JFJ Forums

There is three main positions that are held. They are Reformed position, The Lutheran position and the Memorial position. All of them reject " Transubstantiation " as heretical and contrary to Scripture. These views are taught and defended in their systematic theology works.




I have not used any arguments at all from Dr. Boetner at all. Protestants hold that the RCC view of the Lord's Supper was defined and fully taught after 1100ad and not held by the early church fathers.




You misrepresented Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans as they do not hold to Transubstantiation. While they do hold to a physical presence they do not embrace what is held by the RCC. EO takes issue regarding on how the RCC explains it.  While Lutherans hold to what is called consubstantiation. It is distinct from the RCC position. I disagree with my Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ on this issue.

You quoted him out of context is your citation. You evidently did not read what he said before and after the statements you cited from him and ignored the historical context of his discussion. This is a clear case of arachronism. What he was talking about was defending the reality of the physical body of the Lord Jesus Christ . He was dealing with those who denied the humanity of Jesus Christ. These people denied the reality of Christ humanity and denied his resurrection from the dead.




They did not hold to transubstantiation as you claimed. You resorted to basic anachronism in each of them. I reviewed their writings and fail to see them as teaching the RCC position as it is presently defined. Your basic error is that you equate " real presence " with transubstantiation. The quotes you presented I have seen many times. You presented nothing that I never seen before . My problem is the RCC distorts and change what that they actually held. These same people Lutherans likewise cite for their own position on this issue and reject your position. Instead of appealing to doctrinal development you want to have them as already embracing present day RCC theology when such is not the case on this issue.




Here you simply errored on his position and failed to read Augustine's exposition of John 6 which the RCC uses for it's position and we find out he did not hold to the RCC interpretation of it. Augustine held to Christ Spiritual presence expressly in it. This leads me to believe you relied upon secondary sources and not primary sources which is their writings themselves. I have their writings whereas I am sure you do not and depended upon RCC web sites who try and quote them without regard to it's context. I did notice you cited them in the same exact manner as RCC  web sites and books have them as quoted. You passed on the error that they made in quoting them.

Those three are antiChristian in their beliefs. They are unbelievers and hence wont be saved.




Only believing Jews have the same God as Jews who come to faith in Jesus have the God of Scripture and hence will embrace the Trinity and the Deity and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unbelieving Israel presently rejects the trinity and hence reject God the father who sent the Lord Jesus Christ whom is God, the Son to them. Only Jews who are Christians such as the Apostles since Pentecost have the God of Scripture. All who reject the Trinity deny the God of Scripture and wont be saved . Not ever.

Chafer,

I’m at a retreat this weekend so will respond to your post early next week.  In the meantime, can I ask you to provide some additional info?  You make many claims regarding the Eucharist and Baptsimal regeneration that the Early Church Fathers (ECF) did not hold the view held by the RCC.

Could you please explain to me, in light of the quotes from the ECF, how their view of regenerative baptism differs from the RCC view?  Likewise, I cited over a dozen quotes from the ECF on the Real Presence in the Eucharist.  Can you tell me what the differences are between those citations and the RCC position?  Or in what ways the RCC has distorted the ECF writings? I understand the subtleties between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, but both represent views of a real, vis-à-vis a spiritual presence.  Can you explain to me how the quotes I provided explain a spiritual only presence?  Or could you provide references to ECF who held a spiritual only presence as you understand it or as some of your systematic theological references teach it?

wk~

You place great importance on SOMEONE I HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF...

Many of us don't base our opinions on ANYTHING other than the word of God. I have not studied Luther, Calvin, or RCC Fathers, more than a very superficial look. Chafer has, but still appeals to scripture as the ultimate authority.

I could care less what anyone else says: JESUS SAID/IT IS WRITTEN: "Do this in remembrance of me." He didn't say "then I will be MORE PRESENT than when two or three are gathered in My name". Nor did He say, "In the future this will be My literal body and blood that you are consuming, which it obviously can't be here because it is bread and wine and I am in my body."

