Pastor Larry said: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.
I understand but you gave the impression that the NT predates 'the Church'. That just isn't true, the NT 'is' the record of the early Churches existance is all I was trying to get at.
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.
One could argue that in the time of Jerome that God had lead the church to an almost unanimous acceptance of arianism too but we aren't using unanimity to justify the teachings of Arius. As far as 'real presence' is concerned we have a wealth of evidence through history which points to the early Church interpreting the passages of the Gospel of John in a very literal fashion very far removed from our own rejection of 'all' Christian Mysteries by the 16th Century. Such radical changes of interpretation causes me to pause and ask the question "If the early Church could be 'so' wrong about 'this' what else were they wrong about"?
That is my whole point.
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.
Could you give me an example of one early Christian Author who denies the mystery and necessisty of the Lord's Supper? I have honestly never ran across any who support our view of the Lord's Supper as merely a symbol 'void' of any 'real' value to the faithful.
Again thanks for your help and your patience.