The Eucharist
I don’t write much about the Eucharist. Some have said that the two key topics Catholics should focus on are authority and the Eucharist. I know I talk about authority a lot. I think it needs to be discussed a lot. There are many flaws in the protestant thinking on authority. They can slowly be made clear through patient dialogue. But what about the Eucharist? Isn’t discussion on that front just as profitable? Maybe so.
The Eucharist is both the easiest topic and the hardest. It is easy if you just want to make people squirm. The protestant position is just so clearly contradicted by scripture. Protestants have to explain away verse after verse while you can just read the words of scripture and say Amen. It shows how the catholic church is not just a biblical church but the ONLY biblical church. So in that way it is a great choice of topic.
But it is also the hardest topic. Why is that? Because it is so hard to explain what the real presence of means in way protestants can understand. It is such a complex mystery. Words just fail at trying to describe what it means to take the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus into our bodies. How is this experience relate to what a protestant knows in terms of worshiping God and being transformed by God? These are hard questions. I don’t know that I have great answers.
Well, I do have answers. God has transformed my life through Catholic spirituality. The Eucharist has been at the center of that. But exactly how? What was it about protestant sermons, bible studies, prayer disciplines, books, and worship times that was somehow deficient? Nothing and everything. Part of it was truth. Knowing truth rather than searching for truth in the muddle of teachings. But there is more. The Eucharist is in a different league from anything protestantism in terms of spiritual power. But how do you make that clear to a protestant?
It has been said that protestants go around desperately searching for a glimpse of God while Catholics interact with the presence of God so often they are oblivious to it. In some ways that is what makes it the hardest. The greatest argument against Catholicism is Catholics. So many Catholics seem to consume the Eucharist week after week and it does not seem to make them very holy. Now CS Lewis engages the same argument made against Christianity when people say person X goes to church and they are not very nice. You don’t know how nice would they be if they did. That whole apologetic still applies.
But protestants think they know Catholic spirituality is weak. They might be raised Catholic. They might have talked to many ex-Catholics. Many of them, to protestant eyes, don’t look very “on fire”. The transformation occurs deeper than that. Just like the Eucharistic miracle itself. It is not about the appearance but the reality. We need to have faith that the words of Jesus are true.
But the best evidence for Catholicism is also Catholics. When you look at how long the church has survived with lousy preaching and lousy music you can see that the only thing that can explain it’s existence is the power of the sacraments. I really didn’t get this until I got to know some Catholic quite deeply. Then I started to get what beautiful Christians they were and how that flowed from the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. As a protestant I had always been told Catholics were impressed by “smells and bells”. That was our standard way of dismissing Catholic spirituality. But when you see it up close you see there is something to it.
Now experiencing it I know there is something to it. But how to explain it? The notion of objective spiritual realities. As a protestant everything was in the heart. It didn’t matter what you did or said as long as your heart was right. The only exception seemed to be when what you did or said was too Catholic! But the idea that Jesus’ presence was an objective reality. That it didn’t depend on your spiritual disposition or even the priest’s spiritual disposition. That demands an obedience from us. We need to conform our relationship with God to that reality.
The whole Catholic idea seems bound up with obedience on so many levels. It is like Namaan being asked to wash in the Jordan 7 times. What if he had decided to wash in the Tigis instead? Oddly enough protestants understand obedience in those circumstances. What was so special about the Jordan. Nothing and everything. God chose to pour out His grace through that river. God is God. He does things for reasons we don’t understand. Why does Jesus come to us as food and drink? It is enough to know that he does. What are we going to do with that information?
The protestant position is just so clearly contradicted by scripture.
Not so. The easiest way to understand it is that Jesus is standing there in His physical body and and holds up bread and says, “this is My body”. It is obviously meant in a symbolic way, otherwise there would be a contradiction, because He real body was there in there in the flesh. The Incarnation is unique. “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) and “I am the door” (John 10:9) also show that He meant it symbolically.
And “real presence” can be understood as “real spiritual presence”, since the physical is glorified but cannot be everywhere at the same time. This involves the debate of the “ubiquitious” nature of the body of Christ.
John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken are spirit and life.”
This all points to the Protestant position as more Biblical.
Since we confess our sins before partaking and trust Him by faith and draw closer to Him; don’t we get the same spiritual benefits from our “sacrament”?
like the way RCC accepts Protestant baptism ?
January 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pmNot so. The easiest way to understand it is that Jesus is standing there in His physical body and and holds up bread and says, “this is My body”. It is obviously meant in a symbolic way
This is my point. Protestants are reduced to simply asserting that Jesus “obviously” didn’t mean what he said. He meant something else. Anything else. How about the weather? Hasn’t it been cold lately?
otherwise there would be a contradiction, because He real body was there in there in the flesh. The Incarnation is unique. “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) and “I am the door” (John 10:9) also show that He meant it symbolically.
The other option would be that Jesus might have some kind of supernatural power. Some power to transform things and change what they are. Like the power to speak into the darkness and say “Let there be light” and have it happen. If Jesus had power like that your objection would go away.
And “real presence” can be understood as “real spiritual presence”, since the physical is glorified but cannot be everywhere at the same time. This involves the debate of the “ubiquitious” nature of the body of Christ.
It can be understood that way but it does not fit with what Jesus said. He said eat and drink. He even went one step more graphic and said chew or munch. You can’t do that with a spiritual presence.
John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken are spirit and life.”
And it is you flesh that causes you to find Jesus’ words offensive. This is why you reject His words that are heal your spirit bring you life.
This all points to the Protestant position as more Biblical.
Not really. It mostly points to attempts to avoid what Jesus actually said.
Since we confess our sins before partaking and trust Him by faith and draw closer to Him; don’t we get the same spiritual benefits from our “sacrament”?
No. There is objective reality. It is like Namaan having great faith and washing in the Tigris river. He would experience God but not in the same way. He would still have his leprosy because he did not do what was commanded.
There is an assumption that your faith is all that matters. It is just not true. Believing helps but the real physical presence of God is more powerful.
like the way RCC accepts Protestant baptism ?
