. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[Raphael]

Reformed, meaning some flavor of Calvinist or Presbyterian? And 'happy-clappy', what exactly is that? And one last question, if I may, what is your avatar?

A flavour of Calvinist. Happy-clappy meaning a Charismatic (it's meant as a derogatory term, but my sense of humour likes to apply the label to myself). The Church I go to is a very noisy one. http://www.equipperschurch.com/thames/

My avatar is the logo Spurgeon used for his sermons at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. The motto reads: "We Preach Christ and Him Crucified". I chucked it onto a parchment background.

[Spartacus]

It's meant to be charming. I think you're a great guy. St Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians who ever lived, tried to burn his works as straw toward the end of his life, perhaps on account of an experience of God in Eucharistic devotion. I think the catechism is a good source of catechetical, ie, introductory, theology and I think the section on the Eucharist is particularly good. Notice I quoted it above. Personally, for me, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is indeed of unmeasured importance to my spirituality. Since the days of Flanner O'Connor, a great many Catholic theologians have moved beyond the 'just a symbol' denigration of symbolic sacramental theology. Who is teaching Eucharist or sacramental theology at Notre Dame now? Edward Kilmartin was a truly great professor there at one time but he has gone to be with the Lord, but I see one of his students has completed his draft version of The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology. That would be an excellent introduction into further study of the various Catholic theologies of the Eucharist throughout the history of the Church. Perhaps you will one day become as great of a theologian as him or even Thomas Aquinas and we will all sit at your feet and marvel at the words that come forth from your mouth. I will probably be with Thomas and Edward at that time, but we'll still know and be proud of your accomplishments.

Liturgical studies seems to be the smallest field within the department. I've heard and read a bit of Fagerberg, but my closest encounter with liturgical theology in my class work came through Gary Anderson, an Old Testament scholar. I took his course, Creation and Liturgy, in which we explored, among other things, the way in which certain sources (especially the Priestly source) within the Old Testament portray God as strongly wishing to be present among His people. The creation and dedication of the tabernacle is portrayed and evidently understood as a continuation of God's original act of creation. Anderson sees Catholic sacramental theology as being heir to a strain of Jewish thought, and argues that there are certain passages in the Old Testament (especially those surrounding the nature of the divine presence in the tabernacle and temple) which need to be viewed through a Catholic lens to be properly understood.

[robrecht]

A flavour of Calvinist. Happy-clappy meaning a Charismatic (it's meant as a derogatory term, but my sense of humour likes to apply the label to myself). The Church I go to is a very noisy one. http://www.equipperschurch.com/thames/

My avatar is the logo Spurgeon used for his sermons at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. The motto reads: "We Preach Christ and Him Crucified". I chucked it onto a parchment background.

Interesting. Did you grow up in New Zealand or move there? Seems like a cool place. Do people really play the piano on the beach there?

[Raphael]

Interesting. Did you grow up in New Zealand or move there? Seems like a cool place. Do people really play the piano on the beach there?

Moved here from South Africa. I'm actually in the process of applying for NZ Citizenship.

It is a very cool place, but I have never seen anyone playing the piano on the beach.

[robrecht]

Liturgical studies seems to be the smallest field within the department. I've heard and read a bit of Fagerberg, but my closest encounter with liturgical theology in my class work came through Gary Anderson, an Old Testament scholar. I took his course, Creation and Liturgy, in which we explored, among other things, the way in which certain sources (especially the Priestly source) within the Old Testament portray God as strongly wishing to be present among His people. The creation and dedication of the tabernacle is portrayed and evidently understood as a continuation of God's original act of creation. Anderson sees Catholic sacramental theology as being heir to a strain of Jewish thought, and argues that there are certain passages in the Old Testament (especially those surrounding the nature of the divine presence in the tabernacle and temple) which need to be viewed through a Catholic lens to be properly understood.

Did you have any courses with Gustavo Gutierrez, John Meier, or James C. VanderKam? Are you pursuing further studies there?

[robrecht]

Moved here from South Africa. I'm actually in the process of applying for NZ Citizenship.

It is a very cool place, but I have never seen anyone playing the piano on the beach.

Spreekt u Afrikaans?

[Spartacus]

Did you have any courses with Gustavo Gutierrez, John Meier, or James C. VanderKam? Are you pursuing further studies there?