I know you think this is unrelated to Gentile Talmuism, but it IS THE VERY SAME THING. You prefer/DEFER to the words/teachings of men who have ADDED to the word of God. Your Gentile Talmudism reigns.

Just like the Jewish Talmudists here, who say "our Rabbis gave you the idea of a messiah that you appeal to in the first place", you Gentile Talmudists say "our Church established the scripture that you appeal to in the first place".

THAT IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER HERE AND PURPOSE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS AND WHY YOU EVEN STARTED THIS THREAD.

Chafer,

You are failing to directly answer my questions, and continuing to accuse me of being dishonest.  I will include very specific questions at the end of this post that I would kindly like you to answer.  Regarding your other posts …

You said: “The  Christian Church did not collect the OT Canon. It was Israel who was to did so. I already cited Romans 3:1-2 for this as proof. Thus you errored historically on this point. Neither Rome, Cartage of Hippo approved the same exact OT books as the Council of Trent. And I showed that the RCC itself says it defined and settled the issue in 1546ad  and not prior to it. I cited an RCC source for this. So your basically being dishonest on that point.”

You are accusing me of being “dishonest” which is basically an indirect way of saying I’m lying.  I’ve already pointed out that Trent reaffirmed, to the level of dogma, the canon of scripture.  The article you referenced points this out – you just need to read the whole thing!  Here again is the link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm.  We can address the “differences” in these canons later but will you at least acknowledge that EVERY Christian Council that proclaims a canon of scripture includes deuterocanonical books and NO Christian Council proclaims the canon as held by Protestants?

You state that I’ve “errored historically” on the point of the OT Canon being realized by the Christian Church.  You make this statement with a mistaken confidence and the historical facts are quite opposite of what you claim.  You claim that the canon of scripture was acknowledged as it was written yet we have disagreement among the Jewish people as to what comprises the O.T. canon.  THIS IS FACT.  It is also FACT, that the canon of scripture was not considered closed by the Jewish people and no attempts were made to acknowledge a canon until well after Jesus Christ established the Church, breathed upon it the Holy Spirit, gave authority to the Apostles, destroyed the temple …..   Please tell me how there could be so much dispute among the Early Church Leaders if your two primary assertions regarding the canon of scripture are true: 1) that the canon of scripture is clearly defined in scripture 2) the O.T. canon was realized as it was written and closed in 500 B.C.
(cont …)

(… cont)
You cite Romans 3:1-2 as proof that Israel was to collect the OT canon.  Here is the quote: “Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”  I agree that the O.T. scriptures were committed to the Jewish people, as were the oral traditions, comprising the “oracles of God”.  Again, the question remains: of all the scriptures “committed” to Israel, what was the canon?  Was it the Torah only (as believed by the Sadducees), or was it the Hebrew only scriptures (as believed by the Pharisees), or was it the Hebrew and deuterocanon (as accepted by the Jews of the Diaspora, present day Ethiopian Jews, Christians in Rome, Carthage, and Hippo).  Your quote does absolutely nothing to settle the O.T. canon.

Here too is where dispensational theology muddies the water.  You treat the Church as separate from Israel, rather than seeing the Kingdom Jesus established as being a continuation, an ingrafting of Gentiles into God’s chosen people.  So you do not see God working through the Kingdom his Son established as being a continuation of his chosen people being entrusted with the oracles of God.  You divide it into a Gentile Church dispensation and a Nation of Israel dispensation.

You said: “What you said totally contradictes the OT Hebrew Canon division that Jesus Christ followed. Why did Jesus follow the OT Palestian Canon listing rather than the LXX in the verse below ?”.  You then go on to quote Luke 24:44.

I say:  Please tell me how you can claim a specific canon or even a Hebrew only canon from “the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms”.  What about the other wisdom literature or historical books?  Then you go on with the following claim for which you have absolutely no evidence: “The fact is though Jesus and the Apostles and early church used the LXX they still followed the OT Hebrew canon listing.”  There wasn’t a recognized canon at that time!!!!  Divisions of scripture (Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) does nothing to set a canon.

