(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[MennoSota]

Radagast and Hedrick, as a matter of ecumenical attitudes and open minded compatible reading, I could be open to claims that Calvin allows for free will in the normal sense, including in the theology of an ability to choose God back when God chooses men, or that Calvin allows for the belief that God so loved THE WORLD that God gave His only son, or that God desires not the death of a sinner (Ezekiel) with all that the verses and others like them connote.

Yet we are still left with the real life result that what Calvin's literature commonly produces in its sincere adherents is thinking that does NOT allow for such ideas listed above, Exhibit A being :

I never addressed Calvin. I addressed God's word.

Try reading the Bible rather than commentators.

 

[rakovsky]

I never addressed Calvin. I addressed God's word.

Try reading the Bible rather than commentators.

So you came up with your rejection of free will and belief that Jesus only died for the elect based only on the Bible before you ever heard of Calvin or were taught religion by Reformed Protestants?

I think it was probably the opposite, you were taught or read this explanation of religion and then were persuaded that the Bible was agreeing with it.

This is why your teachings are a good example that Calvin's system leads people to deny free will and deny that Jesus died for the world like its critics claim.

 

[rakovsky]

95% of the emphasis from people outside the Reformed tradition. Predestination is the most controversial aspect of Calvin, and so gets most of the attention. But it wasn't even in the first edition of the Institutes, and certainly isn't the key in later editions. I would argue, with many others, that for Calvin the heart of Christianity was union with Christ.

That's kind of like saying that the heart of Catholicism or any other mainstream Christian group is union with Christ.

And my exhibit wasn't just limited atonement but denial of free will.

Anyway, I understand your view that Minnesotan and TULIP misunderstand Calvin, but even if you were right, it would still show that Calvin's literature commonly misleads people into these teachings that you and I disagree with. This is a major defect in his writings at best if people come away believing those things in harmony with it without noticing what you propose instead from it.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, this is the Calvinist view as I understand it, that the Eucharist bread is just a "holy sign", and Jesus' body is not actually in it.

Well, no. I think you misunderstood what I quoted, and ignored what I highlighted.

 

[Radagast]

Predestination is the most controversial aspect of Calvin, and so gets most of the attention. But it wasn't even in the first edition of the Institutes, and certainly isn't the key in later editions. I would argue, with many others, that for Calvin the heart of Christianity was union with Christ.

Also, for most Calvinists, what Calvin himself wrote is of limited interest; there are centuries of theology and biblical scholarship, in which he is just one writer.

Be aware that the public representatives of the Reformed tradition here emphasize TULIP. I don't think that represents today's Reformed Christianity.

It's certainly an important part of it, though.

 

[MennoSota]

So you came up with your rejection of free will and belief that Jesus only died for the elect based only on the Bible before you ever heard of Calvin or were taught religion by Reformed Protestants?

I think it was probably the opposite, you were taught or read this explanation of religion and then were persuaded that the Bible was agreeing with it.

This is why your teachings are a good example that Calvin's system leads people to deny free will and deny that Jesus died for the world like its critics claim.

You are projecting and deflecting.

The Bible teaches predestination. The Bible teaches election. The Bible teaches God's choice in redeeming humankind.

The Bible never mentions free will...ever.

I am simply stating the facts from the Bible.

Why do you run from the Bible and deflect it away?

 

[rakovsky]

Well, no. I think you misunderstood what I quoted, and ignored what I highlighted.

Here is what you highlighted :". In the meantime we err not, when we say, that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body, and the proper blood of Christ. "
Read Calvin's commentary on John 6. He teaches that eating Jesus' natural body means only consuming it spiritually up in heaven only, not anything done with the human mouth on earth.
Since the eating mentioned in your quote is not physical, there is no implication in what you highlighted that Jesus' body is actually in the bread itself.
Lutherans and Orthodox teach eating as both spiritual AND with the mouth, which is why Luther made a major point of that. Read Calvin's letter to Westphal. He goes into extreme length denying the Lutheran view that Jesus is in bread in spirit mode. Also read where I discussed this with Hedrick earlier in this thread please so I don't have to repeat the whole discussion.

 

[Radagast]

The Bible never mentions free will...ever.

