Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”
The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.
Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.
What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….
This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….
[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.
Johann Adam Möhler
Even God can not do everything, He is constrained by His nature ( God can not sin as an example) .Jesus did more than take on the appearance of a man. He was fully man and fully God, He was wearing his flesh. So IF he gave them His flesh IT HAD TO BE SPIRITUAL FLESH not the actual flesh. The actual flesh and blood was standing in front of them. That would be more a Lutheran position than Catholic one.
You ignored what was in my previous post:
Did you read that? The True Body and Blood of Christ Himself, not some SPIRITUAL FLESH you are trying to conjure up.
So you are claiming God's nature constrained him from making the bread and wine into His body and blood? Did he or did he not multiply the five loaves and two fish to feed the crowd of five thousand and afterwards have twelve baskets full remaining? How did he do it?
Who denies that Christians in a state of grace are indwelt by the Holy SPirit? Who denies that we can profitably read the Scriptures? Yet it is self-evident from the multiplicity of interpretations and "spins" on Scripture, that the Holy SPirit does not guarantee that He will enlighten the individual believer's mind so that, collectively, ALL individual believers speak with one voice. Toi say He does is silly, given the overwhelming evidence around us.
Yes, we can read the Scripture, with a will to conform to the mind of the Church, which IS led in this area by the Holy Spirit. But the key here is the will to conform our belief to the Church in areas where there is doubt, confusion or other obstacle within the individual believer's mind.
You betray a lack of understanding of the basics here. To say what you say here is similar to saying that the Trinity didn't exist until the Council of Nicaea said it did!
Councils don't "define" things until a controversy arises concerning the issue defined. NO ONE doubted that Christ is truly, corporally present in the Eucharist until the roughly the 10th Century, and even then, there were very few. It seemed expedient in the 13th century to seek a definition of the matter, and this is what was done. The Fourth Lateran Council defined the term in 1215. But the burden of proof is on you to show that the concept was not held by the Christian faithful prior to this timeframe. Please explain, in particular, how the following voices from the early Church do not contradict your contention:
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
Anything you choose to add or subtract from this confession is your belief.
review
The Bible indicates that ordinary human beings are capable of doing extraordinary/supernatural things with the infusion of God's Holy Spirit. For example, Paul writes, "All these (gifts, achievements, abilities) are inspired and brought to pass by one and the same (Holy) Spirit, Who apportions to each person individually (exactly) as He chooses. (1 Corinthians 12:11). If He (the Holy Spirit) can dwell in us individually can He not teach us individually? He teaches, guides, counsels, and brings orphans into the home and heart of God. Moreover, because He is Spirit, He can do this by a personal indwelling.
But the key here is the will to conform our belief to the Church in areas where there is doubt, confusion or other obstacle within the individual believer's mind.
Conform to the church or to the image of His Son?
"I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind & in the same judgment." (1Cor1:10)
What mind is that? The mind of Christ. The "same mind" we are to have is a "spiritual" mind. That of the heart. This is something ONLY for Christians. "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God."(1Cor2:9-10)
I have been pondering this topic all weekend I assure you. One thing that crossed my mind is difference in understanding. Where one may have a greater revelation of scriptural teaching because of spiritual maturity another may have less of an understanding or revelation. Because the degrees of understanding differ doesn't mean the two people have different doctrines. We have the babes in Christ; those whose spiritual "digestive systems" can only digest the milk and we have those who have become more perfected (mature) who would starve on the milk only and need the "meat".
I do not deny there are those who would manipulate the texts of scripture to suit their own selfish agenda. We are warned of this over and over again in the Word of God. However, we are given a measure according to our level of spiritual understanding, and because revelation is measured to us as our ability to spiritually reason the things of God is increased, we only know in part. Until we (collectively) come into His (Christ's) fullness we will continue to only know in part. I don't think anyone is arrogant enough to proclaim any one person or group of people measures up to the fullness of Christ.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe what the bible says because your priest tells you it's true or do you believe and understand because you have had personal individual revelation of its truth? Are you taking his word for it because of his position or do you seek to line up his teachings with scripture to discern the truth for yourself? Do you call Jesus Lord because someone told you He was Lord or do you call him Lord because the Holy Spirit has revealed (taught)to you, an individual, He is Lord?
