Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
Tell me, what did Christ mean when He said "This is My Body... This is My Blood", was he just playin a little prank on the apostles? What did he mean when He said "My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink"? Does that sound like a metaphor to you??


Yes. It sounds like a metaphor. If it is really his blood and flesh then tell me what does blood and flesh taste like? I have taken communion in a Catholic church before(the bread) and it tasted like bread. It did not taste like flesh.

Jesus said this because he wanted this as a symbol of our devotion to him. If we accept him as our saviour we are one flesh with him, as we are become the bride of Christ, married to him. Two become one flesh.


Nonsense. Read John 6. Please.

The crowd listening complained about His teaching, saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?". In His reply, Jesus said (in short):

"My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

Many of his followers said "This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?". Many of His disciples left him, unable to accept this teaching.

Now, if Christ had been speaking in metaphors, why would His disciples have left him? Was the metaphor not of high enough quality for them?

If the disciples had just misinterpreted Jesus, why didn't He correct them? Why didn't He say "Wait a minute, guys, I was just using symbolic language! I don't actually want you to eat my flesh, I mean c'mon!"? The only honest interpretation is the Christ meant exactly what He said.

Even His apostles didn't understand His teaching, but they remained loyal to him because of faith. Protestants today are much like those disciples who left Christ when things became difficult to understand. In their churches, they have a pale immitation of the Eucharist or none at all because they refuse to accept Christ's words at face value: "This IS My Body...This IS My Blood". Protestants make a liar of Christ at the last supper.

Please produce a single passage from the Bible, or any source previous to the second millenium, that refers to the Eucharist purely as a symbol, and explicitly denies the real presence. The reality is that you can't produce one. The concept of a symbolic Eucharist is completely alien to the Bible and to the Church of Christ.

Concerning your experience, it was a grave abuse to receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily. For a protestant to even approach the Eucharist is extremely disrespectful, but for you to have received our Lord while rejecting His church is sacrilege, plain a simple. I beg you, at least out of respect, to never again receive communion in a Catholic Church. (barring a conversion)

Christ never told us that the Eucharist woud taste like flesh. The teaching of the Church is that the substance of bread and wine is replaced with that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The accidents of bread and wine remain; that is, the Eucharist looks, tastes, and smells like bread and wine - but It's not. This is something we must accept on faith because the Lord told us so. To refuse to accept it is to reject the words of Christ.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruth wrote:
Dauphin, maybe we should start a thread on Roman Catholicism and Protestantism so we don't derail this thread. What do you say?


I don't much feel like a long discussion, but if you start it, I'll join in. (I'm never able to let these discussions go :mrgreen:)
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:

In my opinion, the failings and errors of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is well documented.


Fascinating. I'd be interested in seeing this documentation.
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

off topic...your username is Dauphin?

Your from that city-town in Manitoba?

Riding Mountain is a lovely place, don't get that far up north often.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

westmanguy wrote:
off topic...your username is Dauphin?

Your from that city-town in Manitoba?

Riding Mountain is a lovely place, don't get that far up north often.


Haha. Strangely enough, I did choose that handle years ago after looking at a map of Manitoba, but it was really a coincidence. I'm living at Queen's University, in Kingston, right now. I've never even been to Manitoba :P
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Concerning your experience, it was a grave abuse to receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily.


I was young and an Anglican(close to being Catholic). I asked a Cathlolic friend I was there with and he said it was okay. We say the Apostles Creed in the Anglican church (I think that's the one that says about believing in the Cathlolic church)


Didn't think I was unworthy. Oh well learn something new everyday!
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
Concerning your experience, it was a grave abuse to receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily.


I was young and an Anglican(close to being Catholic). I asked a Cathlolic friend I was there with and he said it was okay. We say the Apostles Creed in the Anglican church (I think that's the one that says about believing in the Cathlolic church)


Didn't think I was unworthy. Oh well learn something new everyday!


You have to discern the Body and Blood of Christ when you receive the Eucharist. St. Paul makes this clear in his first letter to the Corinthians. It shouldn't have been new to you.
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fascinating. I'd be interested in seeing this documentation.


Dear me, that came out wrong. What I meant is that evangelical critiques of catholic theology and their perceptions of catholic shortcomings are well documented. I personally have a couple of issues, which is why I am an evangelical, but I certainly mean no disrespect.

