ITT We Discuss Theology

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by honeychile

.
. . . It's gotten to the point with MOST Protestant churches that you need to work on a church to church basis. There are certain elements that most hold true (ie: the issues of transfiguation, Calvinism, etc). Most Baptist churches I've attended don't believe in either.

The Gospels according to Mark, Matthew and Luke all include accounts of the transfiguration. (For the last 100 - 150 years at least, Biblical scholarship has recognized that Mark, Matthew and Luke have very close literary resemblances. Probably the dominant -- but not the only -- scholarly view nowadays is that Matthew and Luke each used Mark as a source, sometimes word for word, sometimes with a few changes.) See for example the relevant texts (in English translation) at

http://www.rockhay.org/sermons/texts...figuration.htm

Exactly how a church would interpret / teach about the transfiguration story/stories probably does vary. Some might say "literally true," others, "highly symbolic of ___ (something)_____; probably never really happened ."

Not to mention what individual Christians might believe about it.

I'm surprised that the Baptist churches you've attended don't "believe in" it (in some fashion) but that probably says more about my unfamiliarity with Baptist theology than it does about the actual theology or Biblical interpretation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by exlurker

Gospels according to Mark, Matthew and Luke all include accounts of the transfiguration. . . .

Exactly how a church would interpret / teach about the transfiguration story/stories probably does vary. Some might say "literally true," others, "highly symbolic of ___ (something)_____; probably never really happened ."

Not to mention what individual Christians might believe about it.

I'm surprised that the Baptist churches you've attended don't "believe in" it (in some fashion) but that probably says more about my unfamiliarity with Baptist theology than it does about the actual theology or Biblical interpretation.

When I read that, I wondered if she meant transubstantiation, not transfiguration.

Granted, I don't know of any Protestant churches that believe in transubstantiation (except for some Anglicans who might or not might consider themselves Protestant), but some other groups -- Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and others -- hold views that to some Baptists I know look a lot like transubstantiation.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

When I read that, I wondered if she meant transubstantiation, not transfiguration.

Granted, I don't know of any Protestant churches that believe in transubstantiation (except for some Anglicans who might or not might consider themselves Protestant), but some other groups -- Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and others -- hold views that to some Baptists I know look a lot like transubstantiation.

OOPS! MC, as usual, is right - I meant transubstantiation. I blame the lack of sleep!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

When I read that, I wondered if she meant transubstantiation, not transfiguration.

Granted, I don't know of any Protestant churches that believe in transubstantiation (except for some Anglicans who might or not might consider themselves Protestant), but some other groups -- Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and others -- hold views that to some Baptists I know look a lot like transubstantiation.

For the bolded do you mean the idea of the Real Presence? And you have a incredibly wide range of views in the Anglican Communion, though the 39 Articles do reject transubstantiation. But not all members of the Communion still follow the 39 Articles of Religion.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

For the bolded do you mean the idea of the Real Presence? And you have a incredibly wide range of views in the Anglican Communion, though the 39 Articles do reject transubstantiation. But not all members of the Communion still follow the 39 Articles of Religion.

Yes, that's what I mean. And yes, on this topic, the 39 Articles reflect more of a Reformed understanding.

I think that broadly speaking, one could say that approaches to the Eucharist/Communion/the Lord's Supper fall into two main categories -- a Real Presence category and a memorialist (or Zwinglian or "No Presence") category.

In the memorialist view, the bread and wine are viewed as symbols only and Jesus is considered to be present in a way no different from his presence "whenever two or three are gathered" in his name. In my experience, this is the view shared by most if not all Baptists as well as many other evangelical Protestants.

In the Real Presence view, the consecrated bread and wine are viewed as more than symbols and Christ is believed to be present in a unique way, with communicants truly feeding on his body and blood. Where the groups that hold to some kind of Real Presence belief will differ is in their understanding of exactly what happens to the bread and wine (or how they are more than symbols) and how Christ is uniquely present. Transubstantiation is the way the Roman Catholic Church defines and describes the Real Presence (and many Anglo-Catholics will hold this view as well), while the Lutheran and Presbyterian/Reformed traditions will affirm the Real Presence but not transubstantiation -- they understand the Real Presence differently. But as I said, I have known people who hold to the memorialist view for whom the distinctions between Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed understandings blur and all amount to pretty much the same thing.

The Wiki actually has a good summary-type article about it: Real Presence.