Church history and Evangelical Protestantism

[Matt Black]

Thanks for your clarification of your position on Nicaea etc, Eric.

You may be surprised to know that I too adopt a via media on the RP issue, namely that I eschew a physical Real Presence (per Catholicism) in favour of a spiritual RP, (per Calvin, Cranmer, the Anglican 30 arts, the Presbyterian Westminster confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Methodist 25 arts etc...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

No, just that the particular language used for it in the councils was not perfect, and not passed down from the Apostles.
I go along with that to, but that apparently the Spirit did not inspire absolute perfection in rverything they said, was was done with the scriptures. The basic truth underlying their statements was maintained, and as you pointed out, it was more about what Christ was not.

Just because the language decided upon was not the exact same as that used by the apostles doesn't mean it was incorrect, the shortcomings of all human language not withstanding. I think we can agree on this as well as the fact that the "basic truth underlying their statements was maintained". Arriving at these formulations was a process, but I believe that the Holy Spirit guided this process, steering the church between opposite heretical extremes (just as the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the process leading up to the fixing of the limits of the canon in the late fourth century/early fifth century)

Again, I believe that the middle position was that the presence was really in us, not in the elements.

Historically and biblically, I submit, the "real presence" is not either/or, "us" or the "elements", but both. As Paul brings both ideas together in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread and one body for we partake of that one bread." So Paul ties together the facts of the bread being the body of Christ and the church being the body of Christ by our communion with (partaking of) Christ in the Lord's Supper.

The middle position, therefore, regarding the elements themselves has been between a carnal, gross literalism on one hand, and a merely metaphorical "real absence" on the other. As the Fathers have consistently said, we really partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, but in a heavenly (or spiritual) manner under the forms/figures/symbols (in its original sense of making present the reality it signifies) of bread and wine.

 

[Eric B]

Just because the language decided upon was not the exact same as that used by the apostles doesn't mean it was incorrect, the shortcomings of all human language not withstanding. I think we can agree on this as well as the fact that the "basic truth underlying their statements was maintained". Arriving at these formulations was a process, but I believe that the Holy Spirit guided this process, steering the church between opposite heretical extremes (just as the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the process leading up to the fixing of the limits of the canon in the late fourth century/early fifth century)

I didn't say "incorrect"; but just not infallible in the sense we say scripture is infallible. Else, we should consider the Fathers and creeds apart of scripture.

Historically and biblically, I submit, the "real presence" is not either/or, "us" or the "elements", but both. As Paul brings both ideas together in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread and one body for we partake of that one bread." So Paul ties together the facts of the bread being the body of Christ and the church being the body of Christ by our communion with (partaking of) Christ in the Lord's Supper.

The middle position, therefore, regarding the elements themselves has been between a carnal, gross literalism on one hand, and a merely metaphorical "real absence" on the other. As the Fathers have consistently said, we really partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, but in a heavenly (or spiritual) manner under the forms/figures/symbols (in its original sense of making present the reality it signifies) of bread and wine.

And it says there that WE are "the bread" as well as the body. It is all metaphorical or spiritual, and Spirit does not occupy space or objects, but people (souls). But metaphorical does not mean "real absence", because again, if Christ in in us, how can He be "absent" as if his "presence" would lie solely in the bread, and be nonexistent otherwise. (this is a misdirection of focus, and leads to the very "carnal gross literalism" and virtual idolatry (terrified of dropping it, or even crumbs, as in the RCC) you disclaim. The point of the whole thing is the togetherness in eating. ("koinonia" means "participation or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction" and is also translated "—(to) communicate, distribution, fellowship") And again, this was first uttered when He was there with them in His body.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, your words are based on your interpretation of those Scriptures; they are not 'the plain meaning' for if such plain meaning existed then there would be no disagreement as to it (although you don't get much plainer than "This is My Body, this is My Blood").

And when Christ is holding up bread, and when he calls it "fruit of the vine," only those driven by an agenda can miss it. The memorialistic view is patently obvious in Scripture.

Your argument has been tried for considerably fewer centuries than mine (approximately 5), by a minority of Christians in time and space, and is based on an incorrect Zwingliist interpretation of those and other Scriptures.

