Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

[Light of the East]

Hi, Light of the East. I love Greek food, and I'm a fan of the Father of Philosophy Socrates.

I think yours is perhaps the strongest argument for taking Jesus' statement about the bread of the last supper literally. But I suppose one might say the early Greek and Roman Catholic Churches destroyed all written evidence of dissent long ago, considering the writers of such early heriticts rather than early church fathers.

It is the argument which converted me from Protestantism. I simply could not find certain parts of Protestant thought in the writings of the Early Fathers. Why is this important, especially with those who claim that we should use the Bible alone? It is because if you look at today's theological landscape, you see that the idea of the Bible alone is untenable. There are hundreds and hundreds of different denominations, all claiming the Bible as their sole source of guidance, led by the Holy Spirit, and yet none of them can even agree on things like baptism or what salvation means.

Logically, therefore, the idea of the Bible alone as the only source of truth does not work. Understanding the Early Fathers is to understand the consensus of how passages were interpreted. I wanted to know how the first Christians understood what Jesus taught.

You can make the Bible pretty much say anything you wish it to say. Going back to the head of the stream, where the waters are pure, is a good idea.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That's Luther and Calvin's heresy. Jesus made no such distinctions when He said at the Last Supper "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood. Is means......is.

Sorry, that's not quite right. The Lutheran teaching is that it is truly the body and blood of Christ, in, with, and under the bread and wine. We just don't explain how.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lutheran view is NOT consubstantiation (that is, bread and wine mixed with the body and blood of Christ, making a third substance), but explained as sacramental union.

In a word, the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence is pretty much the same as Anglican and Eastern Orthodox, though expressed differently: It's a holy mystery, which is only apprehended through faith.

 

[Greg Merrill]

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life."
(John 6:36)
​

Thanks, Greg, but perhaps I've missed something? How do these words make it clear whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively?

When He said the flesh profiteth nothing, it shows that he was not speaking about his physical flesh being eaten. He was speaking spiritually, figuratively, meaning we must receive Him/His Spirit, take Him into us by inviting Him to be our Savior (just "like" we take in physical food.).

 

[Light of the East]

Sorry, that's not quite right. The Lutheran teaching is that it is truly the body and blood of Christ, in, with, and under the bread and wine. We just don't explain how.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lutheran view is NOT consubstantiation (that is, bread and wine mixed with the body and blood of Christ, making a third substance), but explained as sacramental union.

In a word, the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence is pretty much the same as Anglican and Eastern Orthodox, though expressed differently: It's a holy mystery, which is only apprehended through faith.

That has not been my understanding of Lutheran sacramentalism at all. Do you have some official documents which I can link to in order to verify this?

The other problem is that of validity. If you understand the nature of succession of authority, once Luther broke with the Church, after the death of those X-priests in the Lutheran church, no one else was consecrated by a bishop with succession back to the Apostles. Therefore, there is no validity, and hence no chance, in the bread and wine you use.

I say this without malice. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so. Why not join the Orthodox Church and get the real thing?

 

[Greg Merrill]

That has not been my understanding of Lutheran sacramentalism at all. Do you have some official documents which I can link to in order to verify this?

The other problem is that of validity. If you understand the nature of succession of authority, once Luther broke with the Church, after the death of those X-priests in the Lutheran church, no one else was consecrated by a bishop with succession back to the Apostles. Therefore, there is no validity, and hence no chance, in the bread and wine you use.

I say this without malice. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so. Why not join the Orthodox Church and get the real thing?

I am not being "testy" at all, but I have never held any church as the final authority. I chose not to get into going to church at the age of 17, until I first read the Bible. Somehow I knew that it was the final authority, and that churches authority were to be viewed in the light of the Bible. If a church accurately went by the Bible it was worthy of attendance/participation. If not,
look for another church. Not looking for a debate with people that hold to the Lutheran Church doctrine, RCC, or any other. I was answering a question from the truth I have come to know in the Scriptures. Wishing you well.

