Is it idolatry?

[Walpole]

Because Christ commanded us to use the bread and the wine to remember him. God is TELLING US TO DO THIS.

Because in your hypothetical example it is a man suggesting we venerate an artist's rendering of Jesus. An image of Jesus that is likely inaccurate.

So just to clarify, an image of Jesus as bread and wine is ok and not idolatry?

 

[InTheLight]

So just to clarify, an image of Jesus as bread and wine is ok and not idolatry?

I wouldn't consider the bread and wine as an image of Jesus, I consider them symbolic of what he did for us. Bread = body broken. WIne = blood shed for us.

Obviously partaking in the Lord's Supper is not idolatry!

 

[utilyan]

I wouldn't consider the bread and wine as an image of Jesus, I consider them symbolic of what he did for us. Bread = body broken. WIne = blood shed for us.

Obviously partaking in the Lord's Supper is not idolatry!

Could Paul mean we sincerely are not getting together to eat the Lord's Supper, and if you want "supper" you can go home and eat?

1 Corinthians 11
20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?

If they are not eating lord's supper....what are they eating?

We can hang this all on the wine:


Luke 22

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

After the supper, supper is gone and done.




1 Corinthians 10

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

I'm in the clear if I say "NO its not" right?

 

[Scarlett O.]

New Example --> Your pastor holds up a cracker and juice and says, "This bread and wine is a symbol of our God. Pass it around and treat it with the highest respect. You may even consume it." How is this not idolatry?

Walpole,

Three brief things.

[1] I don't think that you really want an answer. I think you are using the above question to prove that Protestants are flawed or wrong or hypocritical. I don't say that judgingly. I've employed the same questioning technique to do the same thing and I've seen people on every message board I've ever been on do the same thing. People don't always want answers to their questions. They makes statements and prove points and show others at fault. C'est la vie, Walpole. Just saying that to show you have been given good answers and rejected them with no critical reasoning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[2] Your second question changes the whole scope of what you are talking about in your first question. I told you that we as Protestants don't treat the Lord's Supper in the manner that you've stated. You said you didn't care what we did. That told me all I needed to know about your quest here. You came here to "tell us" what we believe and then when we correct you, you stand hip-deep in your error of us and refuse to listen. The contents of the first question is valid. There are some Catholic people who adore, revere, and venerate to the point of kissing and treating as holy mere physical objects. That IS idolatry. The classic definition. And there are probably some Protestant people who do the same things with their objects of religion in their homes. Maybe not kissing them, but putting them in places of "honor".

For Protestants, what we consume just a piece of bread and a plastic cup of grape juice from the grocery store. It's going the way of all things consumed the way that Jesus described it in the Bible when talking about what makes us defiled or not. That cracker and grape juice is no more the body and blood of Christ than a pencil is. It goes in our mouths and comes out of the body as waste - as Jesus said in Matthew 15. We do not respect, venerate, adore, hold as holy, or revere the cracker and the grape juice. You claim that we do venerate it. Your claim is wrong. We are remembering Christ, his death, and his sacrifice for our sins and reflecting on our own sin and repenting of it. We aren't concentrating on that cracker/juice. We focus on Christ who is NOT in the cracker and NOT in the juice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[3] If you REALLY want an answer as to whether or not the Lord's Supper is idolatry or not, you are going to have to seek the Lord, Himself on this matter. Do you really believe Jesus Christ would institute idolatry? It sound like you do as you claim not to understand why it is NOT idolatry.

Jesus Christ had this meal with his disciples before he died to give instructions on how to repeat this AS A MEMORIAL after he was gone. As I told you in my first post on the first page. The Old Testament of FULL of the people forgetting and forgetting and forgetting. And God commanding them to eat the Passover meal to NEVER forget. When you forget what God and Jesus Christ has done for you - you fall prey to the devil.

THAT'S WHAT THE LORD'S SUPPER IS ABOUT. Just like what the Passover meal was and is about. It's about keeping Christ in the forefront of one's mind and to do that corporately with other Christians.

