Real Presence

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The belief called Transubstantiation holds that the chemistry, i.e. substance, does change. It's just not observable (according to the doctrine).

I understand that they believe such, but it is a direct self-contradiction. Chemistry is by its very definition a physical attribute, which means that it is defined by objective principles. What this means is that the chemistry of a substance is directly observable as a physical fact, and it is not a spiritual thing hiding behind a veil, so to speak. The tongue also happens to be an excellent chemist. Therefore, I hold to my position that the chemistry obviously does not change, and the transubstantiationalists are dead wrong.

Let's use the proper language when discussing this matter. The host and the wine can be inhabited by the Holy Spirit or by Christ himself without denying that God can inhabit a person in another way also.

This is a Baptist forum, and I'll use the terms familiar to me from within a Baptist context. Call it what you like. "Host" means nothing to me, apart from a body serving nutritively to a parasite. You're right when you suggest that the Holy Spirit can inhabit a wafer, and he can inhabit anything he chooses. Indeed, I would even go so far as to suggest that the wafer is holy. However, I see no point in suggesting that the person of the Trinity need perch himself on a cracker to gain entrance into a person within whom he already resides. That makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Albion]

I understand that they believe such, but it is a direct self-contradiction. Chemistry is by its very definition a physical attribute, which means that it is defined by objective principles. What this means is that the chemistry of a substance is directly observable as a physical fact, and it is not a spiritual thing hiding behind a veil, so to speak. The tongue also happens to be an excellent chemist. Therefore, I hold to my position that the chemistry obviously does not change, and the transubstantiationalists are dead wrong.

Okay. I was just saying that they have fielded that argument every time this topic arises and they are unmoved by it.

This is a Baptist forum, and I'll use the terms familiar to me from within a Baptist context.

That sounds fair and appropriate except that I do not think that "cracker" is a standard theological term used in Baptist seminaries, etc. And calling the wine "juice" seems rather strange and counterintuitive since we all know that the church under discussion which believes in Transubstantiation uses only wine.

However, I do think that the ceremony itself is appropriately called an "ordinance" on a Baptist forum, not a "sacrament." Yes, I would agree with you on that and similar matters.

 

[miamited]

Hi jim,

You responded to my post a while back:

We are to use the appointed means given us in "the grace of faith."

Absolutely! I would never encourage or teach anyone not to participate in a fellowship's communion service, if they professed to be believers. Whether they are or not is up to God. But this discussion isn't about using 'the grace of faith' that we have been instructed, but rather there is any truth to this idea that the little piece of bread or wafer and the cup of juice or wine, whereby we practice this 'grace of faith' has some mystical abilities within itself to become the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don't believe so.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[JM]

Keep in mind that Arminian Baptists had a different view of the Lord's Supper due to the influence of the Anabaptists. Arminians denied the Reformed view and accepted the memorial view, they also poured a professed believer and called that baptism.

The following is from Hercules Collins, a Particular (Reformed) Baptist, who used the words sacrament and ordinances interchangeably but accepted the Reformed view.

The Sacraments

Lesson 25

Q. 65 It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings: where then does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts1 by the preaching of the holy gospel,2 and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments.3

1John 3:5; 1 Cor. 2:10-14; Eph. 2:8
2Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25
3Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16

Q. 66 What are sacraments?

A. Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and might put his seal on that promise.1 And this is God’s gospel promise: to forgive our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because of Christ’s one sacrifice finished on the cross.2

1Gen. 17:11; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11
2Matt. 26:27-28; Acts 2:38; Heb. 10:10

Q. 67 Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?
A. Right! In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us and through the holy sacraments he assures us that our entire salvation rests on Christ’s one sacrifice for us on the cross.1

1Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 3:27

Q. 68 How many sacraments did Christ institute in the New Testament?

A. Two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.1

1Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26

Baptism

Lesson 26

Q. 69 What is Baptism?

A. Immersion or dipping of the Person in Water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by such who are duly qualified by Christ.1

1Mat. 3.16. John 3.23. Acts 8.38, 39. Rom. 6.4.

Q. 70 Who are the proper Subjects of this Ordinance?

A. Those who do actually profess Repentance towards God, Faith in, and Obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ.1

1Acts 2.38. Acts 8.36, 37.

Of the Lord’s Supper.

Lesson 29

Q. 80 How does the Lord’s Supper remind you and assure you that you share in Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and in all his gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat this broken bread and to drink this cup. With this command he gave this promise:1 First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely his body was offered and broken for me and his blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the one who serves, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, given me as sure signs of Christ’s body and blood, so surely he nourishes and refreshes my soul for eternal life with his crucified body and poured-out blood.

1Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25

Q. 81 What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his poured-out blood?

A. It means to accept with a believing heart the entire suffering and death of Christ and by believing to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.1 But it means more. Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body.2 And so, although he is in heaven3 and we are on earth, we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.4 And we forever live on and are governed by one Spirit, as members of our body are by one soul.5

1John 6:35, 40, 50-54

2John 6:55-56; 1 Cor. 12:13

3Acts 1:9-11; 1 Cor. 11:26; Col. 3:1

41 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:29-30; 1 John 4:13

5John 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15-16; 1 John 3:24

Q. 82 Where does Christ promise to nourish and refresh believers with his body and blood as surely as they eat this broken bread and drink this cup?

A. In the institution of the Lord’s Supper:

“The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”1

This promise is repeated by Paul in these words:

“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? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”2

11 Cor. 11:23-26

21 Cor. 10:16-17

Lesson 30
Q. 83 Are the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ?

A. No. Just as the water of baptism is not changed into Christ’s blood and does not itself wash away sins but is simply God’s sign and assurance,1 so too the bread of the Lord’s Supper is not changed into the actual body of Christ2 even though it is called the body of Christ3 in keeping with the nature and language of sacraments.4

1Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5

2Matt. 26:26-29

31 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:26-28

4Gen. 17:10-11; Ex. 12:11, 13; 1 Cor. 10:1-4

Q. 84 Why then does Christ call the bread his body and the cup his blood, or the new covenant in his blood?

(Paul uses the words,a participation in Christ’s body and blood.)

A. Christ has good reason for these words. He wants to teach us that as bread and wine nourish our temporal life, so too his crucified body and poured-out blood truly nourish our souls for eternal life.1 But more important, he wants to assure us, by this visible sign and pledge, that we, through the Holy Spirit’s work, share in his true body and blood as surely as our mouths receive these holy signs in his remembrance,2 and that all of his suffering and obedience are as definitely ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins.3

1John 6:51, 55

21 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:26

3Rom. 6:5-11

Lesson 31

Q. 85 How does the Lord’s Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass?

A. The Lord’s Supper declares to us that our sins have been completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ which he himself finished on the cross once for all.1 It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ,2 who with his very body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father3 where he wants us to worship him.4 But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshiped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry.

1John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-26; 10:10-18

21 Cor. 6:17; 10:16-17

3Acts 7:55-56; Heb. 1:3; 8:1

4Matt. 6:20-21; John 4:21-24; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3

Q. 86 Who are to come to the Lord’s table?

A. Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their continuing weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life. Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however, eat and drink judgment on themselves.1

11 Cor. 10:19-22; 11:26-32

Q. 87 Are those to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who show by what they say and do that they are unbelieving and ungodly?

A. No, that would dishonor God’s covenant and bring down God’s anger upon the entire congregation.1 Therefore, according to the instruction of Christ and his apostles, the Christian church is duty-bound to exclude such people, by the official use of the keys of the kingdom, until they reform their lives.

11 Cor. 11:17-32; Ps. 50:14-16; Isa. 1:11-17

Q. 88 How should this Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper be closed?

A. In singing Praises to God vocally and audibly for his great Benefits and Blessings to his Church in the shedding of the most precious Blood of his Son to take away their Sin; which Blessings are pointed out in this Sacrament. Also we find our Lord and his Disciples did close this Ordinance in singing a Hymn or Psalm; and if Christ sang, who was going to die, what cause have we to sing for whom he died, that we might not eternally die, but live a spiritual and eternal life with Father, Son, and Spirit in unexpressible Glory.1

1Mat. 26.30

We can gleam a truth from this, that Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists, held to the Reformed view of the real presence.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[DeaconDean]

Here again folks, in all the denominations that make up "Protestantism", unless I'm mistaken, none of them affirm "real presence" in communion.

"καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν." -Lk. 22:19 (GNT)

"καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν, Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν." -1 Cor. 11:24 (GNT)

"ἀλλ' ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ' ἐνιαυτόν," -Heb. 10:3 (GNT)

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -Lk. 22:19 (KJV)

"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." -1 Cor. 11:24 (KJV)

"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year." -Heb. 10:3 (KJV)

Here are three verses where the author speaks of doing this, to bring to memory something done in the past.

"ἀνάμνησις"

According to Linddell and Scott, it means:

"a calling to mind, recollection," references can be traced back to the works of Plato.

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

We can also see:

"ἀνάμνησις"

"remembrance, a commemoration, memorial"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Pub., Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, "ἀνάμνησις", p. 23

One could make the argument that Luke was not one of the twelve. However, we do know he was a traveling companion of both Peter and Paul.

