Dialogue on What Eats My Flesh Means

by Gary Hoge

The following dialogue between myself and an Evangelical Protestant took place on a public message board. His
words appear in blue.

The Jews also misinterpreted Christs words too literally:

51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you.
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will
live forever.
59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:51-
63).

Christ was still in possession of both His real body and blood when He instituted the Eucharist, therefore it is impossible that these are the
actual and real body and blood of Christ.
It was also impossible for him to walk on water or through walls. I guess you dont believe those things either?
They are symbols. Any child can reason that out. That grown ups accept Jewish misinterpretation when Christ emphatically denied such
nonsense is a marvel, absolutely incredible.
What is incredible to me is how easily you dismiss the very words of Christ just because you dont understand them and cant believe them. And if
any child can reason that out, did you ever wonder why it never occurred to the people to whom Jesus was speaking to assume that He was using a
metaphor? It turns out, theres a good reason, a reason thats easily overlooked by speakers of modern English.
If I said to you that someone was pulling my leg or twisting my arm, you would know exactly what I meant, because these are common figures of
speech. You would know that I meant that someone was joking with me, or that they were trying to pressure me. But if I said to you, eat my flesh
and drink my blood, you wouldnt know what I meant, because these phrases have meaning for us (apart from the literal meaning). They are not
common figures of speech in our language. But they were established figures of speech in Jesuss culture. They meant attack or revile. We see
this in Scripture:
When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

Why do you pursue me as God does? Will you never get enough of my flesh? (Job 19:22).

For this reason at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and brought charges against the Jews. (Dan. 3:8) [The footnote in the
NASB says that the phrase brought charges against is literally, ate the pieces of]

The king then gave orders, and they brought those men who had maliciously accused Daniel (Dan. 6:24). [Again, the footnote in the
NASB say that the phrase had maliciously accused is literally, had eaten the pieces of]

Then I said, Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and
love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my peoples flesh, strip off their skin and break
their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot? (Micah 3:1-3).

These will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh (Rev. 17:16, NASB).

I suppose the closest thing we have to this in our language is when we use the phrase chew someone out to mean, speak harshly to someone. In
any event, in the language of the Bible, to eat someones flesh is to attack him. Thats why the crowd didnt think Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
In this context, and in this language, it couldnt have been a metaphor. They concluded that Christ must be speaking literally (eat) because in their
language the metaphorical interpretation (attack) would have been nonsense. If Christ were speaking metaphorically, He would be saying,
I tell you the truth, unless you attack the Son of Man and villify him, you have no life in you. Whoever blasphemes me and curses
me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The crowd appears to have ruled out the metaphorical interpretation immediately, and no wonder! It would have made no sense. But if Jesus meant to
introduce some new metaphor, different from the one already in common use, and if He didnt bother to tell the crowd what He was doing, then He
was not only being obtuse, but downright deceptive. And to then let the crowd abandon him and march off to eternal damnation (whovever denies
me before men . . .) over a misunderstanding caused by His own deliberately misleading use of a common Semitic idiom, well, that is more than I
can accept.
Also, your interpretation ignores the flow of this whole passage. Remember, this all started when the people challenged Jesus to give them a
miraculous sign, and reminded him that Moses gave the people manna in the desert (John 6:30-31). Jesus responded by comparing himself
figuratively with the manna:
For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. . . . I am the bread of life. He who comes to
me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. . . . Here is the bread that comes down from heaven,
which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live
forever.

Now, up to this point, Jesus was indeed speaking metaphorically, and now he explains the metaphor: This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world. This is our Lords own interpretation of the metaphor. Bread equals flesh. The bread that comes down from heaven is his flesh,
which a man may eat and not die.
Once Jesus explained the metaphor, the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Now, at this
point, if your interpretation were correct, and the bread of heaven was a metaphor for Christs flesh, which in turn was a metaphor for something
else, Jesus should have said, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about eating my flesh? Do you still not understand? How is it
you dont understand that I was not talking to you about eating my actual flesh? (loose paraphrase of Matt. 16:8-11).
But Jesus didnt do that, did he? Instead, he became even more graphic: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. Something thats lost in our English translations is the fact that in verse 54, Jesus emphasizes the literal force of His
statement by switching from the Greek word fagein, which means simply eat, to trwgwn, which is a more graphic word, meaning to crunch, eat,
chew.
The people took Jesus literally, and they were right to do so, but they did misunderstand him in one sense. They apparently thought he was going to
hack off an arm and toss it to them to eat. So he said, Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? In
other words, You will eat my flesh and drink my blood, but this body you see with your eyes will be in heaven, so it isnt going to happen the way
you think. That was as much of a correction as Jesus was willing to make, but still the people wouldnt accept it, and they left.
Would you have left with them?

| Home | The Eucharist and the Mass |

Copyright 2001 by Gary Hoge

Dialogue on the Bereans

by Gary Hoge

The following is a dialogue between myself and a friendly Protestant on a public message board. Probably to our
mutual surprise we were actually able to reach agreement on what the Bereans were doing when they examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11).

My words are in black, and my opponents are in blue.

