The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[bound]

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.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

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"?

You’re asking the right questions Bound and don’t take any ‘ol answer. Learning to think for ones self and not relying on someone to think for you is the first step and you’re on the right track.

We today can learn much from the Fathers of the Early Church…Remember, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles in Truth. St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Beloved Disciple John. Polycarp lived to be in his 80’s before he was martyred and he was a teacher and friend to both Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus. St. Clement of Rome was a student of both Peter and Paul.

It’s impossible for me to believe that right out of the gates the Apostles, who were promised the protection of the Holy Spirit was teaching error and it took until after the Reformation and the Baptist founders to finally figure it all out.

-

 

[Matt Black]

Bound, firstly my apologies to you and PL for unintentionally conflating and confusing the connnected but distinct issues of the writing of the NT and the determination of the canon of that NT. Clearly the Church did not precede the writing of the NT (a few years to several decades at the most) by the length of time its existence preceded the canonisation of the NT (c370 years) but it nevertheless did precede both. Furthermore, without the Church's determination of the Canon, we would not be able to trust that the NT we have in our Bibles today was correct, the inspired word of God. Because, AFAIC, the Early Church did get it right - on the Canon of the NT, the Trinity, the Natures of Christ, and the Real Presence, amongst other things. I rest my trust primarily in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour, but I also rest my trust in the correctness of the teachings of His Church, both with respect to discerning what is inspired Scripture and what isn't , and the correct interpretation of that Scripture. AFAIC, the ECFs didn't get it wrong on any of the above points - they got it spot on.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

No, not really. The early church did not accept Arianism, as is demonstrated by the polemic against arianisim. But we do not reject arianism because the church fathers did. We reject arianism because Scripture does. And that demonstrates my point.

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.

Actually, the "real presence" is not a 'very literal' interpretation. It has no basis in the actual text. Again, all we need do is read the text to see what the bread and wine were. The literal interpretation is the one that says Christ was using a symbol.

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"?

I think that is a great question to ask. And as Agnus Dei says, don't take just any answer. Which is ironic coming from Agnus Dei, who seems to have accepted "any answer" without studying it. In the end, how would you or Agnus Dei answer this question? I have a standard by which to answer it. We answer by the Scripture. It doesn't seem like either of you have a way to answer this.

Could you give me an example of one early Christian Author who denies the mystery and necessisty of the Lord's Supper?

I am not aware of any. I don't even deny the mystery and necessity of the Lord's Supper. I fully affirm it. But that is different than arguing from some sort of sacramental view.

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.

I have never run across anyone who says this, early church or not. The fact that it is a symbol does not make is 'void' of any 'real' value to the faithful. It has great value. It simply does not communicate grace to the recipient.

 

[Rooselk]

We answer by the Scripture. It doesn't seem like either of you have a way to answer this.

We, too, appeal to Scripture and answer by it. I must say that I find it a little disconcerting that there seems to be an implication that in this matter of the Real Presence that the Church Fathers didn't likewise appeal to Scripture. However, in contradiction to this implication, I earlier posted a passage from the writings of Justin Martyr that clearly appealed to Scripture to back the claim as to the validity of the doctrine. It's one thing if Baptists want to say that they disagree with the Church Fathers and the near unanimity of the early church as to their interpretation of the Scriptures with regard to this doctrine. But to imply that the Church Fathers and the early church didn't also appeal to Scripture to support their belief is something else altogether.

 

[peterotto]

the earliest writings of church history also show us that this was a doctrine accpeted, believed, and taught by the early church.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tertullian said "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body." :tonofbricks:

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume III, Chapter XL. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.[/FONT]

 

[Rooselk]

Good quote from Tertullian. :thumbs: That is why in my earlier post I said "near unanimity".

 

[Pastor Larry]

We, too, appeal to Scripture and answer by it. I must say that I find it a little disconcerting that there seems to be an implication that in this matter of the Real Presence that the Church Fathers didn't likewise appeal to Scripture

I never said or implied that Scripture wasn't appealed to by the church fathers. It was, and it is here. The problem is that the appeals are illegitimate appeals in that they wrest the language from its normal use and put a very strained and unnatural use on it that can be found nowhere else in Scripture, to my knowledge.

For Scripture to have authority, it cannot be used as a proof text, as some here are all too willing to do. To cite "Jesus said "This is my body"" as if that drives the nail in teh coffin is pure proof texting. It does not account for the context, for the normal use of language, or for the rest of Scripture. That is why we reject it.

 

[Chemnitz]

If you are going to make such a statement prove from the context that Jesus did not mean this is my body.

 

[Matt Black]

I never said or implied that Scripture wasn't appealed to by the church fathers. It was, and it is here. The problem is that the appeals are illegitimate appeals

Says who, exactly?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Please go back and read what I said. The metaphor is “I am the bread” along with the eating and drinking statements. The reality is “come” and “believe.”

You need to go back and read what I said. The eating and drinking statements follow after and are Christ's more explicit statements about what He is meaning here by "coming to Him". I adequately demonstrated that in my post so I won't retype it again at this point. Christ proceeds in His discourse from the more general and metaphorical to the more concrete, real, and specific. You and other Zwinglians like to stop at the "coming to" and "believing in" without seriously dealing with the rest of the text in which Christ becomes increasing literal in spelling out the way which He has in mind here that we are to come to him, wherein He specifically identifies the bread with HIS FLESH, the same flesh He was to give for the life on the world, which he specifically said we must eat (along with drinking His blood) to abide in Him.

Wow … It is truly hard to imagine this is serious. You have it exactly backwards. Eating and drinking are explained by coming and believing. You are not saved because you “eat and drink” his literal (or real presence) body and blood. Scripture never teaches that. You are saved by coming or believing.

Yet Scripture teaches here that included in coming to or believing in Christ is believing what He says and obeying Him. This includes believing Christ when He emphatically says that the bread He is going to give is HIS FLESH (the same which He is giving for the life of the world) and one must eat this flesh, which is food indeed, and drink His blood, which is drink indeed, in order to abide in Him and have eternal life. It's the ones who take Christ at word here--who believe what He is saying here regarding His body and blood and who act on it--that are actually faithfully trusting in Christ.

And all of that must be understood in the context of Christ’s words in John 6, not the context of later writers. That is your mistake. You think Christ did not mean what he said. I think he did. And I think it is plain in the passage.

But I do believe Christ meant what He said. In fact, it was once I actually started honestly dealing with the plain meaning of the passage ,that I quit trying to spin the passage to support the Zwinglian memorialism which I was taught as a good Baptist, and started trusting that Christ meant what He said.

It was not the case because it was unnecessary. We see from Peter’s response that they understood this teaching was about “coming and believing:” “Lord to whom shall we go since you have the words of eternal life.” It was clear that they understood this to be about believing Jesus’ words, not about their dinner selection.

Yes, Peter and the others did recognize that Christ had the words of eternal life and these words include those which Christ had just declared to them: That the bread He was going to give is HIS FLESH which He was going to give for the life of the world, and that HIS FLESH was FOOD INDEED and HIS BLOOD was DRINK INDEED and that one must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD to ABIDE in CHRIST and have ETERNAL LIFE.
So Peter and the disciples, though not quite knowing particularly how the content of those words Jesus spoke would be fulfilled, trusted Him anyway as they recognized He had the the words of life, and therefore those hard words were also TRUE. (However, just hearing the words is not enough--one must do the word of the Lord to enter the Kingdom (Matt 7:21))

You have made it pretty easy here to demonstrate the fallacies of your position. They are answered simply by looking at the text and taking Jesus at his word, rather than by reading into it some position of later writers. It is always better to take Jesus at his word.