 

[Light of the East]

I am not being "testy" at all, but I have never held any church as the final authority. I chose not to get into going to church at the age of 17, until I first read the Bible. Somehow I knew that it was the final authority, and that churches authority were to be viewed in the light of the Bible. If a church accurately went by the Bible it was worthy of attendance/participation. If not,
look for another church. Not looking for a debate with people that hold to the Lutheran Church doctrine, RCC, or any other. I was answering a question from the truth I have come to know in the Scriptures. Wishing you well.

I shall respect that you not want to start a kerfuffle over definitions of the Eucharist. Might you have a link handy to some Lutheran official documents?

 

[spockrates]

Grammatical rule of thumb:

Orthodoxy - The Orthodoxy Church (Note the capital "O")

orthodoxy - proper theology (Note the small "o")

BTW - very interesting picture of Mr. Spock you have there. Leonard Nimoy simply nailed that role, didn't he?

Thanks. Yeah, no one does the eyebrow better than Nemoy! My avatar is of the new Spock, played by Zachary Quinto.

 

[spockrates]

It is the argument which converted me from Protestantism. I simply could not find certain parts of Protestant thought in the writings of the Early Fathers. Why is this important, especially with those who claim that we should use the Bible alone? It is because if you look at today's theological landscape, you see that the idea of the Bible alone is untenable. There are hundreds and hundreds of different denominations, all claiming the Bible as their sole source of guidance, led by the Holy Spirit, and yet none of them can even agree on things like baptism or what salvation means.

Logically, therefore, the idea of the Bible alone as the only source of truth does not work. Understanding the Early Fathers is to understand the consensus of how passages were interpreted. I wanted to know how the first Christians understood what Jesus taught.

You can make the Bible pretty much say anything you wish it to say. Going back to the head of the stream, where the waters are pure, is a good idea.

Yes, but it seems Christ could have prevented such misconceptions, as in my example of adding one word to his statement at the last supper. So I wonder why he chose not to.

 

[spockrates]

When He said the flesh profiteth nothing, it shows that he was not speaking about his physical flesh being eaten.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing..."
(John 6:63)
​

Not sure I understand. I mean, I know the phrase, "profits nothing," is another way of saying, "good for nothing," but are you saying Jesus meant his own body was good for nothing?

I wonder if he is instead saying my flesh and your flesh profits nothing. That is, when it comes to eternal life, there's nothing humanly possible that we can do in our own strength to make us worthy to receive it. What do you think?

He was speaking spiritually, figuratively, meaning we must receive Him/His Spirit, take Him into us by inviting Him to be our Savior (just "like" we take in physical food.).

"...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
(John 6:63)
​

I think I understand, but let me be sure: Are you saying spiritual things are symbolic, rather than literal things?

 

[FireDragon76]

The other problem is that of validity. If you understand the nature of succession of authority, once Luther broke with the Church, after the death of those X-priests in the Lutheran church, no one else was consecrated by a bishop with succession back to the Apostles. Therefore, there is no validity, and hence no chance, in the bread and wine you use.

We don't believe in apostolic succession in the same way the Orthodox do, what some might derisively call "magic hands", nor do we believe in an ontological change in those who are ordained to holy ministry. Everyone who believes in Jesus is a priest and capable of presiding at the Holy Table and administering the sacraments in his name. It's just for the sake of good order, we normally put that responsibility into the hands of the pastor. But theoretically, in extraordinary circumstances, any believer may preside.

 

[Light of the East]

Yes, but it seems Christ could have prevented such misconceptions, as in my example of adding one word to his statement at the last supper. So I wonder why he chose not to.

But it wasn't Christ who caused the confusion. Look at the writings of the Early Fathers. Look at the writings of the Church both East and West for 1500 years. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Jesus meant exactly what He said.

The problem came in when men decided that the Church did not know what it was talking about and they were smarter and more intelligent than 1500 years of Church teaching. And for some reason, unlike other heresies that grew for a while then withered and died (How many Monothelitists have you ever met in your lifetime?) this one grew rapidly, probably because of the wretched and atrocious state of corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. We do not see the same thing happening in the East, and while the Orthodox Church is not pristine pure in Her own history, She has a lot less incidences of outright corruption than the West.

So it was man - not Christ.

 

[Light of the East]

We don't believe in apostolic succession in the same way the Orthodox do, what some might derisively call "magic hands", nor do we believe in an ontological change in those who are ordained to holy ministry. Everyone who believes in Jesus is a priest and capable of presiding at the Holy Table and administering the sacraments in his name. It's just for the sake of good order, we normally put that responsibility into the hands of the pastor. But theoretically, in extraordinary circumstances, any believer may preside.

That violates the Covenant principles of Hierarchy and Succession. Christianity is a covenant relationship and is therefore bound by the principles of covenant making.

You also have failed to study your Bible very carefully. In the Old Covenant, there were three classes of priesthood - the general priesthood of all in the covenant community, the Levitical priesthood, and the high priest. The population could not do the work of the Levites. The Levites could not offer Yom Kippur, and in fact, if anyone but the high priest had entered the Holiest of All on the Day of Atonement, they would have been struck dead.

The structure has carried over right into the New Covenant with all Christians being priests in a representative manner before God, representing Creation to God, with the Apostles being ordained to take the place of the priesthood of the Levites and offer sacrifice for sin (given that authority in John20:23) and with the Great High Priest, Jesus the Christ, offering an eternal Yom Kippur in the "tabernacle not made with hands."

Sorry, but your derisive Lutheran clergy are dead wrong.

 

[FireDragon76]

If sacerdotalism is what you need to believe in Jesus, more power to you. I will not be joining you, however. I am not going to allow anyone but Jesus be my mediator to God (I am former Orthodox, BTW).

 

[spockrates]

But it wasn't Christ who caused the confusion. Look at the writings of the Early Fathers. Look at the writings of the Church both East and West for 1500 years. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Jesus meant exactly what He said.

The problem came in when men decided that the Church did not know what it was talking about and they were smarter and more intelligent than 1500 years of Church teaching. And for some reason, unlike other heresies that grew for a while then withered and died (How many Monothelitists have you ever met in your lifetime?) this one grew rapidly, probably because of the wretched and atrocious state of corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. We do not see the same thing happening in the East, and while the Orthodox Church is not pristine pure in Her own history, She has a lot less incidences of outright corruption than the West.

So it was man - not Christ.

Perhaps, but if Christ were more precise, would we be having this conversation? I think rather than saying, "People misinterpreted the Bible," we would instead be saying, "People ignored what the Bible obviously said." For if Christ had said this,

"Take, eat. This is my actual body."
​

instead of this,

"Take, eat. This is my body."
​

there would be no doubt he wasn't using a figure of speech. Indeed, he could have added the words, "I'm not speaking figuratively. I'm really holding my own body in my hands this very moment!" Then there'd be no denying what he meant. Then one wouldn't have to consider what the early Church Father Augustine said, for Christ would have already said it!

So what Christ says is ambiguous to some and outright misunderstood by others, and it seems to me the fault isn't only that of those who misunderstand. It's also that of the one who chooses to fail to dispel such misunderstanding, unless allowing misconception was his intention. It takes two to miscommunicate, I think. Appealing to early Church history doesn't help those who don't trust the historical record kept by what they believe to be a corrupt church.

So I still wonder why Christ didn't say more to prevent such a misunderstanding, especially since it is a root cause of division amount Christians. I suspect he must have had an extremely good reason, though I can only guess what it might have been.

 

[Light of the East]

If sacerdotalism is what you need to believe in Jesus, more power to you. I will not be joining you, however. I am not going to allow anyone but Jesus be my mediator to God (I am former Orthodox, BTW).

WOW!

You may have been in the Orthodox Church, but you were NOT Orthodox. No one who is understanding of that which the Orthodox Church has taught from the time of the Apostles would ever think of leaving such an intimate relationship with Christ as is found in the Sacraments of the Church.

BTW - That is not meant as an insult. I cannot tell you the number of Catholics with whom I have engaged who have not a clue about the faith, have left it, and yet say that they were Catholic. My response is - yeah, sure.

BTW BTW - I don't "need" sacerdotalism to believe in the Lord. I need it to draw closer to Him and to find power over the passions which are in my life, some of which are deep and difficult to deal with without His power. Since His uncreated energies are in the Eucharist, I can partake of His life in a real way. Simply thinking good thoughts about Jesus, as Protestants do, does not get that job done. There is no connection there.

 

[FireDragon76]

You may have been in the Orthodox Church, but you were NOT Orthodox.

No True Scotsman?

You are partly right. I was never chrismated. It is an extremely long story.

No one who is understanding of that which the Orthodox Church has taught from the time of the Apostles would ever think of leaving such an intimate relationship with Christ as is found in the Sacraments of the Church.

There are some other former Orthodox out there who are now Lutherans. I am not the only one. Most of us found the church unlivable or abusive.

BTW - That is not meant as an insult. I cannot tell you the number of Catholics with whom I have engaged who have not a clue about the faith, have left it, and yet say that they were Catholic.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about Orthodox beliefs, having been catechized and spending years as a catechumen and frequently attending the Divine Liturgy.

Since His uncreated energies are in the Eucharist, I can partake of His life in a real way. Simply thinking good thoughts about Jesus, as Protestants do, does not get that job done. There is no connection there.

 

[FireDragon76]

So I still wonder why Christ didn't say more to prevent such a misunderstanding, especially since it is a root cause of division amount Christians.

It doesn't have to be. My particular denomination has pulpit and altar fellowship with other denominations that disagree on the technical aspects of this doctrine. We may disagree on the mode of Christ's presence in the sacrament, but we all agree that those who receive the sacrament with faith, receive Christ's body and blood.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Yeah, sorry. I do not see that. God has a standard of morality and goodness that He cares about. You cannot just make up your own way or religion and expect God is going to be pleased with that. In the Bible, the Lord was upset for God's people not following God's instructions.


...

And God commanding people to murder and assault virgins to take them or keeping slaves is good because it follows God's instructions?

 

[Light of the East]

You are partly right. I was never chrismated. It is an extremely long story.

Well, that's................odd.

There are some other former Orthodox out there who are now Lutherans. I am not the only one. Most of us found the church unlivable or abusive.

And that is sad. Very sad. I guess I understand better now. I left the Ruthenians after the bishop basically dumped on me. I said something about a priest who is not following the Liturgicon and instead of the bishop wanting to sit down and talk to me, I wound up unleashing hell on myself.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about Orthodox beliefs, having been catechized and spending years as a catechumen and frequently attending the Divine Liturgy.

Catechumen? Hmmmmmm.......so from where were you coming into the Orthodox Church? (If you don't mind my asking). I would say that as a catechumen you probably did know more than the average pew monkey in the church. That's usually the way it works with catechumens.

Hope you didn't mean that for me. I'm just a warm little ball of fuzz
(with spikes hidden in the fuzz)

 

[Greg Merrill]

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing..."
(John 6:63)
​

Not sure I understand. I mean, I know the phrase, "profits nothing," is another way of saying, "good for nothing," but are you saying Jesus meant his own body was good for nothing?

I wonder if he is instead saying my flesh and your flesh profits nothing. That is, when it comes to eternal life, there's nothing humanly possible that we can do in our own strength to make us worthy to receive it. What do you think?

"...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
(John 6:63)
​

I think I understand, but let me be sure: Are you saying spiritual things are symbolic, rather than literal things?

First of all, the Bible is to be taken literally, unless it is obvious that it is to be taken spiritually or symbolically. The first is far more numerous than the second.
Jesus flesh was worthless as far as eating it in order to gain salvation. Jesus wasn't talking about eating his flesh, and was thus explaining that. Jesus body was good for a lot of things, but not this. The three lines on your flesh and my flesh, that you wrote, are correct.