The Bereans were reading the Scripture themselves to test the truthfulness of Paul, that is, to see if it said to them what Paul taught it as
saying. In other words they were testing whether or not Paul was honestly teaching truths which were in line with what the Scriptures clearly
said, and so they were testing whether or not Paul was teaching things contradictory to the Scriptures.
So, when Paul said, If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all (Gal. 5:2), which OT Scriptures do you think the
Bereans would have used to prove that Paul was not teaching things contradictory to the Scriptures? (HINT: see Gen. 17:10-14).
I believe they would have examined the various Scriptures (which Paul probably referred them to) which speak of God rejecting Israel,
accepting a people who were not His people, starting a new convenant, etc.
So, if the Bereans said, Hey, Paul, your teaching on circumcision is not in accordance with Scripture, Paul could reply, Well, Scripture says theres
going to be a new covenant, and Im telling you that the circumcision requirement is different under the New Covenant. Is that what youre saying?
What, then, would be the point of searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true, if Paul could shrug-off any discrepancies they found by
saying, That was then, this is now. Things are different now under the new covenant?
The point of searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul said is true is so that in the event that Paul teaches anything contradicary to what
the Scriptures say the Bereans would know not to trust his authority.
Well, wouldnt Pauls teaching on circumcision be contradictory to what the [Old Testament] Scriptures say? Shouldnt the Bereans have known,
then, not to trust his authority?
Not necessarily.
As I said, the Bereans were probably referred to and likely examined the Scriptures which speak of God rejecting Israel, accepting a people
who were not His people, starting a new convenant, etc. It likely made sense to them that a new covenant would not have the same basis as
the old covenant (that is, the Old Testament Law... circumsision, etc.). The new covenant would be, well... it would be new, and different.
Precisely my point. That being true, how would the Bereans search through the records of the Old Covenant to determine whether Pauls explanation
of the New Covenant was true? Obviously, theres no way they could. According to Paul, this new covenant was not made known to men in other
generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to Gods holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:4-5) So theres no way the Bereans could have
searched the OT Scriptures to verify the details of the New Covenant. Agreed?
Actually, I shouldnt have said this likely made sense to them. This definately made sense to them... for they examined the Scriptures,
believed what Paul was telling them, and came to be believers in the new covenant under Christ.
I believe they looked to see if Paul was contradicting passages in the Bible. They didnt see Pauls teaching on circumcision as contradictory
because such could very well be part of the new covenant, indeed the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. (Gal.
3:8)
Heres where I dont understand your position. Some of the New Covenant does contradict the Old Covenant (e.g., the abolition of circumcision,
the setting-aside of the required feast days, etc.). We seem to agree on that, and you suggest that the Bereans were willing to accept these
contradictions on the ground that the New Covenant was different from the Old Covenant. That being the case, what was the point of searching the
Scriptures to see if Paul was contradicting passages in the Bible? We already know he was contradicting passages in the Bible. You seem to be
saying that the Bereans attitude was: Were going to search the Scriptures to make sure this guys teachings arent contradicting the Bible, but even
if they are well accept his teachings anyway because we know that the New Covenant is supposed to be different from the Old Covenant. That
doesnt make sense to me.
If a sola Scriptura mindset is one in which teachings are checked as to whether or not they contradict Scripture before such teachings are
accepted, then yes, the Bereans approached their faith with such a mindset.
How, then, could they accept Pauls teaching on circumcision? You seem to be saying that the Bereans wouldnt accept Pauls teachings until they
made sure they didnt contradict Scripture, but you also say that they did accept teachings that contradict Scripture on the ground that the New
Covenant was different than the Old Covenant. Which is it?
If a sola Scriptura mindset is one in which they accepted only Scripture as true, then obviously they didnt approach their faith with that
mindset. The Bereans lived in a time when Scripture was being written, a time in which authoritative Apostles lived and breathed and the
Word of God was breathed through them.
Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying the Bereans didnt try to prove from Scripture that Pauls teachings were true, they just tried to prove
they werent false?
Pretty much. They displayed the truth of the teachings by showing that they were not false and by showing they were supported by what the
Scriptures said.
But how could they do that? Some of Pauls teachings werent supported by what the Scriptures said. Therefore, theres no way the Bereans could
have shown that Pauls teachings were not false if their standard of comparison was the Old Testament Scriptures. The only way they could accept
that circumcision was no longer required and not just for Gentiles, but even for Jews or that all foods were now clean, or that animal sacrifices
cant really atone for sin, or that human blood could be used for atonement, or that the holy days need not be observed any longer, etc., was to take
Pauls word for it. If they tried to prove from the Old Testament that these things were not false, they would have had to conclude that they were
false. But if they were willing to accept them anyway, on the ground that Scripture foresaw a new covenant, what was the point of seeking support for
these teachings in the Old Testament Scriptures?
If the Scriptures had not mentioned anything about a new covenant, had not foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith (Gal. 3:8)
etc., then the Bereans would have rightly ignored Paul. But the Scriptures did teach of a new covenant.
Only that a new covenant was coming. Someday. The Old Testament didnt teach any of the details of the new covenant, though; it just said there was
one coming. Therefore, when Paul arrived in Berea and said, Here are the teachings of the new covenant, the Bereans would simply have had to
take his word for it. Yet you say, They displayed the truth of the teachings by showing that they were not false and by showing they were supported
by what the Scriptures said. If you really believe that, I challenge you to do likewise and prove from the Old Testament that the five new teachings I
mentioned above are not false. If the best you can do is point to a verse that says a new covenant is coming, then Ive proved my point: Theres no
way the Bereans could have verified the details of the new covenant by searching the Old Testament, and they would not have tried.
So it was not a matter of the Bereans saying, We need to check to see if Paul contradicts the Scriptures, but even if he does we can justify it
someway Im sure. No. It was a matter of, Some of this may be hard to understand... but it this whole new covenant thing really makes
sense and is supported by the Scriptures.
Again, the fact that there will be a new covenant is supported by the Scriptures. But the Bereans would have had to take Pauls word for it when he
gave them the new teachings that comprised the new covenant.
The Bereans checked for contradictions... and the circumcision teachings were not contradictions because of the additional Scriptural
prophesies of the new covenant. The Scriptures forsaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.
But Paul also taught that the Jews were not to be circumcised anymore either. How can that not be a contradiction of Gen. 17:12-13? Circumcision
was absolutely central to Jewish identity. Its what defined them. Therefore, if the Bereans didnt balk when Paul told them that under the new
covenant Jews no longer had to be circumcised, they wouldnt have balked at anything else he taught, either. And if the Bereans were willing to
accept these things on the ground that Scripture foresaw a new covenant, then why would they have checked for contradictions between Pauls New
Covenant teachings and the Old Covenant? What would be the point? Clearly they were willing to accept whatever new teachings Paul gave them,
whether they were consistent with the Old Covenant or not.
Israel would be rejected (and remeber that the original covenant was made with them) and the Gentiles would be accepted. So the original
covenant would not apply. This made sense to the Bereans (as it was taught by Paul) and they saw that the teachings Pauls teachings on
circumcision in fact did not contradict the Old Testament since the Scriptures forsaw the new covenant.
If the original covenant no longer applied, then why did the Bereans supposedly use it to check for contradictions? What exactly were they looking
for?
Ill tell you what I think they were looking for. Scripture says that when Paul arrived in Berea he went to the synagogue, as was his custom. We dont
know what he said that day, but its reasonable to assume he said the same things in Berea that he had said in Thessalonica. According to Scripture,
Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to
suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:2-3). The Bereans received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if
what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). In other words, they examined the Scriptures to see if they really foretold that the Christ had to suffer and rise
from the dead. Thats what they were looking for in the Scriptures. When they saw that this was true, they were willing to accept Pauls conclusion
that this Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ (Acts 17:3). And once they were willing to do that, they could accept Pauls authority as an
apostle of the living Christ, and they could accept his teachings of the New Covenant. At that point, they would not have (indeed, could not have)
continued to examine the Scriptures to see if Pauls new covenant teachings were true. Rather, just like the Thessalonian converts, they would have
received Pauls apostolic teachings, not as the word of men [which must be verified], but as it actually is, the word of God [which is accepted
without question] (1 Thess. 2:13).
The Bereans looked for support for the teaching that there was going to be a new Covenant. They looked to see if the Scriptures foresaw that
the Gentiles would be accepted while the Jews would be rejected. They found the support they needed.
Im not sure what the acceptance of the Gentiles has to do with anything. The Bereans were Jews and so was Paul. It seems to me and I think youre
trying to agree with me here that the Bereans were searching the Scriptures to see if they really did foretell that the Messiah must suffer and rise
from the dead, as Paul claimed.
I agree that they didnt try to prove all the details. Once they proved that God would be creating a New Covenant, then they had to make a
decision... was this Jesus Christ raised from the dead, and is this Paul fellow an Apostle of the New Covenant?
Exactly!
But their decision wasnt based solely on faith. There were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and the Bereans also examined the Scriptures to
see if what Paul as saying was true (i.e. that there would be a totally new Covenant).
And that the Messiah was supposed to suffer (a radical concept to them, no doubt) and rise from the dead.
If the Scripture had prophesied that there would never be a new covenant, then the Bereans would have recognized the falsehood of Pauls
teachings. However, the Scriptures taught that there would be a new covenant, that that the Gentiles would be accepted. Therefore, the old
covenant, with its regulatory laws would be... old, and the new covenant would be, well, the new covenant.
So then, when you say the Bereans searched the Scriptures looking for contradictions in Pauls teachings, I assume you mean they were verifying
only his central teaching that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead, making sure that Scripture really did teach that.
They were looking to see if the Scriptures really did show that Christ had to come and suffer, and to see if this really was going to bring a new
covenant.
Okay, this is good. Sounds like were on the same page after all.
They were looking for prophecy in Scriptures and testing that to what Paul was saying was its fulfillment in the events around them. If Paul
had contradicted the Scriptural prophecies, then they couldve rejected his teachings. But Paul didnt. The details of the new covenant may
have contradicted regulatory laws of the old covenant, but that isnt really so much of a contradiction in the light of the fact that a new
covenant is prophesied. And this prophecy is the type of things they were examining to see if what Paul said was true.
Right. Therefore, as Ive said before, once the Bereans were satisfied that Jesus really was the Messiah, and that Paul was His ambassador, a
specially-commissioned teacher of the New Covenant, they would have accepted his teachings without question.
For lack of space and time Im sure, the author of Acts does not go into every detail of how Paul proved that Christ had to suffer and rise
from the dead. I think it is safe to assume that in the 3 days Paul reasoned he mentioned details as to why Christ had to come and suffer,
when he had come and suffer, what the results of Christ coming and suffering would be, how this fits into Gods plan and prophecy
concerning the new covenant, etc.
Perhaps so.
When the Bereans examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul had said was true, I think this involved through checking of Pauls 3 days
worth of teachings. Of course they couldnt check on the details of the new covenant, but they could check to see if there would even be one.
And if there was a new covenant based on the Christ, and if they could reason that Paul was an Apostle in this new covenant, then they could
find reason to accept the details from Paul.
Yes! This is exactly right! Im so pleased weve come to see eye-to-eye on this!