Yes, but you need valid form and valid substance. For baptism that just means using water and using the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” formuala. Plus having a general intent to do as the church does. That is to connect the ceremony with the tradition of Christian baptism. Most protestant baptisms qualify. Mine did. That was a blessing because I was the first baby my father baptized. It would have been hard to say it was not valid.
Eucharist is a different matter (no pun intended). You need a validly ordained priest. You need a valid prayer of consecration. You need bread, wine, and water. The first two are pretty rare in protestant circles.
So something is lost. Something sacred. Protestants can sense this and so they don’t say it is the body of Christ. That is a blessing because if they falsely claimed it was the true presence of Jesus that would be condemnable idolatry to borrow a phrase from the Belgic Confession. So the blindness to the clear meaning of scripture is providential. They are being prevented from suffering the worst spiritual damage from their sin of schism.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pmAs an entirely spiritual feast the Eucharist fails because he did not say, “This is my Spirit” or a vauge ” This is Me” (This is I?) rather he said, “This is my body” The phrase is cannot be dismissed as retoric and simply cannot be made into ” a greater spiritual reality”(meaning something less than it is) . Cannibals would have an easier time arguing that he was providing lunch than for Protestants to de-materialise the real and spiritual reality.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:00 pmThe Incarnation is unique. “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) and “I am the door” (John 10:9) also show that He meant it symbolically.
And that is how His listeners understood Him, that He was being symbolic. That is why they didn’t say “but how can he be a “door”?, or “but how can he be a “vine?”.
But when He said “you must eat my flesh, and drink my blood” His listeners had to ask “but how can he give us his flesh to eat?” They asked this because they perfectly understood He was not being symbolic. It turns out that this declaration from Jesus was too much for many people to endure and even many of His own disciples left Him.
Not so. The easiest way to understand it is that Jesus is standing there in His physical body and and holds up bread and says, “this is My body”. It is obviously meant in a symbolic way
This work nicely responds to this opinion of yours.
http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys-tmpl/chapter4397407/
January 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pmAnd it is you flesh that causes you to find Jesus’ words offensive. This is why you reject His words that are heal your spirit bring you life.
Jesus’ words are not offensive and I fully accept them and the context of faith in Him and all that He is, the bread of life that came down out of heaven; and I accept the meaning and when I commune with God at the Lord’s table, it is a powerful experience of drawing closer to Him; and He blesses His people with His spiritual presence through His grace and our faith and trust in Him. His words are life and healing and we have that reality also.
It is your strange unbiblical 7 centuries- later- developed -transubstantiation that is offensive, (beginning with Radbertus in the 800s to 1215) with the idea that with the words of the Priest, he reaches up and brings Christ down upon another alter and offers Him as a sacrifice again! This is totally unbiblical.
“When the priest announces the tremendous word of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a greater power than that of saints and angels, greater than that of the Seraphim and Cherubim. . . . the priest brings Christ down from heaven . . . not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.” John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions (Huntington, Illinois: Our Sunday Visitor Inc., 1974, pp. 255-256.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:58 amThe other option would be that Jesus might have some kind of supernatural power. Some power to transform things and change what they are. Like the power to speak into the darkness and say “Let there be light” and have it happen. If Jesus had power like that your objection would go away.
Obviously, we believe in Jesus’ power and omnipotence and His glorified body in the resurrection. There is no biblical evidence for repeated incarnations in the Lord’s supper. You cheapen the uniqueness of the incarnation and resurection; and the second coming.
The ex opera operato elements and the power of the priest described above are so unbiblical and yes, they are offensive (not Jesus’ words themselves) and they seem to be medieval attempts to make the ceremony so mysterious and so high and lofty in order to control people - with all the other rules and genuflecting (idolatry!) and the tabernacle, etc. An attempt to go back to the OT ceremonies; which Hebrews says is wrong.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:06 amHe would still have his leprosy because he did not do what was commanded.
But we do obey the commands; “confess your sins”, “examine yourselves”, etc. we eat the bread and drink the wine (or grape juice:) 8); so we follow the command and believe in the reality of the cross, the flesh of Christ that was given once for all time for our sins.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:14 amEucharist is a different matter (no pun intended).
You need a validly ordained priest.
where is the Scripture backing on that? There are no NT special order of priests, Jesus is the high priest and all believers in Christ are priests and saints. I Peter 2:4-10
You need a valid prayer of consecration.
Where is that in the NT? where in I Cor 11 or 10 or John 6, etc.?
You need bread, wine, and water.
I did not know about water in the RCC ceremony - is that representative of the “blood and water” that gushed from Jesus’ side (heart) ? John 19:34 ?
The first two are pretty rare in protestant circles.
True, because there is nothing in the Bible about those 2 things.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:23 amSo something is lost.
No, we loose nothing; we have all the true benefits of the Lord’s supper by faith alone in Christ alone, examining ourselves, confessing our sins, reconciling with one another in the body of Christ, being accountable in true community.
It is actually you that have added so much to it that it has corrupted the real thing and gives the appearance of idolatry and holds people in legalisms and works salvation.
It is not schism; the RCC left the faith itself, at Trent in 1545-1563 by anathematizing the heart of the gospel- justification by faith alone.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:45 amAugustine, Tractates on John, 25:12
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life.
To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Rom. iii. 28. there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4
January 13th, 2009 at 7:54 amAugustine, Tractate 50, 13
13. It may be also understood in this way: “The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.” The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20 But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulcher, and manifested in His resurrection, “ye will not have Him always.” And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven, Acts 1: 3, 9, 10. and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, “Me ye will not have always.” In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes. In whichever way, then, it was said, “But me ye will not have always,” it can no longer, I suppose, after this twofold solution, remain as a subject of doubt.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:03 amAugustine, Tractate 50, 4
4. “Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where He were, he should show it, that they might take Him.” Let us for our parts show the Jews where Christ is. Would, indeed, that all the seed of those who had given commandment to have it shown them where Christ was, would but hear and apprehend! Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. But since His word is true, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world,” Matthew 28: 20. He is away, and He is here; He has returned, and will not forsake us; for He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:09 amAugustine, Tractate on John, 92, 1
1. The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper,when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world, exhorted them to endure the persecutions of the wicked, whom He distinguished by the name of the world: and from which He also told them that He had chosen the disciples themselves, that they might know it was by the grace of God they were what they were, and by their own vices they had been what they had been.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:16 amJesus’ words are not offensive
The point is they ARE offensive. Jesus eve asked the disciples, “Does the offend you?”. Of course it did. Everyone was offended and Jesus knew it. He did not say it should not offend you. He saif the offense if to your flesh. It is not to your spirit.
and I fully accept them and the context of faith in Him and all that He is, the bread of life that came down out of heaven; and I accept the meaning and when I commune with God at the Lord’s table, it is a powerful experience of drawing closer to Him; and He blesses His people with His spiritual presence through His grace and our faith and trust in Him. His words are life and healing and we have that reality also.