Well, the Bible has imperative verbs that suggest some kind of free will. The question is, what kind? And there the passages on predestination rule out libertarian free will (which is probably the kind that most people mean)

 

[Radagast]

Read Calvin's commentary on John 6.

I have no interest in what Calvin wrote; I'm a Neocalvinist. I say that we receive the spiritual benefits while and by eating and drinking the bread and wine.

Since the eating mentioned in your quote is not physical, there is no implication in what you highlighted that Jesus' body is actually in the bread itself.

Nor is there for Catholics; Transubstantiation says that (1) the substance of the bread is absent, and (2) the accidents of the bread do not inhere in Christ's body.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, the Bible has imperative verbs that suggest some kind of free will. The question is, what kind? And there the passages on predestination rule out libertarian free will (which is probably the kind that most people mean)

You are working hard to read something into God's word that is not there.
Chosen, Elect and Predestined are all very plainly taught in the Bible. Accept it as thus saith the Lord and stop trying to put yourself in the drivers seat.

 

[Radagast]

Chosen, Elect and Predestined are all very plainly taught in the Bible.

I was not disagreeing with that; I'm a Calvinist.

 

[rakovsky]

I have no interest in what Calvin wrote; I'm a Neocalvinist. I say that we receive the spiritual benefits while and by eating and drinking the bread and wine.

Calvin agreed with this view that the bread is an instrument in this process, insofar as the eating the bread is part of the Eucharist ceremony in which that occurs.
It doesn't mean that Jesus is actually in the bread itself, or that "eating" the body actually means putting Jesus' body in one's mouth like the Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Church fathers taught.

Since the eating mentioned in your quote is not physical, there is no implication in what you highlighted that Jesus' body is actually in the bread itself.​

Nor is there for Catholics; Transubstantiation says that (1) the substance of the bread is absent, and (2) the accidents of the bread do not inhere in Christ's body.

Yes, for Catholics Jesus' body is not in the bread, but for a different reason that you gave - unlike Calvinism, they don't believe that there is actually bread there at all, it just looks like there is and has the physical properties of bread. Unlike Calvinists, they teach that Jesus is actually in the food, whether one calls it "bread" or not.

 

[FredVB]

It matters most of all what is said in the Bible. Jesus did say, this is my flesh, at the last meal, and had said of himself earlier, I am the bread from Heaven. That occasion was clear reference to mannah having prefigured him, not that wafers or small bits of bread or cracker are bread from Heaven, which would then be him, for those things are certainly not from Heaven. And when Jesus was facing his being sentenced, brutalized, and crucified shortly after that, it was very much on his mind, though it would be for atonement for his followers, it was not with thinking then that he would teach this new doctrine they hadn't received before that they would eat bread that becomes him. The Bible shows the actual gospel, that Jesus suffered and died for us, and rose again then victorious. This is represented without something additional that we need Christ doing for us in the gospel.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It matters most of all what is said in the Bible. Jesus did say, this is my flesh, at the last meal, and had said of himself earlier, I am the bread from Heaven. That occasion was clear reference to mannah having prefigured him, not that wafers or small bits of bread or cracker are bread from Heaven, which would then be him, for those things are certainly not from Heaven. And when Jesus was facing his being sentenced, brutalized, and crucified shortly after that, it was very much on his mind, though it would be for atonement for his followers, it was not with thinking then that he would teach this new doctrine they hadn't received before that they would eat bread that becomes him. The Bible shows the actual gospel, that Jesus suffered and died for us, and rose again then victorious. This is represented without something additional that we need Christ doing for us in the gospel.

Except, I believe that through the literal reading of the Gospels and the example set by the Early Church Fathers that were students of the Apostles (the same ones that wrote the Gospels) show that your view is contrary to what the Holy Gospels actually teach. Is means is.

 

[FredVB]

Except, I believe that through the literal reading of the Gospels and the example set by the Early Church Fathers that were students of the Apostles (the same ones that wrote the Gospels) show that your view is contrary to what the Holy Gospels actually teach. Is means is.