The view I hold is the view of hte early church as given by the apostles and Christ. It is your view that is newer, and it is your view that cannot exegete the Scriptures with integrity. Why do you think Paul said it was a "remembrance" if it wasn't? Every Scripture you have tried to cite has been clearly answered for centuries.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

But seriously, folks...

And when Christ is holding up bread, and when he calls it "fruit of the vine," only those driven by an agenda can miss it. The memorialistic view is patently obvious in Scripture.

The view I hold is the view of hte early church as given by the apostles and Christ. It is your view that is newer, and it is your view that cannot exegete the Scriptures with integrity. Why do you think Paul said it was a "remembrance" if it wasn't? Every Scripture you have tried to cite has been clearly answered for centuries.

Scripture uses the word rendered "in remembrance" also in Hebrews 10:3 as well as in Leviticus 24:7 and Numbers 10:10 (LXX) to refer to memorial sacrifices. 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:27-29 are pretty explicit to those without an agenda. If the memorialistic view is patently obvious in Scripture, it is shocking that nobody but Gnostics saw it there for 1000 years. You claim to hold the view of the early church as given by the apostles and Christ, yet contradict the thoroughly documented view of the early church (and the apostles and Christ, according to the apostles' own students).

 

[Pastor Larry]

As you should know, if you don't already, the church fathers are all over the book on everything. You can prove anything from teh church fathers. Second, memorial sacrifices were just that, memorial.

I agree that 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-29 are explicit. I am not sure why you would bring that up since it doesn't support you. They teach us that the memorial is all about our sharing in the work of Christ.

To say that no one but Gnostics saw it there for 1000 years is simply incorrect.

Finally, the Bible says what it does. The years that you refer to are years in which the Bible was not widely available, and when the Bible was restored to the hands of people, doctrines began to be revived that had been hidden for years by the institutional churches.

 

[Eric B]

Als, a very important point to add is that the sacrifices to which those scriptures refer did not have any spiritual "presence" in them, and did not even save. They simply pointed forward to Christ, just like our Communion points backward to Him. Hnce, they both are "memorials"/"remembrances", and this all the more proves what we are saying!

 

[Matt Black]

And when Christ is holding up bread, and when he calls it "fruit of the vine," only those driven by an agenda can miss it. The memorialistic view is patently obvious in Scripture.

The view I hold is the view of hte early church as given by the apostles and Christ. It is your view that is newer, and it is your view that cannot exegete the Scriptures with integrity. Why do you think Paul said it was a "remembrance" if it wasn't? Every Scripture you have tried to cite has been clearly answered for centuries.

You have failed to show (a) that the memorialistic view is 'patently obvious' in Scripture or (b) that it was the view of the Early Church or (c) that you understand what anamnensis means. I am sorry to say that it is yours which is the failed exegesis

 

[Pastor Larry]

You have failed to show (a) that the memorialistic view is 'patently obvious' in Scripture or (b) that it was the view of the Early Church or (c) that you understand what anamnensis means. I am sorry to say that it is yours which is the failed exegesis

Have I really failed? Or has your bias and presupposition merely come through? Isn't it obvious that the latter is the case?

On question 1, when Paul calls it a "remembrance," that is patently obvious proof that it was a "remembrance."

On question 2, when Paul calls it a "remembrance," he established the position of the early church.

On question 3, it is hard to know exactly how you are using the word. It is a word that the dictionaries do not have so far as I can tell. It is a word that does not arise often in discussions of communion, so far as I can tell. It may be a word that you have mistaken for anamnesis, which talks of recalling to mind.

But to the main point of the issue here. Calvin's position on spiritual presence is the position most commonly held by protestants. It is a position that draws heavily on the "means of grace" idea which I have difficulty finding in Scripture. However, I would be tolerant of Calvin's position on this issue.

But the Bible seems to make very clear that communion is a memorial, and I find no reason to dispute that. Your argument that church history believed a certain thing is hardly authoritative since 1) church history is notoriously full of conflicting opinions including wrong ones, and 2) church history was not given for authoritative guidance to the church. If you believe that you receive Christ somehow through the elements, the burden of proof is on you. You will have no Scripture from which to argue your point because that idea is never found in Scripture.

In Scripture, communion is a testimony, a sharing, in the work of Christ. It is a "remembrance." If you dispute that, then you have to tell us why God inspired Paul to call it that.

 

[Matt Black]

Again, all you are offering is your interpretation of Scripture; doubtless to your ownmind your interpretation is very clear indeed. And anamnensis and anamnesis are alternate spellings for the same thing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, all you are offering is your interpretation of Scripture;

All you are doing is disputing with your own opinion. You have yet to say why Paul called it a remembrance, if it isn't. You have yet to address any substantive theological point, that I have seen. I believe this happened in our last conversation about this, as well.

It is hard to imagine how it could be any clearer. It's hardly interpretation to say that "remembrance" means "remembrance." I have given a clear explanation of the passages involved. I have discussed the actual words used. All you have done is say "I disagree." I do not find that compelling.

"That's just your interpretation" is the first refuge of people without answers. It means "I can't really dispute you by showing the words mean something else, so I will just blame it on you."

And anamnensis and anamnesis are alternate spellings for the same thing.

The dictionaries do not seem to recognize that, so far as I can tell. But again, that is hardly relevant.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't dispute that Paul calls it a remembrance. That's not the issue. I do dispute that that is all he calls it; he also calls it a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ - that's the bit you conveniently ignore, along with Jesus' 'plain' words, upon which you seek to place your own spin involving mental and linguistic gymnastics.

Your position is at odds with the historic Christian position, including that of the historic Baptists.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I do dispute that that is all he calls it;

I never said that's all he calls it.

he also calls it a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ - that's the bit you conveniently ignore, along with Jesus' 'plain' words, upon which you seek to place your own spin involving mental and linguistic gymnastics.

I think it is participation in the body and blood of Christ. I think Jesus' plain words were just that ... very plain. If I hold up a piece of bread and say "This is my body," what will you think normally? It won't be literally body, I can assure you, unless you are wierder than I think .

When Paul calls it a participation, he is contrasting it with pagan meals. What were the pagans doing at their meals? Literally or spiritually receiving their gods? Of course not. That is absurd on its face. So Paul's point is that just as pagan meals show their association (koinonia) with their pagan gods, so the bread and cup show our participation in the sacrifice of Christ.

Again, I repeat, this is really very simple. We just need to read the words and the context without any mystical presuppositions about what it means.

Your position is at odds with the historic Christian position, including that of the historic Baptists.

Not necesssarily, but irrelevant in any case. Scripture is the determiner of theology.

Again, why did Paul call it a remembrance if it wasn't? That seems strange to me.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The point of the whole thing is the togetherness in eating. ("koinonia" means "participation or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction" and is also translated "—(to) communicate, distribution, fellowship")

You're begging the question and ignoring the plain grammatical context by reducing the "point of the whole thing" to "togetherness in eating". Indeed koinonia means: "communion, communicate, distribution, fellowship, partaking", but what is it in this passage that's being "communed with", "communicated", "distributed", "fellowshiped with", or "partaken of"? Paul is clear: "communion of the blood of Christ" and "communion of the body of Christ. So grammatically it's the body and blood of Christ that's being "partaken of" and "shared in" and "communed with" and "communicated" and "having fellowship in/with". And what specifically does he say is the "communion of the blood of Christ" and the "communion of the body of Christ"--some abstract "togetherness"? Nope, while there is a "togetherness" involved, Paul is very specific: "The CUP of blessing which we bless, is IT not the communion of the blood of Christ? The BREAD which we break, is IT not the communion of the body of Christ?" So grammatically, Paul is specifically identifying the "cup" and "bread" (and not "togetherness" per se) as the "communion of the blood and body of Christ". Only by ignoring the clear grammatical structure of the passage can one make Paul out to be saying otherwise.

It is all metaphorical or spiritual

What is metaphorical--the cup? the bread? Are you suggesting that Paul was using these terms metaphorically and was not referring to an actual cup and an actually loaf of bread--that they were not really partaking of a literal cup or a literal loaf of bread? Again, context says otherwise--Paul refers back (1 Cor 11:23-26) to the literal cup and literal bread that Christ identified at the Last Supper as His blood and body (unless you are suggesting Christ really did not have a literal cup or loaf of bread at the Last Supper and was merely using these phrases metaphorically to suggest "togetherness" :smilewinkgrin: ). So Paul is saying that the same cup and bread (which were literal) that Christ Himself identified as His Blood and Body (not as "togetherness") is indeed THE communion of the Blood and Body of Christ.