I agree. The protestant Lord’s supper is nice. But it is not what Jesus intended. It is simply a rememberance of Jesus’ death. A sign of our dependence on God’s grace just like we depend on physical food. But Jesus wants to give us more. He wants to give us His very self.
It is your strange unbiblical 7 centuries- later- developed -transubstantiation that is offensive, (beginning with Radbertus in the 800s to 1215) with the idea that with the words of the Priest, he reaches up and brings Christ down upon another alter and offers Him as a sacrifice again! This is totally unbiblical.
7 centuries later? You know that is just silly. Sure the word transubstantiation came later. So what? There are a zillion quote from the ECF’s on this and you know it. You are just being dishonest.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:36 amObviously, we believe in Jesus’ power and omnipotence and His glorified body in the resurrection. There is no biblical evidence for repeated incarnations in the Lord’s supper. You cheapen the uniqueness of the incarnation and resurection; and the second coming.
Nobody is talking about repeat incarnation. Nobody is talking about sacrificing Christ again. These are just common oprotestant slurs and you know the church does not teach that. As far as biblical evidence goes, the last time I checked John 6 was in the bible. So why does that not count as biblical evidence? Then you have the last supper narritives and 1 Cor 11. All say “this is my body” with no explanations or clarifications. Again, these are IN the bible.
The ex opera operato elements and the power of the priest described above are so unbiblical and yes, they are offensive (not Jesus’ words themselves) and they seem to be medieval attempts to make the ceremony so mysterious and so high and lofty in order to control people - with all the other rules and genuflecting (idolatry!) and the tabernacle, etc. An attempt to go back to the OT ceremonies; which Hebrews says is wrong.
Again we have lots of anti-Catholic emotionalism. That evil church trying to control people. Making things seem high and lofty must be evil. It could not be because something legitimately needs to be lifted up. Anything medieval must be bad right? The doctrine, of course, is not medieval. It is apostolic. Do the echo back to the OT? Sure. The apostles did borrow from their Jewish heritage. So you would expect some continuity. Hebrews does not say everything from the old covenant was wrong. Many things were changed for good reasons. But we still approach God with reverence and even awe.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 amAs far as the need for priests go, what would you propose? Once you start with the idea that Jesus meant exactly what He said then how would it work? Well the early church has the idea of ordination. You can’t have consecration happening willy-nilly so if you don’t like it you have to replace it with something. The doctrine pretty much requires a visible church to administer such a special sacrament.
To my mind it makes these things biblical if they were not already. Jesus’ clear teaching on the real presence is biblical and therefore anything that flows logically from that teaching is biblical.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:37 amNot sure what the point is with your quotes from Augustine. Catholics talk this way about Jesus being absent from the world. We don’t mean it as a denial of thye doctrine of the real presence. We just mean the assension occurred. He is not here in person anymore. Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is different from His bodily presence before His assension. So we talk about that.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:42 amJesus’ words are not offensive
The point is they ARE offensive. Jesus eve asked the disciples, “Does the offend you?”. Of course it did. Everyone was offended and Jesus knew it. He did not say it should not offend you. He saif the offense if to your flesh. It is not to your spirit.
This is a good point you make. I did not think through that enough. Yes, they are offensive to those that are not His true sheep, (those who followed Him around, and thought they were disciples, but eventually withdrew (v.66) but the true believers (as I am with the grace that only He gave to accept these words and the gift of faith) -
it becomes sweet, after an initial shock - but He honed down to the 12 disciples in vers 67 - they were ultimately NOT offended — “For this reason, I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:65
“you have the words of eternal life” - John 6:68
and we have believed and come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 6:69
faith was granted by the Father, and faith leads to knowledge; so in that sense that are not offensive to the eyes and ears of faith.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:00 amNot sure what the point is with your quotes from Augustine.
Its pretty obvious the point, especially the first one:
“To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Rom. iii. 28. there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4″
He sounds like Luther here!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:06 amThe doctrine, of course, is not medieval. It is apostolic.
None of the RCC ceremony and pomp and bells and whistles (consecrated host, priests, special clothes and instruments, postures, ex opera operato, the tabernacle for the host, genuflecting, — all of that stuff is wrong) - none of it is apostolic, as nothing of it is in the NT. (except for those things that Protestants agree with, bread and wine as symbols, do this in remembrance of Me, confession of sin, examine yourselves, reconcile with one another and confess before partaking, faith, thanksgiving, etc.) because we see them clearly in teaching and practice in the NT.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:11 amThere are a zillion quote from the ECF’s on this and you know it. You are just being dishonest.
why the accusation of dishonesty? I know that some statements in ECFs seem like they could be taken that way, given the later developments; but just barely taken the way they are, they are easily understood the same way we understand John 6 and John 15:1 and John 6:35, etc.
They can just as easily be understood as “real spiritual presence”, representing His incarnation and death, with the understanding that His resurrection and ascension means that His physical body is not in the bread and wine, but is a picture and action for us to constantly “keep on abiding, trusting in Him and death on the cross” - to say connected and commune with Him.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:17 amBut Jesus wants to give us more. He wants to give us His very self.
He already did at the cross, once and for all; and He continues to give His very self by His intercession and mediation for us at the right hand of the Father.
Romans 8:31-35
I John 1:5-2:2
What extra verifiable spiritual blessing to you get? (beyond what I have described)
January 13th, 2009 at 11:22 amFrom Ken:
The Incarnation is unique. “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) and “I am the door” (John 10:9) also show that He meant it symbolically.
And that is how His listeners understood Him, that He was being symbolic. That is why they didn’t say “but how can he be a “door”?, or “but how can he be a “vine?”.
from Ken:
But when He said “you must eat my flesh, and drink my blood” His listeners had to ask “but how can he give us his flesh to eat?” They asked this because they perfectly understood He was not being symbolic. It turns out that this declaration from Jesus was too much for many people to endure and even many of His own disciples left Him.
from Ken:
Not so. The easiest way to understand it is that Jesus is standing there in His physical body and and holds up bread and says, “this is My body”. It is obviously meant in a symbolic way
This work nicely responds to this opinion of yours.
http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys-tmpl/chapter4397407
January 13th, 2009 at 11:46 amSorry, in the above post the second “From Ken:” was not written by Ken , but is still part of my response.
But when He said “you must eat my flesh, and drink my blood” His listeners had to ask “but how can he give us his flesh to eat?” They asked this because they perfectly understood He was not being symbolic. It turns out that this declaration from Jesus was too much for many people to endure and even many of His own disciples left Him.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:48 amThis is a good point you make. I did not think through that enough. Yes, they are offensive to those that are not His true sheep, (those who followed Him around, and thought they were disciples, but eventually withdrew (v.66) but the true believers (as I am with the grace that only He gave to accept these words and the gift of faith) -
it becomes sweet, after an initial shock - but He honed down to the 12 disciples in vers 67 - they were ultimately NOT offended — “For this reason, I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:65
By the end of John 6 these were still offended. Look at the exchange:
67″You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
Notice Peter does not say he does not ant to leave. He asks whether there is any place else to go. So he is still very uncomfortable with the teaching. Remember this is the second conversation about it. The first one was closed in verse 59 and verses 60-71 prabably occur some time later. So even after revisiting the topic Jesus withdraws none of the offense. The twelve just have to deal with it.
Of course, by the time John writes his gospel he has mostly gotten over the offense. We all do. We see what good can come from taking Jesus’ body into your body as food for you spiritual journey.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pmIts pretty obvious the point, especially the first one:
“To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Rom. iii. 28. there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4″
He sounds like Luther here!
So what? Catholics don’t deny the importance of faith. They see the sacramental life and the life of faith as being one and the same thing. This is why the way Jesus talks about the Eucharist in John 6 parallels the way he talks about faith. Not so you can choose one or the other. But so you can live both. You are imagining Augustine denying the importance of the Eucharist just because he embraces faith. A very strange way to read him.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pmwhy the accusation of dishonesty?
Because I know you know you are ignoring a ton of evidence by simply asserting that the idea started around the year 800. So you are asserting a falsehood and seeing if you can get away with it.
I know that some statements in ECFs seem like they could be taken that way, given the later developments; but just barely taken the way they are, they are easily understood the same way we understand John 6 and John 15:1 and John 6:35, etc.
You can understand them in the same way you understand John 6. That is to simply deny the plain meaning of the text. In fact, that is the only choice you have. Any attempt to seriously understand what is being said would result in you having to admit you have departed from scripture and Christian tradition in a serious way.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pmHe already did at the cross, once and for all; and He continues to give His very self by His intercession and mediation for us at the right hand of the Father.
Romans 8:31-35
I John 1:5-2:2
What extra verifiable spiritual blessing to you get? (beyond what I have described)
Jesus’ words make that clear:
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
So the Eucharist is supposed to be greater than the miracle of manna in the wilderness. In what way is a protestant Lord’s Supper greater than mann from heaven every morning for 40 year?
January 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pmThis is my body.
I don’t get it.
Jesus meant just what? This is not my body or even a spiritual representation of my body but, rather, a symbol of something ill defined but so important that I tell you to repeatedly do this and remember me but keep in mind I’ve just ordered you to perform a work with no spiritual benefit….but do it anyway.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pmBTW: Agustine no doubt meant yiu needed faith to be able to partake of the Body and Blood. A common catholic prayer is for a “Spiritual Eucharist” when we can’t partake of the real one.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:44 pmRandy,
you did not really answer my question on what extra benefit do you have –
All you did was quote John 6:53-58 - in answer to the question “what extra benefit do you get by the RCC view of the Eucharist vs. the Protestant view?” (given that it is done properly - with examining oneself, confession, repentance, faith, trust, reconciliation with others in the body, etc. - there is no extra benefit, given that Jesus promises eternal life to those who repent and believe and true believers keep abiding and persevere to the end, etc. There is no extra benefit that I can see. Jesus is real to us now as He was to the disciples when He lived on earth.
Are you implying that Protestants don’t have eternal life, since they don’t view it the same way RCC does? That goes against Vatican II and the Catechism, and the acceptance of Protestant baptism, etc.
You have no spiritual benefit; only a fictional (because Jesus actually does NOT become or enter into the bread and wine materially, or the bread and wine do not literally become Jesus) and ornate and opulent and formal and ritualistic worship service.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pmNotice Peter does not say he does not [w]ant to leave. He asks whether there is any place else to go. So he is still very uncomfortable with the teaching.
that is you reading too much into it. Verse 69 you left out - “And we have believed and come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” He knows that there is no other truth or source or salvation other than Christ; if Jesus is the Messiah, the Holy One from God; there no other choice is a smart one or credible or wise one.
Remember this is the second conversation about it. The first one was closed in verse 59 and verses 60-71 prabably occur some time later. So even after revisiting the topic Jesus withdraws none of the offense. The twelve just have to deal with it.
verse 63 is key. It was spiritual and symbolic of faith and trusting Christ and being drawn by the Father.
Also, of course just the words “eat My flesh and drink My blood” are by themselves, even they are only symbolic, much, much more offensive than “I am the door” or “I am the true vine”. The picture and symbol is even offensive and graphic. Like, “the sons of Israel played the harlot with the Baals and Ashteroths” - the picture and symbol itself is meant to be offensive and graphic. Those with faith, even you admitted, get over the offense.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (v. 54) is symbolic of trust and in the same position and parallel as many other verses in the same context:
1. hearing His word and believing Him ( John 5:24)
2. Coming to Jesus and believing in Him ( John 6:35)
3. Being drawn by the Father ( 6:44)
4. looking to the Son and believing ( 6:40)
5. believing in Him who He has sent. ( 6:29)
6 Simply believing ( 6:47)
The result is the same: “I will raise Him up on the last day” (v. 54)
1. verse 44 (drawn by the Father)
2. verse 39 ( I loose no one= perseverance of hte saints, Calvin was right - see? !)