Quote:
What do you do with Romans and Paul's argument for being a slave to sin... which is what Total Depravity is?
I don't suppose you are familiar with Pelagius?


Thank you for ascribing me the pelagian position without consulting me, although I do not hold to it. Pelagius' position is that there is no original sin, no need for Christ's redemptive work on the cross, and Christ's value is only in his example. That sounds nothing like my position.

I suspect most people's position on Roman's is wrong, and the primacy that Roman's has attained within some evangelical circles is mistaken. Roman's is a great work, in my opinion, but its interpretation should be through the lens of the example of Christ and the gospels, and not the other way round. Paul does argue the reality of sin, and he is quite correct, we are all sinners. However, saying we are all sinners and need God's redemption is not the same as being 'totally' depraved. It may sound like a knit to pick, but we are not 'totally' depraved. We are in dire need of redemption from our sin, for sure.

The issue in play is the use of the word total. We still are in the image of God, and we are still a part of God's creation, a part he specifically identified as 'good'. While sin has distorted and warped that goodness it has not erased it.

Quote:
I would be interested in hearing your argument for this. Limited atonement is the single most poorly understood aspect of Calvinist theology.


Well Ruth, as someone I respect greatly (love your blog), I will be happy to send you a copy when I complete the chapter. I'd rather wait until I have it cogently laid out rather than simply lay it out here piecemeal. I agree with you it is poorly understood, however, that is largely the point. Many churches teach positions on limited atonement which are not in line with scripture, and my personal search for understanding on it has lead me to reject it outright. I understand your calvinism, I simply just don't share parts of it. Calvin was very right when he theorized on the basis of a belief that buying your way into heaven, or earning it with deeds was heretical. I'm just not sure that Calvinism as it is practiced now is actually in line with Calvin, and I have even greater questions about whether its in line with Jesus, which I think is even more important, and I'm sure you agree.

Quote:
Really?
Care to elaborate?


Well, that is what the book is for, but a summary of my position would run down as a creation methodology agnosticism. I am firmly entrenched in a position which says that God created everything that exists. I know that to be true. What I am unconviced by either side on is how he did it. What I am pretty sure on is that much of what is called fiat creationism is a) bad science and b) bad theology. In hebrew, the genesis 1-4 passage doesn't look much like someone reporting actual events, but rather someone trying to explain the present by telling a story. I think the adam and eve story is figuratively true, and that the meaning is much more present when it is not literal. Things that flow from it are literally true.

On the other hand, evolution is a) bad science and b) bad theology. Its bad science because it does have some serious questions to answer, and it squelches all dissent, and its bad theology because it was constructed and continues to be maintained as a creation myth for atheists.

How God created is a mystery to me, and I think that's probably a more honest and orthodox position than one which says it was 6 literal days about 6000 years ago or one which says it was millions of years and is all the result of chance.

Quote:
Let me guess: you think women can hold office.


I do, and I respect the fact that you disagree. I recognize that most people who hold to your position out of a firm belief that it is the scriptural position. I respect that because I too respect scripture.

Some people would suggest that my position is scripturally untenable, but I beg to differ. Suffice to say that you might find that chapter interesting. If you disagree, fine. I have no desire to call you names, or suggest that you are going to hell for doing so (things which have been done to me for holding the other opinion.

Quote:
You are assuming this is what Christians do.


I am assuming nothing. I am a Christian, an evangelical, and I both know people who have condemned homosexuals and done it myself.

Quote:
There are many Christians who are just as concerned with their own sins as they are with the sins of others.


I hope you and I are both in that group. However, you also know that there are many that are not, and that it would be better should they be aware of this.

Quote:
By doing what?
Embracing more of our culture as your post insinuates?


No, I don't think so.

Liberal Christians capitulated to the ideas of modernism, but not the methods. They agreed with evolution, questioned scripture, etc... They retained the idea of mystery, that God somehow is present and working. Conservative Christians, including most evangelicals like you and I rejected the ideas, but capitulated to the methods. We rejected evolution and kept scripture at a high level, but we then got suckered into accepting the methodology of modernism. We became literalistic, simplistic. We turned the gospel into a 4 point sell sheet, commodified worship, and as a result we have a different problem. The chapter on this topic will delve more deeply into the problems this causes and possible solutions. I do not think that embracing more of our 'culture' is the solution, but rather we need to recognized how we've been influenced and adapt to our changing culture by stripping away elements of modernism which are not original to our faith, and by working to reach the lost post-modernists. Right now, our evangelism is ham-strung because we have to convert people to modernism before Jesus, otherwise we have issues. Trust me, I've seen that!

