(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[Albion]

Sure, Albion!
Of course Anglicans affirm spiritual presence in the elements, not physical Transubstantiation. I just meant that if you go literally by the plain words that I came across in those prayers one I quoted would tend to think in terms of Transubstantiation.

Fair enough, although I can't imagine why anyone would. The words--literally understood--clearly reject Transubstantiation--and in several different places and ways.

In any case, what do you think about Question #2?

(2) Does Protestantism have a direct, clear basis in 1st to 3rd century Christian writings to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?

The question ought to be "What is the Scriptural basis for this practice/belief?"

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, Albion!

Yes, I missed: "Transubstantiation... in the Supper of the Lord... is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture". That was silly on my part.

The question ought to be "What is the Scriptural basis for this practice/belief?"

That is an important question. However, I asked about the 1st-3rd cent. Christian writings because the Scriptural meaning is debated among Christians. If a limited set of writings is debated in meaning, it can be very helpful to see what others in the original community that made and used those writings understood them. If Luther or a founding Anglican only wrote a few dozen tracts and their meaning was debated 1500 years later, it would be helpful to see how other Lutherans or Anglicans from the first two centuries of their community understood those writings. If they all took it a certain way and the first recorded instance of an alternative view appeared 1500 years later, those early extra-tractate writings would tend to be very important.

 

[Albion]

Hello, rakovsky.

That is an important question. However, I asked about the 1st-3rd cent. Christian writings because the Scriptural meaning is debated among Christians. If a limited set of writings is debated in meaning, it can be very helpful to see what others in the original community that made and used those writings understood them.

Yes, I agree.

If Luther or a founding Anglican

St. Joseph of Arimathea?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Does Reformed Protestantism have a direct apostolic basis to consider the Eucharist only symbolic?

As to the title of thread the answer is yes there is much written in direct apostolic basis to consider the symbolic meaning as being given from the beginning.

Hello! I have three questions:
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real, direct basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' real presence in it?
(2) Does Protestantism have a real basis in early Christianity to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?
(3) Does this Reformed Protestant approach to theology lead out of and away from Biblical Christianity?

Yes to the 1st 2 questions and no to the 3rd. There is as much basis in the ECF for symbolic as there may be found in Transubstantiation. It all depends on who you choose to listen to and who you choose to ignor.

1. Athenagoras (133-190)
   1. Arthenogoras (133-190) says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men. "But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,--then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)
2. Augustine (354-430)
   1. Augustine (354-430) says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine, Letter 98:9)
   2. Augustine (354-430) said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)
   3. Augustine (354-430) says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
3. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
   1. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine. "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
   2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)
4. Eusebius (263-339)
   1. Eusebius (263-339) says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
   2. Eusebius (263-339) says the bread and wine are symbol's of Christ's Body."The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)
5. Origen (185-254)
   1. Origin (185-254)says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. "Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)
6. Tertullian (155-220)
   1. Tertullian (155-220) says the communion bread represents Christ's body. "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children;nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
   2. Tertullian (155-220) refers to the communion supper as spiritual words. "He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
7. Theodoret (393-457)
   1. Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine. "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)
8. Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?)
   1. Theophilis of Antioch (d. 185?) denies that Christians eat human flesh. "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

Quotes from Carm.org

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, rakovsky.
St. Joseph of Arimathea?

Sure. If Joseph of Arimathea is the founding Anglican and you wish to understand some tractates he wrote, writings by his followers in the first two centuries AD about his tractates would be valued by his commentators 1500 years later.

 

[Standing Up]

Quotes from Carm.org

They forgot the martyrs of Lyons who died specifically denying the allegations they ate "human" flesh and blood. IOW, apparently had they agreed they were, they'd have lived.

 

[rakovsky]

They forgot the martyrs of Lyons who died specifically denying the allegations they ate "human" flesh and blood. IOW, apparently had they agreed they were, they'd have lived.

Lutherans and Catholics would also deny that they eat "human flesh" in the normal sense of cannibalism as their pagan killers understood it.
Christ is God and even in heaven His flesh has a divine nature, is transformed, and is not pure simple "human flesh", just as Christ is not a "simple man."
In the Old Testament it says that God cannot die and that we should not eat human flesh. Catholics of course would admit both as general principles, but then say that God's death was in the flesh, not in his human nature, and that Jesus was not a simple, normal human.

 

[Albion]

Sure. If Joseph of Arimathea is the founding Anglican and you wish to understand some tractates he wrote, writings by his followers in the first two centuries AD about his tractates would be valued by his commentators 1500 years later.

Of course that comment of mine was a little tease based upon how you worded your statement, but as to the real issue here, the Protestant position would be whatever Scripture supports, right? To that extent, the writings of various churchmen from the ancient church would be worthwhile--depending upon many factors--to the extent that they shed light on the Scriptures. The fact that there were various legends or popular superstitions about this or that during the same period would have no particular impact in themselves.

 

[Wgw]

Hello! I have three questions:
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real, direct basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' real presence in it?

(2) Does Protestantism have a real basis in early Christianity to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?

(3) Does this Reformed Protestant approach to theology lead out of and away from Biblical Christianity?

It amuses me to see you for once debating with a genuinely disagreeable form of Christianity, rather than with the Oriental Orthodox. And I believe in this post you are entirely right. I wish you would make posts like this on a other forum we belong to, although I expect you might find yourself preaching to the choir as it were.

 

[rakovsky]

As to the title of thread the answer is yes there is much written in direct apostolic basis to consider the symbolic meaning as being given from the beginning.
Yes to the 1st 2 questions and no to the 3rd. There is as much basis in the ECF for symbolic as there may be found in Transubstantiation. It all depends on who you choose to listen to and who you choose to ignor.

Thank you for your answer, Cassia.

Athenagoras here does not mention the Eucharist in particular and is be giving a general rule, just as the Old Testament is only giving a general rule when it says that God cannot die. These principles do not deny that God could die in the flesh or that a divine person could be eaten in a transformed state.

• Catholics and Lutherans would agree with Augustine that Christ is not sacrificed likewise at the sacrament, as he was at Passover, through killing him. Sure, there are "some points of real resemblance" between the sacrament that is ongoing and the sacrifice of 33 AD, and one of those points could be that Christ's body is present in each. Augustine writes: " the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith". This confirms the Catholic/Lutheran view. Just as faith is in the sacrament of faith, Christ's blood is in the sacrament of it.
• Sure, Catholics would agree with Augustine's paraphrasing: "Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." Catholics would not take Jesus' body that they saw at the Last Supper off the cross and cut it into pieces to eat. Instead, they eat Jesus' body as it transforms from the Eucharist.
  
• Sure, Augustine may have thought that in John 6 (not a narration of the Last Supper) when Jesus taught about eating his body he meant this figuratively, because it would be a crime if it was taken literally and people cut up Jesus' body directly from the cross into pieces for eating. This does not mean that he thought of the Eucharist this way. Eating bread and imagining that it is a physical body is not a crime.
• When it did come to the Last Supper and the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:24 [“Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you] (see also Luke 22:1), Augustine did take that literally: "How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10) ~St. Augustine.
  

• Sure, Clement said: "And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed..." But this does not mean that Clement did not see the wine as becoming Christ's blood in physical or spiritual form.
• Sure, in John's Gospel (not a narration of the Last Supper) when Jesus speaks of his flesh and blood, he could be speaking metaphorically of the faith that refreshes the Church. This does not mean that when later in the Last Supper He goes to speak of His body and blood He is only doing so metaphorically.
• Elsewhere, Clement must be saying that we drink either Christ's corporeal blood or his spiritual blood, as Clement says those are its two meanings: "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul."
  

• In CARM's quote, Eusebius compared the Eucharist to Melchisedek's ritual that "is not represented as offering outward sacrifices". This makes sense in the Lutheran and Catholic view, because outwardly the elements are bread and wine, and not human sacrifice, but inwardly they have a real presence of Christ's body. His mention of the ritual being a "spiritual sacrifice" is in line with the Lutheran view, but Catholics don't deny that their ritual is spiritual too. And sure, Melchisedek made a blessing "only with wine and bread" in terms of the physical objects, but this does not deny that those objects have a spiritual nature as well.
• It's true that Eusebius says that the bread in the Eucharist is "the symbol of His Body," but that doesn't mean that it is "only" a symbol, as a Presbyterian forum user named Helfrick pointed out. Helfrick noted that one essay by much Church explains:
  
  • "the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself. The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical". (http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist)
• Eusebius says in this same quote that the verse "'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food." If the food was "only" a symbol, it would not be purer than any other food, just as the "symbol" of pure water (H2O) is not "purer" than any other symbol.
  