The example set by the Early Church Fathers is of value for some things, but if you were to follow everything from them, it would have there be a lot more to change. You should then be vegan. That is actually a good way to change. Yet for believers nothing that was happening later is to take precedence over what is taught from the Bible. And the gospel of salvation through faith in coming to Jesus, that is with repentance to the harm from us and offences to Yahweh from us that there are, is shown repeatedly in the scriptures, without need of taking a transubstantiation of anything into Jesus being shown.

There is value in seeing symbolic meaning in places rather than absolutely everything being literal in scriptures, or even in anything else. There are not literal planks in any of our eyes, after all. The gospel is about Jesus' atonement for us which included him going to the cross, it was for us, and in the hours of that final day before this happened, it was clearly very much on the mind of Jesus. Since it was for any of us who would be his believers, he was saying his offering himself for them was that new covenant, that had been anticipated from Jeremiah 31, which has internal change for those in it, that he showed with the bread at his last meal with his disciples, and with the wine, as he had the offering of himself on his mind, not a new teaching that isn't mentioned elsewhere to give them right then, which wouldn't be what the prophesied new covenant would be about. If it thought somehow Jesus meant he transubstantiated the bread and the wine right there among his disciples into his own body and blood (which if it really happened I think would be really noticeable, but what I've seen for that being claimed never is), there is no basis at all from that to insist that priests in the church are having wafers of bread or any wine transubstantiated into any flesh or blood of Jesus.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The example set by the Early Church Fathers is of value for some things, but if you were to follow everything from them, it would have there be a lot more to change. You should then be vegan. That is actually a good way to change. Yet for believers nothing that was happening later is to take precedence over what is taught from the Bible. And the gospel of salvation through faith in coming to Jesus, that is with repentance to the harm from us and offences to Yahweh from us that there are, is shown repeatedly in the scriptures, without need of taking a transubstantiation of anything into Jesus being shown.

There is value in seeing symbolic meaning in places rather than absolutely everything being literal in scriptures, or even in anything else. There are not literal planks in any of our eyes, after all. The gospel is about Jesus' atonement for us which included him going to the cross, it was for us, and in the hours of that final day before this happened, it was clearly very much on the mind of Jesus. Since it was for any of us who would be his believers, he was saying his offering himself for them was that new covenant, that had been anticipated from Jeremiah 31, which has internal change for those in it, that he showed with the bread at his last meal with his disciples, and with the wine, as he had the offering of himself on his mind, not a new teaching that isn't mentioned elsewhere to give them right then, which wouldn't be what the prophesied new covenant would be about. If it thought somehow Jesus meant he transubstantiated the bread and the wine right there among his disciples into his own body and blood (which if it really happened I think would be really noticeable, but what I've seen for that being claimed never is), there is no basis at all from that to insist that priests in the church are having wafers of bread or any wine transubstantiated into any flesh or blood of Jesus.

Except that this has been the the teaching of the Church (the early Church; the Churches that came out of the early Church i.e. the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church and the Moravian Church; until, of course, along came Zwingli and Karlstadt and the radical reformation. Even to this day, numerically the Churches that retain the teaching of the Apostols so greatly out number the reformed protestants of the radical reformation.

It is what it is, and that does not necessarily mean the over defined "transubstantiation" that the Catholic Church so strongly insists upon. Scripture is silent about how or what happens; but it is very clear that it does happen.

God is not frivolous, He would not command us to do something that is valueless.

 

[FredVB]

Except that this has been the the teaching of the Church (the early Church; the Churches that came out of the early Church i.e. the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church and the Moravian Church; until, of course, along came Zwingli and Karlstadt and the radical reformation. Even to this day, numerically the Churches that retain the teaching of the Apostols so greatly out number the reformed protestants of the radical reformation.

It is what it is, and that does not necessarily mean the over defined "transubstantiation" that the Catholic Church so strongly insists upon. Scripture is silent about how or what happens; but it is very clear that it does happen.

God is not frivolous, He would not command us to do something that is valueless.

Clarity is needed in communication, including in this. I don't already know about teachings of all the churches. So I should hear if there is not support of "Catholic transubstantiation" being communicated here. And I should be understood to not be supporting reformed theology. I do speak for what is taught from the Bible, which is not needing additional tradition. Jesus didn't teach that we needed more than that with our obedience but our relationship with him and with God through him.

