Before one reads the Puritans, one should first read the Early Church Fathers, including but not limited to St Augustine (recommend first his Tractate on St John, On Nature and Grace, On Baptism Against the Donatists), his teacher St Ambrose, St Cyprian, St Athanasius, St Clement of Alexandria, St Gregory of Nyssa, St John Chrysostom, and St Justin Martyr. Jurgen's 3 volume set, Faith of the Early Fathers is excellent. So is Jimmy Akin's book, Father's Know Best (five stars on amazon) Where they all hold the same belief and you differ, one should pause and consider where one's belief came from. "You need to know the bible" 100% Agree, just not with your interpretation of it. Again, best to read not the puritans but those early Christians, to learn HOW the bible should be understood. *Does one have a proper Eucharist? Is one formal member of this Catholic Church?* _“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”_ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). *Does one believe that the Eucharist IS the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, just as Christ himself says "This IS My Body" ?* _“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”_ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). *Still in the second century .... Does one believe that the bread and wine transform to the flesh and blood of Jesus for our salvation? (By the blessing brought about by the prayer of the priest)* _“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”_ Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
This Papist managed to go from Puritans to the early church and then jumped to the abomination that is the doctrine of "transubstantiation" in the Mass. I'm always amazed how Romanists read their agenda into the early church writings.
As Paul said concerning the Jews, they have a zeal, but it is not according to knowledge. When your doctrine contradicts the plain teachings of the word of God, you should know you are in error.
@@doctor1alex "Where they all hold the same belief and you differ, one should pause and consider where one's belief came from." Alex, you believe Jesus was speaking symbolically only on the Eucharist? Who's fallible interpretation of scripture are you believing in this regards?
@@TruthHasSpoken I read the church fathers (who, by the way, disagreed a lot on a lot of points) and not read them with Romanist tinted glasses. So when they speak of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus, I wholeheartedly consent, without the need to say they are speaking of the modern doctrine of transubstantiation. I believe the spiritual reality of my participation in the flesh and blood of Christ the Lord, rather than turning it into some ritual of the "Mass".. which, by the way, subverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ by teaching that the Mass is a sacrifice in itself which has an additional propitiatory nature - per Canon 3 of the council of Trent.
@@doctor1alex "I read the church fathers (who, by the way, disagreed a lot on a lot of points)" Where they agree and you don't, you should pause. And you won't find one of them teaching a symbolic only Eucharist. They all believed that through the words of consecration ... by a PRIEST ... the bread and wine changed .. .into the Resurrected Christ. "and not read them with Romanist tinted glasses." One can't even read them with protestant colored glasses on the Eucharist. Not one was protestant. Protantantism wouldn't come along for 15 centuries... promulgated by a Catholic Priest named Father Luther. Who disagreed with a Catholic Priest named Zwingli. And they had further disagreement and division with a Catholic lawyer named Calvin. The fruit of Sola ... was immediately, chaos and confusion. "So when they speak of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus, I wholeheartedly consent" Well all the reason to be Catholic. They all believed that the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ. Just as Jesus says: This IS My Body. You should Trust Jesus Christ and his Church ... he promised that he would lead it to ALL Truth. Do you believe he was undependable and lied? Questions: - can you cite ANY of those early Church Fathers who professed an interpretation of scripture on the Eucharist that you hold as true? (yes, no) - name the early Church father and what they said (citation please) "without the need to say they are speaking of the modern doctrine of transubstantiation" Interesting and funny! The Church's articulation of how the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected Christ occurred in the 13th century, some 300 years earlier than the first protestant! So ... protestantism must be a very, very modern idea, not rooted in the first 1,000 plus years of Christianity. Which by the way, is very true. A man-made development with man-made doctrines by fallible men, that should be rejected (Gal 1:8)