Also, if Jesus rejected the Oral Torah and the Deuterocanon, can you please show me what was his O.T. foundation for celebrating the Feast of Chanukah?
(cont …)

(… cont)
You said regarding my assertion that the early Church considered the deuterocanonical books inspired: “That is not true. Very few held that it was Scripture. It was after around 400ad where this takes place.”

I say:  I already provided numerous citations from early church fathers using these as scripture.  I also provided Protestant references who acknowledge this.  You can deny this all you want.  You can even provide references to others who did not consider the deuterocanon as inspired.  All this does is provide evidence to the FACT that the O.T. canon is 1) not clearly presented in scripture, 2) was not agreed upon by either the Christian or Jewish community and therefore was not “established as it was written”.

You said regarding the debate as to the canon of scripture in the early church: “Most rejected it prior to around 400ad. This heavy debate took place at Trent in 1546 . And we see the RCC was trying to counter the claimes of the Reformers.”

I say: Now this is “dishonesty” on your part.  Here are the facts:
1) Jews of the Diaspora had the deuterocanon in their collection of scripture and Ethiopian Jews still do today
2) All Christian councils that proclaim a canon of scripture, include the deuterocanon. The Church in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage all proclaimed a canon that included deuterocanon books prior to 400 A.D.
3) NO Christian council has EVER proclaimed a Hebrew only O.T. canon.
4) Of the 100s of non-Hebrew writings pre-dating Christ, the original King James Bible included the EXACT SAME deuterocanoncial books as affirmed later at Trent.  These continued to be included in an appendix well after the Reformation.

So Chafer, how is it you can say “most rejected it prior to around 400 ad” when ALL of the Church Councils prior to 400 A.D. that list a canon proclaim one that includes the Deuterocanonical books?  It would seem based on the EVIDENCE that the majority actually accepted them.

No, I have not directly read the works of Luther just as you have not directly read the works of many Catholic theologians, nor have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You claim to have read the early church writings with regard to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, yet your conclusion of a “spiritual presence” is in opposition to the numerous quotes I provided which you seem to have completely glossed over.
(cont …)

Here are questions I’ve posed that I would like to see you answer directly:

- Why did the original King James Bible contain EXACTLY the same deuterocanonical books as in the Catholic Canon if they were “added” at Trent?  If the idea was to include “useful but not inspired” books, don’t you think we would see at least a few other books in the appendix such as the Didache or perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas, or maybe some of the encyclicals by some of the great early church fathers?
- Why is there not one single Christian Council throughout the 2000 year history of the church that affirms the Protestant O.T. Canon?
- Why did St. Jerome include the deuterocanon in the Latin Vulgate if his final conclusion was that they were "useful but uninspired"?  Why did he not include other "useful but uninspired" books?
- Was St. Augustine wrong to consider the deuterocanon as inspired?
- Do the Ethiopian Jews have an incorrect canon?
- Why is there a different canon among the Jewish people and why was the canon of scripture disagreed upon by the great leaders of the early church if scripture so clearly sets forth it’s own canon?
- Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the N.T. authors to use the Septuagint as the primary source for O.T. quotations?  Shouldn’t ALL of the O.T. references have come from the Hebrew scriptures if this was the only inspired scripture?
You listed the Westminster Confession as an authoritative source for the canon of scripture.  This confession also approves infant baptism, which you call “merely getting wet”.  If you don't trust the Westminster confession regarding infant baptism, how can you trust it’s definition of the canon of scripture?

Thanks for answering these questions directly.  When you are done, I’ll post my closing remarks.

Evidence please!!!! Please explain your understanding of the RCC position on Apostolic Succession and how it differs from the ECF.  Please show me a writing from the ECF that refutes the RCC and EO position on apostolic succession.   The RCC position is in no way based on Replacement Theology, but rather on "Fulfillment Theology" as granted by Jesus Christ himself.  I've discussed this in a separate thread including scripture references from both the Old and New Testaments, references to Jewish Tradition (which you evidently reject), and writings of the ECF.   What's your likely response??? All of these ECF "departed from scripture".  (If you don't mind, could you please post your response in the thread titled "Semicha" in the "Roman Catholicism" section)