Saturday, February 28, 2004
Re: Christ's Sacrifice [Rick Barry]
I have looked into the question of the patristic period and the different views of the Eucharist. A few thoughts:
First point: there is the patristic tradition and then there is the earlier tradition, the biblical tradition. I think the tendency of Catholics seems to be, in my conversations with them, to avoid getting to deep into Biblical discussions. I suppose this is because many believe God's scripture cannot be understood without the Pope and the Bishops interpertation of it. I have not known many Catholics who spend too much time in scripture. I wish more Catholics would take the Berean's as their model. As Luke points out in Acts: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Needless to say, I believe that a pretty strong argument can be constructed from scripture against Roman ideas on the Eucharist. However, we are talking about what the Church father's believed. Joe, you have really focused the question well. You asked me, how do I accept the way the Church father's argue against other hearses, but think they are heretical on the doctrine of Real Presence. Great question. Let me add to that question: How is it that the Holy Spirit allowed for this belief to arise so early and among so many if it is wrong? After all, the Holy Spirit is the core of this debate. You don't believe the Church Father's were heresy killers out of their own wisdom, but because you believe they were led by the Holy Spirit.
Well, this is a difficult question. But lets look at it: first of all, lets make something clear. You are working under the assumption that what the church fathers were Roman Catholics, and you believe there has been a consistent teaching from the apostolic period until now. Protestants generally also count the church father's as their own, and believe the Roman church veered off at some point. Protestants believe that they have restored the church to the one true tradition, and are in line with history. They believe they have saved Christianity from the Rome based church, which had gone astray. This is an important point.
Joe, when you talk about the early councils that defined certain Christian belief, you speak of it as if "The Roman Catholic Church defined doctrine then and it defines it now. Why do you accept what the Roman Catholic Church taught then, but not now?" I want to stress, the protestant view does not see it like that. Protestants do not believe there was a Roman Catholic Church then. The councils that were held back then were held by the Christian community at the time, not the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC did not yet exist, we believe. Therefore, we do accept the teachings of these early council's, because they are OUR council's (our being catholic, everyone). They were not East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, nor Protestant. They were early Christian council's.
This is such an important point. We do believe that Catholic scholars can trace back a lineage of people, bishop to bishop, many years. However, we do not believe this lineage had the same beliefs. Catholic's believe that just because one person has laid hands on another to another, then they are all the same church. Not so, protestants believe. Those early Christians did not believe what the modern church does. They are, we believe, more a part of the Protestant tradition than the Catholic tradition--in beliefs. Therefore, do not simply assume that they were early members of the RCC. I do not believe that is correct.
Now, I contend that those at the council of Nicea were not Roman Catholic's because they did not believe in Papal authority, the Marian doctrines, nor the current understanding of the Eucharist. On Papal authorityy: why was it necessary to have the council of Nicea in the first place? Why didn't the Bishop of Rome simply declare what is or is not heresy, using his authority, granted to him from Jesus as a descendentt of Peter? Why was this council called with the Bishop of Rome having nothing to do with its convocation, and why did he have little to do with the outcome? Answer: there was no concept of Papal authority. In fact, the church fathers believed to the contrary, that each bishop had authority only over his own territory. Cyprian said:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
Why am I belaboring this point? I really want to highlight the fact that it is not the case that the church fathers lined up behind the current RCC view of theology, and against the protestant view. It is a beautiful thought to think that the current RCC is the church Jesus created, but that is not exactly right. It has undergone many changes and holds certain doctrines that are recent. However, this is not to say that Jesus did not establish his church on earth...he did. And it is a catholic church. It is just not bound to the Vatican. That is what I believe.
Now, what was the view of early church fathers on the Eucharist? That is the question I have been trying to get at. It seems that the fathers of the church did believe in real presence, just as Marin Luther did. They had not a view of transubstantiation. And I do not believee most had a view of the sacrifice as the modern church did. Let me offer a couple quick quotes, then ya'll can make some specific challenges to all of this so I can focus on each point more. Here we go.
Let me just quote Irenaeus real quick. Does this sound like transubstantiation or consubstantiation: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5) Yes, he believes in real presence. And no, this is not the Roman Catholic transubstantion.
Last, let me mention the issue of the mass as sacrifice. How ancient is this view. I here quote a Luthern historian. This may hold very little weight because he is not Catholic, but he is either right or wrong. Which is it?
" The Lord's Supper was universally regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice, the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superseding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt. This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption."
