Francis Chan, the Papist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Can you cite the relevant statement(s) by Ignatius of Antioch?
Courtesy of CARM

"...I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood..." (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7).
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Can you cite the relevant statement(s) by Ignatius of Antioch?

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

While I don't think this is transubstantiation, since we have evidence Ignatius was thinking of substance and accidents, it is strong language.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
And we need to realize that "symbol" means something different for the ancients than it means for us. When we say something is "symbolic," we usually mean "not really real." The ancients meant exactly the opposite. The signum points to and participates in the res.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
Courtesy of CARM

"...I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood..." (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7).

The context of this statement is an admonition against worldliness. He never says anything explicitly about the Eucharist. He is rather pitting a love for the material things of this world (what he styles the "food of corruption") against a love for Christ. Here is the whole statement...

My Love has been crucified, and there is not within me any fire of earthly desire, but only water that lives and speaks in me, and says from within me, ' Come hither to the Father.' I have no pleasure in the food of corruption nor in the pleasures of this material life. I desire God's bread, which is the flesh of Christ, Who is of the seed of David, and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.

This language is perfectly consonant with our Lord's words in John 6, that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood rather than laboring for the "meat which perisheth" (John 6:27). So Ignatius communicates the same sentiment as his Lord and says nothing here that can be construed as giving a clear expression of transubstantiation.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So Ignatius communicates the same sentiment as his Lord and says nothing here that can be construed as giving a clear expression of transubstantiation.

He isn't teaching transubstantiation, but he is teaching a sort of realism in the Eucharist. Every single reader of Ignatius from every tradition has acknowledge that. The above quote is ambiguous but the rest of his theology isn't.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
He isn't teaching transubstantiation, but he is teaching a sort of realism in the Eucharist. Every single reader of Ignatius from every tradition has acknowledge that. The above quote is ambiguous but the rest of his theology isn't.
Exactly. Neither Tridentine transubstantiation nor Zwinglism is present in the Fathers. That’s the problem when people are trained up in mere not-Romanism instead of biblical historical discernment. While pastor Sheffield and others wouldn’t fall prey to Rome’s lures some of us would and have before. :surrender:. I like James White’s line that goes something like ... “I don’t have to turn the Father’s into modern day Reformed Baptists to show they don’t line up with Rome’s teaching the way they claim”
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Exactly. Neither Tridentine transubstantiation nor Zwinglism is present in the Fathers. That’s the problem when people are trained up in mere not-Romanism instead of biblical historical discernment. While pastor Sheffield and others wouldn’t fall prey to Rome’s lures some of us would and have before. :surrender:. I like James White’s line that goes something like ... “I don’t have to turn the Father’s into modern day Reformed Baptists to show they don’t line up with Rome’s teaching the way they claim”

Yeah. A real danger in doing historical theology is to have your method be anything-but-Rome. That lets Rome dominate the church history field. The Fathers aren't us and we need to be careful in making them ruling elders at First Presbyterian Church, Small Town USA. They aren.t They thought in terms of symbols, Platonic metaphysics, etc.
 

Minh

Puritan Board Freshman
Thank God I was stopped before nearly converting to Rome several days after reading its material. Rome love the tool of sophistry in apologetic. It will try to pretend and appear to a historical faith. It will conflate the exact meaning of the word “church” as a college of pastors rather than congregation of believers so that it can claim authority in Rome. And it will poison the well with those who are against it. Let us look to the true congregation founded by Christ 2000 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
This clip from Chan seems to blowing up online. I hope it will alert many to the dangerous trajectory of his doctrine.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was surfing the sites in my feedly and stumbled on the article below posted to Church Militant, which is a news site for traditional Catholics. The article discusses the Chan video at length and also provides some additional commentary by Gavin Ashenden, the CoE Bishop who recently defected to Rome.

One of my concerns is that Chan's remarks will be used as an apologetic tool by Catholics to lure disaffected and rootless protestants into their fold.

At any rate...

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...cal-pastor-preaches-eucharistic-real-presence
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was surfing the sites in my feedly and stumbled on the article below posted to Church Militant, which is a news site for traditional Catholics. The article discusses the Chan video at length and also provides some additional commentary by Gavin Ashenden, the CoE Bishop who recently defected to Rome.

One of my concerns is that Chan's remarks will be used as an apologetic tool by Catholics to lure disaffected and rootless protestants into their fold.

At any rate...

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...cal-pastor-preaches-eucharistic-real-presence
Yes. He’s using their talking points already. “More than 30,000 Protestant denominations” is one of the favorites, although it’s usually claimed to be 40,000. If he does go to Romanism he will take some with him but it sadly shows that he never really understood Grace and his life-saving need for it. It will not end well for him.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
Gavin Ashenden, the CoE Bishop who recently defected to Rome.
What I truly don’t understand is what he thinks he is gaining. In this country Episcopalianism is moribund in part due to its moral bankruptcy but then so is the post-conciliar Church of Rome. They are embracing universalism, deviant sexuality, globalism and environmental religion. Why bother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top