The real presence of Christ in the sacrament of communion.

[Paulomycin]

There's nothing "mere" about symbolism.

Agreed. Yet there are people out there who don't know that symbols necessarily point to something. I was simply addressing them in-particular.

For example. Some twenty years ago, I on a tour of a Masonic temple. I asked the tour guide (a close friend of mine at the time), what all the masonic symbols meant. He kept dismissively repeating ad nauseam that they were "merely symbolic," as-if they had no real meaning at all.

That stuck with me for quite some time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Agreed. Yet there are people out there who don't know that symbols necessarily point to something. I was simply addressing them in-particular.

For example. Some twenty years ago, I on a tour of a Masonic temple. I asked the tour guide (a close friend of mine at the time), what all the masonic symbols meant. He kept dismissively repeating ad nauseam that they were "merely symbolic," as-if they had no real meaning at all.

That stuck with me for quite some time.

That's kind of like a lawyer telling me not to worry about the fine print. "It's just a formality."

 

[JM]

Agreed. Yet there are people out there who don't know that symbols necessarily point to something. I was simply addressing them in-particular.

For example. Some twenty years ago, I on a tour of a Masonic temple. I asked the tour guide (a close friend of mine at the time), what all the masonic symbols meant. He kept dismissively repeating ad nauseam that they were "merely symbolic," as-if they had no real meaning at all.

That stuck with me for quite some time.

"...symbols are to the mind what tools are the hand..." - not sure who said it

 

[Dave L]

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.

Where does scripture say this? Believers already have what you think "works" provide.

 

[Paulomycin]

Where does scripture say this? Believers already have what you think "works" provide.

Where does the scripture say what? John 6?

 

[Dave L]

Where does the scripture say what? John 6?

Pretty vague answer. But what if all believers already have Christ? Isn't your theory redundant?

 

[Paulomycin]

Pretty vague answer. But what if all believers already have Christ? Isn't your theory redundant?

No, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

 

[Dave L]

No, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

Same for me. I don't make any sense out of your claims.

 

[public hermit]

For Calvin, the body of Christ is "at the right hand of the Father," i.e. Christ's body is not ubiquitous as Luther insisted. But the Spirit, who is not limited by time and space or the by the chasm between heaven and earth, feeds the participants. It is a spiritual feeding, but probably more accurate to say the participant is united to Christ in heaven, than to say Christ is present in the bread and wine (that is, for Calvin). But, Calvin's approach is difficult to wrap one's head around, I think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where does scripture say this? Believers already have what you think "works" provide.

Dave, could not the same be said concerning 'two or three gathered in [his] name'? If he is in the midst of them, is it not something they already had? So why the 'works' of gathering?

Maybe there's something you are taking Paulomycin to be saying that he didn't mean, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Dave L]

Dave, could not the same be said concerning 'two or three gathered in [his] name'? If he is in the midst of them, is it not something they already had? So why the 'works' of gathering?

Maybe there's something you are taking Paulomycin to be saying that he didn't mean, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

He seems to be teaching works salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He seems to be teaching works salvation.

Not at all. I've known him quite a while, and he definitely doesn't mean any such thing. He is adamantly opposed to works salvation.

 

[Dave L]

Not at all. I've known him quite a while, and he definitely doesn't mean any such thing. He is adamantly opposed to works salvation.

But you must acquire Christ through a sacrament? And that is not works?

 

[hedrick]

For Calvin, the body of Christ is "at the right hand of the Father," i.e. Christ's body is not ubiquitous as Luther insisted. But the Spirit, who is not limited by time and space or the by the chasm between heaven and earth, feeds the participants. It is a spiritual feeding, but probably more accurate to say the participant is united to Christ in heaven, than to say Christ is present in the bread and wine (that is, for Calvin). But, Calvin's approach is difficult to wrap one's head around, I think.

There's an underlying Christological issue, which became clear in the Lutheran / Reformed arguments. Calvin was very concerned to maintain that Christ's resurrected body was a real human body, and thus limited to a specific place (to the extent heaven can be considered a place).

Lutherans were very concerned to maintain the unity of Christ's person. That includes the "communication of attributes," whereby the attributes of God apply in some way even to Christ's body. Hence his body is ubiquitous. This led to accusations by Lutherans that Reformed were Nestorian, because Reformed didn't push the communication of attributes as far as Lutherans felt was required by the unity of person.

Speaking as a mainline Reformed Protestant, I think both of these arguments assume that we can make more precise metaphysical statements about God than I think is justified. I am not convinced that Christ is quite so limited to a "place" as Calvin believed, but I also think some of the Lutheran arguments look like metaphysical sleight of hand. Thus I think Christ is really with us as he promised, but I'm not quite as willing to say how this presence splits between body and spirit as some historical theologians were.

