When/ how did Zwingliist symbolism/ memorialism enter mainstream evangelicalism?

Sad, but true.

 

Pastor Larry,

You still have to deal with the fact Jesus plainly says that "This is my body given for you" and "this is my blood of the new convenant." In that immediate context, fruit of the vine can take on a whole new meaning.

Again if the body and blood were not present with the bread and the wine why would Paul warn against profaning them?

The following is long for which I apologize, but it is fyi so that we can be on the same page, at least for the position I am coming from.

 

Several issues of note:

1. The presence – Real, mystical, or none? This relates to the statement “This is my body/blood.” As a first note, if you can imagine in your mind Jesus sitting there holding this piece of bread and saying “This is my body,” or holding the cup saying “This is my blood,” you can see how absurd it is to imagine any real presence. All the disciples sitting there could plainly see the substantive difference between the loaf and the cup. To assert a “real presence” is, in a sense, to deny the incarnation (the truth that Jesus can be only one place at a time). You are asserting that Jesus can be in two places at once, something an incarnated Christ could not do. It also asserts that a thing can be something without possessing any of its substantive characteristics. It assert that bread and wine can be body and blood while possessing no characteristics of body or blood. It is an unrecognizable change, which leads one to question its usefulness. Why not hold up a leaf and say, “This is my body”? Who would know the difference?

As a second note, the use of metaphor in the ministry of Jesus is frequent. In John 10, he says “I am the good shepherd.” He says “I am the door.” He says, “I am the light of the world.” He says “I am the vine.” All of those are very clearly metaphors of the exact type used in the Lord’s Supper proclamation that “This is my body.” So there is biblical precedent for the use of the “This is” statement in a metaphorical way.

As a third point, Paul in his teaching, said nothing about the presence of Christ in the elements. Why? Because it wasn’t there.

As a fourth note, involved in the presence discussion is the idea that the elements are efficacious in some way, that the presence of Christ is sacramental, conveying grace to the recipient. Yet 1 Cor 11 reveals many people who partook of the elements with no spiritual change. That is clear biblical evidence that there is no efficaciousness in the elements themselves. There is a benefit, but it is in the spiritual remembering that takes place through the visual lesson. This benefit is not automatic.

2. The significance – Memorial or something more?

Does the Bible teach anything other than memorial? Let us first limit our comments to the Bible, since that is what God has given us as authority. As appealing as church history may be to some, it is not authoritative. The Bible gives no evidence of anything other than a memorial use. As pointed out above, the memorial understanding is the only thing that can account for the unchanged lives of the Corinthians. If there had been a real communication of grace, they could not have continued in their present state of living, unless grace doesn’t change lives, in which case we have bigger problems than this.

3. The history – History is uniquely suited to arguing for multiple positions. But it cannot be authoritative. History is made up of the selective acts of depraved people. It is selective in that history does not record it all. To argue that X has never been the position of church history is an absurdly weak argument in that it asserts an omniscience that is simply not possessed. It is the record of the acts of depraved people. These people, no matter how godly or ungodly they may have been, were still sinners. There is no “inspiration” that guarantees accuracy on the part of church history. In fact, the people that argue that a particular person was right on the Lord’s Supper will jettison that person to the curb when they contradict another position that they hold dear. To argue from historical theology can become an argument of convenience. We like the people who agree with us, and dislike them when they don’t. It is a tacit acknowledgement that should be made public: These people are not perfect, and were wrong. You should stop to consider that perhaps they were wrong on communion.

What about the “Johnny come latelies”? It is an argument that ignored the NT. If I am right, and the text of Scripture certainly indicates an overwhelming mountain of evidence that I am, that can be overcome only by appeals to history … If I am right, then the Johnny come latelies are the non-memorialist. Jesus was a memorialist, as his words indicate. Paul was a memorialist, as his words indicate. And that should be good enough for us.

What about the texts that indicate weight of the biblical texts where Christ says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood (and that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed); Read John 6 and ask this question: If Jesus was understood to be literal, then why did no one try to eat him? Should we really assume that none of his disciples wanted eternal life? Of course not. In fact, Peter says, “To whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” It is in that passages where we see the connection that “eating the flesh and drinking the blood” is a metaphor for absolute commitment in belief.

