I'm an I'm an Orthodox Christian and uh basically the question I had was directed basically to you and Cliff which is you've talked about your stance on baptism and the Eucharist and how you believe that they're just um basically symbolic outward professions and not as actually efficacious for salvation. And basically my critique uh or my question really is when we look at the extent records of the first, second, third century Christians, all of them say that these are efficacious for salvation that they're not just symbolic that they have an actual edifying effect on the person that receives them. So I guess my question is how can you say that you're following what the Bible says if your interpretation of the Bible is not lining up with the people that directly received the Bible and even compiled the canon of the New Testament.
You know it. If that's true, then what's the history of why so many millions upon millions don't take a specific case? You can argue the same thing about why so many people don't believe in the gospel.
I mean, that's that's just No, no, but who are the people? I want I want you to say the names, the church fathers and who you're referring to on both sides of the fence. Well, there's no both sides cuz we don't have any records of anyone that believes.
So, you're saying it's later with Luther? Not even with Luther because Luther famously said he would rather drink blood with the pope than So, then how did it come about? It came with ol wingling and some of the radical anti- reformers which is like what 500 years ago.
What does it matter the dating? What matters is if we're believing in Christianity as historically the faith that Christ gave to the apostles, you would expect to find any records of first century Christians that lived in the time of the apostles that would believe the beliefs you have. Right, my friend?
During that time period, not everybody thought that literally Jesus was eating his own body and drinking his own blood. Yeah. whenever they took communion.
Not every Christian did. I can promise you historically. You got to check your historical facts on that.
The majority of the church fathers, you're exactly right in terms of what they passed down. Many of them did say that Jesus was actually in the bread and his blood was actually in the wine. There aren't any records of any to make that type of claim is is just that's that's huge stretch.
It's not it's not it's not a stretch because every single one of the early church fathers say that it's actually his body, actually his blood. If you go to 1 Corinthians chapter 11, St. Paul even says that those who didn't examine themselves properly um before taking of partaking of the Lord's supper could die if it's just mere bread and wine.
Why is St. Paul saying it was killing Christians that didn't examine themselves properly before partaking? Why did he say what?
He said that he said because some of you have not examined yourselves and are partaking unworthily. He says some of you are sick and some of you asleep. This is in 1 Corinthians 11 meaning they died.
They died from partaking unworthily. So if it's just mere bread and wine, how why is St. Paul saying it's killing Christians?
Excellent question contextually because people were not doing it in such a way that was obviously worthy and in a worshipful manner towards God. Just like women when they were called to wear head coverings, it wasn't because it was a sexist time period involved being sexist, but it was because of orderliness of worship at the time. Sure.
because of the sex goddess Diana and how they were worshiping Diana. So obviously the Me Too movement and all the great movements that uplifted women came from the Christian worldview. It's pretty hard to say that Christianity is sexist.
Well well nowhere in scripture so again a lot of you your your type of thinking which I really respect. friends as well who will assume your type of thought when it comes to communion. A lot of them will land on this word truth because so many times when it comes to communion it's truly I tell you this truly I tell you that and they'll they'll say God is not a god of deception.
So truly he means it's really his body. I respect that. I really do.
I think that makes a lot of sense. So I don't make a huge deal out of it. But to say transubstantiation in order to be a strong Christian or I hope you would never say saved, you have to actually believe in transubstantiation which is the claim you're making in that's not the I don't believe in this scholastic idea of transubstantiation but I do believe in the real presence and my argument I don't believe that there's presence there.
Well that it's actually his body and his blood. That's transstantiation. No, transubstantiation is the metaphysical idea that the substance goes from being the substance of bread and wine connect.
You could you could believe that you could believe in consubstantiation like Lutheran's belief. You could believe in other metaph what I think is necessary is to believe in the faith of the apostles and they believe that was truly his his body and his blood. That's what all all you don't believe in what the apostles teach on communion specifically that the body is the actual body and the bread, right?
and the blood in the wine, then are you not saved? So I I think you're you're kind of viewing salvation as a one-time thing, which I think in of itself is a Protestant worldview. I think our the petristic understanding of the early Christians was that salvation is union with God.
So it's a it's a process. And part of that based off of works and tradition. Well, what do you mean by works?
You're saying it's a process. Salvation is salvation is a process. Sounds like it works versus a one time decision to lay everything at the foot of the cross and say Jesus I am unworthy.
I need your saving grace. You saved me. When I hear you say process, that makes me very nervous, my friend.
Well, very nervous because now it is becoming a salvation issue. Well, if you seen the writings of St. Paul, he talks about how we were saved.
Yes. He also says you're being saved. And he also said that you will be saved on the last day.
Exactly. Right. So, this is a justification.
It's a past present sanctification. But the the word being used is salvation. and all the but we also have to remember that in the Bible it says by grace you have been saved of course we believe that we believe that we believe that but if we believe that salvation is synergistic which means it's a cooperation of energies there's the energy of God which is grace but then we must also cooperate with the grace of God and be faithful to him right that's why in fact cliffh quoted in Philippians chapter 2 it says work out your salvation during trouble there's a faithfulness in Romans 4 when St.
