Real Presence

[Jacob4707]

Bring me the video and we'll talk....

On the contrary, the Word of God is the Word of God. One may try to interpret it differently, but the inescapable fact is, it is there. Unchanged for all eternity.

Read Lee Martin McDonald The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority and/or McDonald & Sanders The Canon Debate.

 

[JDIBe]

Do they discuss Scriptures such as:

2Pe 3:15-16
(15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

and quotes such as:

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits..." - (First Apology of Justin, Weekly Worship of the Christians, Ch. 68, 150 AD) ?

The Bible may have been a little more complete earlier than you think, but thank you for the suggestion. I'll try to look them up.

 

[paleodoxy]

Someone stated that Jesus would never have altered Jewish law by giving His disciples blood to drink.

So, out of curiosity, what did Jesus mean long before that gathering in the upper room, in John 6, when He said that he who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have eternal life? Leaving aside exegetical differences in interpretation over what precisely Jesus meant about the nature of the bread and wine, why do you think Jesus would put it so explicitly, offend scores of people, lose disciples over it, and not clarify His words subsequently (as was His typical custom when explaining a parable)?

God would never have commanded His people to drink blood under the Law. Here comes Jesus Who changes all that. You guys are still living under the Law!

I really don't think Christ had any compunction about His role as the fulfillment of the Law, do you?

Jesus made a lot of "heretical" statements - things very much anathema to the Jews. Like pointing to Himself, who had taken human flesh, and calling Himself "I AM". Notice in the text of John 8 that they picked up stones to stone Him. He completely revolutionized the Jewish understanding of Monotheism, and completely altered the Law in this area, which formerly forbade depicting God in images. You don't have a problem with portraits of Christ, do you? Or Mel Gibson's film?

You don't think the Incarnation violated Jewish Law?

As to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which continued to forbid the drinking of blood, it is clear that the Eucharist was the one exception. Why? Because all consumption of blood (apart from Christ's) communicates death. Christ's shed blood is life to us, not death. The life is in the blood, according to Lev.17:11. This is a two way street. For pagans, drinking blood is a self justifying act of atonement which ultimately leads to death. In the case of Christ, it is grace and salvation to those who partake.

 

[Confess]

We partake in the Holy Meal in faith. Jesus says "this is my body, this is my blood.." So in faith we consume the elements in this Sacrament knowing that he sacrificed his body and blood for us, for our salvation.

A Sacrament is a combination of the Word with an earthly element which offers forgiveness of sins.

To think of the Lord's Supper as a remembrance meal or as something symbolic nullifies it from being a Sacrament which offers forgiveness of sins as we now are rationalizing it and not taking it in faith as Jesus commanded. For surely the blind man who received Jesus' spit and dirt didn't counter Jesus saying, "This is not real medicine!" Neither do we counter Jesus and say to him, "This is not truely your body and blood."

Just as the blind man received the spit and mud in faith to heal him, so too do we receive the elements in the Lord's Supper to forgive us of our sins and strengthen our faith.

 

[Splayd]

I mean no offense to our friends from other traditions, but I'd remind them that this is an RM subforum. You're welcome to offer fellowship and encouragement posts. You can even ask us questions, but we'd rather not have to spend all our time debating issues with other traditions that we're basically settled on. That's one of the reasons we've got these congregational subfroums. Please be considerate of that. At any rate I'll address these last few posts for AJ's benefit.

So, out of curiosity, what did Jesus mean long before that gathering in the upper room, in John 6, when He said that he who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have eternal life? Leaving aside exegetical differences in interpretation over what precisely Jesus meant about the nature of the bread and wine, why do you think Jesus would put it so explicitly, offend scores of people, lose disciples over it, and not clarify His words subsequently (as was His typical custom when explaining a parable)?

This is a wonderful example of reading a belief into a passage. It should be apparent to everyone that Jesus spoke in parables and frequently used symbolism to communicate. This passage immediately follows the feeding of the 5000. The discussion starts thus:

Joh 6:26,27 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, You seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, has sealed.

He further explains "This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent."

I would hope it obvious that Jesus' message was for those who were there right then as well as to us today. If Jesus were about to start a dialogue about communion, it would mean nothing to those there at the time. Rather, this was something they could already be doing: believing in Jesus.

He then goes on to explore the symbolism further, by comparing Himself to manna. It was sent by God and came from heaven to feed people. Likewise, Jesus was sent by God from heaven to offer life to people.

Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst.

This one one of several analogies that Jesus makes about himself. He's also a door, living water, a light etc... The theme He explores this time is "the bread of life" as a comparison to manna. He also explains it from the begininng. It's by coming to Christ that we don't hunger and by believing in Him that we don't thirst. It's as this point that the objections actually begin, even before there's any mention of eating flesh.

Joh 6:42 And they said "Isn't this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I am come down out of heaven?"

Their real objection is to the strength of His claims about who He is. He's saying He was sent by God and came from Heaven and that's what's started to get some offside. Mind you, the claims just get bigger and bigger from herein. He goes on to say that the prophets spoke of Him, that men are supposed to come to Him, that eternal life is through Him, that he has seen the Father etc...

If they had issues about His statement that He came from heaven, they were only going to be amplified significantly now. Of course some found it a hard message. Some even found it so hard that they couldn't even get beyond the metaphor to the truth of His words :
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

I often hear Catholics or Orthodox make the argument that even though the message was driving people away, Jesus didn't explain it. That's simply not true. In John 6:61, He acknowledged the issue:
Joh 6:61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them "Does this cause you to stumble?"
and in John 6:63 He addessed it:
Joh 6:63 "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life."
So you see, He comes right out and tells them. He's not talking about physical matters, but spiritual ones. He's not asking them to physically eat His physical flesh. He's asking them to spiritually consume Him as He explained at the beginning by coming to Him and believing in Him.

Now maybe some of those who left still couldn't get beyond the metaphorical, but those who stayed understood:
Joh 6:67,68 Jesus said therefore unto the twelve "Would you also go away?" Simon Peter answered him "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
Notice that. he didn't say he was staying to feast on Christ's flesh, but to feast on His words.

There's a similar illustration here:
Joh 4:13,14 Jesus answered and said to her "Every one that drinks of this water shall thirst again: but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life."

Recognise the similarity in the argument? It's basically the same. People who ate manna still got hungry again and still died. People who eat Jesus' flesh won't get hungry again and won't die. People who drink from the well will still get thirsty again and will still die. People who drink Jesus' water won't get thirsty again and won't die. You can guarantee that this would be included amongst the "real presence" proof texts IF He'd said He was wine instead of water... BUT He didn't and this illustration is recognised for what it is, while the other parallel teaching, which says the same thing is made to be more than it is.

God would never have commanded His people to drink blood under the Law. Here comes Jesus Who changes all that. You guys are still living under the Law!

It's got nothing to do with us living under the law. It's about recognising that they were under the law at that time. Jesus never broke the law. One aspect of the law was that they weren't to cause each other to stumble. It's something He even taught Himself.

Mat 5:19 "Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus made a lot of "heretical" statements - things very much anathema to the Jews. Like pointing to Himself, who had taken human flesh, and calling Himself "I AM".

Yep, there's lots of areas where it could be said that Jesus was breaking the law IF He wasn't really the Christ, but He was and is. If someone said they were God and they weren't then clearly it would be blasphemous, but if God says He's God then clearly it's not. The fact that others thought He was breaking the law is NOT testament to the fact that he was, it's testament to the fact that they didn't believe Him. I can't find a single example in scripture where Jesus actually broke the law but I can find places where he was accused of it. In every instance it comes back to 1 of 2 things. They didn't recognise the truth of His words OR they were trying to apply a law that wasn't scriptural. This matter stands alone as a stark contradiction. If Jesus was actually asking them to physically drink physical blood, it alone would be the single instance of Jesus actually breaking the law.