Quote:
Somehow I doubt your motives. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but honestly this sounds like a lot of the post-modernist whoohah that has infiltrated many churches... with disastrous results I might add.
But by all means prove me wrong.


Well, I certainly am fine with you doubting them. Admittedly it sounds post-modernist because... well, my blog is pomochristian.ca. However, I don't think any part of it is 'whoohah', since then I'd be wasting my time. All I'd ask is that when it is all completed you give it a fair shake, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

I am curious, however, about how 'post-moderist whoohah' has had disasterous results. It sounds like there's a story there, and it makes me curious.

For the record, I regularly attend a very conventional evangelical church here in Thunder Bay. Very modernist, very normal. I am targetting myself with a great many of my points. I simply am concerned that some ideas which I don't think are scriptural (despite the number of cites I see following them), are being taught which are actively distorting our image of God. That is the very definition of heresy.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
Quote:
What do you do with Romans and Paul's argument for being a slave to sin... which is what Total Depravity is?
I don't suppose you are familiar with Pelagius?

Thank you for ascribing me the pelagian position without consulting me,

That was not my intent. That was a genuine question.

Quote:
However, saying we are all sinners and need God's redemption is not the same as being 'totally' depraved. It may sound like a knit to pick, but we are not 'totally' depraved. We are in dire need of redemption from our sin, for sure.
The issue in play is the use of the word total. We still are in the image of God, and we are still a part of God's creation, a part he specifically identified as 'good'. While sin has distorted and warped that goodness it has not erased it.

Hmm.
Ok, you don't seem to have a clear grasp of what Total Depravity actually means. It does not mean that we are as bad as we possibly can be. We are prevented from that by God's grace. What it means is that we are slaves to sin and as such, will always choose to do evil. Even our righteousness is as "dirty rags." Any good deeds we do, apart from Christ, will always be tainted with sin. As such, the totally depraved man can contribute nothing to his salvation.

Quote:
Quote:
I would be interested in hearing your argument for this. Limited atonement is the single most poorly understood aspect of Calvinist theology.

I agree with you it is poorly understood, however, that is largely the point. Many churches teach positions on limited atonement which are not in line with scripture, and my personal search for understanding on it has lead me to reject it outright. I understand your calvinism, I simply just don't share parts of it... I'm just not sure that Calvinism as it is practiced now is actually in line with Calvin, and I have even greater questions about whether its in line with Jesus, which I think is even more important, and I'm sure you agree.

Out of curiosity, have you ever come in contact with what is called hyper-calvinism? Because your statement on Calvin leads me to believe that you probably have. Hyper-Calvinism is any branch of "Calvinism" (in quotes b/c it's not actually Calvinism) that teaches:
- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)
(I grabbed this list from http://www.monergism.com/direc.....Calvinism/ by the way, a very useful website with more sermons and theological writings than you can shake a stick at)
Anyways, I recently had a run in with some hyper-Calvinists who believe God created sin and evil. This is a blatantly heretical (not to mention blasphemous) teaching. If you have ever come across this teaching and thought "Hmm, that seems wrong," then rest assured you and I are of the same mind here. It is wrong teaching. It is utterly blasphemous. I should show you the results of a conversation I was having on a Facebook group about this. I am sure you would die over some of the things a few people were saying. I think my favorite was "I have no ability not to commit the sin I commit today because God wills it that way."
I nearly had a heart attack.
Anyways, moving on...