Actually, I've stuck with the text and have not had to resort to the exegetical gymnastics to avoid its plain meaning like you have done. It wasn't too long ago (about 4 years or so) when as a good Southern Baptist I used to perform those same exegetical gymnastics to support the Zwinglian interpretation. It was when I started taking Christ at His WORD that I quit doing this, and I realized He really meant what He said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you are going to make such a statement prove from the context that Jesus did not mean this is my body.

The context itself is the proof. It calls it bread and wine. What other proof do we need?

Says who, exactly?

The text when read in its normal fashion.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You need to go back and read what I said. The eating and drinking statements follow after and are Christ's more explicit statements about what He is meaning here by "coming to Him".

There is no easy or delicate way to put this. You are simply wrong on this. The eating and drinking do not explain what is meant by coming and believing. It simply isn't so.

You and other Zwinglians like to stop at the "coming to" and "believing in" without seriously dealing with the rest of the text

Again, simply wrong. We have dealt seriously with it and that is how we can demonstrate that your position is wrong.

It's the ones who take Christ at word here--who believe what He is saying here regarding His body and blood and who act on it--that are actually faithfully trusting in Christ.

I agree, but you have plainly misidentified what he said. The only reason I figure for this is your unwillingness to submit to Scripture because it would require you to go against what you have always believed and against your authority in the church. That's unfortunate.

But I do believe Christ meant what He said.

Then why have you argued against it here? If you believe it, then why not simply espouse what he says instead of trying to make a case for something else?

Yes, Peter and the others did recognize that Christ had the words of eternal life and these words include those which Christ had just declared to them: That the bread He was going to give is HIS FLESH which He was going to give for the life of the world, and that HIS FLESH was FOOD INDEED and HIS BLOOD was DRINK INDEED and that one must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD to ABIDE in CHRIST and have ETERNAL LIFE.

Yes, and the passage declares this eating and drinking to be believing. You have simply believed wrongly on this.

Actually, I've stuck with the text and have not had to resort to the exegetical gymnastics to avoid its plain meaning like you have done.

I have not had to perform any exegetical gymnastics. You are simply wrong. As we have demonstrated. Christ said that the right response to the bread of life was to come and believe. The eating and drinking statements are part of the metaphor. It could hardly be more obvious.

I urge you to get back to the text itself and abandon this argument that you have embarked on here.

 

[Chemnitz]

The context itself is the proof. It calls it bread and wine. What other proof do we need?

The text when read in its normal fashion.

Come, Come, you can not so casually ignore Jesus saying "this is my body." If you are going to maintain it is merely bread and not as the Lord states, then you must provide the textual evidence that proves the contrary. Your statement does not adequately address the statement of Jesus nor the claims of Paul when he plainly states that Communion is a participation in the Body of Christ and that those who are unworthy are guilty of profaning the Body. These things that Paul claims simply would not be a problem if it were just a memorial.

 

[BobRyan]

Funny how you get "He really is bread" from people on John 6 but not "He really is door" or "He really is vine"

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Ok fine - I will post the unnanswered point again -

The communion service is a "symbol" of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ, Just as in John 10 "I am the DOOR" just as in John 15 "I am the VINE" -- Christ is not a plant nor even a piece of wood.

In Matt 16 Christ warns the disciples NOT to take things too literally when symbols are being used ESPECIALLY when the symbol is 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[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that [b]I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] 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.

In John 6 Christ said he WAS the BREAD that came down out of heaven.

Again - these are all symbols.

And in the case of Christ as bread - it is Christ as "The Word" that became flesh and dwelt among us - for as God teaches the lesson of manna is "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".



"DO this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" Luke 22:19

"As often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP you do show the Lords' DEATH".
1 Cor 11:26

The RCC also belives that bread literally turns into God but Lutherans simply stop there and claim they don't know how this happens or what they are saying. Instead of doing that - the RCC says "oh no here is how it happens" and in describing it they admit to the obvious point that this has to be a continual sacrifice if it really is a continual presentation of the real body and blood of Christ.


However the text of scripture in 1Cor 11 does NOT say "you do continue to put the Lord to Death" nor does it say "you do continue to show the DEAD LORD".

 

[BobRyan]

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.

 

[Rooselk]

Lutheran theologian Edward W.A. Koehler put it this way:

...none of these words: "This is My Body," may be taken in the figurative sense. "This" can refer to nothing else than to the bread to which Christ gave his disciples. The word "is" can never be taken in the figurative sense to mean "represent" or "signify". "Is" always remains "is," and nothing else. When Christ says he "is" the vine (John 15:5), the figure of speech is not the word "is," but in the word "vine." Christ really "is" to His Christians what the vine is to the branches; from Him they receive nourishment and strength. Also in the sentence: "This" - pointing to a picture - "is my father," the figure of speech is not in the word "is," but in the word "this"; the person here portrayed really "is" my father. Nor may the word "body" be taken in a figurative sense, because it is definitely stated which body is meant, namely, "which is given for you." When we read that the Church is Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23) it is evident that the word "body" is taken figuratively, because the Church is not the body which was given for us. Besides, it is an established rule that a word must be taken in its native meaning, unless circumstances or context plainly indicate the figurative sense. But there is nothing in the words of institution that compels us to depart from the literal and native meaning. Nor has any one of the holy writers indicated that these words must be interpreted figuratively. On the contrary, speaking to the Corinthians, Paul says that the bread is communion of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), and that an unworthy communicant becomes guilty, not of the sign or symbol of Christ, but of the body itself (1 Cor. 11:27). This could not be if he had not in some way received it; and since the unworthy cannot receive it spiritually, because he has no faith, he must have received it orally when he ate the bread. Therefore the body and blood must be really present, and are received by all that take the bread and the wine.

It is not those of us who hold to the doctine of the Real Presence that engage in "exegetical gymnastics" but those who take the contrary view.

As to John 6:53-56, I would also agree with Dr. Koehler that this passage "does not treat of the Lord's Supper, because the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted."

 

[Matt Black]

The text when read in its normal fashion.

No it doesn't!! It means the precise opposite of what you claim it means!

Bob, show me when Jesus points to a door or a vine and says "This is my body".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Come, Come, you can not so casually ignore Jesus saying "this is my body." If you are going to maintain it is merely bread and not as the Lord states, then you must provide the textual evidence that proves the contrary.

I have not ignored it. I have affirmed it. He holds up a piece of bread and says "This is my body." No one understood that to be literal in any sense. The language makes no sense that way.

In John 6, he says "I am the bread." That was clearly figurative as you seem to admit Chemnitz and rightly so. The question is why you are not consistent. Jesus wasn't really bread. It was a picture.

In John 10, he says "I am the door." Matt wants Jesus to point to it and say "this is my body." Why? Why isn't the fact that he uses the same words and makes teh same point enough? Because it doesn't fit your preconceived theology? I think that is lacking.

Chemnitz tries to appeal to "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." I think it is clear from the passage that that refers to eating and drinking unworthily, profaning the death of Christ. It seems hard to avoid that, and requires a great imagination to make that supportive of real presence, it seems to me.

So in the end, we obviously view Scripture differently. I think the words mean just what they say in the fashion in which language is typically used. I see no reason to invent some mystical use.

Your statement does not adequately address the statement of Jesus nor the claims of Paul when he plainly states that Communion is a participation in the Body of Christ and that those who are unworthy are guilty of profaning the Body. These things that Paul claims simply would not be a problem if it were just a memorial.

 

[Chemnitz]

1. You have ignored it in making your statements that scripture only claims it is bread. Two there is no indication that the disciples ever thought it was symbolic, if you have scriptural proof of this thought process then you need to give it.

2. I have never said that I took John 6 symbolicaly, I have only stated that I do not think that is a direct reference to Holy Communion.

3. Irrelevant, as this is a text that is not within the context of Communion. Second, the greek does mean entry way or portal and Jesus is literally the entry way into heaven.

4. Your claim here does require a stretch as Paul plainly states that it is a profaning of the body, not a profaning of the death.