As to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which continued to forbid the drinking of blood, it is clear that the Eucharist was the one exception.

And yet it's not clear at all from scripture. They never included that clause in their deliberation.

 

[JDIBe]

Someone stated that Jesus would never have altered Jewish law by giving His disciples blood to drink.

So, out of curiosity, what did Jesus mean long before that gathering in the upper room, in John 6, when He said that he who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have eternal life? Leaving aside exegetical differences in interpretation over what precisely Jesus meant about the nature of the bread and wine, why do you think Jesus would put it so explicitly, offend scores of people, lose disciples over it, and not clarify His words subsequently (as was His typical custom when explaining a parable)?

Jesus spoke in parables quite frequently. Sometimes He clarified them to the people, sometimes just the Apostles.

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in dark sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father.

He also spoke metaphorically quite a bit, especially in the book of John. If you take John 6 quite literally, then I guess you also must believe....

Jesus was not really flesh and bone. He was really made of bread. You just couldn't sense it. (John 6:41)
Jesus was really a vine. He just appeared as a man. (John 15:5)
Jesus was really a wooden door. He just appeared as a man. (John 10:7,9)
Jesus did not grow up a carpenter. He really raised sheep. (John 10:11-12)

Also, whether or not the Apostles were under Jewish law or not is not the point. What is important to the discussion IMO, is that they think they are! (See Peter's quote in Acts 10 below...

As to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which continued to forbid the drinking of blood, it is clear that the Eucharist was the one exception. Why? Because all consumption of blood (apart from Christ's) communicates death. Christ's shed blood is life to us, not death. The life is in the blood, according to Lev.17:11. This is a two way street. For pagans, drinking blood is a self justifying act of atonement which ultimately leads to death. In the case of Christ, it is grace and salvation to those who partake.

That's a really good point. I'm glad you brought it up. First of all, no, it is NOT clear that it is an "exception". (In fact, it would have been the obvious arguing point against the Pharisees.) It is not mentioned. Secondly, it was a problem to some (the Pharisaical Christians). You would have expected an explanation to avoid confusion, but there is none. Why?

I think you may have missed my point in an earlier post. Consider these questions.....

1. If the Apostles knew that Jesus was giving them blood, why didn't they raise an objection? (It makes no sense to say, "Because it was God giving it to them." When God told Peter in his dream in Acts 10:10-14, "kill and eat", The first words out of Peter's mouth were, "not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.")
2. If Peter knew he had drank Jesus' real blood, why would he have replied as he did above in Acts 10? (Remember, this is after Acts 2 when the H.S. descended upon them.)
3. Why do you not find reference to this ""very important" teaching ANYWHERE else by the Apostles (In fact Paul continually calls it "bread" in I Cor.) in the rest of the NT?

No, unfortunately the doctrine of "Real Presence" cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, it cannot be clearly supported by historical means either until about 300 AD, 270 years removed from the event. It grew out of the arguments with the Gnostics who claimed "Jesus wasn't real". In their zealousness, they went too far and created a falsehood (IMO) of their own.

I greatly respect the Orthodox Church in many things. I do feel they have a tendency to take words written by men and then try to justify them (sometimes in a very indirect way, such as your "icon argument") with the words of the Apostles. If one has the actual words of the Apostles, (as the O.C. says the NT is...), why not "eliminate the middleman" and go directly to them? Seems to me that would avoid a lot of problems wouldn't it? You have the distinct honor and privilege to be taught DIRECTLY by the Apostles today. Why not take advantage of it? Listen to their words as they have spoken them. Not what someone born generations after says they might have been.

 

[JDIBe]

We partake in the Holy Meal in faith. Jesus says "this is my body, this is my blood.." So in faith we consume the elements in this Sacrament knowing that he sacrificed his body and blood for us, for our salvation.

A Sacrament is a combination of the Word with an earthly element which offers forgiveness of sins.

To think of the Lord's Supper as a remembrance meal or as something symbolic nullifies it from being a Sacrament which offers forgiveness of sins as we now are rationalizing it and not taking it in faith as Jesus commanded. For surely the blind man who received Jesus' spit and dirt didn't counter Jesus saying, "This is not real medicine!" Neither do we counter Jesus and say to him, "This is not truely your body and blood."

Just as the blind man received the spit and mud in faith to heal him, so too do we receive the elements in the Lord's Supper to forgive us of our sins and strengthen our faith.

Confess,

Yes, I agree. We do take the L.S. by faith. Faith in him and faith that He will come again to receive us as His own.

I find it telling that the word "sacrament" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. That is kind of the point of what we have been discussing. I think sometimes we take things in the Bible, give them a meaning which suits our purpose instead of reading what God has to say. I hope you will take another look at the passages. You say that to think of the L.S. as a rememberance meal nulifies it's meaning as a "sacrament"....

Luke 22:15-20

(15) And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
(16) for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
(17) And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
(18) for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
(19) And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(20) And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

It IS a remembrance meal. It is a remembrance of what He has done for us in the past, and that we will someday sit face-to-face with Him in the future in Heaven.

Yes, the blind man did not question Jesus' methods. Neither did he run around proclaiming "magic mud" to his friends, either. The blind man knew who healed him.

Confess, I know Who healed me too. I know that He gave Himself once to die for my sins. I know that if I continue to walk in the light, His Blood covers me (I John 1:7).

Jesus does not "wear off". As long as you want Him, He's there. He is very powerful medicine. One dose is enough...

 

[paleodoxy]

So, am I allowed to address this, or are we no longer debating it? I'm good either way. Just lemme know. Don't wanna disrespect your CoC forum turf here.

God bless,
Jonathan

 

[Splayd]

Thanks paleodoxy,

Personally, I'm happy to discuss my beliefs with anyone. I just worry that this forum has been flooded with posts from other traditions lately and I don't want to see it become a free for all to the point that we aren't able to discuss matters amongst ourselves without having to address all the other traditions' views too. As it is, I keep putting off an internal discussion to adress them, but that's my own fault for trying to answer everyone

I'm only one voice here, but the general consensus for the forum rules was that debate would be limited to RM only within this forum and a subforum would be created for external debate. Unfortunately it hasn't been made yet or we'd simply have it moved there to continue.

In the meantime, I'm simply not sure what the right thing to do is. Anyone? Either way, I'm always happy to discuss things via PM.

Peace

 

[AJB4]

It just seems like a late theological development in the light of history. The early church (when I say that, I mean, like 2nd century on) didn't believe in Eucharist symbolism, Martin Luther even when breaking away from the Catholic church didn't believe in Eucharist symbolism, even John Calvin did not believe in Eucharist symbolism. Nobody seemed to until Huldrych Zwingli, it seems. Someone give me an example of someone before Huldrych Zwingli (who lived from 1484-1531) who believed in Eucharist symbolism. Anyone?

 

[Confess]

Confess,

Yes, I agree. We do take the L.S. by faith. Faith in him and faith that He will come again to receive us as His own.

I find it telling that the word "sacrament" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. That is kind of the point of what we have been discussing. I think sometimes we take things in the Bible, give them a meaning which suits our purpose instead of reading what God has to say. I hope you will take another look at the passages. You say that to think of the L.S. as a rememberance meal nulifies it's meaning as a "sacrament"....

Not to appear like I am being a rude, but neither do we see the word "Trinity" anywhere in the Bible yet we all believe (I assume) that there are three persons within the Trinity that make up the Godhead.

The term Sacrament is man's word to describe an act that God commanded us to do. There are no other places where God uses an earthly element and combines it with His Word to perform an act on us. This is also true with the term Trinity, it is man's term to describe the complex Godhead.

 

[JDIBe]

It just seems like a late theological development in the light of history. The early church (when I say that, I mean, like 2nd century on) didn't believe in Eucharist symbolism, Martin Luther even when breaking away from the Catholic church didn't believe in Eucharist symbolism, even John Calvin did not believe in Eucharist symbolism. Nobody seemed to until Huldrych Zwingli, it seems. Someone give me an example of someone before Huldrych Zwingli (who lived from 1484-1531) who believed in Eucharist symbolism. Anyone?

Well, I would say Jesus, Peter and Paul.

But AJ, I think you are going about this all wrong. Instead of asking yourself first, "What does the Bible say?", you are asking, "What do men say?".

History can be a useful tool. GENERALLY speaking, the earlier a source the more likely it is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. But this is only a general rule of thumb. There are plenty of examples of "error" that predate sound teaching. For example, Gnosticism predates any of the quotes we have considered. (Marcion being it's most famous proponent (~150 AD) ). The doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15) whatever that might be, predates both. Are we to believe what they say simply because they say it earlier? Others who believe in church tradition would say (and rightly so....) "No, because their teachings do not agree with what we know of Jesus and the Apostles in the Bible." And that is what I am saying. Go to the Bible first.

The fact that the general rule applies at all, suggests that man makes mistakes. When men meddle in things of God, the general rule is they tend to make a mess of it. A great example of this would be this discussion. Some (in good faith, I believe) deny that the purpose of the L.S. as a memorial meal as Jesus said, and instead assign another purpose to it.

Traditionalists love to tell you about all the divisions Protestants have because they look at Scripture alone. However, I look at them and see Catholics, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox. (Then one must decide whether one wants to be "True" or "Canonical") Each of these claims to be the "True" church.

Yes, I don't claim to be perfect. I don't have all the answers. But I know where to find them. I know where to look. I have never met a reporter worth his salt who when confronted with a problem in his story, would say, "I trust my secondary sources best", particularly when his primary source is trustworthy (one might even say "inerrant" )

I have no problem with the character of Traditionalists. There are many who are really good people. (Many better than me, for sure.) What I have a problem with, is their method of finding out what God's Word is. It is like entering a bookstore and encountering a shelf full of commentaries. Sometimes it is hard to separate the "wheat" from the "straw", particularly if you go into the store assuming everything on the shelf must be true....

Good luck.

 

[JDIBe]

Not to appear like I am being a rude, but neither do we see the word "Trinity" anywhere in the Bible yet we all believe (I assume) that there are three persons within the Trinity that make up the Godhead.

The term Sacrament is man's word to describe an act that God commanded us to do. There are no other places where God uses an earthly element and combines it with His Word to perform an act on us. This is also true with the term Trinity, it is man's term to describe the complex Godhead.

Bless your heart, I do not feel you have been "rude" in any way. (I will say we have a subforum for discussions between RM members and non-RM members and perhaps our discussion might have been best conducted there.)

Yes, I believe in the Trinity. The concept was created because it is the only logical way to understand what Jesus has said about the Father, the H.S. and Himself. I typically try to cut people a little slack if they don't believe it as traditionally laid out. (I figure if we can't understand the concept perfectly, why should we give anyone grief because they don't either?) However, I must say, when I hear someone state, "I don't believe in the Trinity", I am usually waiting for "the other shoe to drop". It usually is not the only disagreement we will have. I usually don't have to wait long. One's concept of God becomes a problem when it damages one's understanding of what He is and what He is trying to say. Likewise, I feel the concept of real presence, has distorted the purpose of what the L.S. is according to Jesus and the Apostles. (I Cor 11:25)

As for no other place, I would have to add water and baptism to that list. (But I am not willing to state that the water actually turns into unsensable blood during the process, or that it is "special" water. That is not found in the Bible either.)

Seven boys! No wonder you have a laundry basket in your CF character. (I am praying for you.... )

 

[AJB4]

Well, I would say Jesus, Peter and Paul.

But AJ, I think you are going about this all wrong. Instead of asking yourself first, "What does the Bible say?", you are asking, "What do men say?".

History can be a useful tool. GENERALLY speaking, the earlier a source the more likely it is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. But this is only a general rule of thumb. There are plenty of examples of "error" that predate sound teaching. For example, Gnosticism predates any of the quotes we have considered. (Marcion being it's most famous proponent (~150 AD) ). The doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15) whatever that might be, predates both. Are we to believe what they say simply because they say it earlier? Others who believe in church tradition would say (and rightly so....) "No, because their teachings do not agree with what we know of Jesus and the Apostles in the Bible." And that is what I am saying. Go to the Bible first.

The fact that the general rule applies at all, suggests that man makes mistakes. When men meddle in things of God, the general rule is they tend to make a mess of it. A great example of this would be this discussion. Some (in good faith, I believe) deny that the purpose of the L.S. as a memorial meal as Jesus said, and instead assign another purpose to it.

Traditionalists love to tell you about all the divisions Protestants have because they look at Scripture alone. However, I look at them and see Catholics, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox. (Then one must decide whether one wants to be "True" or "Canonical") Each of these claims to be the "True" church.

Yes, I don't claim to be perfect. I don't have all the answers. But I know where to find them. I know where to look. I have never met a reporter worth his salt who when confronted with a problem in his story, would say, "I trust my secondary sources best", particularly when his primary source is trustworthy (one might even say "inerrant" )

I have no problem with the character of Traditionalists. There are many who are really good people. (Many better than me, for sure.) What I have a problem with, is their method of finding out what God's Word is. It is like entering a bookstore and encountering a shelf full of commentaries. Sometimes it is hard to separate the "wheat" from the "straw", particularly if you go into the store assuming everything on the shelf must be true....

Good luck.

This isn't really answering your post, but have a look at this website, and go to the 'Eucharistic Miracles' section -- interesting. I'm not really trying to convince anyone, but it's interesting anyway.

Back to your post, well, what about other Protestant theologies (or any theologies) that you don't agree with, that weren't around until recent centuries, that other people are adamant the Bible says. They'd say something like you did -- they'd say "the Bible says it is so, so it is so", or something like that. What do you say to them? I mean, maybe nobody believed in *insert belief here* until *insert year here*, but they say it's the absolute truth, just because of their interpretation of the Bible.

Also, I'm not trying to say the Bible isn't important or inerrant or anything, but there's a couple of things wrong (at least I think) with the way that you stated your case)

1) Looking at the Bible alone, one could easily make the interpretation of Real Presence as they could of Symbolism. What then?

2) It's funny you should say that the Bible is the (only) primary source. The Bible says that Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and the Church (1 Timothy 3:15), are just as good as scripture. The CoC generally seems to teach that the 2nd century church is unusable, but what about the church being the pillar and ground of truth? I mean, the 2nd century wasn't that long after all the Apostles had died.

If Real Presence was/is a false doctrine than where's any evidence of any of the "true Christians" condemning it? Where's any evidence of anyone in the 2nd century onwards until sometime during the Reformation believing in Symbolism only?

The CoC teaches that the Gnostics were an early Christian heretical group. It was the early church fathers (who they don't generally recognize as being part of "the church") who were refuting them. So, where was the "true church" at this time, if it were not them?

Complicated questions really.

 

[AJB4]

FYI no, I don't hate the Church of Christ (Jeez, I grew up there), I'm just, as JDIBe put it, trying to get the '"wheat" from the "straw"'.

 

[Albion]

I know that the CoC generally believes in Memorialism in the Lord's Supper only, but I've just been wondering why lately.

I'm interested in Catholic and Orthodox church (particularly Orthodox), and they point out the fact that Real Presence is what all of the early church fathers believed and what Christians in general believed up until post-Reformation scientific ages *ahem* Reformed theologian Huldrych Zwingli*ahem*.

First, this is not historically correct--that no one believed in anything but the carnal presence of Christ in the bread and wine. The Romanist idea of Transubstantiation, for example, did not begin until the 13th century (and according to Catholic apologists, it was created in order to refute memorialism. If memorialism had to be refuted, it HAD TO EXIST. And this is hundreds of years before *ahem* Zwingli). Then too, the carnal presence concept was based upon theorizing which made its appearance in the 9th century.

Second, who do you most believe: men theorizing, even if long ago, or the Word of God? Of course, your misuse of the Bible is a little shocking to me. For instance, Jesus did NOT say "This IS my body." There is no verb in the sentence he spoke in the language he spoke. What he said is much more like "This-My body." See how that can change everything? And in Timothy, it is NOT said that Traditions are as good as the Bible.

Third, if you read the Fathers objectively rather than with the Catholic/EO answer already in mind, you will see that many of these quotes can be taken several ways.

 

[disasm]

To prevent highjacking of community areas, maybe this should be moved to Nicene Theology Board?

Just a suggestion.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[Albion]

To prevent highjacking of community areas, maybe this should be moved to Nicene Theology Board?

Just a suggestion.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

I appreciate your concern, but probably it has run its course now that the OP writer has gone back to TAW to continue his debate. Of course, only time will tell if that's going to hold.

 

[AJB4]

Second, who do you most believe: men theorizing, even if long ago, or the Word of God? Of course, your misuse of the Bible is a little shocking to me.

How do you figure that Memorialism isn't any less "theorizing", after all, both conclusions (Memorialism and RP) could be reached looking at scripture...

Of course, your misuse of the Bible is a little shocking to me. For instance, Jesus did NOT say "This IS my body." There is no verb in the sentence he spoke in the language he spoke. What he said is much more like "This-My body." See how that can change everything?

Jesus did say "This is my body", in both the Matthew and Luke verses on it. According to the Greek, the word used in both instances was the word ἐστί (the meaning of the word is according to Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries).

And in Timothy, it is NOT said that Traditions are as good as the Bible.

You're kind of right on this one -- the Bible didn't say that traditions were as good as scripture -- it made no distinction between them whatsoever . The 2 Thessalonians 2:15 verse said that scripture is a part of tradition (notice "epistle", as well as "word". The word used for Word, by the way, is λόγος).

Do you see how easy this is?

 

[JDIBe]

AJ, thanks for the website. I will make an effort to look at it.

Also, I'm not trying to say the Bible isn't important or inerrant or anything, but there's a couple of things wrong (at least I think) with the way that you stated your case)

1) Looking at the Bible alone, one could easily make the interpretation of Real Presence as they could of Symbolism. What then?

I don't agree with your premise here, though. I see the Scriptures pointing toward symbolism. I know John 6 has been brought up quite a bit in consideration of the issue, but one must admit the language in John is quite metaphoical. Consider...

John 4:14 but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.

Now, apply the same interpretation of this verse that some espouse to John 6. Does that make any sense? Is it literal? Is it really just water that cannot be seen with the senses?

2) It's funny you should say that the Bible is the (only) primary source. The Bible says that Apostolic Tradition (
If Real Presence was/is a false doctrine than where's any evidence of any of the "true Christians" condemning it? Where's any evidence of anyone in the 2nd century onwards until sometime during the Reformation believing in Symbolism only?

The CoC teaches that the Gnostics were an early Christian heretical group. It was the early church fathers (who they don't generally recognize as being part of "the church") who were refuting them. So, where was the "true church" at this time, if it were not them?

Complicated questions really.

Can one really make the assumption that the ECF were "Roman Catholic" or "Greek or Oriental Orthodox"? Do they explicitly say they were or are they claimed to be by those who came later? Don't you think they simply went by the name "Christian"? Why can't we do that as well today?

The ECF were good, even great men. But they were men. Sometimes fallible, sometimes possessing great insight. All of them had great respect for the Scriptures. They went back and quoted them frequently in defense of what they said. We should do the same today.