IAnd it says there that WE are "the bread" as well as the body

It says we are "one bread and one body for we all partake of that one bread." That "one bread" we partake of is referring back to verse 16 and is referring to the literal loaf of bread that they broke, the same bread he identified as being "the communion of the body of Christ". So, the logical structure of the passage is that we are "one bread and one body" because we partake of the literal bread at the Lord's Supper which is the "communion of the body of Christ" Himself.

And again, this was first uttered when He was there with them in His body.

Another red herring. The same disciples who witnessed Christ change the water into wine and who multiplied the loaves and fish (from an original fixed number of 5 and 2 respectively) certainly could accept by faith that Christ could indeed do what He said and communicate to them His body and blood under the forms of bread and wine while being physically present in from of them. After all, Christ had clearly told them earlier that His flesh was food indeed and His blood drink indeed--the same flesh that He was giving for the life of the world (unless you suppose Christ literally didn't do that either)--and that they must eat (lit: crunch, chew) His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life (John 6). Likewise, there is no problem confessing Christ to be physically present in Heaven while being able to communicate His body and blood to us today in like manner.

But metaphorical does not mean "real absence", because again, if Christ in in us, how can He be "absent" as if his "presence" would lie solely in the bread, and be nonexistent otherwise

But you're proposing a false dichotomy that neither the Scriptures nor the fathers subscribed to. No one is claiming that Christ is "solely" in the bread, but that His presence in the bread is a unique and special presence. (It's not an either/or proposition). Christ's presense in the bread and wine is an actual specific communion of His body and blood with us distinct from His omnipresence as God. This is somewhat analogous to God' special, "local" 'Shekinah' presence in the temple without diminishing His omnipresence.

 

[Eric B]

You're begging the question and ignoring the plain grammatical context by reducing the "point of the whole thing" to "togetherness in eating". Indeed koinonia means: "communion, communicate, distribution, fellowship, partaking", but what is it in this passage that's being "communed with", "communicated", "distributed", "fellowshiped with", or "partaken of"? Paul is clear: "communion of the blood of Christ" and "communion of the body of Christ. So grammatically it's the body and blood of Christ that's being "partaken of" and "shared in" and "communed with" and "communicated" and "having fellowship in/with". And what specifically does he say is the "communion of the blood of Christ" and the "communion of the body of Christ"--some abstract "togetherness"? Nope, while there is a "togetherness" involved, Paul is very specific: "The CUP of blessing which we bless, is IT not the communion of the blood of Christ? The BREAD which we break, is IT not the communion of the body of Christ?" So grammatically, Paul is specifically identifying the "cup" and "bread" (and not "togetherness" per se) as the "communion of the blood and body of Christ". Only by ignoring the clear grammatical structure of the passage can one make Paul out to be saying otherwise.

What is metaphorical--the cup? the bread? Are you suggesting that Paul was using these terms metaphorically and was not referring to an actual cup and an actually loaf of bread--that they were not really partaking of a literal cup or a literal loaf of bread? Again, context says otherwise--Paul refers back (1 Cor 11:23-26) to the literal cup and literal bread that Christ identified at the Last Supper as His blood and body (unless you are suggesting Christ really did not have a literal cup or loaf of bread at the Last Supper and was merely using these phrases metaphorically to suggest "togetherness" :smilewinkgrin: ). So Paul is saying that the same cup and bread (which were literal) that Christ Himself identified as His Blood and Body (not as "togetherness") is indeed THE communion of the Blood and Body of Christ.

It says we are "one bread and one body for we all partake of that one bread." That "one bread" we partake of is referring back to verse 16 and is referring to the literal loaf of bread that they broke, the same bread he identified as being "the communion of the body of Christ". So, the logical structure of the passage is that we are "one bread and one body" because we partake of the literal bread at the Lord's Supper which is the "communion of the body of Christ" Himself.

After all, Christ had clearly told them earlier that His flesh was food indeed and His blood drink indeed--the same flesh that He was giving for the life of the world (unless you suppose Christ literally didn't do that either)--and that they must eat (lit: crunch, chew) His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life (John 6).

Christ called Himself "the Bread of Life" in that passage, and a Communion Supper was not even in the picture at that time. We must keep this in context! This shows that the "bread" and even the "crunching" was not literal, but simply meant being a part of (partaking in) Him, and this was spiritual. The bread of Communion would point back to this, just as the manna of the OT pointed forward to it (Now you don't say He was "present" in that also, do you?) So the bread at the last Supper, and reiterated by Paul was literal, but as the 'flesh of Christ', it is metaphorical. That is simple.

Another red herring. The same disciples who witnessed Christ change the water into wine and who multiplied the loaves and fish (from an original fixed number of 5 and 2 respectively) certainly could accept by faith that Christ could indeed do what He said and communicate to them His body and blood under the forms of bread and wine while being physically present in from of them. Likewise, there is no problem confessing Christ to be physically present in Heaven while being able to communicate His body and blood to us today in like manner.

"certainly could"? That is pure conjecture. Where does it say that they believed all of this? "Under" the forms? "what He said"? So they were sitting there exercising all this "faith", and I imagine it was pretty hard for them, right? (they could at least see the wine and fish).
Where is all of this? You're just reading later Church views back into it, presupposing that it had any more meaning than a metaphor; and you would be better off with the "carnal literalism" of the RCC if you are so insistant that the bread He was holding up in person was still literally Himself.

But you're proposing a false dichotomy that neither the Scriptures nor the fathers subscribed to. No one is claiming that Christ is "solely" in the bread,

You do just that when you snidely call our view "real absence" just because we say it is not in the Bread.

but that His presence in the bread is a unique and special presence. (It's not an either/or proposition).

And the only such "special presence" discussed in the Bible is His presence in His people.

Christ's presense in the bread and wine is an actual specific communion of His body and blood with us distinct from His omnipresence as God. This is somewhat analogous to God' special, "local" 'Shekinah' presence in the temple without diminishing His omnipresence.

But I wasn't talking about "omipresence". Even though God is omnipresent, we still do not say His presence is "in" everything like He indwells believers (i.e. the "special presence").
To put some kind of "presence" in the bread is to completely misfocus on the spiritual reality of communion. Just like the disciples who misunderstood Christ's parable about "leaven", and similarly "argued over bread".

 

[Matt Black]

I never said that's all he calls it.

Then what else does Paul call it; what else is it?

I think it is participation in the body and blood of Christ. I think Jesus' plain words were just that ... very plain. If I hold up a piece of bread and say "This is my body," what will you think normally? It won't be literally body, I can assure you, unless you are wierder than I think .

No, I'd think you were weird to say that; but that's the point - I wouldn't believe that the bread was your body and if you made that claim then I'd say you were certifiable. However, Jesus did make that claim - both at the Last Supper and the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 - and His disciples didn't lock him up (although some abandoned Him as a consequence in Jn 6); maybe it was something to do with Him raising people from the dead, healing the sick, feeding the 5000 etc. When you've done a bit of that, I guess people take you a bit more seriously...

When Paul calls it a participation, he is contrasting it with pagan meals. What were the pagans doing at their meals? Literally or spiritually receiving their gods? Of course not. That is absurd on its face. So Paul's point is that just as pagan meals show their association (koinonia) with their pagan gods, so the bread and cup show our participation in the sacrifice of Christ.

Again, your interpretation, your eisegesis of the text. It may be correct, who knows?

Again, I repeat, this is really very simple. We just need to read the words and the context without any mystical presuppositions about what it means.

All well and good in theory, but that's exactly what you were doing in the above paragraph - reading your own presuppositions about pagan meals etc into Paul's words.

Not necesssarily, but irrelevant in any case. Scripture is the determiner of theology.

No, the correct interpretation of Scripture is the determiner, and the common opinion of Christians from very different places in geography and history is highly relevant in assisting us to determine that.

Again, why did Paul call it a remembrance if it wasn't? That seems strange to me.

I never said he didn't, just that he said it's more than just a remembrance; why do you keep referring to this straw man?

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I'd think you were weird to say that; but that's the point - I wouldn't believe that the bread was your body and if you made that claim then I'd say you were certifiable. However, Jesus did make that claim - both at the Last Supper and the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 - and His disciples didn't lock him up (although some abandoned Him as a consequence in Jn 6); maybe it was something to do with Him raising people from the dead, healing the sick, feeding the 5000 etc. When you've done a bit of that, I guess people take you a bit more seriously...

