I understand but you gave the impression that the NT predates 'the Church'. That just isn't true, the NT 'is' the record of the early Churches existance is all I was trying to get at.
One could argue that in the time of Jerome that God had lead the church to an almost unanimous acceptance of arianism too but we aren't using unanimity to justify the teachings of Arius. As far as 'real presence' is concerned we have a wealth of evidence through history which points to the early Church interpreting the passages of the Gospel of John in a very literal fashion very far removed from our own rejection of 'all' Christian Mysteries by the 16th Century. Such radical changes of interpretation causes me to pause and ask the question "If the early Church could be 'so' wrong about 'this' what else were they wrong about"?
That is my whole point.
Could you give me an example of one early Christian Author who denies the mystery and necessisty of the Lord's Supper? I have honestly never ran across any who support our view of the Lord's Supper as merely a symbol 'void' of any 'real' value to the faithful.
Again thanks for your help and your patience.
The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Chemnitz, Apr 4, 2007.
Page 7 of 16
-
We today can learn much from the Fathers of the Early Church…Remember, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles in Truth. St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Beloved Disciple John. Polycarp lived to be in his 80’s before he was martyred and he was a teacher and friend to both Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus. St. Clement of Rome was a student of both Peter and Paul.
It’s impossible for me to believe that right out of the gates the Apostles, who were promised the protection of the Holy Spirit was teaching error and it took until after the Reformation and the Baptist founders to finally figure it all out.
- -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Bound, firstly my apologies to you and PL for unintentionally conflating and confusing the connnected but distinct issues of the writing of the NT and the determination of the canon of that NT. Clearly the Church did not precede the writing of the NT (a few years to several decades at the most) by the length of time its existence preceded the canonisation of the NT (c370 years) but it nevertheless did precede both. Furthermore, without the Church's determination of the Canon, we would not be able to trust that the NT we have in our Bibles today was correct, the inspired word of God. Because, AFAIC, the Early Church did get it right - on the Canon of the NT, the Trinity, the Natures of Christ, and the Real Presence, amongst other things. I rest my trust primarily in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour, but I also rest my trust in the correctness of the teachings of His Church, both with respect to discerning what is inspired Scripture and what isn't , and the correct interpretation of that Scripture. AFAIC, the ECFs didn't get it wrong on any of the above points - they got it spot on.
-
-
-
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume III, Chapter XL. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.[/FONT] -
Good quote from Tertullian. :thumbs: That is why in my earlier post I said "near unanimity".
-
For Scripture to have authority, it cannot be used as a proof text, as some here are all too willing to do. To cite "Jesus said "This is my body"" as if that drives the nail in teh coffin is pure proof texting. It does not account for the context, for the normal use of language, or for the rest of Scripture. That is why we reject it. -
If you are going to make such a statement prove from the context that Jesus did not mean this is my body.
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
So Peter and the disciples, though not quite knowing particularly how the content of those words Jesus spoke would be fulfilled, trusted Him anyway as they recognized He had the the words of life, and therefore those hard words were also TRUE. (However, just hearing the words is not enough--one must do the word of the Lord to enter the Kingdom (Matt 7:21))
-
-
I urge you to get back to the text itself and abandon this argument that you have embarked on here. -
-
Funny how you get "He really is bread" from people on John 6 but not "He really is door" or "He really is vine"
-
Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Here we see Christ refer to the SAME example of feeding the people as in John 6 where the people came to Christ seeking literal food AFTER the feeding of the 5000. Christ rebukes the disciples mistake here of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally as did the “faithLESS” disciples of John 6. -
Lutheran theologian Edward W.A. Koehler put it this way:
As to John 6:53-56, I would also agree with Dr. Koehler that this passage "does not treat of the Lord's Supper, because the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted." -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Bob, show me when Jesus points to a door or a vine and says "This is my body". -
In John 6, he says "I am the bread." That was clearly figurative as you seem to admit Chemnitz and rightly so. The question is why you are not consistent. Jesus wasn't really bread. It was a picture.
In John 10, he says "I am the door." Matt wants Jesus to point to it and say "this is my body." Why? Why isn't the fact that he uses the same words and makes teh same point enough? Because it doesn't fit your preconceived theology? I think that is lacking.
Chemnitz tries to appeal to "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." I think it is clear from the passage that that refers to eating and drinking unworthily, profaning the death of Christ. It seems hard to avoid that, and requires a great imagination to make that supportive of real presence, it seems to me.
So in the end, we obviously view Scripture differently. I think the words mean just what they say in the fashion in which language is typically used. I see no reason to invent some mystical use.
Your statement does not adequately address the statement of Jesus nor the claims of Paul when he plainly states that Communion is a participation in the Body of Christ and that those who are unworthy are guilty of profaning the Body. These things that Paul claims simply would not be a problem if it were just a memorial. -
1. You have ignored it in making your statements that scripture only claims it is bread. Two there is no indication that the disciples ever thought it was symbolic, if you have scriptural proof of this thought process then you need to give it.
2. I have never said that I took John 6 symbolicaly, I have only stated that I do not think that is a direct reference to Holy Communion.
3. Irrelevant, as this is a text that is not within the context of Communion. Second, the greek does mean entry way or portal and Jesus is literally the entry way into heaven.
4. Your claim here does require a stretch as Paul plainly states that it is a profaning of the body, not a profaning of the death.
Page 7 of 16