Protestant exclusion from RC communion

Exactly...and why should a Baptist even go to Church...what benefit is it for them...they sing a few hymns, read a Gospel passage and hear a sermon and drink some coffee and chit chat...i mean one could lay around at home and watch the Gospel hour on TV and get the same experience minus the social gathering...

 

Here is a passage that the RCC advocate may not have considered adequately in regard to the Lord's Supper:

1 Cor. 5:7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Note the phrase "Ye ARE unleavened"

That is as direct a statement as "This IS my body"

Or "Ye ARE the body of Christ" - 1 Cor. 12:27

In what sense is the local congregation at Corinth ("ye" not "we") is the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper - "YE ARE unleavened" a direct reference to the bread in the supper.

 

Nope. You are reading into the passage your views. Paul is saying something very clearly not to be confused with meer symbolism.

Now just look at the passage. IF it is meer symbolism why would there be judgement brought upon by "discerning" something the bread is not? It would be ludicrous of God to do so. The greek with the word discerning comes from is Daikrino which means to determine, give judgment. You then must determine it is the body when you eat and drink or you bring judgement upon yourself. It only makes sense in the context of the Eucharist because there would be no offence unless it was Jesus himself whom you ignored thus offended. Being a meer symbol would mean its not even necissary to partake and instead of doing it every sunday you do it once in a quarter or once a year or never because it doesn't really matter and you are not offending anyone only if it is the Eucharist the body and blood of Jesus Christ (who is the real manna from heaven) can you 1) offend God by what intent you recieve it and 2) bring about judgment on yourself. Otherwize you can build a house of cards with it and take it when ever you want and not worry about God's response because its no more than wheat but certainly Paul treats it with the most severity and people were even getting sick and dying because they didn't
"discern" that it was the body of Jesus Christ.

 

That's a great verse to support my position. First question is why does Paul insist that the Corinthians be virtuous when taking communion? No need if its just a symbol? And then look at the construct of what Paul is saying. first

He immediately compares or draws the connection between boasting and yeast. It is clear this is a representation. No such language used in chp 11. No comparitive language. Now look at the rest of 5

throw out this behavior! and why? because

what did you do with the passover lamb? You ate it.

Totally different construction than 1 cor 11:29 where there is no comparison but total instruction!

how do you eat and drink unworthily? by not 1) examining yourself and 2) with out determining it is the body of Jesus Christ.

 

You underestimate the value and importance of symbols to God. The value of a symbol is the truth it is designed to express. If the form of the symobl is perverted so is the truth it is designed to express. This is particularly true with salvation symbols.

Moses and striking the rock is a good example of the significance of symbols in the eyes of God and consequences for abusing them.

Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are both salvational symbols and to pervert the symbol is to pervert the savlational truth being expressed in form.

In regard to 1 Corinthians 5 the local assembly is SYMBOLIZED in the "one" bread. One in unity and without "leaven." In 1 Cor. 5 the assembly partaking of the bread is to be in unity and where there is internal division "this is not the Lord's Supper" as Paul says I hear there is SCHISM where? "AMONG YOU" when you gather into "ONE PLACE" to observe the Supper.

Without "leaven." This church was FULL of leaven of false doctrine, immorality. The removal of Publicly known leaven within the membership before partaking of the Supper in sincerety and truth is the theme of chapter 5 while dealing with unknown sin to the assembly but known to to the partaker is the theme of 1 Cor. 11:21-32.

The point, is that the paticular congregation administrating and observing the supper must "discern" these symbolic facts in relationship to the metaphorical body observing the supper.

Moses was prohibited to entering the promised land because he violated a salvational symbol and these are being chastened by sickness and death because of willful violation of a salvational symbol.

 

You are misinterpreting this language dreadfully! The "leaven" is identified in the text as something within the "lump" or the sinful member in verse 1 which is to be removed in verses 10-13. The "boast" is the response by OTHER MEMBERS in regard to this "leavened" state of the church body by that one member. They were not morning and removing this member.

 

All of those things would benefie in my walk with the Lord, BUT NONE of them can addanything to me in a spiritual sense of already being fully justified before God!

Either jesus atoned for ALL my sins on the Cross, or I have to do works to complete what was lacking...

RCC teaches his sacrifice not sufficient in and by itself, and requires additional graces to complete the process!

 

Wrong! Look at 1 Cor. 11:17-20. The same kind of comparison is laid out there clearly. In verse 20 Paul asserts what they were claiming to be observance of the Lord's Supper was in reality not regarded by the Lord to be His Supper because of "schism" and other public behavior that violated the symbolism of the Supper particularly in regard to the "one" bread as this congregation was totally DIVIDED rather than "one" in unity. He repeatedly says they came to "together" and into "ONE PLACE" but in a SCHISMATIC and DIVIDED condition that violated the Supper's symbolism as described in chapter five and thus the Lord disregarded their observance "THIS is not the Lord's Supper."


Not only was the PUBLIC condition of DIVISION apparent but there was PERSONAL and PRIVATE conditions that violate the symbolism just as badly. The congregation was to take disciplinary action on PUBLICLY known sin in its midst but God would take disciplinary action on SECRETLY known sin in its midst (1 Cor. 11:27-32).

 

Biblically symbols are often more than just symbols as the modern context and understanding of it goes. Often it is an actual thing.

Note actual water came out of the rock not symbolic water. Moses actually struck the rock. It was an actual rock. It may foreshadowed Jesus Christ but it certainly was a rock and real water came out of that rock. None of it was a symbol.

Yes and they are also actual seals to the faith.

Giving real significance to a symbol doesn't pervert it; it compliments it and lifts it up beyond its nature.

The assembly was being compared to bread; not the "one bread"; that was infected with yeast. And this passage little to do with unity and everything to do with people's morality. And immoral people corrupt the whole church as well as boasting corrupts the whole person.

So be virtuous. And don't associate with people that are described as

 

You fail to see the simplicit y of the cross, as we can freely access the throne of Grace directly now, we have full measure of his Spriti now, we can live in liberty right now, and that there is really no need to had any extraa graces to the finished work of Christ!

When you sin, do you go directly to God for forgivness, or go thru your priest?

 

Good question. 1 Peter 2:5 claims there must be "acceptable" sacrifices to make worship true worship. Matthew 15 talks about "vain worship" due to the inclusion of the doctrines and traditions of men.

In the Old Testament tabernacle and temple (the house of God) everything was to be done according to a PATTERN given by God and followed precisely in the tabernacle/temple.

The essence of "worship" is found in "spirit and in truth." In spirit there must be a right attitude stemming from a regenerated nature. In truth there must be proper adherence to the Biblical patterns provided by God.

In regard to the Biblical pattern's the preaching of the Word, administration of gospel ordinances, singing praises unto God, giving of tithes and offerings in a proper spirit is "acceptable sacrfices" unto God and thus the essence of Biblical based worship. God is interested in THE TRUTH being expressed and followed more than POMP and CEREMONY and TRADITIONS of men.

The sacraments are an abomination in the sight of God and the very essence of not merely vain worship but rejection of Jesus Christ and His finished work.

 

Nope! You are wrong! You look.

That verse is using comparative language. And

That verse is not using comparative language but is an exclamation. A direction. See the difference?

 

Quot

What you said is oxymoronic as a SYMBOL ceases to be a SYMBOL when defined as the "actual thing." This is RCC double talk and completely anti-Biblical.

You can't be serious????? The water was as much as a symbol as the rock. The water and rock were as much symbols as Moses striking the rock and speaking to the rock!

I can hardly believe that you even made such a statement?!?! The water symbolized the "water of life" - spiritual life. The rock symbolized Christ. Moses symbolized God striking Christ on the Cross. Pleeeeeeeease give us a break and look at these things rational and reasonable instead of through the rose colored RCC glasses.

You are making the same exact theological mistake as the Judaizers did in Acts 15:1 where they assigned literal salvational significance to the "sign" and "seal" of circumcision just as you do to baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Paul explicitly and completely repudiated sacramentalism in regard to circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" in Romans 4:6-12 proving that the grace of justification (vv. 6-8) was not conveyed in any literal sense to Abraham in connection with circumcision or in any literal sense of a "sign" or "seal." He flatly denies that the grace of justification was communicated or had any literal identification with the "sign" and "seal" of circumcision as it already "HAD" been communicated "IN UNCIRUCMISION" that is apart from, without, prior to, and we are talking about a LONG PERIOD OF TIME between the two.

 

Guess our RCC friend sees jesus as being the rock and the cloud in exodus, as it was NOT Him being there in a spiritual sense through those physical items, but that he actually became clouds and rocks for them!

 

Show some scholarship! I placed specific objections to your assertions and you simply ignore them and make sweeping generalized denials. This is supposed to be a debate. Respond with substantative objections rather than generalized denials!

I demonstrated by the context that "leaven" and "boast" were not synonyms or contextually identified with the same subjects. The "boast" was the REACTION of the membership TOWARD the "leaven" or sinning member.

The "leaven" has no reference to the "boast" except a reaction by other members to the the sinning member which is contextually identified and defined as the "leaven" to be removed from the membership so that the "lump" containing the leavened member may be a "new lump" after removing the leavened member.

The "BOASTING" is contrasted with the proper response which is grieving over his sin and removal of him by church discipline.

 

1 Cor. 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

The comparison is between "puffed up" and "mourning" not "puffed up" and "leaven" as TS asserts. He is to be "taken away from you" is synomous of removing the "leaven" from you so that the "lump" will be a "new lump" and this is spelled out in verses 12-13.

Likewise, in 1 Cor. 11:17-20 there is a comparison between them physically "gathering together" into "ONE" place in contrast to their SCHISMATIC condition when gathered in that "ONE" place. There is PHYSICAL unity but a SPIRITUAL DIVISION and that violates the "ONE" bread which by symbolic design represents the proper condition of the metaphorical congregational "body" partaking of the Supper.

 

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.......
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

First, identify what is to be removed from "among you"

ANSWER: "he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."


Second, identify HOW he is to be removed from "among you"?

ANSWER: "3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.....13....Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.



Third, identify why he should be removed from among them:

ANSWER: "know ye not that a little leaven leaventh the whole lump.....as ye are unleavened"



Fourth, identify what is the result of removing this man from among them

ANSWER: "Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a NEW lump"


Hence, the whole context is about the REMOVAL OF THE PUBLICLY KNOWN SINNING MEMBER because publicly known sin within the congregational body of Christ violates the symbolism of the "unleavened" bread as it not merely represents the sinless condition of Jesus Christ but the removal of all publicly known sin in the metaphorical body of Christ administering the supper.

They are commanded to "keep the feast" which is "Christ OUR passover" and to do so with "the UNLEAVENED bread".

Church discipline provides the solution of removal of KNOWN sin from the body as the prerequisite for observing the Supper by the church at Corinth.

God disciplines unconfessed UNKNOWN SIN in the congregational body (1 Cor. 11).

 

You accuse me of not using scholoarship but look at what you just said! You have been duped by the modernist movement view of symbology. The ancients viewed symbols in a totally different manner. You've reduced the meaning of symbol to basically a sign but ignored the ancient perspective which was comon perspective in Jesus day.

Thus it is very biblical.

Oh so the water which came out of the rock was a mirage? Seriously it was real water!

So you read the bible as one big symbol and nothing is real in it. Jesus didn't exist and its all "spiritual". This was the problem with the gnostics. Note Prefiguring is not the same as symbolic.

You are sounding very gnostic at this point. Acts 15:1 doesn't have anything to do with symbolism but ascribing gentile believers to follow the old covenant in addition to the requirement of the new covenant.

We've already had this discusion on Romans 4 and I showed you how you were wrong in your interpretation of it. It doesn't go against "sacramentalism" but supports it.

 

You don't read for comprehension well do you? I said the rock forshadows Christ but the rock is still a real rock just as the water is real water. And as for the cloud God's presence was really in the cloud just as his presence was really on the mercy seat just like his presence is in the Eucharist.

 

Read the passage again. Here is the whole chapter.

It is clear the comparison is not between Mourning. Just read the passage instead of your own theology into it.

This passage says basically, "I hear there are people being sexually immoral among you! I mean the really bad porno stuff even people into that stuff aren't doing. A dude is sleeping with his father's wife. And you guys are acting all high and might! Shouldn't you guys be sorrowful? Remove this pervert!

Paul continues "I'm with you spiritually because" when you get together in the name of Jesus the power of Jesus is there with my spirit. So get rid of this guy and let him to his own devices.

Now Paul is dealing with their arrogance Or "high and mightiness". He continues with You being all boasting about yourselves isn't good! Don't you know yeast raises the whole bread?

It is clear what is being compared. Arrogance, boasting and yeast. Also in general sinful behavior. The passage is clear. And you've missed the whole point of what Paul is talking about!!!!!! Stop being immoral and live as you should!!!!

7

get rid of the bad influence and live as you should.

This passage compares the arrogance and the sin of Corinth to yeast. Chapter 11 doesn't compare anything.

Hey I'm not going to pat you on the back for comming together (for communion) because you are making things worse!

first of all you're not unified.

Next because when you do communion its not really what is considered to be the Lords supper

you insult the church by your practice and humiliate the poor or those who can't afford to eat.

should I give you more instructions about the lords supper? No because I've sufficiently already told you. thus when you

eat in this manner your are guilty of offending the body and the blood of the Lord!

If you don't realize when you eat and drink the bread and the wine with out determining that its the very body of Jesus and he's actually there with you; are condemning yourself! No comparitive language in this passage.