Go to God with this burden you have. And if it is really NOT a burden and you are only trying to make us look like idolaters - I can't help you with that and neither can anyone else here.

 

[Walpole]

I wouldn't consider the bread and wine as an image of Jesus, I consider them symbolic of what he did for us. Bread = body broken. WIne = blood shed for us.

Obviously partaking in the Lord's Supper is not idolatry!

Thanks for the reply and clarification.

 

[MB]

JonC,

Thank you for your reply. That seems logical to me. However, what if I made the following changes to my example...


Original Example --> Your pastor holds up an image of Jesus and says, "This is a symbol of our God. Pass it around and treat it with the highest respect. You may even kiss it."

New Example --> Your pastor holds up a cracker and juice and says, "This bread and wine is a symbol of our God. Pass it around and treat it with the highest respect. You may even consume it."


How is this not idolatry?

An Idol is something that is worshiped. The act of remembering Christ while doing this is our thankfulness for what He did for us. Christ gave His life and underwent despicable torture for us. I believe it is the least we can do. Don't you?

MB

 

[JonC]

You believe the "this" Jesus referred to is simply sharing a meal with someone? In other words, sharing a meal of bread and steak and potatoes with a glass of wine would be fulfilling Jesus' command at the Last Supper?

St. Paul clearly did not think so:

"Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?" - 1 Cor 11:22

No. As I stated, I believe this is spoken of in tge context if a covenant.

Cor 11:22 affirms this was not a gathering to eat a cracker and drink a thimble of wine. It was a meal. The passage you reference evidence this as Paul's prohibition was not the meak itself but the focus of the meal (some ate well, others not so much).

Years ago I brought the subject up to a priest. I said that the practice of communion as practiced by the Catholic Church is borrowed from 1st century Roman paganism. The priest acknowledged this (which surprised me). His explanation was this pagan ritual was purified by the Church when adopted as communion.

I respect the explanation, although I believe the practice wrong. I respected the honesty of the priest most of all.

Scripture does not offer enough information to cover every aspect of the Supper. We know what Christ said (which does not explain it as an ordinance or sacrament). We know it was (in Scripture) a supper. But that's about it.

I suggest the supposed purpose for the Supper influences our interpretation of the elements. All we are told is it is a remembrance. So here Scripture is not dogmatic either.

 

[JonC]

"Later in Scripture ..."

Stop right there, Jon. I want to know between you and Jesus if he says this what does it mean. Let it be as if you read the scriptures up to this point on the gospel.

You haven't gotten to acts,Romans,the epistles, you haven't even gotten to the cross or resurection.


Do you think if someone at the table said this bread isn't actually your body Jesus would have given approval?



And their use of memory of me isn't american memory of me, the jewish makes the moment present. When Jews do the same thing for passover they are actually IN the Passover.. The catholic is AT the Last supper and AT the CROSS.


Like when I hear the words I took it inclusively to mean many things. When he says this is my body, this is who I am. Inclusive to this is the meaning of life, this is my church, this love is what I am, all those present is his body, and that it is all for you.

I can say ultimately anything experience in existence is a communication from God thus "symbolic". They even call it communion, as a covenant he says that is his blood poured out for many.

Is God capable of laying out spiritual mechanics of how things work?

Can God declare eating a particular fruit is what will kill you or is it just symbolic? Can I just declare everything God presents is a illusion that is symobolic to something else.

Don't forget that by this time Jesus has already told the Disciples what was going to occur.

 

[Revmitchell]

Walpole,

Three brief things.

[1] I don't think that you really want an answer. I think you are using the above question to prove that Protestants are flawed or wrong or hypocritical.

Exactly!

 

[Adonia]

Years ago I brought the subject up to a priest. I said that the practice of communion as practiced by the Catholic Church is borrowed from 1st century Roman paganism. The priest acknowledged this (which surprised me). His explanation was this pagan ritual was purified by the Church when adopted as communion.

This is the first I have heard of such a thing. Please explain the 1st century Roman practice that our Holy Communion came from.

Scripture does not offer enough information to cover every aspect of the Supper

Which is why we need to take into account the tradition that was established by the newly emerging Christian Church in the early centuries.

 

[JonC]

This is the first I have heard of such a thing. Please explain the 1st century Roman practice that our Holy Communion came from.

Roman paganism was more a matter of patriotism. Christians were afforded tge opportunity to partake of the host (to eat of the meat and drink of the wine as an act of worship and participation with the god). Rome did not object to Christianity because it worshipped God. It objected because they did not worship their gods.

The pagan worship is very close to the RCC sacraments. The idea was that the gods worked through ritual (or sacrament) as a means.

In and of itself this proves nothing - which is fine as that was not my intention. God does use yhings that are meaningful to the surrounding culture (we can see this in Hebrew vs ANE practice).

Regardless, I think it at least obvious that Roman paganism influenced RCC interpretation of the sacraments. We cannot ignore that over two centuries passed between the early church and the arrival of the RCC.

 

[Adonia]

The pagan worship is very close to the RCC sacraments. The idea was that the gods worked through ritual (or sacrament) as a means.

As did the Jewish religion that gave us the Savior. So which came first, Roman paganism or the Jewish faith? Jesus himself pretty much kept to the Jewish rituals - from circumcision as an infant, going to the Temple or synagogue, respecting the holy days of the Jewish calendar, right on up to the Jewish mode of burial.

Does God work through the sacraments? Of course! They are not evil, they are things the faithful do in their lives, to help them live holy lives.

 

[Alofa Atu]

During the middle of your worship service, if your pastor held up an image of Jesus and said, "This is a symbol of our God. Pass it around and treat it with the highest respect. You may even kiss it."

Would you object?

If so, why?

Yes. An artist's representation, of Jesus, is one thing (not to be worshipped, ever), and 'kissing' it entirely something else (idolatry).

Now read this for addressing the 'Lord's supper'. (It is quite lengthy, but addresses all concerns) - Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated Substantially :P

You will find that Romanism cannot address the points made.

 

[MB]

As did the Jewish religion that gave us the Savior. So which came first, Roman paganism or the Jewish faith? Jesus himself pretty much kept to the Jewish rituals - from circumcision as an infant, going to the Temple or synagogue, respecting the holy days of the Jewish calendar, right on up to the Jewish mode of burial.

Does God work through the sacraments? Of course! They are not evil, they are things the faithful do in their lives, to help them live holy lives.

I fail to see How eating bread and drinking wine helps people live holy lives. Since the only thing really Holy is God. No man on this planet lives a holy life because man certainly isn't holy. To be holy requires perfection and no one is perfect.
MB

 

[JonC]

As did the Jewish religion that gave us the Savior. So which came first, Roman paganism or the Jewish faith? Jesus himself pretty much kept to the Jewish rituals - from circumcision as an infant, going to the Temple or synagogue, respecting the holy days of the Jewish calendar, right on up to the Jewish mode of burial.

Does God work through the sacraments? Of course! They are not evil, they are things the faithful do in their lives, to help them live holy lives.

In a way, there was a type of religion (I believe an original knowledge of God) pre-ANE as we know it. The Hebrew faith occured from within an ANE context. The Christian faith is, of course, derived from a pre-Hebrew faith (Abraham).

The RCC faith is a third century amalgamate of Roman paganism and Christianity. The question people cannot agree on is whether or not this amalgamation is divinely construsted or a corruption of the Christian faith. I believe the latter to be the case (I believe the RCC was born apostate by its very nature).

But a lot depends on authority. If Scripture is the source then there are issues for the RCC. BUT if the RCC is the authority then only it's interpretation of Scripture is applicable and only secondary to the RCC itself.

 

[Walpole]

No. As I stated, I believe this is spoken of in tge context if a covenant.

Cor 11:22 affirms this was not a gathering to eat a cracker and drink a thimble of wine. It was a meal. The passage you reference evidence this as Paul's prohibition was not the meak itself but the focus of the meal (some ate well, others not so much).

Years ago I brought the subject up to a priest. I said that the practice of communion as practiced by the Catholic Church is borrowed from 1st century Roman paganism. The priest acknowledged this (which surprised me). His explanation was this pagan ritual was purified by the Church when adopted as communion.

I respect the explanation, although I believe the practice wrong. I respected the honesty of the priest most of all.

Scripture does not offer enough information to cover every aspect of the Supper. We know what Christ said (which does not explain it as an ordinance or sacrament). We know it was (in Scripture) a supper. But that's about it.

I suggest the supposed purpose for the Supper influences our interpretation of the elements. All we are told is it is a remembrance. So here Scripture is not dogmatic either.

The priest you spoke to had it backwards. Here is St. Justin Martyr, writing in about 155 A.D., describing to the Roman Emperor Antoninus how the pagans were copying the Christian Eucharist.

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body'; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.' Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either or can learn." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66

1 Cor 11:22 dispels the concept that the Eucharist was just a meal. They weren't serving steak and potatoes with a side of Eucharist. For the Apostle tells the Corinthians that they have homes in which to have their meals.

Rather, something deeper happened at the Last Supper, something that originated back in Exodus.

 

[Walpole]

I fail to see How eating bread and drinking wine helps people live holy lives. Since the only thing really Holy is God. No man on this planet lives a holy life because man certainly isn't holy. To be holy requires perfection and no one is perfect.
MB

Perhaps this explains why so many denominations / sects have simply said, "To hell with it." If it's just a symbol and nothing more, what's the point?

 

[Walpole]

Roman paganism was more a matter of patriotism. Christians were afforded tge opportunity to partake of the host (to eat of the meat and drink of the wine as an act of worship and participation with the god). Rome did not object to Christianity because it worshipped God. It objected because they did not worship their gods.

The pagan worship is very close to the RCC sacraments. The idea was that the gods worked through ritual (or sacrament) as a means.

In and of itself this proves nothing - which is fine as that was not my intention. God does use yhings that are meaningful to the surrounding culture (we can see this in Hebrew vs ANE practice).

Regardless, I think it at least obvious that Roman paganism influenced RCC interpretation of the sacraments. We cannot ignore that over two centuries passed between the early church and the arrival of the RCC.

God working through ritual (or sacrament) predates paganism. From the beginning of salvation history, God has used man and matter to convey His message and His will. Do you not believe God was present in a burning bush? That God took the form of a dove? Or that He took the form of a cloud? Or that He was present in a box making its way across the wilderness?

God using matter in salvation history culminates in His ultimate act of taking it on Himself and becoming man.

I think most Protestants view the Eucharist in the same way that Jews and Muslims view the incarnation: God couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't become man.

 

[JonC]

God working through ritual (or sacrament) predates paganism. From the beginning of salvation history, God has used man and matter to convey His message and His will. Do you not believe God was present in a burning bush? That God took the form of a dove? Or that He took the form of a cloud? Or that He was present in a box making its way across the wilderness?

God using matter in salvation history culminates in His ultimate act of taking it on Himself and becoming man.

I think most Protestants view the Eucharist in the same way that Jews and Muslims view the incarnation: God couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't become man.

The ultimate question is authority (and even with agreement here interpretation varies).

The authority for the RCC is the RCC (not Scripture). The authority for Protestants is, generally, Scripture. But then there is still the issue of interpretation.

 

[Walpole]

The ultimate question is authority (and even with agreement here interpretation varies).

The authority for the RCC is the RCC (not Scripture). The authority for Protestants is, generally, Scripture. But then there is still the issue of interpretation.

True, but I am more interested in discussing the topic of the OP. If you would like a discussion on authority, start a thread and I'll join you there.

I'm more interested in understanding how claiming bread and wine symbolize / represents Christ is not idolatry, but having an image of Him is.