The real presence of Christ in the sacrament of communion.

[Mark Quayle]

That sounds like Pantheism. Are you a Pantheist?

Thanks!

—David

Just in case he doesn't get around to answering you quickly enough, I've known Paulomycin quite a while --he most definitely is not a pantheist! But I'll let him explain if he wishes. For myself, I'm not quite sure how you get pantheism implied from what he posted.

 

[ozso]

Eastern Orthodox hold more or less the same view regarding the Eucharist as RCC and Lutheran. Probably Anglican too. Hank Hannagraff said one of his main reasons for becoming Eastern Orthodox was because of the Eucharist.

 

[ozso]

Just in case he doesn't get around to answering you quickly enough, I've known Paulomycin quite a while --he most definitely is not a pantheist! But I'll let him explain if he wishes. For myself, I'm not quite sure how you get pantheism implied from what he posted.

He was responding to me.

 

[Albion]

I think that the real presence of Christ can be taken literally in that the elements of bread and wine are taken in objective faith and obedience to His real Spiritual presence in communion with the body of believers. The key to this is John 6:48, and all the way through to the end of the chapter (verses 48-69).

Well, you seem to have arrived at something close to the standard Anglican POV concerning this matter. But as our friend St_Worm2 saw right away, the Reformed view of the Sacrament, although a bit different, also conforms to what you are telling us, so you probably are all set right where you are, denomination-wise!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And do we mean that Christ is present in that form in a way that he is not present anywhere else even though he is omni present? Golly, I don't think Jesus was talking about chemistry of even philosophy. He was talking about simple faith. Meanwhile we always seem to miss the many layers of meaning in "eat my flesh and drink my blood". As if it is a mere physical act of eating and that alone somehow is what we need to do.

 

[rturner76]

And do we mean that Christ is present in that form in a way that he is not present anywhere else even though he is omni present? Golly, I don't think Jesus was talking about chemistry of even philosophy. He was talking about simple faith. Meanwhile we always seem to miss the many layers of meaning in "eat my flesh and drink my blood". As if it is a mere physical act of eating and that alone somehow is what we need to do.

Yes, it is not just a simple meal being accepted at Eucharist. Every time we take communion, we renew our faith in Christ's redeeming sacrifice. We bend the knee and accept our grace again every time we participate in the Sacrament.

The Sacrament in and of itself does not redeem us but participating in the Sacrament is proof of our redemption. It's a celebration of faith to partake of the Eucharist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

It would be interesting to hear the Arminian-leaning believer's reaction to this statement. Often they don't seem to know what to do, except to scoff, when they hear "Christ died for all" in this same sense --offered to all but received by only some (thus actually paid for the sins of only some).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thanks, it is useful to a point to read, but I was saying that any article that is supposed to be on Bible Doctrine, should at least quote from the Bible itself to show that it agrees with their view. On the matter of the "real presence" in the bread and wine, I think this teaching to be absurd, as it would mean that every time a person were to take these "elements", the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ entered our bodies! This is complete rubbish, as there is ZERO evidence in the Bible for such a teaching!

Hello... your posting on the reformed forum - which is denomination specific and not a debate forum.

Calvin was very learned, and we do understand where his teachings are coming from.

We will certainly help you understand biblically where Calvin is coming from, however again, it's not a debate forum.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, it is not just a simple meal being accepted at Eucharist. Every time we take communion, we renew our faith in Christ's redeeming sacrifice. We bend the knee and accept our grace again every time we participate in the Sacrament.

The Sacrament in and of itself does not redeem us but participating in the Sacrament is proof of our redemption. It's a celebration of faith to partake of the Eucharist.

And it is partaking of his life, suffering, death and resurrection. so much more than 'transubstantiation" though it may be a helpful intellectual grasping for some.

 

[Albion]

It would be interesting to hear the Arminian-leaning believer's reaction to this statement. Often they don't seem to know what to do, except to scoff, when they hear "Christ died for all" in this same sense --offered to all but received by only some (thus actually paid for the sins of only some).

As far as the nature of the sacrament itself is concerned, would it be any different?

