Well, then you have the fact that "Orthodox Presbyterianism" as expressed in the Westminster Confession and by Calvin, teaches infant baptism and claims that it is "scriptural" and reasons from the impossibility of the contrary.
Without knowledge of the debates that raged during the 17th century your comments seem glib. The principle of “sola scriptura” and “semper reformanda” were the ideal, to use the revealed will of God alone to reform our lives and doctrine. You would make similar claims for the Eastern Orthodox church, that as a member of that denomination you would seek to reform your life in accordance with their principles, not scriptural principles, but principles no less. As the church lived out it’s mission in the world the issue of baptism became a hot topic since, and you must agree, no passage of scripture gives positive command to “baptize” infants. You are creating a false separation between our Reformed churches when you claim how one
practices baptism is a theological divide. No one in the Reformed church paedo or credo, will claim baptism is salvific.
If you go to the Semper Reformanda "Sticky" threads for defining "Reformed", it links to the documents on the website above (reformed.org).
The sticky was under review last time I chatted with a mod and they were moving to include Reformed Baptists since, after all, our position is found in the early church and during the hot debates of the 17th century when the Westminster defined its stance on covenantal baptism. Even the Anglicans had their credobaptists. The flag ship study Bible put out by Sproul’s ministry includes Reformed Baptist documents which is a good sign that paedos view creados as orthodox in terms of the Christian faith.
If Scripture was "crystalline…
Now who is the rationalist looking for absolute certainty? The problem is, the Eastern Christian shifts his rational appeal to authority from the scriptures to the governmental system of the Eastern Orthodox denomination. Scripture is clear, sinners are not, but that doesn’t mean scripture should not or does not function as the final authority for which we appeal. Unlike “holy” tradition, whatever that is…you cannot define it, scripture is static. It’s role is secure. Your argument boils down to, “since I cannot know I must subject to others who pretend to know” without qualification. This is escapism.
The larger point is that Zwingli and Calvin differed from the explicit text of scripture on the real presence in bread, "Take eat, this is my body".
I have already shown that Zwingli changed his position later in life and you choose to ignore it. Schaff was correct when he wrote, “Luther proceeded anthropologically and soteriologically from man to God, Zwingli and Calvin proceeded theologically from God to man.” Zwingli and Calvin both rejected the traditions that promoted Sacerdotalism.
The Lutherans accept the direct meaning as a matter of literary analysis (ie. in the New Testament "is" does not mean "signifies" as a matter of grammar when Jesus pointed to real physical objects), while the Anglicans are collectively ambivalent about whether it is taken symbolically or literally.
Let’s look at the scriptural text you seem to think is in reference to eating God transformed into bread? You have been challenged twice now and you have retreated to sophistry.
Calvin and Zwingli however used reasoning beyond the text itself when they explained naturalistically why they believed that it was NOT actually his body. Even if a skeptic accepts the reasoning that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be in bread, the skeptic's reasoning goes beyond what is in scripture, as scripture never says that this is IMPOSSIBLE.
Please, post the text you believe teaches Christ changes into bread and we eat Him. You are just using debate tricks to inflate your posts.
If RC-ism actually teaches that the mass is a bloody sacrifice whereby Jesus is killed each time a mass happens, then of course I would disagree with Romanism on this. But I believe that you misunderstand RC-ism on this point, just as you have misunderstood Lutheran and Orthodox belief in the real presence.
Actually, the Eastern Orthodox agrees with Rome, or they did. During the 17th century at a Pan-Orthodox Council (authoritative but not binding) translated the Latin word transubstantiation into Greek to bring it more in line with Romanism.
If you look closely, a singular bloody sacrifice was offered by Jesus and the sacrifice is presented again during the mass.
Scripture declares that Christ offered Himself once (passage related to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Hebrews) and sat down at the right hand of the Father. (see Hebrews) Not that Christ offered Himself once, sat down and will now avail Himself physically in the form of bread and wine upon altars of churches all over the world simultaneously.
The real reason Reformed might make this mistaken objection about sacrifice is because they don't believe that the real presence…
We do. We have defined it differently than you so now, instead of recogniznig it, you create a strawman so that you may argue.
