Follow
In our previous post, we observed that the Pauline liturgy placed an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) between the thanksgiving (the Eucharist) and the Consecration (sometimes called the Epiclesis), and that the Scriptures and the ancient liturgies consistently place the Eucharist prior to the Consecration. We also showed that the Eucharist in the early Church consisted of the grateful prayers and the tithe offerings of the Church. These were offered during the Sunday liturgy in imitation of Christ Who gave thanks to His Father at the Last Supper. Those prayers and tithes were understood by the early writers to be the fulfillment of the “incense” and the “pure offering” prophesied by the prophet Malachi (1:11). Only Christians in good standing could participate in that tithe offering, for only in Christ could one bring “the tithes into the storehouse” (Malachi 3:10) with a pure heart and a clear conscience. The unbeliever, the catechumen and the backslider were therefore dismissed from the service at the time of the offertory. The original Sacrifice of Dismissal (oblationem missa) or what eventually came to be known as the Sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, was simply a reference to the tithe offering that occurred immediately after the Dismissal. It did not refer to an offering of consecrated bread and wine.
Once the Dismissal was over, the remaining congregants offered their tithes the way Christians still do today, but instead of a monetized offering, their tithes included the first-fruits of the harvest—bread, wine, milk, cheese, oil, olives, grapes, wheat and anything else that could be harvested and used for the service of others. At the conclusion of the thank offering—the Eucharist—the congregation said “Amen.” Bread and wine were then taken from the tithe for the Lord’s Supper to be Consecrated for a memorial meal. That was the ancient liturgical order: Dismissal. Eucharist. “Amen.” Consecration. The Lord’s Supper. For three hundred years, the early Church celebrated it that way.
But something changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Consecration, and the Dismissal was moved after the Amen. What was once the Eucharistic tithe offering of gratitude for the harvest before the Consecration became a Eucharistic offering of the body and blood of Christ for sins after the Consecration. What was once a Dismissal of unbelievers and backsliders prior to the tithe offering became a Dismissal of believers after the Sacrifice of the Supper. It was a demonstrable, observable, palpable and catastrophic shift.
This of course is not new information. One might well wonder how it is possible for such a dramatic change to escape the notice of scholars, apologists, translators, historians and liturgists. The truth is, it did not escape their notice at all. Evidence for the shift is ancient and has been available for millennia to the many people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the liturgy. As German Roman Catholic theologian, Helmut Hoping, wryly observes, liturgists have long conceded the fact that consecratory language “did not find its way into the Eucharistic Prayer until the fourth century” (My Body Given for You: History and Theology of the Eucharist (2019)). Many a commentary has stumbled at the obvious and stark difference between the ancient and medieval liturgies.
That discontinuity puzzled, confounded and confused the scholars, not least because of centuries of careless transcriptions and downright barbaric mistranslations. Further complicating the matter, in some ancient liturgies the offering, as described, appeared to consist solely of bread and wine (Justin Martyr, First Apology 65), and in others the Eucharistic thank offering was celebrated as a banquet before the Supper (Didache 10) or as an initiation rite immediately after baptism (Anaphora of Hippolytus, 21). In others, the Supper took on the name of the Eucharist because the bread and wine to be consecrated were taken from the Eucharistic tithe (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2). What is more, the Consecration changed over time from Christ’s words of institution (e.g., “This is my Body”) in the early years to an invocation of the Holy Spirit by the end of 2nd century. In view of these many variables in the liturgy, it is easy to see how a tithe offering of bread and wine could be misconstrued as an offering of consecrated elements, and it is easy to see how a Eucharistic banquet before the Supper could be confused for the Supper itself. The translation errors certainly did not help.
However, a liturgical thank offering of bread, wine, cheese, oil, olives, pomegranates and figs before the Epiclesis cannot possibly be mistaken for the much later liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Likewise, the later offering of bread and wine after the Epiclesis cannot possibly be mistaken for the ancient tithe offering for the orphan, the widow and the stranger. The former describes the “Eucharistic sacrifice” of the early Church, while the latter describes the superstitious, medieval, abominable “Eucharistic sacrifice” that arose late in the 4th century. They were not, are not, and cannot be the same thing as a careful analysis plainly reveals.
Because the historical discontinuity is so significant, academia has taken great pains to paper over it, often by the most novel and creative means. Unable to reconcile the early church’s Eucharistic tithe offering of first-fruits prior to the Epiclesis, with a late 4th century Eucharistic sacrifice of bread and wine after the Epiclesis, scholars and translators attempted instead to establish apostolic continuity retroactively. To force the early Eucharistic tithe offering to comport with the later medieval novelty, the ancient liturgies were not only reinterpreted and mistranslated, but were actually rewritten to give the appearance that the Eucharistic prayer was itself the Epiclesis. In short, ancient history has been rewritten to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.
Such efforts have been largely successful, and now it is almost universally assumed that the medieval liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood can be traced back to the Apostles’ disciples, even if it cannot be traced to the Scriptures. The collapse of the early Eucharist into the Epiclesis has created out of whole cloth the appearance of an ancient offering of consecrated bread and wine, and with it, a misleading but easily falsifiable impression that the simple tithe offering of the early Church was an offering of Christ’s body and blood. However, because Paul had placed an “Amen” between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, it is impossible to collapse them into a single liturgical act, as the evidence from the early church plainly shows. There is a liturgical Thanksgiving and a liturgical Consecration, with an “Amen” standing defiantly between them.
In this series we will review the Temptation the scholars faced in their assessment of the early liturgy, the Fruit it has borne in their writings and translations, and the evidence of their corruption of the historical record. In the process we will review the corpus of Eucharistic literature for the first three centuries so that the reader may see the high-minded presumption of the academic community in its efforts to suppress the liturgy of the Apostles and just how vast and expansive the deception has been.
The Temptation
When the historian prefers continuity to truth, the temptation to rewrite history can be irresistible. That temptation is what each successive generation of historians, liturgists and translators has faced when confronted with the novelty of the late 4th century liturgy. Presented with a choice to acknowledge the novelty or to paper over it, the historians have preferred the latter, and so reinterpret the early liturgies through the lens of the late 4th century. To make the early liturgies conform to the later novelty, the scholars simply mistranslate and reinterpret, or, in extreme cases, redact, reject or suppress the original writings.
Roman Catholic, Odo Casel (1925), for example, could not understand how the entire Eucharistic offering and banquet depicted in the Didache (Chapters 9-10) could be conducted without a Consecration, and so “popularized the view that the whole eucharistic prayer is consecratory” (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Bible and Theology). Anglican W. Wigan Harvey (1857) could not accept Justin Martyr’s 2nd century Consecration consisting of Christ’s words from the Scriptures, “This is My body, … this is My blood,” spoken after the Eucharist offering was already complete. Harvey therefore reinterpreted Justin’s liturgy through the lens of 4th century Basil who “stated expressly” that the Consecration was “something more than the simple words of Scripture.” By this means, Harvey concluded that Justin’s Eucharistic prayer must have been the Consecration, despite Justin’s plain explanations to the contrary (Harvey, W. Wigan, Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n).
Roman Catholic Burton Easton (1934), puzzled that Hippolytus’ Eucharistic banquet “baldly” omitted a consecratory phrase, simply assumed that Hippolytus’ Eucharistic prayer “in all probability … included an invocation” (Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, 94). Roman Catholic Jacques-Paul Migne (1857), unable to grasp why Bishops Cornelius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 250 A.D.) had placed the apostolic “Amen” after the thanksgiving “offerings” but before the Consecration, reinterpreted them through the lens of Cyril and Ambrose of the late 4th century, Augustine in the early 5th (Migne, P.G. vol 20 col 628 (53)) and Florus the Deacon in the 9th (P.G. vol 20 col 656 (6)), all of whom placed the “Amen” after the Consecration.
Phillip Schaff (1894) believed “the full explanation” of Irenæus’ 2nd century Epiclesis could only be found in 4th century ramblings of Gregory of Nyssa (382 A.D.). Katharine E. Harmon, Assistant Professor of Theology at Marian University in Indianapolis, Indiana, could not understand why Hippolytus (215 A.D.) had offered “olives, cheese, and oil” in the Eucharist, and therefore took “an oath to use a heavy black marker to ‘x’ out ruthlessly all references to Hippolytus in text books of liturgical history” (The So-Called Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, 2015). None of these scholars could imagine that their own assumptions were wrong, and so assumed instead that the ancient writers were mistaken, and handled their works accordingly.
These are but a sampling of a centuries-long systematic redaction of the early liturgy to make it conform to the later medieval superstitious sacrifice that replaced it. Where the early liturgy differs from the medieval one, the evidence must be edited, massaged and reinterpreted into conformity, and where a reinterpretation alone cannot correct the early liturgy, it must be struck from the historical record altogether. The rewriting of history was done with such scorn and contempt as is rarely seen in academia, so invested have the scholars been in the lie.
The Fruit
The effect of the systematic redaction is always the same: to collapse the ancient Eucharist into the ancient Epiclesis to give the appearance that the early Church’s tithe offerings consisted of consecrated bread and wine. In the process, the ancient writers are ridiculed for not understanding the Eucharistic liturgy as thoroughly and completely as their medieval and modern successors do. The ancient writers are therefore redacted, corrected, and admonished for documenting the apostolic liturgy so poorly. Such is the sorry condition of the study of the early liturgy.
In this series we will examine the academic malfeasance in which the scholars, translators, historians, ecclesiologists and apologists have engaged for centuries to force the early writers to testify of an abominable sacrifice of which they knew nothing. We will cover the first three centuries of Christianity after the Apostles, visiting the Eucharistic liturgies of the Didache (1st century), Clement of Rome (1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.), Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), Irenæus of Lyons (189 A.D.), Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.), Tertullian of Carthage (208 A.D.), Origen of Alexandria (248 A.D.), Firmilian of Cæsarea (256 A.D.), Cornelius of Rome (250 A.D.), Cyprian of Carthage (253 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (256 A.D.), Gregory of Nazianzus the Elder (early 4th century) and finally, Athanasius of Alexandria (373 A.D.). The historical propensity of the academic community has been to corrupt the plain liturgy as expressed in the original writings, collapsing the Eucharist into the Epiclesis to give the impression that the early witnesses attest to a propitiatory offering of consecrated bread and wine, a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.
The Didache (mid-1st century)
The Didache, dating to the first century, documents some, but not all, of the elements of the Apostolic liturgy. There is no reference to a Consecration, and no reference to the body and blood of Christ, no, not even a proclamation of “the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). There is, however, a Dismissal, a Eucharist and an Amen. Elements of each are scattered throughout the document, and what is described as “the Eucharist” is an offering of grateful prayers, the first-fruits of the harvest, and a banquet during which participants offer thanks, eat a meal and respond with “Amen” to the giving of thanks. But it is not the Lord’s Supper. Many a liturgist has bemoaned that fact, but it just is not there.
The Dismissal is evident from several of the exhortations to refrain from the sacrifice unless it is offered in belief and repentance:
- “In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience.” (chapter 4)
- “But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (ευχαριστιας), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” (chapter 9)
- “If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. … But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.” (chapter 10)
- “…give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.” (chapter 14)
All of these focus on the importance of keeping the unbeliever, or the unrepentant, away from the Eucharist offering. They are asked to refrain or to leave before an offering can be made, or are reminded throughout, if they have not left already, that they ought not be present.
The Eucharist sacrifice is also evident from the context. It is a tithe of the first-fruits of the harvest. Just as the bread of the Old Testament sacrifices were kept by the priests, the bread, wine and oil of the Eucharist tithe offering was for the “prophet” or the poor:
- “You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks (ευχαριστησωσιν) to You;” (chapter 10)
- “Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests.”
- “But if you have not a prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment.”
- “So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.” (chapter 13)
The sacrifices as described in the Didache are intended to fulfill Malachi 1:11, as is evident from the next chapter: “For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations” (chapter 14)—a clear reference to the Malachi prophecy.
The people gathered to offer thanksgiving on the Lord’s Day, and every baptized believer with a clear conscience participated in the offering. Special instructions were given on the reason for our gratitude, and how to express that gratitude over the food:
“Now concerning the Thanksgiving (ευχαριστιας), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.” (Didache, chapter 9)
The cup and the bread are symbolic of the Church, and they are clearly not consecrated bread and wine. As noted by H. J. Gibbins, “In the mind of a Jewish Christian ‘the Holy Vine of David’ stood for the Christian Church, the fulfillment of the ideal Israel” (The Problem of the Liturgical Section of the Didache (1935)). Likewise, the “broken bread … gathered” symbolizes the gathering together of “Your Church”. Neither the cup nor the loaf are said to signify or refer to Christ at all. The focus is on the gratitude for God’s revelation to us, and for the salvation of His people. It is not a propitiatory offering of the body and blood of Christ, and by no means is taken to symbolize Christ at all. It is simply a “thank you” prayer. A Eucharist.
Just as Christ gave thanks for His food after the Apostles had already been eating and drinking, and gave thanks for the cup even after having distributed it for the Apostles to drink (Luke 22:17-20), the liturgy described in the Didache continues the thanksgiving even after eating and drinking. And still, the gratitude is for salvation, knowledge, life, food, and especially “spiritual food” provided to the people of God:
“But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory forever.” (Didache, chapter 10)
This is no institution narrative. It is not the Lord’s Supper. There is no “this is My body … this is My blood.” There is no invocation of the Holy Spirit. There is no sense at all that the bread is Christ’s flesh or the cup is His blood, nor any reference to His death at all. It is a Thanksgiving banquet after the Dismissal. Gratitude is offered for knowledge, faith, life, food for all men and spiritual nourishment for the people of God.
The Roman Catholic mind is immediately drawn to the reference to “spiritual food,” assuming it means “consecrated food,” as if consecrated bread and wine are the only possible “spiritual food” for the believer. The only New Testament reference to “spiritual meat” and “spiritual drink” in those terms is in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4, an obvious reference to the Lord’s provision of unconsecrated bread (Exodus 16:15) and unconsecrated water (Exodus 17:6) to the wandering Jews. What is more, the repeated expression of gratitude (chapters 9, 10 and 14) is for life and knowledge, both of which are described in the New Testament as drink and food. The drink Jesus gives is “the gift of God, … water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:10-14), and the food He offers is knowledge of Him, “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Water = Life. Food = Knowledge. Spiritual food given to us by God through His Servant, just as He did for the Jews in the wilderness. For such knowledge and life—”spiritual food”—the people of God offer thanks to Him.
And when the people have completed their Eucharist, there is the Apostolic “Amen,” but the prophets are permitted to continue offering “Thanksgiving (ευχαριστειν) as much as they desire.” That is all. No mention of Christ’s death, nor His flesh and blood, nor His eventual return. It is just a Thanksgiving banquet followed by an “Amen” as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 14:16.
Lacking any indication of an offering of consecrated bread and wine, but overflowing with Eucharistic language of offering and sacrifice, the Didache presents a significant problem to the Roman Catholic. For this reason, since its discovery in 1873, the scholars have been preoccupied with reading a Consecration into the Eucharistic language of the Didache. The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia assumes that there must have been an unwritten Consecration immediately prior to the Eucharistic prayers of Chapters 9 and 10:
“These are clearly prayers after the Consecration and before Communion. …though there is no distinct mention of the Real Presence.” (Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, the Didache)
Other scholars have tried to find an Epiclesis in the mere mention of the Name of God in the Eucharistic prayers, and yet others have assumed that perhaps the Eucharistic prayer itself must have served as the Epiclesis:
“The Didache has no epiclesis, just as it lacks an institution narrative. It has been suggested that the invocation of the divine name constitutes an epiclesis (10:22). Odo Casel [1934] popularized the view that the whole eucharistic prayer is consecratory, and that the formal epiclesis within the prayer plays a complementary role by indicating the purpose of the invocation.” (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Bible and Theology, Epiclesis)
Utterly lacking any evidence of a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood in the actual text of the Didache, the scholars have been trying desperately to find an Epiclesis so that the “sacrifice” may be understood to be a propitiatory offering of transubstantiated bread and wine. But it just is not there, so it is simply assumed. Such is the desperation of the scholars to find in the ancient Church what only came about late in the 4th century.
By massaging the data—by any means necessary—the academic community has attempted to reconcile the ancient liturgy to the medieval one by fraud and presumption. In sum, the scholars cannot find evidence for what they seek in the ancient liturgy, so they have simply fabricated an Epiclesis, or interpreted the Eucharist as the Epiclesis, in order to force the early text to say something that it very obviously does not say.
Clement of Rome (mid-late 1st century)
The church at Corinth had written to the church at Rome after a dispute over the rejection of several Corinthian presbyters who had done nothing wrong. Clement of Rome wrote back explaining that it was a mistake to dismiss honorable men from the office. Various translations of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (44) have him describe innocent presbyters who have faithfully “offered up sacrifice” (The Apostolic Fathers, vol 1, Gerald G. Walsh, S.J (1947)), “offered its sacrifices” (The Apostolic Fathers, vol 1, Kirsopp Lake (1919)), “fulfilled [the] duties” of the episcopate, or “presented the offerings” (Schaff’s Ante-Nicæne Fathers (1885)). In all things, the presbyters had been honorable. There were no grounds for rejecting them.