Gutierrez only teaches rarely (though political theologies are well within my area of interest), and I barely know the names of the other two professors. There's a chance that I might apply for the ECHO or ACE programs or even enroll in the seminary there, but overall, the future is a grand and mysterious thing about which I dare not make plans-- at least not right now.

[robrecht]

Gutierrez only teaches rarely (though political theologies are well within my area of interest), and I barely know the names of the other two professors. There's a chance that I might apply for the ECHO or ACE programs or even enroll in the seminary there, but overall, the future is a grand and mysterious thing about which I dare not make plans-- at least not right now.

Definitely worth getting to know VanderKam and Meier if you are interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the historical study of Jesus.

[Raphael]

Spreekt u Afrikaans?

Ja ek can Afrikaans praat want dit is my twede taal. Maar my Afrikaans is baie sleg omdat ek dit nie gebruik nie sedert ek het gekom in Nieu-Seeland te leef.

It's my second language. To matriculate in South Africa you need to pass two languages. I managed to a C for Afrikaans, but having barely used Afrikaans in the last 7 years it is shockingly bad.

[robrecht]

Ja ek can Afrikaans praat want dit is my twede taal. Maar my Afrikaans is baie sleg omdat ek dit nie gebruik nie sedert ek het gekom in Nieu-Seeland te leef.

It's my second language. To matriculate in South Africa you need to pass two languages. I managed to a C for Afrikaans, but having barely used Afrikaans in the last 7 years it is shockingly bad.

It makes perfect sense to me. Not very different from Dutch, which I also don't speak that well any more. I had foot surgery a couple of years ago and the orthopedic surgeon was from South Africa.

[One Bad Pig]

I do not see it that way. Rather coming to Jesus is the meaning of eating the "bread of life." The bread of life being the metaphor for Jesus. "Eating" the metaphor for coming to Him.
Well if we can better show the differences as to how were are interpreting. Where we understand metaphor and were we do not. And the why of each understanding. I see the "eating" and "drinking" as metaphor for "coming" and "believing" (6:35).

It was all very well for the Israelites if they "came" and "believed" the manna, but if they didn't eat it, they got no sustenance.

From my "baptist" colored glasses, that was the "irregular" church. Not the church. For now, I will paint my bias this way, "baptist" colored glasses. So we can get to the earliest example of the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, in history. (After the NT documents of course.) None of Christ's church is going to hell [Hades/Sheol] (Matthew 16:18). The counterfeits will, of course, perish (Matthew 7:21-23).

So IYO all "baptists" will be saved? Everyone who attends a baptist church will be saved? No one else? Everyone from, say, Constantine until the Reformation is counterfeit and is going to perish? Or can you identify groups in that range who will not? I'm just trying to get a handle on your beliefs here.

It is not just Protestantism (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). There are the counterfeits (2 Corinthians 11:2-4,,13-15).

Way to completely miss my point. I'm not talking about counterfeits. Would you like to try again?

It is my understanding it is as simple as believing in God's Christ (1 John 5:1; John 1:12, 13). God does the saving and does the keeping (John 10:26-29). God knows the difference (v.26).

Let's not open discussion here, shall we? Can we at least agree that God is the final judge?

We believe sacraments are works of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not present, then all we're doing is bad theater (a phrase quoted approvingly by my priest today). If the Holy Spirit is present, then your views might be considered blasphemy.

Well judge according to truth (Mark 3:28-30; 2 John 9).

None of us should deny what we know to be true (1 John 4:1-7; 1 John 5:1, 9-13; John 7:17).

Just like the Pharisees (Jn 9:24)? They were quite certain they knew the truth, too. I've experienced many different flavors of Protestantism, from fundamentalist to "mainline" and charismatic. In some, I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit, at least now and again. Some felt spiritless. If Orthodoxy felt spiritless, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

[37818]

It was all very well for the Israelites if they "came" and "believed" the manna, but if they didn't eat it, they got no sustenance.

You conflate what was real with what is metaphor. Jesus is real, the bread from heaven is metaphor for Jesus. Jesus is not literal bread. Jesus was making a point the manna the Israelites eat was not really the true bread from heaven. Jesus who came from heaven is the true bread (again metaphor). Now explain how you see it as opposed to what I just explained.

So IYO all "baptists" will be saved?

Being "baptist" does not save any one. Just as being an "orthodox" church member does not save. Yet one can be either and be saved. (1 John 5:1. James 1;18.)

Everyone who attends a baptist church will be saved?

In no way. Now the typical requirement for a baptist church membership, is being saved and baptized. So if one is not really saved and is baptized. Being a member of a baptist church on that bases does not make an unsaved person who professes being saved, saved.

No one else?

God does the saving, not any kind of church membership saves anyone. God's saved, are the ones who make up the real church body of Christ on earth. Not the church membership membership.

Everyone from, say, Constantine until the Reformation is counterfeit and is going to perish?

God knows of among them who are His. God saved them. The religious and lost, Christ never knew them. They are the ones who perish. (Matthew 7:21-23.)

Or can you identify groups in that range who will not?

We can identify the ones who have an appearance of being saved. Teaching salvation by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. And ultimately it is God who solely saves and keeps those whom He saves saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your beliefs here.

What the bible teaches.

Way to completely miss my point. I'm not talking about counterfeits. Would you like to try again?

Let's not open discussion here, shall we? Can we at least agree that God is the final judge?

Yes. God is the one who says who is saved and who is not. (Ephesians 2:8-9. 1 John 5:9-12.)

Just like the Pharisees (Jn 9:24)? They were quite certain they knew the truth, too. I've experienced many different flavors of Protestantism, from fundamentalist to "mainline" and charismatic. In some, I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit, at least now and again. Some felt spiritless. If Orthodoxy felt spiritless, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

So we are to go by our feelings? Why not on what God says? Which we seem to disagree on what He says and means.

[Raphael]

It makes perfect sense to me. Not very different from Dutch, which I also don't speak that well any more. I had foot surgery a couple of years ago and the orthopedic surgeon was from South Africa.

When my folks did a trip around Europe, they found that Flemish was the language that was most like Afrikaans when spoken.

[Catholicity]

I'm having a denominational identity crisis at the moment. So I'm attending the 'Merican Baptist Church. Yeah, the more liberals where you're allowed to have a denominational identity crisis. And we don't drink at church but we're happy to have a beer or a cocktail during the week.

[One Bad Pig]

You conflate what was real with what is metaphor. Jesus is real, the bread from heaven is metaphor for Jesus. Jesus is not literal bread. Jesus was making a point the manna the Israelites eat was not really the true bread from heaven. Jesus who came from heaven is the true bread (again metaphor). Now explain how you see it as opposed to what I just explained.

"This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which you ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." Jn. 6:58 How is one act of eating literal and the other not? If Jesus simply meant "believe in me" he didn't need to use figurative language that only confused everyone. This is also in the immediate context of the feeding of the 5,000, which was also literal eating. Yes, Jesus is real. Yes, the "bread from heaven" is metaphor for Jesus. In the mystery of the Eucharist, literal bread becomes Jesus in some sense. Even the Church of the East, which was never under Roman control, believes that.

Being "baptist" does not save any one. Just as being an "orthodox" church member does not save. Yet one can be either and be saved. (1 John 5:1. James 1;18.)

Now the typical requirement for a baptist church membership, is being saved and baptized. So if one is not really saved and is baptized. Being a member of a baptist church on that bases does not make an unsaved person who professes being saved, saved.

God does the saving, not any kind of church membership saves anyone. God's saved, are the ones who make up the real church body of Christ on earth. Not the church membership membership.

God knows of among them who are His. God saved them. The religious and lost, Christ never knew them. They are the ones who perish. (Matthew 7:21-23.)

We agree on something, more or less.

We can identify the ones who have an appearance of being saved.

Which groups or individuals, before the Reformation, have an appearance of being saved?

Teaching salvation by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. And ultimately it is God who solely saves and keeps those whom He saves saved.

I'd rather not get into soteriology here.

What the bible teaches.

More precisely, what you believe the bible teaches. Get four Protestants in a room, and you'll have five different opinions on that. Must you be pedantic?

So we are to go by our feelings? Why not on what God says? Which we seem to disagree on what He says and means.

Christianity is not merely an intellectual exercise. Have you never felt the Spirit? And you're offering a false dichotomy. I should modify my last statement somewhat, however; If Orthodoxy felt spiritless, I never would have converted.