Featured Francis Chan, leaning Romanist?

You may be jumping to "Romanist" too fast. The EOC, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and others believe in real presence.
Real presence does not always translate to the Roman view of Transubstantiation. Christ can be really present in the wine and wafer without the wine and wafer becoming the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.
This issue is something that all believers should wrestle with. It doesn't surprise me that Francis Chan is wrestling with this. It does surprise me it has taken this long.

 

I am surprised that Francis Chan is a newcomer to church history. Well, maybe I am not surprised. He seems to be enthralled with pre-Reformation Christianity. One of the foundational truths that came out of the Reformation is not that the Lord's Supper is the focal point of Christian worship, but the supremacy of the Word of God. Except for a few burning wicks, for nearly one thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire, there was a famine for the Word of God. If Chan winds up swimming the Tiber it will be because he has abandoned the authority of the Word.

 

No doubt.
With the way that Chan has vacillated on church function it doesn't surprise me he is jumping all over regarding real presence in communion.
Hopefully he is studying scripture itself on the subject. Also, he/we need to consider if the last supper was a sedir meal or not. If it was a sedir then what Jesus is saying in the supper has a cultural context that helps us understand what he is saying.
Chan is a person I read with a bit of a grain of salt as he tends to like extremes.

 

What sort of background does he have anyway? What seminary did he attend?

 

Ah, that makes sense.

 

Yeah, but I know they're very wary of him, now. He seems to be extremely inclusive with not only Catholicism, but also the New Apostolic Reformation (a cult).



I see nothing but red flags with Francis Chan, especially after defending Mike Bickle (IHOP) and speaking at his conferences.

I also know he's very defensive of Roman Catholics.
Francis Chan Declines to Share the Gospel With Catholic, Says Holy Spirit Doesn’t Want Him To

He also apologized to Catholics at his Church after a guest speaker preached against Catholicism, and refused to allow the speaker to take questions afterward.



I had to research all this because I was at a Church for a short time that promoted him constantly. Bottom line, he's bad news. He's not your typical Master's grad. Don't be fooled by the degree.

 

So he is wrong because he doesnt know his bible. The use of a pulpit can be found in the old testament. There was constant division and issues in the 1st century church and he would know that if he ever read any of Pauls epistles

 

Until reading this thread I had never given much thought to the "Lord's Supper" being miraculously transformed into the actual body & blood of Christ.
BUT, seems to me that this concept is supporting cannibalism & is a direct disobedience to God's command to "--not drink the blood --" in the OT.
I guess this has never been a problem for me simply because I don't believe it.

 

he must have forgotten that we are commanded to give forth the real Gospel. and not just accept the false one of Rome!

 

He seems to see Unity as trumping right doctrines, and he seems to feel that its just the Roman view on the sacraments, or the Baptist view, but there is many positions between strictly physical presence and strictly symbolic!

 

His signature book is Crazy Love, and ironically, he does actually have a crazy view on love. Unity before Truth

 

How about Unity based upon truth?

 

Flashback: The Gospel Coalition council members Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris interviewing John MacAthur protégé Francis Chan:

 

We are living at a time when Protestants and traditional Catholics, while rightly disagreeing on many things, need to get along because of things like Islam and secularism threatening everything that Christian civilization stands for.

John Calvin and Martin Luther, for example, never would have imagined that abortion on demand would be the norm in society.

When Francis Chan says that Protestants need to get back to a more patristic understanding of the Eucharist, does that make him closer to Catholicism or closer to what Luther and Calvin taught?

The Eucharist is Making Francis Chan More Reformed, Not Less

Luther and Calvin's understanding of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist is not the same as Catholic transubstantiation, but they didn't see it as just a symbol either.

What do you think of Francis Chan's claims to have performed healings in Myanmar?

When the Gospel is first preached in places where it's never been heard before, do real miracles still happen?

 

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

Baptists today who say that the Lord's Supper is just a wafer and grape juice and nothing else might not know their Baptist history very well.

Luther and Calvin's understanding of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, as well as that of early Baptists, is not the same as Catholic transubstantiation, but they didn't see it as just a symbol either.

 

The reason why 1 Corinthians 11:27 and the 1689 London Baptist Confession both warn against partaking of the bread and cup unworthily is because they saw it as more than just a symbol. This does not mean, however, that Catholic transubstantiation is true: