 » Site Navigation | | | | » Online Users: 83 | | 34 members and 49 guests | | asc, biggandyy, Blueridge Believer, Brad, ChristianTrader, christianyouth, Curt, Don, Dwimble, greenbaggins, Grymir, jd.morrison, JohnGill, JTDyck, Marrow Man, MrMerlin777, PuritanBouncer, refbaptdude, ReformedDave, Romans922, satz, shackleton, SolaGratia, toddpedlar | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | | 
11-15-2007, 12:06 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | | Internal Critique of Transubstantiation
Would this work?
Rome's definition of a sacrament contradicts its teaching on transubstantiation. Quote: |
It defines sacrament as "a symbol of a sacred thing" (Thirteenth Session, chapter 3). According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the brad and wine are not signs or symbols of sared things; they are the sacred things...But if they are actually the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, then they cannot be signs of symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and if they are not signs and symbols of the body and blood of Christ, then they are not sacraments by Rome's own definition of a sacrament!
| Mathison, Keith. Given for You, p. 244, 245.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
|
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 PM.