…in food is possible and so they react to it as an offensive weird belief of cannibalism. That's the same thing Jesus' ex-disciples thought about Jesus' teaching in
John 6. As Reformed commentaries explain, the ex-disciples' answer was practically "Yes" to Jesus' question "Does this [His teaching on eating His flesh] offend you?" One explanation for me is that Jesus was saying that you do "eat"
and "chew" Jesus' flesh (Jesus used both words in
John 6), but on the other, His flesh had become "spirit", as he taught elsewhere in John about being born of Spirit and how in the afterlife we become like the angels. Plus, Paul talked about us getting spirit bodies.
In John 6 we find the Jews displaying a propensity toward carnality. Why did they follow Christ? It was, “because ye did eat…” Jesus turns their desire for food into spiritual food. This is what most Protestants do, we allow Christ to teach, instead of performing eisegesis. Not one verse can, in context, support the idea Eastern Orthodox teach. In fact Christ links true spiritual nourishment to faith in Him, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” This teaching is what the Jews found unacceptable with the immediate context (v.35-51) supporting it. Christ said, “I am the bread of life” with “He that believeth on me shall never thrust.” Belief and not physical eating is in sight. The rebuttal from those listening was not a citation from Leviticus or Deuteronomy about cannibalism, no “and they said, is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” The crowd never thought for a second that Christ was claiming you had to eat Him, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to never thirst. They rejected Him as mediator and Incarnate God. One who came from heaven. Christ explained the mind of the Jew that followed after Him, “I say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat…” and this is way they ask, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They were looking for a meal, Christ tells them He isn’t here just to give them a meal but, “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” That wasn’t what the crowd wanted to hear, they wanted to be feed so Christ used the miracle as an illustration that pointed them to reliance in Him through faith alone. Remember, the Jews “murmured” when Christ declared His role as mediator of spiritual food and they continued in their unbelief throughout the rest of the chapter.
James White on verse 32, “There is also another parallel (but an incomplete one, of course) - just as the manna came down from heaven and provided sustenance for the people of God during their sojourn, so too Jesus has come down out of heaven to be the sustenance of God’s people - and their salvation. Jesus will utilize this kind of dualistic symbolism throughout this discourse - referring to the physical reality of the manna to represent the spiritual reality
of faith in Him. Sadly enough, this dualism has been missed by the Roman church, which reads into this passage their own erroneous doctrine of transubstantiation in the mass - and in so doing they reverse the very direction the Lord is taking the conversation. They, like the first century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond.”
James White on verse 47, “This faith is a personal one, because it involves the “eating” of this true bread - which is Jesus Himself (v. 51). The eating of the true bread means eternal life, and this bread, Jesus says, is His flesh “which is given for the life of the world.” it is not Jesus’ flesh, per se, which is the object here - it is
His flesh as given in sacrifice which brings eternal life. It is the sacrifice that gives life, not simply the flesh. In His giving of His life, the Son provides life for the world. The context again demands a strict interpretation of “world”. John uses kosmos in many different ways, but here it is clear that the kosmos is just those who are drawn by the Father, given by the Father to the Son, and who respond by faith in the Son. Consistency demands the continued emphasis on this group.”
James White on verse 53, “Jesus decides to come down to their level in an attempt to bring them up to His. He moves on with the metaphor, already firmly established, of “eating = believing”. The only way to eternal life is through union with the Son of Man. This involves a vital faith relationship with Him, symbolized here by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. To make the equation complete. Jesus places “eating My flesh and drinking My blood” in the exact same position as hearing His word and believing on Him who sent Jesus in John 5:24, or as being drawn by the Father in 6:44, or as looking to the Son and believing in 6:40, or simply believing in 6:47. The result is the same in each case - eternal life, or being raised up at the least day. Hence, we here have a clear indication of Jesus’ usage of the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His "blood” in John 6. Graphically we would have:
"ALL the ones Looking icon the San and believing in Him" \
Those who are “drawn” by the Father --> all = being “raised upon the Last day."
"The One eating my flesh and drinking my blood” /
Hence, the sacramental interpretation of this passage is left with no foundation at all - Jesus is obviously not speaking of some “sacrament’
of the “Eucharist” established years later - His referring to His body and blood here is paralleled clearly with belief in the Son and the drawing of the Father - the same themes struck above. Consistency of interpretation must lead one to reject a sacramental interpretation of this passage.”
So where does the forced interpretation done by EO’s and RC’s come from? Why do they believe we need God will incarnate Himself as bread and wine? In “Jesus and the Eucharist,” Guzie points us to a link between pagan mystical religions and superstitions that were adopted by early professed Christians. Schaff writing on sacerdotalism explains that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman view, “is the outgrowth of a magical supernaturalism which absorbs and annihilates the natural and human, leaving only the empty form. The Lutheran doctrine implies an interpenetration of the divine and human. The commemorative theory of Zwingli saves the integrity and peculiar character of the divine and human, but keeps them separate and distinct. The eucharistic theory affects Christology, the relation of church and state, and in some measure the character of piety. Lutheranism inclines to the Eutychian, Zwinglianism to the Nestorian, Christology. The former fosters a mystical, the latter a practical, type of piety” Schaff’s History of the Christian Church
In closing I’ll quote Dr. F.N. Lee’s work title, “FIFTY-FIVE THESES AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION” Link will be provided below.
First. Together with Holy Scripture, I assert the real presence of Christ, personally, at His Sacraments and in His Word and through His Spirit. Exactly that assertion of the omnipresence there of the Son of God, impels me to deny His physical presence in and under the sacramental elements, or even in the Bible as His Holy Word. Christ Himself insists against any view of a merely `local presence’ either in Jerusalem or in Samaria: “God is Spirit; and they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:20-26.
Third. John chapter six has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper, which was instituted only later at the very end of Christ’s earthly ministry. The RC Church and other groups which appeal to that passage to try to establish that Christ is physically present in the bread and the wine at His Supper, err greatly. For John 6:9-13 is not sacramental. Nor is it an account of transubstantiating bread and fishes into Himself, but rather a description of His miraculous multiplication of five loaves and two small fishes into many more untransubstantiated loaves and fishes sufficient to feed about five thousand mature men and perhaps also their womenfolk and their children. John 6:10 cf. Matt. 14:14-21 & Mark 6:36-44 & Luke 9:14-17.
Fourth. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.
Fifth. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him `Lord, give us this bread evermore!’- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them `I am the bread of life’ [and not `I will become the bread of life’]; he who comes to Me [and not `he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue.” Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.
Sixth. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did not say: `Earthly bread will become Me.’ Of Himself He then said: “This is the bread that comes down from heaven [not `that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever [not `even if any man eats the Mass on earth, he might still end up in hell’]. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”
Seventh. In John 6:52-58, “the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, `How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”‘ This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and `localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.
Eighth. In 6:53, “Jesus said to them,`Very truly I tell you, unless you keep on eating the flesh of the Son of man and keep on drinking His blood [not `unless you from time to time keep coming to Mass’], you have no life in yourselves. Whoever keeps on eating My flesh and keeps on drinking My blood, has everlasting life. “‘ That cannot truthfully be asserted of all who are merely regular communicants. “For My [then and there untransubstantiated!] flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who keeps on eating My flesh and keeps on drinking My blood [rather than keeps on having the dark-red wine withheld from him by a creaturely earthly priest], keeps on dwelling in Me [not physically but spiritually!], And I in him [not physically but spiritually!] ….
Ninth. Jesus then insisted: “`He who keeps on feeding on Me [and not `he who from time to time consumes transubstantiated bread and wine’], even he shall keep on living by Me [not `by the Mass’]. This is that bread which came down from heaven [and not `you must physically eat my flesh which came forth from Mary!’] …. He who keeps on eating of this bread [namely the Christ from heaven], shall continue living for ever [and not `might end up in heaven after a reasonable term in purgatory, yet could possibly still end up in hell for ever’]!”
Tenth. In John 6:61f, when even His disciples kept on murmuring about this, Jesus said to them [altogether Proto-Calvinistically and totally untransubstantiatingly]: “It is the Spirit Who keeps on enlivening! The flesh profits not at all! The words which I have spoken (or keep speaking) to you, they are Spirit and they are life! But there are some of you who do not believe” [such as Judas Iscariot whom Rome would have us believe nevertheless physically ate and drank the Divinity and also the very flesh and blood of Christ]. Compare John 6:64-71.
Eleventh. Literalistic transubstantiation would imply Judas was a God-eating cannibalistic infidel who here physically ate God and the flesh and drank the blood of Jesus, Who had as then not yet died. But He would then (against His Own Word in Lev. 26:29 & Dent. 28:53) have had to have given a piece of His flesh and siphoned off some of His blood for Judas’s faithless consumption thereof!
Source
Yours in the Lord,
jm
