Real Presence and ECFs
- Thread starter onel0126
- Start date
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
onel0126
Bead mumbler
Is this your real goal? i'm going to pick a fight - YouTube
No, I post things for discussion. You, like some others, poke sticks in eyes by simply posting items like RCC is a cult....
I will assume you have nothing to add to what the ECF's believed.
onel0126
Bead mumbler
A whole bunch of Protestants would say the same about Calvin you would have to agree.....
Zguy28
New Member
For the most part yes, although there is a subtle difference in my opinion. Calvin wrote his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" with the intent of instruction in theology. From what I have read of the ECF's, that's not really their intent at all. Justin, Irenaeus, Clement and the rest were mostly writing personal letters and apologetics to counter heresy or unbelievers. For instance Justin's Trypho was a Jew and Marcion was a heretic.
But Calvin is not the topic of the thread is he?
onel0126
Bead mumbler
What's an EFC?
Early church father
Radiant1
Soul Probe
I'm not sure what your point is. Whether a theological treatise or a personal letter, they are still a testament to Christian orthodoxy in the 1-3rd centuries. After all, St. Paul wrote letters and we call that canon and heretics have been known to write theological treatises. :ahem:
Btw, you're right. One needs to be careful using what the ECF's wrote as proof texts. That's kind of the point the author of the blog was making. In this case, one Protestant was using Tertullian as a "proof text" against Catholicism but when taking what Tertullian wrote as a whole it's not anti-Catholic at all but quite the opposite.
Zguy28
New Member
Even as a testimony, you need to be careful. One must know the writer individually. Origen is often quoted yet he thought it theologically orthodox to castrate himself. And the aforementioned Tertullian became a Montanist if memory serves. That doesn't mean his earlier writings don't hold any merit, but just gives context. Be careful is all and realize that these men were not writing necessarily with the intent for us to read it and use it for theological assertions, whether that's by Catholic or Protestant.
onel0126
Bead mumbler
Here's a cut and paste job since I'm short on timeSo what is the Real Presence? I'm asking because when I read the thread and the article some of the terms didn't make a lot of sense to me.... and I'm thinking maybe there are others in my boat....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Wiki also has a explanation.
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiant1
Soul Probe
I still don't understand.... are you discussing who has the supernatural crackers and wine? Is a wafer purchased by one church from a particular vender supposed to be supernatural?
Is that what this discussion is about?
That's how it seems to me... an uneducated woman....
We call it a "host" and there's nothing supernatural about it until the consecration at Mass. The consecration is that part of the Mass where it is said with specific form and intent, "This is my body...", "This is my blood..." etc. It's the power and grace of God that makes it so, and at that point we call it "Eucharist", which is the Real Presence of Christ. It is offensive to call the Eucharist a "cracker". (He wasn't white anyway, haha!)
And yes, the discussion was more or less about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and what the Early Church Fathers (specifically Tertullian) believed about it.
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
Early church "fathers" mean nothing to me. The only Father I need is God Himself. As long as the peeps mentioned comply with what the Bible states, that's all I, or anyone, needs.
The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. It's not real difficult to comprehend the basic message of salvation. The rest, except for the mysteries, can be deciphered, or will follow in eternity.
Take your pick. It would be best for everyone if they would just read what IT says, not what people say what it says. A good Greek dictionary really helps in translations.
Early church "fathers"? There is only one Father.
The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. It's not real difficult to comprehend the basic message of salvation. The rest, except for the mysteries, can be deciphered, or will follow in eternity.
Take your pick. It would be best for everyone if they would just read what IT says, not what people say what it says. A good Greek dictionary really helps in translations.
Early church "fathers"? There is only one Father.
Last edited:
onel0126
Bead mumbler
Don't need a good Greek dictionary to translate "this IS my body......"
Radiant1
Soul Probe
And here we get into the sticky discussion of interpretation and authority. Every discussion ALWAYS comes down to this, ALWAYS.
What you're really saying is, "As long as peeps mentioned comply with what I interpret the bible to state, that's all I, or anyone, needs."
What you're really saying is, "Aside from the mysteries the rest of the inerrant word of God doesn't matter."
What you're really saying is, "It would be best if everyone interpreted it like I do."
What you're really saying is, "I don't care what St. Paul called himself even though it is part of the inerrant word of God."
There's a difference between translation and interpretation, b23. The very fact that people such as Jim Jones or David Koresh existed means that scripture is not so clear-cut and that one needs direction and authority to interpret scripture. This is why Jesus left us with a Church (Jesus established the Church and the Church established the Bible) and why the ECFs are important.
What you're really saying is, "As long as peeps mentioned comply with what I interpret the bible to state, that's all I, or anyone, needs."
What you're really saying is, "Aside from the mysteries the rest of the inerrant word of God doesn't matter."
What you're really saying is, "It would be best if everyone interpreted it like I do."
Early church "fathers"? There is only one Father.
What you're really saying is, "I don't care what St. Paul called himself even though it is part of the inerrant word of God."
There's a difference between translation and interpretation, b23. The very fact that people such as Jim Jones or David Koresh existed means that scripture is not so clear-cut and that one needs direction and authority to interpret scripture. This is why Jesus left us with a Church (Jesus established the Church and the Church established the Bible) and why the ECFs are important.