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 2002 by Gary Hoge

Dialogue on Protestantism and the Burden of Proof

by Gary Hoge

The following is a dialogue between myself and a friendly Anglican that took place on a public message board. It
began when a Presbyterian member of the board seemed to suggest that another Presbyterian was being disloyal for
considering converting to Rome. I wrote to defend a Catholic lady who had been accused I thought unfairly of
scorning Protestantism when she observed that it was ironic that this Presbyterian seemed to be wanting the other
Presbyterian to be more loyal to the Presbyterian Church than the original Presbyterians had been to the Catholic
Church.

My words are in black, and my Anglican friends are in blue.

I dont think [Catholic lady] meant to scorn Protestantism. My impression, for what its worth, is that she was savoring the delicious irony of someone
advocating loyalty to a church that exists precisely because its founders refused to show that same loyalty to the church of which they themselves
were members. There is an irony, I think, in any church demanding from its members a level of loyalty and submission that its own founders werent
willing to extend to the Catholic Church. I dont see why the response to that shouldnt be, If you didnt have to listen to Rome, why do I have to
listen to you?
Is [Presbyterian man] ridiculous simply because he doesnt believe that the Church in communion with Rome, and _only_ that Church,
should be taken seriously?
No, I dont think [Presbyterian man] is ridiculous at all. Nor do I think you are. But I dont want to comment on [Presbyterian man] or on you
specifically, because I dont know what your attitudes are and I could easily misrepresent you. Instead, Id like to speak more broadly about
Protestantism in general. With that in mind, all Im saying is that if a Protestant church is consistent it wont expect its members to give it any more
deference than its founders gave to the Catholic Church. To expect more than that would be hypocritical, it seems to me.
The fact that the Reformers broke communion with Rome does not mean that breaking communion with Protestant churches is trivial.
I didnt say it was. However, I dont think theres a direct equivalency here. The Reformers because theyre the ones that broke away claiming that
Rome was wrong bear the burden of proof. That means Rome gets the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, objectively speaking, theres a much higher
level of proof that ought to be required to leave Rome than to leave Protestantism for Rome.
The Reformers believed, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), that Rome had erred so severely that breach of communion was necessary.
Right, and thats what they must prove. If, in the opinion of Joe Protestant, they cant make their case, that undermines the legitimacy of the
Reformation, and Joe Protestant ought to come home to Rome. Essentially, Joe Protesant must determine whether the Reformers were Josiah or
Korah.
I am in communion with Christians who are not in communion with Rome (though in the case of Anglicans, we would quite gladly be in
communion with Rome, as [another Protestant on the board] has frequently pointed outthe refusal to be in communion is on your side, not
ours; I say that not as implying that youre wrong but simply to point out that in a sense I am not in wilful schism from Rome.
I dont understand. You seem to be saying that youre not in wilful schism from Rome because youre willing to be in communion with Rome,
provided you can do so on your own terms. That doesnt make sense to me. Could you elaborate?
The problem is that you are putting everything in terms of who one listens to. The point is not that one should blindly listen to whoever is in
authority over one, but that one should not break communion with ones fellow-Christians unless absolutely required by ones conscience to
do so.
I disagree. As I mentioned above, the Protestant churches are the result of their founders contention that Rome had severely corrupted the Gospel.
Thus, whether Protestantism is a reformation or a rebellion hinges on whether that contention is true. If its a true reformation, then everyone ought to
be Protestant; if its a rebellion, then no one ought to be Protestant.
Reformed ecclesiology (to which [Presbyterian man] adheres and which I find somewhat persuasive) does not hold that schism is only
possible from one Christian body. Schism in this view is not primarily an abstract matter of breaking from _the_ One Church. Rather, it is a
matter of breaking ties with the church to which one belongs, from which one has received the Word and the Sacraments. I can understand
that you disagree with this view. I often have doubts about it myself. But I dont see why its patently ridiculous.
I didnt say it was. If a Reformed Christian gives to the Reformed Church the same level of deference its founders gave to the Catholic Church, I
make no objection. But if a Reformed Christian insists that others give the Reformed Church more deference than its founders gave the Catholic
Church (which Im not saying [Presbyterian man] is doing), I think thats hypocritical.
I agree in this sense: A Protestant church should expect its members only to leave _if_ they believe that the Word is no longer truly preached
or the Sacraments rightly administered (in essentials) therein.
Hypothetical question: Was the Word truly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered by the Donatists? If so, do you think it was wrong for
them to rejoin the Catholic Church?
Wait a minute. We are of course talking about _individual_ Donatists. Obviously Donatist communities were obligated to rejoin the Catholic
Church. But individuals are a more difficult matter.
On what basis do you make this distinction? I dont understand why the same factors that obligated the Donatist communities to rejoin the Catholic
Church wouldnt also obligate the members of those communities to rejoin the Catholic Church individually. The obligation to Christian unity, it
seems to me, is binding on all Christians. Part of that obligation, it also seems to me, is to distinguish between reformation and rebellion; to embrace
the former, and repudiate the latter.
I have a good deal of respect for Tychonius, who (as Augustine pointed out gleefully) exploded the fallacies of Donatist ecclesiology but
remained Donatist, even though he was excommunicated by his own church! I myself wouldnt go that farif I were excommunicated for
being too Catholic (which might have happened at one time in history, given my views) I would certainly become Catholic. Had I been a
Donatist, Im not sure what I would do. It would be a difficult choice.
I really dont see why. As I pointed out before, you seem to have the attitude that break-away sects, by their very existence, acquire a de facto
legitimacy that its members are somehow obligated to preserve and defend unless and until that group as a group decides to end its separation. But
Scripture repeatedly and forcefully warns against divisions, and even says that those who cause factions (Greek: aireseiV, a religious sect,
faction William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, p. 55)
will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:20-21). Therefore, it seems to me that break-away groups, by their very existence, have a presumption
of illegitimacy and bear a heavy burden of proof to show that their existence is necessary and therefore legitimate, assuming we even grant that such
separations can ever be legitimate in a truly Christian ecclesiology.
As Ive said several times in this debate, modern mainline Protestants are emphatically _not_ in the position of Donatists. We may be heretics
by your standards, but we are not schismatics in the Donatist sense. The decision not to be in communion is _purely_ on your side. Im not
saying its necessarily unjustified. But it is your decision, not ours. To accuse us of schism, when we are quite willing to intercommune, seems
a bit odd to us (less so to me, because I have considerable sympathy with the Catholic position). We recognize your orders and your
Eucharist. You do not recognize ours. Im not of course saying that you are Donatists, but we are certainly not either.
