When/ how did Zwingliist symbolism/ memorialism enter mainstream evangelicalism?

I have shown from the plain words of Scripture that this is the correct interpretation.

You are the one who deny the plain words of Christ and Paul. They call it "bread" and "cup." You say it is "body" and "blood." I will go with Paul and Christ on this one.

No, it is patently obvious to those who live in submission to the word of God, rather than to a manmade authority. Christ and the apostles never taught a 'real presence" or a "mystical presence" as evidenced by teh words of Christ and the apostles. One must do a tragic injustice to their words to arrive at anything other than a memorialist interpretation. The saddest part is that people believe this is getting them grace when it isn't. They live their lives in bondage to something that doesn't work anyway. And in the midst of truth so easily reached.

 

Perhaps this is due to your own lack of a grasp on orthodoxy. What I have said is nothing short of orthodox Christianity. The fact that it is confusing says much about the modern church's failure to teach the Word to people.

Nonsense, utter nonsense. You have no idea with docetism or gnosticism is if you think I have affirmed either.

AGain, utter and complete nonsense. Why is orthodox theology so strange to you? Have you ever read a theology book where these truths are correlated?

"These heresies" were not dealt with by simple virtue of the fact that they are not heresies. AGain, your own lack of understanding is at fault. Study of the word is vastly missing in modern "Christendom" and the church is not better for it. The fact that this is even being disputed is shameful to a world where the Word of God is so readily available.

 

I have shown from the plain words of Scripture that this is the correct interpretation.</font>[/QUOTE]You've shown that your quite adept at ignoring the plain words of Scripture.

You are the one who deny the plain words of Christ and Paul. They call it "bread" and "cup." You say it is "body" and "blood." I will go with Paul and Christ on this one. </font>[/QUOTE]But Christ calls the bread, His "Body", and the cup, His "Blood" (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). Paul calls the cup, "the communion of the Blood of Christ", and the bread, "the communion of the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:16). Christ calls His flesh, "food indeed", and His blood, "drink indeed" (John 6:55). So I'll go with what Paul and Christ say on this one as well.
(Now this is where you backpeddle and deny their plain words by attempting to read their and the other disciples' minds.)

No, it is patently obvious to those who live in submission to the word of God, rather than to a manmade authority. </font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary, to those who submit to the plain words of the word of God and not to the manmade tradition of a particular 16th century Reformer, the truth of the Real Presence is obvious.

But alas their words do in fact teach just that. Too bad you're too locked into a 16th century tradition of man (ie doctrinal novelty) to see the obvious.

 

So you are a memorialist?

Seriously, if you "go with what Paul and Christ say" you have to be. When Christ hold a piece of bread and says "This is my body" only the most absurd would have thought of anything other than symbolism. When Christ, in John 6, called his flesh food and blood drink, it is clear that they understood the symbolism by virtue of the disciples' failure to try to eat him. Or would you have us believe that they didn't want eternal life? Even in Matt 26, after Christ proclaimed the cup to be his blood, he then calls it the "fruit of the vine." That clearly is not blood, but wine ... unless it magically changed back.

BTW, in all this you have overlooked that Christ called the cup blood. Yet the cup was a hard bowl like container. It is what was in the cup that he was referring to ... So you aren't even taking his words as you claim to, but rather taking them in a symbolic way.

As we have shown over and over again, the memorialist view is the view of Scripture.

 

(The omniscient mindreader strikes again. )

No, rather, the disciples may have indeed understood Him to be speaking realistically, just not in the grossly carnal cannibalistic sense that the unbelieving Jews, who at that point left Christ, may have assumed. At the Last Supper, Christ revealed to the faithful disciples how they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood...by partaking of bread and wine, which Paul called the communion (participation in) the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, a literal eating and drinking were taking place, and Christ's flesh and blood were truly the food and drink, just not in the grossly carnal cannibablistic sense.

You make the common mistake of setting up the false dichotomy between the strawman charge that the-real-presence-must-mean-cannibalism on one hand versus Zwinglian memorialism on the other, with the latter being the "obvious" and "reasonable" alternative. However, taking all the passages together, and using the plain meaning of language, it's clear that the true interpretation of the Lord Supper is in neither of those false extremes.

Umm..the cup contains the wine. (Doh!)

As much as "we" asserts that, that is simply not the case. "We" has shown, however, that he is quite adept at ignoring context and the plain meaning of words in his determination to squeeze the Scripture through a johnny-come-lately (16th century) interpretive grid which is foreign to the belief and praxis of the earliest Christians. "

 

I was raised on the memorialist intepretation of the Lord's Supper. I was a young adult before I came to understand more about what our Lord taught regarding this sacrament. Matt Black's and Doubting Thomas' understanding are very close to mine. I also agree that the memorialist interpretation is clearly not the one that was held and taught by the earliest Christians. Paul's teaching to the Corinthians was clear that eating the bread and drinking the cup is not only a memorial but is truly a participating in our Lord's Body and Blood. And the early church fathers clearly taught as they received the doctrine from the apostles. And so on the present, except by the memorialists.