These translations are reasonable, as far as they go—the ancient presbyters indeed offered sacrifices as part of their duties—but each translation has painstakingly avoided the simplicity of the Greek which refers to the offering or bringing forward of “the gifts (τὰ δῶρα)” (Migne P.G., vol I, 300)—a plain reference to the honorable handling of the tithe offerings by the presbyters. The word, δῶρα, is the same word used in the Gospel of Luke to refer to the tithes being deposited into the temple treasury (Luke 21:1). In the same letter, Clement also instructed the rich to “provide for the wants of the poor” and the poor to “bless God” for the rich “by whom his need may be supplied” for “we ought for everything to give Him thanks (ευχαριστειν)” (Clement, to the Corinthians 38; Migne P.G., vol I, 285). The truth is, in paragraph 44 of his letter, Clement had described the presbyters’ faithful and honorable handling of the tithes, not their alleged offering of consecrated bread and wine. Translators of all stripes have suppressed that simple truth, avoiding in the English translations the word δῶρα (dora) in the Greek, a plain reference to the tithe offerings.
The studious aversion of the translators to the simplicity of the Greek “gifts” obscures the fact that Clement had the Eucharistic tithe offering in mind, and decontextualizes the “sacrifices” of the early liturgy. Small wonder that Roman Catholics often use these mistranslations as evidence for a 1st century offering of the body and blood of Christ, because the mistranslations have the effect of collapsing Clement’s Eucharist into the Epiclesis, giving the impression that the “sacrifices” consisted of Consecrated bread and wine.
Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.)
By far the most popular proof text for the early origins of the offering of the body and blood of Christ is Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans. In that letter, Ignatius said the heretics do not confess the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius, to the Smyrnæans, 7)
Because Ignatius elsewhere refers to the Eucharist, the flesh and blood of Christ and the “altar” (Ignatius, to the Philadelphians, 4), his reference to the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ” is therefore assumed to refer to the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood on that altar. Part of the misconception is the scholars’ assumption that by “Eucharist” and “prayer” he refers to the Lord’s Supper, and part is because of a longstanding transcription error that separated Ignatius’ single line of reasoning into two separate chapters.
As noted in our previous post, the ancient liturgical Eucharist offering was the tithe for the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger. Unbelievers, the backslidden and the factious were dismissed from the weekly gathering before the Eucharistic tithe so that the offering and prayers would not be polluted with unbelief and discord. Only after the Dismissal and the Eucharist were complete did the celebrant then take bread and wine from the tithe, distribute the Eucharist to those present, and then together confess the bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ. That “confession” was considered to be consecratory, as the early writers affirm. As Irenæus observes, “the cup … He confessed to be His blood” (Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17 paragraph 5). A similar “confession,” Irenæus noted, served as the Consecration, for the bread and wine became the Eucharist at the moment they were set aside as a tithe (Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 5), and the Eucharist became the body and blood of Christ at the moment they were Consecrated by “the Word of God” spoken over them (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2, paragraph 3), or as Justin Martyr relates, when they are “blessed by the prayer of His word” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66). Ignatius’ reference to “the eucharist and … prayer” is simply a reference to the tithe offering with prayer, and his reference to the “confession” that the bread is the flesh of Christ is merely a reference to the Consecration that takes place after the Eucharist offering.
With that knowledge in hand, Ignatius’ liturgy is shown to be same as we identified above and in our previous post. The heretics do not participate in the Eucharist and prayer because the Dismissal of unbelievers takes place before the Eucharist tithe and prayer are offered. Once the “Eucharist and … prayer” are complete, the “sacrifice” or “offering” ends. Bread from the Eucharist is then distributed for the Supper, and the Consecration is spoken over it after it is distributed. That is to say, a confession that bread is the body of Christ—or in Ignatius’ words, that the bread is “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
The heretics to whom Ignatius refers here are the Gnostics who did not participate in the tithe, for they had no love for the poor, and did not believe in the incarnation. Such heretics would not have been allowed to participate in the Eucharist offerings to begin with, because unbelievers were dismissed before the tithe, and they certainly did not confess Christ’s words, “This is My body.” Ignatius had not suggested an offering of Christ’s body and blood after all. He had simply acknowledged the ancient Dismissal (i.e., “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer”) and that the heretics would not recite the words of the ancient Consecration over the bread, (i.e., “they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”).
That Ignatius had in fact been referring to the ancient Eucharistic tithe offering rather than the medieval Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood is evident from the immediate context of his words. His letter to the Smyrnæans was originally a simple, unified epistle without chapter or paragraph divisions. It was only later divided into chapters, and even then not consistently. The single sentence cited above, in some translations, is taken to be the first sentence of Chapter 7 of his letter, as depicted in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library version available here. That division artificially separates the statement from the sentence immediately preceding it. Those two sentences (the last of Chapter 6 and the first of Chapter 7) go together and reflect a single unified apostolic liturgy. Lightfoot and Hoole kept the two sentences together in their natural sense as the conclusion of Chapter 6. When read together, it is clear that Ignatius had been referring to the Eucharist tithe offering for the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the widow, the orphan and the stranger:
They have no care for love, nor concerning the widow, nor concerning the orphan, nor concerning the afflicted, nor concerning him who is bound or loosed, nor concerning him who is hungry or thirsty. They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up. (Ignatius, To the Smyræans, 6 (Hoole))
When Ignatius begins a discussion of the Eucharist by referring to the widow, the orphan, the hungry and the thirsty, it is clear from the ancient Apostolic liturgy that by “the Eucharist and … prayer” he is referring to the tithe offering for the poor and the accompanying prayers of thanks. And when he discusses the unbeliever refraining from it, he is clearly referring to the ancient Dismissal that took place before the Eucharist tithe offering. And when he refers to the “confession” that the bread is the flesh of Jesus, it is understood as a reference to the ancient Consecration, which at that time consisted of Christ’s “confession” that the bread was His body and the cup was His blood—”the prayer of His word” or “the Word of God” being spoken over it: “This is my Body.” In his native context, Ignatius had simply referred to the Dismissal of unbelievers from the tithe offering, and the reason they did not participate in it is because they had no concern for the poor, and would never have pronounced the Consecration over it, because they did not believe Jesus had a body.
Simply put, Ignatius’ liturgy was purely Apostolic, and he knew nothing of the later medieval superstitious offering of Christ’s body and blood. The only way his words can be construed to support the medieval liturgy is if “the Eucharist and … prayer” is assumed, anachronistically, to refer to the Consecrated bread and wine instead of the contemporary practice of using “Eucharist” refer to the tithe and the “prayers” of gratitude. Or more succinctly, the only way Ignatius can be used to support the medieval liturgy is if his Eucharist is collapsed into his Epiclesis to make it appear that he advocated the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood to the Father, something he clearly did not do.
We will continue this series next week as we pick up with the Eucharistic liturgies of Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), Irenæus of Lyons (189 A.D.) and Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.), all of whom placed the Eucharist offering prior to the Epiclesis and have the Epiclesis spoken over food that had already been “eucharisted”. We will also show how the academic community has historically subverted, edited, and suppressed that evidence to make their early liturgies conform to the late 4th-century novelty, collapsing Justin’s, Irenæus’ and Hippolytus’ Eucharists into their Epicleses in clumsy and haphazard attempts to force compliance with the later novelty.
” when the historian prefers continuity to truth, the temptation to rewrite history can be irresistible” what a statement! The end result a false Christianity and a system of meritorious salvation sending millions of souls to hell. So clear Paul had it right in 2 Thessalonians that the apostasy was already at work. How many ” fathers” of the faith and historians knew they were tools for Satan’s plans and schemes and church. It should break all of our hearts for the people lost in Roman Catholicism. There is nothing more unloving than to let loved ones perish without telling them the truth. Tim such detailed and accurate scholarship here. The ability to set things straight is a gift from God. Thanks brother.
Timothy wrote “In our previous post, we observed that the Pauline liturgy placed an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) between the thanksgiving (the Eucharist) and the Consecration (sometimes called the Epiclesis)…”
1 Cor 14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?
17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
There is no proof that Paul was even referring to the liturgical Eucharistic thanksgiving tithe offering here. Nor is there any mention of the placement of the AMEN except that it is after “your thanksgiving”. He doesn’t even mention the epiclesis at all. So your claim that Paul places the AMEN after the liturgical tithe offering of the Eucharist and before the epiclesis is pure conjecture. All that can be proven is there is an AMEN after a thanksgiving prayer. And so it is in the Catholic Church today. There is an AMEN after our thanksgiving prayer. And it is not spoken in tongues.
You also speak of the Didache. There is no epiclesis mentioned at all. How can the AMEN come before the epiclesis when there is no epiclesis? Your conclusion is that it is just a thanksgiving banquet and not the Eucharistic tithe offering before the Lord’s Supper. Again, all you can prove from the Didache is that an AMEN comes after a thanksgiving prayer. This doesn’t help your claim either.
Now concerning the translation of the original Greek word δῶρα. You interpret it so that it refers to the tithe offering. Fair enough. You also cite the article “Is the Mass a Sacrifice?” as Catholics misinterpreting the ETF’s because we don’t interpret the original Greek for δῶρα correctly. In that same light of interpretation, the article cited renders the Greek for the phrase “Do this in memory of me” (Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin) as “Sacrifice (offer) this in memory of me”. The rendering of Jesus’ words would then mean “sacrifice this bread which is My Body and what is the cup of My Blood in memory of me”. Good article, but no help for you.
Concerning Ignatius, you have the tithe offering separated from the consecration by saying the eucharist is only referring to the tithe offering. In that case, let us replace the word eucharist with “tithe offering” in the quote from Ignatius:
They have no care for love, nor concerning the widow, nor concerning the orphan, nor concerning the afflicted, nor concerning him who is bound or loosed, nor concerning him who is hungry or thirsty. They refrain from the TITHE OFFERING and from prayer, because they do not confess that the TITHE OFFERING is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up. (Ignatius, To the Smyræans, 6 (Hoole))
Timothy, you don’t confess that the tithe offering (eucharist) is the flesh of Christ either. According to Ignatius, you are a heretic. According to you, you should have been Dismissed.
So far, all you have proven is that a thanksgiving prayer is followed by an AMEN. You have not proven that the “Apostolic Amen” comes before the epiclesis. You have yet to show any writings that have even placed the epiclesis in any sequence concerning the ancient liturgy. Please provide a list of all of those ancient liturgies so that I may see what you say is true.
You’ve missed the point, Nick. Never mind.
I know what point you are trying to make. This whole website is dedicated to it. It’s just that the proof you provide has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. Any one who pays close enough attention to what you say and reads the citations that you hyperlink can see that you have your own unique interpretation.
Ok, then–never mind.
It’s been a pleasure, Timothy.
“Do this in memory of me” ( interpret) as sacrifice this in memory of me, which means sacrifice this bread which is my body and what is the cup what is of my blood in memory of me, which means sacrifice my body blood divinity soul continually in memory of me, which means this is your means of meriting my forgiveness of your sins in memory of me. I’m sure that’s what Jesus was saying at the last supper.
Yeah, me to! 😉
Go figger. That one sacrifice is about 2000 years old now and still as good as the day it was new.
Are we beating the horse again?
Not only does this miss the point, it also illustrates it. But, in my experience, it always comes down to begging the question (i.e. circular reasoning). I’ve read every one of the comments in the back-and-forth between Nick and Kevin/Tim and wondered what is the point? You can’t reason with this.
No matter how many contradictions there are, when you’ve assumed that something chronologically later must be authoritative in applying to earlier works (no matter what), then you’ll see what you want to see.
Exegesis is interpretation. Eisegesis is also interpretation. The argument here highlights the difference.
Tim, thanks for the posts. They’ve been immensely helpful.
Derek, well said. Matt. 24:23 ” at that time if anyone says to you ” look here is the Christ or ” there he is” do not believe it.” Rome claims it is Jesus Christ historical body on earth. Unfortunately Catholics, imho swallow their Church Hook line and sinker the and the Church doctrine, and aren’t interested in exegesis. The ones I’ve shown the word of God have left the church as God called them to himself.
Here are Timothy’s claims:
“For three hundred years, the Church’s liturgy had consisted of a simple biblical order—Dismissal, Eucharist, Amen, Consecration, Meal—the tithe expressing gratitude to God for His provisions, and the meal turning the thoughts of the communicant to Christ’s finished work on the Cross.”
He claims all the liturgies follow that sequence. I have asked multiple times “Please provide a list of those liturgies so that I may see what you say is true.” No response. One may assume it is an argument from silence. Timothy also claims that in the late 4th century, the Roman Church changed the sequence of the liturgy for diabolical reasons.
I have addressed these claims, and so far the evidence Timothy has used in his defense has not stood up to scrutiny.
I have shown evidence that the Dismissal of the catechumens of the early liturgy is still in use today, although, it is not found in the GIRM. I asked Timothy if it is still a valid dismissal if it is not found in the GIRM. No response.
I understand that Timothy claims the liturgical Eucharist is only the thanksgiving prayer of the offertory ONLY and followed by AMEN. I have shown, in the GIRM I might add, that the AMEN is still in place after the offertory. He says the Roman Church moved it. It’s still there which refutes his claim, but it is not the “amen” TIMOTHY means. Hmmm. I have addressed this Eucharist/AMEN sequence and no one is denying that there is an AMEN after the Eucharistic offertory. But so far that is all that Timothy has proven in this particular sequence, that yes, there is an AMEN after the offertory.
I have addressed communion. Yes, communion (Meal) is at the end of the sequence. (Again, the Dismissal Of the Catholic Mass is an all together different dismissal than the Dismissal of the Catechumens. The former is in the GIRM and the latter is not, but the latter is still in use in the Mass.)
So it all boils down to the placement of the Consecration (epiclesis) in the sequence. So far, all that has been established is the epiclesis exists because the communicants do not eat and drink UNCONSECRATED elements. Tim agrees that is the case. Then where is the epiclesis? Tim claims it is before Communion. The Catholic Church agrees that is the case. The Catholic Church claims it is in the Eucharistic Prayer. Tim denies it. He needs proof. That proof is not in 1 Corinthians. It is not in the Didache. It is not in Justin Martyr’s First Apology.
Again, he claims ALL the early liturgies follow that sequence. I asked multiple times “Please provide a list of those liturgies so that I may see what you say is true.” Silence.
So now I gather he is trying to explain that all of the ancient liturgies have been changed or corrupted. If that is the case, where has he found uncorrupted liturgies if they have all been corrupted? If it is just a matter of interpretation, then it is as Timothy puts it “just a guy explaining something”.
Nick,
Say that you’ve presented a 100 step deductive argument. The argument is so good that if one accepts the premises, the conclusion logically follows. This is a valid argument.
You can defend this valid argument until your dying day, but you will convince no one if they reject your premise(s). No matter the elegance of the valid argument , it is unsound and of little use.
You keep presenting and defending an argument (valid or not), but your premises are circular with your conclusion. Just like a tautology is trivially true, a circular argument is trivially ‘true’. But that triviality means it is utterly useless and irrelevant.
Kevin has explained in different ways how your assumptions are incorrect. Tim indirectly stated the same in his pieces here. You can argue your position until you are blue in the face, but it will avail nothing. To argue the merits of your position, you must first acknowledge your assumptions.
As alluded to in my previous comment, one can take the same evidence and make disparate interpretations by utilizing different methods. Tim presented evidence to address your concerns and you interpreted it as evidence for your position. Rather than being silence, it remains evidence for his position. Think about why that is.
Peace,
DR
Well, Nick, that’s quite a list. You wrote,
I’m actually in the middle of a series on all those ancient liturgies. So, there’s your answer. Please read and comment on each one. Some of the ancient liturgies have a Dismissal, a Eucharist, an Amen and an Epiclesis. Some have a Eucharist, an Epiclesis and a Meal. Some have a Eucharist, and an Epiclesis. Some have a Eucharist, and Amen, an Epiclesis and a Meal. It’s 300 years of that. What cannot be found in the ancient liturgies is a Sacrifice after the Epiclesis. If you know of one, please provide it. But since you eschew the “argument from silence,” please refrain from assuming that there “probably was” or “must have been” an epiclesis where you cannot find one. Find the epiclesis.
You continued,
Your exact question was, “Are you saying that it has to be in the GIRM to be valid?” That was back when you were still maintaining your conviction that “Anyone can see this by reading the order of Mass by googling it online.” You later admitted you were wrong. I thought the issue was dead when you admitted you could not find what “anyone” can find by googling. The point is, in any case, that I was not looking for a legitimate dismissal. I was simply pointing out that the dismissal used to occur before the tithe offering, and the tithe offering used to be called the Sacrifice of the Dismissal, or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and finding a “dismissal of the catechumens” in your missalette doesn’t change the fact that Rome changed the Sacrifice of the Mass from the “tithe offering” to the offering of consecrated bread and wine after the epiclesis. The fact that you thought I just needed to find an early dismissal before the tithe simply misses the point. You know well enough that the Sacrifice of the Mass in Roman Catholicism is the sacrifice that takes place after the epiclesis. It does not refer to the tithe offering. Something changed. Questions like “Are you saying that it has to be in the GIRM to be valid?” simply divert from the obvious point made in the articles.