Therefore, it is possible that the church fathers used words like sacrifice, but did not mean what we take it to mean currently. Maybe they use the term sacrifice in the way it was used in the book of Hebrews: "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name." (Hebrews 13:15)
This is an awful lot, and I must admit, I sort of threw it together. I may be very wrong on many points. Please help me see where. Challenge me to back up some of the specific points that you find most troubling so I can deepen my research.
Talk to everyone soon. As my Catholic grandmother always says, "Love each other!"
Sources:
General: http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/rceuch.htm
On Nicea: http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html
On Sacrifice (section 69): http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm
First point: there is the patristic tradition and then there is the earlier tradition, the biblical tradition. I think the tendency of Catholics seems to be, in my conversations with them, to avoid getting to deep into Biblical discussions. I suppose this is because many believe God's scripture cannot be understood without the Pope and the Bishops interpertation of it. I have not known many Catholics who spend too much time in scripture. I wish more Catholics would take the Berean's as their model. As Luke points out in Acts: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Needless to say, I believe that a pretty strong argument can be constructed from scripture against Roman ideas on the Eucharist. However, we are talking about what the Church father's believed. Joe, you have really focused the question well. You asked me, how do I accept the way the Church father's argue against other hearses, but think they are heretical on the doctrine of Real Presence. Great question. Let me add to that question: How is it that the Holy Spirit allowed for this belief to arise so early and among so many if it is wrong? After all, the Holy Spirit is the core of this debate. You don't believe the Church Father's were heresy killers out of their own wisdom, but because you believe they were led by the Holy Spirit.
Well, this is a difficult question. But lets look at it: first of all, lets make something clear. You are working under the assumption that what the church fathers were Roman Catholics, and you believe there has been a consistent teaching from the apostolic period until now. Protestants generally also count the church father's as their own, and believe the Roman church veered off at some point. Protestants believe that they have restored the church to the one true tradition, and are in line with history. They believe they have saved Christianity from the Rome based church, which had gone astray. This is an important point.
Joe, when you talk about the early councils that defined certain Christian belief, you speak of it as if "The Roman Catholic Church defined doctrine then and it defines it now. Why do you accept what the Roman Catholic Church taught then, but not now?" I want to stress, the protestant view does not see it like that. Protestants do not believe there was a Roman Catholic Church then. The councils that were held back then were held by the Christian community at the time, not the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC did not yet exist, we believe. Therefore, we do accept the teachings of these early council's, because they are OUR council's (our being catholic, everyone). They were not East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, nor Protestant. They were early Christian council's.
This is such an important point. We do believe that Catholic scholars can trace back a lineage of people, bishop to bishop, many years. However, we do not believe this lineage had the same beliefs. Catholic's believe that just because one person has laid hands on another to another, then they are all the same church. Not so, protestants believe. Those early Christians did not believe what the modern church does. They are, we believe, more a part of the Protestant tradition than the Catholic tradition--in beliefs. Therefore, do not simply assume that they were early members of the RCC. I do not believe that is correct.
Now, I contend that those at the council of Nicea were not Roman Catholic's because they did not believe in Papal authority, the Marian doctrines, nor the current understanding of the Eucharist. On Papal authorityy: why was it necessary to have the council of Nicea in the first place? Why didn't the Bishop of Rome simply declare what is or is not heresy, using his authority, granted to him from Jesus as a descendentt of Peter? Why was this council called with the Bishop of Rome having nothing to do with its convocation, and why did he have little to do with the outcome? Answer: there was no concept of Papal authority. In fact, the church fathers believed to the contrary, that each bishop had authority only over his own territory. Cyprian said:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
Why am I belaboring this point? I really want to highlight the fact that it is not the case that the church fathers lined up behind the current RCC view of theology, and against the protestant view. It is a beautiful thought to think that the current RCC is the church Jesus created, but that is not exactly right. It has undergone many changes and holds certain doctrines that are recent. However, this is not to say that Jesus did not establish his church on earth...he did. And it is a catholic church. It is just not bound to the Vatican. That is what I believe.
Now, what was the view of early church fathers on the Eucharist? That is the question I have been trying to get at. It seems that the fathers of the church did believe in real presence, just as Marin Luther did. They had not a view of transubstantiation. And I do not believee most had a view of the sacrifice as the modern church did. Let me offer a couple quick quotes, then ya'll can make some specific challenges to all of this so I can focus on each point more. Here we go.
Let me just quote Irenaeus real quick. Does this sound like transubstantiation or consubstantiation: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5) Yes, he believes in real presence. And no, this is not the Roman Catholic transubstantion.
Last, let me mention the issue of the mass as sacrifice. How ancient is this view. I here quote a Luthern historian. This may hold very little weight because he is not Catholic, but he is either right or wrong. Which is it?
" The Lord's Supper was universally regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice, the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superseding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt. This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption."
Therefore, it is possible that the church fathers used words like sacrifice, but did not mean what we take it to mean currently. Maybe they use the term sacrifice in the way it was used in the book of Hebrews: "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name." (Hebrews 13:15)
This is an awful lot, and I must admit, I sort of threw it together. I may be very wrong on many points. Please help me see where. Challenge me to back up some of the specific points that you find most troubling so I can deepen my research.
Talk to everyone soon. As my Catholic grandmother always says, "Love each other!"
Sources:
General: http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/rceuch.htm
On Nicea: http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html
On Sacrifice (section 69): http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Who's Afraid of the Passion? [Rick Barry]
One of the interesting aspects of the Passion criticism is the outrage that the film does not say more "nice" things. It does not talk about being friendly, smiling more, and patting people on the back--all those charming lessons of kindergarten. These traits are the bedrock of Christianity!
Instead, it is a film about sacrifice, the sacrifice of a human. Pools of blood and torture are not the things of kindergarten. It is a dirty, horrible business. It is barbaric and outrageous. And...oops...it is what the faith is built on.
For a hundred years or so many liberals have donned sponges, gotten on their hands and knees, and scrubbed Christianity clean. Gone is hell. Gone is demons. Gone is sin. Gone is crucifixion. It is the age of social justice and the social gospel. God came to earth to tells us to be nice and eat our vegetables. How he died we cannot remember.
I had been surprised by the negative reviews of The Passion. Most every review praises the movie for being incredibly artistic, a beautiful accomplishment. The artistic types have found an art they do not care for. In the end, it was too messy, too gory, not very pleasant. As you point out Kyle, the New York Times says "depressing." As I contemplate it, there are two possible reasons for this.
First, as you allude to Kyle, if a non-Christian is watching the movie, there are some major truth-claims made. The major truth-claim is that God became a God-man, came to earth, preached love, and died as a sacrifice for his friends. That would be us. If you are not a Christian, this is a major statement. Most non-Christians have it in their heads that Christianity is about "being good," a list of rule and regulations. On the screen they have seen a forgiving and loving God die for them. This is one heck of a truth claim, and is probably the only time they really heard the heart of the gospel clearly. These people will either accept the accuracy of the truth claim, and be profoundly changed. Or they will reject it using whatever excuse they can.
The second class of people are the "mainline" protestants or "cafeteria" Catholics who have been busy at work making Christianity safe for a liberal society. If the crucifixion is true, as Gibson presents it (as the Bible presents it) that means that God has done something outstanding in the history of the world. Something beyond comprehension. What does that do to the fantasy that all religions are the same or equal in some way? It blows the theory out of the water. In comparison of Christ's actions on the cross, the "be nice" message liberals like to believe is central seems a joke. Christianity isn't about how good they are, what nice people they are, what nice government programs they want. Christianity is about God, and what He has done! We are the sinners and we are not central.
Liberals like to feel like they are hero's. They have such compassion. They have such good intentions. The Passion of Christ shows the true nature of humans, and shows the true hero of the story, God. Therefore we have heard from many critics an outcry! Not enough feel good speeches! Not enough about being nice! Gibson missed the central message of Christianity! Balderdash. These liberal Christians miss the whole point of the movie, and of their religion. We love, not because a wise philosopher once told us to, but because God first loved us. And what greater love is there than to lay down ones life for their friends?
Instead, it is a film about sacrifice, the sacrifice of a human. Pools of blood and torture are not the things of kindergarten. It is a dirty, horrible business. It is barbaric and outrageous. And...oops...it is what the faith is built on.
For a hundred years or so many liberals have donned sponges, gotten on their hands and knees, and scrubbed Christianity clean. Gone is hell. Gone is demons. Gone is sin. Gone is crucifixion. It is the age of social justice and the social gospel. God came to earth to tells us to be nice and eat our vegetables. How he died we cannot remember.
I had been surprised by the negative reviews of The Passion. Most every review praises the movie for being incredibly artistic, a beautiful accomplishment. The artistic types have found an art they do not care for. In the end, it was too messy, too gory, not very pleasant. As you point out Kyle, the New York Times says "depressing." As I contemplate it, there are two possible reasons for this.
First, as you allude to Kyle, if a non-Christian is watching the movie, there are some major truth-claims made. The major truth-claim is that God became a God-man, came to earth, preached love, and died as a sacrifice for his friends. That would be us. If you are not a Christian, this is a major statement. Most non-Christians have it in their heads that Christianity is about "being good," a list of rule and regulations. On the screen they have seen a forgiving and loving God die for them. This is one heck of a truth claim, and is probably the only time they really heard the heart of the gospel clearly. These people will either accept the accuracy of the truth claim, and be profoundly changed. Or they will reject it using whatever excuse they can.
