John 6 and Real Presence

[SumTinWong]

No prob, but I don't have a particularly well-researched response. This is because: A) I shouldn't debate in this forum, and B) I've been questioning a lot of Catholic doctrines lately. If you have noticed, my faith icon has changed to "Christian" from "Catholic". Not because I've officially left the RCC, but I am re-evaluating my beliefs. But if you are looking for some sort of answer, I'll give you a general one based on these verses.
The Catholic Church is not the only denom that believes in real presence. Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans also hold this belief (I'm sure others do as well, but I'm not as aquainted with those denoms). I'll stay away from Transubstantiation because this is a particularly Catholic belief not held by Orthodox, Lutherans and many Anglicans. So as for real presence and John 6, my best explanation for using these verses to support the idea is the fact that some bible verses have multiple shades of meaning. Jesus in the verses previously posted is referring to a spiritual teaching. However, he could very well be also foreshadowing the last supper and the institution of the eucharist. So by telling the people to drink his blood and eat his flesh he is both being metaphorical and literal at the same time. The metaphor was for the edification of the people present while the literal was in anticipation of the sacrament of the eucharist. Now, many can say that Jesus is present either physically or spiritually in the bread and the wine. Either way is a form of real presence. The technicalities of the real presence is debated frequently and not really an area I get into, though I do understand the various positions. That all being said, I still was not looking to push a particular position or debate the issue. I am in a transitional period in my spiritual journey. I am re-examining everything I believe in order to come to a deeper relationship with our Lord and God. Only He knows where this will end. But, I came here to this forum to understand the Baptist perspective a bit better (in relatively general terms since I know there are variations in Baptist beliefs as there are in many different denoms). I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter. But here I am rambling on...sorry about that.

Peace all.

Don't be sorry, that post was very well done! I will pray that the Lord does show you the path where He wants you and your family

 

[Gwenyfur]

I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter.

WOOT! A Fellow believe in the invisible church! You wouldn't believe how many times I've been called a closet catholic for upholding that belief!!!! Nice to meet you...and may God guide you on this new leg of your journey
God Bless

 

[Victrixa]

Hiya there everyone

I too am in the same boat as Diane and Canadian75.... Remember my Catholic icon?

I did understand John 6 the way Matthan explained it during my Evangelical years. I am in a questioning period myself.... I was wondering about Church Fathers' position myself. Maybe the term 'real presence' didn't mean to the Early Church Fathers what it means to liturgical churches today. As the term 'primacy of Peter'. Same terms, different meanings... maybe.

I need much

 

[Matthan]

God is truly reaching out to those who are confused.... and His reach is both long, and strong....

May god bless each of you with His love and wisdom.

Matthan <J><

 

[SumTinWong]

I believe in the real presence. I believe that Jesus is present when we partake of communion/Lord's Supper. I just do not believe that Jesus is present in the elements used during the Lord's supper.

As far as the early fathers. From the earliest writings the disciples themselves wrote, there is no mention of Jesus being physically present in the elements used. There is not one book in the NT that says that Jesus flesh turned into the bread and that His blood became wine.

Now did this doctrine or habit form later, obviously. Was it correct? Obviously I believe no.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Leviticus 17:14 For it (blood) is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

When Christ said "take, eat of my body and drink of my blood" He welcomed us to partake in His very life - His blood which would make "atonement for the soul."

Acts 15:29 That ye (Gentiles) abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If Christ had meant to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood He would have been breaking His own commandment, given in Leviticus to the Jews and in Acts to Gentile believers not to eat/drink blood.

Therefore, it is figuratively that He is speaking, just as He did when He called Himself the "true Vine"/"bread from Heaven"/"the Door"/"Shepherd of the sheep", etc.



Ray

 

[SumTinWong]

1Co 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I would argue that Paul is indicating that in the sacrament we are receiving the body and blood of Christ.

That is of course one interpretation and obviously you feel that supports your idea of Christ being physically present in the "host". But let's look at what it means to at least some of us who do not hold to that doctrine:

From Adam Clarke:
"We who partake of this sacred cup, in commemoration of the death of Christ, are made partakers of his body and blood, and thus have fellowship with him; as those who partake of an idol feast, thereby, as much as they can, participate with the idol, to whom the sacrifice was offered."

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper.

Curious isn't it that Paul calls this bread (here and above), bread and not the flesh of the Lord? Obviously he was a stranger to the idea that this substance was Jesus Himself. This is quite obviously Paul telling them not to treat this meal as a gluttonfest if you read the passages before this. In their celebration of the cross they acted in a way unbecoming the of ordinance.

 

[Matthan]

I read your post and thought I would chime in a litte since I believe and teach the real presence, and have had some training on the matter. Lutherans, as you already noted have always held to the real presence, not to the Roman understanding. Luthers word in with and under have been used. I tend to refer to it as a supernatural presence, but a real presence.

Scriptures used to defend it are Christ's institution which clearly uses the word "is" in the greek. If Jesus wanted to say represents or symbolizes, he could have easily used those words. Also note the discussion Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians.

1Co 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I would argue that Paul is indicating that in the sacrament we are receiving the body and blood of Christ.

Was Paul indicating real presence? I do not think so. The very next verse clarifies v.16. Here are both:

"

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

When a believer participates in the Lord's Table, he symbolically partakes of Christ's body and blood. This means to share and participate in Christ's saving work on the cross. All those who come to the Lord's Supper enter into communion with one another. They form one single body by virtue of their joint participation of Christ. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Then, you also state:

Note also:

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper.


Hope this helps you.

What is Paul really stating here? Let's examine ALL of the appropriate verses, found in 11:23-29:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

What is Paul telling us here? First, when we are partaking of the Lord's Supper, we are to do it "in remembrance of Jesus," as a symbolic gesture of faith in His completed work accomplished on the cross. And, when we partake, we do "shew" (show, display) the Lord's death till He returns in the clouds.

Furthermore, if we have the wrong mental attitude while partaking of the Lord's Supper, then we are, "not discerning the Lord's body" properly. That is, we are not preceiving or understanding the true meaning of the ordinance.

"I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper."

The Lord IS present symbolically in the Lord's Supper. The bread is symbolic of His body, the grape juice is symbolic of His blood, and together they remind us of how He permitted Himself to be sacrificed for our sin, the perfect sacrifice to God our Father.

It is quite possible, Iczell, that we are both stating the same thing here, and I simply did not understand your post. If you are saying that Jesus is "present" in a symbolic sense in the elements of the Lord's Supper, then we agree. However, if you are saying that Jesus' actual body (flesh) and blood are actually and really present, then we disagree completely. Paul tells us to partake of this ordinance in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice, and that is what we believe.

Matthan <J><

 

[Lockheed]

When Christ said "take, eat of my body and drink of my blood" He welcomed us to partake in His very life - His blood which would make "atonement for the soul."

Right, and the partaking of blood is the partaking of the life of the 'victim'.

If Christ had meant to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood He would have been breaking His own commandment, given in Leviticus to the Jews and in Acts to Gentile believers not to eat/drink blood.

Therefore, it is figuratively that He is speaking, just as He did when He called Himself the "true Vine"/"bread from Heaven"/"the Door"/"Shepherd of the sheep", etc.

Um... well I agree and disagree here I think the only sacrifice of which we can/must partake of the blood of is Christ Himself, since it is by Him that we become Children of God. I'm not certain what you've provided is a means of refuting 'real presence', but is certainly an awesome topic for a sermon or Bible study of being "In Christ By His Blood."

I say that because the Roman Catholic, or even the Lutheran, could just as easily use those same verses to show that we must partake of Christ's blood in reality to be in Christ. I would reject this idea, but not on the basis you provided.

 

[Lockheed]

Sort of, but I'm still confused. Do you know of any websites that can explain the Calvin/Reformed position? Do you treat the bread and wine/grape juice as if it was Christ Himself?

From the THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646) -

XXIX, II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
​

(Note they don't declare the belief of Real Presence to be gross idolatry, but that it has been the cause thereof)

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

​

Herein the Westminister divines declare: "receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ" - So it is not in temporal reality that we partake of elements somehow changed by a priests prayer into the Body and Blood of Christ, but by faith the elements thereof are Christ's body and blood "really, but spiritually".



The London Baptist Confession of 1689, modeled on the WCF, similarly states:

XXX, 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified & all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally, or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of Believers, in that Ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses.

​

The Reformed, recognizing the serious warnings of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, realize that just as the elements of the New Covenant are "corporally, but spiritually" Christ so as to confer the blessings of grace upon the elect, so to these same elements can cause cursing to those who take it in an "unworthy" manner and thus "whosoever shall receive unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves." Therefore anyone who partakes of Christ, our our Paschal lamb, and yet is unbelieving and rebellious partakes of a curse and so the Apostle Paul writes:

1Co 11:29-30 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
​

Keep in mind that to the WCF and LBCF writers "unworthy" doesn't mean "sinless", as has been said the supper is "for the sinner" just as medicine is for the sick. But the unworthy one is the one who partakes in "ignorance or with a wicked intent".

 

[lczell]

I will try to clarify the Lutheran position as best I can. We believe that in the sacrament, bread and wine are not destroyed but are received. Also truly received are the Body and blood of Christ, not spiritually but truly. Not carnally as others have said, but Jesus is present and gives us His Body and Blood in the Super in a Supernatural way. We believe Jesus gives us his Body and Blood in the Supper, because that is what Jesus says that it is. We believe it is because in the very simple words of Paul, He also says it is the body and blood of Christ, and it is a participation in the Body and blood of Christ.

How God does this is a mystery. Many things about our relationship with him are a mystery. How the baby in the manger can be the creator of the universe is truly a mystery. How can God have such love that He dies for the sins of the whole world is mystery. How God can have such wrath that He will send the entire world population of unbelievers to suffer eternally in hell is a mystery.

I am just a man. I can not fully comprehend or understand God, His will and His ways. However, I have his word and promises and have been baptized into Christ. I just try to believe and trust and serve Him and teach others what His word says, even when I do not fully understand it all.

 

[P_G]

Closed for staff review

 

[BT]

This thread is now opened.

 

[BT]

Please be advised of the following forum specific rule:

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

We are pretty liberal about how we determine if you are a Baptist or Anabaptist. Some who come in here have generic Christian icons. Others like me have some thing else even still. We will look to see what church you belong to in your profile and maybe even ask you. In my case I belong to Great Shepherd Mennonite Christian Fellowship as Well as Congregation Nehmiah Center.

However if you are not Baptist or Anabaptist in any way shape or form. You cannot debate here. You may ask a question and what ever the answer is you must accept that answer as it is given. You may ask a follow up question if you need clarification to be sure but debate or discuss the issue you may not do.

You may post a fellowship message "Happy Birthday" "Please Pray for Me" "I got a new car". Fellowship posts do not make people want to argue with you or send us reports.

There have been a rash of non Baptist / Anabaptist comming in trolling and arguing. I would ask that you would stop this. If you choose to do this be aware you will be warned and possibly banned as is appropriate. There will be no more second chances or quietly making the post go away or allow you to edit them. The mod staff is running ragged dealing with these problems. And it must stop.



This rule is being strictly enforced in this thread, along with all of the general CF forum rules. Please keep all discussion within the guidelines.

MOD HAT OFF

thanks - BT

 

[Canadian75]

Nice to see the thread re-opened. I hope that if anyone reads through this thread and wished to add to it, that would be great. Though if we wish to discuss the issue further and avoid having it closed down again. I'm still looking into the issue, and I find good arguments on both sides as to the meaning of John 6. But coming from churches that believe in real presence, I am still more interested in the other side of the story because I know less about it.
God bless.

 

[Canadian75]

There have been a rash of non Baptist / Anabaptist comming in trolling and arguing. I would ask that you would stop this. If you choose to do this be aware you will be warned and possibly banned as is appropriate. There will be no more second chances or quietly making the post go away or allow you to edit them. The mod staff is running ragged dealing with these problems. And it must stop.

This is the last thing I am doing here in Baptist/Anabaptist. I have tried to make it clear I do not wish to debate an issue. If Baptists/Anabaptists wish to debate amongst themselves, perhaps I'll learn something about other perspectives. I did answer a question about the OP from a different perspective than I intended, but it came about because I was asked to by a Baptist member. As for others who wish to debate the issue, please don't. I'm trying to ask honest questions. non-Baptist/Anabaptist members aren't doing any good coming and arguing. I don't troll or look for a fight. If I wanted a debate about real presence, then I'd go to another part of CF, not here.

God bless.

 

[mesue]

It appears that real presence in one form or another was common practice for most of christian history, I'm wondering if anyone can point me to a good internet article that might show if any of the church fathers didn't believe in real presence?

He is really present in me, or any other blood bought forgiven child of God. Everyday 24/7. I don't need to reintroduce Jesus in me, He's already there.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I love Galatians

 

[ZiSunka]

Communion is a commemoration of Christ's atoning death and a foreshadowing of the Lamb's wedding feast that we will enjoy in unity in the New Jerusalem. If it were merely a meal of flesh and blood or a memorial of his death, we could take it alone in our own homes. But it is this foreshadowing of the wedding feast eaten in unity that makes it a group thing.

And, keep in mind that Jews were not allowed to consume any raw flesh or any blood, so if it were really his actual flesh and blood, they would have to become sinners in order to consume it. God never contradicts himself. If it was illegal by his own laws to consume blood and raw flesh, it would be a contradiction for him to then require the consuming of flesh and blood for salvation. Something that condemns cannot save.

 

[SumTinWong]

This is the last thing I am doing here in Baptist/Anabaptist. I have tried to make it clear I do not wish to debate an issue. If Baptists/Anabaptists wish to debate amongst themselves, perhaps I'll learn something about other perspectives. I did answer a question about the OP from a different perspective than I intended, but it came about because I was asked to by a Baptist member. As for others who wish to debate the issue, please don't. I'm trying to ask honest questions. non-Baptist/Anabaptist members aren't doing any good coming and arguing. I don't troll or look for a fight. If I wanted a debate about real presence, then I'd go to another part of CF, not here.

God bless.

I honestly do not think BT's comments were aimed at you. You question was honest and valid and you deserve the opportunity to get the idea of what Baptists view is on the real rpesence, or in this case lack thereof. I apologize if I or my bretherin here have made this experience difficult in anyway.

So I would join in asking non forum members to stay out of the conversation and would ask my Baptist friends to stick tot eh topic and not deveate into what others believe or not.

Peace to you C75,
Bud

 

[FLMike]

I've deleted this post, since on further reading of the thread I decided I shouldn't be commenting on it.