• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
Rooselk said:
What I find amazing about this thread is that Christians who could believe in a Trinity that defies all human explanation; in a that God created the world out of nothing; in a virgin birth; in a resurrection from the dead after three days; and all the miracles found in the Bible, suddenly become skeptics and demand a scientific explanation when the Lord says, "this is my body, this is my blood." Let me just say that there are just some truths which God in his own wisdom chooses not to explain to us. Moreover, it is in seeking an explanation for those things that God has chosen not to explain that we sometimes fall into error. For instance, in trying to explain predestination John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius gave us mutually exclusive doctrines that divide the church to this very day. In my view the same is true regarding human explanations of the bread and wine, body and blood at the Lord's Supper. If Jesus Himself says "this is my body, this is my blood" then that should be explanation enough.
Again, what you're doing is using "intellectual suicide" arguments like the Church always used on "scientific skeptics" or "unbelievers" when it insisted on docteines such as the world being flat. Again, these other "supernatural" events, (changes in physical matter) you could actually see the change; like the Creation, Virgin Birth, raising the dead, and all the other miracles. Then there are spiritual realities such as the doctrines about God (Trinity, grace, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc), in which there is no change in any matter, because it is spiritual. What your doctrine has done is confuse the two types of "supernaturalism", so you get these physical elements that "change", but there is no physical difference in them, so you have to conclude some "spiritual; presence" in them, (and have to conclude that as "another one of those reason-defying 'supernatural' events" even though it is neither physical nor match any other spiritual event). God's Spirit is always described as indwelling people, not things. It's us who sinned and needed to be regenerated, not food.

Matt Black said:
EricB and Bound, am I reading your posts correctly, in that you would accept an Eastern Orthodox view of the Real Presence, but reject the transubstantiation of late medieval scholastic Catholicism?
I believe that would be closer to the truth, since it has added less stuff to the concept than the Roman doctrine did (as is the case in so many other areas). The east simply drew the line at a certain point, and would accept no more development, and then claimed that the point they were at was original and undeveloped.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Agnus_Dei said:
Anyway, in regard to Leviticus and the forbidding of drinking blood, Christ fulfilled the Law of God…The blood is the life as Genesis 9:4 taught the Jews and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour out the blood onto the earth, not because it was too vile, but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God Himself.

Now we see Jesus, who is the Life (John 14:6), comes and commands those to drink His Blood (Matthew 26:27-28). His is the blood we not only may, but according to Christ Himself in John 6, must drink if we are to have life in us (John 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Hebrews 9).
-
Good answer.

As for this response...
Eliyahu:Jesus didn't mean that one should drink His Blood physically, but by believing in the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which means the Being Born Again by Holy Spirit.
...this is a retreat into circularity and question begging

Memorialist (in this case, Eliyahu): "Jesus can't be talking about drinking His real blood because such would violate the Law"

Advocate for the Biblical Realist view (in this case, Agnus Dei) responds by demonstrating how Christ, the Life and true Lamb of God, fulfilled the OT Law and was thus the One in the light of whom the previous OT prohibition ultimately makes sense, as the prohibition anticipated fulfillment in the One who would give His blood for the life of the world (something the blood of animals is incapable of accomplishing)

Memorialist (Eliyahu),seeing one argument defeated): "Well, Jesus still really didn't mean we should drink His blood physically and that 'drinking His blood' really means 'being born again of the Holy Spirit'"

Realist points out how nowhere in that passage does Jesus equate 'drinking His blood' with 'being born again of the Holy Spirit', and that the Memorialist is reading that meaning into the text and therefore is begging the question.

To which, the Memorialist could (and does) respond: "But He can't be talking about drinking His real blood because....(fill in another excuse) :BangHead:
 

bound

New Member
Matt Black said:
EricB and Bound, am I reading your posts correctly, in that you would accept an Eastern Orthodox view of the Real Presence, but reject the transubstantiation of late medieval scholastic Catholicism?

Hi Matt,

I can't speak for EricB but all that I am saying is that Roman Catholic Scholastic presumption is the foundation of the divisions over this issue. Roman Catholic Scholastic Theology was and is a failed attempt to objectively explain the Real Presence. Rome needs to deal with that and other issues that are at the heart of their modern-day theological back-pedaling. What I find disingenuous is the fact that Rome appears to be attempting to make such dramatic changes in their theology without admitting to their historic errors and the confusion, division and deaths such errors has caused.

It is clear for anyone willing to study the issues objectively that Rome is in the midst of radical corrections in their theology but none appear honest enough to admit it and accept culpability for the thousand years of darkness such miscalculations in reasoning has brought Western Christendom.

What I am saying concerning Orthodoxy is that they avoid intellectual litmus tests concerning the matter which Scholasticism failed to do.

PS: I know this sounds a bit harsh so please pardon me if my post offenses I've just venting a bit this afternoon. God Bless you all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thanks to EricB and Bound for confirming your positions; are you aware that they are much closer (particularly in the case of Bound) to the transubstantiation end of the spectrum than the memorialist end? It pretty much describes where I'm at on the issue too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rooselk

Member
Doubting Thomas, I'd say that's a pretty good summary. There's talk here about "intellectual suicide" with regard to the Realist position. But to disregard Christ's own words of "this is my body, this is my blood" is intellectually dishonest since all other explanations do not do justice to the plain and natural meaning and understanding of these words.

There will always be those who will resist truths they do not understand. That is just the nature of things. And even though this matter of the Real Presence is not an essential doctrine that effects one's salvation, I still prefer to take Christ at his word. After all, it seems to me that if Jesus had intented to convey a memorial meaning he could have just as easily said, "this represents my body, this represents my blood."
 

bound

New Member
Matt Black said:
Thanks to EricB and Bound for confirming your positions; are you aware that they are much closer (particularly in the case of Bound) to the transubstantiation end of the spectrum than the memorialist end? It pretty much describes where I'm at on the issue too.

From my understanding Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Aristotelian dualism of 'Accidents' and 'Substances' to describe reality as well as many modern scholars and scientists. This rejection is not a refutation of the Real Presence on their part but merely a refutation of the Scholastic Formula made Dogma by Rome. The Mysteries stay Mysteries in the East and their is a continuation of the Patristic practice to avoid such formulas. I believe Baptists can appreciate this stance.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
bound said:
From my understanding Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Aristotelian dualism of 'Accidents' and 'Substances' to describe reality as well as many modern scholars and scientists. This rejection is not a refutation of the Real Presence on their part but merely a refutation of the Scholastic Formula made Dogma by Rome. The Mysteries stay Mysteries in the East and their is a continuation of the Patristic practice to avoid such formulas.
I’ve spoken with a few Greek Orthodox laity both online and personally and at least one Greek Orthodox Priest, and the feeling I got, when asking about the differences between the East and the West, was that the Catholic’s Scholastic Formula concerning the Real Presence wasn’t even an issue and the priest told me that that’s not the reason the East and West remains in schism today.

Papal Infallibility and the Churches Teaching Authority were the issues.

bound said:
I believe Baptists can appreciate this stance.
Whoaaa, I was raised a Baptist and any view other than a memorial or symbolic view was not appreciated whatsoever, that included Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist's views.
-
 

bound

New Member
Agnus_Dei said:
I’ve spoken with a few Greek Orthodox laity both online and personally and at least one Greek Orthodox Priest, and the feeling I got, when asking about the differences between the East and the West, was that the Catholic’s Scholastic Formula concerning the Real Presence wasn’t even an issue and the priest told me that that’s not the reason the East and West remains in schism today.

Papal Infallibility and the Churches Teaching Authority were the issues.

I can point you to Orthodox Forums (with numerous Priests, Seminarians and laity) which would respectfully beg to differ...

From the Orthodox point-of-view, Scholasticism was the 'break' from Apostolic Tradition which justifies their denial of grace in the Sacraments of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

Whoaaa, I was raised a Baptist and any view other than a memorial or symbolic view was not appreciated whatsoever, that included Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist's views.

You need to recognize a 'distinction' between 'Real Presence' and the 'Roman Dogma of Transubstantiation'... the two are 'not' synonymous...

"...many of the Fathers simply supported the idea of Jesus' real presence in the communion, not that the elements were literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. So the later dogma of transubstantiation cannot be based on any early or unanimous consent of the Fathers which Catholics claim for it." (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals by Geisler/MacKenzie, page 263)

And elsewhere...

"The Eastern Orthodox Church, whose roots are at least as old as the Roman church, has always held a mystical view of Christ's presence in the communion but never the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation." (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals by Geisler/MacKenzie, page 263)

Honestly, it's not my aim to refute Patristic Traditions but I am criticizing what I believe to be an unhealthy syncretism between Patristic Traditions and Scholastic Theology. Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox and anyone else who continues to protest Catholicism must acknowledge such if they continue to be out of communion with Rome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnus_Dei

New Member
bound said:
I can point you to Orthodox Forums (with numerous Priests, Seminarians and laity) which would respectfully beg to differ...
PM me those forums, I'd love to pick their minds, as I'm still objectively studying both...

Blessings
-
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Doubting Thomas said:
Good answer.

As for this response...

