Communion/Eucharist

Here is a quote from Justin Martyrs 1st apology writen about 156 AD pretty close to the apostles!

Here is a quote from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrneans writen around AD 107 also very close to the apostles. So very early in Christian history. These should give us pause.

 

He meant it symbolically and nothing more. Paul relayed what Jesus had told him personally about initiating the Lord's Supper. He said Jesus took the bread and blessed it and passed it around. He then said, "take, eat, THIS is my body....etc." The bread was not yet eaten. It was outside the body, and while it was outside, not eaten, Jesus called it his body. Jesus was present, in his body. The bread was still the bread. No change had taken place. It looked and tasted like bread.

Same with the cup.

Jesus also described himself as the Vine and the Door. No one suggests that this should be regarded as literal, not symbolic.

If you mean John 5:23, I see nothing there of what you're talking about. Could you clarify?

Yes, but that's not all it is. It is a memorial, plain and simple, no more, no less.

Praying over it or consecrating the elements effects no change in them. They are not the Real Presence or the real blood. The scriptures know nothing of this.

Wherever you got this view, it is wrong. There is no new Spirit, we are not reborn, we are not a new temple that is empowered with Holy Spirit Baptism. There is not one shred of scripture to support this view.

Jesus did not feed his life to us with his body and blood. Jesus gave his life for us. You are stretching here, drawing an un-apt picture.

the scripture does not tie the Lord's Supper to the feeding of the five thousand, and neither should we.

Jesus commission to teach was given to his assembled church, not to individuals. The local church should guard its doors and the ordinances. The responsibility was given to the congregation, not the individual. To allow someone involved in flagrant sin to participate in the Lord's Supper would bring condemnation on the church as well as the individual.

Actually he did. He made Judas leave the upper room before initiating the Lord's Supper. Judas was an unbeliever, and not entitled to participate.

I fear that you have been caught up in all the mystical gobbledegood, which obscures a fairly simple observance of the Lord's Supper. It is to help us remember Jesus' death on the cross, to reflect on his resurrection, and look forward to his return. Nothing mystical or obsucre about that.

 

that may be

This dvd is not created by Chick. It is an absolutely wonderful explanation of the false doctrines of the Catholic church. A number of ex-nuns and priests offer their testimonies of how they came to salvation and had to leave Catholicism. The film takes a historic view of the false doctrines, and provides the scientific history behind transubstantiation.

We are ex Catholics and highly endorse this dvd.

An an ex Catholic, I would never refer to the Lord's Supper as the eucharist. I believe this would be incredibly offensive to many exCatholics who are now saved and fellowshipping in Bible believing churches. Why stumble your brother?

Your sis in Christ,
Beth

 

Jack Chick is not an authority on anything. He sees Jesuit spies in every corner. His friend Alberto was proven to be a fraud and defrauded churches of money. I would not rely on this guy to tell me anything theological.

 

does no one have any comments about these quotes?

 

"[T]he eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier." J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 196 (rev. ed. 1978). The fact is that the concept of the Lord's Supper as merely a memorial meal--no sacrifice, no real presence, no sacrament--came into being for the first time during the Reformation.

 

Goldie, I do agree with you that it should only be practiced by believers and I'm very concerned about churches that don't give proper warnings about who should take communion.
However, I don't have a problem with calling it a sacrament. Although I don't believe there is any salvific grace in partaking, I do take the view that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. I see it as more than just a memorial. It is of benefit for us to partake.
Also, it isn't just catholics that call it a "sacrament". Although they have different beliefs regarding communion than catholics, there are several protestant denominations that refer to it as a sacrament.

 

Goldie may answer for herself, but I'd like to respond, too.

Your use of the term "means of grace" presents a problem. It is exactly the term used by Catholics to refer to salvific grace. Your use of it to mean something else leads to confusion, I fear.

Catholics use the term to refer to something they do to earn grace. I doubt if that's what you mean by its use. If you mean that the Lord's Supper is an observance through which God bestows blessings, I can agree. I certainly am blessed each time our congregation observes it.

If you and I were talking, and you used "sacrament' and "means of grace" I would assume you were applying the Catholic meaning.

Confusion and impecision--two good reasons for Baptists not to use Catholic language when referring to the Lord's Supper.

 

John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. If it did, it would mean we would have to do something to have eternal life, but we know that salvation is through faith, not through an act such as the Eucharist. This is a good refutation of the misuse of John 6 by the Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.afcministry.com/Roman_Catholicism_and_the_eucharist_and_John_6_verses_53_through_57.htm

Here are other brief responses:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a11.htm

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_eating_the_flesh_of_the_son_of_man.htm

All say the same thing as below:
http://www.loveintruth.com/amf-docs/flesh1.htm
So, believing in Christ and eating His flesh and drinking His blood are both things that lead to everlasting life. We can put them together. Whatever He means by eating and drinking, it is the same kind of thing as believing because both of them lead to everlasting life.

 

Tom, I understand what you are saying, but I think the average baptist just needs to learn a little more. The terms "means of grace" and "sacraments" aren't just Roman Catholic Church terms. Those terms are used in quite a few protestant denominations. It's also like the term "catholic". That word doesn't mean the "RCC" but the universal church of all believers.

 

That is why Baptists historically have declined to call themselves Protestants.

All Protestant Churches came out of the RC church and it's not surprising that they retained bits and pieces of RCC tradition, most of which are error. Baptists historically have appealed to scripture, not other denominations, for their doctrine and practice.

The terms "means of grace" and "sacrament" have no part in Baptist nomenclature, for they are unbiblical.

 

Well if that is the case then why the strong emphasis on symbolism? If JND Kelly is correct then it seems that there is a strong disconnect with the modern churches from the teaching of the apostles themselves. The Quotes form Justin and Ignatius so early in christian history points to a differing perspective. Scriptures (especially with John 6 seems to hold up these early chruch leaders thoughts. Especially when considering that Jesus didn't hold back many of his disciples who left because it was a "hard teaching". He doesn't explain his speach to the 12 either. It would be consistent with other passages that Jesus would explain the error of people leaving his fellowship, however, in this case he did not. So, it seems that those who left; left for the very reason that what Jesus was speaking about offended them. All he says to the 12 was "will you also leave?". Also I wonder about the Liturgy. The Didache indicates an early liturgy with communion established. So why so anti liturgy? Many protestant denominations have not done away with this such as Lutherians, Anglicans, etc.... As I venture through Christian History many of these questions come up. I don't seem to be getting adiquate answers. It seems that we end up with emotional appeals rather than actual reasoned thought at times. I enjoy watching Strobles case for Christ. Yet all the historical evidence he points to are the same evidence that the traditional churches use and the modern churches abhore saying that they were in error. I find that strange since in any court case the closer to the incident is the better information about it. Thought upon thoughts.

 

According to Kelly, one of the main scriptural supports for the concept of the Eucharist as an offering or sacrifice is Malachi 1:11:

As I consider this passage, I cannot think of any other offering made by the "gentiles" that may find favor with God.

 

You must not have read the links I posted above that give very reasoned responses to the (mis)use of John 6 for transubstantiation.

No matter what any church father may have said, I have to search the scriptures and see what they say. In fact, I did research this because I was in discussion with a friend who became Roman Catholic, and also was talking to another person considering the RC church.

John 6 does not give support to the RC view of transubstantiation at all. RCs use it because it's all they can find for their view and they don't take it in context at all.

 

That is not entirely true. (the part about it's all they can find) they find it every discussion about communion, manna, the presense of the Lord in the feast Moses had with the elders on mount Sinai when they went part way up. Eating of the lamb for passover etc.... I'll read your links to see what they say. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain what was considered a mystery up to that point primarily because of the reformation.

 

Okay my sis will not be immersed because she has never been immersed and never for that matter been in a pool, etc...that doesnt mean that God loves her any less. She still loves the Lord and still has an awesome relationship with the Lord..

You would not believe the number of soldiers I run into on a daily basis that you would never know have an awesome relationship with the Lord because of their positions, etc. Its not all about outward. There was a soldier we ran into yesterday in the office that I knew was just having a bad day and he commented on my necklace and we launched into a 15 minute conversation about how he has to hide his love for the Lord because of his position and his job, not everyone has the opoortunity to shout it from the rooftops. I am not a huge one at sharing my faith either, somehow people just know and well thats when I am placed in a person's path at the Lord's prompting.

Also I grew up hearing communion called a sacrament and I am not Catholic. The 3 churches I have been to this summer on my travels have called it a sacrament. I never said everyone should get to partake but the idea of certain people participating isnt correct either. In all 3 of those churches I felt the welcoming spirit to participate.

We are not all going to agree no matter what but to sit there and nit pick at people and tell them they are wrong for what they believe isnt right either. Yeah I dont beleive as you Ann I have been raised in a different background as you and probably undergone different teaching than you. You believe forgiveness is a public thing I believe it is something between you and God in your private time with Him. Just like you have your beliefs about communion I have mine. Thats why there are different denominations not one of us is going to think alike.

 

Thanks for reading the links. I hope they are benficial.

I don't see how manna or the passover lamb cause one to say that we need to eat Jesus every week. That is what Transubstantiation is - and it is Jesus sacrificing himself over and over, when the Bible says he was sacrificed "once for all."

I understand that the elements are put into a monstrance and worshiped because they believe this really is Jesus there.

A good book I've been reading parts of is Far From Rome, Near to God, edited by Richard Bennett and Martin Buckingham. It's a book of testimonies of former Roman Catholic priests who became believers and left the RC church. Bennett himself was a Roman Catholic priest for over 20 years. There's also a book of testimonies by former nuns but I don't have that one and can't recall the name of it.

 

There are some that actually believe that it is 'spiritual food' for our spiritual man. Of course they are wrong since the 'true spiritual food' is the scriptures and not some mystical hoodoo some have made it into. It does not provide grace or more grace, it does not nurish the spiritual man, and it does not become Christ. We do this - In Rememberance of Him - until He comes again. It is a memorial or a time to remember (through symbolism) all He has done till He come again. It reminds us of His grace, and that which actually feeds us spirituall, and it is the sacrifice of Christ that sustains and maintians us - till He come again.