When/ how did Zwingliist symbolism/ memorialism enter mainstream evangelicalism?

John 6 is not a eucharistic passage. But even if it were, it plainly mitigates against your position. Christ defines what he means by "eating" and "drinking" in v. 35.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

As you can clearly see, to "eat" of the bread of life is to come, to believe. Peter confirms that later when, after many had gone away and the rest were questioned about their intention, he responded, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." There, the "eating" is belief in the "words of eternal life."

You see once again that these "difficult" questions are answered by looking at the text of Scripture.

There is nothing "Lord's Supper" about this passage. That is likely why you never heard a message about this topic from there. You probably had a pastor who spent time in the word studying it, and as a result, preached what the text said.

You still face the issue of the metaphors of Scripture that you don't take this way. You still must remember that Jesus called it "bread" and "wine." If he did, who are you to say he was wrong? Even after he talked of it being his blood, he called it "fruit of the vine." If you were sereious about accepting the words of Jesus, that would be good enough for you to leave the "real presence." BUt you aren't serious about the words of Christ.

 

Correct.

To the contrary, yours do not line up with it.

And you should not make the mistake of assuming that your incorrect interpretation of the Scripture is the standard of the truth.

And the fact that the real presence is absurd to you is also irrelevant.

And the answer is the REAL PRESENCE

Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who accept the tradition of men rather than the word of God. You trying to turn it around isn't going to change that fact.

Sadly for you, the realities are opposite to what your posts assert in the first place.

 

It is indeed Eucharistic, and Christ defines what He means by eating and drinking, but not in the way you assert.

Yet, He doesn't stop here. He gets more explicit as the discourse progresses. In fact He doesn't mention eating til later, so it's more correct to say that "coming to Him" is defined as "eating" Him and not the other way around. In v, 51: "I am the bread of life come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

So notice that not only must one "eat" of the bread, but Christ specifically defines the bread as His flesh--not His words--the same flesh that He gives for the life of the world.

He reiterates that in v.53 but adds that one must also drink His blood. But in v. 54, He becomes more explicit and uses the Greek word for "chew or munch" (trogo) and not just the general "eating" (phago) in the preceding verses. And in verse 55 He states that His flesh (the same that He gives for the life of the world and of which we must eat) is "food indeed" and His blood is "drink indeed", and that those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him (v.56).

But that is contradicted by the very passage in which Christ says the bread one must eat (lit: "chew, munch) is His flesh, the very same that He gives for the life of the world. Christ indeed has the words of eternal life, which is why the faithful disciples stayed with Christ even though they did not quite yet know exactly in what way they were to eat His flesh (the same given for the life of the world) or to drink His blood. Dispite not fully yet understanding, they knew what He said was indeed true. At the Last Supper, however, they understood when He said of the bread "This is my body" and the cup "This is my blood".

 

No, I am quite serious about the words of Christ which is why I abandoned the false memorialist tradition. I pray you get serious about Christ's words and do the same.

 

Doubting Thomas,

Great replies, DT. Your exposition of Scripture is much better than I can do (I don't know Greek or other languages extant in Jesus' day).

And the historical record is clear. From the apostolic period, one can look at the next generation (the disciples of the apostles), and the teaching remains consistent about the theology of the Eucharist. One sees that those who denied the Real Presence were heretics (and not just in their Eucharistic theology but in many other areas as well). The Reformation (at least in its Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist types) never denied the Real Presence, although there were differences in how that Real Presence was understood. The complete 'memorialist' position didn't come - generally - until later.

Unfortunately, the 'memorialist' practice seems to be even less than that. My experience as a teenager was that the left-over elements of the Lord's Supper were disposed of in the trash or down the drain when the service ended. Even then, that seemed to me to be incredibly irreverant. I guess I thought that we accorded more honor to the U.S. flag (which is also a symbol), so that when it became worn out, it was to be disposed of with care - either by burying it or burning it privately. But the symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood were treated like so much trash. Even as a teenager that seemed to be so wrong. Maybe that was my first glimmer of understanding about the real nature of the sacrament.

Alexander

 

John 6 is but more evidence of your disregard for the words of Christ, whom you profess to believe. If you believe him, then why not accept what he says? The language of John 6 is not the language of the Communion passages. Furthermore, the eating of John 6 is specifically defined in v. 35 as coming/believing. That is what the passage is talking about. Far from being "good exegesis," your post would fail in any entry level Bible class. It simply fails to read the passage and use the words as the passage does.