3. verse 40 (beholds the Son and believes in Him)
So, contextually, logically, with sound exegesis and understanding Jesus’ metaphors, this all shows that Jesus meant to use something graphic to weed out false believers, but it is also a spiritual metaphor of faith; the symbol and metaphor itself being very graphic.
The RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation falls flat by sound exegesis, Scripture, and logic and reason.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pmBecause I know you know you are ignoring a ton of evidence by simply asserting that the idea started around the year 800. So you are asserting a falsehood and seeing if you can get away with it.
No; it is seeking to be honest with the text and reality of metaphors and symbols and looking at the other Biblical material in the context, which I gave you above. It is well known that Paschasius Radbertus ( died, around 860) was the first to treat teh Eucharist in corporeal, physical, material terms. His book, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, published in 831, was the first complete treatment of the Eucharist. Before this, the “real presence” was a mystery and not developed. This development from Radbertus to 1215 (Aquinas and others before him from 831, all went too far, as you are doing with defending the whole Transubstantiation doctrine.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pmThe ECF’s can even be seen to be engaging in some hyperbole when talking about scripture. What protestants need is an ECF to say that based on scripture I know an eccumenical council is wrong. Or perhaps saying that based on scripture they know some long-held tradition of the church is wrong. This is the essence of Sola Scriptura. To use the bible against the church. You don’t find the ECF’s doing that.
Since Dave Armstrong banned me from commenting; and accuses me of “trespassing”, when I did a couple of times innocently make a comment when his holoscan did not work ( and it still is not permanently banning me - I don’t why; I have not changed computers); I will honor his request to not comment there; but I thought I would comment on your comment that you made there; here:
The ECF’s don’t do that; because the first four Ecumenical Councils were all good and right and interpreted the Scriptures rightly in what they intended on the
1. Deity of Christ at Nicea in 325
2. On the Deity of the Holy Spirit at Constantinople in 381 AD
3. On the 2 natures of Christ at Ephesus in 431 AD against Nestorius and also condemnation of Pelagianism.
4. On the 2 natures in one person of Christ at Chalcedon in 451, AD. (against Eutychianism, etc.)
The Early Church Fathers are pretty much done by then - Augustine and Jerome have died. The beginning of the Roman Catholic Church starts around this time.
The other Ecumenical councils have some wrong things in them, like Perpetual Virginity of Mary and icons and statues, etc. - the early church fathers are gone; too late, the Medieval period is beginning with the victories of the Barbarians - Goths, Visi-goths, Vandals, etc. Yes, I realize a few like Gregory and John of Damascus are considered a part of the “Early Church” fathers collection, but for the most part; the real early church period and fathers are finished.
The Council of Orange in 529 AD - was it ecumenical? It was pretty good and seems to have dealt with semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism; but Luther and Calvin and other reformers contended that the Roman Church allowed semi-Pelagianism to creep back in, in a practical, popular way, until confronted by Luther and then Trent seems to have embraced semi-Pelagianism in a complicated way by its anathema of Sola Fide.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pmPlease realise that that date of “around 500″ is a general idea; there are other things that are excellent that come later, such as the Council of Orange in 529
much of what John Damascus wrote on Islam was pretty good.
Anselm, 1033-1109 was excellent, and seems to be the bridge of good development of doctrine from the Scriptures to the penal substitution atonement in Calvin and Protestantism.
Aquinus had many good things on general revelation and things that Protestants agree with the RCC on.
So, the point was that these are not “Early Church Fathers”, but rather the early period (0-500) had no one saying an ecumenical council was wrong, because they were all four correct then; and Protestantism holds to them. That is why there is none of the great ECFs saying that. So, you set up a straw man argument.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pmthe first four Ecumenical Councils were all good and right and interpreted the Scriptures rightly in what they intended
Says who? Go back and re-read DA’s front page like it was a direct answer to the very post. There are protestants who disagree with each council. Who’s right Pope them or Pope you?
Speaking for myself I haven’t the time or the wits to read all the ECF’s and councils and commentaries on such and form a fallible opinion. It is most resonable to assume continuity until discontinuity is shown. You have not demonstrated discontinuty (thogh you’re spellings much better than mine :)
January 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pmand…Were the Councils of Nicea and Ephesus on the list of your big 4? I’m ignorant but if so the link below shows quotes of unambiguous phrases showing the Eucharist is Real presence and a quote from Augustine showing that he believed in the Real presence. Quote after quote from ECFs as far back as 150 AD!!
Ken, if the Real Presence is a heresy then why no clear denunciations (sp?) from the ECFs, from Councils, from anybody??
You are free to denounce the RP but you must be honest and admit the idea clearly reaches back to the most ancient of Christian teachings. If you cannot be that honest then I can only shrug my shoulders and walk away.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pmahem….the problem of posting from a phone I can barely review my words…the link…
January 14th, 2009 at 6:35 pmhttp://www.catholic.com/library/real_presence.asp
Were the Councils of Nicea and Ephesus on the list of your big 4?
Yes, don’t you see them?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:34 pmKen, if the Real Presence is a heresy then why no clear denunciations (sp?) from the ECFs, from Councils, from anybody??
Never wrote against Real Presence; only Transubstantiation; which is a much later development. Christ communicates His real presence to beleivers by faith in Him at the Lord’s table. It is spiritual but real. So we also own all the ECF as our own fathers, where they line up with Scripture, they were great and part of history. Protestantism is deep in history also; contra Newman.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pmReal Presence can be interpreted different ways. It, in the bare undeveloped statements in the first 500 years, does not communicate “Transubstantiation”. So we Protestants are there in seed form also in the Early Church. So I am not denouncing Real presence; only the development of transubstantiation from Radbertus in 800s to 1215 AD.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:40 pmMartin T. - thanks for the link to the article on the “real presence” –
the quote from J. N. D. Kelly goes on from the one sentence that the R. Catholic article cites:
“The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440). ”
the quote goes on:
Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represent, still claimed a measure of support.” (ibid, p. 440)
he goes on to list Tertullian,Cyprian, and Augustine
January 15th, 2009 at 7:50 amApostolic Constitutions, Athanasius, Serapion, Macarious of Egypt, etc.
Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represent, still claimed a measure of support.”
this just shows that Kelly does not understand the Catholic position. The real presence does not exclude the notion that the elements are symbols. So when he says “mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic” he is simply wrong. Catholics do believe both. He notes that as fact even after saying it is illogical.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:01 amyou did not really answer my question on what extra benefit do you have – All you did was quote John 6:53-58 - in answer to the question “what extra benefit do you get by the RCC view of the Eucharist vs. the Protestant view?”
Did you read it? Jesus makes a number of benefits very clear in John 6. In fact, in John 15 Jesus talks about the importance of abiding in Him like a branch abides in a vine. Using this Eucharistic image he says, “without me you can do nothing”. What specific action is associated with abiding in Jesus? Only the eating of Jesus’ flesh and drinking of Jesus’ blood in John 6.
(given that it is done properly - with examining oneself, confession, repentance, faith, trust, reconciliation with others in the body, etc. - there is no extra benefit, given that Jesus promises eternal life to those who repent and believe and true believers keep abiding and persevere to the end, etc. There is no extra benefit that I can see. Jesus is real to us now as He was to the disciples when He lived on earth.
No extra benefit that you can see? Is that good enough for you? Even when if flies in the face of Jesus words? The idea that true believers keep abiding is just false. But there is the call to be holy. Don’t you see a benefit in that? Abiding in Christ is always something we can do better.
Are you implying that Protestants don’t have eternal life, since they don’t view it the same way RCC does? That goes against Vatican II and the Catechism, and the acceptance of Protestant baptism, etc.
Jesus does seem to make some strong statements, doesn’t he? Just because they are strong you want to ignore them? Just because we don’t take them as technical, dogmatic statements about the salvation of protestants does not mean we don’t take them seriously. They are true. It is a bit of the same problem as the Unam Sanctum discussion. In its face it seems to restrict salvation only to those who have partaken of a valid Eucharist. It is one of those passages that makes me think savation for protestants might be much less common that many have assumed. Who knows?
The good news is there are other passages that do seem to allow for spiritual blindness. So we can interprete the consequnces in those cases to be less severe. It makes perservering harder but not impossible. How close to impossible? I don’t know. I am hoping not very close because I have many protestant friends and family I am hoping will perservere.
You have no spiritual benefit; only a fictional (because Jesus actually does NOT become or enter into the bread and wine materially, or the bread and wine do not literally become Jesus) and ornate and opulent and formal and ritualistic worship service.
But then you give up much more. You lose the integrity of Jesus’ teaching. If Jesus is simply mistaken or confused or misquoted then the bible has taken a massive hit. Then you are not a bible Christian. You are a “pick and choose what you like from the bible” Christian. There is a big difference.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:29 amThe ECF’s don’t do that; because the first four Ecumenical Councils were all good and right and interpreted the Scriptures rightly in what they intended on the
Is it really that reasonable to think that nobody interpreted scripture differently than the church before the reformation? i just don’t see it. After the reformation we had people differing from the church left and right. What had changed? Sure the printing press had an impact. But the principle of Sola Scriptura was big as well. It was a truly new principle. Many of the heretics had embraced it when the church told them they were wrong but the fathers of the church simply did not think that way.
Even if you somehow exclude the first 500 years. You still have a huge problem. St Anselm and St Thomas Aquinas are not so easy to label the way you need to. They were brilliant, prayerful, scriptural men. Again you have to appeal to ignorance. You can look at dozens of saints between 500 and 1500. They did not practice Sola Scriptura and they embraced many doctrines you don’t like. We know many of the earlier fathers taught similar unprotestant doctrines. I am not sure how much the fact that they had yet to be proclaimed by a council helps you.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:42 amthat is you reading too much into it. Verse 69 you left out - “And we have believed and come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” He knows that there is no other truth or source or salvation other than Christ; if Jesus is the Messiah, the Holy One from God; there no other choice is a smart one or credible or wise one.
Sure. But he has to remind himself of this because he has been offended. It is kind of a “O boy” moment rahter than an “O wow!” moment. The point is that Jesus lets people be offended. The only possible reason for that was because the teaching simply could not be made inoffensive. It totally excludes the protestant reading of the text.
verse 63 is key. It was spiritual and symbolic of faith and trusting Christ and being drawn by the Father
It is a key verse for those who want to reject the teaching of Jesus as too hard. In the end it does not makes sense to use it that way. If the flesh counts for nothing then why was the crucifiction important? Jesus is not saying to ignore everything he has ever said about flesh. Just to ignore what your flesh is telling you right now. That is “Ew!”.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:52 amIf the flesh counts for nothing then why was the crucifiction important? Jesus is not saying to ignore everything he has ever said about flesh. Just to ignore what your flesh is telling you right now. That is “Ew!”.
I agree with you here - it does not mean that all physical things are “Ew” — that is actually what the RCC does with its Perpetual virginity doctrine and that Mary felt no pain in childbirth, etc. It is you guys who are closet docetists and Gnostics when it comes to Mary having a normal marriage after the virgin birth of Christ.
We don’t reject transubstantiation because of some attitude against the physical. We reject it based on sound exegesis, logic, and reason; and the incarnation and ascension.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:30 pmas for John 15 and abiding, of course we believe in abiding and the vine and branches are allusions to the Lord’s supper - to keep on confessing your sins and be reconciled with one another in the body. Perseverance is not automatic with no effort. You didn’t really make any good points in that last several posts.
And still, there is no extra benefit. We have eternal life by grace alone,through faith alone; and true believers persevere till the end. John 10:27-30
January 15th, 2009 at 12:40 pmIf the flesh counts for nothing then why was the crucifiction important? Jesus is not saying to ignore everything he has ever said about flesh. Just to ignore what your flesh is telling you right now. That is “Ew!”.
I forgot to offset your remarks with mine with italics.
That is why we are not docetists or Gnostics, we accept the real physical incarnation and real crucifiction and real death and real mary and Joseph who had real physical sex in marriage after Jesus was born. And she had pain in childbirth and Jesus cried as a baby just like all normal babies do when they experience pain. Rejecting transubstantiation does not mean we reject the crucifixion.
That is what Ignatius’ statements meant, that the bread and wine represent the real physical incarnation and crucifixion in time and space and matter. The Gnostics and docetists rejected the Lord’s supper or Eucharist completely because they did not even believe Jesus was physical at all. We don’t reject it. We do it. We eat it and drink it and examine ourselves and confess our sins because they represent the real physical and historical realities of incarnation, life, blood, flesh, cross, and death.
I agree with you here - it does not mean that all physical things are “Ew” — that is actually what the RCC does with its Perpetual virginity doctrine and that Mary felt no pain in childbirth, etc. It is you guys who are closet docetists and Gnostics when it comes to Mary having a normal marriage after the virgin birth of Christ.
We don’t reject transubstantiation because of some attitude against the physical. We reject it based on sound exegesis, logic, and reason; and the incarnation and ascension.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pmKen,
NB: The quotes in the link were actually supplied by the poster, not Kelly.
More important. I re-read each of the Fathers quotes and each quote spoke very directly of the bread and wine becomming the body and blood of Jesus. If there was some confusion over this in that they meant the “real spiritual” but “unreal flesh” please show me. I have not seen any discussion of this.
(BTW: Do I understand you have accepted Newman’s Development of Doctrine in principle. I havent time to backsearch but the post in mind said something like “protestant principles” and seeds. If so then the development of “Transubstantiation)
I see nothing that shows a real spiritual but unreal flesh interpreation until …oh very recently.
Overall I am puzzled how you can accept your fellow protestants who reject the Real Presence as nothing more than a symbol (most of them) but reject your fellow Catholics who maintain much the same as yourself but with a minor quibble about how much of Jesus is there.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pmKen raises the common protestant objections (or at least those voiced by
protestants who don’t subscribe to consubstantiation). But in reality,
they amount to nothing more than assertions of his opinion. In essence
he asserts his opinion, then concludes it and calls the process “good
exegesis.” But is it?
Ken asserts to only symbolic meaning and then points to other use of
metaphor. But, as Peter (in the comm box above) shows, these other uses
of metaphor are not questioned. Why not? Certainly the gardener who
prunes the branch from the vine could be seen as bringing death upon the
branch. Or the one who opens and shuts the door could be seen as being
able to lock a person out and subject them to the elements or thieves -
again leading to death or harm of that person. Since there’s no further
discussion of these references, we assume that the original hearers of
Jesus’ word understood them as a metaphor. Even with the Samaritan
woman at the well (John 4) there is no explanation behind Jesus’ use of
the term “living water” and her misunderstanding.
So why is John 6 different from these other examples? Why does do the
followers question the teaching in this case? Why does Jesus not
explain, but instead become more dramatic (and likely to cause even more
misunderstanding)? Why does John, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, choose to emphasize this particular understanding so much while
neglecting other disagreements which must have taken place over the
3-year ministry of Christ? I find Ken’s response that this particular
instance is highlighted due to its graphic nature to be fairly weak. As
I pointed out, other examples could easily be interpretted as leading to
violent death - certainly pretty graphic.
So perhaps John 6 is presented differently because it is
different.
Ken does acknowledge the ECFs belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in
the Eucharist. However, he sees their writings at worst (to his
position) as vague on this issue and quite possibly as supportive of his
belief that this “Real Presence” is a spiritual presence.
Certainly Ignatius, writing to the Philadelphians, Take heed, then,
to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar;
as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my
fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to
[the will of] God, could be viewed as referencing the Eucharist as
we Catholics believe or as referencing the body of Christ through the
invisible church as Ken and other protestants believe.
Ken takes this spiritual/symbolic belief as well as the belief that the
invisible church makes the Real Presence of Christ occur and applies it
to 1 Cor 11 to show how a person’s improper presentation (of himself) at
the Lord’s Supper is a sinful act. However, this is an incorrect, and
possibly backwards, application.
Surely Ken is aware of Matt 18:20. I would have to ask, when he meets
with as few as one or two other christians, how is the presence of
Christ here different from the spiritual presence he subscribes to in
the Eucharist? I can’t see a distinction. So Ken (in his own words)
must go through the process of, examining oneself, confession,
repentance, faith, trust, reconciliation with others in the body,
etc, before meeting with even one other christian. If this is the
case, why would Paul in 1 Cor 11 only list the offense as occurring
during the Eucharistic meal?
Unless, of course, there is a difference and the presence at the
Eucharist is substantively different from the spiritual (and still real)
presence of Christ in the meeting of two or three christians. This is
important. Matt 18:20 refers to Jesus’ Real Presence in His mystical
body - the Church. If the substantive difference in 1 Cor 11 is not the
Catholic belief, then what is it? If it is symbolic - as Ken asserts,
then how can one sin against it and be placed under its judgment?
It’s important to remember that even though the Gospels are presented
first in the New Testament, they are not the first Scripture of the NT
written. 1 Cor 11:23-26 is the oldest written account of Jesus’
Last Supper. Therefore, This is my body - this is my blood had
been promulgated through the early christian community before
John wrote his Gospel. And John knew this. This also means that John
wrote For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
after knowing that christians everywhere were assembling,
reciting over bread and wine that Jesus said, This is my body. This
is my blood, and then actually eating the true food from the
table.
One must read John 6 in light of 1 Cor 11. Not the other way around.
The earliest record of the Church reflects this same interpretation.
Ignatius (who was alive when the Apostles still lived) said this about
unbelievers and heretics, They abstain from teh Eucharist and from
prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our
Savior Jesus Christ (To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 7).
Justin Martyr (converted approx 130AD, martyred 165AD) twice describes
in his First Apology how christians worship (chapters 65 and 67).
Sandwiched between these descriptions of worship is the definition of
the Eucharist. And this food is called among us[the Eucharist], of
which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the
things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing
that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so
living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common
drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our
Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and
blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the
food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our
blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (First Apology, Chapter
66).
