Bread Worship

Heh, heh...you never know what might be coming down the road. :laugh:

 

Considering how the ELCA is going, it could happen now, but it won't happen in LCMS or WELS as they require their profs to be ordained ministers in their respective synods. That and we do believe that the body and blood are physically present with the bread and wine.

 

The problem with that conclusion is that Scripture is very clear that when Jesus said he was the "door" that he was using a parable or figure of speech (John 10:6). This is not the case when he says that "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink', nor when he says "This is my body".

 

The difference, Mike, (and this has been pointed out before) is that although Christ said He was the door (John 10), he never turned around and said:

"And this door is a hole in body which you must walk through to have eternal life"

Nor did He point to a literal wooden door in the upper room and say:

"This is Me. Walk through it, all of you, to enter into life eternal"

Nor did Paul ever say of a literal wooden door:

"This door that we physically walk through, is it not the entrance into Christ?"

Similarly, although Christ did say "I am the Vine", he never said:

"And this Vine which you must attach yourselves to is my physical flesh, to which you must physically graft yourselves if you want to bear fruit"

Nor did He in the upper room point to literal plant and say:

"This is Me. Attach yourselves to it, all of you, in order to abide in Me."

Nor did Paul write anywhere regarding a literal plant...

"This vine which we graft our selves to, is it not our abiding in Christ?"

However, Christ not only said that "I am the bread of life" (John 6), he also proceded to say the bread He was giving was His flesh which He was giving for the life of the word (v.51)." He also said of this flesh you must eat it (and in verse 54 the Greek word is "trogo" which is "munch, or chew") AND drink His blood to have eternal life and abide in Hiim (v.54,56) and that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed (v.55).

In the upper room, Christ identified a physical food and drink (a literal loaf of bread and a literal cup of wine) with this body and blood--the same that He earlier had said that they must eat and drink to have eternal life AND which He was about to give for the life of the world. He then commanded His disciples to physically eat and drink this bread and wine so identified:
"Take eat, this is My Body" and "this is My blood of the New Convenant". (Mark 14)

Of this literal bread and literal cup of wine, Paul said to the Corinthians:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

So, Mike, I hope when you look at all the relevent Scriptures you can see the difference between the "door" and "vine" metaphors on the one hand, and the identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood on the other.

It's also helpful to recall that none of the early Christians thought Christ was referring to a literal wooden door or a literal growing vine, nor were there ever any ordinances practiced in the early Church involving walking through literal wooden doors or attaching oneself to a literal plant. On the other hand, when the early Christians physically partook of the literal empirical bread and literal empirical wine in Holy Communion, they believed they were actually also supernaturally partaking of the body and blood of Christ--body and blood He had given for the life of the world on Calvary.

God bless.

 

I Cor. 10:16

I am new to the board. I recently introduced myself in the introduction threads. I am an Angllican christian with Baptist roots.

While I was a Baptist, I always had lots of difficulty with I Cor. 10:16 and the 'symbolic' view of Baptists in regards to the Lords Supper. One Baptist pastor once told me that it is was problematic for him as well. Then I began reading the early church fathers. Something that was never encouraged or talked about in the Baptist college I graduated from. As pointed out in previous posts in this thread, Ignatius of Antioch certainly didn't have a 'symbolic' view of the Eucharist.
It is my understanding that his writings were considered to be included into the New Testament canon but were rejected, not because of his view of the Lords Supper but for the emphasis he put on the office of bishop.

When I asked my Baptist pastor about the early church fathers he responded that "they must have been mistaken". It seems that if they were wrong that someone would have challenged their teachings. There were heresys in the early church but they were certainly debated and exposed.

I do not know greek but have read that the gospel accounts of the Lords Supper are not written in metaphorical language as are other passages such as 'I am the vine, you are the branches' and 'I am the door'.

If someone knows of historical proofs that there was a 'symbolic' position by christians in regards to communion before Zwingly, Calvin, etc. could you provide it?

Joy in Jesus!

 

Ms. mrtumnus,

You've got to be kidding. You dont think its obvious that Christ was using a "figure of speech" when He said "this is my body"?

It was BREAD mrtumnus! Everyone saw it. He was holding PIECES OF BREAD. He did not reach down and rip out a piece of His thigh, or stomach or arm out and say "this is my body!".

It was bread!!!

It couldnt possibly be any clearer that He was using a figure of speach.

But in order to make it even clearer...when people misunderstood and thought that somehow they DID have to eat Jesus flesh, He corrected that misunderstanding and said...

I dont know how anyone can misunderstand it.

God bless,

Mike

 

Doubting Thomas,

Jesus Christ corrected His followers when they mistakenly thought they were to physically eat Jesus in order to have everlasting life, grow as christians, or anything else they might have thought.

