Your second point went over my head. I meant it when I said that I don't find this argument over imputed guilt to be interesting at all.Jester wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:30 amDel, one can not simply refute all the falsehoods and fallacies in your lengthy opinion pieces. I will get one at the beginning and one at the end.Del wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:10 amThe Orthodox want nothing to do with Protestantism, right? Basically, because the Reformation teachers are so far off of the teaching of the Apostles.Jester wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:09 amAt one point in time the Reformers did try and build a bridge with the Orthodox Church. I think this article is helpful. It shows that the Reformers do see the Orthodox Church attractive but find it lacking in Scriptural teaching.
A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy
by Jack D. Kinneer
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvini ... odoxy.html
The Reformation theology still has the burden of proving that it is true. Calvin convinced a sliver of the culture (especially where he had help from the government and military). But most of the world's Christians did not accept it because it is so different from what the Apostles taught.
Back when Thoth (our fiercely well-trained Coptic friend) was posting actively, he pointed out that the West has always thought too much about the revelation that we have received. The Bread becomes the Christ -- we don't have to apply Aristotelian philosophy to know this. We can see this by Scripture Alone. As soon as Aquinas invented the word transubstantiation to describe what happens, someone was tempted to say, "That's not in the Bible! Let's through it all out -- the new word, and the old, Apostolic idea that it describes."
I like the way that Thoth summed it all up. He looked at the rationalist Catholics, trying to describe what we already know -- and the hyper-rationalism of Calvin, trying to explain away what we have always known.
Speaking grandly for all of the Orthodox Christians, Thoth said, "We think your both nuts."
I whole-heartedly agree.
Christian arguments fall into two types.
- Arguments over how the essentials of Christian faith work.
- Arguments that deny something essential in Christian faith.
I am not interested in discussing "imputed guilt" and atonement. We all agree that Jesus died for our sins, and somehow His sacrifice on the Cross restored repentant Christians into righteous relationship with the Father. As far as I am concerned, individual theories and reflections are equally interesting... and all of them fall short of fully explaining this divine mystery.
I am very interested in helping Christians of the Protestant tradition restore what has been lost or taken from them. Things like relationship with Mary and the Saints, the priesthood of Christ, and the Blessed Sacrament -- most of all.
The whole of Scripture leads up to that climactic moment when Christ establishes His New Covenant by sacrificing His own Flesh and Blood. The Last Supper/Crucifixion event is the apex. Everything before points to this, and everything after proceeds from this.
Looking at the Crucifixion alone, simply as an act of atonement, means ignoring the larger part of what salvation is.... and ignoring a great part of Scripture.
1. The Reformation theology still has the burden of proving that it is true.
As opposed to RCC and EO? This is a large claim due to the fact that Reformed Theology's prime source is written and sealed and RCC/EO add hearsay unwritten tradition. Funny enough that Orthodox and RCC are separate because unwritten tradition variations. Do you both have proof that your apostolic tradition is the correct one? The end of your claim strengthens Sola Scriptura therefore IMHO gives Reformed Theology greater proof than both RCC and EO.
2. Looking at the Crucifixion alone, simply as an act of atonement, means ignoring the larger part of what salvation is.... and ignoring a great part of Scripture.
Who is doing this? If this is truly your view of Reformed Theology you cut your own legs out beneath you and leave Wos to run the race with us. The only ignoring here is being done by you. The strange thing is that you claim we ignore this subject but in the middle of this discussion you claim to ignore it due to the mystery it holds.I am not interested in discussing "imputed guilt" and atonement. We all agree that Jesus died for our sins, and somehow His sacrifice on the Cross restored repentant Christians into righteous relationship with the Father. As far as I am concerned, individual theories and reflections are equally interesting... and all of them fall short of fully explaining this divine mystery.
- However, I found something in tuttle's recent post over in the "Communion wrong today" thread. I argued that it's not about guilt; it's about relationship. I made a long comment over there, which might help explain.
First point: The separation of the East and West is not a theological dispute. It is more of a political split; a family feud. Can you point out the theological arguments that separate the East from the West? I can't. (No, the filoque dispute is not enough.)
Meanwhile, the Apostolic Church is able to defend the truth of our teachings. All we have to do is open the Early Church Fathers, and demonstrate that we still believe what they taught. We believe the Scriptures the way that they believed, even as they wrote the Scriptures.
After 500 years, the Protestant apologists have failed to show us how or when the Catholic Church changed the faith and deviated from the Apostolic Tradition.
Here are a few links, in case you are interested.
A link to show that the Early Church Fathers believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:
And here is an interesting link, in which they unwrite each Father to make "This is My Body" into "but this is not really My Body":
http://thecripplegate.com/did-the-early ... antiation/
I can see what authors of the second link are missing. We can talk more, if this interests you.
Hint: Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was a symbol of His atonement for our sins.
We really need to get together over some tobacco and barbecue, open up the Scripture, and compare how Calvin read it to how the Apostles read it.