Or perhaps they understood exactly what he meant, and you, affected by years of listening to the wrong people have twisted it to mean something else. I think when you read those passages, it is patently obvious what he meant. And the disciples give us evidence of it by their reaction. When he said he was the bread of life, he expressly interpreted it in terms of coming and believing, not in terms of physical eating. He disciples, committed to him, upon hearing this statement did not attempt to eat him physically. Why? Because they understood what he was saying.

Again, your interpretation, your eisegesis of the text. It may be correct, who knows?

It’s called exegesis, not eisegesis. Exegesis is “reading out” what is already there. In the text, Paul compares communion to the pagan feasts. Were the pagans trying to ingest their gods? Or were they celebrating them and expressing devotion? Isn’t it clear that the latter is the answer? On what basis would you possibly suggest something else?

Furthermore, when Jesus asked if they would leave, they said No, you have the words of eternal life. That again is evidence of their understanding him just as I have. And you haven't.

reading your own presuppositions about pagan meals etc into Paul's words.

Really?? And you know that how? Studying the text and relevant literature enables one not to read presuppositions in. And that is what I have done … studied. It is telling that your best argument so far has had nothing to do with the text but rather consists of “That’s just what you say.” Until you give us a better option based on the text, your argument is revealed as exceedingly weak. And I think if you had a better argument, you would have offered it by now.

No, the correct interpretation of Scripture is the determiner, and the common opinion of Christians from very different places in geography and history is highly relevant in assisting us to determine that.

No, Scripture is the determiner. Right interpretation is necessarily to determine what should be believed. But authority does not rest in the interpreter, but in the text. Furthermore, “common opinion” is simply that. Common opinion through church history has consisted of numerous things, including baptismal regeneration, doubts about the deity of Christ, etc. At any one time in church history, heresies abounded as “common opinion.” We must reject all of them in favor of right doctrine.

I never said he didn't, just that he said it's more than just a remembrance; why do you keep referring to this straw man?

Because it is not a straw man. It is the point. He calls it a remembrance. Scripture never calls it any thing else. Scripture never gives it any “real presence” theory. That is all read in from outside the text. And that is my issue. The fact that this discussion centers on church history is evidence that it cannot be supported from the text. It can only be supported by church history. And that is a problem.

 

[Matt Black]

It would appear that you are reading a very different Bible from the one on my desk, then...I don't propose to engage with your points further unless and until you are prepared to drop the patronising and faintly insulting tone of your posts; until then this discussion is pointless and amounts to little more than a proof-text dual and a dialogue of the deaf

 

[Pastor Larry]

It would appear that you are reading a very different Bible from the one on my desk, then

I am not sure what you are using. I typically use the New American Standard Bible, 95 Update, for preaching and teaching. However, I regularly consult about six English translations, along with the Greek text (UBS3/4, NA 27, and Majority Text; I usually don't check the TR). Most texts that I preach are ones that I translate from the original languge. That will change somewhat with my current series on Genesis, since I will be preaching rather extended passages. So I am willing to discuss from any of those versions you would like, or any other version that I can find access to.

I don't propose to engage with your points further unless and until you are prepared to drop the patronising and faintly insulting tone of your posts; until then this discussion is pointless and amounts to little more than a proof-text dual and a dialogue of the deaf

There has been nothing patronizing or insulting about my posts. We differ on authority. To me, that seems to be the main issue. I have pointed out from the text why I believe what I do, and I have given cogent and consistent answers to your objections. We disagree about the authority of church history. You have chosen not to address those, but rather attempt to turn it personal by accusing me incorrectly and unjustly of being patronizing and insulting. Personally, I would rather leave the personal stuff out of it and deal with the text.

In the past, on this board, you have placed a value on church history that is higher than it should be, given its comparison to the authority of Scripture. And I have pointed that out, along with the reasons for it. Church history has become "all things to all men," to borrow from Paul. It can be used to prove virtually anything. And God did not give us church history to teach us what to believe and to equip us for every good work. That is what he gave us Scripture for. For those reasons, I am not overly enamored with church history. After all, it simply tells us what people did believe and practice; it does not tell us what we should believe and practice.

Even early church history is not consistent, and reveals a great divergence of views. As we can tell from Scripture less than just one generation after the death of Christ, people were already departing from his teaching. So we should not be surprised that less than one generation after the apostles, people were already departing from their teaching. That is something we can prove from history. We need not guess about it. However, with the Word, we need have no such qualms.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Christ called Himself "the Bread of Life" in that passage, and a Communion Supper was not even in the picture at that time. We must keep this in context!