...this is a retreat into circularity and question begging

Memorialist (in this case, Eliyahu): "Jesus can't be talking about drinking His real blood because such would violate the Law"

Advocate for the Biblical Realist view (in this case, Agnus Dei) responds by demonstrating how Christ, the Life and true Lamb of God, fulfilled the OT Law and was thus the One in the light of whom the previous OT prohibition ultimately makes sense, as the prohibition anticipated fulfillment in the One who would give His blood for the life of the world (something the blood of animals is incapable of accomplishing)

Memorialist (Eliyahu),seeing one argument defeated): "Well, Jesus still really didn't mean we should drink His blood physically and that 'drinking His blood' really means 'being born again of the Holy Spirit'"

Realist points out how nowhere in that passage does Jesus equate 'drinking His blood' with 'being born again of the Holy Spirit', and that the Memorialist is reading that meaning into the text and therefore is begging the question.

To which, the Memorialist could (and does) respond: "But He can't be talking about drinking His real blood because....(fill in another excuse) :BangHead:

I would rather be called a Remembrancer or Remembrance-ist than Memorialist.

If one interpret John 6 meaning that Jesus offered Himself for the Blood Party and Human Flesh eating party, then it is obviously totally different religion, and IMO it should be called realy Pagan Babylon Religion which ate the human flesh.

True Christians do understand what Jesus meant, Jesus meant the Crucifixion, no one else than Jesus could do such a work at the Cross.

In the Last Night, at the Last Supper, He said " This is my body, this is my Blood" by doing so, He insititued the New Covenant which indicate His Blood and Death of Next Day.

Throughout the Eternity, the Center is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Calvary, at the Cross.

The Lord Supper focus on the Cross, what Jesus has done already.

The reason why RCC insist on Transubstantiation is because they don't believe what was done already at the Cross, but instead they try to do it for themselves, by magic performance.

Howeve, as I indicated in other threads of Numbers 20:10-, Moses could not enter Canaan because he struck the Rock once again instead of Speaking to the Rock.

Read the entire chapter of Numbers 20, especially from 20:10.
God was angry about it.

Today, sadly, RCC repeats the striking down the Rock every week, which is the Eucharist based on the Transubstantiation.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Eric B said:
Again, what you're doing is using "intellectual suicide" arguments like the Church always used on "scientific skeptics" or "unbelievers" when it insisted on docteines such as the world being flat. Again, these other "supernatural" events, (changes in physical matter) you could actually see the change; like the Creation, Virgin Birth, raising the dead, and all the other miracles. Then there are spiritual realities such as the doctrines about God (Trinity, grace, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc), in which there is no change in any matter, because it is spiritual. What your doctrine has done is confuse the two types of "supernaturalism", so you get these physical elements that "change", but there is no physical difference in them, so you have to conclude some "spiritual; presence" in them, (and have to conclude that as "another one of those reason-defying 'supernatural' events" even though it is neither physical nor match any other spiritual event).
So which category of "supernaturalism" would the INCARNATION fall into? The latter? For empirically Jesus of Nazareth was a man. However, we believe that He is from eternity GOD, and then became man at a specific point in time. In becoming man, he didn't assume a man who had a separate subsistence in his own right, but He--the Divine PERSON--assumed humanity and made it HIS OWN. Yet, looking at the historical human Jesus of Nazareth (ie if we were to somehow put Him under a microscope) we wouldn't be able to tell that He's any different from any other human being. So while empirically Jesus certainly is a human, the truth is more complex than that--He is the eternal Divine Logos who assumed real humanity in becoming the man Jesus in history without ceasing to be God. This is a profound spiritual truth yet it supernaturally entails an intimate incomprehensible involvement of the Divine with His material creation--physical flesh and blood, etc--without empirically changing the nature of the matter involved (except perhaps at the Resurrection).

Somewhat similarly with the Eucharist, the bread and wine are empirically...well...bread and wine. Not counting stories of possible Eucharistic miracles, if one were to look at the consecreted bread and wine under a microscope one would see...bread and wine. However, there is no a priori reason to suppose that the bread and wine couldn't possibly have another spiritual reality in addition to the empirical one--namely the true participation in the body and blood of Christ by the believer. Of course, the difference in the Incarnation is that it happened once in history and was the Divine Person of the Son of God taking on real empiric humanity (while also remaining Himself divine), while in the Eucharist Christ takes empirical bread and wine and spiritually (not simply 'symbolically') makes it His body and blood (while remaining empirical bread and wine). The point is, the Incarnation itself shows us there is no hard and fast distinction between one 'supernaturalism' which involves 'spiritual' truth and another 'supernaturalism' which involves only matter, since the material miracle of the Virgin conception and birth brought God Himself into intimate connection with matter without causing Himself empirically detected within the matter He assumed.

