Evidence for God from Science

Catholics view transubstantiation as the greatest of all miracles. Almighty God, who once humbled Himself to become man, now transforms Himself into lifeless, inanimate wafers. “Every consecration, is a miracle, greater by far than any other, really: for God to come into matter and transform it into himself is far greater than His creating that matter in the first place.”[5] “The body and blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.[6] Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.

Although I quite incorrectly attached the name of John Ankerberg to this writing, it was actually written by a man named Mike Gendron ( 30 years a Catholic and now evangelical), who has this particular essay, *and 52 more on Mr. Ankerberg's web site*, ( a portion there of http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?ti ... dolatry%3f ) which I believe to be heresy.

Heresy/Heretic defined as follows ...
noun;
a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

RickD made a statement in regards to the Protestant group not thinking as a Catholic might to the heretical base of this essay, based on the underlined portion of the definition of heresy..

RickD wrote:
But if you're going with that definition of heretic, (as underlined) I think it's only fair to mention that as a protestant, he's not holding an opinion that's at odds with what's generally accepted in Protestantism. At least as far as that article is concerned.

I do not want to paint anyone in to a corner they may not want to be in, but the statement was all inclusive of this particular article, but, I want, in particular, to address this portion of his article, and I wanted to hear what others felt on this topic and the reasons why. I'm not in any way looking to start a debate on any topic other than this portion of the article as written by Gendron above. Please don't take this as an affront to any particular denomination, as it is not. I see his writings as an affront to all believers in Christ, and that is my point.

Do you see this writing as heresy against the church, that being the entire body of, and of Jesus, the leader and Head of the Church: (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23) ?

Yes or no, and why.

ES, just one thing I wanted to mention. In your post, I think you were giving the definition of "heretic", not "heresy". Just thought you might want to clear that up before you continue.

The Heretic writing heresy in a heretical article

EssentialSacrifice wrote:The Heretic writing heresy in a heretical article

Touche!

EssentialSacrifice wrote:The Heretic writing heresy in a heretical article

Don't be too hard on yourself.

I see two possibilities:

1) the article by Gendron is true, and that makes the Catholic Church's Transubstantiation heresy.

2) Gendron is wrong in how he explains Transubstantiation, and therefore, he is misrepresenting Catholicism.

But even if #2 is true, and even going with your underlined definition of heretic, I think it's a stretch to say Gendron is a heretic because he misrepresents Catholic doctrine. But, if we use another definition of heretic, maybe he is.

I guess we could argue the definition of heretic. Is Gendron a heretic according to this definition:

n.
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic
Absolutely!

According to this definition of heretic:

a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
I would say absolutely not.

I can see how he's a heretic according to the Catholic Church. But like I said before, I'm sure Gendron doesn't give a rat's tush if the Catholic Church thinks he's a heretic. He left the Catholic Church.

ES,
I realize as a catholic, that you would be upset about what Gendron wrote. IMO, I think you would be more productive if you could show why he's wrong.

I can see how he's a heretic according to the Catholic Church. But like I said before, I'm sure Gendron doesn't give a rat's tush if the Catholic Church thinks he's a heretic. He left the Catholic Church.

ES,
I realize as a catholic, that you would be upset about what Gendron wrote. IMO, I think you would be more productive if you could show why he's wrong.

As I said in the intro, I do not want this discussion to melt down in to a Catholic v. Protestant discussion.

Please don't take this as an affront to any particular denomination, as it is not. I see his writings as an affront to all believers in Christ, and that is my point.

His writings IMO are heretical because of numerous conditions of what he wrote, none having anything to do with any specific denomination. That being said, I am exceedingly glad He left the Catholic Church. and does not represent me or my church.

I don't give a rat's tush as you put it, if he or anyone else believes in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or not. i do and that's all that matters to me. His opinion on this Eucharistic topic is of absolutely no consequence to me.

What is of consequence to me is his, IMO, abnormal chase on the omniscience of God. a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

a

professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
I would say absolutely not.

If you do not believe in the omnipresence or the ability of God's omnipresence are you a Christian at heart as/of/or a professor of a hollow Christianity. The following excerpt:

Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it (no kidding, it's not true) , this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods. is legitimately a heretical statement disavowing the omnipresence capability of Jesus, who is God and proclaiming it to be a polytheistic (heretical) claim of the Catholic church.

Here he gets to have his metaphorical cake and eat it too when in fact it is he and his writings that, again, disavow the potential of God to be in 1-2-3-thousands, billions, all places in space and time simultaneously. Psalms 139:7-12 Joshua 1:9 1 Corinthians 3:16 and, of course many more ...

and secondly, perhaps ;less persuasively, he is, in the entirety of his article continually driving a wedge between denominations. IMO, this is a terrible thing to do. We have so much in common and so much to live together for that his insinuations of right and wrong are opaque in the light of the omnipresent Jesus. We need to find all the ways possible to unite, not frustrate, thwart reject one another. Heresy may be a (too) strong word here, but IMO, it's effects are heretical in observance of his divisive ecumenical rejections.

ES wrote:
As I said in the intro, I do not want this discussion to melt down in to a Catholic v. Protestant discussion.

I understand, but when there's differing doctrine between two groups, is it possible to keep it from being one group vs the other, at least regarding doctrine?

ES wrote:
Please don't take this as an affront to any particular denomination, as it is not. I see his writings as an affront to all believers in Christ, and that is my point.

Again, if he's correct, it's an affront to nobody. If he's wrong, then it's an affront to the Catholic Church.

ES wrote:
His writings IMO are heretical because of numerous conditions of what he wrote, none having anything to do with any specific denomination. That being said, I am exceedingly glad He left the Catholic Church. and does not represent me or my church.

I think I need some clarification. As I understand it, The Catholic Church doesn't consider itself a "Christian Denomination". The CC considers itself "The Church of Christ", and denominations are only Protestant. So when you refer to "denomination", what specifically are you referring to?

ES wrote:
I don't give a rat's tush as you put it, if he or anyone else believes in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or not. i do and that's all that matters to me. His opinion on this Eucharistic topic is of absolutely no consequence to me.

What is of consequence to me is his, IMO, abnormal chase on the omniscience of God. a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

Understood. Maybe you could explain why you think he's against God's omniscience, as opposed to just against a specific Catholic doctrine. Because I don't see his statements necessarily an affront to omniscience.

ES wrote:
f you do not believe in the omnipresence or the ability of God's omnipresence are you a Christian at heart as/of/or a professor of a hollow Christianity.

Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it (no kidding, it's not true) , this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods. is legitimately a heretical statement disavowing the omnipresence capability of Jesus, who is God and proclaiming it to be a polytheistic (heretical) claim of the Catholic church.

Here he gets to have his metaphorical cake and eat it too when in fact it is he and his writings that, again, disavow the potential of God to be in 1-2-3-thousands, billions, all places in space and time simultaneously. Psalms 139:7-12 Joshua 1:9 1 Corinthians 3:16 and, of course many more ...

I don't see a belief that undermines God's omniscience necessarily follows what he's saying. Let me give an example to hopefully explain what I mean.
I've seen the YEC argument that OECs don't believe in God's omnipotence, because they don't believe God could have created in seven 24 hour days. When the response to that is that OECs don't think God couldn't have created in seven 24 hour days. He just didn't.

ES wrote:
and secondly, perhaps ;less persuasively, he is, in the entirety of his article continually driving a wedge between denominations. IMO, this is a terrible thing to do. We have so much in common and so much to live together for that his insinuations of right and wrong are opaque in the light of the omnipresent Jesus. We need to find all the ways possible to unite, not frustrate, thwart reject one another. Heresy may be a (too) strong word here, but IMO, it's effects are heretical in observance of his divisive ecumenical rejections.

First, let me say that if you believe Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, I applaud you. Because like I said above, I don't think your church teaches that. So, if you are stepping outside your church's teachings for the sake of unity of Christians, I think you have great motives.

But I think the real issue is that Gendron really believes the doctrines of the Catholic Church he's talking about, are wrong/not biblical. And if he's correct, he is correct in speaking out against any false doctrines within Christianity. But if he's wrong, then he needs to be shown why he's wrong. Or in this case, it needs to be shown to those reading the forum, why he's wrong.

Division over doctrine seems like an inevitability, when there's doctrine that one person/group thinks is something essential to salvation, or to God's nature.

I know I gave a lot of responses, but any thoughts?

After reading this:
http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Ro ... _Witnesses

Is seems I may have misunderstood Gendron's motives, slightly.

I mentioned that Gendron was trying to speak out against false doctrine within the Church.

It seems that he believes Catholicism is not within the church. He sees it like JWs and Mormonism.

After looking at these common similarities between Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, it is astonishing to see so many evangelicals embrace Roman Catholi­cism as a Christian denomination. It is more disconcerting to see highly influential evangelicals declaring that Roman Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Surely they would not say the same about Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. These three false religions all have one more characteristic in common—their members are living with a false hope of escaping the coming judgment. We must evangelize Roman Catholics with the same fervor as we do Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.

Don't know why my iPhone is having problems copying and pasting the link. The article is under "C" for "Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses".
http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Ca ... ke_Gendron

Definition: http://www.allaboutgod.com/attributes-of-god.htm (One of multiple source locations)

Omnipresence: This theological term means “always present.” Since God is infinite, His being knows no boundaries. So, clearly He is everywhere. This truth is taught throughout the Bible as the phrase “I am with you always” is repeated 22 times in both the Old and New Testaments. These were even Jesus’ words of assurance just after giving the challenge to His disciples to take His message to the entire world. This is certainly a comforting truth for all who follow Jesus.

I understand, but when there's differing doctrine between two groups, is it possible to keep it from being one group vs the other, at least regarding doctrine?

Is there not then, a universal doctrine to which all may agree. Are you saying everything is in doctrine is challenged, even if shared by both faiths ? Do both faith's not believe in the omnipresence of God ? Does your not, does his not, and if so, how can this be and still consider himself to be Christian ?

Again, if he's correct, it's an affront to nobody.

How can it be an affront to nobody if Christians of all stripes believe in the omnipresence of God ? He has just disavowed the possibility of God being in more than one place at a time.

I

think I need some clarification. As I understand it, The Catholic Church doesn't consider itself a "Christian Denomination". The CC considers itself "The Church of Christ", and denominations are only Protestant. So when you refer to "denomination", what specifically are you referring to?

Call them various faiths then Rick, away from theological definitions... a rose is a rose ... faithfully ... apologies if this confused the topic for you. I meant no distraction.

Maybe you could explain why you think he's against God's omniscience,

Forget about Catholic doctrine. He just said it was not possible for God to be in more than one place at a time without it being polytheistic. The bottom line, whether you're talking about the Eucharist or any other displaced physical element, God is omnipresent and has the capability of occupying, simultaneously, any of an infinite possible locations. He can't, again, have his cake and eat it too. He can't say "God is omnipresent... you know except for those Catholic wafers thingy's". He's 34 years a Catholic, he knows the difference and what he is saying is untruthful and a misrepresentation of another faith's (another convenient interfaith wedge) while calling what he should believe (omnipresence) as unbelievable, except as he sees, it under his conditions, ... not God's... the very definition of heresy.

But if he's wrong, then he needs to be shown why he's wrong. Or in this case, it needs to be shown to those reading the forum, why he's wrong.

Hopefully I just did... if he believes in the omnipresence of God he can't limit it to his areas only where God can be omnipresent, where, in this case he also slanders His omnipresence ability by calling it polytheism which which it obviously isn't unless God is not capable of omnipresence.

Division over doctrine seems like an inevitability, when there's doctrine that one person/group thinks is something essential to salvation, or to God's nature

I see no doctrinal division here... only a man who foolishly believes he knows and is willing to suggest and lead others to believe where God can and cannot be ( possibly effecting their salvation )in his eternal attribute of omnipresence. If you can remove 1 structure of the Holy Attribute of God, where does that end. Salvation is of God, not Mike Gendron's definition of God, which is wholly lacking and IMO heretical because of it's defying the significance of His omnipresence.

Ok ES. I'm seeing, at least for now, you've narrowed it down to omnipresence. And how you think Gendron is claiming God is not omnipresent because he thinks Transubstantiation is wrong.

I'll focus on seeing if I can understand your issue(God's omnipresence) in light of what Gendron is saying. After my initial reading of Gendron's article, I don't see his belief regarding this as a knock on omnipresence. Let me dig a little deeper, to see if I can understand what he's saying. I don't want to misrepresent what he's saying again, like I did when I assumed he believed Catholicism was a Christian denomination.

Let me get back to you, if you don't mind.

Ok, from Gendron's article you linked:

Catholics view transubstantiation as the greatest of all miracles. Almighty God, who once humbled Himself to become man, now transforms Himself into lifeless, inanimate wafers. “Every consecration, is a miracle, greater by far than any other, really: for God to come into matter and transform it into himself is far greater than His creating that matter in the first place.”[5] “The body and blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.[6] Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.

From this, I see no indication that what Gendron is saying, undermines God's omnipresence. There's a difference between God being everywhere(omnipresence), and God transforming himself into a wafer. Gendron is saying that Catholics believe the body and blood is truly, and substantially contained in the Eucharist.

I'm not getting how that equates to a disbelief in omnipresence.

Rick wrote:
I'm seeing, at least for now, you've narrowed it down to omnipresence

ESwrote:
I want, in particular, to address this portion of his article, and I wanted to hear what others felt on this topic and the reasons why. I'm not in any way looking to start a debate on any topic other than this portion of the article:

If you do not believe in the omnipresence or the ability of God's omnipresence are you a Christian at heart as/of/or a professor of a hollow Christianity. The following excerpt:

Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it (no kidding, it's not true) , this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods. is legitimately a heretical statement disavowing the omnipresence capability of Jesus, who is God and proclaiming it to be a polytheistic (heretical) claim of the Catholic church.

Let me get back to you, if you don't mind. Of course Rick, you know I don't mind. Gendron just pissed me off and his modus operandi is incorrect and inappropriate.

Ok, first off, did anyone else have a problem getting on site yesterday afternoon until now I could Google browse anywhere but here and could not figure out what happened. It's great I'm in this a.m.

It seems that he believes Catholicism is not within the church. He sees it like JWs and Mormonism

.

I never even saw this. As you might expect, I reject his conjecture completely and the reason it was even brought to this topic ( polytheism and omnipresence ). It is a complete distraction to the topic at hand and, believe me when I say i would rather follow the faith of 1 billion people who all feel and realize the Catholic faith and it's teachings correctness over 2000 years, than the platitudes of 1 man who seemingly is hard pressed to choose a faith he is willing to follow.

I'm seeing, at least for now, you've narrowed it down to omnipresence.

This has been it from the git-go

And how you think Gendron is claiming God is not omnipresent because he thinks Transubstantiation is wrong.

No, it's that Gendron considers transubstantiation polytheistic because he denies capability of the omnipresence of God. Subtle, but very different. He attacks God, not man's attempt at defining the attributes of transubstantiation.

From this, I see no indication that what Gendron is saying, undermines God's omnipresence.

He says that :
Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.
If he thinks "hundred of Jesus' become physically present at each mass" and further says "this is a form of polytheism... the worship of many gods" (lower case g)... what else is there to think other than the omnipresence capabilities of God have been impuned... ? He can't wrap his head around it so it's wrong and it's ok to vilify the religion who thinks God (upper case G) does have omnipresence abilities.

Almighty God, who once humbled Himself to become man, now transforms Himself into lifeless, inanimate wafers.

This is parsing of words again... God does not transform Himself in to a lifeless wafer, He transubstantiates Himself within a lifeless wafer to become the essence of eternal life. Here's the literal definitions of transform and transubstantiation:

trans form :to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose. (the host does none of this)
transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.

There's a difference between God being everywhere(omnipresence), and God transforming himself into a wafer

Not much... replace the wafer with; an angel of the Lord to Hagar, a burning bush to Moses, a pillar of fire and a cloud to the escaping Hebrews from Egypt , a sound of rushing wind and tongues of fire at the first Pentecost, as a dove at Christ's Baptism in the Jordan, as the lion or the lamb, yes even Jesus Himself, the essential sacrifice for the salvation of men and many more I am sure you are familiar with. If He can be in 2 places at once, then 3 (the Holy Trinity) then why not as many as He deems necessary to fit the time and circumstance of any given event that requires His omnipresence, especially for something as important as the salvation of men in the form of the Eucharist, millions of times a day.

I'm not getting how that equates to a disbelief in omnipresence

I hope you do now. Wisdom, Infinitude, Sovereignty, Holiness, Trinity, Omniscience, Faithfulness, Love, Omnipotence, Self Existence, Self Sufficiency, Justice, Immutability, Mercy, Eternal, Goodness and Gracious. This is the description of the God of the Bible. All other ideas about God are, according to the Bible, false gods. They are from the imagination of men. By learning the attributes of God, you may praise God for who He really is and for how each of His attributes impacts your life in a positive way. Gendron refutes this, only partial, but Holy significant, descriptions of God with his claim of polytheism (many gods) and thereby IMO these writings are heresy. He knows the difference Rick, he simply chooses to pick and define under his mandate of wording and thereby assigns new meaning through his IMO, meaningless conjecture.

2 Peter 2:1-3
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

ps: this is Divine Mercy Sunday and I won't be able to respond, if required, until much later tonight or tomorrow in a.m.