This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Article 28 (of the 39 Article os the Church of England)- The Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is [also] a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: to those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread that we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

GE:

Amen!
Can you realise how good it feels to co-confess with Congregations I am not even a member of? I thank the Lord on the spot for the privilege and joy of it!

 

[Chemnitz]

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.
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.

Spirituality doesn't cut it either and neither does fellowship cut it either. For one there is nothing to indicate that it is merely at a spiritual level. Jesus did not say that I give you my body spiritually and one does not eat or drink spiritually. These are all physical activities.

Second of all there is nothing to indicate soma refers to the people. When Christ tells us it is his body and blood we can only logically accept that it is what he is giving us to eat. Not some nebullous idea of spiritual fellowship. Partly, because when body is used in terms of fellowship never is the blood mentioned. However, in communion blood is mentioned, this makes it something completely different from references to fellowship.

Thirdly in the context of 1 Cor 11, Paul does not refer to the people as the body of Christ. If this was in the context of some idea of spiritual fellowship would he pointedly remind them they were the body? He did so in other areas when he was speaking in terms of the people as the body of Christ. But not so here. Instead, he reminds them of the words of Christ. Where Jesus is telling us to eat his body and drink his blood. The fact these words are in the immediate context of profaning the body and the blood rules out some sort of fellowship idea.

Back to 1 Cor 10, they in their particpating are sharing in the essence of what they are participating in. Idols being dead, death and Christ who is alive and body and blood, life. And they were doing so through His body and blood.

 

[Eric B]

If spirituality doesn't cut it, then Eliyahu is right that it is cannibalism. Either you are eating real physical flesh and blood, or it is some form of spirituality, and your side does claim this when others demand empirical proof that is is flesh and blood.
Again, the fact that you still speak of this in terms of "merely" shows you still don't grasp the spiritual significance of the spiritual fellowship.

And "fellowship" is apart of the meaning of koinonia, not spiritual presence residing in food.

The food represented the soma and the blood, yet the spiritual presence and fellowship is in the spiritual body, never in food. So eating the food in His name is partaking of Him and of His life, rather than dead idols.
Again, if you take "partaking" of something as some "spiritual presence" in the food, then for others to be partaking of idols, you confess that demons are physically inside of or clinging to objects, and that the idol is not really dead after all, since the analogy is drawn.

And of course, since they physically ate in remembrance of Him, they would be physically eating. On the other hand, there is no such thing as spiritual eating and drinking??? what about the passage of Paul that says the Israelites spiritually ate and drank of the Rock...and the Rock was Christ?
This right here shows the spiritual eating and drinking, and the Communion is both. Again, you all speak of being nourished, and this is not physical nourishment (especially with the tiny portion given!)

 

[Matt Black]

Hi Matt, I don’t see the Cranmerian view listed in your Wikipedia article.

Herewith:-

[edit] Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union

Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the first Book of Common Prayer, wrote on the Eucharist in his treatise On the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Lord's Supper that Christians truly receive Christ's "self-same" Body and Blood at Communion--but in "an heavenly and spiritual manner". He also maintains in the 39 Articles that the "wicked" only consume the elements and do not receive Christ. In some ways, Cranmer's Eucharistic doctrine resembles the idea of transignification.
This view has tended to predominate in Anglican Eucharistic theological discourse and practice. A maxim in Anglicanism concerning Christ's presence in the matter is that "it may not be about a change of substance, but it is about a substantial change."[citation needed] This view is expressed in the allied but metaphysically different doctrines of consubstantiation and Sacramental Union. In sum, both views hold that Christ is present in the Eucharistic elements spiritually. Such spiritual presence may or may not be in bodily form, depending on the doctrine with which one allies oneself. Many contemporary Anglicans would concur with the views of the 19th Century divine Edward Bouverie Pusey, who argued strongly for the Lutheran idea of Sacramental Union. In this doctrine, the Bread and Wine do not disappear at the consecration, but that the Body and Blood become present without diminishing them.
While a consubstantionist or Sacramental Union view is typically associated with the Broad Church or Latitudinarian camps of Anglicanism, it is also widely held by those who would identify with the evangelical or Anglo-Catholic wings.

But pertaining to the article, do you consider yourself: Low Church, Broad Church or Anglo-Catholic.

A combo of broad and low (including evangelical); the A-Cs tend to be nose-bleed High and 'more Catholic than the Pope' (one of my uncles, a Catholic priest, on hearing that many A-Cs were going to swim the Tiber over the Church of England's decision to ordain women, was filled with horror, saying "Oh no, we're going to get all these people telling us how we ought to be saying Mass and that we're not wearing the correct vestments or performing the correct gestures etc")

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?

The Church of England quietly ignores it...! [ETA - more seriously, the 39 Arts are not like the Catholic catechism or even the SBC's Faith and Message 2000; they are recognised by the Anglican Communion as reflecting the somewhat polemical standards of their age (1563 IIRC); Anglicanism places far more importance on the Creeds of the Early Church]

 

[Chemnitz]

If spirituality doesn't cut it, then Eliyahu is right that it is cannibalism. Either you are eating real physical flesh and blood, or it is some form of spirituality, and your side does claim this when others demand empirical proof that is is flesh and blood.
Again, the fact that you still speak of this in terms of "merely" shows you still don't grasp the spiritual significance of the spiritual fellowship.

First of all, we do not claim spiritual in the sense that is meant by the reformed such as yourself. The word 'spiritual' in Lutheran circles can and does mean mysterious, supernatural, and or without explanation. It does not necessarily mean incorporeal. For the sake of clarity, we tend to use the term Sacramental Union, which is defined as the mysterious union of body and blood with the elements of bread and wine brought about by the promise of Christ. In the case of Communion, spiritual can also be used in the sense that the people who receive the body and blood in faith receive the benefits of such reception.

The fact that I use 'mere' means I am perfectly aware of the significance of spiritual fellowship but that I also acknowledge that there is more happening than fellowship.

And "fellowship" is apart of the meaning of koinonia, not spiritual presence residing in food.

Yes intimate fellowship is a possible meaning for koinonia, it also means sharing. In the sense of Christian fellowship or spiritual fellowship if you prefer one does not share in the body of Christ, we are the body of Christ. When we koinonia or share the body of Christ we are receiving the body of Christ, not merely experiencing some mere fellowship. Fellowship occurs for in partaking of the body and blood given to us, for fellowship cannot help but occur, but there is more than fellowship occuring.

The food represented the soma and the blood, yet the spiritual presence and fellowship is in the spiritual body, never in food. So eating the food in His name is partaking of Him and of His life, rather than dead idols.
Again, if you take "partaking" of something as some "spiritual presence" in the food, then for others to be partaking of idols, you confess that demons are physically inside of or clinging to objects, and that the idol is not really dead after all, since the analogy is drawn.

What is this representation? There is no representation. There is body and blood. One does not partake in something via a representation. In partakes in the actual thing.

The act of a demon making use of an idol doesn't make it any more dead or alive.

And of course, since they physically ate in remembrance of Him, they would be physically eating. On the other hand, there is no such thing as spiritual eating and drinking??? what about the passage of Paul that says the Israelites spiritually ate and drank of the Rock...and the Rock was Christ?
This right here shows the spiritual eating and drinking, and the Communion is both. Again, you all speak of being nourished, and this is not physical nourishment (especially with the tiny portion given!)

Here in the question really is what does spiritual mean? Does it mean that what was received was incorporeal? No, for the food they ate was manna, something quite physical, and the drink the drank was water, again something quite physical. Therefore, spiritual in this case must mean they received some spiritual benefit in that they were built up in faith. This would be the case because they would witness on the daily basis God fulfilling his promise to sustain them in the wilderness and it is through this daily fulfilling their trust, their faith would be fulfilled thus making it spiritual.

 

[Eric B]

First of all, we do not claim spiritual in the sense that is meant by the reformed such as yourself. The word 'spiritual' in Lutheran circles can and does mean mysterious, supernatural, and or without explanation. It does not necessarily mean incorporeal. For the sake of clarity, we tend to use the term Sacramental Union, which is defined as the mysterious union of body and blood with the elements of bread and wine brought about by the promise of Christ. In the case of Communion, spiritual can also be used in the sense that the people who receive the body and blood in faith receive the benefits of such reception.

The fact that I use 'mere' means I am perfectly aware of the significance of spiritual fellowship but that I also acknowledge that there is more happening than fellowship.