One can make the argument that Luke's gospel, came as a direct result of what he heard and recorded from Peter. And, given he also was once a traveling companion of Paul, his usage of the Greek word "ἀνάμνησις" is consistant with Peter, and from what he saw and observed with Paul. Now the writer of Hebrews is unknown, but it is clear that the content of Hebrews was such that it was directed a Hebrew/Jewish audience, especially when you consider the usage in Heb. 10:3.

But irregardless, these three verses all show that the Lord's Supper, is a remembrance, a commemoration, memorial of what was to come to pass on Calvary.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

Here again folks, in all the denominations that make up "Protestantism", unless I'm mistaken, none of them affirm "real presence" in communion.

Is it possible that there's some misunderstanding of the meaning of the term here?

I ask because there is no question but that the Lutherans, the Anglicans and Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians and Reformed believe in the Real Presence. Even if one were raise some question about some aspect of the matter, I don't know how it is possible to argue that, for example, the Lutheran churches--the original Protestants--aren't Protestant.

It looks to me that you are arguing that no Protestant church believes that the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper is a sacrifice. That's a different issue. It's one that's worth raising, but the doctrine of the Real Presence is not about there being a sacrifice. And it's "Real Presence" that is the title and topic of this thread.

 

[DeaconDean]

I ask because there is no question but that the Lutherans, the Anglicans and Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians and Reformed believe in the Real Presence.

Methodists I'm not so sure about, but I do know Presbyterians and Reformed do not affirm "real presence" as seen in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1642.

"IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

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; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries."

Source

I think you better go back and read what the Reformed faith said they believe.

If anything, one could make an argument that Reformed and Presbyterians share a view along the lines of "consubstantiation". But "real presence", no.

It looks to me that you are arguing that no Protestant church believes that the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper is a sacrifice.

In no way did I say or could it be inferred that I am arguing against the "sacrifice" performed by our Savior on our behalf.

"Real presence" as defined by the RCC is the doctrine of "transubstantiation". And Lutherans have "consubstantiation". (Spiritual presence in the elements)

What I am arguing about is the lumping together of every denomination that make up "Protestantism" saying that we (Baptists included) "affirm real presence of Christ in holy communion" which Baptists do not!

In 1888, James P. Boyce wrote:

"THE LORD'S SUPPER

1. What other ordinance has Christ established?
The Lord's Supper.

2. In what does this ordinance consist?
In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ.

3. Who alone are authorized to receive it?
The members of His churches.

4. In what way is it to be observed?
As a church ordinance, and in token of church fellowship.

5. Is there any established order in which these ordinances are to be observed?
Yes; the believer must be baptized before he partakes of the Lord's Supper.

6. What does the Lord's Supper represent?
The death and sufferings of Christ.

7. Does the mere partaking, either of Baptism or the Lord's Supper confer spiritual blessings?
No; they are worthless, if not injurious, to those who do not exercise faith.

8. But how is it when they are partaken of by those who do exercise faith?
The Spirit of God makes them, to such persons, precious means of grace.

9. Whom has Christ appointed to administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
The authorized ministers of His churches."

Source

Unless you can produce a bone-fide document that says Baptists believe in "real presence" ("transubstantiation") do not presume to tell me what Baptists/Protestants believe. Because I have produced Confessions of Faith from Presbyterians/Reformed, and Baptists said they believe. And it was not, is not "real presence"!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

Methodists I'm not so sure about, but I do know Presbyterians and Reformed do not affirm "real presence" as seen in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1642.

By and large, I agree. The Methodist churches do affirm the Real Presence, but it is not emphasized as far as I can tell, and most members probably do not believe in it.

"IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

That's right. But again, belief in the Real Presence does not imply or require or justify the practice of worshipping the elements.

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.

Not a problem. Real Presence doesn't mean or imply that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine.

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; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries."

Right. And no Protestant church does believe in Transubstantiation. That's safe to say.

I think you better go back and read what the Reformed faith said they believe.

I know what they believe, but more to the point of this thead, nothing in this material that you've reproduced for us says anything about them not believing in the Real Presence.

If anything, one could make an argument that Reformed and Presbyterians share a view along the lines of "consubstantiation". But "real presence", no.

You have that backwards.

In no way did I say or could it be inferred that I am arguing against the "sacrifice" performed by our Savior on our behalf.

I agree, but the previous post spoke a lot about sacrifice in connection with Real Presence, so I was guessing that this is how you could think that no Protestant church believes in the Real Presence when, in fact, all of the larger Protestant communions do, with the exception of the Baptists.

"Real presence" as defined by the RCC is the doctrine of "transubstantiation". And Lutherans have "consubstantiation". (Spiritual presence in the elements)

So, you are agreeing that the Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence? By the way, the Lutheran view is that it's a physical presence as well as a spiritual one.

What I am arguing about is the lumping together of every denomination that make up "Protestantism" saying that we (Baptists included) "affirm real presence of Christ in holy communion" which Baptists do not!

I'm totally with you on that! In fact you see that I already agreed with it before I got to this part of your post.

My point was that it's a mistake to say that no Protestant church believes in the Real Presence, that's all. And when I read that statement in this thread, it certainly caught my eye.

 

[Complete in Thee]

This may get my hand slapped, but you know what, I just don't care.

Some Baptists would deny that we are Protestant. Some affirm it.

Nevertheless, the statement was made:

"Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence"."

I deny it, but, what are your views.

Is this correct, yes or no?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I attend a baptist church and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Communion. In my view this is one major flaw within the baptist movement. Luckily one can still be Baptist and subscribe to the historical Christian view.

God bless

 

[twin1954]

Brother Dean,
Baptists do not believe in real presence but many Prototant denims do. They do not believe that the bread and wine change into the body and blood as do the RCC but that the real presence of Christ is "in and around" the elements. No Protestant believes, as does the RCc, that each time the rite is observed that Christ is once again crucified. That is why the RCC calls it Mass.

That is where the difference lies between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants do not believe in the elements changing into the actual body and blood of Christ as do the RCC but do hold to a real presence in an around the elements.

 

[twin1954]

Double post

 

[JM]

Brother Dean,
Baptists do not believe in real presence but many Prototant denims do.

I have given evidence to the contrary.

 

[Albion]

I have given evidence to the contrary.

Are you referring to this?

We can gleam a truth from this, that Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists, held to the Reformed view of the real presence.

As concerns RP, I think it has been agreed to by just about all posters that the Baptists (and some related denominations and non-denoms) do not. However, most other Protestant church bodies, certainly the larger and older ones, do.

 

[twin1954]

I have given evidence to the contrary.

I know. I could probably provide evidence otherwise but it just isn't worth it to debate with a good friend. Plus you are just too smart for me and I am loathe to show how much smarter you are.

 

[twin1954]

Are you referring to this?


As concerns RP, I think it has been agreed to by just about all posters that the Baptists (and some related denominations and non-denoms) do not. However, most other Protestant church bodies, certainly the larger and older ones, do.

It depends on which theory of Baptist history you hold to.

I hold to the spiritual kinship view and I believe that JM holds to the English Separest view. He can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[twin1954]

On a personal level with JM, you know I live very close to the beach in Florida so you should come visit me. We could go out on my boat fishing or sit on the beach and argue all day long. .

 

[Albion]

It depends on which theory of Baptist history you hold to.

I hold to the spiritual kinship view and I believe that JM holds to the English Separest view. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Very well. My main issue here has been to correct a single misunderstanding--that no Protestants believe in RP.

Leaving the Baptists out of it, that's clearly an incorrect statement when it is well-known that all of the best known Protestant denominations other than the Baptists do. It was meant as a little piece of information, that's all.

 

[twin1954]

Very well. My main issue here has been to correct a single misunderstanding--that no Protestants believe in RP.

Leaving the Baptists out of it, that's clearly an incorrect statement when it is well-known that all of the best known Protestant denominations other than the Baptists do. It was meant as a little piece of information, that's all.

BTW, I never acknowledged that your correction of my mistake was right. I do so now.

 

[JM]

On a personal level with JM, you know I live very close to the beach in Florida so you should come visit me. We could go out on my boat fishing or sit on the beach and argue all day long. .

Hey, that may just happen. I'm looking at renting a condo in Florida in March of 2019, depending where, we may just do some fishin' brother.

 

[JM]

I hold to the spiritual kinship view and I believe that JM holds to the English Separest view. He can correct me if I am wrong.

That is correct.

What we call Baptists today are, to borrow from Ernest Bacon, 'heirs to the Puritans.' We are Reformed but reformed along scriptural lines and allow scripture to determine how we view the biblical covenants. You can see this distinctly in the works of the divines during the 1600's and even in the 'antipaedobaptism' of Anglican John Tombes. This continued until you see the English 'Baptists' (who were really theologically Mennonite, Arminian and sprinklers) shed their Mennonite leanings and embraced Reformed theology leading them to immersion of professed believers and confessionalism.

Yours in the Lord,

jm