Looking at the miracles of the feeding of the 5000 and the changing of the water-into-wine, we can admit that these aren't strictly analogous to presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine of Communion since there is no empirical change detected in the bread or the wine. However, these miracles are helpful to illustrate the power of the One, who is from eternity God but is time empirically man, to communicate (indeed "multiply") Himself to us in the forms of the empirical bread and wine should He so choose. Jesus as God-become-man is certainly able to so involve Himself with the elements of bread and wine that they become in a spiritual (but not empty 'symbolic') way His very Body and Blood, just as He so identifies the bread and wine in the Gospel narratives. Which brings me to the next point...

God's Spirit is always described as indwelling people, not things.
Hmmm...let's see:

“The cloud covered the Tabernacle of meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting because the cloud rested above it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Exodus 40:34-35)
(The Tabernacle is a physcial "thing", is it not?)

And regarding Solomon's Temple:
"And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. Then Solomon spoke: 'The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud. I have surely built You and exalted house, and a place for You to dwell forever.'" (1 Kings 8:10-13)

So, we have a clear Biblical statements that God fills physical inanimate objects such as tabernacles and temples, and that He is actually said to dwell in objects such as clouds and temples. This seems to be the straightforward reading of these passages, unless one asserts despite such realistic language that:
(1)There is no real connection between the cloud and the glory of the Lord
(2)That there is no special presence involved in God's shekinah glory filling the tabernacle or temple.
(3)That the "cloud" is simply a non-physical metaphor for God's glory (despite the fact that this non-physcial entity would somehow physically preclude Mose and the priests from entering the tabernacle and the temple respectively.)

So if one concedes that, yes, God can (and did) have a special presence in specific locales (temples/tabernacles) by dwelling in physical non-human objects (clouds) while remaining omnipresent, there is no logical reason that Christ cannot in a sense do likewise with other physcial non-human objects (bread/wine)--unless one wants to beg the question.

It's us who sinned and needed to be regenerated, not food.
Unless I've missed something, I don't see where anyone has claimed that God "regenerates" food. :laugh:

However, I don't believe anyone has demonstrated (without special pleading) that God cannot use physical objects (even "food") to convey spiritual benefits, given the fact that it's all HIS creation--physical matter and spirit--and He can do what He wants to with it. The fact is that God has already brought spiritual benefits through the use of physical means by bringing spiritual (and, at the Eschaton, physical) salvation to mankind through the physical Incarnation, physical Death (on a physical cross with physical nails, shedding physical blood), and physical Resurrection of His Son. Lest, one think that after Christ's Ascension that God now only deals with us spiritually, we need to remember that ultimately we're going to continue to be physical-spiritual entities (with real physically resurrected bodies like Christ's) and not become a bunch of disembodied spirits (which would be the hope and dream of gnostics). That being the case, there is no a priori reason that Christ can't spiritually convey the benefits of His physcial/spiritual Atonement through the physical means of bread, wine, and water to His people.

So once some a priori philosophical/theological objections are dealt with as above, one can then turn to the texts themselves and see if grammatically and in context the Scripture writers do in fact teach a real connection/identification between the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Christ--with the former not being empty metaphors, but truly making present the thing signified. I believe the case has been well made by many people for this real connection through out the posts on this thread.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Is Jesus a Violator of the Law given by God?

Did Jesus ignore or repeal or rescind any of 10 commandments?

Did He ignore "Thou shalt not kill" " Thou shalt not commit adultery" ....?


How could He repeal the so-much important Law prohibiting the Eating of the Blood as we read Lev 17 :11?

Did Jesus say that " the Law said you should not eat the Blood, but in this you should drink my Blood in remembrance of me"?
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
The whole Truth of Salvation and Redemption is based on the Great Law that:

1) Life is in the Blood

2) Life can be redeemed by another Sinless Life

3) Blood belongs to God

4) No one can eat the Blood as it belongs to God.

5) Jesus shed His Blood at the Cross


When Jesus said " Drink my Blood" John 6, did He mean that one should drink the actual Blood of His despite the Law which was the Basis of the Salvation? Nonsense!

Why don't they prove it by Med Lab tests?
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.


13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.




Blood is not for eating but for offering at the Altar for
God.

Dear Catholic or pro-Catholic friends,

You made a big misunderstanding.

You are strongly confessing that you yourselves are cut off from the People of God.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Why is the Transubstantiation related to the Pagan Idolatry?


Read

Ezekiel 33:25
Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?


Transubstation is a modernized form of this eating Blood toward IDOL ! and toward cookie god!
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Cookie god is here along with Queen of Heaven:

Jeremiah 44
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. 18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men

44:25
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform


Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.
( quotes from www.Crosswalk.com)
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Was the Blood of Jesus spilt over from the cup for many people?

Matthew 26: 28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Matt Black said:
Eliyahu, I think DT has already answered your questions. Why do you persist with your straw man?

Is DT more worthwhile than the Bible?

Bible clearly prohibits Eating Blood, should we trust DT over Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top