Here in the question really is what does spiritual mean? Does it mean that what was received was incorporeal? No, for the food they ate was manna, something quite physical, and the drink the drank was water, again something quite physical. Therefore, spiritual in this case must mean they received some spiritual benefit in that they were built up in faith. This would be the case because they would witness on the daily basis God fulfilling his promise to sustain them in the wilderness and it is through this daily fulfilling their trust, their faith would be fulfilled thus making it spiritual.

But since there is no Biblical doctrine of a "real presence" of God IN the manna, then we can distinguish the corpreal literal eating, and the spiritual incorporeal nourishment. We're getting hung up on spiritual versus physical or corpreal vs incorporeal, but it is quite simple. So it is the same with the Communion.

Yes intimate fellowship is a possible meaning for koinonia, it also means sharing. In the sense of Christian fellowship or spiritual fellowship if you prefer one does not share in the body of Christ, we are the body of Christ. When we koinonia or share the body of Christ we are receiving the body of Christ, not merely experiencing some mere fellowship. Fellowship occurs for in partaking of the body and blood given to us, for fellowship cannot help but occur, but there is more than fellowship occuring.

I have acknowledged "sharing", and "more than a fellowship", but you're deducing an additional definition to it (Sharing=sharing the ["literal"] Body of Christ, and Christ is present in the food) that is unsupported by the immediate context, and based on preconception. We share the Body of Christ by being in His body, together. Eating the Communion is one of the things we do as a body.

What is this representation? There is no representation. There is body and blood. One does not partake in something via a representation. In partakes in the actual thing.

But again, either it's cannibalism, with flesh and blood that for some reason looks and tastes like bread and wine, or some form of representation; unless you're arguing that some invisible "Flesh and blood" essence hovers like a ghost right where the bread and wine are, thus again, like the space-like demons clinging to objects.

The act of a demon making use of an idol doesn't make it any more dead or alive.

But if "making use" is defines as a spatial "real presence" of the spirit being in the idol, or the food of the altar, then you can argue that it is alive. In fiction and many Christians' "literal" readings of prophecy such as the resurrected beast and image of the Beast, when a demon inhabits a dead body or object and controls it, it is said to bring it back to life.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

[FONT=r_ansi]The "straw man" key is the use of the term "mere memorialism". That makes it sound like it has less meaning than what we claim. Your argument is that it is all [what you say] or nothing.[/FONT]

But what “more” are you claiming for your view other than the bread and wine acting simply as visual aids for a past event? If there is no actual present tense communion effected by partaking of the bread and wine, and that these are just glorified reminders of something(s) (however great) that occurred in past, why am I not justified in calling your view “mere memorialism”? What is it that’s “more” about your memorialism that keeps it from being “merely” mental recollection?


[FONT=r_ansi]

There was no "debate". You take isolated references to the Communion from the ECF's, and think that your whole ritual and all its philosophy was present, and demand that we produce someone (other than the gnostics) who denies that in order for your view to be disproven. But there was no debate, because your whole ritual and all of its philosophy was not present, but was being developed slowly. Again, all or nothing.

[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I don’t just take “isolated” references; I take all the references of the ECFs who commented on the Eucharist. And I don’t have to suppose that the “whole ritual” or “all it’s philosophy” was present in the earliest times to demonstrate that all of these fathers support the realist position of Christ’ Body and Blood being present in the bread and wine and that none supported the view that the bread and wine were only visual aids to recall a past event and did not affect an actual present participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. The lack of philosophical language such as “transelementation” or “substance/accidents” or “transubstantiation” or “consubstantiation” or “instantiation” (etc) doesn’t militate against the fact that the consensus of the early church (even in the ante-Nicene era) subscribed to the realist view, just as the lack of Nicene and Cappadocian language doesn’t militate against the fact that the early church believed that God was One yet somehow “triune”.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

It's only "proceeding to more and more specific and literal" in your view.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Not in “my view”, but in the actual words used:[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]First, Christ says that He (Himself) is the bread of life, and that we must come to Him and believe in Him so we don’t hunger.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]However, He then states that more specifically the bread He’s giving is HIS FLESH, which He’s giving for the life of the world. So in contrast to the “door” and “vine” metaphors (which Christ applied to Himself generally), Christ in this instance proceeded by specifically identifying the bread He was giving with His flesh. By contrast, He didn’t say “and the vine you must attach yourself to is my flesh (or some other physical aspect of Himself); nor did He say “and this door you must enter is a hole or opening in my physical body.” So instead of just stopping at Himsel just being the bread, he specifically went further by stating that the bread was HIS FLESH.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]Also, instead of just “coming to” “Him”, Christ said we must eat (Gr. ‘phago’) His flesh…and drink His blood. Again, He’s adding specific details that were not there in the original “Bread of life” metaphor. But He becomes even more specific and precise when he says (v54) that we must munch/gnaw/chew (Gr.’trogo’) His flesh. (This too is in contrast to the “vine” illustration as Christ didn’t proceed from “abide” to something more literal such as “physically graft yourself” to His “flesh”; or the “door” metaphor where He didn’t proceed from “enters by Me” to something more literal like “walk through a hole in Me”)[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]So the language indeed becomes more specific and descriptive as He progresses in His discourse. The burden of proof remains on those who discount the implications of this fact and merely try sweep it all under the category of metaphor, despite the lack of any real warrant from the text for doing so and despite the problems given by the current metaphorical meaning of “eat my flesh” used in that day.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi](Continued)[/FONT]

 

[Doubting Thomas]

[FONT=r_ansi](Cont’d)[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I gave an illustration how biblical faith involves “trust and reliance” which implies more than mental assent to certain facts. You replied with….[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

"trust and reliance" means that you are depending on Him for salvation, not your own deeds. Unfortunately, even among those Protestant Evangelicals who believe in mental assent at an altar call, and stuff like that, "Trust and "reliance" have been turned into other things, like "If something bad happens, know that God is in control, and has done it for your own good, so don't get angry or sad". And they all use that same illustration. So if you don't have a good enough attitude when bad things happem, you are not "trusting God". (We had a whole debate on suicide last winter, with the more "conservative" saying such a person is automatically lost because they did not "trust God"). Trusting God is turned into a philosophy of positive thinking, with some unknown "good" being what we trust Him form rather than salvation. But the scriptures used to teach this are taken out of context. Most of them involve OT figures God was directly doing something in (like raising and guiding the nation of Israel, leading to the coming of the Messiah), and should not be projected to us. http://members.aol.com/etb700/abundant.html So for salvation, yes, we "trust" and get into the wheelbarrow. What you and others teach is that the stunt man simply shows us the way, and we then "follow Him" by getting wheelbarrows and pushing ourselves across. (with mman follwing behind saying "that's not work, it's faith").

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Umm…no. Where the illustration breaks down is we must continue to stay in “the wheelbarrow” which involves an act of the will. (“Abide in Me, and I in you” John 15:4) We must continue to have the faith “working through love”. Our life is a long journey (not just one short excursion over a waterfall), and we must trust in Christ in whatever circumstance we may face—by “staying in the wheelbarrow” no matter how bumpy the road seems--and continue to demonstrate this trust in works of love.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

This we agree with. We love Him "because He first loved us" (James 4:19. Also, previous verse, There is no fear in love...he who fears is not made perfect in love", showing that other passages telling us to "fear" mean "respect"

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]So I’m confused—if we continue to “respect” God we’re not “made perfect in love”? ( I’m assuming you meant that this is not the kind of “fear” John is referring to.)[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

and not not to fear losing salvation, as you and Campbellists like mman, who I see is back, seem to advocate). But your view removes the "first loved us" part of it, and has Him "keep loving us because we keep showing Him love through our deeds".

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]First, I haven’t removed the “first loved us” part—where did I say or imply that? Of course we love Him because He first loved us, but this love is something we must continue in. Also love is not a sentiment but expresses itself in acts. However, we are warned in the Sciptures that man’s love can grow cold (Matt 24:12) and that we can leave our first love (Rev 2:4).[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]Second, Christ Himself says: “If you keep My commandments you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” John 15:10[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Also: “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by my father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]So although Scriptures affirm that God ultimately loves us first, we have to respond to this love with love by keeping His commandments in order to remain in His love. Jude says “Keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21).[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]Third, whatever “fear” John may have been referring to in the cited passage, he most likely wasn’t referring to the sober fear of the possibility of falling from salvation. After all Paul told the gentile Romans that although they were (present tense) standing by faith, they were not to “be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches (the unbelieving Jews), He may not spare (them) either.” (Romans 11:20-21)[/FONT]



[FONT=r_ansi]

Again, we see it all stems here from your view of our being "In Christ" as something we renew by our own acts. We see being in Christ as spiritual, and the Communion (which actually means fellowship and unity, and thankfulness) represents or marks this. It doesn't create it.

[/FONT]Yet, as I pointed to in the above passage, Christ said if we keep His commandments we will abide in His love (John 15:10). John more or less says the same thing: “Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” (1 John 3:24). So although our acts don’t “create” that fact of our getting into Christ, they are necessarily related to the fact of whether or not we are presently abiding in Him. And directly related to the idea of abiding in Christ, are His words in John 6: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in Him” (v.56). Christ Himself “renews” His life in us (or sustains us in Him by His life) by giving us His body and blood to eat and drink.

Scriptures, therefore, taken as a whole demonstrate that our loving relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is dynamic and is not statically reducible to a one time initial decision to “accept Christ”.

(Continued…)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Cont'd)

I had glossed over that, not even realizing she was arguing that there, and was focusing more on the rest of her answer.

Okay

In reply to my response to Helen's other (main) points, you said this....

So you're saying the "Coming to Him" is specifically eating the bread?

Yes, in this particular instance.

But you know it is much more than just that in your view; else you would be condoning all the "Catholics" who take Mass/Eastern Communion, etc. and still live however they want.

Indeed. However, Christ’s body and blood must be approached with sober reflection and in the context of a life of faith and repentance. If one takes communion otherwise (ie one who “still lives however he wants”), he’s in danger of eating and drinking judgement upon himself. (1 Corinthians 11:29).

For one thin, it sounds like a one time event, not something that you keep on doing. So it obviously does not mean what you are saying, and it again is tied to your soteriological presuppositions

Really? It doesn’t necessarily “sound like” that to me.
“He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides (present tense) in Me, and I in Him” (John 6:56). I see nothing in this passage that “obviously” limits this ‘eating’ to one time only. Verse 57, “he who feeds on Me will live because of Me”.

But this "become more literal" is just your own interpretation. He is reiterating His statement with more emphasis. It does not mean "more literal". Both the spiritual birth and the eating of the bread and wine are "spiritual" (and both actually mean the same thing, with two ordinances representing both the initial and ongoping aspects of it).

Christ’s language, as I pointed out above (and several times previously), does proceed to the more literal and specific. That’s not my interpretation, but a demonstrable fact. It seems to me, however, the apparent assumption you seem to keep clinging to is that the spiritual cannot be literal (ie a spiritual nourishment taking place by a literal physical eating whereby we partake of Christ’s actual Body and Blood), but somehow must collapse into the merely metaphorical. And again, the only other time in Scriptures where Christ speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is at the Last Supper…and that literally involved the physical eating and physically drinking of objects that Christ specifically identified as His flesh and blood.

You put a little twist on it by adding the word "the same". That's not what He said. He uses parallel language "Your fathers ate manna---If anyone eat of this bread---The Bread that I give [on the Cross], is the my flesh, which I will give for the whole world"

Yet the context shows that the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world was the same flesh He was referring to when He said we must eat His flesh and that it was “food indeed”. He wasn’t saying in one instance that the bread was His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world and that in another instance the “flesh” that we were to eat was something else (like His words or teachings). It’s those folks who suppose that this is what Christ was doing, who are doing the sloppy exegesis. So it’s no “little twist” to point out that contextually the flesh Christ was giving for the life of the world (which He specifically identified with the bread He was giving) was the same we must eat/munch/chew to abide in Him and have life and which is “food indeed”.


Then after I responded to GE's point, you said this...

What he's saying there, is that this translation is not organizing the words in the way they appear in English sentence structure, but rather the original language. That is often helpful in understanding what the text means. You are insisting on the way you read it translated into English, but that is not always the "clear[est]" reading of it.

I know what GE was saying. I was pointing out that simply positing a possible alternative literal meaning doesn’t prove that meaning was in view by the author, especially when one looks at the parallel readings in the other synoptics which won’t allow for the proposed alternative meaning.

So what the both of them say (apart fro "Flesh profits nothing") still stands.Y our way is not necessarily the "plain meaning", but rather an overly literal misunderstanding (just like the Jews), tied to your belief of salvation. From now on, that's what I'm focusing on, because as we both established, that's the real issue.

But yours is the unwarranted metaphorical interpretation, which is tied to your soteriological/Zwinglian views. Mine doesn’t involve an “overly” literal “misunderstanding” because mine doesn’t wonder how Christ could have stood there and (for example) tossed the crowd an arm or leg to eat or his veins for them to drink from—that would be an “overly literal misunderstanding”. The Jews (rightly) interpreted Christ literally, but walked away because they couldn’t get past (wrongly) thinking this literalism had to be taken in a gross carnal sense rather than in a spiritual manner that Christ suggested.

(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Cont'd)

In response to your interesting "argument" that I'm telling Scriptures what they should say for my view not to be correct (and which I basically acknowledged, because the whole point is what is actually written in the text), you come back with....

[FONT=r_ansi]What is this, some sort of bait and switch tactic? You're the one saying they "should day" something in order for your view to be incorrect, and my view to be correct. I'm saying I don't belive they have to say that, but can say what they actually say, without any particular philosophical presupposition placed on it. So that's on you, not on me.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]It’s not “on” me at all. I believe exactly what Paul has written:[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I believe just what Paul wrote: that the cup is the communion of (participation in) the blood of Christ”. But you apparently don’t a believe this, because you continue to say that it’s “our gathering to drink in His name” that’s the real participation in His blood. However this passage doesn’t say that (go back and read it again).[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I believe just what Paul wrote: that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ”. However, again, you really don’t believe that because you’ve gone out of your way to say it’s not the bread, but rather “our gathering to eat in His name” that is the participation in the Body of Christ. Again, the passage doesn’t say that either.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]My belief is based on what the passage actually says about the bread and the wine, and how in context the bread and wine in view are in fact the literal bread and wine which were literally eaten and drunk during Communion. I’ve therefore pointed out what the text must say for your view to be correct, yet you come back by saying “they can actually say what they say”. But the Scriptures “saying what they say” supports my view—that the literal bread they were breaking and the literal wine they were drinking are the communion of (participation of) the Body and blood respectively. You, on the other hand, while claiming to allow the Scriptures to “say what they say”, don’t actually believe them as written, as you are somehow trying to smuggle the idea of “our gathering”—rather than the bread and wine as Paul specifically states-- to be the communion when the text does not “say” that. I therefore showed some of the absurdities that would result if that smuggled-in idea was consistently carried throughout the text. [/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I suppose you could be grasping at the idea that, since “communion” means “intimate participation” or “social intercourse”, it somehow save your idea that when Paul says “bread” he actually means “our social gathering”, or that “our social gathering” is the participation in the body and blood of Christ. However, that doesn’t follow because Paul specifically states it’s the BREAD (that was literally being broken and eaten) that’s THE COMMUNION (participation in) THE BODY OF CHRIST. In other words, the actual text makes it clear that our “intimate participation in” and “social intercourse” with “the body of Christ” is affected by the BREAD we eat, not by our merely gathering together.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]So if anyone is doing any “bait and switch tactics” and reading their philosophy into the text, it’s you as you continue to digress into certain, sometimes-stated, a priori assumptions that : [/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi](1)God can’t be using material objects to effect a spiritual benefit—this is evident when, despite what the text says, you insist the participation of the body and blood can’t be in (or mediated by) “things” such as bread and wine. (As has been pointed out before, this is quasi-gnostic); and[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi](2)that since the Spirit is “already” in us (which you keep saying), that Christ can’t be uniquely present to us with His body and blood in Communion in a another unique way (This seems quasi-modalistic, allowing only one Person to be present in only one way at one given time)[/FONT]



I then made a comment about you not engaging my analysis of what was actually written in the text, and you said this....
[FONT=r_ansi]

And that was why. I had no time that day to get hung up in that confusion, as you were aiming to refute my view using solely what the scripture should say if it were true; so I just pointed out it does not follow. Between literal or metaphor, it's not the grammar or language that will change, it's the context. You're presupposing that "the plain meaning of the language is literal", but the only "context" you can base that on, is your Church tradition (including yopur interpretation of the Fathers, and the Church's concept of salvation). Meanwhile, the real context is "Do this in reMEMbrance of me". Now, you want to talk ablut "plain grammatical meaning, then go by that statement, as it is even more clear than the other statement, and we interpret the uncler by the clear.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]No, the context I base it on is what is actually written in the texts. This is the same context the Church father’s based their realist interpretation as well. As for “remembrance”, I already mentioned in my last (series of) posts that the word anamnesis in that day had a much stronger meaning than simple mental recollection of a past event, but rather included the idea of making present again that past event. Therefore it’s incorrect to take “remembrance” as a mere recollection and then try to squeeze all the realist teachings into that conceptual category and then suppose you’re “interpreting the unclear by the clear”.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi](Continued)[/FONT]

 

[Doubting Thomas]

[FONT=r_ansi](Cont’d)[/FONT]

Regarding the comparison of partaking Holy Communion with the Israelites partaking of the OT altar, you responded...
[FONT=r_ansi]

Yeah, I remember seeing that, and had to think on it, but as I was witing the responses, I forgot about it. I really was crunched for time that day (I'm on vacation this week).

