The Lord's supper

[Albion]

How do you come up with these teachings is it from John 6? John 6 doesn't say anything about Jesus being spiritually present in the communion.
Or is it from 1cor 11? Where it says offer this my memorial sacrifice?
Please show me from scripture how did you guys come up with the conclusion that it's the spiritual presence in the communion.

How many times is it necessary to repeat it? The verses can be understood in either a carnal, literal way that stretches the imagination but technically could be so if we suppress every sense we have that says it is not so for the sake of being mystical, OR in an equally "real" presence that is a spiritual one. Then, turning to the testimony of the Fathers, we find that the spiritual presence is the only one consistent with their testimony. Is it rather that you do not understand what a spiritual Real Presence means?

 

[gtsecc]

How many times is it necessary to repeat it? The verses can be understood in either a carnal, literal way that stretches the imagination but technically could be so if we suppress every sense we have that says it is not so for the sake of being mystical, OR in an equally "real" presence that is a spiritual one. Then, turning to the testimony of the Fathers, we find that the spiritual presence is the only one consistent with their testimony. Is it rather that you do not understand what a spiritual Real Presence means?

Yes, but Christians universally rejected this idea until about 500 years ago.
Still, 75% reject this idea.

 

[orthedoxy]

How many times is it necessary to repeat it? The verses can be understood in either a carnal, literal way that stretches the imagination but technically could be so if we suppress every sense we have that says it is not so for the sake of being mystical, OR in an equally "real" presence that is a spiritual one. Then, turning to the testimony of the Fathers, we find that the spiritual presence is the only one consistent with their testimony. Is it rather that you do not understand what a spiritual Real Presence means?

I don't think there is any verse that would even hint that the bread is the present of Christ spiritually but i agree with you on that we should interpret the bible the way The Church has always interpret it.
Here are some Church Fathers that said it was littural food.

Ignatius of Antioch


"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr


"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Augustine


"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

Hmm...I see your point

 

[Albion]

I don't think there is any verse that would even hint that the bread is the present of Christ spiritually

On the contrary, EVERY relevant verse is understandable in both a spiritual or literal-carnal sense. If we looked closer, I'm sure we'd find that most of what you believe from the Bible you don't take literally, whether it be Living Waters gushing from your body or that you have foliage growing from you because He is the vine and we are the branches. But with this one doctrine, you cannot see anything but the literal interpretation.

but i agree with you on that we should interpret the bible the way The Church has always interpret it.

OK, that would leave carnal interpretations out.

Here are some Church Fathers that said it was littural food.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Augustine
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

In a spiritual sense, in a heavenly sense, it IS real food and real flesh and blood. You have proven nothing with this except to yourself, but then again I believe you already knew what you wanted to find before you examined these verses.

By the way, a wisp of wheat paste and a drop of wine is not in any real sense literal "food." You could not remain alive by eating what is consumed in the liturgy. BUT IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE, IT NOURISHES OUR SOULS. NO ONE VALUES THE ELEMENTS BECAUSE THEY NEED THE CALORIES. IT'S BECAUSE OF OUR SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A SACRAMENT. SPIRITUAL SUSTENANCE.

The spiritual understanding makes total sense and is entirely consistent with both scripture and the Fathers (who, the next time you quote them, should also be quoted in those points where they clearly speak AGAINST a literal interpretation, not just selections you think help your cause).

 

[Albion]

Yes, but Christians universally rejected this idea until about 500 years ago.
Still, 75% reject this idea.

All right then, you do agree that the scriptures and the Fathers do not speak of the body and blood in a way that cannot be interepreted and understood except in the most literal way. That's a gain.

So we are left with a popularity contest to decide truth. OK, there are more Catholics in the broad sense than Protestants, but you are quite mistaken about "rejected this idea until about 500 years ago." The truth is that it only adopted them about 1100 years ago. That makes a carnal view not Apostolic, not Tradition, and not the faith of the Church for most of its existence...if, again, that latter way is how we are to decide whose interpretation is most credible.

 

[orthedoxy]

On the contrary, EVERY relevant verse is understandable in both a spiritual or literal-carnal sense. If we looked closer, I'm sure we'd find that most of what you believe from the Bible you don't take literally, whether it be Living Waters gushing from your body or that you have foliage growing from you because He is the vine and we are the branches. But with this one doctrine, you cannot see anything but the literal interpretation.

I'm not debating whether the bread and wine are literal body and bread.
I'm trying to point out that no verse says it's spiritual presence.
By the way do Calvinist believe like Catholics that when you take communion you are receiving Christ? I thought they accept Christ only one time.

OK, that would leave carnal interpretations out.

That leaves out sola scriptura as well.

In a spiritual sense, in a heavenly sense, it IS real food and real flesh and blood. You have proven nothing with this except to yourself, but then again I believe you already knew what you wanted to find before you examined these verses.

By the way, a wisp of wheat paste and a drop of wine is not in any real sense literal "food." You could not remain alive by eating what is consumed in the liturgy. BUT IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE, IT NOURISHES OUR SOULS. NO ONE VALUES THE ELEMENTS BECAUSE THEY NEED THE CALORIES. IT'S BECAUSE OF OUR SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A SACRAMENT. SPIRITUAL SUSTENANCE.

The spiritual understanding makes total sense and is entirely consistent with both scripture and the Fathers (who, the next time you quote them, should also be quoted in those points where they clearly speak AGAINST a literal interpretation, not just selections you think help your cause).

Next time don't say you are basing your believe on the Church Fathers, don't misrepresent them.
Show a Church Father that said the bread and wine is not real body and blood.
The Church believes the body and blood is physical and spiritual always did. The Body and blood is real food spiritual and physical.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm not debating whether the bread and wine are literal body and bread.
I'm trying to point out that no verse says it's spiritual presence.
By the way do Calvinist believe like Catholics that when you take communion you are receiving Christ? I thought they accept Christ only one time.


That leaves out sola scriptura as well.



Next time don't say you are basing your believe on the Church Fathers, don't misrepresent them.
Show a Church Father that said the bread and wine is not real body and blood.
The Church believes the body and blood is physical and spiritual always did. The Body and blood is real food spiritual and physical.

Good Day, Othodoxy

This would be the Romanist church or as Calvin would say the Papist, which is considered outside the historical view of the Church founded by Christ and has Christ as it's head.

Augustine – The Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the Mother of Christians. He also speaks of an inner and outer church, and the difficulty of telling from appearances who are members of this true church (the "enclosed garden spring shut up, fountain sealed, the paradise with the fruit of apples) who are the elect, and belong to the "invisible fellowship of love"

(as opposed to the outer, Semi historical Catholic Church).

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Albion]

I'm not debating whether the bread and wine are literal body and bread.
I'm trying to point out that no verse says it's spiritual presence.

I see your point, but unless you don't believe that every word in the Bible is to be taken strictly literally, you have no point. Similarly, any teaching that is spiritual in the Bible is described in physical terms so that we may understand. Baptism washes away sin, but you don't use any soap. The Holy Spirit was descending like a dove but was not a bird. Call no man Father, but Catholics of all sorts routinely do. etc. I've already given you other examples, and you couldn't explain any of them away, so why repeat yourself?

By the way do Calvinist believe like Catholics that when you take communion you are receiving Christ? I thought they accept Christ only one time.

They believe in the Real Presence, yes. The "one time" idea has nothing to do with communion, and I assume you are referring to some idea of conversion. However, it might be a good idea for you to take your question to a Calvinist, over on the Reformed forum, for instance.

That leaves out sola scriptura as well.

I don't see how that follows.

Next time don't say you are basing your believe on the Church Fathers, don't misrepresent them.

I believe that was my request to you.

Show a Church Father that said the bread and wine is not real body and blood.
The Church believes the body and blood is physical and spiritual always did. The Body and blood is real food spiritual and physical.

This can be done, but I'll have to find the quotes. I suppose I should have them tattooed on my arm, I have to do this so often. The Church has always believed that there is some change in the bread and wine--that's what you should say--but not necessarily the one you are favoring. It didn't become known in the church until around the ninth century.

 

[orthedoxy]

I see your point, but unless you don't believe that every word in the Bible is to be taken strictly literally, you have no point. Similarly, any teaching that is spiritual in the Bible is described in physical terms so that we may understand. Baptism washes away sin, but you don't use any soap. The Holy Spirit was descending like a dove but was not a bird. Call no man Father, but Catholics of all sorts routinely do. etc. I've already given you other examples, and you couldn't explain any of them away, so why repeat yourself?

I'm curious how do you know if the resurrection is not just spiritual resurrection? How do you determine if something is literal?
What verse are you referring to that if we don't take it literally could mean Christ is spiritually present in the communion? Is it when Jesus says "my flesh is real food and my blood real drink"?
I’m also not sure if you are saying Communion is only a symbol of Jesus just like when Jesus is called the door he symbolize the way. Are you that extreme that you believe only a symbol? if not please explain how do you determine if a verse is only symbolic or it’s teaching spiritually present?

They believe in the Real Presence, yes. The "one time" idea has nothing to do with communion, and I assume you are referring to some idea of conversion. However, it might be a good idea for you to take your question to a Calvinist, over on the Reformed forum, for instance.

If by receiving the communion you are spiritually receiving Christ, why would you accept Christ (in the communion) more then one time?

I don't see how that follows.

I would say the same thing as you are saying Scripture + Church. When you are relying on Church Fathers for interpretation then that would be more then Sola Scriptura.

I believe that was my request to you.



This can be done, but I'll have to find the quotes. I suppose I should have them tattooed on my arm, I have to do this so often. The Church has always believed that there is some change in the bread and wine--that's what you should say--but not necessarily the one you are favoring. It didn't become known in the church until around the ninth century.

I gave you quotes that Church Fathers believed in real presence.
I want you to back up your statement” I consider the Real Presence in a spiritual sense to be not only the most consistent with scripture and the understanding of the early church, but really, it's the most plausible.”

 

[orthedoxy]

Good Day, Othodoxy

This would be the Romanist church or as Calvin would say the Papist, which is considered outside the historical view of the Church founded by Christ and has Christ as it's head.



(as opposed to the outer, Semi historical Catholic Church).

Peace to u,

Bill

I'm not saying the Roman Church but whatever the church was before 450ad. (before the split)

 

[Albion]

I'm curious how do you know if the resurrection is not just spiritual resurrection?

I know this from Scripture. You may not know this, but those who knew Christ were at first unwilling to accept that he could have come back from the dead with his body. However, he showed the Apostles that he was actually in his body by eating food with them and, in the famous case of Thomas, allowing for touching his wounds. There is no way to deny this. On the other hand, the scriptures to do not in this way tell us that the flesh and blood are carnal, the actual body that Christ had. You are assuming that. The reference is to the bread and wine being his body--but not in what way that is so. There is no comparison to the events post-Resurrection, in other words.

However, do you realize also that the body that Christ appeared in was NOT in exactly the same condition as when crucified? It was his body but glorified! It was different in some way. According to your take-everything-literally approach, I do not see how you could think that this was possible.

How do you determine if something is literal?

That's a question I have been asking you.

What verse are you referring to that if we don't take it literally could mean Christ is spiritually present in the communion? Is it when Jesus says "my flesh is real food and my blood real drink"?

The same verses you are referring to. They are as open to a spiritual interpretation as they are to a physical one. I'm saying that you cannot confine them to just the POV you want us to take. Spiritual Real Presence is as much a Real Presence as a Carnal Real Presence.

I’m also not sure if you are saying Communion is only a symbol of Jesus just like when Jesus is called the door he symbolize the way.

Well, I've said that it is not repeatedly. Is this plain enough?

But, according to your thinking, why is not Jesus a door? You make the Supper into an eating of his literal body and yet present to us evidence that Jesus spoke non-literally. And I gave other examples.

If by receiving the communion you are spiritually receiving Christ, why would you accept Christ (in the communion) more then one time?

If you are receiving the communion thinking it is carnal, why would you receive more than once? The answer may lie in you remembering what a sacrament is for.

I would say the same thing as you are saying Scripture + Church. When you are relying on Church Fathers for interpretation then that would be more then Sola Scriptura.

No. That is not Sola Scriptura.

I gave you quotes that Church Fathers believed in real presence.

Yes, they did. And I do believe in real presence.

I want you to back up your statement” I consider the Real Presence in a spiritual sense to be not only the most consistent with scripture and the understanding of the early church, but really, it's the most plausible.”

How believable is it that you are eating a leg or arm of Jesus--and millions of others at other altars are doing the same thing at the same moment--when every sense we have says that it is bread and wine? That's what you'd have to say if you are to be consistent with saying that it is his literal body. It proves out in a laboratory to be bread and wine, not flesh and blood.

That's what I mean by "plausible." But understanding the presence to be spiritual, as the Bible seems to be saying and the Fathers have said, is as wondrous and miraculous without being magical.

 

[St.Augustine]

By the way do Calvinist believe...that when you take communion you are receiving Christ?

As for me yes I do