Replies

See, saying that doesn't change the equation for us at all. We know the argument is that the substance has been changed. We find no Biblical basis for that, and so we see in the monstrance what is really there, a man-made artifact. Adoration toward Christ requires no man-made object. Evangelicals cannot go there. To us, as long as we retain our fidelity to the Gospel, it will always be idolatry to treat such objects as divinity.

Which gets back to how we conduct these conversations. No amount of back and forth is going to result in a collective realization that one side or the other has been right or wrong. Individuals may have a flash of insight, a moment of grace by the power of God's Spirit, to see they have been wrong.

But until the end of the age we will have warring factions on all the important issues. What matters, I think, is how we handle that fact. For example, I could point out to you that your use of 1 Cor 11:29 is incorrect. Paul is there talking not about recognizing the substance of Christ hidden behind the appearance of the bread. He is talking about the selfish congregants not recognizing their weaker brothers and sisters as being the body of Christ. The whole midsection of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to expounding on us as the body of Christ.

But if I did so, would it change your view? That would be between you and God. I could hope for that, but I would be wrong to insist on it. It's not my call. There is no human substitute for the work of the Holy Spirit. So my best hope is to simply present the truth and leave the "insisting" to God alone.

What I'm asking in return is that both sides recognize that we can only take this so far, and the rest is up to God. I think it is a way we could agree to disagree on things without becoming agitated with each other. I think that would be a good thing.

Peace,