You continued,
I have addressed this with you repeatedly. I’m not going to do so again.
You continued,
You addressed the “communion” by deferring to the “title” of chapter 10, “Prayer after communion.” As I said, those titles were added much later and were not in the original autographs. So you did not really address “communion.” However, I have said, more than once, that sometimes a eucharist banquet precedes the Lord’s Supper in the ancient liturgy and the Eucharist Banquet is not the Supper. I’ve actually addressed that more than once in my articles. The fact that the Diache includes a Eucharist banquet of unconsecrated food is not evidence that the Didache is describing the Lord’s Supper.
You continued,
We’ve already been over this, Nick. As I mentioned in the Apostolic Amen, sometimes the consecration is spoken after the elements have already been distributed, and sometimes the consecration is spoken after the elements have already been eaten or imbibed. In the Eucharistic banquet, the recipient eats and drinks unconsecrated food. Sometimes in the Lord’s Supper, the communicant eats and drinks unconsecrated food and then it is consecrated. In fact Luke 22:17-20 shows this. I don’t think I’ve ever agreed that “communicants do not eat and drink UNCONSECRATED elements”. I have said several times that they do. In fact in my article on the Apostolic Amen I made explicit reference to the fact that sometimes the consecration actually took place after the elements had been distributed and in fact after they had already been consumed:
I don’t know in what contet “Tim [would have] agree[d] that is the case”
In any case, yes, in some ways, “it all boils down to the placement of the Consecration (epiclesis) in the sequence”. That’s right. In the early church the epiclesis came after the Eucharist, so what was offered in the Eucharist was unconsecrated food, and the Lord’s Supper consisted of consecrated bread and wine. But under no circumstanced did the ancient church offer anything after the epiclesis. The ancient offering was before the epiclesis. I’ve been clear and emphatic on that point.
Paul placed the Amen immediately after the Eucharist. Paul also said the cup of thanksgiving is what we bless in the consecration. For some reason, the early church understood this. That is what we find in the early liturgies. Justin placed an Amen immediately after giving thanks, and represented it twice, and said the consecration is spoken over consecrated food. The effecively places the Amen between the eucharist and the consecration. Irenæus put the eucharist prior to the epiclesis. So did Hippolytus, his disciple. So did Cornelius of Rome. So did Dionysius of Alexanria. So did Athanasius of Alexandria. Even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges that there was just one Amen in the ancient liturgy, but assumes that Justin’s Eucharistic prayer was consecratory. Indeed, all of academia has done the same thin in order to make it appear that the ancient church offered consecrated bread and wine. But they did not. This is why you find that the medieval and modern apologists are continually attempting to correct the ancient liturgies by forcing the epiclesis into the eucharist prayer.
You concluded,
They are corrupted in the translations, obviously, as I have said repeatedly. They are uncorrupted where they can be found in their original language. And in the original languages, the Eucharist occurs before the Epiclesis. And where there is an Amen, it is between them.
It’s not hard to understand.
Sorry, Timothy. That response was not directed at you. No wonder you think it to be repetitious. No, we don’t have to rehash it all. You have said your peace and I have said mine.
You read things a lot different than I do. Such as in Luke 22:17-20:
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
And likewise the cup AFTER SUPPER, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Of course you would choose Luke’s gospel to prove your point that the consecration is after the meal. The gospel of Matthew says it in more detail:
Mat 26:26ff Now AS THEY WERE EATING, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
In Matthew’s version, during the course of the meal, not after, Jesus consecrates the bread before they eat it.
So you see, Timothy, your perspective is steered in a different direction than mine. You use Luke’s gospel in this case because it fits in with your argument better than Matthew’s and yet we both know the bible is talking about the exact same moment in history.
You see it your way, and I see it mine. You read the bible one way, and I do another. Your read the Fathers your way, and I read them my way. It all depends on the discipline one has been taught. I know that if you put the writings under enough duress, you can make them confess to anything you want. I’ve seen you do it. And I am not squeaky clean either.
Timothy, I understand the Mass a lot different than you. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ over and over again. We don’t nail Him to the Cross. We don’t stick a spear into His side to make sure he is dead before we chop Him up into little pieces and serve Him to the congregation. We present our sacrifice of tithes, thanks and praise through, with and in His one and only, two thousand year old sacrifice that is pure, perfect, and pleasing to the Father.
You may not agree with that. And if you have any evidence to show otherwise, I will certainly entertain it. 🙂
Nick wrote, “You use Luke’s gospel in this case because it fits in with your argument better than Matthew’s….”
No, I use Luke’s gospel because Jesus eucharist’s the food and distributes it and the apostles consume it, showing a case from the Scriptures in which they “eat and drink UNCONSECRATED elements,” something you clearly deny.
You continued,
Actually, we both do not “know” that at all. In fact we positively know that it is NOT “the exact same moment in history.” The scriptures cannot contradict, and therefore a blessing and distribution of wine before breaking, blessing and distributing the bread cannot possibly be exactly the same moment in history as the blessing and distribution of the wine after breaking, blessing and distributing the bread.
There are multiple cups in such a banquet, and the “cup of blessing” is the cup over which thanksgiving is pronounced prior to the consecration. Thus Paul’s language, “the cup of blessing which we bless”. The cup of blessing is eucharisted, and distributed for consumption (Luke 22:17), and then bread is broken, distributed and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper and then the “cup of blessing” is taken and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. The eucharist is separate from, and prior to, the consecration. The scriptures and the early church understood it that way.
You continued,
Yes, that is quite true.
If you are already of the mind to accept a contradiction in the scriptures, I don’t think there’s much left for us to talk about, but thank your for your thoughtful interaction.
There is no contradiction in scripture, just different testimony from different authors.
Why didn’t you use Matthew’s gospel to help illustrate your point?
Timothy–
You said “The eucharist is separate from, and prior to, the consecration. The scriptures and the early church understood it that way.”
Yes, and it is still that way–the offertory, and thanksgiving is still separated by AMEN and prior to the consecration.
https://www.universalis.com/static/mass/orderofmass.htm
You say the AMEN finishes what was said AMEN to, right?
Offertory–Prayer over the Gifts–AMEN
Thanksgiving (eucharist):
The Priest, raising his hands, continues:Lift up your hearts.The people:We lift them up to the Lord.The Priest, with hands extended, adds:Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.The people:It is right and just.
The Priest:It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God,
through Christ our Lord…To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition
through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: that you accept and bless ✠ these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you…Therefore, Lord, we pray:
graciously accept this oblation of our service, that of your whole family; order our days in your peace,
and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen.
Through Christ our Lord. AMEN.
Consecration (epiclesis):
Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us
the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you.
In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.
After the words of Consecration the priest says…(a whole lot more and then ends with)…In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar
receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
Through Christ our Lord. AMEN.
It is right there in black and white for everyone to read.
Offertory–AMEN and finished.
Eucharist–AMEN and finished.
Consecration–AMEN and finished.
There it is, the Mass in a three part performance with a final doxology of:
Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.
And then the standing ovation from the congregation–AMEN!
And now the food is ready. Let’s eat!
That last few comments from me is a little tongue in cheek, but you should get the message. It is a solemn and joyous occasion.
Timothy, this may not be the evidence you will accept, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Mass sequence is just as you say it ought to be–the Eucharist is separate and prior to the Consecration.
DR , look at this quote from Nick, ” the Roman church changed the sequence of the liturgy for diabolical reasons” well if Tim is right then the changes made from the early church led to the sacrifice of the mass, which is the utter perversion of the gospel which is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and led to what Rome considers is the summit of salvation, a continuous propitiatory sacrifice where grace and justice is merited. If Tim is right, than it can only be described as diabolical.
Inescapable.
Nick’s question-begging circular assumption undermines his arguments. Even if we willingly considered the eisegetical assumption, the underlying ‘Argument from Authority’ is multiply and circularly defined (e.g. canonicity; apostolic succession). We don’t even need to delve into theological matters (e.g. metaphor vs literal elements)!
The Passover bread consumed was a sign upon the hand and memorial on the forehead that the Hebrews were saved from Egypt (Exodus 13). Jesus offered his body (‘bread’) as Passover sacrifice to be the sign and memorial that we were saved from sin (Luke 22). The beast stands against God’s people and mandates that the inhabitants of earth take his mark on hands and foreheads (Revelation 13). The beast makes mockery of the sign and memorial that we are already saved from sin.
Of course it is diabolical.
There are no other differences between Rome and Christians that matter more than this. IMO, the rest are inconsequential in comparison.
DK, bingo! Incidentally, God passed over the Jews, he didnt fill them with sanctifying grace.
The Jews deserved the same thing as the Egyptians, but God passed over them.
Kevin–
“The Jews deserved the same thing as the Egyptians, but God passed over them.”
But only if they did something first, they had to slay a lamb and spread it’s blood on their doorpost. If a Jew did not do that, his firstborn would not be spared.
” But only if they did something first, they had to slay a lamb and spread its blood on their door post. If a Jew did not do that , his firstborn would not be spared.” Ya. Aren’t you glad Christianity isnt Judaism or Roman Catholicism. FAITH is the entry way into this holistic religion. Faith alone in Christ alone. We are justified by faith alone.
Derek–
“Say that you’ve presented a 100 step deductive argument. The argument is so good that if one accepts the premises, the conclusion logically follows. This is a valid argument.”
But the evidence that is used to support the argument disproves it more than it proves it. Therefore, the argument is not so good. Ergo, it is not a valid argument.
You also said “To argue the merits of your position, you must first acknowledge your assumptions. ‘One may assume it is an argument from silence.'”
Right. If you cannot provide any evidence to back your argument, then yes, it is an argument from silence.
You surmise: “You keep presenting and defending an argument (valid or not), but your premises are circular with your conclusion.”
And so are Timothy’s.
I understand that if one is trying to prove a point from a certain biased perspective, others with that same bias will conclude his argument to be valid–circular or not. The same with those of the opposing view. We all cheer for our side. It is a show of pride. And there are sycophants on both sides.
The debate then can only be for those who have no bias for one side or the other–the undecided. Naturally, if a side of the debate goes unopposed, it will attract more of the undecided.
This website is dedicated to “expose” the Roman Catholic Church as a satanic organization. So with that bias as its premise, the argument is to be such as to make that premise valid.
Many do not agree with that premise, so that is why there needs to be some one to keep it from being unopposed. You may consider it pointless. I don’t.
Nick,
Neither evidence nor bias have anything to do with validity. A valid argument is where if the premises are true, the conclusion must logically be true as well. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are true. A bad argument is one that is neither sound nor valid.
An argument from silence is not a failure to make an argument. No one owes anyone an argument or response. Demanding one is “sealioning” and failure to produce one is irrelevant.
The ‘Argument from Silence’ is deriving a conclusion from the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their existence. One pertinent example of this concluding that the eucharist in the Didache contains the epiclesis because there is no explicitly separate eplicesis stated.
That is a big claim. I would like to see it demonstrated.
Regards,
DR
Guys–
“The Passover bread consumed was a sign upon the hand and memorial on the forehead that the Hebrews were saved from Egypt (Exodus 13). Jesus offered his body (‘bread’) as Passover sacrifice to be the sign and memorial that we were saved from sin (Luke 22). The beast stands against God’s people and mandates that the inhabitants of earth take his mark on hands and foreheads (Revelation 13). The beast makes mockery of the sign and memorial that we are already saved from sin.”
Your missing a key ingredient. The Passover lamb is eaten.
Exodus 12 :8 Matthew 26:26 1 Cor11:27-29
The Paschal lamb is not Passover bread.
The ritual of the Passover lamb was changed (Deuteronomy 16:1–6) to only take place in the tabernacle. No longer did the entire nation eat the Passover lamb. The bread, however, continued to be eaten by all as part of the week-long feast. Exodus 13 treats eating this literal Passover bread as the sign and remembrance of salvation (i.e figurative phylacteries). In the same way, we eat the literal Passover bread as a figurative sign and remembrance of our salvation in Christ. The mark of the beast stands in direct opposition to this.
DR ” the ritual of the Passover was changed to only take place in the tabernacle” ya, who would ever think that Roman Catholicism would conflate the OT with the new. Works with faith. OT sacrifices with NT sacrifices. Cmon DR.
” but the argument that is used to support the argument disproves it more than it proves it.” Not true. On the contrary the2 articles are detailed scholarship that support Tim’s claims. Also he was able to refute your unsupported rebuttals with Catholic sources and Catholic ” experts”. He dismissed your arguments from the didacche and from Martyr. The onus is on you to show a mass from scripture and the early church. Sorry cant be done.
YEA TEAM!
” you read the bible one way and I read it another” Newman’s development of doctrine doctrine” Even though masses, popes, Marian Ego, meritorious sacraments, apparitions of Mary, nuns, etc. can be found nowhere in scripture, they are visible to Catholics, because hey my church said so.
That’s right Kevin. Since none of that is found in scripture, it can’t be true, because hey YOUR church said so.
Thanks ever so much.
” since none of that is found in scripture, it cant be true, because hey your church said so” Nick, I was given a sermon on salvation to listen to by Fancis Chan a Protestant pastor. He was preaching it to a stadium full of unbelievers in the Philippines. The irony is he spent an hour on salvation and never once mentioned the gospel or faith. He ended up saying something like we are to repent and follow Jesus. Many in the Protestant evangelical world condone this guy. I dont. Why. Because he’s not preaching the gospel of scripture. What’s my point. I’m consistent if it’s a Protestant or a Catholic, if im not convinced from scripture or plain reason I dont accept it. I have often said read the doctrines of Roman Catholicism believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. The gospel of scripture is clear and simple. Paul clearly states it in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the 3rd day. This is what God did for his people. Its past tense. It is to be believed. By believing these propositions we are saved, in right standing before God. Francis Chan did not preach the gospel of scripture, and neither does your church. You cannot be saved by any human work according to scripture. Only believing in the biblical gospel can save you. Most all heretics confuse what God does in us with what he does for us. The gospel is what God did for us through which we are saved. It is believed, not done, not because my church says so, but because the bible does. DOING your mass will earn you no grace or justice for heaven. Pleading our works before the judgement of God will be soundly rejected as were those of those who cried Lord Lord in Mathew 7. We CD an only plead his righteousness which comes to us by faith alone. Everything we do in our Christian life is described as our reasonable service of worship. K
“Paul clearly states it in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the 3rd day. ”
Yes, that is the gospel and we proclaim it out loud right after the homily in every Mass. See for yourself:
https://www.universalis.com/static/mass/orderofmass.htm
Mark 1:15 Jesus says repent and believe in the gospel” RCC says merit your salvation ( the merits of Christ) through the sacraments of our church. Who is right? They ain’t the same. Different gospels. When the Phillipians jailer said to Paul what must I do to be saved, Paul said believe on the Lord and you will be saved. He didnt say go down to the local RCC and start the 26 things you have to do in RICA to be justified. DR had it right when he quoted Coloosians 2 in reference to your church, which in no way a Christian church.
Derek–“No longer did the entire nation eat the Passover lamb.”
Exodus 12:3 In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb…8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it… 12 ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Luke22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. 8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.”
Nick,
You are correct that Exodus 12 declares that the Feast of Unleavened Bread be celebrated forever. And it is!
You are correct that Jesus and his parents had to travel to Jerusalem to eat the Passover Sacrifice, in accordance with Deuteronomy 16:
Thus:
When Jesus became a Passover lamb (sacrifice), God’s dwelling place moved from the Temple in Jerusalem into the hearts of men. No longer could a Passover Sacrifice be made, for Jesus was the final and completed sacrifice. It is for this reason that Christians do not eat lamb at the Lord’s Supper: we do not eat (or make) the Passover sacrifice (Jesus). We do eat the unleavened bread, the sign and memorial of the sacrifice of the lamb (Jesus).
What do you think is missing? Does the RCC teach that the lamb eaten during every Mass must be consumed, enter the beating hearts of men, be sacrificed, and then be consumed again (assuming they survive) as per Law? Your ‘key ingredient’ only further highlights that the RCC identified the wrong element as the sacrifice by confusing the sacrifice with its sign and memorial.
Derek:
You said “When Jesus became a Passover lamb (sacrifice), God’s dwelling place moved from the Temple in Jerusalem into the hearts of men. No longer could a Passover Sacrifice be made, for Jesus was the final and completed sacrifice. It is for this reason that Christians do not eat lamb at the Lord’s Supper: we do not eat (or make) the Passover sacrifice (Jesus). We do eat the unleavened bread, the sign and memorial of the sacrifice of the lamb (Jesus).”
I agree. So do we. The unleavened bread is the SIGN and memorial of the sacrifice of the Lamb.
And you said: “What do you think is missing? Does the RCC teach that the lamb eaten during every Mass must be consumed, enter the beating hearts of men, be sacrificed, and then be consumed again (assuming they survive) as per Law? Your ‘key ingredient’ only further highlights that the RCC identified the wrong element as the sacrifice by confusing the sacrifice with its sign and memorial.”