Quote:
Well, that is what the book is for, but a summary of my position would run down as a creation methodology agnosticism. I am firmly entrenched in a position which says that God created everything that exists. I know that to be true. What I am unconviced by either side on is how he did it. What I am pretty sure on is that much of what is called fiat creationism is a) bad science and b) bad theology. In hebrew, the genesis 1-4 passage doesn't look much like someone reporting actual events, but rather someone trying to explain the present by telling a story. I think the adam and eve story is figuratively true, and that the meaning is much more present when it is not literal. Things that flow from it are literally true.
On the other hand, evolution is a) bad science and b) bad theology. Its bad science because it does have some serious questions to answer, and it squelches all dissent, and its bad theology because it was constructed and continues to be maintained as a creation myth for atheists.
How God created is a mystery to me, and I think that's probably a more honest and orthodox position than one which says it was 6 literal days about 6000 years ago or one which says it was millions of years and is all the result of chance.


Something to consider as you work through this:
If a literal six-day creation is not true, then the premise upon which the Bible is founded is either
a) not true or
b) only partially true.
What does it tell us about God if He begins His revelation in His Word with either a lie or a half truth?

Quote:
Quote:
Let me guess: you think women can hold office.

I do, and I respect the fact that you disagree. I recognize that most people who hold to your position out of a firm belief that it is the scriptural position. I respect that because I too respect scripture.
Some people would suggest that my position is scripturally untenable

It is.
I have heard some arguments in favour of women in office and they usually rely on bad interpretations of Joel 2:28-32, or Paul's statement of "there is no male or female, Jew or Greek."

Quote:
I have no desire to call you names, or suggest that you are going to hell for doing so (things which have been done to me for holding the other opinion.

Well, people shouldn't say stuff like that, since they don't know.
I wouldn't tell you that you are going to hell by the way. I would just tell you that I think you are wrong and support my view with Scripture. If I can't do that, then I must also be wrong.

Quote:
Liberal Christians capitulated to the ideas of modernism, but not the methods. They agreed with evolution, questioned scripture, etc... They retained the idea of mystery, that God somehow is present and working. Conservative Christians, including most evangelicals like you and I rejected the ideas, but capitulated to the methods. We rejected evolution and kept scripture at a high level, but we then got suckered into accepting the methodology of modernism. We became literalistic, simplistic.

Interesting.
Why is it that you view a literal interpretation as a modern methodology? Many theologians who have gone before have also stuck to a literal interpretation.

Quote:
We turned the gospel into a 4 point sell sheet, commodified worship, and as a result we have a different problem. The chapter on this topic will delve more deeply into the problems this causes and possible solutions. I do not think that embracing more of our 'culture' is the solution, but rather we need to recognized how we've been influenced and adapt to our changing culture by stripping away elements of modernism which are not original to our faith, and by working to reach the lost post-modernists. Right now, our evangelism is ham-strung because we have to convert people to modernism before Jesus, otherwise we have issues.

I am wondering if you are arguing from your own church experience rather than from a point which is objectively true. Not all churches have the problem you are describing, but I have been to some that have. Perhaps a better approach here would be to deal only with the denominations that are prone to this problem, rather than present a generic solution intended for everyone.

Quote:
I am curious, however, about how 'post-moderist whoohah' has had disasterous results. It sounds like there's a story there, and it makes me curious.

Not so much a story of my life, if that's what you were thinking.
Disastrous results are things like the ordination of women and gays, teaching that Jesus is not Divine (such as the United Church does), preaching "seeker sensitive" messages and ignoring sin and grace, not following through on proper church discipline, poor evangelism, believing one is saved because they were born into a Christian home (Presumptive Regeneration seems to be a failing in all denominations), pew warming and the like.

Quote:
For the record, I regularly attend a very conventional evangelical church here in Thunder Bay. Very modernist, very normal.

This goes to my point above about arguing from your own church experiences.

Quote:
I simply am concerned that some ideas which I don't think are scriptural (despite the number of cites I see following them), are being taught which are actively distorting our image of God. That is the very definition of heresy.

And that is a legitimate concern.
As Christians, we always have to contend for the faith, to make sure of our calling, to know that what we are being taught and what we believe does line up with Scripture.

http://www.monergism.com/
This is a largely Calvinist website. However, I would recommend it to you anyways. As I mentioned, there are heaps and heaps of sermons and theological writings. I think you can probably find some useful reference material here. I was recently searching through the site and came across some sermons that are 200 years old or more. I was surprised at just how many issues we have now were also common back in the day.

-Ruth
PS: I don't doubt your motives anymore. You seem genuine. Sorry for the earlier comment. It was probably too quick.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Christian Denominations I have Issues With

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB