communion

JVAC · Jan 21, 2004

racer said:
To state this as fact, you must first prove, definitively, that Christ is indeed identifying the bread and wine as His literal body and blood (as in flesh and blood. Can you do that?

First, I can state this as fact because if someone doesn't believe the sky is blue it doesn't change the fact that it is blue. Likewise if someone doesn't believe Christ comes to us in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, it doesn't change the fact that he does indeed come.

Second, the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke give a pretty good idea of what words were used, namely, "This is my body", "This is my blood". For Christ has told us himself earlier that he wouldn't lie to us, John 14:2, "where it not so, I would have told you". Jesus would not have said, "this is" if it were not. He didn't say, "symbolically" or "this is like" he said "this is".

There are other parallels that one could draw up, but I don't think I need to, I think it is pretty obvious Christ wanted us to know that it was/is/will be He that we come to take in this Holy Sacrament.

racer · Jan 22, 2004

puriteen18 said:
By empty I meant that it is just like eatin gany other bread, which it is not. Jesus, our LORD, is there.

Partaking of communion is not like eating just any ole bread. Jesus is everywhere among us--always. If we take a deep breath, we can breath in His spirit and are spiritually nourished!!

puriteen18 said:
Yes, but His Body and Blood, His sacrifice is somehow present spritually in the Sacrament. The elements do not become the Body and Blood (trans). Nor are the literally present with the elements (cons). But, in some great mystery, the faithful do partake of the Person of Christ, who is spiritually present there.

Okay, let me see if I can make some type of sense out of what you are saying . . . . . . Sorry, I can't. :o How is His Body and Blood present if the elements do not becme the Body and Blood?
You said in a previous post on this thread:

puriteen18 said:
For the unworthy Christ is still there and they practically blaspheme Him by not discerning His Body and therefore, drink condemnation to themselves.

How can you correctly "discern" His Body if it's a "great mystery."

puriteen18 said:
It's quite okay. The Calvinist view is confusing. It took me a while to understand this much and I still probably don't explainit the best way.

Do you think God meant for it to be so confusing or difficult?

puriteen18 said:
The fullnes of His Person is sprirtually present in the faithful partaking of the elements.

Can you elaborate?

puriteen18 said:
We gain all of His benefits and graces if we partake as faithful converted children of God.

We "gain all of His benefits and graces" by "coming to Him and believing in Him."

puriteen18 said:
The Sacraments are are signs and seals of the Covenant. In the Sacraments there are 1. visible objects and actions and 2.inward realities and spiritual benefits.

So Jesus placed significant importance on "visible object and actions?"

racer · Jan 22, 2004

JVAC said:
First, I can state this as fact because if someone doesn't believe the sky is blue it doesn't change the fact that it is blue.

You can also proclaim that “black” is “white” until the second coming of Christ, but we all know that “black” is still black.

JVAC said:
Likewise if someone doesn't believe Christ comes to us in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, it doesn't change the fact that he does indeed come.

Christ’s literal/physical Real Presence is at the right hand of God. His spiritual Real Presence doesn’t have to come to us in a Sacrament. He is with us always.

JVAC said:
Second, the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke give a pretty good idea of what words were used, namely, "This is my body", "This is my blood". For Christ has told us himself earlier that he wouldn't lie to us, John 14:2, "where it not so, I would have told you". Jesus would not have said, "this is" if it were not. He didn't say, "symbolically" or "this is like" he said "this is".

There are seven (7) “I am” statements made by Jesus in the New Testament of which “I am the bread of life” is one:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).
"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).
"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).
"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).
"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).
"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).
"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

He didn’t tell us He was speaking symbolically in any of these verses. But, we know He is, don’t we?

JVAC said:
There are other parallels that one could draw up, but I don't think I need to, I think it is pretty obvious Christ wanted us to know that it was/is/will be He that we come to take in this Holy Sacrament.

Really? What makes it so obvious? Because I just don’t see it.

JVAC · Jan 22, 2004

Racer:

Notice all your "I am" 's are in the Gospel of John! John has a whole different air in the way of his writings. The fact is that we get the Holy Sacrament from the Evangelists Mark, Luke and Mathew, who posses a different style than John does.

Nice job though keeping me accountable, especially with the black is black thing, I wasn't answering your question too much. I hope to go into it much deeper now that classes are over for the weekend.

Take care,
-James

Axion · Jan 22, 2004

A. We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending us to our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called his Body Meat, His Blood Drink . . . When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, ‘Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you;’ . . . His disciples were offended . . . What then did He answer? ‘Doth this offend you? . . . Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?’ Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . . That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life.’ (Ibid., vol. VI, St. Augustin, Homilies on the Gospels, Sermon 81.1, p. 501.)

I couldn't help seeing the above Quote from St Augustine.
I'm sure it would aid you all to have this quote in its full form.

1. We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognise the Sacrament of the faithful. But the hearers what else do they but hear? When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you; "1 (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? "2 But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you?""What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?"3 What meaneth this? "Doth this offend you?" "Do ye imaginethat I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? `What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?'" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you," saith He, "that believe not."4 Such were they who said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.

JVAC · Jan 22, 2004

Proof of Real Presence:

To prove real presence first we must acknowledge that Christ Jesus is not, nor ever will be a liar; John 14:2. If this cannot be acknowledged then, go no further.

Now that we have acceptance that Jesus tells us the truth, lets go and study some texts. (I am not a scholar in all the ways of Greek/Hebrew, but Ill do my best.) Matthew 26:26 Christ is reported to have said (probably in Hebrew, as that is how the meal was to be celebrated, but recorded here in Koine Greek.), Lábete fágete toútó estin tó soómá mou. This we translate to mean, Take, eat; this is my body. Christ is purported to have just said that you should take, and eat, this the bread he is holding which is his body.

Now Christ had been reported to have said this an additional two more times in the Gospels according to St. Luke and St. Mark. St. Mark left out the word eat, yet it is implied. St. Luke writes Toútó estin tó soómá mou which is This is my body in the context of which is given for you. Here we have our three synoptic Gospels in agreement, all recording that Christ indeed said, This is my body. Not only do we have the Evangelists in agreement but also St. Paul in his Epistle to the Church at Corinth, wherein he writes, Toútó mou estin tó soómá, This is my body; with the context of which is broken for you. The apostle Paul, taught by Peter, seer of Christ, teaches us these words. We are assured by four different sources, that Christ told us that This bread is my body.

The Evangelist John writes a record in his Gospel of Jesus in chapter 6. Most of us when going to John, will usually come with a less literal mind, for John has a reputation for using metaphors. Yet here in verse 52 the Jews asked him How can this man give us his flesh to eat?. Now when Jesus uses parables or meataphors he usually explains them, not so here. He continues saying, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna (Exodus 16:4) and died but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. Here Jesus hammers in the fact that he is true food and true drink.

Here I diverge from Luther (hopefully none of my brethren are too much offended), on the grounds that I think this passage is every bit as relevant to the Holy Sacrament.

Here just as in later in his life, issued a divine promise, that is, if you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you will have my life in you. John, for some unknown reason, puts his account of the Sacramental promise here. Just as the earlier Evangelists set it down for us, so does John. John doesnt focus on the procedure as much as the substance of the Holy Sacrament, whereas the others gave us a procedure. Here John takes it unto himself, to explain it, and he does. The Sacrament is not only promised here to be real, but there is also a word of faith, that is not to be overlooked, 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. After he commends faith, he continues to tell us that he is the bread, etc.

Therefore, we now have every Evangelist and the Apostle Paul reporting a great and miraculous happening. They tell us of a beautiful gift, Christ, gives us his body and blood, that we may remain in Him. See, the Synoptic Evangelists for the process, see the Apostle Paul for the spirit in which to receive the Holy Sacrament, and see the Evangelist John for the meaning of the Holy Sacrament. No one contradicts anyone, they all say that Jesus, the Christ of God, is the true food and true drink we come to take, in that most blessed Sacrament.

This is proof of the real presence.

If you want to understand transubstantiation further go here and read. http://www.christianforums.com/t53175

If you want to understand consubstantiation go here and read. #18

http://www.christianforums.com/t84823&page=2

racer · Jan 23, 2004

Axion said:
I couldn't help seeing the above Quote from St Augustine.
I'm sure it would aid you all to have this quote in its full form.

1. We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognise the Sacrament of the faithful. But the hearers what else do they but hear? When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you; "1 (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? "2 But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you?""What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?"3 What meaneth this? "Doth this offend you?" "Do ye imaginethat I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? `What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?'" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you," saith He, "that believe not."4 Such were they who said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.

Axion,

Thanks a bunch for the elaboration!! I'm sure you think it further clarifies your POV and shows that Augustine held to the Real Presence. However, I don't see that even in the detailed quote you gave above. Too bad IDD was closed down, you and I could further debate the issue.

I like this particular portion of the quote above:

Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually.

racer · Jan 23, 2004

JVAC said:
Racer:

Notice all your "I am" 's are in the Gospel of John! John has a whole different air in the way of his writings. The fact is that we get the Holy Sacrament from the Evangelists Mark, Luke and Mathew, who posses a different style than John does.

James,

Here's and interesting "trivia" loaded article on "I am" statements in the Bible. It doesn't really address our subject, but I found it interesting.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-172a.htm

Irregardless of differing writing styles, each author is recording the words of Christ. Just because Matthew, Mark and Luke did not record the I am statements, does not mean that if they had they would have worded them any different. Even in John, after He says, "I am the bread of Life," Jesus goes on to say, "this is my body . . . this is my blood."

JVAC said:
Nice job though keeping me accountable, especially with the black is black thing, I wasn't answering your question too much. I hope to go into it much deeper now that classes are over for the weekend.

I hope I didn't sound too cynical, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sorry if I did.

JVAC said:
Take care,
-James

Take care. I'll get to your next response in a bit.

JVAC · Jan 23, 2004

racer said:
James,

Here's and interesting "trivia" loaded article on "I am" statements in the Bible. It doesn't really address our subject, but I found it interesting.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-172a.htm

Irregardless of differing writing styles, each author is recording the words of Christ. Just because Matthew, Mark and Luke did not record the I am statements, does not mean that if they had they would have worded them any different. Even in John, after He says, "I am the bread of Life," Jesus goes on to say, "this is my body . . . this is my blood."

Thanks for the link. We must pay attention, however, to the writing style, because we know that the writings of the first three Evangelists tell us a more chrnological and proceedural story. St. John, however, completely switches things up, and he doesn't record things in the same order, etc. We can either view them as St. John is wrong, or the three synoptics are wrong, OR we can grant that the purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. John is written with a completely different purpose, (St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark all wrote to specific audiences which influenced their text style, but they didn't change thier texts that much). If you believe the infallibility of the writings of the Evangelists, then you must accept the latter.

St. John's Gospel of Jesus is written with the purpose stated in 20:31, which doesn't change all that much from St. Luke. Yet, St. John doesn't concentrate on 'an ordered account' like St. Luke, he instead puts forth to show the church a collection of Jesus' signs, (John H Sailhamer, Commentary on John 485) One such sign is him actually being the bread of life.

I do also want to take the time to say thankyou for your nice responses and I feel very blessed, a lot of the information I am giving is new to me, and if it doesn't mean anything to you, it has meant a lot to me, and I thank you for giving me a purpose to research this deeply.

-James

racer · Jan 23, 2004

JVAC said:
Thanks for the link. We must pay attention, however, to the writing style, because we know that the writings of the first three Evangelists tell us a more chrnological and proceedural story. St. John, however, completely switches things up, and he doesn't record things in the same order, etc. We can either view them as St. John is wrong, or the three synoptics are wrong, OR we can grant that the purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. John is written with a completely different purpose, (St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark all wrote to specific audiences which influenced their text style, but they didn't change thier texts that much). If you believe the infallibility of the writings of the Evangelists, then you must accept the latter.

St. John's Gospel of Jesus is written with the purpose stated in 20:31, which doesn't change all that much from St. Luke. Yet, St. John doesn't concentrate on 'an ordered account' like St. Luke, he instead puts forth to show the church a collection of Jesus' signs, (John H Sailhamer, Commentary on John 485) One such sign is him actually being the bread of life.

I do also want to take the time to say thankyou for your nice responses and I feel very blessed, a lot of the information I am giving is new to me, and if it doesn't mean anything to you, it has meant a lot to me, and I thank you for giving me a purpose to research this deeply.

-James

James,

Sorry I didn't get to respond to this post today. I think I have even another post from you that I'm behind on. I will try to get to them this weekend.

God Bless!!

Lisa

puriteen18 · Jan 28, 2004

racer said:
Do you think God meant for it to be so confusing or difficult?

Do you think that His Holy Religion was meant to be easily understood by us. We are humans, He is God. I would have to say that a good majority of the Christian faith is mysteries and paradoxes.

racer said:
We "gain all of His benefits and graces" by "coming to Him and believing in Him."

No, we do not recieve grace unto salvation by coming to Him. We are not the seeker, God is. His Holy Spirit seeks us out and separates us from the heathen, not because we are better but because of His own mercy and pleasure.

This effectual calling brings conversion, but conversion is only the begining of salvation. Coversion is followed by baptism (atleast for us Bapts), the Supper of our LORD, never-ending daily graces, and so on throughout eternity.

racer said:
So Jesus placed significant importance on "visible object and actions?"

"Teaching to observe all things I have commanded you;..." Matt 28:20a

Let me post some quotes from the Baptist Catechism (1677&1689), I'm sure that Mr. Benjamin Keach could put it better than I have.

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; I Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

(I Peter 3:21; I Cor. 3:6,7; I Cor. 12:13)

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

(Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)

(Which I might add is why we call them sacraments)

Q. 107. What is the Lord's Supper?

A. The Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.

(I Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16)

Q. 108. What is required to the worthy receiving of the
Lord's Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body; of their faith to feed upon Him; of their repentance, love, and new obedience: lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

(I Cor. 11:27-31; I Cor. 5:8; II Cor. 13:5)

Hope that helps.

(ps I am sorry to be so late in response. I had gone home from a school break.)

communion

JVAC

Baptized into His name

More options

racer

Contributor

More options

racer

Contributor

More options

JVAC

Baptized into His name

More options

Axion

Senior Veteran

More options

JVAC

Baptized into His name

More options

racer

Contributor

More options

racer

Contributor

More options

JVAC

Baptized into His name

More options

racer

Contributor

More options

puriteen18

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads

communion

Baptized into His name

Contributor

Contributor

Baptized into His name

Senior Veteran

Baptized into His name

Contributor

Contributor

Baptized into His name

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency