmuch as Christ by it instills spiritual life into our souls, and that it is also eaten by us when by faith we grow up into one body with Christ, that he being ours imparts to us all that is his. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), pp. 239-240.

John Calvin (1509-1564): 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 vigour of his flesh, just as the rays of the sun invigorate us by his vital warmth. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), p. 240.

John Calvin (1509-1564): That, in short, the Sacraments are of no avail unless they are received in faith, which is a special gift of the Spirit, not depending on earthly elements, but on the celestial operation of the same Spirit. External helps are only added to meet the weakness of our capacity. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, The Best Method of Obtaining Concord, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), p. 574.

By a work of the Holy Spirit, believers are brought into the heavenly presence of Christ, there to feed upon him spiritually by faith, which Calvin took to be a real presence, albeit a spiritual one.

If the purpose of the OP for this thread is to subtly advocate EO notions hinting at theosis, we conservative Reformed will deny any such advocacy. Further, given you are in a debate forum, please lay out your agenda and your underlying reasons for asking for all to see rather than having us wade through numerous questions in hopes of leading to some end you have in mind. Let's not play Twenty Questions or Whack-A-Mole. I have no quibbles with a Socratic method for a season, but eventually the ball cannot remain hidden. State your opening operating views plainly, for it is clear from the poll that you presuppose naked philosophy is at work in our Reformed theological traditions and that we presumedly have no warrant from Scripture in support of our traditions therein. A short summary, e.g., "In this thread I intend to show that the Reformed view is...my reasons for this are as follows..." will move the discussion forward efficiently such that we can all be good stewards of the spare time from our normal duties as unprofitable servants God has granted us for these occasions.

JM · Feb 4, 2016

The earliest Christian writings mention nothing of collecting relics for use in prayer and to perform miracles. You can look from Matthew to Revelation an not find any instances where relics, bones, etc. were kept as tools to bend God's will to the will of man.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

rakovsky · Feb 4, 2016

JM,

Hello, I will reply to you here instead of in the main section.

JM said:
We believe in the miraculous but (most of us) believe the gifts have ceased and have no place in worship.

Why would the gifts cease?
Second, it seems that among the Reformed there are many claims that God still heals people occasionally in response to prayer, today. If there are so many stories among the Reformed claimed as true, why wouldn't similar stories among Catholics involving relics also be true?

We confine our beliefs to scripture and scripture alone. To get a better idea of our worldview I'll quote an old confession.

"The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." ( Jeremiah 10:7; Mark 12:33; Deuteronomy 12:32; Exodus 20:4-6 ) - London Baptist Confession of Faith

For us Reformed folks we look for a positive command given by God to instruct us in how we are to approach Him and worship Him. Israel was instructed by God how to be His people and we still believe this today. Worship was given by revelation under the Old Mosaic Covenant and we believe this continues today, we worship God in spirit and in truth. This is called the Regulative Principle of Worship. It might help if you think about it like this; the Orthodox use some aspects of the Bible, scriptural images are used, to create a liturgy. This liturgy does include biblical elements but also includes elements from other sources. The design or model for worship is without biblical mandate. Protestants on the other had attempt to define our worship by scripture alone. The ideal is design was given by God, our model for worshiping Jesus Christ is scripture and we reject anything that prevents us from approaching Him in the manner He prescribes.

The Bible is one book. One revelation from God to mankind. With this in mind read Deuteronomy 12 which is a good display of God's anger toward those who worship Him according to their own devices.

21. If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. 22. Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike. 23. Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. 24. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. 25. Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD. 26. Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose: 27. And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh. 28. Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. 29. When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 30. Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

v. 1.-2 destroy Temples belonging to false religion
v. 4-19 worship is prescribed where God reveals His name, the Tabernacle
v. 4 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way.
v. 8 You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes,
v. 20-21 the revealed will of God regulates worship
v. 29-21 we are not to be influenced by culture
v.31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
v. 32 Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Where am I going with all this?

Well, the gift of healing was not commanded, prescribed, or revealed as an element of worship. The gift of healing was performed by God through sinful men, described in scripture and used to fulfill the prophecy of Joel so that unbelieving Jews would come to Christ. (1 Cor. 1)

This is a record of a specific miracle performed by God through Paul. What we do not see is a universal application to all believers.

Yes, and the Reformed attitude toward relics would normally take a negative view of Paul's actions. Hedrick's initial instinct based on his Reformed training was to propose that Paul did not even intend to give his garments for miracles like Calvin himself understood.
The Reformed of course are forced against their normal beliefs about relics to accept what Paul did only because Paul is an apostle and his actions are promoted by the Bible. But the Reformed mindset apparently stands in opposition to his miracleworking here.

We also see a difference in the gift Paul was given as the New Testament canon came to a close. The gifts of healing were tied to the Apostolic ministry as promised in Joel 2 (quoted in Acts 2 applied to the church) but faded with time. The Old Covenant was being replaced by "A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8) In Acts 28 Paul was able to heal, all "which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed" but could not heal Timothy (1 Tim. 5; Gal. 4), Epaphroditus (no outcome given in scripture) and Trophimus (2 Tim. 4). Those he could not heal were ill after the closing of Acts 28.

Sinful man has turned the healing of God into a superstition attached to relics and has carried on the practice for hundreds of years. But be warned, "Man’s mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain" - John Calvin

Calvin is not the Bible. And even here Calvin did not mention relics. It is rather ironic that Calvin complains here about "superstition" while at the same time saying not to believe Reason - one's "own mind", and that to believe Reason leads to forsaking God. If one follows Calvin's system of reasoning that calls relics superstition, one would in fact normally end up forsaking miracleworking with relics like Paul performed. This in turn could lead to forsaking God, because it could be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit like in the gospels where the pharisees derided Jesus for His own miracle working.

For the Calvinist mindset, if Paul heals with relics it's OK because it's in the Bible, but anyone else who does it outside of the Bible is making a huge mistake of "superstition" - a label that shows Calvin is using "Reason" to judge God's actions. The Calvinist mindset is making an isolated exception for Paul, but fails to draw the lesson from Paul that relics can be OK and instead judges those who follow Paul's example as "superstitious".

Calvinism is not really "sola scriptura", because it uses Enlightenment-era Reason to condemn the use of relics, even though miracle-working relics are in scripture and clear bans on using holy relics are not in scripture. Calvinism's approach then must be scripture seen to a major extent through a prism of one's own Enlightenment-era Reasoning, rather than necessarily understanding scripture in strong agreement with what the rest of the Christian community taught (Church Tradition).

rakovsky · Feb 4, 2016

JM,

JM said:
Calvin complained about relics in his Treaties on Relics. A fella online made note of a few.

Imagine yourself on a tour of these famous sites:

In Geneva (Calvin’s home town) you could see the brain of St Peter which sat in a shrine. It was considered blasphemy to doubt its authenticity. It turned out to be “a piece of pumice-stone”. p224

The very blood of Jesus was said to be on show at more than 100 places. At Rochelle the story went that Nicodemus captured a few drops of it in his glove. It survived like that for 1500 years? No problem, when you can attach a miracle to every incredible story. In Rome they were clever. The Church of St John of the Lateran even had it mixed with water to show that it came from him whilst upon the cross.

The manger Jesus was laid in as a baby was on display at the Church of Madonna Maggiore at Rome while his swaddling clothes were across town at St Paul’s.

Mary’s breast milk (I kid you not) was preserved in numerous churches. So many in fact it led Calvin to another of his famous hyperboles.

Source

I'm sorry, but this is just milking a superstition for filthy lucre. It was a universal problem in the East and West.

I see that there can be a problem with "Pious Frauds".
I don't see this as a conflict with using objects from holy people as described in the Bible for prayer or miracleworking.

rakovsky · Feb 4, 2016

JM said:
The earliest Christian writings mention nothing of collecting relics for use in prayer and to perform miracles.

According to Calvin, in Acts 19:11-12, Paul gave out his clothes for miracles and healings. (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/19.htm)

You can look from Matthew to Revelation an not find any instances where relics, bones, etc. were kept as tools to bend God's will to the will of man.

If a person fasts and prays to God with a cross, are they using tools to bend God's will to the will of man?
If they fast and pray to God with an object from a saint like Paul instead of a cross, does that change the result?

rakovsky · Feb 4, 2016

Hello, AMR!

AMR said:
Thank you (and others, including myself, that were inclined to engage you notwithstanding the rules of safe-haven forums in defense of that which we hold dear) for abstaining from the safe-have forums for these sort of discussions and opting for a debate forum where more leeway is given.

The poll's question as worded is not worthy of a response, as it presumes philosophical notions where none are in evidence. Hopefully, no one will take the bait by granting the erroneous premise assumed therein.

To clarify, the title question is different from the poll question in this thread, the poll question being:"Are there early Christian writings that clearly teach against keeping relics for prayers & miracles?"

And before someone with little understanding of the man, chimes in and claims Calvin's view of the Supper was identical to the Lutheran view, let it be known that Lutherans insist on a corporeal or tangible presence attached to the elements--not the Roman transubstantiation view, but still a mediating view in which the partakers manducate and swallow the body and blood of the Lord (matter) in a physical or "corporeal" manner. This is not Calvin's view by any straining of what he wrote on the topic.

I agree that there is a difference, like what you describe. It is perceptive of you to note this, AMR. Since Lutherans reject Transubstantiation, I think maybe it could be confusing or mistaken, to say that they insist on a "tangible" presence in the elements. For them, Jesus' body is "spiritually" present in the bread, and I don't know that a "spiritual" presence is "tangible." Anyway, I think you and I have a broad sense of the difference between the Reformed and Lutheran views.

Lutherans will claim that the Reformed view is indistinguishable from the Zwinglian or memorialist view. But this we conservative Reformed deny, since we affirm a true participation in that body and blood, and do not engage at the meal in mere reflection on the death of Christ.

Section 5. How Christ, the Bread of Life, is to be received by us. Two faults to be avoided. The receiving of it must bear reference both to faith and the effect of faith. What meant by eating Christ. In what sense Christ the bread of life.

It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 51); doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates. Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life. Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined.

Yes, I see that this differs from the Lutheran view.

but there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine. According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them, eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, (Eph 3: 17), no one will interpret that dwelling to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith, because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.

Yes, I see that for Calvin, to "eat" Jesus' "body" is just a symbolic way of referring to communing with Jesus, whose body is up in heaven, and that when Jesus gave the bread and said "this is my body", Calvinists see the bread as a symbol and the bread's composition as also just bread with no presence of Jesus in it. That is, they don't take the plain or literal meaning of these words "eat" and "This is my body", but a symbolic one.

Section 10. No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacraments.

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1Co 10: 16). There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality.

So when the apostle asks: "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?", Calvin's answer appears to be: "It is a symbol, not the reality of the communion of the body of Christ". But then he goes on to say that the communion of the body is still performed in that the believer partakes in heaven:

But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

When I hear the apostle's question: "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?", my inclination would be to think: "Yes, this bread is itself that communion in some real sense". Otherwise, you could answer: "No, this bread is not the communion of the body of Christ, it is itself only a symbol of that communion."
But Calvin's response is that "the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality", it only represents that communion that occurs up in heaven during the ritual.

For St. Irenaeus in c. 180 AD, on the other hand, the bread that becomes the Eucharist does have a heavenly reality:
"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection."

Per Calvin, the Holy Spirit makes us present to Christ such that the believer is lifted up to sup with Christ and feed on His body and blood and receive spiritual nourishment from Him. Grace is not a metaphysical substance to be conceived of as existing apart from Christ but it is Christ and His indestructible life that nourishes and strengthens the believe.

Further, on Calvin...

John Calvin (1509-1564): I come now to the question out of which such violent and bitter conflicts have arisen,―of what nature is the communion of our Lord’s body and blood in the holy supper? We have not given a definition of it before refuting the figment of a local presence, and explaining the meaning of the words of Christ, as to which there has heretofore been too much contention. But our purpose is to meet the objections of captious and unlearned men, who are borne headlong by a blind impulse to slander, or to pacify the honest and simple whom they have imbued with their deleterious speeches, I will now begin with that third article.

First, then, we acknowledge that Christ truly performs what he figures by the symbols of bread and wine, nourishing our souls with the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Away, then, with the vile calumny, that it would be theatrical show if the Lord did not perform in truth what he shows by the sign; as if we said that any thing is shown which is not truly given. The Lord bids us take bread and wine. At the same time he declares that he gives the spiritual nourishment of his flesh and blood. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), pp. 237-238.

John Calvin (1509-1564): None of us denies that the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us. But the question is, what is the nature of this communication of our Lord’s body and blood? I wonder how these men dare to assert simply and openly that it is carnal. When we say that it is spiritual, they roar out as if by this term we are making it not to be what they commonly call real. If they will use real for true, and oppose it to fallacious or imaginary, we will rather speak barbarously than afford material for strife. We are aware how little strivings about words become the servants of Christ, but as nothing is gained be making concessions to men who are in all ways implacable, I wish to declare to peaceful and moderate men, , that according to us the spiritual mode of communion is such that we enjoy Christ in reality. Let us be contented with this reason, against which no man, unless he is very quarrelsome, will rebel, that the flesh of Christ gives us life, inasmuch as Christ by it instills spiritual life into our souls, and that it is also eaten by us when by faith we grow up into one body with Christ, that he being ours imparts to us all that is his. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), pp. 239-240.

John Calvin (1509-1564): 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 vigour of his flesh, just as the rays of the sun invigorate us by his vital warmth. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva, Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), p. 240.

John Calvin (1509-1564): That, in short, the Sacraments are of no avail unless they are received in faith, which is a special gift of the Spirit, not depending on earthly elements, but on the celestial operation of the same Spirit. External helps are only added to meet the weakness of our capacity. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, The Best Method of Obtaining Concord, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), p. 574.

By a work of the Holy Spirit, believers are brought into the heavenly presence of Christ, there to feed upon him spiritually by faith, which Calvin took to be a real presence, albeit a spiritual one.

Yes, I understand this. Thank you. I think you have done a good job showing what Calvin's position on the Eucharist is, so that we can move on to the Second main question.

If the purpose of the OP for this thread is to subtly advocate EO notions hinting at theosis, we conservative Reformed will deny any such advocacy.

I can think of four or five ways to support the nonReformed views of Christ being present in the bread itself, without proposing theosis. So advocating EO notions of theosis is not a goal in the OP.

Anyway, I don't understand why "theosis" should be a difficult idea for the Reformed. In substance it means that human saints can acquire divine attributes like immortality. There are multiple references in the Bible to saints becoming "gods", which certainly did not mean becoming equal in essence to the Holy Trinity or a "God" in that sense. The Reformed emphasize Chalcedon, and Church fathers before and after Chalcedon accepted that man's human nature underwent deification, as Aquinas wrote:

But the Divine and human natures in Christ are denominated one by the other; for Cyril says (quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1) that the Divine nature "is incarnate"; and Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. i ad Cledon.) that the human nature is "deified," as appears from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11). ...