Perhaps we have different definitions of schism. As I see it, when a group rejects some aspect(s) of the Catholic faith, leaves the Church (or is forced
out) and forms a new, autonomous Christian group, that is a schism. Whether the new group is theoretically willing to be in communion with the
Catholic Church or not is irrelevant to the legitimacy of its existence as a separate organization. The legitimacy of that existence, it seems to me,
depends upon the rightness of its quarrel with the Catholic Church that caused it to be a separate entity in the first place.
Consider another hypothetical situation. Suppose a group of dissident American Catholics left the Church and formed a new Church call it the
Modern Apostolic Catholic Church in America. This new church ordains women to its priesthood, denies the unique divinity of Jesus (except insofar
as we are all gods), is officially pro-choice, affirms only two sacraments, adopts sola Scriptura as its guiding principle, denies that God is a
trinity, and denies the existence of Hell. Now, do you really think it would be valid for that group to shrug its shoulders and say, Hey, its not our
fault were not in communion with Rome. Were perfectly willing to be. Shoot, well be in communion with anyone. Indeed, to accuse of us schism,
when we are quite willing to intercommune, seems a bit odd to us?
Consider the Donatists again. If they decided to rejoin the Catholic Church, were they thereby committing a schism, or ending one? Once a schism
occurs, do you think it acquires a de facto legitimacy and that it shouldnt be ended unless the schismatic group seriously fails to preach the Word or
administer the Sacraments (which administration, by the way, most Protestant churches do seriously fail to do)?
Gary, I should have thought it was clear by now that Im talking about _individual_ reconversion. Obviously Im not saying that the division
should not be ended. But individual conversions are unlikely to end the schism. They will just realign the boundaries a little.
I should have said helping to end a schism. Obviously, no individual believer can reasonably expect to end a schism all by himself. But I do think
that individual believers have an obligation as Christians not to be associated with a break-away group once they become convinced that that groups
reasons for being are not valid. In other words, once one realizes that Moses is the legitimate leader of Israel, he ought not to pitch his tent with Korah
any longer, even though that means breaking communion with Dathan and Abiram.
Those were the grounds on which the Reformers broke communion with Rome.
One can, of course, debate whether there are any grounds that would justify schism (the Bible seems to take Christian unity very seriously, after all),
but for the sake of argument, lets assume that these grounds would justify schism. Does not a Protestant owe it to himself, and to truth itself, to
determine whether the Reformers have made their case that Rome had in fact failed to truly preach the Word and rightly administer the
Sacraments? And if he concludes that they havent made their case, shouldnt he also conclude that the Reformation was therefore an improper
schism? And if he concludes that, shouldnt he repudiate the Reformation and rejoin the Catholic Church?
I still think that the church one is in gets the benefit of the doubt.
Do you mean that people naturally tend to give the church theyre in the benefit of the doubt, or do you mean that whatever church one is in logically
and objectively deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt? If the latter, I disagree. I mean, suppose I decided to create my own religion out of thin
air. Should everyone assume Im right unless someone can prove me wrong? Or does the burden of proof lie with me? Obviously, it lies with me.
Likewise, when Joseph Smith, Jr., declared that he had restored the truth about the plan of God (The Plan of Our Heavenly Father, Corporation of
the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986, p.4), he had to prove that. We shouldnt just assume he must be right unless
somebody can prove him wrong. I think thats self-evident.
But that also applies to the Reformers. As you yourself said, the burden of proof for the Reformers was on them to prove that they had to leave. Just
so. The Catholic Church didnt have to prove it was right, the Reformers had to prove it was wrong. And that was just as true twenty, fifty, or a
hundred years later as it was the day Luther nailed his Theses to the door. The Reformation still bears the burden of proof today, just as Mormonism
or Scientology does. A breakaway church does not somehow acquire the benefit of the doubt over time.
But the burden of proof is _always_ on the church to which one is converting.
Again, if you mean objectively speaking, I disagree. Objectively speaking, Protestantism deserves the benefit of the doubt over Mormonism, and
Catholicism deserves the benefit of the doubt over Protestantism.
The burden of proof for the Reformers was on them to prove that they had to leave. The same is true for a Protestant leaving a Presbyterian
(or Anglican, or Methodist) church for Rome, even though the burden is less onerous.
Tell me: Objectively speaking, should a Scientologist give Scientology the benefit of the doubt over Rome? Obviously, a Scientologist will give
Scientology the benefit of the doubt, at least at first, but should he?
Here is where I disagree. It isnt that simple. To begin with, The errors of the Catholic Church may have been insufficient to justify schism
for that matter, the Catholic Church may even have been right on all the important pointsand yet that does not mean that the Christian
community to which I belong is illegitimate.
I didnt say it does. But apply that same logic to Mormonism, for example. If you conclude that Joseph Smith was wrong on all important points,
should you remain a Mormon?
Look at the Orthodox, for instance, You admit that they are legitimate churches, although you think they are in schism. You seem to think
that if the Protestants were wrong, or at least hypersensitive, on such issues as justification and the communion of the saints and so on, then I
as a private layperson should break communion with the church to which I belong and come home.
Yes. No one owes allegiance to error or to unlawful schism. Obviously, a person who is born into such a community or converted to it from
agnosticism, or whatever is not at fault. But once he realizes that such a community was founded on error, and is in schism, contrary to the
command of Christ himself, yes, I think its his duty as a Christian to disassociate himself from that community. Again, I think thats self-evident. If a
Mormon realizes that Mormonism is wrong, he should cease to be a Mormon. If a Donatist realizes that Donatism is wrong, he should cease to be a
Donatist.
But that does not follow. It was the community that erred (whether on the specific doctrinal points, or simply in magnifying the importance
of the disagreements), and its the communitys job to repent of its error.
So, you think no Montanists should have rejoined the Catholic Church unless they all did? The Donatists should have reconciled en masse or not at
all? That doesnt make any sense to me. It seems clear to me that if a person realizes that the community to which he, through no fault of his own,
belongs ought not to have existed as a separate entity in the first place, he ought to act on that realization.
I should only leave if I think that my communitys errors are so great that I cannot in good conscience remain part of it, or, in other words, if
I think that it is not a legitimate particular church. But thats a very different issue than whether it was justified in separating from Rome.
I think you set the bar way too high. We, as Christians, have a duty to carry out the wishes of Christ that we be one and that there be no divisions
among us. The very fact that a division exists is an error so great in and of itself that a person ought not to remain a part of that division if he becomes
convinced that the division wasnt justified in the first place.
I know it doesnt make sense to youagain because youre assuming a Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