What about “where Christ calls the bread and wine His body and blood; where Paul calls the bread and cup (the elements themselves) the communion of the body and blood of Christ. It is, again, important to interact with the use of metaphor, the doctrine of the incarnation, and the substance of things. Bread cannot be both bread and body at the same time. Wine cannot be both wine and blood at the same time

What about the argument that “ if the body and blood were not present with the bread and the wine why would Paul warn against profaning them?” What did he mean by “profane” them? It seems patently obvious that it had to do with testimony. When you partake of communion, you are identifying yourself as one who has participated in the death of Christ. When you fail to live like it, as described in 1 Cor 11, you profane the very thing you claim to live by.

What about the argument about docetism? It continues to be absurdly out of place. IT has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever. However, we might make the case that the non-memorialists are the docetists. They say that the bread and wine actually become something else. It just seems like they are bread and wine. But the whole Gnostic, docetist argument is an attempt to cloud the issue by injecting prejudicial names that have very little to do with the substance of the argument.

I think this discussion is far easier than many would like it to be. There are continual arguments made that bear no weight under rigorous (and even not so rigorous) examination. They simply won’t hold up and should be rejected.

 

How would you deal with me pulling a picture of my wife out of my wallet and saying "this is my wife".? Would you think the 3 x 2 picture is actually my wife, that I am married to a Kodak? Or would you see it as a picture of my wife, who in reality I am married to?

 

What is that? And how do you konw it is there?

But that's just it. They assert that the body of Christ can be in two places at one time. That is not in line with the biblical doctrine.

The Bible teaches that salvation brings changes, in different stages and speeds, but brings change. The communion teaching is different. If eating the elements conveys grace, then we should expect people who eat to be changed. They weren't.

No it's not. Historical theology tells us how certain select people did interpret certain passages. It is not authoritative on how everyone did, nor is it authoritative on how it should be interpreted. It has limits.

Do you agree with everything Ignatius said? I would imagine you probably don't. We see false doctrine enter the chruch even during the apostolic era, even from teh apostles (cf. Gal 2). They were not inspired at that point. It is no surprise that a student of someone could be wrong.

Which doesn't answer the biblical text. And that is the focus of theology.,

This is bad in terms of understanding Docetism, applying it to this issue, and associating it with the crucifixion. Rpeating it won't make it more relevant.

To say that the elements are simply bread and wine is not gnostic or docetic. It is simply the reality of what the Bible teaches. The crucifixion was a completely different issue. The wages of sin is not simply a spiritual matter. It is physical and Christ's death dealt with teh physical and spiritual realities. Communion does not. Come on, Matt ... Don't keep going down this road.

 

But Ignatius is not entitled to the status of inerrancy, and therefore, he could be wrong. When we consider what the text of Scripture says without being affected by outside influence, we conclude that Ignatius was wrong, if indeed you have accurately represented his view. We cannot emphasize enough that Scripture is the authority.

I used "mystical" in terms of spiritual, the Lutheran "in, under, and with" conception. What does it mean? It has no real meaning. What is a mystical presence that no one can detect, that has no discernible effect? I see no biblical evidence for any kind of mystical or spiritual presence. I see no reason for it. I see no testimony to it. It simply serves no purpose and has no support in Scripture.

 

I am not suggesting you accept my conclusion as infallible. It cerainly is not. My point is that you cannot attach too much weight to historical theology. The text of Scripture is our guide. On that basis, we can say with assurance that memorialism is the teaching of Christ and his disciples. If God had intended us to understand something else, he would have used different words.

 

Are you really so brazen to say that there is something God cannot do?

Are you ready to say that the full person of Christ does not have the full power of God? Are you willing to fly in the face of accepted Christological teaching? Are you really so willing to deny the genus maistaticum - the teaching that the communication of divine properties to the human nature? This communication is clearly taught in scripture where ever divine majesty in general or a specific divine attribute such as divine omnipotence or divine rule are predicated to Christ.

Well scripture does say the Gospel is absurd to human reason.

Again if the body and blood are not present why would we be warned about profaning them?

By the principles of sound exegesis you must compare gramatical evidence of this sort with sources from the same author. Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not John. Not to mention the fact that your "metaphors" are literal in that Jesus is the Good Shepherd, he is the door, he is the light of the world, and He is the vine. Or are you going to say that he really isn't the good shepherd, the light, the door, or the vine?

 

There is nothing particularly brazen about that. Orthodox Christianity has always recognized that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible declares it to be so. This is hardly different.

The Bible teaches that in humanity, Christ gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. However, that in no way limits his full power as God.

I have done no such thing.

I have done no such thing.

Yes, the content of the gospel. There are many things that are absurd that are not a part of the gospel. This is one of them.

I already answered that. What was at stake was the testimony of Christ among those who fellowshipped with him in communion and then profaned him by the way that they lived. To assert that Christ was in the elements, that went into the stomach and then was eliminated seems a much greater profanation to me.

