(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[rakovsky]

Hello! I have three questions:
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real, direct basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion bread is "only" a symbol and to reject the Lutheran Protestant and Catholic beliefs in Jesus' real presence in the food (consubstantiation and transubstantiation, respectively)?

(2) Does Protestantism have a real basis in early Christianity to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?
For Question #2, please see post #94 http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-of-christianity.7929431/page-5#post-69195600

(3) Does this Reformed Protestant approach to theology lead out of and away from Biblical Christianity?
For Question 3(A) Does the Reformed Approach to the Eucharistic bread and to relics lead away from the Biblical meaning, see Message #185: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christianity.7929431/page-10#post-69202770
For Question 3(B) Does the Reformed Approach lead away from Biblical Christianity in general, see Message #365:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christianity.7929431/page-19#post-69271122

Concluding Remarks:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christianity.7929431/page-23#post-69301136

In the poll above, disregard the words "Age of Enlightenment". Calvin's rationalistic approach could only be a precursor to the Age of Enlightenment, whose founders included those who came from Calvinism like Pierre Baley and Rousseau.

 

[rakovsky]

We are now on the third question, but the first question was:
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' real presence in it?


I was confirmed in the PCUSA and went to an Evangelical Christian school. We were taught that the Communion meal was "only" a symbol of Jesus' body, and did not have Jesus' spiritual presence (like Lutherans and Anglicans claim), and especially was not actually Jesus' physical body as Catholicism teaches.

The only reason I remember that the "Reformed" Protestants gave me was that Jesus said to take the communion meal in "memory" of him. But actually when I think critically about this reason, it looks weak. Just because Jesus says to do something in his memory does not mean that He is not present in it. In other words, it seems perfectly to reasonably that if Jesus were in the Communion meal that you would eat it "in His memory."

Another response the Reformed Protestants give is to debunk Catholicism's reasons. Catholicism says that because Jesus says in John's gospel that you must eat His body, then the communion meal must be his body. The Reformed Protestants argue back that Catholics take this too literally. My reaction is that it's true that Jesus spoke in parables and symbols sometimes, but other times he really did mean things literally and physically like the resurrection of his body. So just because the Reformed Protestants show possible weaknesses in Catholicism does not actually directly show that the "Reformed" version must be right. In other words, just because Catholicism hasn't proved its case doesn't mean that the Reformed side has either.

Typically when we want to find out what some religious community thought, we look at their writings. And the early Christians of the 1st to 2nd centuries AD - the time of the apostles or right after it - did produce writings commenting on religion. Does Reformed Protestantism have any solid, direct basis from these writings to show that they believed the Communion meal was "only" a symbol?

It seems instead that the first clear, recorded interpretation of Communion as "only" a symbol and not physically or even spiritually Jesus' body was made in the era of Reformed Protestantism's beginning - about 1400 years after Jesus' and the apostles' time. It looks rather then that this position is a "modern" or Enlightenment Age re-interpretation of what Jesus said and not actually something that the apostles wrote or passed down.

Below you will find the Center for Reformed Theology's explanation that Calvin viewed the Communion meal's elements as not actually being Christ's body physically or spiritually like the Catholics and Luther taught:
============================================================

Calvin rejected any notion of a local presence of Christ in the Supper. Labeling the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ's body a "phantasm,"... Calvin's opponents, Westphal and Tileman Heshusius, accused him of ambiguity and subtlety. They sought a sacramental theory in concrete language but did not find it in Calvin. ...

Calvin avoided the language of "physicality" employed by the Lutherans. Christ's body and blood were to be "understood in terms of Christ's act of reconciliation, not in themselves." Although the believer, through the Supper, possesses a true communion with Christ's natural body and blood, it is not in terms of substantiality but rather in terms of the spiritual, redemptive benefits inherent in the resurrected and ascended body of Christ. Hence, for Calvin, a local presence is not necessary. The body of Christ remains in heaven.
...
Although, on one hand, Calvin denies the descent of Christ's body to us (absentia localis), he paradoxically speaks of such a descent by the Holy Spirit as the source of real presence (praesentia realis) in the Supper.
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/an...bfiles/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_presence.html​

 

[Albion]

You put a lot before us there, but I noted immediately some problems with point 1. Methodists and the Reformed churches don't really reject the Real Presence. The Methodists officially affirm the belief, and although the Reformed view is unique, it is considered to be Real Presence.

What you say you learned about this matter in PCUSA schooling seems possibly to refer to one of two things. Either the PCUSA is now so far removed from the more traditional Reformed churches that it is out of step with them, OR ELSE the point was to reject Transubstantiation rather than Real Presence. I doubt that it's the second of these, and you chose your words with such admirable care that I'm just about forced to conclude that it's not, so I'm thinking it's the first of the two.

 

[rakovsky]

What you say you learned about this matter in PCUSA schooling seems possibly to refer to one of two things. Either the PCUSA is now so far removed from the more traditional Reformed churches that it is out of step with them,

Dear Albion,

I have in mind the teachings of Calvin on this topic. Please have a look at the essay that I quoted from in my last message from the Center for Reformed Theology, which explains how Calvin rejected the Lutheran belief in the real presence. For Calvin, the Holy Spirit is present in the Communion food, but Christ's Bodily Spirit is not.

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

I have in mind the teachings of Calvin on this topic. Please have a look at the essay that I quoted from in my last message from the Center for Reformed Theology, which explains that Calvin rejected the Lutheran belief in the real presence.

This seems to come down to the matter of local presence, which some people (usually the more Catholic ones) think critical. But I know that Reformed Christians who know their faith are adamant about it being a form of Real Presence and the explanation seems to bear that out. The Anglicans who reject the local presence idea seem to me to agree with them on that account.

 

[Shempster]

Interesting topic.

However I must raise an eyebrow to the term "Biblical Christianity".
A strange anomaly of the universe I have noticed. There are thousands of groups of people who claim to have Biblical Christianity and all use the same bible. The strange part is that they are all so drastically different. Since the dividing lines are not possible to see until you have a complete explanation of each party by a qualified pastor/teacher. At that point you will start to see that its a stark possibility that none of these doctrines will amount to a hill of beans in the end.
Perhaps the purpose of it all boils down to one facet of a teaching/. Like let's say CHARACTER for instance.
That should be an interesting rabbit trail to look into before you ever really get to the fundamentals of a few of them. I hope this was clear to you

 

[SkyWriting]

Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real, direct basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' real presence in it?

Pretty much everything is symbolic for something else.
I can't think of anything that is not.

 

[Haasrecht]

First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.

But your questions have too much wiggle room. What do you mean by 'real basis'? What do you mean by 'Biblical Christianity'?

 

[rakovsky]

This seems to come down to the matter of local presence, which some people (usually the more Catholic ones) think critical. But I know that Reformed Christians who know their faith are adamant about it being a form of Real Presence and the explanation seems to bear that out. The Anglicans who reject the local presence idea seem to me to agree with them on that account.

Dear Albion,

You mention Reformed who believe in the Real Presence, but as I quoted from the Center for Reformed Theology, they only believe that it is the Real Presence of the Holy Spirit and do not believe that Christ has a local presence, that is, a presence in the location of the Communion food.

As understand it, Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism agree that Christ is spiritually or physically present in the Communion food itself. That is, the Reformed teaching does differ from the more traditional churches on this issue.

(It does look like there are debates among Anglicans over what terminologies and formulas to use for their shared belief in the spiritual presence in the Communion food, like "Consubstantiation", because some teach "local presence", while others imagine that "local presence" means the same exact thing as Transubstantiation. SEE eg. https://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/category/consubstantiation; http://conciliaranglican.com/2012/03/10/on-the-eucharist-spiritual-food-is-real-food/)

 

[rakovsky]

However I must raise an eyebrow to the term "Biblical Christianity".
A strange anomaly of the universe I have noticed. There are thousands of groups of people who claim to have Biblical Christianity and all use the same bible. The strange part is that they are all so drastically different.
Since the dividing lines are not possible to see until you have a complete explanation of each party by a qualified pastor/teacher.

Yes, I see that there are opposing "churches" who all claim to have "Biblical" Christianity. However, when I use it in my topic question, I mean to ask whether Christian followers of the Reformed Method could be led out by it of Christianity to such an extent that self-identifying "Biblical" churches would agree that those followers were no longer Biblical. For example, if a Christian were to reject the physical resurrection and some other miracles, Christians would still generally agree that the person rejected Biblical Christianity, even if they could find a way to say that the person were some "variety" of Christian.

 

[rakovsky]

Haasrecht,

What section do you think I should put this thread in? I put it here because I was considering the approach of the Reformed movement from a philosophical angle. That is: Is the way that the Reformed go about thinking and reasoning on theology in order to reach their conclusions one that would lead out of Christianity?

By "real basis" I meant something direct and clear. For example, if the Scripture or Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd centuries clearly, unquestionable and directly stated that the Communion food was only "symbolic" of the body of Christ, this would be a concrete or "real" basis, as opposed to making abstract arguments based on debatable readings of scripture.

First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.

But your questions have too much wiggle room. What do you mean by 'real basis'?

 

[Haasrecht]

Haasrecht,

What section do you think I should put this thread in? I put it here because I was considering the approach of the Reformed movement from a philosophical angle. That is: Is the way that the Reformed go about thinking and reasoning on theology in order to reach their conclusions one that would lead out of Christianity?

By "real basis" I meant something direct and clear. For example, if the Scripture or Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd centuries clearly, unquestionable and directly stated that the Communion food was only "symbolic" of the body of Christ, this would be a concrete or "real" basis, as opposed to making abstract arguments based on debatable readings of scripture.

First of all, I will stop my comments about sections. After browsing them, I realize I am in the minority on it. But to answer your question, everything you just mentioned is theological.

 

[rakovsky]

Let us now move on to the second question:
(2) Does Protestantism have a direct, clear basis in 1st to 3rd century Christian writings to reject the special respect and claimed miraculous properties of holy relics?

I presume that if someone presented a robe or garments belonging to Jesus, Peter, or Paul and proposed that Christian churches publicly display them and Christians touch them in the hope of healings, that Reformed churches would take a dim view of such practices. The Reformed churches might be quite skeptical that these actions were desirable for Christians to perform or that they were even efficacious. That is, preserving and touching relics is not really a practice that they accepted from Catholicism, and in fact it's something that the Reformed criticised.

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

Wow. This sounds like it's going to be really serious.

You mention Reformed who believe in the Real Presence, but as I quoted from the Center for Reformed Theology, they only believe that it is the Real Presence of the Holy Spirit and do not believe that Christ has a local presence, that is, a presence in the location of the Communion food.

OK.

As understand it, Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism agree that Christ is spiritually or physically present in the Communion food itself. That is, the Reformed teaching does differ from the more traditional churches on this issue.

OK. It's good to point that out.

(It does look like there are debates among Anglicans over what terminologies and formulas to use for their shared belief in the spiritual presence in the Communion food, like "Consubstantiation", because some teach "local presence", while others imagine that "local presence" means the same exact thing as Transubstantiation. SEE eg. https://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/category/consubstantiation; http://conciliaranglican.com/2012/03/10/on-the-eucharist-spiritual-food-is-real-food/)

It's true that there are some differences. When questions like this come up, I make it a point to answer with the official statements of the church in mind. If individuals or parishes depart from that, I can't do much about it, and we tend to be a tolerant lot anyway. However, I don't see in the links you provided any opening for believing in Transubstantiation.

 

[rakovsky]

When questions like this come up, I make it a point to answer with the official statements of the church in mind. If individuals or parishes depart from that, I can't do much about it, and we tend to be a tolerant lot anyway. However, I don't see in the links you provided any opening for believing in Transubstantiation.

Sure, it's best to answer with official statements of the Churches. However, an inadequacy with this is that Anglican Churches' very short catechal-style statements I have read look to me to support, at face value some belief that the Eucharist is the same as Christ's body and blood. However, I know that Anglicans don't accept Transubstantiation (but rather Consubstantiation or something like it with the spiritual presence of Christ), so this is what makes me then look to Anglican commentators.

Let's move on to Question 2.

 

[Albion]

Sure, it's best to answer with official statements of the Churches. However, an inadequacy with this is that Anglican Churches' very short catechal-style statements I have read look to me to support, at face value some belief that the Eucharist is the same as Christ's body and blood.

Well, the Catechism is brief, but neither is it supposed to be the Anglican answer to the Roman Catholic Catechism that gets cited frequently on these forums. It's in the formularies, the Articles, the Quadrilateral, and the Book of Common Prayer that you get such guidance.

However, I know that Anglicans don't accept Transubstantiation (but rather Consubstantiation or something like it with the spiritual presence of Christ), so this is what makes me then look to Anglican commentators.

I'd recommend a look at both the Articles of Religion and the historic Prayerbook (meaning the Order for Holy Communion). In both of these the standard Anglican POV is explicitly stated.

By the way, I and others tend to avoid the word "Consubstantiation" since there is no commonly accepted definition. Anglicans and others say that that's what the Lutherans believe (and, to me, the structure of the word itself would seem to make that correct), while Lutherans often say "No. That's what Anglicans believe."

 

[rakovsky]

I'd recommend a look at both the Articles of Religion and the historic Prayerbook (meaning the Order for Holy Communion). In both of these the standard Anglican POV is explicitly stated.

See below an order of Communion I found from the Anglicans.
At least at face value I would take this to be Transubstantiation. Normally if I give you an object and tell you to eat it and accompany it by saying "Receive and eat the flesh of _______," whatever I put in that blank would normally actually be what I was giving you. However, I know that Anglicans teach some version of Consubstantiation, although sometimes they avoid that term as you said. This is why I looked to more detailed commentaries, although it's true that they would lay claim to accept whatever is in the orders, prayers, etc.

Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ
which he gave for you,
and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink
in remembrance that he died for you,
and feed on him in your hearts
by faith with thanksgiving.
...
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body
and our souls washed through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us.
...
Almighty God,
we thank you for feeding us
with the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ.
Through him we offer you our souls and bodies
https://www.churchofengland.org/pra...incipal-services/holy-communion/orderone.aspx
​

May we please move on to Question 2?

 

[Albion]

See below an order of Communion I found from the Anglicans... At least at face value I would take this to be Transubstantiation.

That would be a mistake. It's an affirmation of Real Presence, all right, but not of Transubstantiation.

The wording I wanted you to find (not knowing if you wanted to look it up or not) would be here (from the Order for Holy Communion):

"AND we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood...

"ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ;.."

and also here (from the Articles of Religion):

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner....."

In short, Transubstantiation is explicitly rejected and the distinctively Anglican view of the nature of the Eucharist affirmed.

 

[rakovsky]

That would be a mistake. It's an affirmation of Real Presence, all right, but not of Transubstantiation.

Sure, Albion!
Of course Anglicans affirm spiritual presence in the elements, not physical Transubstantiation. I just meant that if you go literally by the plain words that I came across in those prayers one I quoted would tend to think in terms of Transubstantiation.

As for these:

The wording I wanted you to find (not knowing if you wanted to look it up or not) would be here (from the Order for Holy Communion):

"AND we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood...

"ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ;.."

and also here (from the Articles of Religion):

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner....."

In short, Transubstantiation is explicitly rejected and the distinctively Anglican view of the nature of the Eucharist affirmed.

Naturally I agree that the Anglicans have in mind only spiritual presence, so it would be pointless for me to parse the words colored above otherwise. (eg. to say that taking the body "only after a heavenly manner" meant not to eat the real physical body in a carnal, non-spiritual, unholy way to satiate hunger, which Paul warned against [1 Cor 11:27-34] but to instead eat the real body only with a spiritual and heavenly attitude and manner.)

In any case, what do you think about Question #2?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is being moved from Philosophy to General Theology, which is a more appropriate placement for it​