So you say Christ was bound by the very laws of physics he has created. Can you explain how the laws of physics applied to the following:
Luke 9:10-17 where Jesus gave five loaves and two fish to feed the multitude of over 5000 and when they had their fill there were gathered up twelve baskets full of left overs.
Matt 14:25-33 where Jesus came walking on the sea.
Matt 15:32-38 where Jesus fed the multitude of over four thousand with seven loaves and a few small fish, and after they were filled seven baskets full were left over.
Matt 17:24-27 at Capernaum, where Jesus had Peter cast a hook and take up the first fish which had a stater coin in its mouth to pay the temple tax.
Matt 21:18-22 when Jesus found a fig tree by the road with nothing on it but leaves and said "Let there be no fruit from you forever!" Immediately the fig tree withered away.
Luke 5:1-10 when Jesus told Simon to go back out and fish, after they had already tried without success, and he filled both boats so that they began to sink.
John 2:1-12 when Jesus said to them, "Fill the water pots with water" and they filled them up to the brim. The Jesus told them to draw some out, and take it to the ruler of the feast and when the ruler of the feast tasted the water it had now become wine.
***"The Person saved by GRACE WILL DO GOOD WORKS because GOD has FOR ORDAINED THEM after the person has been saved, not because we can be saved by them!"*****
Simple!
By GRACE are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves for it is THE GIFT OF GOD;
Not of works, that no man may glory.
For WE are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which GOD hath prepared that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-9.
There are many other verses of Paul tht say virtualy the same thing.
Can we cancel all of Paul's letters with ONE verse in James that was written to the circumcised Jewish Christians who were meeting in the Temple, observing the Law of Moses, offering sacrifices and vows and had a contingent of believing Pharsees demanding circumcision for Gentiles?
James is cannonal and scriptural even though it didn't show up for almost 200 years after the death of Christ. It is just not as weighty as all the verses of Paul, (excepting for those who want to earn their salvation).
*** That is why on a Sunday morning you see protestants with their bible opened reading along to make sure the text is being correctly presented.***
This reminds me of the time the reader stood up to read from the NEW and IMPROVED Vulgate in the church at Carthage.
"And the LORD God prepared and ivy,.." And the people rioted in the church because they from memory knew the word was GOURD!
Augustine was deeply troubles because of it.
Or..
When the Baptist preacher in the church I attend, (I am not a Baptist), said that At Canna is where The Lord Jesus Christ turned the water into UNFERMENTED GRAPE JUICE!
Several of us looked at each other and whispered, "That is not what it said".
"The Bible indicates that ordinary human beings are capable of doing extraordinary/supernatural things with the infusion of God's Holy Spirit. For example, Paul writes, "All these (gifts, achievements, abilities) are inspired and brought to pass by one and the same (Holy) Spirit, Who apportions to each person individually (exactly) as He chooses. (1 Corinthians 12:11). If He (the Holy Spirit) can dwell in us individually can He not teach us individually? He teaches, guides, counsels, and brings orphans into the home and heart of God. Moreover, because He is Spirit, He can do this by a personal indwelling."
The Holy Spirit *can* do anything He likes, obviously. The question is, does He do things in the manner you propose? I think the answer is clearly "No." 1Corinthians 12:11 has nothing to do with this issue. He bestows different gifts on different people, but they all point to the one truth. The Truth is one! It does not self-contradict. Therefore, since differing Scriptural opinions manifestly DO conflict, such opinions cannot be inspired by the same Spirit. Therefore, your quote from St. Paul doesn't apply, as there are as many takes on Scripture within Christianity as there are verses! For this same reason, I would disagree with your train of thought in your last several paragraphs.
When we conform to the teaching of the Church, we ARE conforming to the "image of the Son." "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me." (Luke 10:16) The Church is appointed to teach and preach, upon Scripture or the oral Tradition. It is not given to everyone who calls himself a Christian. Perhaps the charism for Scriptural interpretation is limited, at least in part, because God respects our free will. If everyone could tap the Holy Spirit's wisdom in perfect lock-step, the pagans would have been compelled to believe. God doesn't operate that way. Everyone has spiritual gifts. But, while they all point to the same end, they are not able to be exercised in unison. The gift of Scriptural interpretation, at bottom, is reserved to the Church as an institution. We interpret Scripture correctly only insofar as we align our interpretation to the Church's.