Perhaps you are unaware that the authors in question were quoting Christ. The statements we are talking about were not coined by human authors, but they were quotations of Christ. Therefore, they are from teh same source.

(Why was it necessary to mention that? In your haste to respond, you overlook the most basic of facts. In so doing, you indicate a very sloppy handling of the Word of God which explains to a large degree why this is an issue for you to begin with. If you were more careful in handling SCripture, and in thinking through responses and objections, you would avoid the sorts of errors found in this statement of yours.)

Christ was none of those things. He did not swing on hinges to block entrance into a room. He did not tend a flock of literal sheep. He was not a source of physical light. He was not a vine. All of those things are pictures that communicate something of the nature of Christ and His work for humanity.

Again, you reveal a lack of thinking through the issues of the biblical text. How can you have so dogmatic an opinion based on this kind of thinking?

 

To the contrary, we can say with assurance that the real presence is the teaching of Christ and His disciples. If God had intended us to understand communion as merely symbolic memorialism, He would have used different words. But Christ didn't say: "This is a symbol of my body or blood". Neither did He say: "My flesh is symbolic food and my blood merely metaphorical drink." Nor did Paul say: "The cup....and the bread...are they not symbols of or mere metaphors of our communion with the body and blood of Christ?".

 

No, you're right. Christ never later on pointed to a literal door and said: "This is Me, walk through Me to life". Nor did He in the upper room point to a growing vine and say: "This is Me. Sit on it to abide in Me so you can bear fruit". And neither did Paul say to the Corinthians (or anyone else): "This wooden door we walk through, or this vine we hug, is it not the communion of the body and blood of Christ". But Christ and Paul did say statements like those regarding the bread and wine. Clearly, based on all the Scriptures said about the Lord's Supper versus what was (or wasn't said) about the door and/or the vine, the early Christians were able to discern the difference. That's why they did believe in the real presence in Communion and why they didn't have any sacraments (or "ordinances") involving doors or growing vegetation.

 

This is getting humorous. Sometimes, all the language in teh world makes no sense to those who won't believe what the Bible says. It is like some abandon common sense whenever they pick up the Bible. Why?

In any illustration, it is common to say "This is something" in a symbolic way. It is done every day, countless times in classrooms, pulpits, conferences, etc. This is so common, it is inexplicable why it is doubted by some.

When you hold up a piece of bread and say "This is my body," it is patently obvoius that it is not literal that it needs no explanation ... except to those who don't hold to the authority of Christ in His word. What other explanation could there be?

 

So you deny that God is all powerful? You say that there are things cannot do yet you offer no proof.

So now you spout the heresy of Kenoticism?

But you have by saying that Christ does not have the divine power to be in multiple places at once. By saying that you have said he can not be omnipresent which is a divine attribute. You have flown in the face of accepted Christology by denying Christ a divine attribute.

No you haven't you have danced around it by claiming it was solely a problem of division. Paul speaks nothing of the division when he specifically mentions profaning the body and blood. His referent for the statement is the words of institution.

But each of the authors handled the same source differently. John did not approach the Gospel story in the same way that the Synoptic Gospels did.

Jesus is a light Rev 21:23-24
But he is the Shepherd because He gathers his flock and He has laid down his life for His flock
Hebrews also refers to him as the great shepherd
He is a door because a door is how you enter a place and the only way we will enter heaven through him.

And yet I am not the one who insists on interpreting poetic, figurative language literally and prose figuratively.

 

Yeah, it is humorous reading these repetitive bald assertions for the so-called "mountains of evidence" which supports the Zwinglian memorialist interpretation of the Eucharist. It seems some people won't believe the plain words of Paul or Christ because of a preconceived doctrinal bias derived through an interpretive grid based on premises originating in the 16th century.

Perhaps it's patently obvious to those who seek to project modern rationalistic bias into the thoughts of first century believers. I guess that's why some folks don't hold to the authority of Christ and the Apostles on this teaching despite the fact that it was the common belief of Christians for 1500 years.

 

No, obviously not.

Titus 1:2, Mal 3:6; etc. We could list many things that God cannot do. That is orthodox theology. These are basic truths of theology that any beginning believe should already know.

No.

He has a human body.

One of hte basic rules of Bible interpretation is context. That verse exists in a context. You have ignored it.

That is irrelevant. The quotations are still from teh same source.

And that is clearly a metaphor. He laid down his life for people, who are metaphorized (new word) as sheep. This is patently obvious.

You have taken the obvious meaning of the words of Christ and distorted them.