• Eusebius did think that in the case of the Eucharist this was a symbol where form and substance (Christ's) went together. Eusebius rejected that paintings of Jesus were images of Him, as the theologian Mazza explains, because: "There could be no true image capable of representing the actual features of Christ. The Son is an image of God, but in this kind of image form and substance go together... In [Eusebius'] view, the true image of Christ is not to be found in a painting, but in the Eucharist."
  https://books.google.com/books?id=r...EIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=eusebius eucharist&f=false

That Origen calls the Eucharist "bread" doesn't mean that he doesn't consider it the flesh of Christ (AKA "the Bread of Life"), as one researcher summarizes Origen's views:

First, the heavenly bread of the word of God seems to b e th e ultimat e realit y foun d unde r th e eucharisti e brea d an d eve n unde r th e notio n o f th e fles h o f Christ . Ever y referenc e t o th e fles h an d bloo d o f Christ , a s wel l a s t o th e manna , an d t o th e brea d an d win e o f th e mysterie s i s clearl y a referenc e t o th e Eucharist .
http://www.erudit.org/revue/LTP/1986/v42/n1/400218ar.pdf​

Tertullian also calls the elements symbols, but again, symbols are not necessarily in conflict with a real presence too. The webpage then quoted a long passage by Tertullian and commented that he referred "to the communion supper as spiritual words." But naturally ritual words are a spiritual thing, not a physical thing, whether or not they refer to physical things. Which sentence in that long passage is the website referring to and why would the supper's spiritual words mean that the Lord cannot be either spiritually or physically present in the food?

Theodoret says that the food elements "are not deprived of their own nature". Theodoret was involved in the Council of Chalcedon, and "nature" in the Chalcedonian sense means a "collection of properties". Of course, looking at the Communion food one can tell that it does not lose its properties. This does not conflict with it gaining added properties like those of Christ's presence.

Theophilius' denial that Christians ate human flesh can mean a denial that we eat human flesh in the normal sense of the words "human flesh". He is not denying that we eat the flesh of Christ in some other sense, whether it be in a spiritual sense like Lutherans claim, symbolically like the Reformed claim, and/or in the sense of the transformed flesh of the divine Christ with its divine properties.

1. Athenagoras (133-190)
   1. Arthenogoras (133-190) says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men. "But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,--then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)
2. Augustine (354-430)
   1. Augustine (354-430) says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine, Letter 98:9)
   2. Augustine (354-430) said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)
   3. Augustine (354-430) says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
3. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
   1. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine. "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
   2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)
4. Eusebius (263-339)
   1. Eusebius (263-339) says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
   2. Eusebius (263-339) says the bread and wine are symbol's of Christ's Body."The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)
5. Origen (185-254)
   1. Origin (185-254)says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. "Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)
6. Tertullian (155-220)
   1. Tertullian (155-220) says the communion bread represents Christ's body. "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children;nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
   2. Tertullian (155-220) refers to the communion supper as spiritual words. "He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
7. Theodoret (393-457)
   1. Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine. "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)
8. Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?)
   1. Theophilis of Antioch (d. 185?) denies that Christians eat human flesh. "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

Quotes from Carm.org

So in review, these quotes by Church fathers are in the category of what I asked for in my first question. However, I don't see these passages in conflict with the Lutheran sense that Christ is present in the food elements of the Communion meal, and tend to find the Lutheran one the easiest to conceptualize and reconcile.

It is not clear whether they conflict with the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation either, because they don't directly and necessarily exclude the possibility of transformed physical divine flesh. Either they exclude direct cannibalism or call the Eucharist a symbol, etc., but some of the same authors elsewhere do endorse Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

 

[rakovsky]

As to the title of thread the answer is yes there is much written in direct apostolic basis to consider the symbolic meaning as being given from the beginning.
Yes to the 1st 2 questions and no to the 3rd. There is as much basis in the ECF for symbolic as there may be found in Transubstantiation. It all depends on who you choose to listen to and who you choose to ignor.