Not really. Im just assuming that the Bible means it when it says that there should be no divisions among us. Therefore, it doesnt make sense to me
to perpetuate such a division once one becomes convinced that it wasnt justified in the first place. A person who does that isnt preserving unity, hes
preserving disunity.
Your assumption is that since the true Church is defined by whos in communion with Rome (though, as Ive said, your recognition of the
Orthodox churches makes this problematic) naturally Rome can dictate the terms of communion. But try, at least imaginatively, to envision
for a moment an ecclesiology that is not primarily defined by being in communion with one See.
Having been in such an ecclesiology for almost thirteen years, its not hard to imagine. What concerns me is that we all be in communion with each
other. Whether that is primarily defined by being in communion with Rome is another question. And when that communion is broken and a new
church is formed, it seems to me that church bears a heavy burden of proof to justify doing something that Scripture expressly forbids. I dont think
that burden of proof gets any lighter over time.
That means that if my church regards yours as fully part of the Catholic Church, and yours does not so regard mine, then it makes little
sense for you to accuse me of being in schism.
Why not?
Perhaps you are right in thinking that my church is not a legitimate part of the Catholic Church. But I have to be convinced that _that_ is the
case before I am obligated to come home to Rome.
Of course. Ive prefaced my remarks all along with qualifiers such as once a person becomes convinced . . . If youre convinced that the Anglican
Churchs reason for being was legitimate several hundred years ago, and that those reasons still apply today, then fine. Im just saying that the
Anglican Church as part of the Reformation bears the burden of proof, and if you conclude that it cant make its case, it isnt schism on your
part to leave it. On the contrary, you would be repairing a schism.
I fail to see why it is laughable to say that breaking communion with those Christians is schism, just because our spiritual ancestors may have
committed schism hundreds of years ago.
Im confused. Which Christians are you talking about?
The Christians with whom I or [Presbyterian man] are currently in communion.
Again, if those organizations are themselves in schism which is what you must decide then you arent committing schism by leaving them, youre
ending schism by leaving them.
I think too often we think of the Reformation as if it were like the formation of a new church today, in which a group of likeminded people
leave the church they used to go to and start another one. That is how the Anabaptists proceeded, and I believe that in some parts of Europe
(such as the Netherlands and France) thats how the Reformed spread. But for the most part, especially at the beginning, mainstream
Protestantism wasnt like that at all. Rather, certain preachers started preaching things that the Catholic hierarchy regarded as heretical.
Eventually, with the support of the secular authorities, these preachers made liturgical and disciplinary changes in their churches to make
them conform to the Gospel as they understood it. This was not about leaving the Church.
Not yet.
It was about reforming the Churchs doctrine and practice, without the leave of the authorities. And yes, this often involved the fervent
denunciation of those hard-headed authorities as Antichrist. But its quite possible that the changes these preachers made were legitimate
and even needed without their denunciation of the Pope and bishops being equally legitimate. After all, you dont stand by all the rhetoric the
Catholic Church hurled at us. Why demand that we do the same?
I dont. Further, I understand that in many (most?) cases, the Reformation began as an effort to reform the Church from within. But eventually, the
Church declared that many of those changes especially in doctrine were heretical. At that point, the Reformers had to decide whether to recant and
stay or stick to their guns and leave.
In other words, the fact that the Reformers used polemical rhetoric that was unjustified does not necessarily mean that the churches over
which they presided ceased to be true churches.
No, they ceased to be true particular churches when they abolished the ministerial priesthood.
Another way of putting it is that the Reformation was not based on the contention that the Catholic Church was hopelessly corrupt.
Neither was Donatism. I dont think that fact justifies one in remaining a Donatist once hes convinced that the Donatist schism wasnt justified in the
first place.
The belief that the Catholic Church was hopelessly corrupt was based on the fact that the hierarchy resisted the Reformation. The
Reformation was a set of doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary reforms. The question is whether those reforms were such radical departures
from historic Christianity that the churches that adopted them ceased to be true churches.
Has there every been a heresy that didnt blast the Church for resisting it?
If [Presbyterian man] is saying that [the other Presbyterian] should override his doubts about Reformed sacramental theology that he
should continue to participate in a Eucharist that he regards as invalid then Im with you in saying that this is inconsistent.
Well, that wasnt quite what I was saying. I was saying that pleading with [the other Presbyterian] to remain a Protestant despite Protestantisms errors
and problems is ironic coming from a group that left Catholicism because if its alleged errors and problems.
Yet again, we need to define schism. You insist on assuming a Catholic definition of schism. But thats precisely whats under discussion.
I am referring to the existence of autonomous Christian communities that broke away from the Catholic Church, or from other communities that
broke away from the Catholic Church. I maintain that the communities that broke away bear the burden of proof and must show and continue to
show that their theological reasons for doing so were valid. And if a member of such a community concludes that it hasnt made its case, it seems to
me he must also conclude that his community constitutes an improper schism. And if he concludes that, it seems to me he should repudiate that
schism and rejoin the Catholic Church.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I see. So, once one finds oneself encamped with Korah, one has an obligation (to whom?) to remain there even if he becomes convinced that Moses is
Israels rightful leader? I dont get it. You seem to be saying that if any group rebels against the Church, for whatever reason, that group somehow
acquires a God-given legitimacy that binds the consciences of its members and makes it actually wrong for them to repudiate that rebellion. Would it
have been wrong, then, for an individual Arian to repudiate Arianism after Nicea and rejoin the Catholic Church all by himself?
I cant say this too often, in the hope that you will actually get the point: Protestants do not accept the Catholic assumption that the sin of
schism is _only_ on the side of those who separate from Rome.
Got it. I accept the teaching of the Catechism that men of both sides were to blame for the separation (CCC 817, emphasis added). Nevertheless,
regardless of whose fault it was, the fact remains that the separation exists, and that it is incumbent on the members of those separated communities to
assess whether the separation was justified in the first place. If they conclude that it wasnt, or that it no longer is, I think they have an obligation to
end at least their own participation in that separation. If they can bring others back with them, so much the better.
If in fact the divisions between Luther and Rome were not over essential questions of the Christian faith, then Rome was as wrong for
excommunicating Luther as Luther was for refusing to submit.
If the divisions were not over essential questions of the Christian faith, then we have even less of an excuse for perpetuating them, dont you think?
God have mercy on us if we are willing to ignore His command that we be one and that there be no divisions among us, and all because of issues that
even we dont think are all that important.
That being the case, why should I change from one side of the schism to the other?
For the same reason Korahs followers should have changed from one side of that schism to the other. I guess I really dont understand your position
here. I assume that the Protestant Reformers left the Church over issues that they, and their Catholic counterparts, at least thought were important.
Now, when you come along a few centuries later and say that these issues really werent essential questions of the Christian faith after all, arent you
in effect saying that the Protestant Reformation was not theologically justified? That being the case, how can you ask me why you ought no longer to
be part of it?
Admittedly communion with Rome is important, but thats outweighed by the fact that I would be required to submit to all sorts of doctrines
that Im not sure are essential and that I would have to break communion with my fellow-Christians.
Yes, you would, but by so doing youd also be reestablishing communion with a billion other of your fellow Christians.
Not to speak of the fact that, as Ive said several times now, we are quite willing to have communion with you.
Sure, provided you can do so on your own terms. Forgive me if I find that less than impressive.
So the question is not, Were the Reformers right in thinking Rome was Antichrist? The question is, Was Rome right in declaring the
Reformers heretics? We have made it entirely clear that we dont think you are Antichrist (Anglicanism never did declare this officially,
though many Anglicans believed it), that to the contrary we think that you are our brothers in Christ, holding all the essentials of Christian
faith.
Why, then, does Anglicanism continue to exist? Is it just historical inertia? I mean, surely you would agree with me, wouldnt you, that the biblical
warnings against divisions are strong enough to compel us to remain together, except possibly when essentials of the Christian faith are at stake? If, as
you say, those essentials are not at stake, what justification does Anglicanism have for its continued existence as a separate entity?
Returning to the question of the benefit of the doubt, I still dont think that whatever church one happens to find oneself in objectively deserves to be
given the benefit of the doubt.
Why not?
Because Im not an indifferentist. I dont think each and every religious group has an equal claim to validity. Therefore I dont think that each and
every believers religious community deserves logically and objectively to be given the benefit of the doubt simply because one happens to have
been born into it, or initially converted to it.
As I asked before, if I decided to create my own religion out of thin air, should everyone assume Im right unless someone can prove me wrong?
No, and obviously thats not what Im saying. Why on earth do you bring up such an irrelevant example? We are not talking about adopting
a new belief. We are talking about giving up an old one. Or more importantly, breaking ties of Christian fellowship that already exist.
Okay, so once my new religion gains a following and has been around a few generations, then we should give it the benefit of the doubt and presume
its right unless someone can prove it wrong? Then it would be wrong to break communion with its followers and return to the Catholic Church, on
the grounds that two wrongs dont make a right?
Mormonism has been around awhile now, but I still dont think we should just assume that Joseph Smith, Jr., was right unless somebody can prove
him wrong. I think thats self-evident.
Certainly. But its hardly relevant.
Isnt it? As far as who gets the benefit of the doubt goes, whats the difference between Mormonism and Lutheranism, except that Lutheranism is
older? Both groups claimed to restore the true Gospel and both groups justified their ecclesiastical existence on that premise. Both groups bore, and
continue to bear, the burden of proof to show that their assertions and therefore their ecclesiastical existence are justified, it seems to me. And that
also applies to the other Protestant Reformers.
It did for people who lived in the sixteenth century. Obviously we are not now in that position.
What has changed besides the passage of time? If Calvinism was wrong in the sixteenth century, its still wrong in the twenty-first. And if Calvin had
to prove his case against Catholicism then, his descendents still have to prove it now.
Youre completely ignoring the contention you claim to be disproving, which is that the burden of proof is on the person trying to change my
opinion or affiliation.
I cant help but feel were talking past each other. You seem to be talking about subjective experience; Im talking about objective reality. Im saying
that logically, objectively, the break-away group inherently bears the burden of proof. The group that rises up and says, The established religion is
wrong, follow us instead, must logically be presumed to be wrong unless it can prove that its not. Therefore, a person weighing the claims of the
break-away group ought logically to give the benefit of the doubt to the original group and see whether the break-away group has made its case. That
objective reality does not change merely because one happens to be a member of the break-away group, and a breakaway group does not somehow
acquire the benefit of the doubt over time.
Not for those who dont belong to it.
Not for anyone. Objectively, the burden of proof is on the break-away group. That is no less true for a member of that group than it is for anyone else.
Look at it this way. If the Reformers were _clearly_ violating the fundamentals of the faith (as I believe Mormons do) then obviously we
should all leave Protestant churches. If the Catholic Church was clearly violating the fundamentals of the faith then we should all be
Protestants (or Orthodox).
I agree.
But if, as I believe, the debates on both sides were over nonessentials (except perhaps for Zwinglis doctrine of the Eucharist), then the correct
response would be for both sides to recognize the other as valid. We have done that. You havent (for reasons of conscience which I respect).
I think its debatable whether the Bible sanctions ecclesiastical divisions among Christians over essentials of the Christian faith, but I think there can
be no doubt that it does not sanction such divisions over nonessentials. Therefore, if the debates on both sides were over nonessentials, the correct
response would be for the break-away group, in whole or in part, to cease its estrangement from the Catholic Church and reunite with it.
You act as if Protestants simply broke away capriciously.
They did break away, but I never said they did so capriciously.
Protestant teaching was condemned as heretical. Yet your posts show no awareness of thisits as if you think we should simply table the
question of whether we are heretics or not.
On the contrary, I think thats the crux of the matter. My point all along is simply that the Protestants bear the burden of proof to show that their
teachings are not heretical, and that ours are, and people weighing the competing claims of Catholicism and Protestantism ought to bear that in mind.
If I were converting to Christianity, I would give the benefit of the doubt to Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy. Assuming that I was approaching
the question from a fairly neutral point of view.
Well, then, youve concede my entire argument. Im simply pointing out that Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy objectively deserves the benefit of the
doubt over Protestantism, regardless of whether one is a Protestant or not. Therefore, a Protestant considering the claims of Catholicism/Orthodoxy
ought to (but probably wont for subjective, emotional reasons) give Catholicism/Orthodoxy the benefit of the doubt on debatable matters. Thats all
Im saying.
The point is that we are rarely, if ever, in a position to make an objective decision. This is the fundamental flaw of Catholic apologetics,
perhaps of Western Catholicism generally. You act as if one lays out on a table all the various claims, adds up which is more valid, and then
makes a decision from some Olympian vantage point. That is, I believe, a fundamentally flawed, even un-Christian approach.
If I may respectfully suggest, I think a true Christian approach is to strive for truth above all else. To the extent that each of us must evaluate for
ourselves the competing claims of various groups in the fractured Christian world, we do have to try to take an objective, Olympian point of view. It
is illogical though understandable to automatically give whatever community we happen to find ourselves in the benefit of the doubt. The Branch
Davidians are simply not entitled to the same presumption of validity as the Eastern Orthodox are. Thus, we need to make the effort to be objective
and to bear such things in mind. Obviously, thats not easy to do, but I dont see that we have any choice, not if we take Christs desire for unity
seriously.
Christianity is not a matter of individual, cerebral choice (do I really need to tell a Catholic that?). Christianity is about being called to be
part of a community. Your talk about objectivity completely ignores, even violates this communal aspect of the Christian Faith. You assume
from the start that only one community can have any validity at all, and that Im supposed to figure out, on my own, which that is.
Essentially, yes. Youre right when you say that Christianity is about being called to be part of a community, but not just any community. When Christ
spoke of unity, I dont think He meant that He wanted each of our thousands of little groups to be unified within itself, which is what you seem to
suggest when you talk about not breaking communion with your particular fragment of Christianity. Rather, I think He wanted all of Christianity to
be unified within itself, to show the world that God had sent Him. Therefore, I do think we have a duty to reexamine our divisions, to reevaluate the
reasons they came to be, and to ask ourselves whether they were, or still are, necessary. If we conclude that they werent or arent, then I think we
have a duty to repudiate them.
As I asked before, if you conclude that Joseph Smith was wrong on all important points, should you remain a Mormon?
Not if you think his prophecy was false and contradictory to the Christian faith, no. But if you think that Mormonism is simply wrong in its
claim that historic Christianity is apostate, while still thinking that Mormonism is a fully valid part of the Christian Church, then you should
remain Mormon and try to change your churchs attitude toward other Christians.
You seem to be suggesting that perpetuating our divisions is okay, as long as those divisions are over trivial matters. But it seems clear to me from
Scripture that division in and of itself is a serious problem and a flagrant defiance of our Lords wishes. As I see it, the only conceivable justification
for such a thing might be if it were theologically necessary in order to preserve the truth of the Gospel. But I dont see how you can suggest that a
member of a break-away community who concludes that his community has no necessary theological reasons for its existence nevertheless has no
obligation to repudiate that division as being an unjustifiable transgression of our Lords commands that we avoid divisions.
I am in the position of belonging to a community that originally resulted from a division in which each side thought the other was heretical
(though, as [another Protestant on the board] says, this was expressed far more clearly and uncompromisingly on the Catholic than on the
Anglican side). I am now certain that the Catholic Church was not and is not heretical, and I am by no means certain that my own church
was or is.
If, as you say, youre certain that the Catholic Church is not heretical, what justification do you have for remaining separate from it? Apparently,
youre part of a group that no longer thinks it had a good reason to leave. That being the case, I dont understand why you think youre not obligated
to return. Dont you think the Biblical commands against division impose such an obligation on you?
Anglicanism obviously does not regard itself as heretical, but it certainly does not regard the Catholic Church as heretical either (in error on
some points, perhaps, but certainly not on essentials).
Well, Im sure Arianism didnt regard itself as heretical, either. :-)
In short, youre right: If a Mormon realizes that Mormonism is heretical, he should cease to be a Mormon. And if I become convinced that
Protestantism is heretical, I will cease to be a Protestant.
Obviously. But what if youre merely convinced that Protestantism didnt have a particularly compelling reason to separate from the Catholic Church
in the first place? Do you think its legitimate for a group of people to leave the Church and start a new Church over nonessential issues? If so, under
what circumstances would such division not be legitimate?
I asked you before whether you thought that individual members of break-away groups like the Montanists should have refused to rejoin the Catholic
Church unless they all did, and you replied:
I respectfully suggest that you may in fact be more influenced by modernist individualism than you realize.
I am an individual. To the extent that I must decide whether to be Christian or non-Christian, Catholic or Protestant, that must necessarily be an
individual decision. And it seems clear to me that if a person realizes that the community to which he, through no fault of his own, belongs ought not
to have existed as a separate entity in the first place, he ought to act on that realization.
Because you think that human beings are autonomous, self-determining entities? Thats the only warrant for your statement that I can
imagine.
No, because our Lord condemned factions and commanded us to remain united. If, therefore, we realize that were part of a division that never
should have happened in the first place, we ought to cease being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.
But by becoming Catholic I would still be part of the division. I would just be on the other side of it from those who taught me the Christian
Faith and those with whom I currently worship.
Thats like Dathan saying, If I left Korah, I would still be part of the rebellion. I would just be on the other side of it. Well, yes, youd be on the
right side of it. If the division you find yourself in was unjustified (which you seem to think is the case), then it seems to me you ought to make sure
you dont deliberately ratify that division by your refusal to leave it, and thus incur the guilt of schism.
How is going from one side of a chasm to the other equivalent to closing the chasm?
The God who condemns such chasms in the first place is going to judge us. Therefore, I think its important that we be on the right side of the chasm.
We cant help it if other people are divisive; we can help it if we are divisive. We cant help it if our ancestors separated themselves from the Church
without good cause. We can help it if we remain separated from the Church without good cause.
My becoming Catholic is not going to help us all be in communion with each other. If it did I would become Catholic tomorrowno, I
wouldnt wait till tomorrow, Id run to the nearest priest and bang on his door.
But your becoming Catholic would help. It would be one less person out of communion with the Church. You cant be responsible for what other
people do, but you are responsible for what you do.
Ive tried several times to explain that the Reformation did not happen quite like that. The Protestants were, after all, excommunicated for
their opinions. If in fact those opinions were not heretical, then the Catholic Church is as responsible for the schism as we are (which does not
mean that the Protestant response to that condemnation was the right or Christian oneit wasnt).
None of which is relevant to this discussion. Youre talking about how the divisions happened; Im talking about whether they are justified. I accept
that both sides were responsible for the divisions, now what do we do about it? If a person is convinced that the Catholic Church is heretical, then I
dont see how he can in good conscience join it. But if a person is convinced that the Catholic Church is not heretical, then I dont see how he can in
good conscience refuse to join it.