As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11), the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate because It is united to flesh personally, and not that It is changed into flesh. So likewise the flesh is said to be deified, as he also says (De Fide Orth. 15,17), not by change, but by union with the Word, its natural properties still remaining, and hence it may be considered as deified, inasmuch as it becomes the flesh of the Word of God, but not that it becomes God. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article4)

This reflects the EO view of Theosis.

Further, given you are in a debate forum, please lay out your agenda and your underlying reasons for asking for all to see rather than having us wade through numerous questions in hopes of leading to some end you have in mind. Let's not play Twenty Questions or Whack-A-Mole. I have no quibbles with a Socratic method for a season, but eventually the ball cannot remain hidden. State your opening operating views plainly,

AMR, this is part of the reason why I did not create this thread originally in a debate session- I am looking for a conversation to explore these ideas and issues, rather than a debate. Had I wanted a debate, I could have started one on www.debate.org
As I said, I hadn't decided that the Reformed position must be wrong, nor do I consider it "unChristian".

To clarify as you asked, I didn't have a definite answer for the first two questions. I don't know of early writings that clearly consider the bread itself to be only a symbol of the body and a ritual tool for the process of uniting the believer in heaven with Christ's body. Nor do I know of early writings that denounce the role of relics per se in prayer and miracles. But I was not so well versed that I excluded the possibility of such ideas about the bread and on relics.

Should it turn out that the early Christians excluded both Christ's presence in the bread and relics, there would not be much basis, if any, to continue on to Question 3.

In Question 3, I wish to consider first, whether the Reformed view on the bread and on relics could lead away from the Biblical views on them or from Biblical Christianity. For example, if one accepts the Reformed view on relics as superstition, could that lead people to take a similar negative or critical view of the times when relics appear in scripture? My inclination is that it can lead people to negate or downplay the relics' role in scripture, as in Hedrick's initial reaction that Paul was unaware of his garments' use, or initial assertions by some Reformed that relics aren't involved in miracles in scripture. (eg. when JM says: "The earliest Christian writings mention nothing of collecting relics for use in prayer and to perform miracles.") But perhaps one can respond that these assertions are only initial and that those Reformed who make them can be easily persuaded otherwise?

Second, under Question 3 we can ask whether the Reformed approach of sola scriptura that disregards Church Tradition, as illustrated in these two cases, could ultimately lead to some Reformed rejecting Biblical Christianity. If people say that they just go by "scripture" itself as their only authority, and Protestants diverge widely on some issues of scriptural interpretation, then what is there to anchor them in place if they have no preference to seek harmony with Christian Tradition? It seems that they could just keep going on their own and see the Biblical stories as just allegories as some Protestant theologians like some in the Jesus Seminar have done. But this is debatable too, because perhaps despite denying it, legitimate Protestants really are anchored to certain "Traditions" when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

it is clear from the poll that you presuppose naked philosophy is at work in our Reformed theological traditions and that we presumedly have no warrant from Scripture in support of our traditions therein. A short summary, e.g., "In this thread I intend to show that the Reformed view is...my reasons for this are as follows..." will move the discussion forward efficiently such that we can all be good stewards of the spare time from our normal duties as unprofitable servants God has granted us for these occasions.

With that said, let's continue please with Question 2.

AMR · Feb 5, 2016

Question:
"I wish to consider first, whether the Reformed view on the bread and on relics could lead away from the Biblical views on them or from Biblical Christianity."

Answer:
Until it can be shown otherwise, the Reformed view is the Biblical view, so if someone is led astray on the matter, the fault does not lie with the Reformed view.

Question:
"Whether the Reformed approach of sola scriptura that disregards Church Tradition, as illustrated in these two cases, could ultimately lead to some Reformed rejecting Biblical Christianity."

Answer:
The question assumes conclusions not in evidence. "[A]s illustrated in these two cases" is your erected straw man and premature declaration of victory, despite your protestation that this is not a debate. If this is a discussion,
straw men of the Reformed's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about our beliefs what you believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

The Reformed embrace sola scriptura and tradition. We Reformed unequivocally deny that there are unwritten traditions which provide any of the content of divine revelation or any of the instructions that are of divine authority. Further, we affirm that tradition has no intrinsic authority. Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. This is just saying that it is never proper to appeal to tradition as having intrinsically an authority in matters of faith or morals. Tradition when true and right and good always flows from the Scripture and is simply God's will as revealed in Scripture coming to expression in thought and life. Right tradition is always derived; it is never original or primary. Contrary to your assumptions about what the Reformed believe, an adherence to inscripturated apostolic tradition is the hallmark of the confessional Reformed.

Unlike Rome and Constantinople, the Reformed do not deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture. The Reformed view of sola scriptura is that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

Sola scriptura does not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that the church's ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister. In short, the church has real authority, and real interpretive heft. But it is ministerial and declarative, not a license to legislate the truth.

rakovsky · Feb 5, 2016

Hello, AMR.

Yes, if we say that tradition has no intrinsic authority at all, then it allows people to make whatever claim that they imagine fits scripture. If tradition has some kind of intrinsic authority, then Christians would have to consider the beliefs of the Christian Community an authority in understanding Scripture.

If Anabaptists took scripture to mean that ritual baptism with water is worthless and should be forgotten, then unless you consider the Christian Community's traditions and beliefs and understandings (Tradition) an authority, your discussions with them become a kind of socratic "game" where in effect anything goes. The Anabaptists give their lists of reasons, their conversants give theirs, and they don't reach harmony. This can help explain why Protestant sects, particularly those of the Reformed strain are split into dozens, if not hundreds of pieces.

AMR said:
Further, we affirm that tradition has no intrinsic authority. Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. This is just saying that it is never proper to appeal to tradition as having intrinsically an authority in matters of faith or morals.

So sure, Scripture is the most central and important, but it should be read with tradition as a major authority, or else it is far easier to just imagine what scripture says without an anchor in the teachings of the Christian Community that explain those verses.

Unlike Rome and Constantinople, the Reformed do not deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Reformed teach a "formal sufficiency" of scripture, whereby the scripture makes full sense purely on its own. Catholics seem to teach "material sufficiency", whereby one needs other tools, instructions, and designs to understand it correctly. The Bible itself appears to demand the role of the Christian community (Church) itself in understanding scripture, as 2 Peter 1:20 says: "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". But whichever idea of "sufficiency" one picks, in practice tools outside of scripture have been important to understanding scripture, as in debates over Trinitarianism and infant baptism. Many Jews reading the scriptures at face value failed to understand that Jesus' death and resurrection would occur, as Luke 24 and John 20 note about the apostles reactions to Jesus' resurrection before Jesus explained it to them.

The Reformed view of sola scriptura is that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

Sola scriptura does not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that the church's ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister. In short, the church has real authority, and real interpretive heft. But it is ministerial and declarative, not a license to legislate the truth.

In practice though, the Reformed usually do not openly emphasize the centuries of church teachings preceding the Reformation in order to reach and expound their own teachings.

Let's please move on to the Second Main Question - whether there were early writings against relics and what is the basis of the Reformed to discount them.

AMR · Feb 6, 2016

rakovsky said:
Scripture is the most central and important, but it should be read with tradition as a major authority,..

No. Tradition has no authority in an of itself. Tradition must conform with teachings in Scripture. Reformed always appeal to Scripture as the authority. Going beyond that is to start down the path to elevating tradition to the level of Scripture as some sort of infallible source of truth.

rakovsky said:
Let's please move on to the Second Main Question - whether there were early writings against relics and what is the basis of the Reformed to discount them.

There is the need to connect the prohibition of "graven" images with the purpose: no bowing down to or serving.

Also note that the word used for "graven image" in Ex.20:4 is consistently used for a particular kind of carving: an idol. (Lev. 26:1)

The word used for "image" in Genesis 1:16 and similar passages is different.
The word used for "likeness" in Gen. 1:26 is not the same word used in Exodus 20:4.
The word used for "likeness" can be used positively in some contexts, as in Numbers 12:8.

We should not be arguing along the lines that there were some few "authorized" images, while also arguing every other possibility was prohibited. Rather, we should argue the second commandment's essence is that the one, true God (see first commandment) is only to be worshiped in His prescribed manner. It is from the first commandment that false worship of all other gods as well as these gods themselves are dispensed with. There is no need to then redundantly state in the first commandment that these idols are forbidden as well. It is redundant because the second commandment assumes the first commandment is being fulfilled, thus the second commandment holds the making of any image for worship as making an image of God.

The second commandment is not a prohibition against any images at all. After all, as you have noted, God commanded some representations of things in heaven (cherubim) and on earth in the Tabernacle.

Of course Rome and Constantinople argue they are but only doing veneration, latria, respect, service with these images--all clever tactics to sneak in religious devotion for something not divine.

We are prohibited from making idols of God, and to use these images to worship God. Now if we are not to do this with images of Almighty God, are we not to offer much, much, less devotion to any other thing, e.g., religious icons? This is the logic used in the second commandment. Scripture attests to the error of these sort of "devotional aids" by offering not a single example in support of Rome and Constantinople.

JM · Feb 6, 2016

The Eastern Orthodox church is overly apophatic. By denying what has been revealed EO's have huge misunderstandings concerning the Lord's Supper, relics and other such doctrines.

For example, what we find in Acts 19 people were healed by Paul's handkerchief. This is a descriptive account, not a prescriptive account. It was something that happened but nowhere in scripture are we told to seek to heal people in like manner. This is where the Eastern Orthodox denomination has erred, by creating doctrine using eisegesis, inconsistent with revelation. By denying the sufficiency of revelation anything maybe taken out of context and false doctrines created.

Another brief point; just because a doctrine is historical does not mean it is valid. The Sadducees and Pharisees held to heterdox doctrine, they pointed to tradition as their root and Christ asked them rhetorically, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" Tradition can be an evil mistress.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

rakovsky · Feb 6, 2016

Dear AMR,

AMR said:
No. Tradition has no authority in an of itself.

I think that Tradition must have some authority in itself, because Christian Tradition existed before the Scripture did. If you were a Christian in 70 AD, there would still be a crucial authority for your beliefs, they just wouldn't be written down yet, and hence were as yet independent of scripture.