You were talking about the Jewish Passover and so was I. I said nothing about the RCC. That is your assumption, not mine. The Jews (the entire nation) to this day eat lamb in the Passover feast. Your statement “No longer did the entire nation eat the Passover lamb.” as it stands is wrong.
Scripture proves it. Tradition proves it. History proves it.
” I said nothing about the RCC” please dont shrink back when DR confronts the heinous sacrifice of your mass. All of a sudden he makes a statement about what it is and you run for the hills.
DR yes God no longer dwells in buildings but in the hearts of his people.
Kevin,
The implications of this are staggering!
God had to literally dwell within the flesh of Jesus for the sinless Jesus to be eligible to act as a Paschal lamb. This is why Jesus could be sacrificed on a cross and not in the temple: his location didn’t matter, for God was always with him.
Now God literally dwells within his followers, completely cleansing them of sin. Thankfully, we don’t have select one of those now sinless Christians out of the flock to sacrifice and eat whenever we celebrate the Lord’s Supper: no further sacrifice of blood can be made.
Colossians 2:9–10 describes how God first dwelt within Jesus and now dwells within us. This is why Jesus is our master! We are warned about the RCC’s corruption of this one verse earlier:
Hollow? Check.
Deceptive philosophy? Check.
Depends on human tradition? Check.
Depends on elemental spiritual forces of this world? Check.
DR
DR, thanks so well put.
Yeah, not so well put.
“Thankfully, we don’t have select one of those now sinless Christians out of the flock to sacrifice and eat whenever we celebrate the Lord’s Supper: no further sacrifice of blood can be made.”
You make it sound like a low budget slasher movie. Clearly, you have built a really ugly strawman. I’ll bet Kevin would love to knock it down.
GO TEAM GO!
” not so well put” please read the book of Hebrews their are no more sacrifices for sins. You unfortunately cant understand the discontinuity between the OT and the NT. RCC conflates them. That’s why Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Judaism extended, which can save no one.
Ok what? He makes a strawman statement about the RCC and I run for the hills?
The strawman takes a right to the jaw by Kevin and he yells “take that you yellow Catholic!”
I’ll bet you are proud of yourself now.
Hi Kevin,
You said to Nick: ” You unfortunately cant understand the discontinuity between the OT and the NT. RCC conflates them.” Can you explain the discontinuity and why did Jesus say to the Samaritan woman: “for salvation comes from the Jews”?
God bless you.
Hi Phil, sure. Ignorance of the distinction of law and gospel is one of the principle sources of abuses that corrupted Christianity and still does today. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that Jesus was a softer Moses and the gospel was a simpler and easier law than that of the OT. Instead of following allot of rules , God expects only love and heart felt surrender. Calvin replied ” as if we could consider anything more difficult than loving God with all of our heart soul and mind. Law can do nothing but condemn man . Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is a compensation for their lack, not realizing the law required perfection. To confuse law and gospel or to conflate them is to corrupt faith to its core. Christ lived the law in our place, died for our sins and offers us forgiveness as a gift of his goodness through the gospel. Rome confused the in us with the for us. Aquinas made the mistake of saying that a man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. I hope I dont have to explain salvation comes from the Jews to you. Thanks k
Phil, forgive me. I think I know what your asking me in the verse in John 4 about when Jesus said ” salvation comes from the Jews” I think Jesus here actually emphasizes the discontinuity. It’s the dissolution of the Jewish economy and the establishment of the evangelical way if you will. While Jesus acknowledges that the Jews were better off than the Samaritans in their worship in that they knew who they worshipped in their sacrifices and work righteousness, they still were ignorant of true salvation. Jesus says there is a day coming where it doesnt matter what mountain or place of worship, but that God is seeking worshippers that worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Understand this was not yet under the gospel but still law. Of course we know Christ lived the law in our place as our substitute. In Rome instead of repenting and believing the gospel Mark 1:15, we are told to do penance and live the gospel. False gospel Either we are saved by grace alone, or we are saved by assisting grace that works in concert with our free will. ” let human merits which persisted with Adam be silent, and let the grace of God reign thru Jesus Christ.
“Of course we know Christ lived the law in our place as our substitute. In Rome instead of repenting and believing the gospel Mark 1:15, we are told to do penance and live the gospel.”
Heb 5:8 “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who repent and believe the gospel.” Yep that’s what it says in the Protestant bible.
The good news isnt God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness! We defend the finished work of salvation for men by Christ. The RCC make their final appeal to the would be self sufficient man. Wrong view of man and God.
” The RCC make their final appeal to the would be self sufficient man. Wrong view of man and God.”
Nope. That’s the wrong view of the RCC. You really like using strawmen.
The bottom line Nick is the Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself. It is faith versus works. It is a gift of God versus the achievement of man. But Roman’s 4:16 is clear if a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be through faith alone. Roman’s 11:6 ” and if by grace then it cannot be based on works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. Cant be any clearer than that Nick. Your synagogue cant save you. Best k
Kevin says “It is faith versus works. ”
No, it is faith shown by works. Our faith is not dead like faith alone.
Is this another horse you’re going to beat to death?
No, I agree we both can stop beating the horse. Poor thing is dying. Lol
I love it. LOL 😀
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your comment. I like to deal with only one point at a time.
You said re. John 4:22:
“… when Jesus said ” salvation comes from the Jews” I think Jesus here actually emphasizes the discontinuity. It’s the dissolution of the Jewish economy and the establishment of the evangelical way if you will. While Jesus acknowledges that the Jews were better off than the Samaritans in their worship in that they knew who they worshipped in their sacrifices and work righteousness, they still were ignorant of true salvation. Jesus says there is a day coming where it doesnt matter what mountain or place of worship, but that God is seeking worshippers that worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.” Yes, God wants to be worshipped “in Spirit and in Truth” now as much as ever, no “discontinuity” here.
As part of your argument you stated Nick’s “ignorance of the distinction of law and gospel.” That is your interpretation and to the best of my knowledge he has not advocated any conflating of law and gospel in this blog, as you claim.
Furthermore, you said that “the Jews were ignorant of the true salvation.” How so? Wasn’t there any true salvation in the Old Testament? You need better arguments since Jesus tells us in the gospel of Matthew (5:17): “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”
God bless you.
Phil said ” that is your interpretation and to the best of my knowledge he has not advocated any conflating of law an gospel” that’s an interesting statement since Nick has defended the sacrifice of the mass vorciforously and that in itself a conflation of law and gospel. The Roman Catholic mass is nothing more than the recapitulation of the sacrifices under the law. See the book of Hebrews that juxtaposes one finished sacrifice of Christ never to be repeated or continued, with Aoronic priests who sacrifice over and over which couldnt save anyone. Incidentally, Christ’s priesthood came thru the line of Melchizadek which is an endless life. Nick’s priests die like those in the line of Aaron. You continued ” you need better arguments since Jesus us in the gospel of Mathew ” Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the Prophets, but to fulfill it” you missed the good news for some reason,, he fulfilled it. Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus came to establish salvation by the law in some way. Phil, you miss the discontinuity too of the OT and NT. Dont feel bad Benedict did too. Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled ALL righteousness. It is finished. The gospel of scripture is told and believed, Jesus said as much in Mark 1:15. It is a gift Phil, we cant earn it, nor do we deserve it. We can only believe it. Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been saved thru faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God, not a result of works, lest any man should boast. Nothing coming from ourselves or our works saves us, do you see that Phil. The next verse says we’ve been saved unto good works, not by them. Watch Phil, Genesis 15:6 ” Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Abe simply believed the promise and he was righteous. Do you see any merit or works in that verse Phil” I think you need better arguments. Thx. K
Thanks for the comment Phil.
You have to understand something. Protestant bibles seem to read differently. Example:
Kevin seems to think Heb 5:8 reads: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who repent and believe the gospel.”
Our authentic bible says something different.
The horse is dead Nick. You just killed him. We decided that we were done remember. Incidentally, yes Jesus learned obedience through suffering and became the source of righteousness all who believe. My righteousness isnt derived from him, He is my righteousness. However, that verse isn’t the gospel. Go to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 where Paul says this is the gospel. Have a nice forever. K PS is Phil your brother, sister, or alter ego?! Lol we are done. K
You didn’t even read verse 9 in your bible, did you.
Anyway, the horse is dead. I think Phil is from overseas somewhere.
Barclay Westminster press When he had been made fully fit ( completed experience) for his appointed task, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” 5:9. Jesus was asked in John 6 what was the work of God. He said the work of God was to believe. Of course even the act of believing or repenting is a work of the Spirit of God with the Word. Faith alone in Christ alone. Vermilli said faith was the firm and constant assent of the soul to the Word of God. What it isnt is do penance and live the gospel. Jesus said in Mark 1:15 the gospel is told and believe, not done, but unfortunately apart from the Spirit of God removing the veil from your eyes you will never understand that you have put your faith in a synagogue of OT sacrifices and works righteousness, the Catholic church, and not the Christ of the bible. The horse is dead Nick. You can have the last word.
Kevin–
I’m ok with the last word if you want. But I do like the conversation with you. I think is sharpens us. Don’t you?
You keep saying “What it isnt is do penance and live the gospel.”
If you were to go to confession today (of course I know this is something you would never do, but just sayin’), what do you think the priest would ask you to do for penance? The bible says in multiple places, especially in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles that yes, we must believe, but also to love and obey. Just believing alone won’t cut it. We must practice what Jesus preached.
” One thing, and only one thing, is necessary for Christian life, righteousness ,and freedom. That one thing is the most Holy Word of God, the gospel of Christ” Martin Luther on Christian liberty.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your comment. Searching for the truth is very important to me and I hope it is something also important to you because that is God’s will (John 8:31-32).
You stated:
“Phil said … under the law.”
I think that what you are trying to say here, correct me if I am wrong, is that Nick in his arguments makes a connection between the OT and the NT where he should not have made it. You believe there is total discontinuity between law and gospel. Well, if I am right, I will answer that below because I agree with Nick and disagree with you on that.
You continued:
“See the book … better arguments.”
All the arguments you give (including Hebrews) to prove the discontinuity are based in figures or passages of the OT which strengthen rather than disprove the continuity of both testaments. Even the book of Hebrews begins with the words: “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” Hebrews 1:1-2. Does that support discontinuity between law and gospel, with God as the author of both? We may be talking apples and pears here. What do you mean by “law” and “ gospel”?
God bless you.
Galatians 3:11-12. ” Now, that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for, The righteous man shall live by faith. However, the LAW IS NOT FAITH, on the contrary ” He who practices them ( the law) shall live by them. Is the discontinuity becoming clearer yet? Whether a Jew in the OT or a NT gentile every man who is saved is saved by faith alone. Every time speaks about the law, every time, Paul speaks of the WHOLE law. Sometimes he says law, sometimes he says works of law, sometimes he says works. He always speaks of it as a whole. He says to violate one part of it is the violate all of it. James says the same thing in James 2:10. I dont participate in my salvation by my works or merit, I simply repent and believe in the gospel alone for my salvation.
“He says to violate one part of it is the violate all of it. James says the same thing in James 2:10.
Yes, but he also says this:
Gal 5:13-14 “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
And this:
Rom 13:8-10 “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Jesus said:
John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
How are you doing with all that? If you seek to be justified ( saved ) by law ( what you do) in some way, which is what your synagogue asks you to do, then you better be perfect. Remember those men who said Lord, Lord, and pled their deeds before the Lord were rejected in Mathew 7. I’m trusting in Christ’s righteousness alone, not in my good works. The path of the Roman Catholic church and its mass will only lead to hell.
Kevin–
You said “How are you doing with all that? If you seek to be justified ( saved ) by law ( what you do) in some way, which is what your synagogue asks you to do, then you better be perfect.”
How in the world did you get “justified by law” in those writings from none other than Christ’s apostles? You keep building your strawman. The Church teaches no such thing as being justified by law. Who is teaching you that it does?
These teachings are about works of love. Here’s Paul again:
1Co 13:2 “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I AM NOTHING.
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I GAIN NOTHING.
Love and obedience MUST accompany faith. That is why James said “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” –Jas 2:17
No Catholic anywhere, ever, has taught justification by works, or works righteousness. No not never. God cannot be pleased without faith, but you will be judged according to your deeds–Old Testament and New testament.
Yes, Kevin, it is by God’s mercy that we have been washed clean with the waters of regeneration and renewed by the Holy Spirit through Christ. But Paul told Titus: “This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God WILL BE CAREFUL TO ENGAGE IN GOOD DEEDS. These things are good and profitable for men.” –Tit 3:8
It’s not self righteousness, it’s loving and obeying God.
Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been saved through faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.” What does Paul mean you have nothing to do with salvation ? What does Paul mean either does your works?! Can you explain those statements describing how we are saved? Again just so you dont equivocate, what does Paul mean when he CDC says a person has nothing to do with his salvation? What does he mean it has nothing to do with your works? What does he mean when he says it’s a gift? Can you merit a gift? And please dont tell me this means initial salvation because saved is aorist past tense. I’ll wait your response.
Wait no further!
Ok. Per your request, we won’t talk about prevenient grace.
So which one of these biblical teachings do you believe:
EITHER
Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been SAVED through faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.”
OR
Heb 5:9 “and being made perfect he became the source of eternal SALVATION to all who obey him”?
Please answer the question. Ephessians 2:8 Paul is directly talking how someone in SAVED. It’s in the aorist past tense. He says 4 things salvation is through faith alone, it’s a gift, and it has nothing to do with ourselves or are works!! Again, please explain to me what Paul means salvation is by faith alone apart from anything coming from ourselves or our works! I will avoidance to acknowledge and define these points as a concession that you are avoiding this perspicuous verse.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your comment. I will take it that by “WHOLE law” you mean the OT and by “gospel” the NT. Otherwise you will have to be more specific about it.
You said:
“Galatians 3:11-12 … for my salvation.”
Nick has answered that very clearly on Paul’s own words showing that LAW and FAITH are not always in conflict, as you seem to say, it just depends on the context. The NT fulfilled the OT but did not nullify it. It is obvious that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the Covenants. When you are going to make something better you save and increase the positive which is there and discard from the old what conflicts with the new. You seem to be obsessed with the Synagogue, but there was a lot of commonality with it and the new Christian communities. They had the OT Scriptures and Paul’s preaching in a new location usually started there (Acts 13:5). It was the Synagogue who rejected the gospel, not the other way around.
God bless you.
Oooops! My bad. I answered your questions with questions.
How Jewish of me. 😀
Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been saved through faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.”
Q. What does Paul mean you have nothing to do with salvation?
A. God is the one who saves, not me.
Q. What does Paul mean either does your works?
A. Works are not a means to salvation.
Q. What does he mean when he says it’s a gift?
A. He’s giving me something.
Q. Can you merit a gift?
A. That’s up to Him, not me.
Now, Kevin, what does it mean (Jesus) being made perfect He became the source of eternal salvation to all who OBEY him?
” that’s up to him not me” this answer makes no sense. Paul spoke the word of God and he tells us that salvation is a gift. If I give you something you didnt earn it, you didnt deserve it, nor did you merit it. That’s the nature of a gift. You can only receive it. It’s the same with the gospel of the bible, you cant merit it by your actions, you can only believe it. Nick, I pray it is clear to you now that the whole RC system of meritorious sacraments is anti gospel and antichrist.
” now Kevin what does it mean Jesus being made perfect He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. John 6 :28 ” Therefore they said to Jesus ” what shall we do, so that we may do the works of God. 29 Jesus answered them This is the WORK of God that you BELIEVE.
So…then let me ask you again:
which one of these biblical teachings do you believe:
EITHER
Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you have been SAVED through faith, it is not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.”
OR
Heb 5:9 “and being made perfect he became the source of eternal SALVATION to all who OBEY him”?
I believe both of them. The dont contradict each other. Paul said he was called to bring about the obedience OF faith among the gentiles. But a person isnt saved by their works. Roman’s 1:16 ” for I am not ashamed of the gospel , for it is the power of God FOR salvation to everyone who BELIEVES” the power is in the gospel alone to save. Got that. And it comes only by faith. Paul says we are saved unto good works, not because of them. That’s why your synagogue and its gospel of gracious merit is a perversion of the gospel of scripture. It’s a works righteousness gospel. You must repent of works righteousness and believe the gospel of scripture and get saved. Tim has shown you from scripture and history that the mass sacrifice is a perversion of the truth. You must trust in the finished work of what Christ did on the cross alone. I pray for you to that end. All the best.
Hi Kevin,
I am sorry about calling you Mike. My mistake. This thing about works just brought to my mind somebody else called Mike.
God bless you.
No worries Phil.
Kevin says: “It’s a works righteousness gospel. ”
You and your strawman. See how ya are?
It’s a faith AND works gospel. James says “You see that a man is JUSTIFIED by works and NOT by faith ALONE.
Try as you may, you can’t get around those inspired words. Many have tried, even Timothy Kauffman, but those words cannot be unwritten. Justification by faith alone is explicitly condemned by the Word of God. Works resulting from faith? Still that means saving faith is a working faith.