This is partly because I don't think we know the specifics of what a resurrected body is. It seems to imply at least that resurrected people are distinct, and recognizable, with some continuity with our current bodily forms. But I think it's risky to go beyond that. For that reason I tend to favor that somewhat diffuse way in which Methodists and Episcopaleans define the real presence. I'd bet that most Presbyterians would agree, though possibly not members of the conservative Presbyterian denominations.

 

[Paulomycin]

But you must acquire Christ through a sacrament? And that is not works?

I didn't say that. And I do oppose Sacramentalism. Christians are saved by grace through faith alone; not works. Faith is not a work. Grace is un-merited.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But you must acquire Christ through a sacrament? And that is not works?

No, he's not saying acquire Christ, as in salvation. But I'll let him explain. Don't worry about Paulo. He's definitely on our side of the question. He will fight you if you say James is wrong about works --that they necessarily do follow regeneration, but he is maybe one of the strongest I've heard explaining how salvation happens, and indeed, even any good thing. He is capable of floating ideas to see how the words come out, and no doubt appreciates honest criticism on how he says something, just as he is honest to correct what I and others have said.

I didn't say that. And I do oppose Sacramentalism. Christians are saved by grace through faith alone; not works. Faith is not a work. Grace is un-merited.

To add to what Paulo says here, I have no doubt that he also believes the faith is entirely NOT of oneself but of God.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Agreed. Yet there are people out there who don't know that symbols necessarily point to something. I was simply addressing them in-particular.
...as-if they had no real meaning at all.

Fair enough, but I do still maintain that a symbol is only "mere" when it is not your own. The problem is not that they regard the sacraments as symbols, but that they do not embrace the symbolism for themselves. For the one who regards the symbolism of the communion sincerely, there is no difference than for the one who thinks it is transformed, either physically or spiritually.

If I say "Cat," you immediately think of the feline animal. You do not sit there and consider how the strange three-letter formation is a mere symbol of an animal. That is the difference.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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.

Christ is already present without it, so long as two or more are gathered in his name. All that is needed is the awareness. The value of the sacrament is in the meaning. If you take it without perceiving the meaning, then you accomplish nothing. The meaning is in the symbolism.

 

[Paulomycin]

Christ is already present without it, so long as two or more are gathered in his name.

No, we're talking about the elements of the bread and the cup itself. How do you interpret, “Take, eat; this is My body,” in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and 1 Corinthians 11:24?

Was Jesus speaking literally, in a symbolically analogous manner, or. . .?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, this is an interesting thread.

I think "straitening out" what people are contemplating; bears some consideration as to the nature of God.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with the fact that God is a separate Entity from His creation. It needs Him to survive; but He doesn't need it. Yet for the purpose of atonement; the Son became part of this creation.

And I think it bears recognition that between conception and final ascension back to the Father; that the Son's presence at that time was a special circumstance. When He returns again; He will be "materially" different (yet physically present) "still" and "again".

Now the Passover that communion was instituted upon; obviously the disciples did not take Jesus's words as literal.

Now I'm not aware of any verses in Scripture that specifically forbid cannibalism; yet in all contexts that it's spoken about; it's certainly a sign of judgement. And looking specifically at the Mosaic law; at the very least, eating another human would have made one "unclean", because the dead were unclean. Then of course if one kills another simply to eat them; that's another issue.

So this leaves us with the presence of the Spirit of God "instituting" some bond between participants and Him in the act of "remembering Him". We also know that Christ is sacrificed once. Which obviously would make the act of eating the meal, symbolic also.

Now, the presence of God is still a real presence, even if it isn't a material presence. At least at this point it is not a material presence; whereas upon that Passover, the Son was "materially present". (And no one tried to eat him.)

Which brings us again back to the consideration of the vast "flexibility" of the nature of God.

We also have for an interesting comparison; the "breath of life". Every material creature that's considered "alive" possess it. It comes from God upon inception and returns to Him upon death. It is obviously the defining factor of what makes the body alive. It's what makes one a "living" soul. It does not appear to make the soul "animate" though; for when the body dies; the soul goes on without the breath of life. And if we take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; we could argue that the soul consciously goes on without the breath of life; although it seems to me that the Breath of life is part of what created the soul when the body was conceived. (But that's a subject for another thread.)

Yet, I think it's valid to argue that even the breath of life constitutes some "manifestation" of the presence of God. Although the breath of life does not make one born again. Regeneration is a "different layer" of the proverbial cake.

Which brings us to the question. Is there a presence above and beyond the Spirit that has constituted regeneration? We know when the Sprit indwells someone; He doesn't "leave". Which upon the surface at least; that appears to be a difference between Old Testament and New Testament living saint.

Kind of like the analogy of whether or not an individual "lives in their car". We, like the empty automobile, do no spiritual work without the "Driver" in the car.

Which brings up the question related to this thread. Is the "presence" at the communion table a "special separate" presence, or more like unto a bunch of cars connected to the same sound system in a drive in theater? Thus the connectedness of the group.

Again, a presence that's real but not material.