1. Athenagoras (133-190)
   1. Arthenogoras (133-190) says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men. "But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,--then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)
2. Augustine (354-430)
   1. Augustine (354-430) says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine, Letter 98:9)
   2. Augustine (354-430) said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)
   3. Augustine (354-430) says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
3. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
   1. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine. "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
   2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)
4. Eusebius (263-339)
   1. Eusebius (263-339) says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
   2. Eusebius (263-339) says the bread and wine are symbol's of Christ's Body."The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)
5. Origen (185-254)
   1. Origin (185-254)says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. "Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)
6. Tertullian (155-220)
   1. Tertullian (155-220) says the communion bread represents Christ's body. "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children;nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
   2. Tertullian (155-220) refers to the communion supper as spiritual words. "He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
7. Theodoret (393-457)
   1. Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine. "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)
8. Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?)
   1. Theophilis of Antioch (d. 185?) denies that Christians eat human flesh. "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

Quotes from Carm.org

I notice that the title for that article in its window heading is: "Not all Church Fathers held to Roman Catholic view of Eucharist".
However, I am not necessarily comparing the Catholic view with the Protestant one, but rather the Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican view that Christ has a real presence in the food with the Reformed one that He doesn't. The Lutherans could respond to all the quotes above that they see the presence in a spiritual way and that the food is not physically Christ's flesh.

Even Calvin thought, as I understand it, that we eat Christ's body spiritually, he just didn't think it happened in the food. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Zwingli differed from Calvin in that Zwingli proposed that _nothing_ about the ritual involved Christ's body beyond a symbol.

 

[rakovsky]

It amuses me to see you for once debating with a genuinely disagreeable form of Christianity, rather than with the Oriental Orthodox. And I believe in this post you are entirely right. I wish you would make posts like this on a other forum we belong to, although I expect you might find yourself preaching to the choir as it were.

Thanks for writing, WGW!

It is nice to see you here. What seems to be happening is that the Reformed Protestants, who began in the Age of Enlightenment bend and cram the meaning of scripture so that it fits into their rationalist preconceptions. They don't think that Christ's body could be present spiritually or physically on earth and heaven simultaneously. But that doesn't into account the transformation of Christ's body. If you don't care about Tradition, feel that you are the best one to interpret scripture based on what you think is real (as opposed to what the Bible's apparent meaning is), and you prefer to follow a more naturalistic understanding, this Reformed view can be more appealing.

Please write some more what you think about this.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I notice that the title for that article in its window heading is: "Not all Church Fathers held to Roman Catholic view of Eucharist".
However, I am not necessarily comparing the Catholic view with the Protestant one, but rather the Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican view that Christ has a real presence in the food with the Reformed one that He doesn't. The Lutherans could respond to all the quotes above that they see the presence in a spiritual way and that the food is not physically Christ's flesh.

Even Calvin thought, as I understand it, that we eat Christ's body spiritually, he just didn't think it happened in the food. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Zwingli differed from Calvin in that Zwingli proposed that _nothing_ about the ritual involved Christ's body beyond a symbol.

The thread title is addressed to reformed Protestants.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Thank you for your answer, Cassia.

NP rakovsky
I'm not concerned with what denomitions adhere to, the topic is the reliability of some Christian's experience of spiritual communion in Christ in comparison to Tradition's real presence. It would be helpful to determine the earliest comments from those who were directly associated with the original apostles as anything after that is heresay in the purest form of the word.
For this it would be good to confine the search to Clement 30-100 AD , Justin Martyr 100-156 AD, Ignatius 30-107 AD, Irenaeus 120-200 AD, and Polycarp 69-155 AD. Here are your quotes that include them.

Sure, Clement said: "And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed..." But this does not mean that Clement did not see the wine as becoming Christ's blood in physical or spiritual form.
Sure, in John's Gospel (not a narration of the Last Supper) when Jesus speaks of his flesh and blood, he could be speaking metaphorically of the faith that refreshes the Church. This does not mean that when later in the Last Supper He goes to speak of His body and blood He is only doing so metaphorically.
Elsewhere, Clement must be saying that we drink either Christ's corporeal blood or his spiritual blood, as Clement says those are its two meanings: "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul."

This is probably not the same Clement as mentioned above but shall include anyway

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine. "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

There is really very little to go on that proves that the beginning of the church was more catholic in thought than protestant thought. But that really is the issue when it comes down to the insults being slung at Protestants as this thread sets out to do. As far as I can see is that Protestant thought was more prevailant from the beginning so it really is a silly argument that can stem only from pride.

So in review, these quotes by Church fathers are in the category of what I asked for in my first question. However, I don't see these passages in conflict with the Lutheran sense that Christ is present in the food elements of the Communion meal, and tend to find the Lutheran one the easiest to conceptualize and reconcile.

Again what does the Lutheran form of Christ's communion have to do with all Protestants, it is not in anyway a representation of whom the thread is addressed to.