Even Luther finally concluded with an oxymoron–Faith alone but faith can never be alone.
It all boils down to prevenient grace, but you said we can’t talk about that.
” it all boils down to prevnient grace” thanks for mentioning this. The great post ever of Michael Taylor as follows about your synagogue. He was almost ordained as a Roman Catholic Priest before God saved him. Here is what he said, it’s classic. ” For God so loved the world that he gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace , but not enough grace to keep all these things in a state of sanctifying grace since He has not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the one final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them from losing the state of grace. ” Classic. That describes your Judaism. Please dont use James, who is talking about how faith is demonstrated before men, to justify your churches merit system. Because when you boil RC down to it Romans 1:17 Paul should have said the power for salvation is in you to all who merit. But he didnt he said the power of salvation is in the GOSPEL to all who BELIEVE. Please dont compare Roman Catholicism with Christianity, it’s about as antichrist as ever was.
Evidently, Micheal Taylor got it wrong just like Luther and Calvin.
You said “Please dont use James, who is talking about how faith is demonstrated before men”.
Yes, absolutely. A living faith is demonstrated. God knows what is in your heart. He also commands you to act upon it.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”–John 13:34
No wonder you don’t want to use James, because you think you are justified by faith alone. You believe in Jesus as the Son of God, right? So do demons. They know exactly who He is:
Mat 8:29 They began screaming at him, “Why are you interfering with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before God’s appointed time?”
If you are the Christian you say you are, then I can have confidence that you complete that faith by doing works of love and mercy–and I don’t even know you personally. You must bear fruit or you will be cut off.
John 15:2 “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.”
You know what I am saying is true. You just don’t want to admit it.
Hi Kevin,
You have not answered my previous comment addressed to Mike in error but actually addressed to you. I already apologized for that. I told you “The NT fulfilled the OT but did not nullify it. There is both continuity and discontinuity between both Covenants.” I will be glad to clarify any issue you may still have with it.
You stated on this subject:
“Whether a Jew in the OT or a NT gentile every man who is saved is saved by faith …” Precisely. That is continuity right there between the OT and NT.
Then, we see in Scripture that immediately after Pentecost: “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the BREAKING OF BREAD and in prayers” Acts 2:42 (Emphasis mine). There is discontinuity here since this is a clear reference to the “Last Supper” and only baptized Christians were allowed to participate.
You also asked Nick “Please answer the question. Ephesians 2:8 Paul is directly talking how someone is SAVED. It’s in the aorist past tense.” True. But there are other Scripture passages which talk about salvation in the present and future tense. Paul himself tells us in Rom 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we SHALL BE SAVED from wrath through Him.” (Emphasis mine). Was Paul contradicting himself? Please, explain.
God bless you.
Phil, Hebrews 8:13 ” When he said ” a new covenant” He has made the first OBSOLETE. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Sorry Phil, Jesus isnt an softer Moses with an easier law of love and heartfelt surrender. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness Isaiah 53. That’s why Paul is perspicuos in Ephessians 2:8 which speaks about how someone is saved. He says it’s by grace, it’s a gift, its thru faith, and NOTHING comes from ourselves or our works. You cant defend the RC meritorious sacraments system in light of that verse. Did you get that, you cant participate in your salvation by your works, its simply given by the goodness of God and received by faith alone. Phil, Roman Catholicism is just a recapitulation of OT sacrifices. Rome saw the gospel as the enabling to become righteous thru obedience failing to see that Christ fulfilled the law in our place. They confused the in us with the for us. In Christianity God saves us, in Catholicism God helps you safe yourself. That’s not the gospel. Also, I never said there was no continuity between the OT and NT. I said Rome failed to see the discontinuity. Men were saved by faith alone in both. Paul speaks even of Moses telling the Jews salvation is on your lips and near your heart. But clearly Roman’s 10:4 says Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to all who believe. In your church Christ is the beginning of the law to all who believe. You then said ” true but there other scripture passages that talk about salvation in the present tense and future.” You quoted Romans 5:9. Thank you can you read verse 10 and tell me whose life Paul says we will be saved by? Here I’ll help you, HIS LIFE. It’s my favorite verse of scripture. It should make every Protestant smile. Incidentally, verse 10 says we already have been reconciled to God, got that. Then it says we will be saved by his life. Not one mention of us. Justified, reconciled are past tense. That’s why Paul says our works are simply our reasonable service of worship. They are not the condition of our acceptance before God. Like I said Rome followed Aquinas who said a man was predestined to glory by his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. Best k
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad that we agree that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. I asked you about it because of your comment about Nick “conflating” them, when he had not conflated them. I think that it is very important not to misrepresent each other and I hope that you think it is important enough to make a better effort to understand each other.
You said:
“Phil, Hebrews 8:13 … received by faith alone.”
Paul never used the word ALONE in connection with FAITH, that was added by Luther to his German translation of the Bible and you are misrepresenting the RC’s doctrine of salvation.
Continuing:
“Phil, Roman Catholicism … That’s not the gospel.”
No, it is not. Righteousness is by GRACE ALONE. Anything else is a misrepresentation of Catholicism. That is not the same as to say by FAITH ALONE because Paul never separates faith from love: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” Gal 5:6
And:
“Also, I never said … the goodness of God.”
What have we here? “Reconciled, justified are past tense.” Salvation is in the future tense. What you are saying, then, is that RECONCILIATION, JUSTIFICATION is not the same as SALVATION, correct? Since not everybody would agree with that, can you define your understanding of those words for me? Thank you.
God bless you.
” Paul never separates fair and love.” Oh but ye does. The bible NEVER says we are justified by love, or saved by love. There isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. Justification is ALWAYS past tense in scripture and it’s always by faith. Phil, as important as love is , faith is always first in natural order. Love is second. Why? Faith receives. Love stretches out to neighbor, it does not receive. Faith is simply the instrument that receives Christ my righteousness and brings him to my heart. Love cant do that. Ephessians 2:8 works against RC doctrine. It says we are saved as a gift by faith with nothing coming from ourselves or our works. Yes faith works thru love, but you cant use that verse to say we are saved that way. Love is simply the what comes from our faith, it’s not the grounds of our salvation or our justification. Justification is the word daikaiu . It means to count righteous. Reconciled means we are no longer enemies of God nor in a cease fire, but adopted sons, friends of God. He no longer holds our sins against us past present future. In fact Colossians says all legal decrees debts, decrees against us have been cancelled. Salvation. We have been saved from the penalty of sin, we are being saved from power of sin, andcwe will be saved from the presence of sin. And yes respectfully Nick and the RCC conflate the law and gospel and in that way they do not recognize the discontinuity of the OT and NT. The law no longer no longer condemns Christians, because we are no longer under it. No law, Certainly no royal law. As Luther said God expects no compulsion. We obey his commandments but we are accepted through faith in the gospel and stand righteous before God because he has counted us so because of Christ alone. Best
Love is greater than faith for the simple reason that love is prior to faith. One cannot have faith without love, just as faith is prior to works (i.e. obedience).
This is trivially demonstrated: God is love, but God is not faith. God sent Jesus because he is love, and therefore faith is the consequence of—dependent on—that love. So if faith is the prerequisite for salvation, and love a prerequisite for faith, then love is a prerequisite for salvation. But of course it is: John 3:16!
You are correct that works (i.e. obedience) accompany faith, but salvation is only dependent on faith. Similarly, love accompanies faith and obedience, but as shown above, this does not imply equivalence. Love is greatest, because God is love (1 John 4:8), faith follows from love (John 3:16), and obedience from faith (James 2:18).
Faith—and salvation—does not come from obedience, nor does love come from faith. (Already existing) faith is demonstrated by obedience (James 2:18), and (already existing) love is demonstrated by faith (John 13:35).
In 2014, Tim wrote a piece saying what I just said, using very different words. It’s worth (re)reading: “The Blonde Kids Are On Our Ticket” (link)
” Love is greater than faith for the simple fact that love is prior to faith” this isnt true since you are speaking in regard to the person ,the believer. Faith is the entrance into this holistic religion. In Hebrews it says without faith it is impossible to please God, not without love , for the one who comes to him must believe that he is and he is the rewarder of those who seek him. Why? Because only faith can receive Christ our righteousness and bring him to our heart. Love cant. It can only reach out. It stretches out to neighbor. Love reaches out. So faith is first in natural order. True love is more important. Scripture says as much. Jesus says in Mark 1:15 repent and believe in the gospel, he doesnt say repent and love. Now in terms of God, it is true you cannot have faith apart from God’s love. But in terms of acceptance before God he says without faith it is impossible to please him. Certainly all we do is a gift of God’s love and a work of the Spirit of God with the Word. But the scripture never says we are justified or saved by love, but by faith. Why? Love doesnt receive the gift. Faith does. Thanks K
Kevin,
Can a believer have belief[1] without love? No.
Can a believer have works[2] without belief? No.
[1] Belief—faith and trust—that leads to salvation.
[2] Works: obedience to God.
As I said, love is prior to faith. If I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2). Such faith cannot save, for it is without love.
It is the nature of that faith that matters, in the context of both love and works. The demons believe, but the nature of their belief does not save. Faith alone saves, but not all faith saves.
I never said otherwise.
DR
Derek, with all due respect with the believer love is not prior to faith. 1 Corinthians 13:2 doesnt help your argument. Because we are discussing which comes first faith or love. The fact that a faith without love is useless doesnt mean love comes first. Vermiggli the great reformed theologian says faith is first in natural order because it alone can receive Christ. Love doesnt receive but gives, reaches out. It’s always second in natural order. I’m not arguing that love is paramount. You didnt address the point that prior to a Christian loving he must first believe. Again please address Hebrews 11 which says without faith it is impossible to please him. Love all you want it means nothing if you dont first believe. ” it is the nature of faith that matters” not in terms of its order as receiver. Again love cant do this. It gives. Its second in order. Incidentally, as important as love is, the bible never says we are justified or saved by love. Romans 5:1, 4:16, Ephessians 2:8. Etc. Love like crazy, if you dont believe the gospel you are going to hell. Hope you are doing well. K
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comment and explanations. Most people accept that Salvation (past) is usually taken as justification, salvation (present) as sanctification, and salvation (future) as glorification, and I have no problem with that. Do you?
You said re. Eph 2:8:
“The bible NEVER … to count righteous.”
I agree that faith is a gift from God and I don’t know anybody who has faith on their own or that claims to be able to obtain salvation by self. Now a gift to be a gift, has to be not only received but also appreciated and used by the one receiving it, or it will just remain in a corner collecting dust, an affront to the giver. In the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) the receiver of the one talent took it, like the others, but he didn’t appreciate the gift and received punishment instead. Here Paul is using salvation in the past tense, which means justification, a single act by God making the receiver righteous and establishing a relationship with him/her. This relationship is by its very nature not an act but a process. We are then “adopted sons, friends of God.”
Then proceeding to Colossians you added:
“Reconciled means … because of Christ alone.”
In both letters, as well as Philippians, Paul is addressing saved believers (in the process of being sanctified) and tells them “in whom (Jesus) we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” Col 1:14. Of course, Jesus has won for us the forgiveness of sins, it’s a free gift which we have to accept and live. Sanctification and sin are irreconcilable and God has given us a free will. Sin will break our friendship with Him. We can sin and break the relationship, but God cannot. Those who believe in OSAS, if they say that God will not let us sin, then they are saying that we are not free. Jesus chose Judas like He chose the others. It was his choice to betray Jesus. Afterwards, he could have repented and asked forgiveness for it, but that cannot be interpreted as a chart blanche for any future sin.
In Luke 7:36-50 there is the story of the sinful woman forgiven by love and saved by faith (not by her washing of the feet) at the same time. That is why FAITH ALONE (although, certainly, we can separate things in our mind) does not make sense in real life. Faith in the gospel is to be LIVED in love and not just to be BELIEVED. Gal 3:11 says: “The just shall LIVE by faith” (emphasis mine).
God bless you.
Hi Derek,
You made a good comment. Thank you.
Phil, the passage in Mathew 25 isnt sotereiological. You said ” it’s a free gift that we have to accept and live” where did Paul put the condition of living a gift?! He simply says in Ephessians 2:8 that it’s a gift, it is received by faith, and it has nothing to do with ourselves or our works. But that’s the nature of a gift isnt it Phil. We cantvearn it nor do we deserve it, we can only receive it. If I gave you a watch tomorrow and I put the condition on you that unless you wear it I’m taking it back. It wouldn’t be a gift would it. You continued sanctification and sin irreconcilable and God has given us free will. Sin will break our friendship with him ” really here is what Paul says to the rag tag sinful Corinthians ” Paul …..to the church of Corinth who have been sanctified” did you get that he uses sanctify in the aorist past tense! Why? Stay with me here. 1 Corinthians 1:30″ But by HIS doing you are in Christ who became ( past again) to us wisdom, and righteousness, and SANCTIFICATION and redemption” you see Phil although sanctification is the process of God making us holy thru his word yet all of salvation is forensic for Paul. Otherwise how could Paul call new believers in corinth have been sanctified. One more example Hebrews 10:10″ By his will we HAVE BEEN sanctified thru the offering of the body of Jesus ONCE AND FOR ALL.” This verse should be instructive to a Catholic Phil as you can see the once and for all offering of the body of Jesus not only secured my justification, but my sanctification and glorification. That’s why Paul can say believers are already seated in the heavenlies with Christ. His righteousness covers everything. So even though in my life I still sin, my position before God is righteous. I’m no more or less righteous today as I was when I believed or when my life is over. My righteousness isnt derived from his, it is his righteousness. You continued ” those who believe once saved always saved” you see Phil the reformed believe scripture teaches God’s irresistible grace. We will persevere til the end, but our position with God never changes, and it’s evil that your church denies believers assurance by calling it presumption. 1 John 5:13 says otherwise. Judas wasnt a believer. You said ” he could have repented…,” conjecture. Apart for the Spirit he couldnt do anything in regard to salvation. Finaly ” Faith alone does not make sense in real world” Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe” yes we live by faith, but as Luther said Rome takes from faith and gives to love what God intended only for faith. Best K
Protestant view of grace is unmerited favor. Roman Catholic view of grace it’s a tool to merit salvation. Completely opposite.
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comment. The words in Matthew 25 are Jesus’ words and if they are not soteriological, then His gospel is not soteriological either. Is that what you are saying?
You said:
“Phil, the passage … only for faith.”
Faith and sanctification in us are progressive as are our lives. Jesus compares them to a planted seed of mustard (Lk 13:19). Sanctification (friendship with God) starts at justification (forensic) and grows in the Christian by the Holy Spirit (living process): that’s why Paul says the Corinthians have been sanctified (they are and can grow in sanctification), not that they are glorified which is the final goal(1Cor 1:30). You cannot claim justification by FAITH ALONE as being forensic and then claim the process of salvation as being forensic, too. That’s where your Calvinist tradition brings you into trouble with the gospel. I have no problem with them having been sanctified even though they are only beginning believers. Got that?
Hebrews 10:10 refers to the sacrifice of Jesus for us “ONCE AND FOR ALL” as the source of our sanctification and not to sanctification itself. The author of Hebrews himself tells us (Heb 6:1): “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.” We can always grow in our relationship with Jesus (and “KNOW” Him better) as 1 John 5:13 says.
God bless you.
Phil, Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Is that a soteriological verse because Jesus said it. Your logic doesn’t follow. ” that’s what your Calvanistic tradition brings you into trouble with the gospel.” Well first the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul’s says I preached ths gospel to you that Christ died for your sinsc, was buried, and raised on the 3rd day. That’s the gospel those propositions. Its told and believed Mark 1:15. Sanctification nor repentance nor glorification is the gospel. And actually Phil with Paul illustrates his forensic view of all of salvation watch. Romans 8:30 ” and these whom he predestined, he also called, and these he called he also justified, and these he justified, he also glorified.” Please notice again the tense. Fesko calls it the already/ not yet. I believe that the judgement for a believer is moved up in a sense, because those he predestined he called he justified and glorified. God’s elect have this promise because Christ has already accomplished this. I an no more or less righteous before God today than I was when he saved me or when I die. It is why Peter says we have an inheritance that cannot go away. It’s why Paul says in Ephessians we are already seated in the heavenlies with Christ. Ephessians 1:13 says after hearing the message of the gospel and having believed, we are sealed in the Spirit, ( watch this) who is a pledge of our inheritance. Phil, Paul goes on to say that even while we were dead in sin HE made us alive. I’m a monergist because that’s what the scripture teaches. So yes, even though my sanctification is the process of God making me holy thru his word, from a positional standpoint I’m sanctified. Finally ” Therefore …….” yes we move on to perfection, but Christ’s perfect righteousness has already covered where I fall short. Its an incredible assurance Protestants have. Not like a Catholic who can never know he’s saved and if he commits a mortal sin he’s thrown out again. What an awful way to live. K
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comment. My assurance is incredible too, and you better believe it because it is firmly anchored in His Word. I know His faithfulness and His mercy. I also know my sinfulness and that He is there supporting me.