"Let me ask you this. Do you believe what the bible says because your priest tells you it's true or do you believe and understand because you have had personal individual revelation of its truth? Are you taking his word for it because of his position or do you seek to line up his teachings with scripture to discern the truth for yourself? Do you call Jesus Lord because someone told you He was Lord or do you call him Lord because the Holy Spirit has revealed (taught)to you, an individual, He is Lord?"
I believe what the Bible says because I have been graced by God to accept it. That IS within the perview of what is given to an individual Christian. Much of Scripture is fairly straightforward, I grant. Little difference of opinion exists in that portion, and I don't need to run off to the priest or bishop to parse it out. But some things are ambiguous, difficult to understand, need further illumination for proper context, have seeming contradictions, etc. These things I DO check to see what the Church has said on the matter. I weigh what I think myself against the Church's view, and you'd be surprised how VERY often (if I may say so) my initial take aligns perfectly with what the Church has said. Perhaps THAT is a legitimate province for the working of the Spirit! Yet obedience to the Spirit is what He seeks here, and my conformity is directed to what His will for me is. As a matter of filial obedience to the Church which is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15), I will submerge my personal pride and conform my understanding accordingly. Do you not also accept certain teachings on faith, rather than your own internal logic or supposition? I'm sure you do. By way of clarification, however, I do not necessarily consider the interpretations of "my priest" to be all that authoritative, either. For one, the charism is no more his than mine, it rests definitively with the pope and bishops in union with him. For another, many current priests are infected with the spirit of Modernism, and, in matters such as this, are often badly misled themselves. This situation, thankfully, is slowly changing, but many priests 50-70 years old are too inconsistent to be of any use.
But the bottom-line is obvious from even a cursory observation of Christians in action: the charism of uniform biblical interpretation is not one of the gifts of the Spirit in 1Corinthians 12 (it's not even mentioned there), and it is not, in any case, something that God wishes to grant to all individual Christians. If He did so desire, we wouldn't be having this converstaion, as it would be on a situation that doesn't exist.
It most certainly WOULD be idolatry! And that is precisely my point. God has to suffer His Church plodding through history in the hands of weak and sinful men. But His Truth, his doctrine, as He has revealed it, will, through the protection of the Holy Spirit, NOT undergo corruption. It is impossible to suppose that Jesus Christ would institute the Eucharist as a mere "memorial," knowing (He IS God, after all) that His teaching on the subject would be IMMEDIATELY misconstrued. Not only misconstrued, but IDOLATROUSLY misconstrued at that! And further, we have to suppose, if this scenario is correct, that He knew *1500* years would have to go by before the "correct" notion of the Eucharist would finally start becoming known.
An acceptance of all of the forgoing scenario would display an utter disregard for the Providence of God. It's not the same as the issue of unworthy and sinful men in His Church. The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30) sufficiently clarifies that issue.
Finally, as for the actual issue at hand, transubstantiation, please see a compendium of early Christian sources on the Real Presence in the Eucharist I appended to my answer to your post 214
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (past tense).
Please note that all God has done for us in Eph 1 and 2 is past tense, or already done.
As one noted preacher said years ago, a person who comes to Christ to be saved, is SAVED, SEALED, SAINTED, and SEATED IN THE HEAVENLIES with Christ Jesus when they believed on him. (Past tense).
In whom ye also trusted,
..heard the word of truth,
believed,
SEALED with the HOLY SPIRIT of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession ...
Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, HAVING THIS SEAL, THE LORD KNOWETH THEM THAT ARE HIS.
But then, you wouldn't know about that since it was NOT one of the C of C preachers. (or for that matter, an AG, Penticostal, or "hold on lest you be lost" preacher).
If I follow your belief, all sin is washed away at baptism. Then it is up to me to keep my self sinless lest I fall. You look out there at that world! Can you keep yourself sinless? Why do you think God established a continual sacrifice for sin and tresspass. Can YOU stand against the devil if he comes against you in all his power?
The C of C preacher I talk with has told me one doesn't really know if they are saved or not till the judgement. It depends on the "state of mind" one has when he dies.
You might be saved in the morning, lost at noon, saved again at evening, lost at bed time! He actually told me this!
My own mother, on her death bead cried out to her preachers that she was afraid to die because, "I'm afraid I haven't done enough!" I wanted to scream, "It is not what you have done for God! It is what God has done for you"!
And she had been in that sect most of her adult life. Her preachers assured her she had done enough. How do the preachers know?
And I am one who thanks God every day because that legalistic bond has been broken over me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.