-
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!
This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
Agnus_Dei said:
This Do : Take and Eat the Bread,
In Remembrance of Me: In Commemoration of His Death and His Blood.
You can prove it by Med Lab Test, which you may be scared to see the result of.
I find no contradiction with the interpretation at all, Sir.
Even though "participation" is one of the meanings that can be translated into the Greek word here, it is not "participation" the way you are thinking of it. The actual word is koinonia (2842; from 2839 koinos "common")and also means partnership or (social) intercourse or pecuniary benefaction and is also translated elsewhere as "communication", "distribution", "fellowship". The context of 1 Cor 10 is Paul's instruction to flee from idolatry, because whoever gets involved with it is partaking of the devils of pagan religion worship. He is not saying there is some "real presence" of the devils in the objects, (though that is often what [ironically, anti-Catholic] Jack Chick and other radical "spiritual warfare" types claim, with all sorts of descriptions of demons "clinging onto" things, as if these were physical space-bound beings; and use this notion against Catholicism, rhythmic music, bad emotions and whatever else they are trying to demonize). You are spiritually partaking of their altar (worship)(v.18), and thus fellowshipping with them (v.20).Chemnitz said:
So he starts with an example of how this works, with first, the Communion, and then the sacrifices of OC Israel. Again, there is no claim of any "real presence" of God IN the food in the OT practice. It is a sign of spiritual allegiance to the true God or false gods by participating (in social religious intercourse) with a group of people worshipping whichever God.
So what he is saying there is the bread we break and cup we bless (and eat/drink TOGETHER) is the partnership with Christ, whose body and blood we use bread and wine to represent. It is a sign (of allegiance; baptism also), not a claim of anything happening to the food, either "literally", or "invisibly".
He later goes on to point out that people's gluttony of it (which is the only "unworthy manner" in the context) violates this unity, and thus disrespects the meaning of the solemn meal. (Which is why you do not need a concept of a "real presence" in order for it to be profaned, and Paul's words to have meaning).
Another verses:
Acts 15:
20
they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Do you still claim that the Disciples drank the Blood in the Chalice?
Can anyone bring any verse that the chalice is the exception to that teaching?
Acts 15:
20
they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Do you still claim that the Disciples drank the Blood in the Chalice?
Can anyone bring any verse that the chalice is the exception to that teaching?
London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689
chapter 30:
2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sin of the quick or dead; but only a memorial of that (c) one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the crosse, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all (d) possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominable, injurious to Christs own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the Elect.
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of Bread and Wine, into the substance of Christs body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture (i) alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the (k) nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross Idolatries.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcfc30.htm#chapter30
chapter 30:
2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sin of the quick or dead; but only a memorial of that (c) one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the crosse, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all (d) possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominable, injurious to Christs own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the Elect.
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of Bread and Wine, into the substance of Christs body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture (i) alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the (k) nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross Idolatries.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcfc30.htm#chapter30
Last edited:
Eric B said:
koinonia is its own word, any attempt to relegate it to the meaning of koinos is a faulty use of Greek vocabulary. Koinonia is a far more intense word than koinos. BDAG has many possible definitions for including fellowship and participation, but they have one thing in common a close intimate sharing. A close intimate sharing does not exist at the level of a loose fellowship that is social intercourse. It goes far beyond social niceties. It is a sharing on a level we humans could only dream of obtaining. To relegate the participation in Christ's body and blood to a mere social intercourse is horrendous.
Gluttony, he only identifies as a symptom. It in and of itself is not the core problem. The problem is they were not rightly regarding what communion is. He correctly moves beyond the idea of gluttony and reminds them that what they are partaking in is the very body and blood of Christ. If they had rightly regarded Christ's body and blood they would not have abused it in such a manner. If this were not the case he would have called them down for gluttony not for their nonrecognition of the body. Again if it is as you say nonexistant then there would be nothing to profain, but because there is something to profain then it must be there.
Eliyahu, you missed out some important paragraphs of the London Baptist Confession:-
You see, even the Baptists (used to) acknowledge some kind of Presence.
(Italics mine.)
You see, even the Baptists (used to) acknowledge some kind of Presence.
Matt Black said:
But not the full Transubstantiation which includes a lot of Idolatry such as image of God, or lifting up the cookies, etc.
5. The outward elements in this ordinance which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.
I don't find any Real Presence from your post, but I got such impression from somewhere else.
Last edited:
Yes, but I don't think anyone other than Agnus is arguing transubstantiation. Many of us are however arguing against mere memorialism - and the Confession cited would seem to suggest that the early Baptists at least agreed with us on that point.
For instance, my own (now) denomination, the Church of England, uses language virtually identical to the London Baptist Confession:-
For instance, my own (now) denomination, the Church of England, uses language virtually identical to the London Baptist Confession:-
Last edited by a moderator:
Further quote from the 39 Arts:-
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by which He works invisibly in us, and not only quickens, but also strengthens and confirms, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul said.
I think the confession was intended to say: The Sacraments shouldn't be worshipped, when I read thru the context.
Even though COE started as the split from RCC, but it reflected many teachings from Baptists plus their own improvements.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul said.
I think the confession was intended to say: The Sacraments shouldn't be worshipped, when I read thru the context.
Even though COE started as the split from RCC, but it reflected many teachings from Baptists plus their own improvements.
Last edited:
It condemns the Catholic practice of reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, putting it in a monstrance and carrying it about in worship.Eliyahu said:
This Wikipedia article fairly accurately sets out Church of England view(s) on communion. I personally incline to the more Cranmerian view.
Hi Matt, I don’t see the Cranmerian view listed in your Wikipedia article.Matt Black said:
But pertaining to the article, do you consider yourself: Low Church, Broad Church or Anglo-Catholic.
Seems like the Broad Church and Anglo-Catholic’s tend to reverence the Sacrament of the Eucharist more so than the Low Church. The Anglo’s even practice Eucharistic adoration.
In regard to the Article 28 concerning the Lord’s Supper you posted above, how does the Church of England respond to such reverence, or do they?
Blessings
-
Once again, as I've said before; it's not "mere" anything! What you have just highlighted regarding the definition of koinonia is exactly what I was trying to convey. It is a close sharing on a [spiritual] level humans cannot otherwise attain. Still, the sharing is of Christ in us, (having the social intercourse) and not Christ in the bread and wine. The shared bread and wine only represents the sharing of Christ. I don't see where koinonia suggests anything special about the elements in themselves. It's the people taking them.Chemnitz said:
What Matt quoted regarding the Baptist confession is pretty much what I could go with, and it is "officially" the way Baptists take it in practice. That's why to keep charging us with this "mere memorialism", "mere this, and mere that" is just as offensive as if someone disregarded your concept like that. What I think happens is that from arguing against the Catholic practice so much, the Baptists so focus on what it is not, that they have lost that definition, given above, of what it is; or at least are just so used to downplaying it.
Again, I did not say anything about "nonexistent". It's just not in the Bread; it is in the people. To come and profane such a meal like that with gluttony would be a serious disregard to Christ, without some "presence" of His being in the bread. All Paul mentions is gluttony that defined their nonrecognition of the Body, not as a "symptom" some other problem. the other problem was a corollary of their behavior that they inadvertently didn't realize. Of course, they were not regarding the body in being gluttonous, but it was not physical food they were not regarding, but rather Christ and the fellowship of Christians making up His spiritual Body. Again, if you understand it along the lines of the Baptist confession, there won't be a problem with this passage.