Look at the context for its soteriology. By calling the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” Jesus denounced their hypocrisy and showed them how it contradicts the gospel. Hypocrisy will never save.
It seems to me that you continue to separate repentance from faith in spite of Jesus’ (Mark 1:15), Peter’s (Acts 2:38) and Paul’s preaching. Paul tells the elders at Ephesus: “repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” Acts 20:21. I Corinthians 15:1-4 is indeed the summary of the gospel. But if you continue taking the summary of the gospel and throwing away the rest of it at your own peril is like saying that “God is love” (I John 4:8) and discarding all the other attributes included in it.
I agree with Romans 8:30, Romans 8:1-2, and the rest of Scripture. But the Bible does not say that “Christ’s perfect righteousness has already covered where I fall short.” If that is the assurance that we are supposed to have, why did Paul tell the Philippians: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12)?
God bless you.
“It seems like you continue to separate repentance for faith” that’s because repentance isnt faith. When did I ever say Chtistians dont repent. They repent and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15. What they don’t is do penance and live the gospel. The gospel is told and believed, not done, according to Jesus in Mark 1:15. It’s called the good news. News is about something that’s already happened, namely what Christ did for his people 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. ” but you continue taking the summary of the gospel and throwing away the rest” that isnt a summary of the gospel, it is the gospel. The isnt ” other attributes” in the gospel. Sanctification is a work of God but it isnt the gospel. The gospel is ONLY the propositions that Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the 3rd day. You corrupt it by adding ” other attributes” to it. ” but the bible doesnt say that Christ’s righteousness has already covered where I fall short” Romans 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:21 listen, He (God) made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” notice he doesnt say we become righteous, but “the righteousness of God” in Him. Paul uses this term ” righteousness of God” many times. The ” righteousness of God ” that comes by faith which receives it. Philippians 3:9. This righteousness comes for outside us and is imputed to us by faith. Rome confuses the for us with the in us. Sanctification isnt justification, regeneration isnt justification, and repentance isnt faith. K
Faith is belief is trust (e.g. pistis; πίστις). Works (or deeds) are obedience to God and, by definition, repentance is a work of obedience to God. The two go together (e.g. Mark 1:15), but they are not the same:
This isn’t complicated.
The biblical order is belief, baptism, and repentance. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) instructs Jesus’ followers to make disciples (i.e. those who believe; have faith), baptize them, and teach them to obey (i.e. works). In Acts 2, after the three thousand believed, they were baptized and then taught.
Mark 16:16 explicitly states the following:
Why does repentance come after belief and baptism? Because it is the baptismal rite when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in the Christian, enabling their works. Salvation is prior to works (except to the extent that believing and baptizing are themselves works of obedience to God).
” and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” there is the order
I had mentioned Timothy’s error in the Didache analysis. If you look at Chapter 9 it mentions the cup and the bread after stating “Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist) thus give thanks” and Timothy writes “The cup and the bread are symbolic of the Church and they clearly are not consecrated bread and wine”. First of course it is the “broken bread” mentioned in the Didache and in Scripture and the early Church refers to the Lord’s supper. But notice in context Timothy left out the last line of Chapter 9! “but let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist) , but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for concerning this also the Lord has said “Give not that which is holy to the dogs”. The Didache is obviously referring to the consecrated bread and wine, And in the next chapter note, “but to us, You freely gave spiritual food and drink AND LIFE ETERNAL through your servant. “ This is a recurring theme of course referring to John 6 and repeatedly emphasized by the early Fathers.
One last point, Timothy points out that “This is no institution narrative. It is not the Lord’s supper. There is no “This is my body…this is my blood”. Now let us reason! Scripture tells us in three Gospels that after the consecration Christ said do this in remembrance of me. Are we to believe the earliest Christians failed to follow his command, but then later added it back to the worship service? Seriously? How did the food become “Spiritual food” and “HOLY” so that it should not be given to dogs without following Christ’s command. No institution narrative? Anyone have any idea why they may have left out the institutional narrative?
Timothy, I realize it seems like we are ganging up on you but you never did respond to my post above. I wish Derek and Kevin would come back to give you some support. I’m going to go back and respond to your comments about the experts mistranslating and try to address some of the issues of your criticism. I think your inability or unwillingness to give a reasonable translation of that verse from Irenaeus to me at least seriously undermines your criticism of the Latin to English translation, wouldn’t you agree?
Timothy, glad to know you are back. I was a little worried when you dropped out responding to Nick’s last points. Also I don’t think you ever responded to this post I submitted before.
Thank you, Betty. Addressing your inquiry:
The English under question is:
In latin, “…qui haec antitypa accipiunt, remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam consequantur (obtain).”
The complete greek of this phrase is:
“…ινα οι μεταλαβοντες τουτων των αντιτυπων της αφεσεως των αμαρτιων και και της ζωης αιωνιου τύχωσιν”
The word for “obtain” in greek is “αποκτώ” but as you can see, it is not present in the greek. However, my investigation into the passage ended there and I moved on. I should not have.
The word at the end of the sentence in greek is τύχωσιν, which is rendered consequantur in latin and obtain in english. However, in that form, τύχωσιν is more properly translated as “experience” rather than “obtain.”
Thus, in english it would be more properly rendered, “…in order that the receivers of these antitypes may experience remission of sins and life eternal.”
The two times it is used in the NT (2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 11:35) it gets translated as obtain, but in context it is better rendered “experience”. In 2 Timothy 2:10, Paul says he endures all things for the sake of the elect that they may τυχωσιν salvation, and in context, those for whom he endures suffering already possess salvation. He is not trying to get them saved, but rather to help them experience salvation more fully. In Hebrews 11:35, the people who refused deliverance did not do so in order to obtain, secure, get, attain, achieve or accomplish a better resurrection, but rather to experience one, for such a resurrection was already promised to them, and was already theirs (John 11:26).
Thank you for your question.
Timothy, thanks for your answer . So to be clear your argument is that the verse from Irenaeus being discussed is a mistranslation because the Greek word is translated “may obtain” and should have been translated “experience”. And ‘this same mistranslation occurs in the Bible translations we have available to us for 2 Timothy 2:10 and Hebrew 11:35. I have looked up a number of translations and they all seem to be mistranslations according to your analysis. Does it seem likely that all of these scholars are wrong and you are right on this point. Actually I admire you honesty showing us that the translations of the word in most of our bibles match the translation of the Irenaeus passage, “obtain”.
Betty, it was a mistake to end my search where I did. I should not have. That said, upon further analysis, I found that the term τυχωσιν can mean “obtain,” but as Paul S. Jeon noted in his book, 2 Timothy: Fight the Good Fight, Finish the Race, Keep the Faith, in verse 10, “The verb “obtain” (τύχωσιν) with the genitive means ‘to experience something.'”
Notably, the Douay Rheims and the Catholic Public Domain Version both render the term “find” rather than “obtain” in Hebrews 11:35:
Other translations do not even render the term τύχωσιν into english at all, because the term is encapsulated in the object of their faith and the better resurrection: “Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.” (ESV)
You may take this to mean whatever you like, but if it seems to you unlikely that “all of these scholars are wrong and you are right on this point,” then you may take up the argument with Paul S Jeon who rendered it “experience” in 2 Timothy 2:10 and the Roman Catholic translators who rendered the term “find” in Hebrews 11:35, and other scholars who thought “obtain” was inaadequate. The term τύχωσιν literally means “to chance upon” something, which is considerable less active and causal than “to obtain” and “to attain.” Which is why “experience” or “find” are appropriate terms. It is not I alone who have concluded that.
But let’s get back to your original point:
But your subsequent posts on Irenæus indicate that you do not believe he was heretical. Since you don’t question the authenticity of the fragment or the meaning of the word antitypes, and you do not believe Irenæuss was a heretic, are you still bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie. symbols “obtain remission of sins and eternal life”?
So it would appear Timothy that you are now willing to admit that the English translation from Irenaeus “obtain remission of sins and eternal life “ is not a mistranslation as you had inferred previously. I never said “obtain” is the only word that could be used and I have pointed out before the difficulties of translation. So the question now is how do you experience or find something without obtaining it? How do you experience remission of sins and eternal life if you don’t obtain them?
Actually I’m not bothered at all by Irenaeus’s fragment because I was simply pointing out previously the inconsistency of the belief that one would obtain remission of sins and eternal life from eating a symbol. You write “anti types, ie symbols” but you know as well as I do that that is the point of debate. Our modern understanding of these words is not the same as that held in the ancient world. I’m not going to persuade you Timothy but anyone interested in the ancient understanding of these words read Cyril of Jerusalem’s last two catechetical letters where he describes the mass. The good news is I’ve ordered a computer so I won’t have to ask Nick to paste and post for me soon.
Tim, 8/20: Betty, May I first inquire as to your position on the Fragment? Is it your opinion that the Fragment is authentic but “antitype” here does not mean “symbolic”? Or is it rather that “antitype” means symbolic, but the Fragment itself is not authentic?
Betty, 8/20: I didn’t question the authenticity of the fragment or the meaning of the word antitypes. I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie. symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”.
Betty, 8/20: It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus which sprouted in the fourth century as described by Tim, would you agree?
Betty, 2/21: Actually I’m not bothered at all by Irenaeus’s fragment because I was simply pointing out previously the inconsistency of the belief that one would obtain remission of sins and eternal life from eating a symbol.
So your first foray into this conversation was a lie. Ok.
You also wrote, “I’m not going to persuade you Timothy but anyone interested in the ancient understanding of these words read Cyril of Jerusalem’s last two catechetical letters where he describes the mass.”
Indeed, they can. Here is my comment from 8/17
Anyway, I think we’re done here. But I do appreciate your participation in the discussion.
The sentence were you accused me of lying ends with “as described by Tim” and is a question. I was simply pointing out based on your fourth century theory Irenaeus statement would totally mess up your timeline.
Betty–
As a Catholic I believe the “anti-type” is the celebration of the Eucharistic rite and the “type” is our actual resurrection on the Last Day. Jesus said He is the resurrection and the life. When we eat HIs flesh and drink His blood it is salvation begun, and when He raises us up on the Last Day, it is salvation finished. Anti-type and type–Christ is both. We receive the anti-type now and we will obtain (experience) the type on the Last Day just like Irenaeus said.
Don’t you agree?
Nick, so glad to see your post. It’s hard for me to wrap my brain around this topic in the way these words are used as they are not words we commonly use. So you have mysteries which are incomprehensible and trying to explain them with words that we do not commonly use. Timothy wrote “ Antitype, ie symbols” but I think if you look up the biblical usage of the terms the Old Testament “type” or symbol prefigured the New Testament “Antitype”. So in that case Noah is the Type fulfilled by Christ the Antitype. And of course when Timothy points out the Greek terms being translated “copy” and “true original” it just gets more confusing. Was Noah the “True Original” and Christ just a copy? But Timothy from his statement seems to agree the current usage is different from the ancient usage. Patristic scholars argue the same and tell us there is a realism in the term Antitype that makes the comment “ie symbol” inadequate. I recommend again people read Cyril of Jerusalem last two catechetical lectures to try and get some clarity. I don’t see the same clarification being provided by Clement’s quote.,Similarly I find it interesting that Cyril would describe the Chrism as the Antitype as the Eucharist is described . We are annointed by the Holy Spirit , ie the Holy Chrism as the image of the Holy Spiirit comes to dwell within us. You could make the same argument about The Eucharist. Christ’s image is imprinted on us by partaking , just as the coin takes on the image of the stamp. Maybe that is why the Fathers chose to use such terms to explain the inexplicable.
Betty,
There is no evidence from scripture on the use of type and antitype as you describe it: “the Old Testament “type” or symbol prefigured the New Testament “Antitype””. At no point is Jesus said to be the NT type of an OT antitype, or to be the NT antitype of the OT type. That said, the earthly temple is repeatedly called the figure (parable), copy, shadow and antitype of the heavenly one which is the “true” temple:
What do you suppose “antitype” means in this context when it says the earthy temple is the antitype of the true one in heaven?
Thanks,
Tim
Romans 5:14. I would suggest one simply google Type and Antitype and the study of Typology in the Bible. I know it’s confusing Timothy but there is a temporal component to this terminology. Adam, Old Testament was a type for Christ , New Testament. In the Hebrew passages heaven, the type preceeds the “holy places made by hands” which are copies, the Antitype.
Betty and Timothy–
The Bible also says this:
1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype (ἀντίτυπον) which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…(NKJV)
Notice here again that baptism (washed in the Blood of Christ who is the resurrection and the life) is considered the antitype of the true resurrection on the Last Day. The sacraments are the antitypes and salvation the type. The Bible and the Fathers agree. The antitype begins and the type completes. Christ will finish what He starts.
In the modern sense, the word “type” can be used as “a model” or “a sampling” of something–a different usage than in the early Christian writings. One must be careful to discern the difference.
Nick, I’m not sure how that can work. John of Damascus and Basil said the bread and wine were antitypical prior to the consecration, rather than after:
If the bread and wine are antitypical before the consecration (before the bread and wine are sacramentally Christ’s body and blood), wouldn’t the sacrament be the type, and the unconsecrated elements the antitype?
Timothy–
Yes, that is the mystery of the sacrament, that it actually is what it symbolizes. The unconsecrated bread and wine symbolize (antitype) the Body and Blood. Then when consecrated, they actually become (type) the Body and Blood. They are in fact accidents (antitype) and substance (type) at the same time–accidents being temporal and substance being eternal. That is why Jesus said His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. Not only is the sacrament nourishment for the body, but nourishment for the soul also.
Nick, is it your understanding then that Hippolytus is saying that the consecrated wine is the accidental blood of Christ?
If the Blood of Christ is the accident, what is the substance?
Timothy–
I understand on one level the wine in the cup is the accidents (antitype), the substance (type) of which is Christ. My human senses tell me it is wine I am drinking, while my faith shows me it is Christ’s real presence. On a different level the Blessed Sacrament as a whole is the anticipation of salvation (antitype) which we will have authentically (type) at our resurrection on the Last Day. Christ is here now in the Sacrament as well as there at our resurrection. So heed the words of Hippolytus:
“Therefore do not spill from it, for … [you] will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.”
Yes, I understand that after the consecration (as you say), the wine is accidental, and the blood is substantial. Therefore after the consecration, the cup is filled with ACCIDENTAL wine and SUBSTANTIAL blood.
By this means you have set up a construct in which accidental = antitypical and substantial = typical. To use your words,
Under that rubric, Hippolytus would have said either
OR
But he did not say either of those. He said after the consecration it is the antitypical Blood, or to use your construct, the ACCIDENTAL blood.
If after the consecration the contents of the cup is ACCIDENTALLY blood, the what is it SUBSTANTIALLY?
Thanks, Nick. I’m just trying to understand what you mean. You have equated Antitype with Accident. Hippolytus said “having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ.” If antitype = accident, how would you render Hippolytus’ statement using “accident” instead of “antitype”?
Timothy–
You said “He said after the consecration it is the antitypical Blood, or to use your construct, the ACCIDENTAL blood.”
No, he said nothing at all like that.
I think you are misreading Hippolytus.
“Having blessed (benedicens) the cup in the Name of God, you received it (the wine) as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. ”
The wine as it appears from the cup is the antitype (symbol) of what it actually is–the Blood of Christ. It is a sacrament. A sacrament actually is what it symbolizes. The wine symbolizes what actually is the Blood of Christ.
Timothy–
You asked “If antitype = accident, how would you render Hippolytus’ statement using “accident” instead of “antitype”?
Hmmm. Me trying to clarify Hippolytus’ words is proving difficult for you to understand. I am sure that my communication has it’s shortcomings. But I’ll try again. Here is my rendering:
Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received the Blood of Christ under the accidents (appearence) of the wine. Be mindful that Christ’s Blood was the price in which you were purchased so be careful not to spill it lest you scorn Him.
Yes, I know Hippolytus didn’t say it that way, but that is how I understand it. If the wine was merely a symbol or a figure and did not become the Blood of Christ, spilling it would be of no grave consequence. It’s just wine. No big deal. But that is not the case with the Blessed Sacrament. We hold the consecrated elements in deep reverence and handle them accordingly. Do you not do the same?
Thanks for bringing up this verse Nick as I was just about to comment on it. I mentioned antitype is not a word most of us feel comfortable with and so most translations of this verse leave out the word except the literal translations and the New King James. Now Timothy wants to translate antitype as symbol but unless I am mistaken in this verse it is the flood that is the type and foreshadows Baptism , the antitype. Timothy sees antitype and figure in the writings of the Fathers referring to the Eucharist and wants to translate it as symbol but 1 Peter 3:21 shows it doesn’t work.
Betty–
You said “Now Timothy wants to translate antitype as symbol but unless I am mistaken in this verse it is the flood that is the type and foreshadows Baptism , the antitype.”
That is correct. The “antitype–type” goes both directions, past and future. The antitype of baptism commemorates the actual saving of Noah and family through the waters of the Flood. And baptism also anticipates our own salvation by being born again of water and the Spirit. Chronologically speaking it would be type-antitype-type.
Thanks Nick, I hope everyone will read Book IV, chapter 13 of John Damascus’s “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” and it is crystal clear the confusion surrounding the use of the terms “figure” and “antitype” to describe the Eucharist. It’s obvious in his discussion that he is responding to defining these terms as symbol or symbolic. As I mentioned before Cyril of Jerusalem in his last two catechetical lectures obviously believes in the real presence but refers to the Eucharist as a “Figure” and “Antitypical”. But John in his exposition is very clear, the Eucharist is not a figure! Again this is the confusion I mentioned previously when you try to define a mystery with words that can have multiple meanings. The reading assignment for anyone really interested in the truth is to read Cyril of Jerusalem’s last two catechetical lectures and as Timothy referenced the entire Chapter 13 , Book IV of John Damascus’s “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”.
Book IV Ch 13 John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are SUPERNATURALLY CHANGED by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.
Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.
The bread and the wine ARE NOT MERELY FIGURES of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, This is My body, NOT, THIS IS A FIGURE of My body: and My blood, NOT, A FIGURE of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55.
Yes, Betty. John is absolutely clear the Blessed Sacrament is not to be taken figuratively.
No question about it Nick and his comments clearly reflect the fact that he is not defining the words figure and antitype the way earlier Church Fathers are defining those words, hence the confusion. It’s when you read the entire passages as in Cyril’s catechetical letters that it becomes clear. And with Timothy’s help I think that chapter from John Damascus sheds so much light on the discussion.
Nick, concerning your comments on Hippolytus and the extreme care the Christian is admonished to have when touching the Eucharist, I have read that same advise given by other Church Fathers and of course Catholics today . Further evidence for belief in the real presence.
I can’t find this quote with antitype in the Hippolytus Anaphora that I have been able to pull up, but again I encourage truth seekers to read the entire passage. The comment “the divine mysteries” referring to the Eucharist is not a description Protestants believing in a symbolic presence use. Compare tha Anaphora with Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures and the Catholic Mass.
Betty–
You said “I can’t find this quote with antitype in the Hippolytus Anaphora that I have been able to pull up”
Neither could I. But I did find this from http://www.stjohnsarlingtonva.org/Customer-Content/saintjohnsarlington/CMS/files/EFM/Apostolic_Tradition_by_Hippolytus.pdf
It says this:
“Sadly most of Hippolytus’ works are lost to us. The Apostolic Tradition itself is partly preserved in a Latin palmpsest, and in several oriental versions. The Greek original is wholly
lost, but for fragments in the heavily edited excerpts in The Apostolic Constitutions.
My translation here is based on the work of Bernard Botte (La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984) and of Gregory Dix (The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992). My version (which it certainly is) is intended as a simplified one for ease of reading, directed primarily towards the non-expert.”
It looks to me to be a translation of a translation of highly edited texts which there are not original Greek manuscripts extant. So it’s hard to prove whether or not Hippolytus actually used the Greek word for antitype or anything else for that matter. But that is all that I have been able to find on the internet.
Here is the text from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus:
36 The faithful shall be careful to partake of the eucharist before eating anything else. For if they eat with faith, even though some deadly poison is given to them, after this it will
not be able to harm them.
37 All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned.
38 Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.
Thanks Nick, i’m sure you found the source of Timothy’s quotes. As you pointed out the extreme care given to protecting the Eucharist. Christ’s blood is the type, the contents of the cup the antitype.
Betty–
It should occur to the reader of the Fathers the care and reverence they express towards the Eucharist species of the bread and wine. If the bread and wine were ONLY mere antitypes and nothing more than symbolic, then that reverence would be for mere bread and wine. That would constitute idolatry–the worship of something other than the Lord Himself.
Hippolytus of Rome wrote his Apostolic Constitutions in about 220 AD which is considered Anti-Nicaean. That is early enough to show even the hardest anti-Catholic that the belief of the Real Presence was held in the early post-Apostolic Church. It’s not proof of transubstantiation, but it does support the belief that the Eucharistic consecrated bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ and not mere symbols.
Totally agree Nick. During the lull I’ve been on the onefold.wordpress.com site under an article “Early Church Evidence Refuted te Real Presence”. Phil has posted a couple of times. Come join us, we could use your insights.
Betty–
Those guys over there are only there to smear the Catholic faith. It doesn’t matter what you say or the evidence you give. And they are not courteous either.
I agree Nick but I think it is fairly easy to show how they are misrepresenting the Fathers. Our friend Kevin has joined us and tells me Timothy is writing a book. Phil is also posting. The hardest task is keeping them on the subject matter. In a discussion on what the Early Father’s believed on the real presence I apparently am not quoting Scripture enough?
Hi Betty,
You are doing fine. If you need help with Scripture quotes I will be glad to help you. The quotes they use are limited and often taken out of contest. They use them to get away from the real questions. Wilson seems to get some comments mixed up.
Stick to your ground and let them get their rant out of their system. I hope you are to get this. Feel free to contact me at “felisanz9@msn.com” . And this goes for Nick, too.
Hi, Phil and Betty–
Their asking for support from Holy Scripture is well founded. The Early Fathers quoted Scripture quite frequently in their writings. However, they used Scripture to support the traditions they were were taught that was handed down from other generations of faithful Christians. They did not build doctrine from their own private interpretation of Scripture.
What happens with Sola Scriptura is that they read from Scripture and then teach what they think it means. That may cause an errant interpretation that is soon built into doctrine, such as the doctrine of Faith Alone, or Once Saved Always Save or even the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself. And once that errant interpretation is set as doctrine, they use that same mindset to interpret the writings of the Early Fathers in support of that errant doctrine.
Now they have “faith” that their interpretation is the true interpretation and no matter what evidence you can show to disprove it, you cannot shake then from their “faith”.
And so it goes……
Thanks Phil and Nick. Great points. I am amazed how often they misrepresent Catholic beliefs. Deny Jesus as our savior, deny Christ has risen? You really have to be blinded and have a hardened heart to act that way. I’m not going to let Kevin off the hook yet for his misunderstanding of the word Antitype. And notice Brian has not stepped in because he knows Kevin is wrong. Fascinating that none of them have challenged the points I made about John 6:63.
Betty,
Best wishes on your days off. I hope you get your computer.
Blessings. p
This entire series is a perfect example of how to take simple things out of context, show no understanding of contemporary studies on the issue of liturgical development and giving forced interpretations that don’t fit with text or basic context
The abuse of Irenaeus’ analogy in Adversus Heresies is one of them where because apparently since the human body rots and decays at death, therefore no real presence. But anyone who sincerely reads Irenaeus knows that is NOT how the analogy works.
The analogy operates by stating how the natural elements of bread and wine from wheat and grape practically ‘die’ when harvested but becomes the Eucharist by the Word. The human body likewise takes this Eucharist, dies and by that same Word is resurrected.
That analogy plainly and extremely clearly assumes the real presence IN the elements.
Worse still, Tim thinks the Apostolic Tradition is just a Zwinglian meal and since apparently other things besides bread and wine are offered, therefore it means liturgical studies got it wrong eventhough scholars like Stewart-Sykes and Mcgowan literally accept the meal component in the Eucharistic liturgy.
Even worse for Tim, the fact that the Apostolic Tradition clearly states in no unclear terms the implication that the consecrated bread and wine is indeed the body and blood of Christ later on shows how he is in fact unfamiliar with the text or wants to intentionally mislead people who aren’t familiar with it. There is a literal statement about how those who eat it in faith, poison won’t affect them.
That doesn’t sound like Tim’s Zwinglian banquet to me. In fact it doesn’t even sound Calvinist because Calvin doesn’t say that eating the consecrated elements can bestow that on you.
Tim also thinks 1Clement’s use of sacrifice just means “tithe offerings” that are later distributed to the poor since Luke uses the term “gifts” to refer to that. But then Tim goes silent on the part where 1Clement literally compares Christian services with the Temple sacrifices and even worse, makes an explicit statement about how there are things clergy does which laymen cannot do. Hence for the laymen to keep in their bounds
Tim also ignores how early on Clement speaks of seeing the Blood of Christ, the same word in Luke-Acts denoting..seeing theophanies and miracles. So this literally entails either the audience sees this blood in preaching of the Gospel ala seeing a theophany, which literally means Tim becomes incoherent because there is now a physical medium by which Christ manifests and becomes present or the Eucharist which would be more likely given the emphasis on seeing and how it is the memorial of Christ’s passion. But this only entails Real Presence, not Zwinglianism and shows inconsistency with Tim’s methodology
Now how do I know this? Because I used to be a Reformed Baptist. I used to buy into Tim’s level of how the early church functioned until I did the research myself
Thank you, Timmy. Your comment was very thoughtful. One quick question to get us started. If I have understood your observation, you believe Irenæus thought the natural elements of bread and wine “die” when harvested:
But Irenæus was drawing on John 12:24 (Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit), and consistent with that appears to be saying (as Jesus said) that they die when they are planted:
From Irenæus’ actual words, how did you arrive at the conclusion that he believed they die when they are harvested?
Thank you.
Timothy, your own quotation practically answers your question for me. There is a reason why I put die in quotations. It just signifies how they are to be cut or decomposed. That’s a key point that makes the analogy when comparing with the human body works. Like those agricultural products they too are buried and decomposes, then rise again.
But as I said this presumes the Real Presence because you need something that “glorifies” the bread and wine. That which does this is the same Word of God who will resurrect the dead. Simple and requires no stretching
Thank you, Timmy. What do you mean by “you need something that “glorifies” the bread and wine”? Do you mean that just as the bread and wine “having received the Word of God” are glorified (i.e., become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ); so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall be glorified (i.e., shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God)”? So the common bread and wine are glorified by the Word of God, and our bodies will be glorified at the resurrection?
For those reading Timmy’s attempts to etablish the Real Presence of Christ by Irenæus’ analogy, remember the assumption Timmy is bringing to Irenæus when he does so. Here is what Timmy said:’
Anyone who reads Against Heresies Book V Chapter 2 of Irenæus knows that Irenæus had never ever said anything about “the natural elements of bread and wine from wheat and grape practically ‘die’ WHEN HARVESTED” but rather that the natural elements of the kernel and vine die and decompose WHEN PLANTED. Timmy had to force Irenæus to say that the “bread and wine” die when harvested and are glorified when they are consecrated in order to force the false analogy.
Anyway, the evidence against the “real presence” in Irenaeus is also evident in another analogy he uses in Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18. Please note the JUST AS and SO ALSO:
That sure sounds like Irenæus has employed a simile between the consecrated bread and the resurrected body, but that is a carefully crafted lie. Irenæus did not say “epiclesin (invocation)” as if he was talking about the consecration of the bread and wine, but rather “eccelesin” which means summons. In this chapter, Irenæus is referring to the tithing of the harvest to the Lord as an offering, and it is the bread that is summoned as a tithe, as in “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse” (Malachi 3:10). Because it makes no sense to the medieval mind to establish a simile between the tithe and the resurrection, the scholars and translators changed Irenæus’ eccelesin in his original Greek, into epiclesin (invocation) to make it look like Irenæus was saying that we are made suitable for heaven by the consecrated bread in the same way the bread becomes suited for heaven by the consecration. Thus, it is the consecration that makes the bread both earthly and heavenly, presumably because the Heavenly portion is the “real presence” of Christ. But that is not what Irenæus said.
the analogy here is that earthly bread is made suitable for God’s heavenly purposes when it is tithed to be used to feed the poor. The bread is earthly in that it is the product of the soil and is the result of our earthly toil, and it is heavenly in that it is set aside to be used for God’s purposes. Read the chapter. That is the context.
And just as the bread and wine are tithed “in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things” so also our bodies are made suitable for heaven when we receive communion “in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love”. THAT is the analogy. That is the simile.
To turn it into evidence for Transubstantiation and the “Real Presence” the scholars and translators again had to change what Irenæus wrote in Book IV (Just as Timmy did to Irenæus in Book V) to make it sound like the bread and wine took on two realities at the consecration instead of what Irenæus plainly said: that the bread and wine take on two realities when they are offered to the Lord as tithe, earthly products set aside for heavenly uses.
The Real Presence doctrine is a lie from hell, and to establish its historicity, the people who advance the doctrine have to lie to make it look ancient, instead of acknowledging it for the medieval novelty that it is.
Timothy, Irenaeus’ own analogy is obvious and for it work, there must be like and like. If we follow your way of reading, his entire analogy breaks down and he fails to show the Gnostics through appealing to the Eucharist as an analogy for why the physical flesh will be Saved.
In that chapter Irenaeus is clear that Gnostics deny that the physical flesh is capable of incorruption. The proceeding rhetorical question “why did the Lord redeem us with His blood” also show us another thing, somehow in some way Christ’s own humanity is vital to our Salvation hence Christ having actual flesh and blood. His point also wont make sense if this flesh and blood of Christ, which because of that connection is for us Life Eternal, is not somehow united with our bodies or nourishing our bodies.
Hence the rhetorical question,
“how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”
From this proceeds the analogy that I pointed out. For it to make sense, something must be received by the bread and wine which is not of its own nature, similarly we receive Incorruption which as far as I am concern is also not our natural state right now.
If the bread and wine DONT receive anything to their nature, the analogy breaks down because a comparison between it and our bodies fails. Worse it also implies that in your soteriology, Union with Christ is impossible because just as the bread and wine cannot receive the Word of Christ after being raised, we cannot receive the quality of partaking of in-corruption after resurrection and by extension even in the eschaton, we are separated from Christ and not united with Him
That’s the implication of your reading which makes Irenaeus fails and contradictory or we can take it naturally and see that the Real Presence enables him to make the analogy and argue for why the flesh will be saved and be endowed with incorruption
It’s your choice, or none since you are a Calvinist who denies free choice
Thanks, Timmy. I’m trying to understand what your point is. I understand Irenæus’ use of simile and that “there must be like and like”. What I’m not understanding is your insistence that Irenæus’ simile requires a substantial change in the bread at the Consecration.
Of the wheat, he says:
That’s the allegory. For the parallel, I’m expecting to see flesh and blood being deposited in the earth, flesh and blood rising up by the Spirit, risen flesh and blood being useful in some way as flesh and blood by the Wisdom of God, and then that risen useful flesh and blood being transformed into something else by the Word of God. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, that is not what we find:
Now the parallel:
In Irenæus’ use of wheat, it is wheat that dies and decomposes, is resurrected again as wheat by the Spirit, then useful as wheat by the Father, then (so you say) transformed into not wheat by the Consecration. If the parallel is as you say, then our bodies die and decompose, are resurrected as bodies by the Spirit, made useful as bodies by the Wisdom of the Father, and then transformed into not bodies by the Word of God.
But of course, that is not Irenæus’ point at all. In other words, if we follow your way of reading, his entire analogy breaks down and he fails to show the Gnostics through appealing to the Eucharist as an analogy for why the physical flesh will be Saved. By your reading, what is finally saved is that which is no longer flesh because it has been transformed into something it wasn’t, which kind of plays into the hands of the gnostics.
Timothy, your Point here doesn’t work. Trying to use the term “simile” here also just shows you don’t really have any point against what I laid out since a simile still compares like to like. Like to like requires the real presence because if there is no real presence, the comparison breaks down and Irenaeus is incoherent and worse as I said the implications I laid out before happens.
Your first point here fails. Because we actually do have flesh and blood actually receiving something that it doesn’t have, incorruption. And it is obvious the bread and wine also receives what it doesn’t have that is the Word of God, which is what also enables the flesh to receive what it doesn’t have, incorruption.
This also shows why your second point fails. Because my point is the Word is added to the nature of the Eucharistic elements, not that they are destroyed. So the entire second point becomes a misunderstanding of my point made earlier.
It should be noted for anyone familiar with Irenaeus’ own works and soteriology to know that humanity is made to grow more and more into the likeness of God. That is essentially the “function” just as bread and wine has a function in the Eucharist to nourish our bodies. In this case, Irenaeus focus is clearly on the Word that changes the Eucharistic elements by adding to their nature just as flesh receives incorruption
Thus the problem remains with your reading. You also never shown how your first point is even the case because as your own quoted attempt to disprove my point shows, incorruption is granted to the flesh. This is why Irenaeus uses the Eucharist as analogy because it shows how the Gnostics are wrong in denying the salvation of the flesh
So we only have the implication of what I said. You can’t believe we have any real union with Christ here or when after. That also raises issues with Christ’s own flesh and blood since that is taken by Him for our salvation.
If our flesh cannot receive incorruption which is clearly not its natural state, that has implications for Christology and makes you believe in Nestorianism as the flesh cannot receive Divine attributes. Incorruption is a Divine attribute.
Timmy, I know what simile means. Irenæus says “just as”. What’s missing is anything more than your bare assumption that what he means is that the bread and wine take on the Real Presence of Christ by the Consecration. So try again. “JUST AS” the vine or the kernel when planted “rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God” “SO ALSO our bodies … shall rise at their appointed time” by what? What is the simile Irenæus is making? Are you saying that that the Spirit causing the grape and wheat to grow out of the earth is the consecration, and our bodies rising at their appointed time shows that the Spirit must have transformed the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ before they are even harvested?
So can you just explain in simple terms the JUST AS and SO ALSO as it relates to wheat/our bodies being planted in the ground and rising up from it? What is the simile? You should be able to explain that in one sentence.
Timothy, now you are practically not even addressing any of my points. It’s not even rocket science. So you just have to try again and actually address my points and explain how your position doesn’t end up with the implication of the impossibility of any real union with Christ
>Muh assumption
Which I explained by both the bread and wine AND our bodies receiving a quality that is not of their natures and worse, by the same person that is the Word of God. There is a reason why eslewhere Irenaeus says Heavenly reality is added to the physical elements. So if there is none, the analogy breaks down. I notice you practically went silent on this. I wonder why. It ain’t complicated
>Are you saying that that the Spirit causing the grape and wheat to grow out of the earth is the consecration
Anyone who read what I posted should know this isn’t the case. Why? Because I never said this. Once you misrepresent me on the change in the bread and wine. Now you project something I never said into what I had written. So you need to try again. It’s not complicated. When Irenaeus says the bread and wine rises with manifold increase by the Spirit, this is just Divine providence and activity in natural laws. I thought this isn’t complicated but it seems it is to you. I know It isn’t because it is obvious when Irenaeus will mention the Eucharist. It doesn’t take being a scholar to see this.
>So can you just explain in simple terms the JUST AS and SO ALSO as it relates to wheat/our bodies being planted in the ground and rising up from it?
It’s called rising from the dead or destruction in both the case of wheat and grape and our bodies. Hence like and like
None of this poses issues with what I mentioned. If any the issue is on your end. Asking me what the simile or “just as” to agricultural products and human flesh and blood in a context where it’s clear and where I already explained it just shows you need to try again.
It isn’t complicated. Just as bread and wine receive the Word of God, we by that same Word will receive incorruption when the same Word resurrects us.
Simple, no need for confusion which is what you appear to be displaying.
Timmy wrote:
Ok, thank you. So as the grape and wheat rise by the power of the Spirit, the body rises by the power of … what?
Timothy, if you think that Irenaeus saying the Word raising our bodies from death means my whole point breaks down, then I am sorry but that just won’t work and you have to try again.
I can already see this from the moment I saw your question. If my intuition is right, you are trying to say that since Irenaeus didn’t say anything about the Spirit at the mention of human resurrection, therefore my analogy breaks down as bread and wine are raised by the Spirit.
There’s an issue here because Irenaeus’ concern here is simply both the agricultural products and us die and are raised up and receive something to their natures that is the Word of God.
You either show how this structure I pose is false or breaks down or turn Irenaeus into someone incoherent mess whose soteriology entails the inability of the flesh to receive that which isn’t natural to it, incorruption.
Your choice. Also anyone familiar with Irenaeus knows he has a strong doctrine of the Holy Spirit and that during the Fall…this Spirit which Adam and Eve once had is lost. Believers need to have this Spirit which enables their sanctification and growth so this just means…you either forgotten this aspect of Irenaeus or you really don’t know much of him
Timmy, you’re trying to have an argument and I’m just trying to have a conversation. You’ll need to dumb this down for me, as I am quite obtuse.
Irenæus wrote the simile as follows:
Is that the simile? Our bodies are raised by the Word in the same way the kernel and grape are raised by the Spirit?
Please teach me, Timmy. I am dull of mind and heart.
All you are just showing is you are not open to having your views challenged and examined critically.
Judging from your bold claims and giving the impression of familiarity with early Christian authors and scholarship, you can’t even grasp something anyone who can read can grasp.
I know you are smarter than this Timothy which is why I don’t see the need to actually go through this in detail the same way I would explain to any newcomers not familiar with Irenaeus or the early Christians
And good news you finally show some sense. You provided one similarity between the two subjects Irenaeus is putting together in analogy.. something which I literally repeated to you,
bread and wine ‘die’ and get buried in the ground
Our bodies die and get buried in the ground
Now let’s provide more similarities so this becomes even clearer,
Bread and wine are raised up and multiplied by the Holy Spirit, given function for us in the Eucharist and the Word of God is added to them
Our bodies are raised by the Word of God and incorruption is ADDED to them by Him
Now anyone sensible will realize why the Real Presence is inferred easily. Because the bread and wine if they DONT receive something that doesn’t belong to their own natures, using that as analogy for our bodies receiving something that isn’t natural to them aka Incorruption, makes no sense because an analogy means LIKE and LIKE. This pattern is broken
And this is literally what I am saying this whole time.
And what happens if we don’t have the Real Presence? Irenaeus is inconsistent and you must to be coherent, deny Union with Christ even when we are raised in the Eschaton.
Slow down, Timmy. Irenæus never says the bread and wine die, and never says the bread and wine are raised up. Yet from your words (bread and wine ‘die’ … Bread and wine are raised up) those false constructs are central to your interpretation of what Irenæus should have meant. In other words, something Irenæus doesn’t actually say is being used as the lens through which you are interpreting him. Do you see the problem with that approach? What you have done is try to establish your thesis by skipping over what Irenæus actually says so you can get on with proving what you wish he meant.
Irenæus says the kernel and vine (not bread and wine) die and decompose, and the kernel and grape (not bread and wine) are raised up by the Spirit. In the same way the kernel and grape (not bread and wine) are raised up SO ALSO our bodies are raised up.
Can you explain THAT simile in Irenæus’ words instead of yours?
>Irenaeus never says the bread and wine die
When words like decompose and “raised up” are used, that already disproves this notion here. Like come on Timothy, I know you can do better than this. That is like the most clearest proof for the point I am making.
Words like “planted in the ground”, “falling into the earth” and “decompose”, already prove my point here. Also saying that Irenaeus doesn’t use “bread” and “wine” is just petty because anyone should know the agricultural products that these come from are the wheat Irenaeus says and the vine which fructifies. Like come on. I know you can do better than that.
Now what does Irenaeus say when moving onto the next subject of comparison which is “our bodies”?
“deposited in the earth”, “decompose”. If that isnt similar to wheat and grape described earlier then I am sorry Timothy but you are the one introducing a problematic reading that is foreign to the structure and order of text and basic comprehension.
You just have to try again Timothy because you are only showing that to reject the Real Presence in Irenaeus one needs to ignore the natural order of the text and its structure and oh, even basic comprehension about how bread and wine are somehow unrelated to the wheat and vine in that analogy eventhough you know…Irenaeus is obvious what they become.
Timmy, I’m not arguing. I’m simply asking you to explain the simile. You gave the impression that it is simple and obvious. Then it should be easy to explain.
Irenæus says in the same way the kernel and grape (not bread and wine) are raised up SO ALSO our bodies are raised up.
Can you explain THAT simile in Irenæus’ words instead of yours? If not, why not?
Timothy you are repeating the same irrelevant point about how Irenaeus doesn’t say “bread” and “wine” but kernel and grape.
That is frankly ridiculous when gtape and kernel are the base material to make wine and grape. This is why Irenaeus explicitly tie them to their use in the Eucharist
So Timothy please, you can do better, so please do better. Acting like this is no way to show you are open to being changed or open to conversation. It only shows cognitive dissonance
Thank you, Timmy. You have sufficiently demonstrated what I intended. The simile doesn’t lend itself to the Real Presence because the “glorification” of the body when it rises from the earth does not correspond to the “glorification” of the bread and wine when they are consecrated, but rather to the “glorification” of the kernel and grape when they sprout from the earth (by the Spirit).
What you needed from Irenæus was for him to say JUST AS the bread and wine having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies shall rise at their appointed time by the Word of God to incorruption. That’s what you needed for “like as like,” but Irenæus does not say that.
In reality, Irenæus believed the resurrection occurs by the instrumentality of the Spirit, and that is the simile he constructs:
JUST AS the wheat and kernel go into the ground and rise with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, SO ALSO our bodies rise at the appointed time by the instrumentality of the Spirit.
Irenæus was not establishing a simile about the Real Presence, but rather about the interaction of the Spirit with Creation. Just as the Spirit interacts with the creation to make the kernel and grape fructify, so also the Spirit interacts with creation to effect the resurrection of the body unto incorruption. The Gnostics did not believe the Spirit could or would interaction with Creation. Irenæus uses the simile to establish that the Spirit does indeed interact with creation, which is why we can affirm the resurrection. The Spirit effects the resurrection to incorruptibility just as He effected the sprouting and fructification of wheat and kernel from the ground.
Timothy, your first point fails. Why? This is because it essentially relies on petty reading and doesn’t even address what I had said. This is just the repeat of your prior point which is just petty when Irenaeus explicitly ties grape and wheat to the Eucharist. It’s not even implicit. It’s explicitly clear there. The burden is on you to break that connection. But have you done this?
It seems not when your second point is just based on once more…the petty reading which I had explained why it’s just wrong. Because as I have to repeat it again since it appears you don’t get it, he ties the grape and wheat to the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine explicitly. It’s a literal no brainer.
Saying that Irenaeus believes that the Resurrection occurs through the Holy Spirit also doesn’t probe you right especially since I implicitly mentioned this before about Irenaeus’ strong doctrine of the Spirit and its necessity. So try again.
And the point after this is just eisegesis and a very bad one based on petty reading about how since Irenaeus didn’t use “bread” and “wine”, there is no link to the Real Presence.
But because it appears you either forgot Irenaeus’ words or choose to ignore them here is the explicit connection I mentioned time and time again,
>And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ
Your point here fails when Irenaeus makes the connection to the Eucharist explicit, aka by having those serve the use of men and receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist. Remember a key point before this section made by Irenaeus is there is a LINK between Christ’s flesh and the salvation of our flesh, part of it is receiving Incorruption.
Now let’s see how the next subject of the analogy holds up to this afterwards,
>so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
So we see the human body dies, decomposes, is buried, raised and by the Word, is resurrected into the Glory of God.
Now in the latter instance flesh receive Incorruption which is clearly not natural to it. It even gets to be into the Glory of God. But apparently not as if there is NO likeness to the prior subject mentioned in this analogy, the analogy is useless and pointless as it is incoherent.
So either the grape and fruit becoming the bread and wine in the Eucharist actually receive something that isn’t natural to them also just as we receive Incorruption when we are raised, or they don’t receive anything else foreign to their nature and we too don’t which leads to the issue I mentioned, impossibility of union with Christ by this petty reading of Irenaeus.
Your last point also makes no sense because the implication for it to be coherent is that incorruption is natural to human flesh. But we all know it isn’t. That is why Christ had to save it in the first place. Grape and wheat rising from the ground by the Spirit, that is natural and so that is the implication which is frankly silly.
Or we understand the reception of Incorruption compared to the reception of the Word of God in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Now that’s coherent compared to what you have provided
So you just have to try again Timothy
Timmy, you said, “So we see the human body dies, decomposes, is buried, raised and by the Word, is resurrected into the Glory of God.”
But Irenæus didn’t believe the body was “raised by the Word”. That’s your attempt to force the analogy upon him so that he is made to say JUST AS the Bread and Wine become the Eucharist by the Word, SO ALSO our bodies are raised to incorruption by the Word. That is the analogy you are using to establish the Real Presence in Irenæaus’ thinking, but it is not the analogy Irenæus used.
For some reason you don’t see a problem with establishing Irenæus’ thoughts apart from Irenæus’ actual thoughts. Here are his actual thoughts (things he wrote down and apparently believed):
Just as the Spirit brings forth the kernel and vine from the ground after being planted, so also the Spirit brings forth the body from the ground at the resurrection. That is the analogy, and for some reason you are unable to explain how THAT analogy (not the one you made up) proves the real presence in the consecrated bread and wine.
Anyway, your line of reasoning demonstrates precisely the error that led men to believe the false doctrine of transubstantiation and the idolatrous practice of eucharistic adoration could be found in the ancient church, the error being that you have taken the novel medieval superstition and used it as the lens through which Irenæus is to be interpreted.
For those who actually care what Irenæus actually said, here is his own exposition on the analogy of the kernel of Wheat dying in the ground and bring raised up by the Spirit, and the body being sown in the ground and raised up to incorruption by the instrumentality of the Spirit. Precisely the analogy he made in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, this time expounded in chapter 7:
If one takes the time actually to read and understand Irenæus, it is clear that the analogy he makes in Chapter 2 is that just as the Spirit raises up the kernel and vine from the earth, so also the Spirit raises up the body from the earth at the resurrection. Thus, Timmy’s vain attempt to establish the Real Presence by forcing a “like as like” simile between the “glorification” of the bread and wine at the Consecration and the “glorification” of the body by the Word at the resurrection falls apart. That construct had not even entered Irenæus mind. The simile was between the blooming of the plant and the resurrection of the body, not between the consecration of the bread and the resurrection of the body.
Once more Timothy, you just have to try again because I am seeing very little substance here. Your first point is silly because Irenaeus is clear on the Word raising our flesh. In fact I literally quoted it for you so there’s no excuse here. Gee Timothy, I wonder what “the Word of God granting them resurrection” means. Come on Timothy, you can do better than this.
Your second point is also just a rehash of the same petty eisegesis which again and very surprisingly, doesn’t even address what I explicitly shown with Irenaeus’ own words. Wow Timothy, I did not know there is totally no connection of the grapevine and grain of wheat in the analogy Irenaeus used to the Eucharist eventhough Irenaeus immediately says(and for anyone who actually read him, knows he even mentions the Eucharist itself prior),
“rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist”
Who knew Irenaeus was totally not wanting for his analogy to have any relation to the Eucharist eventhough he goes on to mention it again. So no Timothy, what you have shown is that you are only either so ignorant of Irenaeus’ theology and thoughts that you just can comprehends something plain and obvious, or you know full well you cannot account for this and hence, act as if it isn’t there. Because I havent see you address this at all.
Next off, we get a mad diatribe which don’t need replying to because it shows you misrepresent my own views of what Real Presence doctrine is believed by Irenaeus. I explicitly stated that the bread and wine aren’t destroyed, just that they receive an addition to their original natures based on the analogy. So this is a red herring and shows you either didn’t really read my comments properly or simply project what isn’t there to make a strawman and act all Politically Correct.
Your next point also shows you totally ignored my comment. Who is the first to mention the importance of the Holy Spirit in Irenaeus? Hint, I did. I explicitly made it clear and here you are trying to act as if I am excluding the Holy Spirit from the Resurrection of the dead. But I clearly am not. I even made it clear in my last comment that I actually believed it and implicitly mentioned it in a previous comment. Gold star for another strawman.
Invoking Irenaeus mention of the Spirit after this because of this, fails. now why Timothy does this, I don’t know because Irenaeus is clear on the fact that there must be like and like. Even worse, Timothy even completely misses the point of the contended passage in Irenaeus where this analogy of the Eucharist and the Resurrection is used, because he hasnt shown why Irenaeus’ point on the grape and wheat rising after being buried and decomposition has zero connection to the Eucharist. He fail to explain Irenaeus’ own immediate link to how they are used in it, instead hoping a mention of the Holy Spirit raising the dead elsewhere will somehow prove his point, eventhough it doesn’t since he hasnt provided any explanation for this.
Worse still since Timothy hasnt provided any explanation for what I posed, the problem with his interpretation remains. Either immortality is natural to the human condition because the resurrection in the disputed passage is essentially just the natural process of harvest and ripening, or there is no union with Christ because since there is NO union with Christ in the bread and wine, likewise no Incorruption(a Divine attribute) to be bestowed upon those resurrected, making Union with Christ impossible for anyone.
But yet, Timothy never address this issue his interpretation brought up. It is to be noted that Irenaeus stresses how immortality and incorruptibility arent natural to humans. This means by invoking Book V, Chapter VII, Timothy is only providing more confirmation for my point, something that isn’t natural to us is given and bestowed to us by God and the closest analogue to that in the disputed passage is….the Eucharist when the bread and wine receives the Word of Christ.
So sorry Timothy, you just have to try again.
I also just want to add something regarding Timothy’s use of Book V, Chapter VII here, because I just realized after reading through his comments the sheer inconsistency of methodology and standards here.
Timothy’s only point on why Book V, Chapter II cannot support the Real Presence in the analogy of grape and wheat and human death and the Resurrection is because apparently because it doesn’t say “bread” and “wine” but wheat and grape or vine. Yet Chapter VII never says the Spirit raises the wheat, he doesn’t mention “vine” or “grape” there either. Yet somehow Timothy uses this kind of logic to disprove my point on Chapter II.
How strange isn’t it? Just as your own views on Irenaeus is incoherent, so too the methodology you use to show me how I am supposedly wrong
Mr. Kauffman,
You say “epiclesin” is the correct wording, are you saying all the translations we have are corrupt?
When I search “epiclesin” only this blog comes up, which almost makes it seem like it’s not a word, only one you use?
I’m confused.
I’m not sure how you could read the article and conclude that I believed “epiclesin” is the correct wording. Where in the article do you think I state that? If you could point me to something I said that led you to believe I thought “epiclesin” was the correct wording, it would help me understand the nature of your inquiry.
I’m sorry. I mistook epiclesin for eccelesin. If eccelesin is the correct rendering, why do some of our own scholars translate it as invoke?
Wilson, some history and references if you’re interested.