[/FONT]

Still, note that they literally ate the actual sacrifice, not some other object or substance that they had to say changed into the sacrifice, or some spiritual presence resided in it.

Here’s the verse again:
[FONT=r_ansi]“Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor 10:18)[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Paul’s point in this comparison is that in both cases-Old and New--we eat of the sacrifice. In the OT of course they ate of the animals that were offered repeatedly. In the NT, we eat of the flesh and blood of the Lamb of God who was offered ONCE and who then rose from the dead and ASCENDED (cf John 6:62) into heaven where He ministers as our High Priest—both the Offerer and the Offering. We literally eat of this sacrifice, but in the forms of bread and wine which Paul called the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously in the OT they could eat the sacrifices of the animals directly from the altar as these were just dead animals, none of which (to my knowledge) rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Also, they were DEAD, so they had no “spiritual presence” remaining to speak of. However, in the NT we literally partake of the body and blood of Christ, but sacramentally, as Christ is seated alive in glory at the right hand of the Father. We in the NT eat of one final Sacrifice and thus partake of the altar when we eat the bread and drink the wine.[/FONT]

Today, the sacrifice is applied to us spiritually,

Yet you seem to think (or assume) that a spiritual application can’t take place during a physical act. (Again, more in lines with gnosticism than historic Christianity)

and to "reMEMber" that, we are given a physical represention of it. I see no reason we, PAul, the ECF's, etc. couldn't say "This bread IS the Body, and this wine IS the blood", without having to go through all of these philosophcal somersaults to try to get the bread and wine to be something else, somehow (either changing into it, or some invisible "presence").

Yet you are the one going through all the somersaults trying to reduce the bread and wine to mere visual aids when the texts don’t teach that. Paul didn’t say:
“This bread we break, is it not a visual aid or a physical representation of our particpation in Christ?”
Rather he did say:
The bread we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?”
You’re inventing something that’s not in the text.

Again, that is misunderstanding the whole concept, and basicall trying to salvage the misunderstanding of the Jews. But again, it all ties into your belief that the sacrifice is not applied to us one time, spiritually, but rather physically through our own continuous actions. This is why people keep quoting "the flesh profits nothing". Not Christ's actual flesh, but rather our own physical deeds.

No, it refers not our own “physical deeds” either, but rather to a fleshly (carnal) understanding.
And, again, I don’t subscribe to the hard and fast dichotomy between spiritual application and physical action that you apparently do.

So you're the one bending it into what you wish it means.

I’m not bending it all. As I’ve showed repeatedly, you’re the one doing the “bending” by saying that it’s “our gathering” that’s the participation in the body (despite the fact that isn’t what is actually written) and by trying to insert the concept of physical representation or visual aid (which is likewise absent from the text). My view accepts the actual written words of Paul—not what I wish was written in the text.

I then distinguished the REAL PRESENCE from the charge of cannibalism, and you replied...
[FONT=r_ansi]

I could for the most part go along with that. Yet you still insist there's somethign about the bread and wine, and you have argued that it really "is" flesh and blood, only it doesn't look like it. You can't have it both ways. You are making a big issue of the "literal meaning", but a literal meaning is cannibalism (Just like the Jews thought!)

[/FONT]
A literal carnal meaning is "cannibalism". Literally partaking of Christ's body and blood sacramentally in literally eating the bread and drinking the wine is not "cannibalism".

(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Cont'd)

I then responded to the charge that "slapping 'supernatural'" on something one can't entirely comprehend is a "copout", by pointing out the same charge could be made against the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement, and that you were thus being selective with your use of that charge and what 'supernatural' things you were willing to accept. You responded with...

[FONT=r_ansi]Just because some things are spiritual and defy reason doesn't mean we can take anything that defies reason and think it is autimatically truth. This is what Calvinists do with salvation, for example, and you don't believe that. If someone want to use the same argument with us and challenge those other doctrines, then we will debate those issues, and the scriptural support for either side. But I try to avoid using that as the last answer when all else fails. (Though many others use that tactic as well).[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I’m not suggesting taking “anything” that defies reason as “automatic truth”. I think the truth of certain teachings that defy reason is based on the Authority of Christ Himself. When Christ says the bread is His body and the cup His blood and that we are to eat and drink these, after earlier saying His flesh was “food indeed” and His blood “drink indeed” and that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life, I believe HIM.[/FONT]

I then pointed out that it wasn't the mere physicality of the OT types that made them weak and beggarly, but it was the fact that were only types and shadows. I mentioned the fulfillment of these types involved some physical realities----and how the Euchatist (). You then said this...
[FONT=r_ansi]

The Incarnation is physical, but it's the application of what those things pointed through the physical Christ, that is spiritual. It's trying to reproduce the physical application that makes it weak and beggarly,

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Ahhh..you see? You keep falling back on the same old assumption that spiritual applications can’t in anyway involve any physical matter or actions. It’s not the physical “application” that made the OT rituals “weak and beggarly”, but the fact that they were pointing to a reality that was yet to be fulfilled—a reality (Incarnation/Atonement) in which physical matter, physical actions, and spiritual effects were intimately connected.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

… because remember, those original physical applications did not really take away sin, but pointed to Christ and the spiritual application.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]They indeed pointed to Christ, but your continued assumption that Christ’s spiritual application cannot coincide with a physical deed is just that…an assumption. There is no actual Biblical warrant for that assumption The same Christ who was physically incarnate and who died physically on the cross and rose physically from the dead for our spiritual (AND physical) salvation can (and does) certainly use physical objects and actions to subjectively apply the benefits of His objective atonement.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

Again, you keep seeing our view that way because of your soteriological presuppositions.

[/FONT]
And you keep missing the point of our view because of your soteriological and quasi-gnostic a priori assumptions.

[FONT=r_ansi]

Again, most of us hold it as more than a "mere recollection". You are coloring it in your own exaggerated words as a a straw man. So in truth, our view does accomodate the language, and yours adds to it a whole soteriological premise.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]So, again, what is “more” about your “memorialism” that keeps the bread and wine in your view from being mere visual aids used for mental recollection?[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

And the grammatical contextual language is a metaphor. Your view is a soteriological bias projected onto it.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]It’s not a “metaphor”—you haven’t yet given any actual warrant from the texts for that assertion—but you keep claiming that because of your presuppositions.[/FONT]


I then responded to your charge (or question) that the REAL PRESENCE somehow constituted a fourth hypostasis, by stating that it's actually the same Hypostasis of the Son that's present in the Bread and Wine. To which you replied...
[FONT=r_ansi]

But then the original point is, that if this IS the "Same HYPOSTASIS", and the Hypostasis is God, and compared to the physical body the Hypostasis resided in, then the elements can be worshiped as God! (e.g. "a deity")

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]And we do worship Him by humbly and reverently taking Him into our bodies during Holy Communion for the nourishment of our spirit.[/FONT]


I then pointed out that it would be incorrect to describe God's flesh existing in the buring bush (and other OT instances of God being present in objects for that matter) as God had not yet become Incarnate in the flesh and thus had no flesh to speak of. You responded incredibly with this...
[FONT=r_ansi]

So? God could do anything at any time. (Isn't that what you have been using to argue a "new kind of spiritual presence"?)

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]God can “do anything at any time”, BUT He was in reality Incarnate ONCE IN HISTORY—not before that. Therefore, there was no flesh (or blood) of God yet to speak of in the time of the burning bush---is this simple theological concept really that difficult to grasp?[/FONT]


I then basically made the point that there's no logical reason to suppose that unless a Person is audibly speaking" He's not really present, to which you responded....
[FONT=r_ansi]

Well, you believe this person is communicating through the elements, or being communicated, or something like that. But again, if this is grasping at straws, it is because the real issue is the soteriological premise of being salvation by "receiving Christ continuously" for "nourishment" (as the second quote says). That actually helps me understand what your "real presence" is about better, (So I basically rescind all these metaphysical questions, now)

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Umm…okay.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]

… but it still doesn't answer whether that is the clearest meaning of scripture.

[/FONT]I believe it does, as it (the realist view) actually takes the words of Scripture at face value without trying to smuggle in the concepts of “physical representation” (visual aids) or “our gathering” being the communion of the body and blood as these aren’t in the text itself. The bread (not “our gathering”) really is the communion of the body of Christ (not merely visual aid for something else that is the actual ‘communion’). His flesh and blood really are food and drink that we must really eat and drink to abide in Him; and, just as Christ declared at the Last Supper, the bread really is His body and the cup really is His blood.

(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Cont'd)


I made this comment..

DT:It’s your view, in reading your a priori theological assumptions into the texts, that turns: (1) Christ’s salvation into a grand, fire insurance policy (irrespective of any actual ongoing dependent life in Christ) obtained once-for-all by a one time intellectual assent to some propositional truths about the Gospel, and (2) reduces Christ’s sacramental ordinances into mere superfluous visual aids. The Bible, plainly understood, actually supports neither. Zwinglianism and OSAS both arrived late on the scene, and it’s the proponents of both (again, with both views often going hand-in-hand in the contemporary theological landscape) that read their views back into Scripture. I suppose we could delve into the soteriological issue (again) in another thread, but for now I agree there is generally a connection in how one view’s salvation and how one views Christ’s sacramental ordinances.

Which you followed with...

[FONT=r_ansi]

Eric B: But you cannot always generalize. In your case, this is true. But last time, I should have clarified my final answer, that my view of Communion is not shaped by my soteriological views. I do not sit and say "No, The bread and wine cannot be the flesh and blood, BEACUSE that would mean we are not finally saved, but are being saved by continual physical application of Christ's sacrifice". It was not until the last few correspondences that it even sunk in that this was the real issue. All that time before, I did not even realize soteriology had anything to do with it, and did not even think of it. I opposed the doctrine, because I saw it as an addition to the plain meaning of "reMEMbrance". IT is you who have it tied to the whole soteriological issue, a propri.

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]I have perhaps ultimately “tied it” to the whole soteriological issue, but not “a priori”. Others (but not all) on the neo-evangelical side have “tied” the two together today. Some of your responses implied that as well, but if that’s not how you arrived at your memorialistic views , fair enough. However, you currently seem to hold those views together. In the current theological landscape those two views often go hand and hand—I wasn’t making any other point about how any particular individual may have arrived at holding those views separately and then together or in what order.[/FONT]


(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Cont'd)

I then responded to your questions regarding whether or not salvation "wears off" between Communion (etc) with some of my own rhetorical questions regarding physical life then made this point...

DT:

If you find my questions absurd then you perhaps you’ll see the absurdity of your mischaracterization of my view as expressed in your questions. Salvation (Eternal Life) in Christ, and we must abide in Him to continue to have life. If one doesn’t continue to abide in Christ—if one persists in unrepentant disobedience and continues to neglect prayer, Scripture, and the Lord’s Table—then one will ultimately wither and die and be cast out from Christ as branches (John 15) therefore no longer have eternal life.

To which you responded....

[FONT=r_ansi]And that's a common mistake. Comparing these spiritual things to physical eating. And the modern Protestant (of all stripes) Church does the same thing with prayer and Bible study. It amazes me how some condemn not reading the Bible every night or morning and "forcing yourself to make time", and all that, yet they are teaching it wrong in various areas (and this includes the most heretical cults), so what really are they getting out of their daily reading? I's just making them feel like a good Christian, and something to judge others over, basically. Salvation and spiritual life, again, becones something we cultivate in ourselves. But those scriptures such as John 15 do not spell, out "you must do this and this, and this, and this daily, {weekly, monthly, etc} in order to keep your spiritual life". To abide in Him is t continue to rtrust in Him for salvation (and not "draw back" into trying to do it yourself).[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]“Abiding”, as I showed in the Scriptures listed above, is not something passive that automatically happens, but is something we must willfully do. And as it is written in John 15:10 and 1 John 3:24 our “abiding in Him” and “His love” is conditioned on/demonstrated by keeping His commandments[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]I then responded to your appeal to the wine/wineskins passage, by stating:[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]

DT:

[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]Christ wasn’t "added" to "it", but was the whole point of it (OT). Christ fulfilled the OT, and offers real forgiveness and salvation by His Sacrifice for us and His life in us. (This is something the OT law and sacrifices couldn’t actually do.) However, this forgiveness is not limited to a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior, nor is our life in Christ reducible to a one time decision to follow Him.[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]To which you replied...[/FONT]


[FONT=r_ansi]

Eric B: If you forgive someone for an offense, but only if they not only do something to make up for it, but keep on doing things, then is that real forgiveness? However, if you forgive me, and this motivates me to not offend you again, then I maty still be doing the same works, but the motivation is totally different. Again, the reason they had to keep doing things in the OT was for the very fact that those were shadows, that pointed to something else. To copy that pattern is to put the new wine into old wineskins

[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Christ specifically spells out conditions for God forgiving us our sins, one of which is forgiving others (Matt 18:35). Forgiveness is also contingent on confession and repentance.[/FONT]

In our discussion of gnositicism, you replied...
[FONT=r_ansi]

So we're tossing the word "gnostic" back and forth, and you think you have my belief pinned as the true "gnostic" one, but gnosticism was very diverse, as you admit it had both legalist and licentistic factions. But mystical meanings of scripture are what seem to be common throughout them all, and that would apply to your views on the sacraments (which is where I first used it, and you keep trying to turn it back on me in different ways), but not to our views of salvation, properly understood. We are having something spiritually applied to ourselves by faith, not saving ourselves with some "knowledge".

[/FONT]
First, I note you didn't specifically respond to the fact that the Trinity and the Incarnation are mystical as well. You seem to be arbitrary in what mystical doctrines you’ll accept and which you want. The Gnostics certainly did not accept the mystical doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Real Presence. I accept all three.
Second, “faith” again seems to be reduced to a mental “trust” based on certain knowledge gained at a particular time about Christ (or are you trusting that the Atonement was applied once when you “accepted Christ”…if you were to stop “trusting” Christ, would the Atonement still be spiritually applied? Could you stop “trusting” Christ? If not, in what sense are you actually trusting Him?)

[FONT=r_ansi]I mentioned how I believe (and the Bible teaches, that we're not saved by works, but we are not saved without them either. To which you responded....[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]

The same thing, in practice. In the end, it was your own deeds that merited your "making it". Again, the issue is the motivation, and clearly the motivation you have expressed for doing works is to be saved.

[/FONT]

I’ll end with the words of Christ:
“Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:28-29

It doesn’t sound like Christ is teaching that we can be ultimately saved without works. However, in doing works our attitude should be such that rather than thinking we somehow “merited” eternal life by our deeds, or obligated God to save us, we should think we are unprofitable servants, doing what it was our duty to do (Luke 17:10). Without Christ we can do nothing, yet we must abide in Him to bear fruit. If we don’t abide and therefore don’t bear fruit, we will be cast out as branches.

Later…

DT

 

[Doubting Thomas]

PS: oops brief correction on post 252:

I then pointed out that it wasn't the mere physicality of the OT types that made them weak and beggarly, but it was the fact that were only types and shadows. I mentioned the fulfillment of these types involved some physical realities----and how the Euchatist is intimately connected to that physical reality (the Incarnation). You then said this...

(Note: I've substituted the bolded clause into what was "()" in the original post.)

 

[Eric B]

[FONT=r_ansi]Not in "my view", but in the actual words used:
First, Christ says that He (Himself) is the bread of life, and that we must come to Him and believe in Him so we don’t hunger.
However, He then states that more specifically the bread He’s giving is HIS FLESH, which He’s giving for the life of the world. So in contrast to the "door" and "vine" metaphors (which Christ applied to Himself generally), Christ in this instance proceeded by specifically identifying the bread He was giving with His flesh. By contrast, He didn’t say "and the vine you must attach yourself to is my flesh (or some other physical aspect of Himself); nor did He say "and this door you must enter is a hole or opening in my physical body." So instead of just stopping at Himsel just being the bread, he specifically went further by stating that the bread was HIS FLESH.
Also, instead of just "coming to" "Him", Christ said we must eat (Gr. ‘phago’) His flesh…and drink His blood. Again, He’s adding specific details that were not there in the original "Bread of life" metaphor. But He becomes even more specific and precise when he says (v54) that we must munch/gnaw/chew (Gr.’trogo’) His flesh. (This too is in contrast to the "vine" illustration as Christ didn’t proceed from "abide" to something more literal such as "physically graft yourself" to His "flesh"; or the "door" metaphor where He didn’t proceed from "enters by Me" to something more literal like "walk through a hole in Me")
So the language indeed becomes more specific and descriptive as He progresses in His discourse. The burden of proof remains on those who discount the implications of this fact and merely try sweep it all under the category of metaphor, despite the lack of any real warrant from the text for doing so and despite the problems given by the current metaphorical meaning of "eat my flesh" used in that day.
(Continued)[/FONT]

(Cont'd)
Christ’s language, as I pointed out above (and several times previously), does proceed to the more literal and specific. That’s not my interpretation, but a demonstrable fact. It seems to me, however, the apparent assumption you seem to keep clinging to is that the spiritual cannot be literal (ie a spiritual nourishment taking place by a literal physical eating whereby we partake of Christ’s actual Body and Blood), but somehow must collapse into the merely metaphorical. And again, the only other time in Scriptures where Christ speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is at the Last Supper…and that literally involved the physical eating and physically drinking of objects that Christ specifically identified as His flesh and blood.
Yet the context shows that the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world was the same flesh He was referring to when He said we must eat His flesh and that it was "food indeed". He wasn’t saying in one instance that the bread was His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world and that in another instance the "flesh" that we were to eat was something else (like His words or teachings). It’s those folks who suppose that this is what Christ was doing, who are doing the sloppy exegesis. So it’s no "little twist" to point out that contextually the flesh Christ was giving for the life of the world (which He specifically identified with the bread He was giving) was the same we must eat/munch/chew to abide in Him and have life and which is "food indeed".
But yours is the unwarranted metaphorical interpretation, which is tied to your soteriological/Zwinglian views. Mine doesn’t involve an "overly" literal "misunderstanding" because mine doesn’t wonder how Christ could have stood there and (for example) tossed the crowd an arm or leg to eat or his veins for them to drink from—that would be an "overly literal misunderstanding". The Jews (rightly) interpreted Christ literally, but walked away because they couldn’t get past (wrongly) thinking this literalism had to be taken in a gross carnal sense rather than in a spiritual manner that Christ suggested.
(Continued...)

You're still reading too much into all that, in building this whole philosophy of "more specific". The metaphor of the flesh does not match the metaphors of the vine and door. We have cited those, because in the past, your side was making a big deal of the use of the word "IS" as proving it is not a metaphor. We show that that can be used for something that is symbolic, and then you now have to go and try to build further upon that.
But why would Christ say something like "attach the vines to yourselves" or "walk through the hole in my body"? Those are not things that we do in fellowship. But sitting down as a Church and eating is. That's why the use of the words "phago" or "munch". They would be munching. But again, like the Jews, you are getting hung up on the food and missing the spiritual meanings of it, which was right there in the verse you just quoted: Our "hunger" is filled by coming to Him (meaning that we were once lost, and then we find Him), and believe in Him. That RIGHT THERE is telling you that the nourishment is spiritual, not physical, and thus the "eating" is spiritual, not physical. The physical food and eating is then a symbol of the spiritual. That is the plain meaning of the text.

You also misunderstand the parallelism often used in the Bible, with "one instance/another instance" discussion. It is spoken in parallel, and you're the one arguing for it in some "carnal" sense, evidenced by the fact that you actually say the Jews were RIGHT; and then using "spiritual" as a last resort to explain why it doesn't look like flesh and blood. Otherwise, we wouldn't be always having this discussion. You're trying to merge physical and spiritual in a metaphysical way, where the Bible only merges them in a grammatical way.

 

[Eric B]

[FONT=r_ansi](Cont’d)

Here’s the verse again:
[FONT=r_ansi]"Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18)
Paul’s point in this comparison is that in both cases-Old and New--we eat of the sacrifice. In the OT of course they ate of the animals that were offered repeatedly. In the NT, we eat of the flesh and blood of the Lamb of God who was offered ONCE and who then rose from the dead and ASCENDED (cf John 6:62) into heaven where He ministers as our High Priest—both the Offerer and the Offering. We literally eat of this sacrifice, but in the forms of bread and wine which Paul called the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously in the OT they could eat the sacrifices of the animals directly from the altar as these were just dead animals, none of which (to my knowledge) rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Also, they were DEAD, so they had no "spiritual presence" remaining to speak of. However, in the NT we literally partake of the body and blood of Christ, but sacramentally, as Christ is seated alive in glory at the right hand of the Father. We in the NT eat of one final Sacrifice and thus partake of the altar when we eat the bread and drink the wine.
[/FONT]Yet you seem to think (or assume) that a spiritual application can’t take place during a physical act. (Again, more in lines with gnosticism than historic Christianity)
Yet you are the one going through all the somersaults trying to reduce the bread and wine to mere visual aids when the texts don’t teach that. Paul didn’t say:
"This bread we break, is it not a visual aid or a physical representation of our particpation in Christ?"
Rather he did say:
The bread we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?"
You’re inventing something that’s not in the text.
And, again, I don’t subscribe to the hard and fast dichotomy between spiritual application and physical action that you apparently do.
I’m not bending it all. As I’ve showed repeatedly, you’re the one doing the "bending" by saying that it’s "our gathering" that’s the participation in the body (despite the fact that isn’t what is actually written) and by trying to insert the concept of physical representation or visual aid (which is likewise absent from the text). My view accepts the actual written words of Paul—not what I wish was written in the text.
I then distinguished the REAL PRESENCE from the charge of cannibalism, and you replied...
A literal carnal meaning is "cannibalism". Literally partaking of Christ's body and blood sacramentally in literally eating the bread and drinking the wine is not "cannibalism".
(Continued...)

(Cont'd)
[FONT=r_ansi]Ahhh..you see? You keep falling back on the same old assumption that spiritual applications can’t in anyway involve any physical matter or actions. It’s not the physical "application" that made the OT rituals "weak and beggarly", but the fact that they were pointing to a reality that was yet to be fulfilled—a reality (Incarnation/Atonement) in which physical matter, physical actions, and spiritual effects were intimately connected.
They indeed pointed to Christ, but your continued assumption that Christ’s spiritual application cannot coincide with a physical deed is just that…an assumption. There is no actual Biblical warrant for that assumption The same Christ who was physically incarnate and who died physically on the cross and rose physically from the dead for our spiritual (AND physical) salvation can (and does) certainly use physical objects and actions to subjectively apply the benefits of His objective atonement.[/FONT]

I believe it does, as it (the realist view) actually takes the words of Scripture at face value without trying to smuggle in the concepts of "physical representation" (visual aids) or "our gathering" being the communion of the body and blood as these aren’t in the text itself. The bread (not "our gathering") really is the communion of the body of Christ (not merely visual aid for something else that is the actual ‘communion’). His flesh and blood really are food and drink that we must really eat and drink to abide in Him; and, just as Christ declared at the Last Supper, the bread really is His body and the cup really is His blood.

(Continued...)

(Cont'd)
In response to your interesting "argument" that I'm telling Scriptures what they should say for my view not to be correct (and which I basically acknowledged, because the whole point is what is actually written in the text),
[FONT=r_ansi]It’s not "on" me at all. I believe exactly what Paul has written:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
I believe just what Paul wrote: that the cup is the communion of (participation in) the blood of Christ". But you apparently don’t a believe this, because you continue to say that it’s "our gathering to drink in His name" that’s the real participation in His blood. However this passage doesn’t say that (go back and read it again).
I believe just what Paul wrote: that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ". However, again, you really don’t believe that because you’ve gone out of your way to say it’s not the bread, but rather "our gathering to eat in His name" that is the participation in the Body of Christ. Again, the passage doesn’t say that either.
My belief is based on what the passage actually says about the bread and the wine, and how in context the bread and wine in view are in fact the literal bread and wine which were literally eaten and drunk during Communion. I’ve therefore pointed out what the text must say for your view to be correct, yet you come back by saying "they can actually say what they say". But the Scriptures "saying what they say" supports my view—that the literal bread they were breaking and the literal wine they were drinking are the communion of (participation of) the Body and blood respectively. You, on the other hand, while claiming to allow the Scriptures to "say what they say", don’t actually believe them as written, as you are somehow trying to smuggle the idea of "our gathering"—rather than the bread and wine as Paul specifically states-- to be the communion when the text does not "say" that. I therefore showed some of the absurdities that would result if that smuggled-in idea was consistently carried throughout the text.
I suppose you could be grasping at the idea that, since "communion" means "intimate participation" or "social intercourse", it somehow save your idea that when Paul says "bread" he actually means "our social gathering", or that "our social gathering" is the participation in the body and blood of Christ. However, that doesn’t follow because Paul specifically states it’s the BREAD (that was literally being broken and eaten) that’s THE COMMUNION (participation in) THE BODY OF CHRIST. In other words, the actual text makes it clear that our "intimate participation in" and "social intercourse" with "the body of Christ" is affected by the BREAD we eat, not by our merely gathering together.
So if anyone is doing any "bait and switch tactics" and reading their philosophy into the text, it’s you as you continue to digress into certain, sometimes-stated, a priori assumptions that :
(1)God can’t be using material objects to effect a spiritual benefit—this is evident when, despite what the text says, you insist the participation of the body and blood can’t be in (or mediated by) "things" such as bread and wine. (As has been pointed out before, this is quasi-gnostic); and
(2)that since the Spirit is "already" in us (which you keep saying), that Christ can’t be uniquely present to us with His body and blood in Communion in a another unique way (This seems quasi-modalistic, allowing only one Person to be present in only one way at one given time)
[/FONT]I then made a comment about you not engaging my analysis of what was actually written in the text, ....
[FONT=r_ansi]No, the context I base it on is what is actually written in the texts. This is the same context the Church father’s based their realist interpretation as well. As for "remembrance", I already mentioned in my last (series of) posts that the word anamnesis in that day had a much stronger meaning than simple mental recollection of a past event, but rather included the idea of making present again that past event. Therefore it’s incorrect to take "remembrance" as a mere recollection and then try to squeeze all the realist teachings into that conceptual category and then suppose you’re "interpreting the unclear by the clear".
(Continued)[/FONT]