I don't understand how someone who believes and teaches that God is capable of incarnating Himself in the womb of the Virgin, and can send His Holy Spirit to dwell in our bodies and make them His temple, is somehow unable to make Himself present to us in Holy Communion by the same Holy Spirit - and all when Christ's words, and the apostolic teaching and practice are so clear.

No where in Scripture does our Lord or His apostles teach that the Lord's Supper is symbolic. The word 'symbolic' isn't there. The word 'memorial' and 'remember' is there, but always in connection with additional teaching: drinking and eating the bread and wine are participating in our Lord's Body and Blood. If they were only symbols and memorials, why would anyone receiving them unworthily be answerable for His Body and Blood? Note that unworthy reception does not make one answerable for wasting bread and wine: unworthy reception makes answerable for His Body and Blood. A very telling difference.

Alexander

 

Alexander, excellent post!

(Sounds like you and I have similar testimonies. I was brought up to believe the "memorialist" interpretation as well.)

 

And you talk about mindreading ... What an absolute joke. Not one of his disciples believed he was telling them to eat his literal body. You know that.

So now you are denying the real presence? What you have just said was very close to being correct. You rightly called it "bread and wine," and that is what Christ and Paul called it, and what memorialists call it. You do contradict yourself by saying that "Christ's flesh and blood were truly the food and drink." It is somewhat ambiguous, apart from what you have revealed about your position. But you rightly say that it wasn't a "grossly carnal cannibalistic sense," which again it the memorialist position.

When you take "all" the passages and the plain meaning of hte language, it is clear that memorialism is the position of the NT.

Umm..the cup contains the wine. (Doh!) </font>[/QUOTE]Ah ... But notice how you deny the literal words that you insist on. You say that "This is my body" means that the bread is literally his body. You say "This cup is my blood" means that "what is in the cup is my blood." You just changed hermeneutics. IT was unwitting to be sure. You understand there was a symbolic use of "cup" in that phrase. You didn't insist on rigid literalistic interpretation becuase you understand language. But you are inconsistent on that.

It is the case. I have refuted every scriptural argument you have brought. I have dealt with teh context, when you wanted to ignore it (1 Cor 11). I have dealt with the "plain meaning" of the words, and demonstrated by teh actions of those actually present that they understood it as I do. You have falsely charged me with a determination to follow a johnny-come-lately. I have no desire to do that. My allegiance is to Scripture, not to a church, or a man made doctrine, no matter how early it is found. Jesus did not invest creeds, confessions, history, or tradition with authority. That is found in Scripture alone. So long as you look to something else for authority, you will continue in your path.

 

Extremely misguided on many fronts, most of which have already been answered. This is the problem with the philosophical theology that is being entered into. Once you leave the confines of the authority of Scripture, there is literally no end to the positions that man will come up with. That is why we must be devoted to Scripture as the source of theology.

 

In your mind perhaps, but not close to doing so in reality. Your alleged refutation has been a joke. You have continued to ignore the context as well as the plain meaning of words and have rather repeatedly engaged in hermeneutical gymnastics and speculative mindreading, as I and others have amply demonstrated. How sad.

The charge is not a false one. Your allegiance is in fact to an incorrect interpretation of Scripture based on a 16th century tradition of man. The fact you are blind to the influence of this man-made tradition on your interpretation doesn't change this reality.

But Christ did invest the Church with authority as well. The Church by the Spirit's guidance has ably defended true biblical interpretation against heresy from the beginning. Until the mid-9th century the only recorded dissenters to the real presence doctrine were gnostic docetists. Among orthodox Christians there was not even a hint that there was dispute about this truth until much, much later in her history. So I'll take the interpretation of what the Church has believed from the beginning, based as it is on the context and true meaning of words in Scripture, over the interpretations of Zwingli, Pastor Larry, or any other Johnny-come-lately.

 

Actually, there is no end to the positions that man will come up even while claiming to be devoted to Scripture as the sole source of authority.

 

Well, Thomas, your name is certainly appropriate. You doubt the word of God and it has lead you to this position. The truth has been shown you and you have rejected it in favor of your own mind. I hope you will come to the truth one day.

