The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[BobRyan]

Is it your argument that the Jewish church must be infallible OR we must toss out SCRIPTURE??

Bounds
Once again myopic concern for 'all things Roman Catholic' blind you to the fact that I am speaking about the New Testament Canon. The Old Testament really doesn't concern me at this point because it is in the particular books of the New Testament that we create all of our presuppositions for Christ, the Trinity etc.

The book of Romans alone contains over FORTY references to the OT as the authorative scripture in use by NT writers. You are turning a blind eye to the scripture of 2Tim 3 being referenced as "inspired" and given as "the basis for DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION and Correction" by that statement above. yet this is the position of OT SCRIPTURE for NT writers.

14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known thesacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

You see - the Bible is a "house of cards" once you start chucking large sections out the window the whole thing falls apart sir.

But if you HOLD to the integrity of scripture THEN the Words of Christ in Mark 7 (pre-cross) DO hold for ALL saints and the lessons learned there DO apply.

The Point remains. You seek to make the argument that ERROR in that group that administered the ONE TRUE WORD - would require that we ALSO reject the WORD or embrace the doctrine errors - the traditions of men. But Christ shows us in Mark 7 - such is not the case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, you are right that many take a single verse and abuse it and I saw this abuse within the Baptist Church. But what separates the Baptist view of Holy Communion from Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy has 2,000 years of Church Tradition (and I'm not speaking of tradition with a small 't'...there is a difference) backing them up. So not only does Orthodoxy have Scripture support, but also the writings of the Apostolic Church Fathers of the first Century.

St. Polycarp was a disciple of the beloved Apostle John. Did St. John teach Polycarp error who in returned taught both Ignatius and Irenaeus error, since both wrote of the Real Presence, especially when Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles from teaching error? Did Christ not commission the 12 to go out and make disciples and here John is teaching a heresy? Give me a break...

As it turns out we HAVE the writings of John. We do not rely on the doctrines of ignatius for this.

As it turns out - 1Tim 1:3 SHOWS us that the fires of doctrinal error were ALREADY raging in the first century church.

As it turns out - Acts 20 points us to the fact that "upon my DEPARTURE" wolves were coming in "from among your own selves" leading astray the faithful.

As it tuns out - Paul writes to Titus (Titus chapter 1) confirming him in his own battle against the raging storm of doctrinal error ALREADY at work.

However - even though this is the case --it is far better to PROVIDE the quotes from these ECFs rather than making empty claims about what they said WITHOUT a quote.

As we saw in Mark 7 - man-made tradition in opposition to the Word of God was ALREADY an established fact BEFORE the start of the NT church!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rooselk]

I agree with Chemnitz and others here who argue for the doctrine of the Real Presence. I believe that the Scriptures are not only clear on this doctrine, but that the earliest writings of church history also show us that this was a doctrine accpeted, believed, and taught by the early church. For instance, reading the Apology of Justin Martyr one will find that the early church believed communion to be more than just a "memorial". What's more, I believe it is significant there was no real debate regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence until the fifteenth century.

Frankly, it was the doctrine of the Real Presence that motivated me to further study and to eventually decide to leave the Baptist church to become a Lutheran.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that many leave churches that do not accept for the RC traditions regarding the bread and the wine. But that is the benefit of having these discussions here and evaluating the actual facts in the texts themselves.

 

[Rooselk]

I agree with you that it is benificial to have "these discussions here and evaluating the actual facts in the texts themselves". The problem, though, is that the doctrine of the Real Presence is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic church, and in fact preceeds that body. For instance, Justin Martyr wrote the following around 150 AD:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. 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 ye 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.

In this Justin Martyr agrees with other early church Fathers who wrote similar things about the Lord's Supper.

Even so, it would not matter to me who it was that wrote such things, or when, if what they wrote did not also agree with the Word of God. Pauls teaching on this subject found in I Corinthians 10 and 11 certainly means more to me than all the writings of Justin Martyr and the early church Fathers combined. And when Paul tells me that "Whosoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the boddy and blood of our Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27 ESV) I tend to take it seriously.

 

[Matt Black]

When I read, for example, Cyprian's Treatise IV On the Lord's Prayer I witness a very clear teaching on communion...

Before, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you."[48]

This predates the Councils, the division of the Oriental Churches, the division of the Eastern and Western Churches and the later labeling of 'any' Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Cyprian's day was simply 'the Universal Church'. But his teachings are more in common with the ancient Liturgical Churches (Eastern, Oriental Orthodox Churches and 'yes' similar to Roman Catholic teaching on the subject of Communion. It was, at the very least, not thought of as a 'symbol' but the very 'life' of the Christian.

I don't have to point out that Cyprian also held to regenerative Baptism as well. Yet another 'error' from our Baptist Exegesis. My point is I don't see any example of our unique Baptist Exegesis in the early History of Christianity. That concerns me because I would like to have evidence, outside of rhetorical posturing, that we are interpreting these passages correctly.

I don't believe the Baptist exegeses of these passages are correct. The memorialist exegesis of the passages on communion for example was not really put forward until Zwingli in the 1520s and didn't gain widespread acceptance among evangelicals (including Baptists) before the last 100-150 years (cp for example the 1689 London Baptist Confession with the SBC's Faith and Message 2000 on the subject).

You are right to bring up the issue of the Canon. The Canon of the New Testament was not fixed until the end of the 4th century, after the first two Ecumenical Church Councils. It was fixed by the undivided Church and therefore it is quite proper to say that the Church not only predated the New Testament but also, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned and determined which books comprised the NT. Therefore, to my mind, if one is to accept that the NT we have today is canonical, one must also accept at the very least the decisions and teachings made by that same undivided Church prior to the fixing of that canon, which include the Doctrine of the Trinity and, yes, its teaching on communion and baptism.

[ETA - for goodness sake, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - there's no need to turn to Islam or Judaism for your answers just because the Baptist interpretation of Scripture/events might be wrong - there are many Christians who aren't Baptists who cope with this without having to turn to Mecca!]

 

[Eliyahu]

I am crucified with Christ at the Cross ( Gal 2:20)

Have I been there at the Cross and was nailed to the Cross, physically?

Nope! However, I believe it and take it as the truth.

This do IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.

Many people claim this:

This do IN MAGIC PRESENTATION OF ME.

The people who bring the so-called fathers may have many fathers, but I have only One Father which is the Almighty God.


The teachings by so called early church fathers may reflect a certain emphasis against the secular ignorance and negligence, but doesn't have the value as much as the Bible teaching itself which is the Truth throughout the ages. We must be able to discern the difference between the Bible and the teachings of the early believers.

In the background of the vehement claim to connect the Lord Supper to Transubstantiation, there is a strong Paganism to bring the Babylonian Cannibalism into the churches and to justify such paganism.

Read this:

Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
( Rm 6:11)

Do you understand " Reckon" here? Can you not reckon the Bread and Wine as the Body and the Blood by Faith?

 

[Rooselk]

Eliyahu, the doctrine of the Real Presence has nothing to do with a "magical presentation". What's more, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the Real Presence that likewise reject transubstantiation (ie, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, etc).

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, the doctrine of the Real Presence has nothing to do with a "magical presentation". What's more, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the Real Presence that likewise reject transubstantiation (ie, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, etc).

Either Transubstantion or Consubstantiation is ridiculous which has deceived many thru the history, and we should remember that RCC killed many true believers who rejected such idea.

Jesus Christ is present everywhere in the world. Do you disbelieve this?

Is the Bread becoming Flesh? Do you claim the material change? Then take the residue to the Lab and prove it!

 

[bound]

No. The Bible is right whether it is in canonized form or not.

What do you think I mean when I say canonize? What are the qualities the canonized Gospels, Letters, etc of the New Testament?

No it doesn't. The canon issue really doesn't even address this.

After the discoveries of Qumran and Nag Hammadi, outside of the Lists by the early Christian Authors, what evidence do we have concerning the breadth and width of 'inspired' texts?

It sounds like your hard time is with Scripture, not with the Trinity or other doctrines.

Well, I believe the two are linked with the rise of the Gentiles in the ranks of the Church and their eventual leadership.

Have you questioned whether or not you actually know more? Or at least more of what should be known? I am unconvinced that "knowing more" would lead us to deny truth.

Who's Truth? Baptist Truth? Catholic? Who's?

On the public internet, I don't answer personal questions. I have however tackled these issues head on. I have not ignored them in the least. In fact, I continue to study them.

I can appreciate that but you're not helping me by simply saying 'trust me' or 'trust Baptist Exegesis'. That is not evidence.

I would question whether or not deepening true knowledge would lead us away from Christ. Jesus said he was the truth, the life, the way. He preauthenticated the NT Scripture written by the apostles in John 15 when he spoke of the Spirit leading them in what they would say. So I think there are answers to your concerns.

My problem is that many if not 'all' the authors of the New Testament were not actually present during Pentacost....

So whom do we trust? :BangHead:

 

[Eliyahu]

Catholic themselves see the problem with Transubstantiation.

wherefore we may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are right to bring up the issue of the Canon. The Canon of the New Testament was not fixed until the end of the 4th century, after the first two Ecumenical Church Councils. It was fixed by the undivided Church and therefore it is quite proper to say that the Church not only predated the New Testament but also, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned and determined which books comprised the NT.

Two issues.

First, the church did not predate the NT in the sense you use it here. The NT existed in the first century, at the same time the church came into existence.

Second, the church did not "discern and determine" the canon. It recognized what God had inspired.

Therefore, to my mind, if one is to accept that the NT we have today is canonical, one must also accept at the very least the decisions and teachings made by that same undivided Church prior to the fixing of that canon, which include the Doctrine of the Trinity and, yes, its teaching on communion and baptism.

The "undivided Church" prior to the canon had heresies on the Trinity. That was not fully settled until Chalcedon in sixth century. Furthermore, your argument is not only not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is drinking the whole tub. The fact that someone was right once or twice, or whatever, does not mean that they are right all the time. We no more need to accept every decision of the historical church anymore than we need to rise up and fly. The Bible is the standard for truth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What do you think I mean when I say canonize?

I don’t know what you mean, but in theology, the canon is the collection of the books that make up the Bible.

What are the qualities the canonized Gospels, Letters, etc of the New Testament?

Inspired, and therefore inerrant.

After the discoveries of Qumran and Nag Hammadi, outside of the Lists by the early Christian Authors, what evidence do we have concerning the breadth and width of 'inspired' texts?

A number of issues including their agreement in doctrine and their acceptance of the church throughout church history.

Well, I believe the two are linked with the rise of the Gentiles in the ranks of the Church and their eventual leadership.

The trinity is a doctrine established in the OT though not emphasized. It is clearly testified to in the NT Scriptures.

Who's Truth? Baptist Truth? Catholic? Who's?

God’s truth. It is most clearly found in the historic Baptist doctrine, but the truth is God’s.

I can appreciate that but you're not helping me by simply saying 'trust me' or 'trust Baptist Exegesis'. That is not evidence.

Where did I say that? I don’t recall that anywhere.

My problem is that many if not 'all' the authors of the New Testament were not actually present during Pentacost....

I have to confess I am not sure what the relevance of this is. The promise of inspiration is on the writings. It is not connected with Pentecost in any way.

So whom do we trust?

God.

A lot of your questions are apologetic questions that are very difficult to answer in this kind of forum, due to its nature. The depth required is not impossible, but no one would read it and it would not even fit in the posting limits. So I am not sure how far we can take this here, particularly when I am not even exactly sure what your issues are.

 

[bound]

Two issues.

First, the church did not predate the NT in the sense you use it here. The NT existed in the first century, at the same time the church came into existence.

Pastor, with all due respect, you do agree that the Acts of the Apostles predate Lukes record of them right?

Second, the church did not "discern and determine" the canon. It recognized what God had inspired.

You said it yourself earlier, these men were 'not' infallable nor are 'they' inspired. If we know this and we know that they taught contrary to the faith then why are we trusting what 'they' recognize as 'inspired'?

The "undivided Church" prior to the canon had heresies on the Trinity. That was not fully settled until Chalcedon in sixth century. Furthermore, your argument is not only not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is drinking the whole tub. The fact that someone was right once or twice, or whatever, does not mean that they are right all the time. We no more need to accept every decision of the historical church anymore than we need to rise up and fly. The Bible is the standard for truth.

My question is if they were wrong once or twice why trust them 'at all'?

 

[bound]

A lot of your questions are apologetic questions that are very difficult to answer in this kind of forum, due to its nature. The depth required is not impossible, but no one would read it and it would not even fit in the posting limits. So I am not sure how far we can take this here, particularly when I am not even exactly sure what your issues are.

This whole thread is an apologetic....

My problem is what to trust.... I'm studied my way into a corner and I'm looking for someone to lead me out by the hand.

Just your show of confidence is helpful though. Thank you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor, with all due respect, you do agree that the Acts of the Apostles predate Lukes record of them right?

Of course, but I apologize to have to confess confusion as to what relevance this serves here. Matt's point about the church predating the NT was about canonization. My point was that the NT existed prior to canonization. The NT is not the canon, but the books themselves, regardless of their formal canonizatin.

You said it yourself earlier, these men were 'not' infallable nor are 'they' inspired. If we know this and we know that they taught contrary to the faith then why are we trusting what 'they' recognize as 'inspired'?

Because God has lead the church to almost unanimous acceptance of the canon. He did not do so with regard to something like "real presence," particularly in view of the utter lack of exegetical support. Again, when you read the arguments in support of real presence, it seems hard to miss that they are not actually using Scripture in support. They are depending on one phrase that seems blatantly obvious as a metaphor, and the disputed interpretation of church history. They are, in so doing, ignoring the other clear testimony of Scripture with respect to the memorial nature of communion.

My question is if they were wrong once or twice why trust them 'at all'?

We "study the Scriptures to see if these things are so." The church fathers are all over the place theologically. Virtually any position can be proven from the church fathers. So we trust them to tell us what they believed. But we study the Scriptures to see what God wants us to believe.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that in all the PAST TENSE examples we find in John 6 of Christ ALREADY being bread that ALREADY came down from heaven and those around him ALREADY needing to EAT his flesh we DO have the ONE example of a FUTURE application of that symbol in vs 51.

Christ's words are NOT FUTURE tense as you have made them - but PAST tense and PRESENT tense when it comes to ALREADY BEING bread.

Here is past and present tense use you seek to ignore: "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;


How convenient that you turn a blind eye to the majority of the text in order to recast ALL OF IT as a statement about a future event.

Your delimma results from the truth Christ taught us in Matt 16 about NOT taking the symbol of bread "TOO LITERALLY".

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Here we see Christ refer to the SAME example of feeding the people as in John 6 where the people came to Christ seeking literal food AFTER the feeding of the 5000. Christ rebukes the disciples mistake here of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally as did the “faithLESS” disciples of John 6.

 

[BobRyan]

From Page 10 - this thread -

Consistently Christ begins to focus the people on that which is needed to obtain Eternal Life. All of the “eating” and/or “drinking” He speaks of is directed to the singular goal – that of obtaining Eternal Life!


30 So they said to Him, "" What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
31 "" Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, " HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'''
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.''
[/quote]
Again Jesus directs them AWAY from the literal bread – and says that the LESSON of the manna is the real secret to Eternal life. Eating literal bread, literal manna only gains you a day’s worth of benefit – but if you learn the LESSON of the manna (the one that God gave) you get Eternal life. Deut 8:3 “Man does not live by bread alone – but by Every Word that comes from the MOUTH of God”.His teaching, His Word is set as “the key” to life. This is “already true” at the time He is speaking.

Christ points out "He WHO EATS my FLESH HAS eternal life" – presently. HE does not argue that “in the future when someone eats my literal flesh they will then get eternal life” That “in the future eat my flesh” concept is not in the chapter.

John has established the context for Christ coming down out of heaven – as the WORD that became FLESH.

John 1: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


So in John 6 the theme continues

Quote:
John 6
Quote:
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven[/b], 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.



Focus is on “coming to Christ” and “Believing in Him” already not waiting for some future day to do it. (Still no mention of biting Him yet). And “all agree” that even THEN right then and there the faithful follower was under obligation to come to Christ AND believe His word – Already. Already the “Word that became FLESH” was there and must already be accepted.

Quote:
36 ""But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
...
40 ""For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.''



Again the focus is on Believing Christ's Words - not "biting Christ". Christ argues that it is ALREADY the case that He is ALREADY the bread of life – God’s people must ALREADY be coming to Him they must ALREADY be believing in Him.

The only Future component is the eternal life and resurrection – not the biting, not the believing not the coming to Christ.

How in the world can someone look at each of these details and conclude "I am still tempted to ignore them all and believe something else anyway"??

 

[Melanie]

At the end it is a Mystery of Faith......for those who believe that the Host is Our Divine Lord, have received the grace to believe....for which I am truely thankful

 

[Eliyahu]

We have to be clear about this issue with the final question:

Did the disciples drink Blood or Wine?

Did the Disciples eat Human Flesh or Bread?

Did they have Blood Party?