[can't even fit all the quotes in with the answer]
[/FONT]

 

[Eric B]

First, I do not say that spiritual applications cannot involve physical matter or applications. That's is what a symbol would be, but you insist on taking it further than this, and trying to make the physical thing the reality in itself. If that were so, then it would be cannibalism. But if you are actually eating bread and wine, then it is symbolic.

Second, "visual aids" is YOUR term, not mine. Again, that is a straw man.

Third, and most importantly; do you see what you're doing here (in bold)? You're criticizing me for adding terms like "gathering" and even "visual aid" (which is your term) to the text, but then you turn right around and add this "partaking Christ's body sacramentally". Now where is THAT in the text? This is what I meant way back by a "new kind of spiritual manifestation", to which you argued "well, God can do something new". But you never had any textual support of it, except for repeating over and over the "language" of "This is my body". But that that is apparently not sufficient in itself, so you now have to add this concept of "sacramental partaking". Sorry, but that is adding to the text just as much as you accuse me.
So in all that, you're NOT simply "stating what the passage SAYS" or "what it actually WRITTEN", because "sacramental partaking" is NOT "actually written"/what it SAYS; so have to add it as well to get your whole concept in there. The idea that "the [literal, physical] bread [itself] IS the intimate participation", is your deduction from your a-priori belief in sacramentalism. (Remember, Christ interpreted the whole statement Himself by saying that the actual "eating and drinking" that nourishes us was the act of believing, which is out "intimate" partaking of Him. Again; it's all parallelism, and cannot alway be broken down intellectually the way you are doing).

The problem here is that we are both trying to interpret a spiritual event, in two different ways. In doing that, we often add words and concepts to the text in interpreting, to try to illustrate what (we belive) is the real meaning. I can address your views, but you have to constantly reduce mine to some "mere" "visial aid", which I have never confessed; in other words, you're attacking your own concept of our beliefs by exaggerating them to make an easy argument. Again, we are both approaching the same spiritual concept from different sides. The difference is that you focus on inanimate objects, and we focus on Christ IN us, the people He died for and indwell. Christ did not die to redeem food and fill food with His Spirit.

But what "more" are you claiming for your view other than the bread and wine acting simply as visual aids for a past event? If there is no actual present tense communion effected by partaking of the bread and wine, and that these are just glorified reminders of something(s) (however great) that occurred in past, why am I not justified in calling your view "mere memorialism"? What is it that’s "more" about your memorialism that keeps it from being "merely" mental recollection?

[FONT=r_ansi]So, again, what is "more" about your "memorialism" that keeps the bread and wine in your view from being mere visual aids used for mental recollection?

You said it there (bolded) present tense communion. But again, it's about (in) US, not the food. Christ did not die for inanimate food.

[FONT=r_ansi]

I’m not suggesting taking "anything" that defies reason as "automatic truth". I think the truth of certain teachings that defy reason is based on the Authority of Christ Himself. When Christ says the bread is His body and the cup His blood and that we are to eat and drink these, after earlier saying His flesh was "food indeed" and His blood "drink indeed" and that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life, I believe HIM.

But as I just said, you're still putting your own spin on what He says ("sacramental partaking"). To ADD something like that, and THEN claim that its incomprehensibility proves it's truth (by its comparison with other incomprehensible doctrines) is what is wrong. (As I just illustrated, this tactic uses intellectual analysis just enough to establish the a-priori assumption, and then when it's challenged, "intellect is then and only then abandoned in favor of "incomprehensibility". This is a universal church tactic on just about every area from this to Augustinian predestination!) That skirts the issue that you have added something, and THIs is the real definition of "what you are believing", and "what is incomprehensible". You are trying to make it stand on its own weight, but it is really your (or the Church's) own philosophizing.

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Eric B]

[FONT=r_ansi](Cont’d)I gave an illustration how biblical faith involves "trust and reliance" which implies more than mental assent to certain facts. You replied with….
Umm…no. Where the illustration breaks down is we must continue to stay in "the wheelbarrow" which involves an act of the will. ("Abide in Me, and I in you" John 15:4) We must continue to have the faith "working through love". Our life is a long journey (not just one short excursion over a waterfall), and we must trust in Christ in whatever circumstance we may face—by "staying in the wheelbarrow" no matter how bumpy the road seems--and continue to demonstrate this trust in works of love.
First, I haven’t removed the "first loved us" part—where did I say or imply that? Of course we love Him because He first loved us, but this love is something we must continue in. Also love is not a sentiment but expresses itself in acts. However, we are warned in the Sciptures that man’s love can grow cold (Matt 24:12) and that we can leave our first love (Rev 2:4).
Second, Christ Himself says: "If you keep My commandments you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love." John 15:10
Also: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by my father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)
So although Scriptures affirm that God ultimately loves us first, we have to respond to this love with love by keeping His commandments in order to remain in His love. Jude says "Keep yourselves in the love of God" (Jude 21).

Yet, as I pointed to in the above passage, Christ said if we keep His commandments we will abide in His love (John 15:10). John more or less says the same thing: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him." (1 John 3:24). So although our acts don’t "create" that fact of our getting into Christ, they are necessarily related to the fact of whether or not we are presently abiding in Him. And directly related to the idea of abiding in Christ, are His words in John 6: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in Him" (v.56). Christ Himself "renews" His life in us (or sustains us in Him by His life) by giving us His body and blood to eat and drink.
Scriptures, therefore, taken as a whole demonstrate that our loving relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is dynamic and is not statically reducible to a one time initial decision to "accept Christ".
(Continued…)

(Cont'd)

I then responded to your questions regarding whether or not salvation "wears off" between Communion (etc) with some of my own rhetorical questions regarding physical life then made this point...
[FONT=r_ansi]"Abiding", as I showed in the Scriptures listed above, is not something passive that automatically happens, but is something we must willfully do. And as it is written in John 15:10 and 1 John 3:24 our "abiding in Him" and "His love" is conditioned on/demonstrated by keeping His commandments[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]
[/FONT]

..."faith" again seems to be reduced to a mental "trust" based on certain knowledge gained at a particular time about Christ (or are you trusting that the Atonement was applied once when you "accepted Christ"…if you were to stop "trusting" Christ, would the Atonement still be spiritually applied? Could you stop "trusting" Christ? If not, in what sense are you actually trusting Him?)

[FONT=r_ansi]I mentioned how I believe (and the Bible teaches, that we're not saved by works, but we are not saved without them either. To which you responded....
[/FONT]I’ll end with the words of Christ:
"Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation." John 5:28-29
It doesn’t sound like Christ is teaching that we can be ultimately saved without works. However, in doing works our attitude should be such that rather than thinking we somehow "merited" eternal life by our deeds, or obligated God to save us, we should think we are unprofitable servants, doing what it was our duty to do (Luke 17:10). Without Christ we can do nothing, yet we must abide in Him to bear fruit. If we don’t abide and therefore don’t bear fruit, we will be cast out as branches.
Later…
DT

[FONT=r_ansi]I have perhaps ultimately "tied it" to the whole soteriological issue, but not "a priori". Others (but not all) on the neo-evangelical side have "tied" the two together today. Some of your responses implied that as well, but if that’s not how you arrived at your memorialistic views , fair enough. However, you currently seem to hold those views together. In the current theological landscape those two views often go hand and hand—I wasn’t making any other point about how any particular individual may have arrived at holding those views separately and then together or in what order.
[/FONT]

I'm not going to get into the OSAS debate now, because I've never been 100% convinced either way, and there are convincing scriptural arguments on both sides. When I first became a Christian, and was close the the sabbatarian movements; I rejected it because of all the scriptures you mentioned. But then learning more about the sin nature, and how even after conversion, everyone still sins, sometimes even "willfully" (which Armstrong suggrested would turn into the "unpardonable sin" when your conscience became dulled to the state of "seared with a hot iron). So then, it looks like we're right back to the OT, (and of course your system basically recreates that) with us constantly falling in and out of God's love; Him never being finally satisfied with us, like in all the OT prohpets, where God just condemned them. What is the benefit of that over the old sacrifical system? People don't realize, is that if salvation is still like that, then we are all lost. It's like a roll of the dice; you can die at any moment, and hope you're all fed with Christ's flesh, and confessed up, at the moment, or no matter how good you have tried to be, you just might still end up in Hell.


So realizing this made me lean towards OSAS. In your view; again, we are not "continuing" to be carried in a wheelbarrow, but rather pushing ourselves in it after some point, and then simply giving the credit to the stuntman for getting us started. When Christ tells us to call ourselves "unworthy servants", that really means that we were unworthy. It's not just some empty word we call ourselves just to deprecate ourselves and exalt God. It is what we really are. Our works weren't good enough to cross us over the line into salvation, compared to someone else we may look at who is not doing as much. Again, where is "the line" naturally implied by this?
"Won't be saved without works" is just another way of saying "saved by works". Who really does absolutely NO works". It will ultimatly boil down to some line where a person has done just enough or more to get themselves in.

Other factors like the preterist view that as long as the Temple stood, they were still partly under the condemnation of the OT, would seem to unite both sets of scriptures that seem to go in favor or against OSAS. It would explain the "perseverance" or "continuing" until "the prize", which appeared to be referencing an event in their lifetimes, rather than thousands of years later. (afterwards, they would receive the full benefit of the New Covenant). Particularly when you understand that "falling back" meant specifically falling back into a religion of works-salvation, as was the case of both the degenerate Judaism, and gentile paganism. Why else would Hebrews tell us "he who had entered into His rest has ceased fron his own works as God did from His"? (4:10; which is thus the definition set for the following verse's "laboring to enter").

But I don't know about this and the questions it raises, such as like (I know you're thinking it) why God would allow this "truth" to vanish for milennia, and only now be rediscovered. But then that is tied with the question of why God allows evil to exist. The doctrine would naturally be squelched by the Church because works-salvation is a great way to control everyone and build up their power, as we see happened. So again, we do not know why God allowed this. But the idea sure seems to harmonize the issue that continues to have several threads going simultaneously, continuously here.
Still, we do not encourage anyone to do as they please and "just believe", or to renounce Christ and still hope to make it to Heaven; but if salvation is ultimately up to our efforts, and God just starts it for us, we finish it, then no one will be saved. Nobody I see anywhere is "doing good enough".
[/FONT]

 

[Eric B]

[FONT=r_ansi]Christ specifically spells out conditions for God forgiving us our sins, one of which is forgiving others (Matt 18:35). Forgiveness is also contingent on confession and repentance.[/FONT]

And right here is a prime example of the problem with this view. Have you always forgiven every single person? Do you continue to always forgive? Of course, then "confession" and "communion" fill in by "renewing Christ in you periodically, but that is not what Christ said of that passage. So obviously, you cannot take that as a requirement of salvation. God still forgives us regardless, only in your view, you can substitute another kind of work to receive it.

[FONT=r_ansi]So I’m confused—if we continue to "respect" God we’re not "made perfect in love"? ( I’m assuming you meant that this is not the kind of "fear" John is referring to.)[/FONT]

[FONT=r_ansi]Third, whatever "fear" John may have been referring to in the cited passage, he most likely wasn’t referring to the sober fear of the possibility of falling from salvation. After all Paul told the gentile Romans that although they were (present tense) standing by faith, they were not to "be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches (the unbelieving Jews), He may not spare (them) either." (Romans 11:20-21)[/FONT]

This was the passage I was referring to in the first quote. "Fear" in that case does mean "respect". Look what he is first telling them: not to think the Jews were "cut off" so that they (the gentiles) could be grafted in. This was the "haughtiness" the context is referring to. It is basically the belief of the later gentile Catholic Church and later European supremacists that God rejected the Jews for being "hard hearted Christ killers", and now cursed them and replaced them with Europeans as the new "chosen ones", (while they go on and commit all the spiritual, moral and religious sins Israel committed and more, including all sorts of atrocities in God's name under the banner of their religio-political authority.)
People like that have not really accepted Christ, but are using Him for their own advancement, and this we do not believe is saving faith. So that is why these prospective Christians are told to not be haughty, but fear. They may "accept" Christ for the wrong reason and never be saved to begin with.
He then goes on to mentions "continuing in His goodness", but again; I'm not arguing so much for OSAS right now, so for whatever reason that is put that way, still, if we are daily hanging on the balance between saved and lost, we have no more of good news than did the OT people.

Indeed. However, Christ’s body and blood must be approached with sober reflection and in the context of a life of faith and repentance. If one takes communion otherwise (ie one who "still lives however he wants"), he’s in danger of eating and drinking judgement upon himself. (1 Corinthians 11:29).

And how many people in all "high church" bodies really do that? So they come to the Mass (or whatever the non-RCC/s call it), and also the holidays, weddings, funerals, thinking they're doing good, because they do these "works", but in actuality, they are not doing enough, or doing it right, and the Church really believes that they are in a condemned state becaus eof this (but they may not know who out there in the pwes is really faking or not), but the religious show goes on, like everything is really OK, with the Church accepting their money and reverence, however. This is why that system of works is not good news. It's not working. Who really is good enough?

Really? It doesn’t necessarily "sound like" that to me.
"He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides (present tense) in Me, and I in Him" (John 6:56). I see nothing in this passage that "obviously" limits this ‘eating’ to one time only. Verse 57, "he who feeds on Me will live because of Me".

And notice "abide" is defined here as the "eating and drinking". Eating and drinking (or being "fed") was defined as "believing". So that would suggest that one who "believes" (one time) "abides" (presently). We may not understand what about those who appear to "fall away", and I may not be able to make a perfect argument for OSAS, and all of that, but that will be left up to God to judge. It is not up to us to try to scare everyone into line by holding salvation in contant balance. As we see, it doesn't even work in your own churches.

And you keep missing the point of our view because of your soteriological and quasi-gnostic a priori assumptions.

Again; I did not approach the issue with any soteriological ideas in mind, and you are the one adding a more gnostic (and unbiblical) concept.

[FONT=r_ansi]It’s not a "metaphor"—you haven’t yet given any actual warrant from the texts for that assertion—but you keep claiming that because of your presuppositions.[/FONT]

Well, you haven't given any actuall warrant from the texts either, except to filter them through your "sacramental partaking" concept.

[FONT=r_ansi]And we do worship Him by humbly and reverently taking Him into our bodies during Holy Communion for the nourishment of our spirit.[/FONT]

So can you also fall down and worship the bread and wine right before you eat it? And the fit the RCC makes about dropping it, or the crumbs? And what about the leftovers? Again, if you deny those extremes, and claim it really (empirically) is bread and wine, then "taking Him into your body" is a spiritual metaphor.

I then pointed out that it would be incorrect to describe God's flesh existing in the buring bush (and other OT instances of God being present in objects for that matter) as God had not yet become Incarnate in the flesh and thus had no flesh to speak of.

[FONT=r_ansi]God can "do anything at any time", BUT He was in reality Incarnate ONCE IN HISTORY—not before that. Therefore, there was no flesh (or blood) of God yet to speak of in the time of the burning bush---is this simple theological concept really that difficult to grasp?[/FONT]

Well, where does it say anywhere that God could only do that after the Incarnation? IF being Incarnate in history ONE TIME excludes anything before that, then why doesn't it exclude this new kind of "incarnation" afterwards"? (You make it sound like He really couldn't have done it before the incarnation, then). Again, you have to make up all these concepts and principles that are nowhere taught in scripture.