| Home | The Church |

Copyright 2002 by Gary Hoge

Dialogue on Purgatory
by Gary Hoge

The following dialogue between myself and a friendly Evangelical Protestant who is in the process of becoming
Catholic took place on a public message board. His words appear in blue.

Indulgences, Purgatory, merit, etc. are only for those who are already in the covenant. They have to do with the sanctification of those who are already
being saved, not with the salvation of those who are outside the covenant.
I think the issue I would have here is that of whether or not there is actually a judicial application of the work of Christ on behalf of His
people at the Eschaton Judgement. Catholic soteriology would say no, thus necessitating purgation for complete purity, while I wonder why
God could not apply judicially the merits of Christ (imputation) to the sinner.
I think not, for the simple reason that the Bible says of heaven, Nothing impure will ever enter it (Rev. 21:27). Gods not going to allow sin into
heaven and pretend it doesnt exist, or overlook it for Christs sake. Hes going to eradicated it. We can dispute whether justification is merely judicial
here on Earth, but I dont think theres any doubt that in heaven, its real.
The verse about no condemnation comes to mind and to me, perhaps misunderstanding, purgatory still involves some amount of suffering,
which to me smacks of condemnation.
Suffering, at least for a Christian, smacks of sanctification, not condemnation. The Bible says,
5And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: My son, do not make light of the Lords
discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.
7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.
9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to
the Father of our spirits and live!
10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his
holiness.
11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those
who have been trained by it.
12Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.
13 Make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. (Heb 12:5-14)

A couple of things to note here:

God disciplines Christians.

This discipline is painful (vs. 11).

 The purpose of this discipline is sanctification (i.e., that we may share in Gods holiness) (vs. 10).

Without this sanctification, no one will see the Lord. The NASB renders verse 14 this way: Pursue peace with all men, and the
sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. Isnt it interesting that the author of Hebrews is telling Christians that they must
pursue a certain level of personal holiness, or else they will not see the Lord?
We must be sanctified if we would see the Lord. I see no hint of anything merely judicial in that. We must be made holy, and share in Gods holiness.
This is a lifelong process, and the doctrine of Purgatory simply asserts that if it is not completed in this life, it will be in the next. The word itself,
purgatory, does not refer to a place, but to the final sanctification process itself by which we are made fit to enter the presence of Him whose eyes
are too pure to look on evil (Hab. 1:13).
It does seem to me (as a father myself) that our God, in describing Himself as Father, would try to take every possible means He could to
bring as many of His children to Himself as possible. This makes the issue of purgatory seem like mercy rather than judgement.
Exactly. Its the loving, fatherly discipline described in Hebrews 12.
The Calvinist view of forensic justification really seems to hinge upon a very strict judicial view of God as the stern judge looking for any
imperfection at all and condemning all who do not meet the standard. That is why the need for an imputed righteousness.
God cannot tolerate sin, and thats why an imputed righteousness is not enough. God did not send His Son so that He could cover over sin and pretend
it no longer exists, He sent Him so that sin could be defeated and washed away. Thats why God says, I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you
will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove
from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep
my laws. (Ezek. 36:25-27). He does not say He will cover your heart of stone and consider it righteous for Christs sake. He says He will remove it
and replace it with a heart of flesh.

| Home | Salvation |
Copyright 2001 by Gary Hoge

Dialogue on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

by Gary Hoge

The following good-naturedly sarcastic dialogue took place between myself and a Protestant friend. My words are
actual (with some slight editing), but my friends words, in blue, are sometimes paraphrased.

This dialogue was in response to the following quotation from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was a disciple of the
Apostle John, and he wrote these words while being led to Rome in chains to face martyrdom:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us,
and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and
from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,
Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who
deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]

Obviously, Ignatius was mistaken.

Maybe he should have paid better attention to what John was saying to him, then he wouldnt have made such a fundamental blunder. If only he had
lived a few centuries longer (about fifteen) someone could have set him straight. :-)
Well, perhaps he knows better now.
I hope so because he sure had some radical ideas about the Eucharist. He even wrote that it was the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which
prevents us from dying, . . . a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ. Its a shame that
John was such a lousy teacher. For that matter, I guess all of the apostles were lousy teachers, because all of the early Christians believed this
nonsense. Oh, where was Luther when we needed him? Oops, I forgot: Luther believed this stuff too. Where was Zwingli when we needed him? :-)
Im surprised at you--turning to that German monk for instruction in things spiritual! I thought you knew better! For shame!
Well, as you once said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day! :-) But I agree with you, if we want to know what John meant when he wrote,
Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you, we should certainly not put much stock in the opinion of a German monk who
was born fourteen centuries after John died. Neither should we put much stock in the opinion of a Swiss politician and lawyer (Zwingli) who was
similarly remote from John himself. Instead, we should look to those who learned the proper interpretation from John himself. Men like Ignatius. :-)
Of course, Ignatius (and every other Christian who put pen to paper for the next eleven centuries) could have gotten it wrong . . .
Very open-minded of you to say so.
Thank you! Just because a position is absurd doesnt mean it might not be true! :-) Maybe when John tried to explain to Ignatius that it was just a
simple memorial supper, poor Ignatius just didnt get it. Neither did Polycarp. Or Justin Martyr. Or Irenaeus. Such dullards! Maybe when Ignatius
read the original manuscript of Johns gospel in his own native language, he just didnt understand it as well as we do.
Do you suppose the words meant something different then than now?
No, of course not. They still mean exactly what they say. Only the interpretation has changed. Catholics interpret the Bible literally, Protestants dont.
Talk about ironic! The question is, whose interpretation is right? We must remember that Johns gospel (and the rest of the NT) was addressed to
people in his own culture who spoke his own language. When we read it, our understanding of it will only be as good as our understanding of first-
century culture and linguistics. The less we understand first-century thought and idiom, and the less we understand Greek, the less accurate our
interpretation is likely to be.
Ignatius was a first-century, Greek-speaking disciple of John who read the unadulterated original of his gospel. We, on the other hand, are twentieth
century, English speaking disciples of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. who read an English translation of adulterated fifth-century Greek copies of Johns
gospel. All things being equal, Id say Ignatius was in an infinitely better position to interpret it correctly--especially because he had access to the
author himself!
Yet he still screwed it up!
Then I think you should definitely stick with Zwinglis novel sixteenth century symbolic interpretation, and praise God that you have access to more
reliable teachers than Ignatius did. :-)

| Home | The Eucharist and the Mass |

Copyright 1998 by Gary Hoge