 

Actually, Larry, I grew up in the memorialist tradition myself thinking that was the "biblical" teaching. This is what I believed for the first 30 plus years of my life. I knew all the pat answers (many of which you have employed) and the "refutations" of the real presence position. However, when I allowed myself to step outside of the interpretive tradition in which I was indoctrinated, and I began to look more closely at the texts on their own terms, I realized that the memorialist interpretation was the one that distorted the plain meaning of the Scriptural texts.

So, no, I didn't "doubt" the word of God. I doubted the interpretive spin put on it by my denomination. Once I was willing to step outside of that interpretive tradition, I was able to see the truth. Praise God!

 

Well, then you are deceived. I don't say that lightly, nor with joy. It is sad ... very sad. It grieves my soul to great depths to see it. You have been shown the truth, and to this point, you are rejecting it. I hope that will not continue for you.

You have been shown here to deny the plain meaning of the words. You refuse to apply the same hermeneutic to "This is my body" and "This is my blood." That is inconsistent and illegitimate. You refuse to accept the words of Christ that he was talking about bread and wine. You refuse to accept the words of Paul that he was talking about bread and wine, and about "remembrance."

If you look at the text on its own terms, apart from the teaching that has been attached to it through centuries, then you will plainly see the memorialist position is the right one, the only one that takes full account of Scripture as it stands.

You do doubt the word of God and you have plainly shown that here. And that is nothing to praise God about.

 

Actually, I've been thinking the same thing about you.

Rather, you refuse to accept the words of Christ that He called the bread His body, and the wine His blood. You refuse to accept the words of Christ that His flesh is food indeed and His body is drink indeed.

Rather, you refuse to accept the words of Paul that the body and blood are the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Rather, if you look at the text on its own terms, apart from the tradition of man in which you were indoctrinated and which originated late in the history of the Church, then you will plainly see that the real presence position is the right one, the only one that takes full account of Scripture as is stands.

Rather, you doubt the word of God which has been plainly shown here, trusting a 16th century doctrinal novelty instead. I praise God that I no longer believe that tradition of men, and I pray God will open your eyes up to the truth as well.

 

Doubting Thomas,

I think that the passage in John 6: 22 - 71 is instructive here.

I never heard a sermon about this while growing up in a Protestant church (with a memorialist theology about Holy Communion). I'm not sure why, but I suspect that there is no reasonable exegesis of this that supports the memorialist position.

I quote part of it here:

Jesus said: "Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood hve eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me , and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven ,not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever. . . . . When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?'

It strikes me that memorialists when thinking about the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacrament ask 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?' and pass by it, relying instead on the more easily accessible (albeit incomplete) theology that makes the Holy Communion into a moment of thinking about a past historical event but not connecting to it in its essence.

Alexander

 

How would you deal with me pulling a picture of my wife out of my wallet and saying "this is my wife".? Would you think the 3 x 2 picture is actually my wife, that I am married to a Kodak? Or would you see it as a picture of my wife, who in reality I am married to?

 

Webdog,

I would say that you are you and God is God. God is the One who spoke the entire universe into being by the Word of His mouth, who sustains it moment to moment, who knows the number of hairs on the head of every person who has ever lived and who will ever live, who knows every sparrow who falls to the ground, who knows all the stars and their names.

You are a created being who is frail, fallible and limited.

Many, many, many things are impossible for man - but not for God.

Alexander

 

I agree. Even when I was a memorialist, the specific words of this passage used to bother me as it seemed that the connection to the Lord's Supper was fairly obvious and that it was pretty plain that Christ was speaking realistically, not merely symbolically.

I agree--I was thinking as well how the memorialists' response to the plain words in Christ is somewhat similar to the that of the unbelieving Jews. Instead of overtly walking away from Christ, however, the memorialists reduce the words of Christ to mere metaphor with which they are much more comfortable. Unfortunately, in doing so, they deny the true teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

Good post.

 

Actually, I've been thinking the same thing about you.</font>[/QUOTE]Then your thoughts have been misguided. Truth is not determined by what you or I think. Truth is determined by God's word, and on that score, your beliefs do not line up with it. Don't make the mistake of assuming that you are the standard of truth, and that you get to decide what is right. The fact that the "real presence," or "spiritual presence" makes sense to you is irrelevant. The only relevant question is "Is this what the Bible teaches?" To that question, we must answer an unequivocal No, and not leave it up to human reason.

I have accepted that.

[/qgb]I have accepted that.

That is false. The text declares differently.

Again, false. I have not doubted the word of God. I have held it up as the authority, and encouraged you to do the same.

Then you are deceived on this point. You do believe the tradition of men rather than the word of God.

You see, you tried to take my post and turn it around, but it does not work because of the realities underlying the issue. These realities mean that the opposite of my post cannot be supported by simply turning my post around.