What is it that is being said does happen? With being a believer, being in Christ, it is the case that Jesus Christ is with me. I would not be saying that when I partake of communion in memory of what he did that it is valueless or meaningless. What we consume is broken apart and parts from that become a part of us, there is transubstantiation of that into us, this is true yet of anything we consume. It is still understood that if it were meaningless beyond that to one, there shouldn't be a partaking of that communion. The symbolism is with active remembrance of his accomplishment for us, and we are active in remembering and internalizing this, understanding as we should our utter dependence on this accomplishment from him.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

While I agree with most of what you say, I rely on the witness of Scripture, the support for Scripture given by the ECFs, and my faith in God and His eternal Word.

Regarding Transubstantiation, no, Scripture does not support the view that it is changed from simple bread and wine to Christ's body and blood; ranther Scripture, the ECFs, and even the Confessional orthodox remormers such as Luther take Scripture at face value. Scripture speaks of the consecrated Eucharist as being both Christ's body and blood and as bread and wine.

Reformed protestants say Lutherans hold "Consubstantiation" but that is wrong also, as this implies both are present.

The Orthodox Church and Confessional Lutherans such as myself, the LCMS, LCC and the ILC Communion are content to accept it as wrote, and confess it as truth, and explain it as a divine mystery; much the same way we accept Elijah being taken to heaven on a flaming chariot, the mortal remains of Moses being taken away, and Moses and Elijah showing up at the Transfiguration (commemorated at our Parish last Sunday). If we can believe the resurrection, the real presence in the Eucharist is far less of an achievement for God.

 

[FredVB]

While I agree with most of what you say, I rely on the witness of Scripture, the support for Scripture given by the ECFs, and my faith in God and His eternal Word.

Regarding Transubstantiation, no, Scripture does not support the view that it is changed from simple bread and wine to Christ's body and blood; ranther Scripture, the ECFs, and even the Confessional orthodox remormers such as Luther take Scripture at face value. Scripture speaks of the consecrated Eucharist as being both Christ's body and blood and as bread and wine.

Reformed protestants say Lutherans hold "Consubstantiation" but that is wrong also, as this implies both are present.

The Orthodox Church and Confessional Lutherans such as myself, the LCMS, LCC and the ILC Communion are content to accept it as wrote, and confess it as truth, and explain it as a divine mystery; much the same way we accept Elijah being taken to heaven on a flaming chariot, the mortal remains of Moses being taken away, and Moses and Elijah showing up at the Transfiguration (commemorated at our Parish last Sunday). If we can believe the resurrection, the real presence in the Eucharist is far less of an achievement for God.

From my perspective the witness of scripture is the same as his eternal word. If you are really observing what is shown from the early church, then you are vegan. There is good basis for that, but I haven't seen you say that.

If we use the idea that Yahweh God can do anything, which is truth, then God can make the bread used in communion into the body of Jesus, and have it seen by any as a recognized miracle, God could have made everything of creation in a few days, or arranged the processes of the world and everything to produce what we have now over thousands of millions of years. Anything might be the case because God can do that.

It is a very bold statement from scripture and from what Jesus said for being in just one verse without other witness of scripture passages to be such miracle, and also divine mystery that we cannot explain. It would seem there would need to be more for such being the case, such as an obvious change in the bread and wine being used, or if that isn't seen, a number of scripture passages for it, and preferably Jesus repeatedly speaking for it. If it says, "Take this and divide it among yourselves, this is my body being given for you, when the priests that you will have that are given for being among you offer the bread they use among you, that bread will also become my body being given for those still among you, and so it shall always be done", this then tells us adequately. But Jesus said to do this in memory of him. If that is the point, it is not the same as having the faith that the bread from the priest in communion has the presence of the body of Jesus being given for those gathered for this. It was not said for that understanding if such change was meant other than for that special evening of Jesus' last supper, and not of other times, or priests being needed, anywhere.

Faith that Jesus is with me already is good to have in itself.

If there is belief in Jesus having accomplished all for our atonement, and that we don't need something further for our salvation beyond the repentance having faith which is necessary, that is what really matters, and our different understandings of other things are of less consequence.