The second class of people are the "mainline" protestants or "cafeteria" Catholics who have been busy at work making Christianity safe for a liberal society. If the crucifixion is true, as Gibson presents it (as the Bible presents it) that means that God has done something outstanding in the history of the world. Something beyond comprehension. What does that do to the fantasy that all religions are the same or equal in some way? It blows the theory out of the water. In comparison of Christ's actions on the cross, the "be nice" message liberals like to believe is central seems a joke. Christianity isn't about how good they are, what nice people they are, what nice government programs they want. Christianity is about God, and what He has done! We are the sinners and we are not central.
Liberals like to feel like they are hero's. They have such compassion. They have such good intentions. The Passion of Christ shows the true nature of humans, and shows the true hero of the story, God. Therefore we have heard from many critics an outcry! Not enough feel good speeches! Not enough about being nice! Gibson missed the central message of Christianity! Balderdash. These liberal Christians miss the whole point of the movie, and of their religion. We love, not because a wise philosopher once told us to, but because God first loved us. And what greater love is there than to lay down ones life for their friends?
Hi Joe,
You are right, I haven't answered you. Worse yet, I have not even put the thought into the question I really would like to. Let me try and commit to answering it this weekend. Here is the question you posed: "Rick (or anyone else who wants to answer), how do accept the Church's doctrinal judgment in those situations with the knowledge that at the same time those early Christians believed unquestioningly in the Real Presence? Doesn't it seem curious that the Real Presence was not denied until after the Reformation?" undoubtedly this will be a very difficult question to answer, and one that has taunted me from time to time before. I am glad to have the chance to deal with it.
Thank you for correcting me on my most egregious error--calling the Tridentine Mass the Latin Mass. Correction: I went to a mass called the Tridentine Mass that happens to be in Latin.
Those British really are jolly old chaps! How did we ever end up the liberal ones on the judicial activism front?
You are right, I haven't answered you. Worse yet, I have not even put the thought into the question I really would like to. Let me try and commit to answering it this weekend. Here is the question you posed: "Rick (or anyone else who wants to answer), how do accept the Church's doctrinal judgment in those situations with the knowledge that at the same time those early Christians believed unquestioningly in the Real Presence? Doesn't it seem curious that the Real Presence was not denied until after the Reformation?" undoubtedly this will be a very difficult question to answer, and one that has taunted me from time to time before. I am glad to have the chance to deal with it.
Thank you for correcting me on my most egregious error--calling the Tridentine Mass the Latin Mass. Correction: I went to a mass called the Tridentine Mass that happens to be in Latin.
Those British really are jolly old chaps! How did we ever end up the liberal ones on the judicial activism front?
Sunday, February 22, 2004
re: Real Presence [Rick Barry]
Morning Joe and everyone else.
I will respond to those things you said which seem easier to answer now, and try to deal with the more difficult questions later, as they require further study.
First, many of you will be proud of me, since Rachel and I went to a Tridentine Mass this morning (Latin Mass). It was quite fascinating, I look forward to telling you about it sometime Joe.
Anyway, the first thing you said, Joe, that seems plainly incorrect was that transubstantiation is not official church doctrine. I don't know what makes you think that, but the Catechism seems to suggest otherwise. I quote:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (1376)
It seems doctrine to me. Please let me know if I am wrong.
Secondly, you say I dismissed too quickly Jack's invitation to prayer. First of all, I did not mean to dismiss the suggestion at all, but truly wish I did spend more time in prayer about this question and many others. However, one of my problems with the miracle is that it scandalizes the senses. It suggests that God is performing a great miracle, but that he is hiding the work from each of the five senses. This is unprecedented in Biblical history, and to me seems to contradict the nature of God as I understand Him.
Now, Joe, you know that there is natural and revealed law. You say that I will not find physical proof for the existence of God. I refer you to the Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Section 3. Here Saint Thomas provides six proofs of God's existence in from nature. There is plenty of physical proof for God, this seems pretty orthodox. What about the trinity? You are right, this is revealed law, and could only be discovered through God's revelation.
Regardless, there are certain things that can be known about God without revelation, just by honest reflection. Things that have been known by all people at all times. Anyway, I am dancing around my main point: your definition of faith seems to be "mental assent". This, I do not believe, is the proper or traditional definition. I started to research this point, but have too much to do to finish it now. I will get back to you on it.
Regardless, if I present arguments against real presence, suggesting that the concept may contradict the nature of God in some way, then, assuming you believe in a reasonable, coherent God who does not suffer from contradiction, you do have to respond. It is not enough to fall back on faith if there is a contradiction. Indeed, to suggest that the one true faith has at its core a practice that is seemingly contradictory but that God requires us to assent to the practice on "faith" is a weak argument. I know this is not your argument, but it could be read that way. The Christian faith is a reasonable one, God is a reasonable God.
Anyway, third point, Joe you say that it was one sacrifice but that, from God's perspective, Christ is still suffering on the cross. This view requires a certain understanding of time, and God's relation to it, that I am not convinced of. Even so, I will quote Hebrews 9:12. It reads, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." He entered, Joe, once and for all. And you will notice the past tense.
Also Hebrews 10:22--"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." Again, notice the past tense. He HAD offered for all time ONE sacrifice. And then what? He sat down. As he said, "It is finished." Therefore, how can the sacrifice I observed on the alter today be this same sacrifice? The same sacrifice that Chrsit HAD offered before he sat down?
Joe, you say the sacrifice is continual from God's perspective, but even if it is, we are not in God's perspective. We are in our perspective, and it is certainly not continual for us. If it is, how could the author of Hebrews write it in the past tense? Can God take an event that happened 2000 years ago and plant in into different other periods of time? When you said this, it is meaningful for a moment, but as I think about it, the idea seems nonsense. Please expound upon what you believe.
Hope you had a holy and blessed Sunday!
I will respond to those things you said which seem easier to answer now, and try to deal with the more difficult questions later, as they require further study.
First, many of you will be proud of me, since Rachel and I went to a Tridentine Mass this morning (Latin Mass). It was quite fascinating, I look forward to telling you about it sometime Joe.
Anyway, the first thing you said, Joe, that seems plainly incorrect was that transubstantiation is not official church doctrine. I don't know what makes you think that, but the Catechism seems to suggest otherwise. I quote:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (1376)
It seems doctrine to me. Please let me know if I am wrong.
Secondly, you say I dismissed too quickly Jack's invitation to prayer. First of all, I did not mean to dismiss the suggestion at all, but truly wish I did spend more time in prayer about this question and many others. However, one of my problems with the miracle is that it scandalizes the senses. It suggests that God is performing a great miracle, but that he is hiding the work from each of the five senses. This is unprecedented in Biblical history, and to me seems to contradict the nature of God as I understand Him.
Now, Joe, you know that there is natural and revealed law. You say that I will not find physical proof for the existence of God. I refer you to the Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Section 3. Here Saint Thomas provides six proofs of God's existence in from nature. There is plenty of physical proof for God, this seems pretty orthodox. What about the trinity? You are right, this is revealed law, and could only be discovered through God's revelation.
Regardless, there are certain things that can be known about God without revelation, just by honest reflection. Things that have been known by all people at all times. Anyway, I am dancing around my main point: your definition of faith seems to be "mental assent". This, I do not believe, is the proper or traditional definition. I started to research this point, but have too much to do to finish it now. I will get back to you on it.
Regardless, if I present arguments against real presence, suggesting that the concept may contradict the nature of God in some way, then, assuming you believe in a reasonable, coherent God who does not suffer from contradiction, you do have to respond. It is not enough to fall back on faith if there is a contradiction. Indeed, to suggest that the one true faith has at its core a practice that is seemingly contradictory but that God requires us to assent to the practice on "faith" is a weak argument. I know this is not your argument, but it could be read that way. The Christian faith is a reasonable one, God is a reasonable God.
Anyway, third point, Joe you say that it was one sacrifice but that, from God's perspective, Christ is still suffering on the cross. This view requires a certain understanding of time, and God's relation to it, that I am not convinced of. Even so, I will quote Hebrews 9:12. It reads, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." He entered, Joe, once and for all. And you will notice the past tense.
Also Hebrews 10:22--"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." Again, notice the past tense. He HAD offered for all time ONE sacrifice. And then what? He sat down. As he said, "It is finished." Therefore, how can the sacrifice I observed on the alter today be this same sacrifice? The same sacrifice that Chrsit HAD offered before he sat down?
Joe, you say the sacrifice is continual from God's perspective, but even if it is, we are not in God's perspective. We are in our perspective, and it is certainly not continual for us. If it is, how could the author of Hebrews write it in the past tense? Can God take an event that happened 2000 years ago and plant in into different other periods of time? When you said this, it is meaningful for a moment, but as I think about it, the idea seems nonsense. Please expound upon what you believe.
Hope you had a holy and blessed Sunday!