 

[Mark Quayle]

As far as the nature of the sacrament itself is concerned, would it be any different?

Not to me, but then, as far as that goes, wouldn't the same apply to this whole discussion?

 

[Albion]

Not to me, but then, as far as that goes, wouldn't the same apply to this whole discussion?

I don't think so, since early in the thread Transubstantiation was referred to and also (if I remember correctly) the purely symbolic/representational interpretation that's placed on the Lord's Supper by Christians who reject Real Presence altogther.

 

[JM]

Mere symbolism is a mistake, clearly. The real physical presence is also a mistake. The biblical doctrine brings us back to the real spiritual presence. I like the Book of Common Prayer on this....the bread and wine are a 'visible sign of the thing signified" kind of deal.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee that thou dost graciously feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; assuring us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are living members of his mystical body, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee. And although we are unworthy, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

I have Beza's work on the Supper and will comment in this thread after reading it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Paulomycin]

So what are you claiming that amounts to anything? At Pentecost, all believers received the Holy Spirit as they continue to receive him today. Are you saying people are saved by works?

No.

What I am claiming is that the presence of the Spirit of Christ is 100% just as real as the bodily Christ we wait to return.

Therefore, when studying the ordinance of the Lord's Table and "This is my body," in the light of John 6, the bread and the cup are just as real as the Spirit of Christ, when taken in submission to the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Paulomycin]

Just as a bit of personal background: I was raised Arminian Southern Baptist (SBC). This caused me a lot of confusion, which led to a few years of atheism in the 90s.

After an existential and spiritual crisis, I returned to the same church, which was now led by a Calvinist (and a couple of his friends). This was right before The Founders Movement became a thing in the SBC, seminary students were marching against Al Mohler, etc.

We were in a verse-by-verse study of Ezekiel 37. Everything suddenly "clicked," and the Bible truly spoke to me. I was overwhelmed by the beauty, especially the symmetry, of the Word of God.

My first book after my conversion was Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election, by Robert Selph, which completely overhauled my prior Arminian mindset.

 

[St_Worm2]

Not that I'm aware of. I'm just saying what John 1:3 is saying.

V3 tells us that the universe (space/time), and everything in it, was created by the 2nd Member of the Godhead. We know He did so at the bidding* of His Father, the 1st Member of the Godhead, but how can we know that latter fact* from v3 alone?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being by (or through) Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
​

God is transcendent. IOW, He is not His Creation (or even part of His Creation), nor is the Creation Him or part of Him (that's what Pantheism teaches). God called all that exists into being ex nihilo (out of "nothing"), ~not~ out of the "stuff" that is Him (whatever that stuff might be? .. does a spiritual Being even have physical "stuff" ).

Here are a couple of very short/basic articles that might be worth considering.

What is pantheism? | GotQuestions.org
What is Christian pantheism? | GotQuestions.org
​

God bless you!

--David

​

​

 

[JM]

We truly feed upon Christ spiritually in the sacrament. Christ is truly meat and drink, He sustains us and we, by faith partake of Christ in the elements of the sacraments spiritually.

That's what I believe.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

In other words, I think Protestants can take the symbolism to as much of an extreme direction with the "mere symbolism" as the Roman Catholics do with the "real presence of Christ" in the opposite direction with their Eucharist.

There's nothing "mere" about symbolism. A symbol only seems mere when it is not your own.

What we have, here, is two solid pages full of symbols, characters arranged into "words," for the purpose of convincing us of the insignificance of symbols. I would like to see someone make an argument against the symbolism of the Lord's Supper without using symbols. It cannot be done. Every manifestation of the human mind is a symbol. Our entire experience of life is symbolic interactionism.

Mere symbol, indeed.

 

[Albion]

What's being said is that the body and blood of Christ are present and are received in an heavenly and spiritual manner, meaning that they do not only represent his essence or put us in mind of him.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Every manifestation of the human mind is a symbol. Our entire experience of life is symbolic interactionism.

And I was just reading about Kant's "things-in-themselves" thinking it was just high minded philosophy.