For purposes of discussion I could concede that Tradition lacks authority if divorced from scripture. The issues that we are discussing in this thread are at an intersection of both. So I think that to understand the early Christian mindset and the meaning of the passages, it's very important to consult Tradition. The same would be true if we wanted to understand what some other religion taught. We wouldn't only consider the main text of Buddhism or the Quran, we would want to consider other major, accepted writings from that time period by the community that authored it.

Tradition must conform with teachings in Scripture. Reformed always appeal to Scripture as the authority. Going beyond that is to start down the path to elevating tradition to the level of Scripture as some sort of infallible source of truth.

Just because one appeals to something as a very important authority doesn't entail that one will consider it infallible or inerrant.
Besides, in Orthodoxy, and I imagine in Catholicism, scripture is put foremost before other writings, so it is hard to say that the rest of tradition is on the same level.

There is the need to connect the prohibition of "graven" images with the purpose: no bowing down to or serving.

Also note that the word used for "graven image" in Ex.20:4 is consistently used for a particular kind of carving: an idol. (Lev. 26:1)

The word used for "image" in Genesis 1:16 and similar passages is different.
The word used for "likeness" in Gen. 1:26 is not the same word used in Exodus 20:4.
The word used for "likeness" can be used positively in some contexts, as in Numbers 12:8.

We should not be arguing along the lines that there were some few "authorized" images, while also arguing every other possibility was prohibited. Rather, we should argue the second commandment's essence is that the one, true God (see first commandment) is only to be worshiped in His prescribed manner. It is from the first commandment that false worship of all other gods as well as these gods themselves are dispensed with. There is no need to then redundantly state in the first commandment that these idols are forbidden as well. It is redundant because the second commandment assumes the first commandment is being fulfilled, thus the second commandment holds the making of any image for worship as making an image of God.

The second commandment is not a prohibition against any images at all. After all, as you have noted, God commanded some representations of things in heaven (cherubim) and on earth in the Tabernacle.

I understand, AMR. However, in this thread I am not talking about paintings, images, statues, or idols, nor about special worship of any objects.

I have specifically in mind cases where people touch a holy person's bones and get healed or revived, people touch a holy man's garments and get healed, the saint gives out his garments for healing, or people try to even just get near a saint or his shadow for healing. It seems to me that in all these cases, the Reformed view would be quite cynical and look down on these incidents and claims.

Would you know of any place in early Christian writings that these particular kinds of things are directly spoken against? If not, what is the Reformed rationale against these objects' involvement in healings?

Scripture contains numerous instances along these lines.

Of course Rome and Constantinople argue they are but only doing veneration, latria, respect, service with these images--all clever tactics to sneak in religious devotion for something not divine.

We are prohibited from making idols of God, and to use these images to worship God. Now if we are not to do this with images of Almighty God, are we not to offer much, much, less devotion to any other thing, e.g., religious icons? This is the logic used in the second commandment. Scripture attests to the error of these sort of "devotional aids" by offering not a single example in support of Rome and Constantinople.

Thank you, I am not not talking about people offering devotion to holy objects themselves, but to simply holding on to these objects from saints and praying to God in devotion.

rakovsky · Feb 6, 2016

Hello, JM!

JM said:
The Eastern Orthodox church is overly apophatic. By denying what has been revealed EO's have huge misunderstandings concerning the Lord's Supper, relics and other such doctrines.
...
This is where the Eastern Orthodox denomination has erred, by creating doctrine using eisegesis [interpreting a text to introduce one's own presuppositions], inconsistent with revelation.

Perhaps the EO church is apophatic sometimes, Apophatic meaning "thinking that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said" (Wikipedia).

In the case of the real presence and relics, the Reformed seem to take a naturalistic, apophatic approach of negation.

"What has been revealed" in scripture, at least at face value, is that that the ritual bread is Christ's body and that saints' objects sometimes are involved in healings. These principles however have been denied through "negation" by Calvinism. Per Calvin, Christ absolutely cannot be present in the Eucharistic bread, because for Calvin, His body can only be stuck up in heaven. Likewise, for Calvin, relics' miracles are also negated as "superstition". Thus, what we find at face value in scripture is denied through Calvin's negation of it.

For example, what we find in Acts 19 people were healed by Paul's handkerchief. This is a descriptive account, not a prescriptive account. It was something that happened but nowhere in scripture are we told to seek to heal people in like manner.

I could argue that we are to follow in the model of Jesus and the faithful apostles, and that the scripture gives a very positive image of these incidents, and so we should take a positive or at least view of similar ones.
However, whether or not this is prescriptive is not my main argument. It's that as a matter of principle, the Reformed teachings appear to reject usage of holy objects, saints' clothes for healings, etc. And yet in fact, numerous times in scripture we actually do find them. That is, the Reformed principles go against what we find narrated in scripture. If Reformed were living in 1st century Judea and some preacher walked through town preaching the kingdom of God, the Reformed would find his teachings attractive, but once he started handing out his clothes like in Acts 19, per their general mindset on relics and Calvin's stated beliefs they would cynically disdain it as "superstition".

This is where the Eastern Orthodox denomination has erred... By denying the sufficiency of revelation anything maybe taken out of context and false doctrines created.

The issue of sufficiency of revelation is not dispositive of creating new doctrines and taking things out of context.
Reformed Christian Zionists are perfectly capable of taking verses out of context and creating new doctrines - and should one instead support Christian Zionists, he would instead assert the same about Christian anti-Zionists.
In _real life_ this kind of example shows that scripture alone can sometimes not be enough to reach a definitely correct position.

It's true that someone else could come along and introduce something outside of scripture that is false, like iconoclasm, but the introduction of new, false ideas is at least less likely if people dig into maintaining past traditions passed down from Christ and the apostles.

if we care about tradition, the tradition can be an anchor, preventing new falsehoods. If we go on scripture alone, then people can claim scripture means different things in those places where scripture is ambiguous. Even someplaces where the scripture can be discerned, in some places it is not stated so clearly that a heretic cannot come along and make up a new idea. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example, as they are convinced they follow the true meaning of scripture, and play with verses so that they mean what the JWS claim. Since the Reformed cannot resort to _totally obvious_ Traditions passed down and agreed on by the Christian community for the last 1600-2000 years or so like the Councils, they essentially cut out their own legs in discussions with the new sects that appear.

This is why in the more extreme cases of Reformed theologizing, "anything maybe taken out of context and false doctrines created". The examples of such controversies among Reformed are well known and ongoing, as you and I regret.

Another brief point; just because a doctrine is historical does not mean it is valid. The Sadducees and Pharisees held to heterdox doctrine, they pointed to tradition as their root and Christ asked them rhetorically, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" Tradition can be an evil mistress.

There is also more than a grain of truth in this. Luther addressed the corruption of Catholic tradition by severely downplaying its importance. But unfortunately, this was also a mistake. The Western Church was in a difficult situation due to this conjuncture of factors, unfortunately.

In reality he could have taken some approach like the Orthodox or the Old Catholics whereby he jettisoned Catholic teachings that were a problem and instead just stuck by the important teachings in the fathers while still emphasizing the importance of Tradition. He shared many of the same criticisms of Rome that the Old Catholics and Orthodox do, and he could have used their arguments from Tradition. At the same time, one does not have to be hamstring by Tradition to find it to be very important.

rakovsky · Feb 6, 2016

Thank you both for writing back about the second question. Let's please see if we can be more specific about it and the cases I mentioned - using saints' robes for miracles, the possibility of bones' involvement in healings, a saints' healing presence.
Afterwards, we can move on to the third question.

Peace.

JM · Feb 6, 2016

rakovsky said:
Thank you both for writing back about the second question. Let's please see if we can be more specific about it and the cases I mentioned - using saints' robes for miracles, the possibility of bones' involvement in healings, a saints' healing presence.
Afterwards, we can move on to the third question.

Peace.

Again, you are seeking carnal, fleshy, tangible evidences for faith. Who is being overly rational? Who is seeking to point us to the temporal and not to Jesus Christ? Scripture does not tell us to seek miracles and signs or look for healing power in saints relics or bones. Scripture is the earliest record we have of the church and is sufficient, "Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture alone is described as "inspired" or theopneustos, thay-AH-noo-stos. Tradition is never said to be "God breathed."

There is also more than a grain of truth in this. Luther addressed the corruption of Catholic tradition by severely downplaying its importance. But unfortunately, this was also a mistake. The Western Church was in a difficult situation due to this conjuncture of factors, unfortunately.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism steam from the same corrupt root. Blaming one who has gone astray doesn't relieve the guilt of the other who has gone equally astray. Jesus correct the scribes and pharisees for having traditions that nullified the word of God.

Since the Reformed cannot resort to _totally obvious_ Traditions passed down and agreed on by the Christian community for the last 1600-2000 years or so like the Councils, they essentially cut out their own legs in discussions with the new sects that appear.

This is a highly biased reading of the Reformed Confessions and theology. Even secularists believe Luther and Calvin were both Augustinian and therefore within the tradition of Western theology. We are well within the stream of Western tradition but this tradition is subservient to scripture. What is hidden in your presupposition is a learned dislike for anything Western which is why you keep bleating, "four legs good, two legs bad/Western theology is rational and therefore bad." (see what I did there, a ref to Animal Farm hehe)

if we care about tradition, the tradition can be an anchor, preventing new falsehoods.

You have already seen this but for the reader, it is will demonstrate how tradition was ruled by wicked men and women, for political means and ill gotten gains.

For almost 200 years the Greek State church argued over the use of images, specifically Icons and their purpose in the church…if they had any purpose at all. Many Western Christians are not familiar with this debate, at least not in detail, so I hope to give a very brief outline highlighting a few of the more interesting facts. Make no bones about it, I am unable to find any scriptural reason for the use of images, so the best I can try to do is be honest with the particulars as I have come to understand them. The debate took place between what modern historians call Iconoclasts and Iconophiles or those who rejected religious images often resulting in their destruction and those who believe religious images have a place in the Christian religion. This debate seemed bound to happen as the revelation of God in scripture came into contact with Greek culture and religion. The former rejects the use of images of the Divine and the latter wholeheartedly encourages images, statues and the like. Some Christians in both the East and West believed it was acceptable to create representations of Christ and the Trinity but there was also a group of Christians that denied any need for them. The Iconophiles believed icons were useful and even essential to worship while the Iconoclasts believed it was against the second commandment to do so. William R. Cannon points out, “A custom which primitive Christianity looked upon as idolatry was common practice in the eight century. Consequently what in ancient times had been an innovation was considered during this period as tradition.” (page 105) Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it. A similar debate can be found in the history of the Western church but it has not had the same impact on history as it had in the East. Some historians have suggested the numbering of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) might have contributed to the use of statues by Roman Catholics who, following Augustine of Hippo neatly tuck the First and Second Commandment into one and separated the Tenth into Nine and Ten. Lutherans use Augustine’s numbering of the Decalogue and take no issue with images either. I’m not sure if this really effects the views expressed by each group considering the Eastern Orthodox use the same numbering system as Judaism and Protestantism but it was mentioned a few times by different authors so I mention it here. When you take a closer look at the details of the “controversy” it soon becomes apparent that matters of theology were passed from the Byzantine Emperor to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the verdict was contrary to the wishes of the Emperor it was likely the Patriarch would be replaced. This happened more than a few times over the course of Byzantine history. From my reading on the subject it seems Leo (III) the Isaurian, Byzantine Emperor (717 – 741), saw a growing devotion and power ascribed to religious images. He believed this was mere superstition and tried to rid the empire of religious iconography with a series of edicts (726 – 729) forbidding the use of images in worship. Leo the III was not immune to superstition. It seems likely that Leo, having fought Islamic armies, believed that removing of images might lead to military victories. Whatever the reason behind the Controversy and it was always a political issue.

(Hagia Eirene Church, Iconoclast. Notice the lack of adornment.)

The Iconophiles found a champion in John of Damascus (645/676 – 749) who offered a polemic for the use of images. Cannon describes John as one of the few strong theologians of the 8th century, not in the same class as Augustine of Hippo, but without equal in the West for the time period. Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ. “If one accepted this vocabulary and Aristotelian framework, then devotion to visual images in Christianity was safe.” (MacCulloch, page 448) The Greek church essentially changed the language which framed the debate over images from art to theology. Skipping ahead the matter came to close as Irene of Athens, former regent and now Empress after having her sons blinded and imprisoned, assumed the throne. She was in favour of Icons and had a layman who was also in favour of Icons consecrated Patriarch. Patriarch Tarasios, with help from the State, held what was deemed an “Ecumenical Conclave” in 787 or what is often called the Second Council of Nicaea which effectively restored the use of images in worship. Some further political proclamations against Icons were made but Empress Theodora (843) restored again the use of images in worship. This last proclamation of the State church “effectively closed down the possibility of alternative forms of worship in Orthodox tradition.” (McCulloch, page 452) It soon becomes apparent the debate was heated and very political. Icons and other images had a cult following that garnered the support of the State. Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles. The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture. God “calls us back and withdraws us from petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God, are wont to devise.” (Calvin) Some are quick to point to the Second Council of Nicaea as a historical point of reference but we cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini. With the Reformers cry of “scripture alone” and “all of scripture” the debate was reopened in the West during the Reformation. John Calvin is masterful in the Institutes on this subject and I have quoted pertinent sections below for your further reading. He rightly calls Empress Irene “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” in his French edition.

Semper Reformanda,

jm

from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1: 14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely. 16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of λατρια and δυλια with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

Sources:

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years Diarmaid MacCulloch Penguin (2009) ISBN-13: 978-0141021898

History of Christianity in the Middle ages; From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople William R. Cannon Abingdon Press (1960) ISBN: n/a

rakovsky · Feb 6, 2016

I'll see if AMR wishes to give a more specific answer about my two questions in bold in message #14 before responding.

JM · Feb 6, 2016

It's that as a matter of principle, the Reformed teachings appear to reject usage of holy objects, saints' clothes for healings, etc. And yet in fact, numerous times in scripture we actually do find them.

Demonstrate from scripture how the church is to adopt the practice. I'm interested. What evidences do we have of people seeking bones for healing or clothes in scripture?

JM · Feb 6, 2016

I have specifically in mind cases where people touch a holy person's bones and get healed or revived, people touch a holy man's garments and get healed, the saint gives out his garments for healing, or people try to even just get near a saint or his shadow for healing.

Click to expand...

Anecdotals?

Thank you, I am not not talking about people offering devotion to holy objects themselves, but to simply holding on to these objects from saints and praying to God in devotion.

Click to expand...

How often have you seen a little babushka holding her icon and filako, believing superstitiously, that they will heal by holding them? Or that praying to the Holy Theotokos got results because she is more merciful and holds a special place with Christ, therefore, she can make your wishes happen?

Could the Philosophical & Interpretive Approach of Reformed Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

Are there early Christian writings that clearly teach against keeping relics for prayers & miracles

Yes

No

Other (explain).

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Newbie

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency