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

Oooo..."I know you are but what am I?"
Namecalling, aside I believe that yours is the position which fails to account the full passage in context.

First, Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh. He says it write there in the passage:
"I am the living bread which comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the the world". (John 6:51)
Wow...there it is in black and white. Christ was indeed talking about His literal flesh since it is the same flesh He was going to give for the life of the world...unless you are going to suggest He really didn't literally do that--give His flesh for the life of the world--either.

And again regarding Peter's response, it does nothing to take away what Christ just said in which He defined the bread as His flesh that He was giving for the life of the world. In fact, those "words" to which Peter was referring certainly includes what Christ had just said--that the bread is His flesh and that we must eat it (and drink His blood) to have life(!).

Nope. My explanation fits nicely. You refuse to accept that Christ was talking about His literal flesh despite the fact that He says just that in the passage.

But Christ doesn't end there. He starts vague and general and proceeds to clarify what He means by "coming" and "believing" via becoming more literal and specific as the discourse progressed. You continue to ignore this fact in the desperate attempt to maintain your incorrect interpretation of the passage.

Again, I'll say the same to you.

It's when I stepped outside of denomination's traditional interpretation and began to read the passage with an open mind, that I had to abandon the false memorialist position and embrace the truth of the real presence.

Actually, Larry, after reading your attempts to defend memorialism, I am even more convinced about how weak a position it is and how the Real Presence is the truth. Thanks.

 

This is especially true of those who tenaciously hold to memorialism despite being shown the truth. How sad.

 

The only name calling that has gone on here is from your side calling me a Nestorian and a Docetist, both of which are incorrect. But on to the point, I have demonstrated from teh text that my position is the only tenable one. You saying it isn't doesn't change that.

Which is irrelevant to the point at hand.

The question at hand is what does it mean to "eat" that, or "drink" that? Christ told us in v. 35, and you deny it. He also remind us that it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. If you study John 6, you will not find any eucharistic meaning in it. It is about something different ... namely, salvation.

Yes, but you don't believe his body, or blood. You believe his words. THe words are what give life (v. 63).

Surely you don't think "coming" and "believing" are the difficult part to understand do you? That was the clear part, and it is the part that was rejected. They were after him for the food, for the miracles which they saw. But Christ said that following him was much more ... It was coming to him and believing him.

Again, I'll say the same to you. </font>[/QUOTE]But you would be wrong. I have argued from SCripture, refuted your position from Scripture.

You are deceived. There is no truth in the "real presence." You can believe it if you wish, but that will not make it true.

This is becuase you have refused to deal with the text. I can fully understand why you say this (although I doubt that it is really true). You have consistently refused to deal with the text apart from your presuppositions that you brought to it.

 

I know Christology well, very well. In his desire to preserve the immutability of God Nestorius did divide up scripture by saying at certain points it is only the human nature acting and at others it is only the divine nature. You have done something very similar in order for you to hold your supposition of locality, which contrary to your opinion is not the purpose of the incarnation. Rather the purpose of incarnation is the redemption of man.

Martin Chemnitz, my namesake, writes concerning the person of Christ, " The knowledge of the person of Christ is described in the Word of God as the knowing that He is true God and equal to God (jn 5:8, Phil 2:6, 1Jn 5:20), and that He is made a partaker of flesh and blood as we are, except for sin (Heb 4:15). That is, there are two natures, the divine and the human, in the incarnate Christ. Scripture expressly teaches that these two natures do not subsist by themselves, but that they have been united into the one person of the Logos: (Gal 4:4), "God sent forth His son, born of a woman:; (Lk 1:32), that which is born of Mary shall be called the son of God; (matt 16:16), the Son of Man is "the Son of the living God"; (jer 23:5), the Seed or Branch of David is YHWH; (jn 1:14), "The Word was made flesh." Thus there are not two persons but one Christ, one Lord, one Mediator (1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Tim 2:5). Furthermore, Scripture teaches that from the hypostatic union a communication of attributes results whereby those things which are the properties of the one nature are attributited to the person, as when 1 Cor. 2:8 says, "They crucified the Lord of Glory," and as Acts 20:28 says, "God redeemed the church to Himself by His own blood." For although the Deity does not die, yet God was made man and suffered and died in His own flesh (1 Pt 3:18 and 4:1).

Scripture also shows that in the works of Christ as Mediator and Savior, because of the hypostatic union, each nature performs in communion with the other that which is proper to it, so that, as in Heb 2:14, "Through death He destroyed him who had the power of death," and acts 20:28... On this basis Scripture then leads us to the communication of the majesty for although cleansing from sin an and vivification are essentially properties of the majest of the divine nature of Christ, yet Scripture predicates vivification, or making alive to the flesh of Christ (Jn 6:54). It is written in 1 Jn 1:7: "The blood of the Son of God cleanses us from sins." Moreover, this communication of majesty does not take place through the commingling (confusio), conversion, or equating of the natures, but through the plan of the hypostatic union, as the ancients used to say." (The Two Natures of Christ, p 16)

That is not orthodox Christology, that is kenoticism. Jesus didnot make use of his divine abilities in the instances but he was still partaking in the diety because as full God and full man he never stops taking part in either nature.

The synecdoche of the cup is obvious whereas, a metaphorical meaning of "This is my body" is not. There is no grammatical evidence giving clues to a possible metaphorical meaning. Again I have never stated that the bread and wine stop being present. If you had bothered to read my "fyi" statement and others you see that I have said they are still present. What I have insisted is that scriptural evidence is that the Body and Blood of Christ are also present.

Perfection does not require inability, merely the refraining from imperfection.

BTW, Larry, I have never once called you a name. I have merely referred to the arguments you are using as Nestorian in nature.

 

Apparently not.

It was good right up to her. The Logos is the divine nature, not the human, or the combination of the them. The Logos existed before the incarnation.

You like it when he says it but rejected it when I said it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems you were going after me while agreeing with me.

That is not orthodox Christology, that is kenoticism. Jesus didnot make use of his divine abilities in the instances but he was still partaking in the diety because as full God and full man he never stops taking part in either nature.[/quote][/qb]What I expressed was the docrine of the kenosis, as outlined in Phil 2, and demonstrated during the life of Christ. Jesus did not give up his deity. The Kenosis teaches that he gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. There is a clear difference.

There is no evidence of this, apart from your need to find it.

Clues to metaphors are not found in grammar, but in context and in the use of language.

But the scriptural evidence does not point to that.

OK, but your assertions were incorrect at that. It's fine ... I am not bothered in the least by the heat of this discussion, although after seven pages, I have other things I need to be doing. For you to call my arguments what you have indicates that you either don't understand those historic teachings, or you don't understand my position. What I have said is the orthodox theology you will find any virtually any orthodox theology text. It is the position that the church has held for two millennia as it developed.

 

You said a lot without answering my question. Do you deny God's power to talk to man using symbolism?

 

The Logos at the point of incarnation is no longer just the divine. It is both the human and the divine natures. To say otherwise is to deny the humanity and divinity of Christ as Jesus is at once both Human and God. Chemnitz and others before him have used the Logos to indicate the second person of the Trinity.

But you have never said that. You have stated that communion could not be a partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ because it is impossible for a human to be in more than one place. This assertion of yours seperates the divine and the human natures. You do not ascribe to the whole person of Christ all actions.

Which again is not Orthodox Christology. Jesus did not make use of His divine attributes at all times, but He did not give up anything. To say that he has given up divine attributes is to make him less then full God.

No there isn't just Jesus calling it His Body and Blood and Paul saying that we are partaking of the Body and Blood. In addition, Paul warning us against profaning the Body and Blood by how we approach communion. If there was only metaphor involved there would not be these assertions.

Now that I think about you have made a big deal about God being incapable of lying or deceiving. Did Jesus lie when He said, "This is my Body"?

I have noticed that the more you are backed into a corner the more insulting you become of people's intelligence.

 

Which is irrelevant to the point at hand. </font>[/QUOTE]You're the one that asked that question. Here's what you said:

That is why I demonstrated (yet again) that the flesh to which Christ was referring was the very same that He gave for the life of the world.

No, you have the cart before the horse, as I will show (yet again) below. Christ starts from abroad, general statement and precedes with a specific clarification of that statement. In fact, He starts with a metaphor ("I am the bread of life") and then becomes more and more literal. ("The bread is my flesh; you must eat my flesh")

But surely you don't mean that Christ's flesh profits nothing, do you??? Are you seriously suggesting that after Christ spent all that time talking about His flesh is the bread we must eat, flesh that He gives for the life of the world, and the same flesh that Christ said they would see literally ascend back to Heaven (v.62), that He turned around and said that (His) flesh profits nothing??? (I hope you're not suggesting this. If you are, then you are a docetist afterall) No, you misunderstand--"flesh" in verse 63 is not referring to His material body, but to the carnal ("fleshly") way in which the unbelieving Jews were hearing Christ, ie in terms of crass cannibalism. Yes, He was literally telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, but not in the carnal way they were supposing. He would indeed give His flesh for food and His blood for drink under the forms of bread and wine as He revealed to the disciples at the Last Supper--not by hacking off an arm or leg and throwing it to them. (The unbelieving Jews were thinking carnally in terms of the latter.)

But it's not either the Eucharist or salvation. It's "both/and" as Christ clearly teaches in the passage.

Yes, but you don't believe his body, or blood. You believe his words. THe words are what give life (v. 63).</font>[/QUOTE]Christ was referring to the words He just uttered ("the words that I speak to you are spirit and are life") which includes such truths as: "the bread that I shall give is My flesh" (v.51); "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (v.53); "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (v.55); "He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him" (v.56). It seems that you and other memorialists want to believe all of Christ's words except for these.

Yet many "came" to, or physically approached, Christ while He walked the earth, but many left Him unsaved. What does "come to" mean exactly? It's sort of vague and general and needs further clarification. Likewise, many are said to have "believed in His name" (John 2:23-25) yet Christ did not commit Himself to them. While "believing in Him" is essential, it too is somewhat broad and needs clarification. In the John 6 discourse did He clarify by saying: "To come to Me and believe in Me you must say the sinner's prayer and ask Me into your heart?" Nope, but that seems to be the assumption many modern day evangelicals bring to the text. No, Christ proceeds to become quite specific that one must eat His flesh (lit. "to munch or chew") and drink His blood to have Life and to abide in Him.

Sorry, but you have failed to do so numerous times now.

I believe it because it is true...unlike the memorialist position which is not true, however much you'd like to believe otherwise.

Nope, once again you are describing yourself.

 

Incorrect. The God man is the union. Most, I believe, continue to talk in terms of the Logos and the humanity. The Logos certainly is the second person of the Trinity however.

You are incorrect.

Shameful on your part. You keep saying things I didn't say. I said your first sentence, not your second. Go back and read it. I said he gave up the use of his attributes, meaning that he didn't use them. (This seems to be typical of your use of language.)

Sure there would be. The metaphor is why he says these things.

No, I have fully affirmed what Jesus said and did.

I haven't yet been backed into a corner, and I haven't insulted your intelligence. I pointed out some things about which your understanding is deficient, not your intelligence. I am quite confident that your intelligence is perfectly capable of understanding these things.

No one disputes that.

 

Pastor Larry,

Are you serious about bailing out of this thread?

We can only hope!

Alexander

 

To the contrary, you have repeatedly failed to show the texts supporting you, so I don't blame you for bailing out.

And you have failed to account for the fact that Christ called the bread, "His body", and the cup, "His blood". You have failed to explain Christ's statements to eat His flesh and drink His blood in the framework of alleged "memorialism".

And you fail to acknowledge that Paul called the bread the communion of Christ's body, and the wine the communion of Christ's blood.

And you amazingly ignore the fact that Christ called the fruit of the vine "His blood"(!).

And you have continued to ignore the fact that Christ doesn't stop at "belief", as if some intellectual assent was all that was in view here. He gets much more detailed, saying we must eat (lit. "munch" or "chew") His flesh, the same flesh He was to give for the life of the world.

And you have failed to support your assertion that they didn't take the realistic sense in which Christ was speaking. The fact that the unbelieving disciples left at that point, in the context of their specific questions and Christ answering by becoming even more literal, shows they did take Him that way.

No, it speaks volumes that you continue to make the same unsubstantiated assertions which display an appalling disregard for the words and the contexts of the relevent passages.

 

Matt, I think that about sums it up.

 

Matt,

Great summary.

I've sensed for a long time that many Christians place their private interpretation of Scripture and tradition above everyone else's, and when that interpretation varies with the vast majority of Christian experience, wisdom and knowledge, the private intepretation wins out. Somehow this goes under the rubric of 'soul competency' or the 'priesthood of the believer', even though neither of those concepts have anything to do with it.

I suppose part of it is due to the exaltation of the individual over against the community and its received wisdom. We're reaching the point where people are so alienated from one another (both those now living and those of the community of faith in prior generations), that many people now attend the 'Church of Me and My Cat'.

Alexander

 

Yep, you got it right! But there are a WHOLE lot more names to go along with the measly two you posted.

 

Where is the correct use of scripture in context?