As soon as they got that wrong idea, Christ told them...

It might sometimes be interesting to read church history, and what the early believers taught and believed. But it ie 100% irrelavent regarding doctrinal conclusions and scriptural learning. Totally irrelavent.

The scriptures tell us that even as the epistles were being circulated decievers were propagating false teaching, idolatries, and destructive doctrines.

If that is the case...and it is...why would we conclude that anything that came along decades after that would somehow be absolutly true simply because christians were believeing it or practicing it?

(and this was Paul whom they were "testing" against the scriptures)

We turn to the scriptures for our authority, and the wise man will ignore the councils, early christians, early leaders, and anything else if it contradicts the scriptures.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Matt,

No He isnt.

Christ indwells and ministers to us, and ministers through us to others, through the indwelling and working of the Holy Spirit, not through a cracker and grape juice/wine...

(refering to the Holy Spirit here)....

Why didnt they eat crackers and drink wine at Jerusalem when the day of pentecost had fully come, and the Holy Spirit fell and indwelt those 1st believers?

Why didnt they eat crackers and drink wine in Cornelius's house when the Spirit fell and indwelled them and sealed them into the body of Christ?

The Phillipian jailer? The Ethiopian eunuch? The thief on the cross? The publican in the temple? I could go on and on of course.

Mike

 

Then you're in good company here!

More likely because he wasn't a direct witness to the risen Christ.

In the interests of balance, yes, there are one or two references in the Patristic writings to a more symbolic view of the Eucharist from I think the 4th or 5th centuries; I can't remember their names but they are referenced in J N D Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, so if DT has his copy to hand, perhaps he'd be kind enough to look them up. However these one or two individuals are very much out on a limb on that point with reference to the Patristic literature as a whole: the overwhelming consensus is of some kind of Real Presence.

 

I would beg to differ and would suggest you read Eusebius' Church History to gain a clearer picture as to who Ignatius was. He was certainly no backslider but was appointed Bishop of Antioch by John and well as being discipled by him. And, if he was wrong and a backslider, then one would expect others, both his contemporaries and those coming later, to write against his views. With the rather paltry exception of the two guys referred to above, there is nothing of that sort; no other Patristic writings against him, no Church councils anathematising his views. On the contrary, both his contemporaries and those who came after him agree with his interpretation:

Oh, I have - hence my view.

 

Careful! You seem to be conflating the Second the Third Persons of the Trinity here*; they are not the same. We're talking about Christ's Presence here, not the Holy Spirit's.

*I'm sure that's not what you meant to do.

(a) How do you know they didn't?(b) See my warning above re conflation of Christ and the HS.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can misunderstand it either. What's clear to me is that Scripture is clear when a figure of speech or parable is used. This is not the case in the writings on the Eucharist. In all of the many references, it's never once referred to as symbolic or a figure of speech.

Yes, he was holding pieces of bread, telling them this was his body.

Regarding your quote about the flesh, your interpretation that this discounts the Eucharist points back to Jesus -- the flesh of Jesus profiting nothing. How can this be when he offered his flesh for the salvation of the world? Our flesh profits us nothing. His is quite a different story.

Keep in mind that Jesus is referred to as our "Passover Lamb". We understand this reference, because the blood of the lamb was used to mark those the angel of death would pass over, just as the blood of Jesus covers us from judgment. However, it wasn't enough for the Israelites to mark the door with blood. They also had to eat the flesh of the lamb. Jesus is indeed the Passover Lamb.

Also, read the 24th chapter of Luke's gospel. What is the purpose of this narrative being included? Two men walking along discussing the crucifixion and the missing body, and were joined by a stranger. Scripture says 'they were kept from recognizing him". He walked on with them, and they pressed him into staying with them to eat. "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." What does this say to you? He left them with the bread, and disappeared. They recognized him 'in the breaking of the bread'. Does this not say that we too are to recognize him in the breaking of the bread?

God bless you too Mike.

 

Except that a metaphorical/allegorical/parabolic meaning isn't there in the particular Scripture, as others have amply demonstrated, and the Patristic quotes referenced by me above confirm that it is meant to be taken literally. I don't know how anyone can misunderstand it.

 

Ignatius was arrested and taken to Rome in chains where he was devoured by wild beasts in the arena--all on account of being a follower of Jesus Christ. Not many backsliders will undertake such an ordeal for their beliefs.

 

Thanks for the Patristic references Matt. I also have concluded that the early church fathers overwhelmingly support the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. When I have tried to discuss these writers with several Baptist pastors the response has always been that all these writers must have been wrong. Doesn't seem reasonable, does it?

 

That's because it's not:smilewinkgrin:

I've remembered the name of the guy who put forward a purely memorialist approach (prior to Zwingli in the 16th century that is): Evagrius Ponticus. He was very much in a minority of one; even the other guy I was thinking of, Eusebius of Caesarea, espoused what we would today call a 'spiritual receptionist' viewpoint (akin to what Presbyterians/Calvinists/Reformed - see the Westminster Confession for example - believe) rather than mere memorialism.

 

Matt,

Kelly lists Evagrius and Eusebius has being "heirs of the Origenist tradition" and holding to a "spiritualizing interepretation" (Early Christian Doctrines p.442). He then cites their comments on John 6 which give example of such an interpretation. I guess it should be kept in mind that those in the Origenist school held that Scripture passages often had multiple meanings--the literal/historical and the more "spiritual"/allegorical, etc. For instance, I believe Origen himself, while having some statements in his writings affirming the Church's realist position also had some more "spiritualizing" comments regarding John 6 (which I've read before--I'll see if I can locate them). So, it wasn't necessarily an "either/or" with him since Scripture (in his mind) can simultaneously have different layers of meanings. Likewise, these two men (Evagrius and Eusebius) in the Origenist 'tradition' appear to be in the minority among the church fathers mentioned by Kelly and others as being possible exceptions to the rule of realistic interpretation of the Eucharist, as you pointed out. I say 'possible' since elsewhere (and Kelly mentions this) Eusebius is "usually content" with the Church's interpretation. I'm not sure if Evagrius, while expressing a spiritual view of John 6, ever explicitly denied the REAL presence or specifically affirmed it elsewhere (I'll try to find out).

These two possible exceptions aside (along with Origen himself perhaps), which are found 3-4 centuries after the apostles, the Church overwhelmingly supported the realistic view based on the documentation we have from History.

QUICK UPDATE: From what I've read (wikepedia, Orthowiki, and Newadvent) Evagrius seems to have shared Origen's views on the pre-existence of souls and of apokatastasis, for what it's worth.

 

Welcome to the Baptist board.

Ed

 

The Lord’s Supper: Ordinance for the Sanctified

“And as they were eating {the Passover; see v 17}, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the New testament {New Covenant}, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).

In the text above, we see a transitional change from the Old Covenant practice of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Ex. 12:1-28) to the New Covenant practice of the Lord’s Supper.

The Elements Involved in the Passover were:
1. The Redemption Lamb (Ex. 12:5) offered as a substitutionary sacrifice.
2. The Blood of the Lamb (Ex.12:13) applied as a protection from the judgment of God.
3. The Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:15) which symbolized a righteous people in that they, for seven days (seven is the number of completion), examined their household to remove any leaven (a picture of sin) from them.

The purpose of the Passover was a “memorial” (Ex.12:14) of God’s deliverance and redemption “for all generations an ordinance forever.” It was the Passover (Matthew 26:19 and 26) that Jesus and the disciples were eating when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. He stated (v 28) that it was to become an ordinance of the New Covenant.

The Elements of the Lord’s Supper​

1. The Redemption Lamb: John the Baptist announced Jesus with the words, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Revelation 13:8 informs us that Jesus Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
2. The Wine (grape juice): typifying the Blood of Christ.

“12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us . . . 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot (sinless) to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:12 and 14; see also 25-28 and 10:19)?

Note: Leviticus 10:8-9 forbade the use of fermented wine or strong drink by the Priesthood. See Chapter 16, page 184

3. The Unleavened Bread: symbolic of the Body of Christ, a perfect and sinless substitute.
The “bread” (Matt. 26:26 and 1 Cor. 11:24) that Jesus “took, and blessed” was the unleavened bread of the Passover.

The central purpose of the Incarnation was for the judgment of all sin (I John 2:2) in the perfect and sinless substitute (Jesus Christ) in order to restore fallen mankind, by faith in Him, to the position of God-righteousness (Heb. 10:10 and 20; also II Corinthians 5:21).
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The Purposes of the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-34)​

“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come” (I Corinthians 11:23-34).

1. A Memorial, v 24-25
2. A Thanksgiving; each element is to remind the participant of an aspect of the work of Christ on his behalf, and, as he participates, he pauses to remember and give thanks for those things which Christ’s death and resurrection accomplishes for him.
3. A Testimonial, v 26: as the believer participates he makes a public declaration of his faith in each aspect of the work of Christ as each aspect relates to that believer’s salvation.
4. Self-examination, v 28: the Lord’s Supper is intended to be a time of personal cleansing and self-judgment; a time of the removal of “leaven” in our lives by recognition and confession.

“6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:6-9).

In being cleansed from the sin of one’s everyday life, the believer personally sanctifies himself to God’s service by cleansing and dedication.

“12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (I Peter 3:12-16).

“1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (I Thessalonians 4:1-7).