Paul quotes Genesis and he says that Abraham believed and he was counted him as righteousness. He's quoting Genesis 15:6 which is three chapters after Abraham was already called. He had done stuff.
He was faithful to God. That was how he was able to demonstrate his belief. It wasn't just empty faith.
It wasn't just he came to an altar call, stretched out his hand and said, "I believe. " He expressed it on the cross. The thief on the cross.
Did he express it after years and years and years a process and all of a sudden he was saved? That's a good point. But consider the circumstances.
He was nailed on the cross. There was nothing he could do. It's all circumstantial.
It's all God condescends to what we can do. Jesus is all about just circumstantial. That's all about No, God condescends to what you can do.
Consider the parable of the three servants. Each one was given of course what he could do. One was given one talent.
One was given two, one was given five. The person I would I would never say for instance that an uncontacted Amazonian tribe is going to hell, right? Because God condescends accordance to what they can do, right?
or the person who in on his deathbed says, "I believe in Christ. " I'm not going to say he's going to go to hell because he was a baptized. But for all of us in this room who can, we ought to be faithful.
It says in Markapter 16, "He who believes and is baptized with sin. " So, and and and I also want to preface all of this that my question to you is more epistemological. Like I could offer my own opinion of scripture.
You can offer your own opinion of scripture but we should interpret a text based on the people who wrote it. The people who directly received that writing right the consensus of the people at that time and there isn't anyone we can find in terms of ext. So then you believe in in the infallibility of the council.
Uh are you talking about the ecumenical council? The infallibility of the councils. The council is a very general thing that specific Oh yes.
There's many different councils that have to talk about this very topic that we're talking about. Right. But that that's now go to the councils make these claims and they've changed over time just like Vatican 1 2 and 3.
I don't believe in those and there's no there's no Vatican 3. I don't this conversation breaks down if you don't believe in the councils and you don't believe in the No, I'm not a Catholic. I'm an orthodox Christian.
Orthodox Christian. Okay. But still this conversation right now of the council that you're talking about based off of the church fathers claim and the councils that they had right where they said they this is infallible.
was based off this tradition, right? Connected to scripture, right? There's an internal contradiction because they changed.
No, first off, they didn't change. And second off, the the question I ask for you is you believe in a New Testament. Van 1 and Vatican 2 didn't change.
Why do you keep offering that to me? I believe that those are heretical councils. I'm not a I'm not a Catholic.
Okay. But no, but you're pushing me though on the church fathers. No, I'm pushing you specifically on the Christians in the first and second.
If you can point to me to anyone in the first or second century whose records are preserved cuz I'll grant you that maybe someone had written about it and got destroyed. We don't have any extent records of anyone that's saying what you're saying or what Cliff was saying. It's not at all that said that the Eucharist is symbolic or that bathroom symbolic or that it's a one-time belief.
All of these things you're talking about came out of the blue 500 years ago. So I'm asking you where's the continuity? Where's the historical continuity?
I've looked at all all the historical records that I see, okay, of the earliest Christians, the thousands upon thousands of Jews who became Christian overnight after the resurrection. Everything related to communion, nowhere does it say specifically, they thought the bread was actually Jesus's body. Jesus could have been there with them the night before his death and Jesus was taking part in this communion.
So what that meant was when he stretched out his hand to grab the bread to dip it in the wine, then he was taking a piece of his kneecap, dipping it in some of the blood that perhaps was pouring out of his arm and then eating himself, ingesting himself. That that's a very So a lot of different Protestants would say it's just completely contradictory. But my friends, for you to stand up here and say the earliest, earliest Christians all thought exactly that Jesus was saying body, physical body equates directly to the bread, wine directly to the blood.
I think you don't know what you're what you're really saying right now. I can list for you all. I agree with the church fathers.
Yes, many of them. St. Augustine, you're exactly right.
Justin came like what 400 years after. I'm talking about Justin Martyr, the teachers of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Athanagar, Erynaeus. All of them, none of them line up what you're saying.
And you could, you know, you could go ahead and say, well, those are just people. But I'm asking you, point me for one person, even one person in that time that says the things you believe in. Cuz right now, what's happening is you're interpreting the scripture based on what you think is the case.
Why that's so profoundly dangerous is because in another campus there could be someone else saying the exact opposite of what you're saying based on their own understanding. Rather you should appeal to the context in any text including scripture but any other text. So who's the ultimate authority for you?
For me the ultimate authority the body of Christ the church the same the same church. That's a good question. So now we can get to the council if you want.
No no no I need a straight answer to me now. This is too going on too long from my perspective. Okay.
What's the ultimate authority for you? The ultimate authority is is Christ and his body the church. No, no, no, no.
Yes. What does he mean when you say the church heresy? What does that mean?
Not heresy at all. Huh? What does that mean?
The church. The church has the concrete body. St.
Paul spells out a tripartite hierarchy of authority. There's the bishop. There's the elder or the presitter and there's the deacon.
The the uh conglomeration or the council or all these bishops who receive authority directly from the apostles. That is the body of Christ. That's the head bishop.
The head bishop. Well, in any given region, there's a headbishop. I I don't believe in Okay.
Good to meet you, brother.