It is not clear whether they conflict with the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation either, because they don't directly and necessarily exclude the possibility of transformed physical divine flesh. Either they exclude direct cannibalism or call the Eucharist a symbol, etc., but some of the same authors elsewhere do endorse Christ's presence in the Eucharist..

Rest assured they don`t

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I notice that the title for that article in its window heading is: "Not all Church Fathers held to Roman Catholic view of Eucharist".
However, I am not necessarily comparing the Catholic view with the Protestant one, but rather the Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican view that Christ has a real presence in the food with the Reformed one that He doesn't. The Lutherans could respond to all the quotes above that they see the presence in a spiritual way and that the food is not physically Christ's flesh.

Even Calvin thought, as I understand it, that we eat Christ's body spiritually, he just didn't think it happened in the food. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Zwingli differed from Calvin in that Zwingli proposed that _nothing_ about the ritual involved Christ's body beyond a symbol.

If those are the answers your looking for only then the thread should be moved to Traditional Theology.

 

[rakovsky]

Pretty much everything is symbolic for something else.
I can't think of anything that is not.

What is God symbolic for?
But in any case, I am not disputing whether the Eucharist in some way symbolizes Jesus' body, but asking whether the "Reformed" think that it only symbolizes it and does not include Jesus' body spiritually or physically, as Lutherans and Catholics claim it does, respectively.

 

[Standing Up]

Thanks for writing, WGW!

It is nice to see you here. What seems to be happening is that the Reformed Protestants, who began in the Age of Enlightenment bend and cram the meaning of scripture so that it fits into their rationalist preconceptions. They don't think that Christ's body could be present spiritually or physically on earth and heaven simultaneously. But that doesn't into account the transformation of Christ's body. If you don't care about Tradition, feel that you are the best one to interpret scripture based on what you think is real (as opposed to what the Bible's apparent meaning is), and you prefer to follow a more naturalistic understanding, this Reformed view can be more appealing.

Please write some more what you think about this.

Are you comparing Christ with the Spirit? Do you think Christ's body enlarges or moves about?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What is God symbolic for?
But in any case, I am not disputing whether the Eucharist in some way symbolizes Jesus' body, but asking whether the "Reformed" think that it only symbolizes it and does not include Jesus' body spiritually or physically, as Lutherans and Catholics claim it does, respectively.

Of course anyone who partakes of communion in a worthy manner includes the spiritual aspect of partaking in His flesh and blood as scripture specifies. When Christ rose bodily the Holy Spirit was given for an indwelling. That is not to say that the flesh of Jesus is separate from the Spirit because there is too much scripture to say otherwise. But John 6 has the emphasis on the belief of Christ as to His death burial and ressurrection, not in the eating according to the flesh but in the assimmulation of all that He is into our spirit/ new nature for us to worship in spirit and in truth. For flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.

 

[rakovsky]

Of course that comment of mine was a little tease based upon how you worded your statement, but as to the real issue here, the Protestant position would be whatever Scripture supports, right? To that extent, the writings of various churchmen from the ancient church would be worthwhile--depending upon many factors--to the extent that they shed light on the Scriptures.

Protestant theologians would have normally professed to be in accordance with scripture, but this is not really necessarily true any more. Take for example the leading "Christian Zionist" theologian R.A. Eckardt, who claimed that the Holocaust disproved the Resurrection and that the New Testament was simply wrong about Judaism (See his debates with the Catholic priest McGarry in the American Journal of Theology & Philosophy).

But the "scriptural" position is not necessarily the conservative Protestant position either, since Conservative Protestants disagree among themselves about the meaning of scripture, and so to say that the Protestant position is the scriptural one creates a kind of subjective tautology, whereby the scriptural position on which their position rests is in turn determined by them.

In any case, sure, the writings from the churchmen from the era of the writing of the Bible could be helpful to interpret scripture on areas that are debated or unclear.

 

[rakovsky]

The thread title is addressed to reformed Protestants.

Yes, That is my point.
Reformed Protestants do not agree with the Lutheran or Catholic views of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist food, and my first question is whether early Christian writings support the Reformed position against the Lutheran and Catholic views.

In your reply, you listed church fathers' writings, which are the kind of thing I am looking for. But the website only purported those quoted by the fathers to be against the Catholic position of physical flesh in the Communion meal. This leaves open the question of whether any early Christian writings support the Reformed Protestants in their disagreement with the Lutherans, who took a more traditional position that Christ's body was spiritually present in the meal.