If Christ was talking about his literal flesh and blood, then why didn't Peter say "To whom shall we go? You have the flesh of eternal life."

This is a very simple passage and you refuse to believe it. You give an explanation that simply won't fit.

John 6:32-35 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Until you are willing to deal with the words of Scripture apart from your tradition, you will continue to be deceived. This is basic Bible study. It isn't seminary level in the least. All you need to do is read and study with a mind to believe it.

 

What it boils down to is that Memorialist such as Pastor Larry have a faulty view of Christology. They deny that Christ has the power to do what he says by claiming his humanity is incapable of doing something only the divine can do, i.e. be present in multiple places. So, if they wish to be consistant in their argument they will also have to say they are not washed in the blood of Christ, because only the divine could do such a thing, and the blood since it is merely part of his human nature cannot wash anybody clean. They have effectively placed God in a box and told him what he cannot do.

Scripture undenably ascribes to the human nature of Christ properties which it can possess only by its sharing in the divine attribute (Matt 11:27,28:18, Luke 10:22, Unless, of course, you are going to say there are two persons of Christ one human and one divine.

There is a difference between does not and cannot. You should know this, Pr Larry. God in his infinite power is capable of doing anything, but in his perfection he does not lie, sin, or do any evil.

It is very simple, we believe that the Body and blood are physically present with the elements of bread and wine as Jesus has promised, but we cannot do to the limits of human reason understand how, so we do not seek to explain the how.

 

Pastor Larry,

How about we stick to discussion of the different theological understandings of the Holy Communion and leave off the personal attacks?

Your posts contain many 'You' statements - and most (all?) of them appear to be accusatory and derisive. That's not the tone any of us should be taking as we discuss with fellow believers.

Alexander

 

Only if you consider historic orthodoxy faulty. Personally, I don't take that stand.

You start with a faulty assertion. We do believe Christ has the power to do what he say. We simply believe what he says. You read more into than is there. Your position, in effect, denies the incarnation.

The blood of Christ is part of his human nature. God is a spirit. He doesn't have blood. The blood was important because the life was in it. The wages of sin wasn't blood; it was death. The blood of Christ does not literally "wash" us. It pays the penalty of death for our sin. When Christ died, he died as a perfect human, whose infinite righteousness could pay the infinite debt for human sin.

Only if you consider God a box. We simply believe what God has said about himself.

The God-man was clearly unique, and the Logos mediated information to the human. Again, this is common orthodox Christology.

There is a difference between "does not" and "cannot." Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 talk about "cannot." Even the statement about change is an impossibility. If God could change, then he would have to change either for the better (meaning he wans't perfect) or for the worse (meaning he is no longer perfect). Immutability is a necessary attribute of God. Again, this is orthodox theology.

But in this, you have no scriptural proof and certainly no physical proof for it. I could argue that the bread and wine becomes steak and coke. I would have the same amount of scriptural proof and the same amount of physical proof.

Many of the arguments you are making reveal an ignorance of orthodox theology. It reminds me again how important it is that theology become part and parcel of our Christianity. Too many people are looking for experiences only. They never get to the place of learning about God. They never learn to put the pieces of the theological pie together. And they end up with contradictions.

 

I have made no personal attacks. This is a discussion in which we are talking about beliefs that people hold. "You" is a necessary component of addressing the people who hold those beliefs. I have not been accusatory or derisive. I have simply pointed out where people are deficient in either their knowledge of Scripture or their application of it. Both sides do it because it is a part of discussing theology.

 

Pastor Larry,

The following are verbatim statements from your posts:

"BUt you aren't serious about the words of Christ.'

"John 6 is but more evidence of your disregard for the words of Christ, whom you profess to believe.'

". . . . you refuse to believe it."


"Until you are willing to deal with the words of Scripture apart from your tradition, you will continue to be deceived. This is basic Bible study. It isn't seminary level in the least. All you need to do is read and study with a mind to believe it."

To say that a believer is 'not serious about the words of Christ' is itself a serious charge, The statement borders on arrogance and is, I believe - at a minimum, un-Christ-like.

And when you state "your disregard for the words of Christ, whom you profess to believe.' - it is not all unreasonable to understand that as also an ad hominem attack. Again, at a minimum, an unbrotherly way to discuss theology with a fellow believer.

And your advice as how to proceed with Bible study also suggests an air of superiority and a lack of humility in dealing with a fellow believer.

I have no interest in advancing your theology; however, I would only suggest that the tone of these statements is highly unlikely to lead to your desired result result - - - - the serious consideration of your theological beliefs regarding the Eucharist.

Alexander

 

Alexander,

There is no lack of humility in these comments. It grieves my soul to immeasurable depths.

After 7 pages of constant refusal to deal with and believe the words of Scripture, it is hard to sugar coat it. I did not start off that way. I started off, as always, with the assumption that Scripture will be held supreme among those who profess to follow it. It has not been.

The level of theological knowledge in professing Christendom is greatly distressing. It is even more so after the issues have been laid out and the truth has been shown, and still refused to be believed. You have seen the statements of Chemnitz and Thomas, both of whom profess to believe Christ's words, both of whom have been shown what Christ said and what the conclusions of the hearers and the text must be, and both refuse to acknowledge. I can accept, to some degree, a spiritual presence theory, although it is rather meaningless. But there is no way that the Bible can be read legitimately to support a real presence. Christ did not teach such, nor intend that his hearers believe it. Paul did not teach such. And we should not believe such.

With unbelief, we should be gentle and humble, urging faith in the Scriptures. With continued unbelief, we must point out what is at stake, in hopes that stronger words, based in love for the truth and love for the souls of fellow man, will jolt them into the reality of God's word. Those who love the truth can do no less.

But strong words indicate nothing personal, nothing ad hominem, and nothing of anger or spite. It should not be so read.

BTW, I can't help but notice you have not admonished Thomas and Chemnitz. Their posts are filled with the same kind of thing. I have been accused of far worse than I have said. I am not complaining. It doesn't bother me. It does show an inconsistency on your part. It is common when answers flee to turn attention to the person speaking, and that is unfortunate. It should not be done, even by you.

 

But Larry you have repeatedly denied that he has the power to make his body and blood present in Holy Communion. You have also denied that He has the power to wash us clean in His blood by insisting on allegorical interpretation.

My position does not deny the incarnation rather it attributes what it says concerning Christ to both His human nature and His divine nature. When Scripture speaks of Jesus it does not differentiate between the two natures it refers to the one person in which they are found.

Actaully what you are seeing is Nestorianism. The Nestorian heresy so divides and separates the two natures of Christ that they in essence teach there are two persons not one person. Docetist deny the humanity of Christ. If anything the memorialism that Pr Larry is defending over emphasizes the humanity
Never thought I would see the Nestorian heresy in this day and age concidering it was repudiated in 451 A.D, soon after Nestorius began teaching this heresy.

Titus 1:2 2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, - Only states that God never lies it does not state that He cannot.
Hebrews 6:18 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie,
- in context is reference to the oath God took with Abraham
Malachi 3:6 6 "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
- Again only states that God does not change, it does not state that he cannot. To claim that God cannot do something is to say that He lacks all power and deny a basic tenet of Orthodox theology.

These are all nice verses but have absolutely nothing to do with proving the God does not have the power to do what He says with His body and blood.

Oh but I do, I have the very words of Christ. You dismiss them as an absurdity and claim that Christ lacks the power to fulfill what he says, thus negating his divinity.

 

I have neither said nor implied anything about his power with respect to this.

No I haven't. You are confused here, for some reason.

It does differ between the two natures. Christ got tired, hungry, etc. Those are human traits. Christ knew what others were thinking; that is a divine trait. When I say that you deny the incarnation, here is what I mean (as I explained): The incarnation was about localization. The incarnated Christ could not be two places at once. That would deny the incarnation. I don't think you intend that. In fact, I think most errors of theology aren't intended.

Not even close.

You have no clue what I have just said, or what Nestorianism is, if you think I have taught that. What I have said is orthodox theology and has been for all of church history. I have not affirmed two persons in Christ; I have not denied the humanity of Christ. In fact, I am one of the few here intentionally affirming the full deity and the full humanity of Christ.

Ho apsuedos is a statement of characteristic ... HE cannot lie. That is why the translations translate it that way.

Actually, the surety of the promise to Abraham is based on the fact that God cannot lie. Why is that promise good? Because the God who made it cannot lie.

Orthodox theology acknowledges that God's omnipotence deals with proper object of his power. You simply misunderstand that. God cannot do anything at all. Omnipotence does not claim that he can.

The discussion however was not really about what God has power to do. It is about what Christ said.

[/qb]But as we have shown time and again, based on the meaning of the words and the historical understanding of those who sat there and heard him, the words of Christ contradict you.

Not at all. That is not an honest statement from you. I don't dismiss the words as an absurdity. To the contrary, I have argued based on the words alone. It is you that have had to applea to other things, like church history to try to make yoru case. I have claimed nothing with respect to God's power.

Your name calling won't change the facts. Calling me a Nestorian shows that you either don't know what Nestorianism was, or that you don't know what I am saying. I have no idea which it is at this point. I rather think both might be true here.

But again, this discussion will be solved by an appeal to the words of Christ. Christ said it was bread and wine. I say it is bread and wine. It is you who say differently.

 

Nestorius divided up scripture by saying it is only the human nature involved here and only the divine nature involved here because he refused to attribute to the divine nature human acts and suffering. In essence he divided the two natures into two persons.
Which you have done, albeit in reverse, by refusing to allow the divine traits apply to the human nature in Christ "It does differ between the two natures. Christ got tired, hungry, etc. Those are human traits. Christ knew what others were thinking; that is a divine trait. " (Pr. Larry)

The very meaning of omnipotence, "all powerful," implies otherwise.

It is about both because you have said that it is absurd that Christ body and blood can be where Christ says it is, therefore you are denying that Christ can make it so, therefore you have denied him power. Christ also said in plain words, "This is my body." He did not say "this is bread."

They speak more to his perfection rather than a lack of ability or power to do something.

Of course you still haven't answered this question, "Why did Paul warn against profaning the body and blood if it is not present?"

 

Nestorius did not divide up Scripture. HE was accused of separating the person of Christ, in essence.

Christ is indivisible. The union and interaction of his deity and humanity is somewhat of a mystery, but the two natures remained distinct. The divine traits (as you call them) were not always made known to the humanity of Christ. Such as the fact that God is life, never dying. Christ died. At that point, he did not partake of deity in that respect. God knows all things, but Jesus did not know the time of the second coming (Matt 24:36). He did not know who had touched the hem of his garment in another place. He "learned obedience." That is the orthodox teaching on the person of Christ, in a very basic nutshell. You should avail yourself of some of the good theologies out there to increase your understanding so that you will not keep asserting false things about my belief.

Second, with respect to omnipotence, again the study of God's power is a study worth having. He cannot do all things, and omnipotence has never said that he can. Omnipotence is always used by orthodoxy to refer to the "proper objects of God's power." HE cannot cease to be God, and because of his attributes, he cannot sin (for else he would cease to be God). Here again, study of orthodox theology would be of great benefit.

Man, this is getting absurd. The Bible says it was bread. It was bread when he took it. It was bread when he dipped it. It was bread when they ate it.

As I have pointed out, you are extremely inconsistent. You acknowledge that the "this cup" statements do not refer to the cup, but to something else, namely what was in teh cup. You have been shown that the similar metaphors in Scripture do not demand this interpretation of yours. You have been shown that the elements were still bread and wine afterwards. You are simply unwilling, for whatever reason, to leave the teaching of man and abide by Scripture. You have resorted to false accusations that reveal your lack of understanding of orthodox theology.

Don't take it personally. Many are in the same boat. AS I have said many times, the lack of teaching is to blame for this kind of absurdity in theology.

Nope, not if you read the text. But even at that, perfection requires inability. Perfection cannot be less than perfect. If it could, then it would no longer be perfect.

Yes, I have ... several times.

 

You konw, it is funny Matt, the more I think about this, study it, and interact here, the more I become convinced that memorialism is what Scripture teaches. I haven't interacted this much on communion for years, probably since seminary, if even then. But is is remarkable to me that anyone believes otherwise. I cannot find any legitimate reading of the text that supports a non memorialist view. Perhaps that is due to our differences in authority. Who knows ...

But the enlightenment postdated your date for the rise of memorialism by a significant amount. Whatever you might say, I don't think you can say it comes from the enlightenement.

I don't buy any of your arguments. I don't find them well founded at all.