Irenaeus (writing before 200AD) in Ad Heresies, Books 4 and 5, in
multiple places discusses the Eucharist. The common theme when he
references the Eucharist is that if (Jamie’s paraphrase) if heresy
“x” is true then the Eucharist cannot be the body of Christ. I
won’t repeat each of these examples, but will cite this: wheat having
been made into bread having received the Word of God, becomes the
Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. (Ad
Heresies, 5, 2, 3. quote begins at italics)
So in summary, we see: 1) We are taught to discern the Body of Christ in
the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:29); 2) The earliest christian communities
declared the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ as flesh and
blood;3) John 6 was written after this belief and practice was already
in place in the communities, and fully understanding his Gospel should
reflect this knowledge; 4) John 6 is written differently than all
examples of metaphor - this difference is not sufficiently explained by
those who wish to reduce John 6 to metaphor and, in light of other
evidence presented (above), is cause to at least consider it might not
be intended as metaphor alone; and 5) to look at the Eucharist as pure
symbol and spiritual presence has other implications (from Matt 18:20)
that is never addressed.
In other words, sound exegesis leads one away from Ken’s assertions
January 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pmPerseverance is not automatic with no effort.
Again, this is another topic but I am surprised to hear Ken say this. So what if someone does not make an effort? Do they lose their salvation? If not, does that not make it automatic regardless of effort?
You didn’t really make any good points in that last several posts.
I am just trying to get you to interact with the words of Jesus. You seemed confused when I posted His answer to your question. You say Jesus is you Lord and Saviour. I am quite sure you are sincere. But you are disrespecting His words here. You are refusing to be taught by them. Instead you are trying every way of defending your position. But Jesus’ words remain:
48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
January 16th, 2009 at 7:38 am61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
Randy,
Thanks, actually - I respect all of Jesus’ words and partake of the Lord’s supper and so “eat His flesh and drink His blood” (spiritually, trusting that His death on the cross that happened one time in history is still so powerful and effective for today; that is why God forgives, it goes on and on becuase of its eternal nature, as the God-man, the perfect sinless man who was crucified for our sins.
“the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin” I John 1:6-9
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So, I understand what you are implying about “eternal life”, but we have eternal life by faith, alone, and the proof of it is that we continue to gather and go to church and confess our sins, and be reconciled, thus persevering to the end.
about “perserance is not automatic” — that is, God exhorts us to “make every effort” to make sure we are one of the elect - by our character, holiness, effort, good works, etc. We cannot lay back and go, “I am elect; I beleive in Jesus”, I went forward, I said the sinners prayer”, etc. no - but God is the one who supplies the grace and power.
Philippians 2:12-13 “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
January 16th, 2009 at 11:34 amfor it is God who is in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
Jamie Donald,
Greetings! You used to do a lot of commenting at Dave Armstrong’s cite.
Thanks for all the effort you put into your post.
Admittedly, there is some level of mystery to this whole Eucharist thing; but I sincerely believe the RCC took it too far.
Don’t really have time to address every point you make,for it is very long and comprehensive - good job!
January 16th, 2009 at 11:40 amabout “perserance is not automatic” — that is, God exhorts us to “make every effort” to make sure we are one of the elect - by our character, holiness, effort, good works, etc. We cannot lay back and go, “I am elect; I beleive in Jesus”, I went forward, I said the sinners prayer”, etc. no - but God is the one who supplies the grace and power.
You say you can’t. But what if you do? What happens then? Either you are still saved or you are not. If you are then you actually can do whatever. If you are not then you have denied “once saved always saved”. You have, in effect, said there is a mortal sin that can separate someone from God when they are in a state of grace.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:47 amI think that Ignatius’ statement on the Eucharist is still symbolic and spiritual for the supper, but is pointing to the physicality of the incarnation and crucifixion; so it is literal and physical for the incarnation and crucifixion.
As I wrote above, the docetists and Gnostics refused the Lord’s supper because they rejected the real material and physical incarnation and a real crucifixion.
Protestants don’t reject the Lord’s supper - we eat it and drink it because we believe in the real, physical, historical incarnation and real physical crucifixion. So Ignatius means, “they reject the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of the Lord, who truly was crucified for our sins, etc. – because they reject the incarnation and crucifixion. (Basiledes, and other Gnostics)
“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]).
January 16th, 2009 at 11:48 amThanks, actually - I respect all of Jesus’ words
You don’t seem to. You still seem to be overruling Jesus and saying he is just wrong.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:48 amKen,
Greetings to you as well and thank you for the kind words. I’m sure you’ve noticed that I don’t have much time to post anywhere any more, so anything I’m able to get out is sporadic at best.
Admittedly, there is some level of mystery to this whole Eucharist thing; but I sincerely believe the RCC took it too far. I don’t think you’re suprised to discover that I don’t think the Church took it too far. And yes, there is a lot of mystery involved!
And I do not accuse you of docetism or gnosticism. But I think your view of a spiritual and/or symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist is closer to their view than what Ignatius was defending. We both quoted from the same section. Please re-read it. These heretical sects emphasized the spirituality of Jesus and felt that He could “wear” and change bodies as easily as you and I wear and change clothing. Because of this, they could easily believe that Jesus would spiritually “wear” a new body in the Eucharist. In fact, in Ad Heresies (I think books 4 and 5 - I do not have the reference with me right now) Irenaeus actually accuses the gnostics of doing this very thing! But what does Ignatius do? In the phrase immediately preceding that which you bolded, he states the Eucharist is the body of Christ. Then in the section which you bolded, tells us that this is the same (physical) body which was tortured for our sins! This is the Catholic position.
If you were correct, then Ignatius would have to say that the Eucharist is the spiritual manifestation of the Body of Christ ….
Again, thank you for your kind words. The Peace of Our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.
Randy, thank you for allowing me to express myself on your post.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:45 pmOk. That generated some interest. :)
The idea of the connection of the Eucharist to the Incarnation, and by extension, to the Ascension is interesting. I can’t say more than that but thought I’d bring it up again in case it generates more ideas in your fertile brain.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm