Francis Chan, leaning Romanist?

[rlvaughn]

I have not seen this discussed on the Baptist Board. If it has been I missed it and apologize. So far as I know Francis Chan is not a Baptist, but I think he is likely influential in some Baptist circles. I am posting this here because I am interested in the Baptist take and Baptist discussion about what Chan said, rather than all the denominationalists who might respond if I open the topic in that area of the BB.

Francis Chan has made comments that make me think he is leaning toward Roman Catholicism. Am I overreacting? What is your take?

• I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history everyone saw it [the Eucharist/Lord’s supper] as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn’t till 500 years ago someone popularized a thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that!
• ...for the first time, someone put a pulpit in the front of the gathering, because, before that, it was always the body and blood of Christ that was central to the gathering.
• I say that because the Church is more divided than at any time in history...And for a thousand years there was just one church. We are so used to growing up at a time when there are literally over 30,000 denominations.

Listen to the whole clip; comments found HERE.

 

[Particular]

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.

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[Particular]

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.

 

[Jerome]

So far as I know Francis Chan is not a Baptist

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

 

[rlvaughn]

The Master's University and Master's Seminary, according to Wikipedia. (There is no citation for that, however.)

 

[Jerome]

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

Yes, I consider that I could be. I do understand that there are real presence views that are not transubstantiation. However, it does seem like he is setting this in a Catholic context, saying there was just one church and communion doctrine for 1500 years, and using a common Catholic polemic against Protestantism -- that there are 30,000 denominations (and they mean to blame the Reformation with this).

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.

His statement that the pulpit has replaced the body and blood of Christ seems to correspond with the oft-repeated Catholic statement that the authority of the Bible has replaced the authority of the Church. I would also assert that he is not enthralled enough with pre-Reformation Christianity. By that I mean that he has missed a substantial part of church history if he thinks that for 1,500 years everyone believed that the bread and wine was the literal body and blood of Christ. Certainly Catholics can give us quotes that seem to say that. Perhaps some of the writers did mean that (I think early on they did not), but Catholics also misrepresent John 6:54 to make it say that as well. On the other hand, they fail to mention statements where writers use terms like "figure" and "symbol" to refer to the elements -- long long before 500 years ago.

Hopefully he is studying scripture itself on the subject.

Hopefully. However, much of what he says seems to be grounded more in his newfound understanding of church history.

 

[Calminian]

The Master's University and Master's Seminary, according to Wikipedia. (There is no citation for that, however.)

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[just-want-peace]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Calminian]

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Jerome]

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

 

[Humble Disciple]

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.

Francis Chan has made comments that make me think he is leaning toward Roman Catholicism. Am I overreacting? What is your take?

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

John Calvin says it best:

“Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure. What then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.”

Keith Mathison’s assessment of Calvin’s view is salient:
“Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion.”...

Did Calvin believe in the literal presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper? If by “literal” we mean “real,” then emphatically yes, as did the lion’s share of the Reformers. Thomas Cranmer’s position, codified in the Thirty-Nine Articles, is unambiguous: “The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.” Note that in stressing the spiritual nature of the meal, Cranmer, like Calvin, isn’t questioning the presence of Christ’s body—He’s there to be received by faith.

While I could see why one would take Chan’s words about the “literal” body and blood of Christ as meaning something other than Calvin’s or Cranmer’s, I don’t. In the very next sentence, Chan says, “It wasn’t until 500 years ago that someone popularized the thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more.”

That comment makes historical sense if—and only if—he’s not speaking of transubstantiation, but is simplifying the views of the Supper down to two: “literal” and “symbolic.” That is, Christ is either really present (the position espoused by the Fathers and the Reformers) or He isn’t (the position espoused by the Anabaptists and #BigEva). To me, that’s not only the charitable interpretation of Chan; it also makes the most sense, given the point he’s trying to make.
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?

Chan, who recently announced that he was moving with his family to Hong Kong to become a full-time missionary, recalled an instance of seeing a little boy and girl having their hearing supernaturally restored. "[There was] a little boy and a little girl who were deaf. We lay hands, she starts crying, and she's freaking out,” the preacher recounted. “And we're, like, lay hands on your little brother ... we lay hands on him and he starts hearing for the first time! You guys, this is out of my comfort zone, this is stuff I'd read about but I'm going, man, it happened. It happened!” Francis Chan Tells of Incredible Physical Healings While Ministering in Myanmar

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

 

[Humble Disciple]

Francis Chan has made comments that make me think he is leaning toward Roman Catholicism. Am I overreacting? What is your take?

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves. ( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )
1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 30

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.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Francis Chan has made comments that make me think he is leaning toward Roman Catholicism. Am I overreacting? What is your take?

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:

Calvin represents what is often called, “dynamic presence” or “Spiritual presence.” Calvin taught that the Bible clearly shows us that Christ’s physical body is in heaven, and therefore the bread and the Cup cannot become that. Yet, His Spirit is here and can be throughout the world at once, and the force of the Scriptures drew Calvin to surmise that the Sacrament is a memorial, but much more. He wrote:

It is a mystery of Christ’s secret union with the devout which is by nature incomprehensible. If anybody should ask me how this communion takes place, I am not ashamed to confess that that is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it (Robert Godfrey in his Calvin on the Eucharist, www.modernreformation.org, quoting John Calvin in Institutes, IV, 17, 32).
Is It Communion? The Lord's Supper? Or the Eucharist? Yes. - Sermons & Articles

 

[rlvaughn]

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?

I have not thought any more about Francis Chan for about a year and a half. When Chan speaks of
one view of the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of church history (whether right or wrong), he is talking about Catholicism, not Luther and Calvin. And when he claims that for 1000 years there was just one church (whether right or wrong), he means Catholicism, not Lutherans and Calvinists.

As far as any purported healings by Chan in Myanmar, I do not know anything about that.