That's a big assumption. Communion is not specifically mentioned here but the parallels with Christ's statements at the Last Supper are obvious.
Yes, Christ starts off calling Himself the bread of Life (in contrast to the manna in the wilderness), but He becomes more specific identifying the bread He will give as His literal flesh, and later fulfilling His statement that we must eat His flesh by identifying the bread at communion with His body, thus providing the means by which the disciples could indeed eat His flesh. You have to keep in mind the LARGER context that John's Gospel was written towards the end of the first century, to the Church which already had been been taught about and partaking of communion for several decades.

This shows that the "bread" and even the "crunching" was not literal, but simply meant being a part of (partaking in) Him, and this was spiritual.

No it doesn't--not unless you are reading docetic gnosticism into the text. Christ plainly identifies the flesh that we must eat to have eternal life--flesh that is "food indeed"--with the same flesh that He was giving for the life of the world: "and the bread that I shall give is My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). Are you now a docetist who claims that Christ's flesh was only spiritual and that he literally didn't give His flesh for the world through His physical death on the cross?

So the bread at the last Supper, and reiterated by Paul was literal, but as the 'flesh of Christ', it is metaphorical. That is simple.

An assumption you've read into the text based on your particular presuppositions.

"certainly could"? That is pure conjecture. Where does it say that they believed all of this? "Under" the forms? "what He said"? So they were sitting there exercising all this "faith", and I imagine it was pretty hard for them, right? (they could at least see the wine and fish).

Yeah, they could (and did) see the wine and fish, and based on the miraculous that they could see, they certainly could trust Christ, whom they themselves had acknowledged as having the words of life (John 6:68), when He said that His "flesh" (the same flesh he was giving for the life of the world--v.51) was "food indeed" and His "blood" was "drink indeed" (v.55) and that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life and to abide in Christ (v.54, 56) and when He later called the bread "His body" and the cup "His blood" which His disciples then could indeed literally eat (crunch/chew) and drink, and thus have real communion with (partaking of/communication of/distribution of) the Body and Blood of Christ.

Where is all of this? You're just reading later Church views back into it, presupposing that it had any more meaning than a metaphor

Not at all--I'm demonstrating that the consensual view from the beginning is the same that is taught in the relevant texts as they are grammatically and contextually understood which clearly shows that Christ and His apostles meant this realistically and not merely metaphorically. You're simply misreading the clear statements because you are projecting later novel interpretations anachronistically back into the text. You say WTTE that "it has to be metaphorical", and "it has to only be referring to spiritual 'togetherness'"...thus assuming the points you are trying to prove while ignoring grammar and context.

You do just that when you snidely call our view "real absence" just because we say it is not in the Bread. And the only such "special presence" discussed in the Bible is His presence in His people.

But you are making that bald assertion while dismissing the grammatical context that Paul indeed calls THE BREAD and THE CUP the "communion of the body" and "blood" of Christ respectively. Scriptures thereby teach that one of the ways Christ specially manifests Himself to us is by giving His body and blood to us in Holy Communion.

Just like the disciples who misunderstood Christ's parable about "leaven", and similarly "argued over bread".

Of course, Christ corrected their misunderstanding regarding the leaven. He didn't do so in John 6 about the bread being His flesh, the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world (flesh that was food indeed that must be eaten to have eternal life) since there was no misunderstanding to correct. He could have stopped and told the disciples "Hey, this is all just metaphorical", but instead He became progressively more and more specific in His identifications and realistic in His statements as His discourse continued. They understood what He meant, and the majority stumbled over it.

To put some kind of "presence" in the bread is to completely misfocus on the spiritual reality of communion.

So you repeatedly assert while ignoring the grammatical/contextual fact that Paul calls the literal BREAD the "communion of the body of Christ" (and likewise calls the literal CUP the "communion of the blood of Christ"). The spiritual reality is that we have real communion with the real body and body of Christ through partaking of the bread and the wine.

I guess all this goes to show "the Bible says what it means and means what it says"...unless the plain grammatical meaning of the text disagrees with the presuppositions of solo-Scripturists. :smilewinkgrin: