An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[TriuneUnity]

Likewise, common sense would assert that Jesus Himself demands that we employ a figure of speech with respect to “This is my body” when he holds up bread and said that it was his body…and all could see that it was still bread.

No, common sense doesn’t demand that. Rationalism demands it. Likewise, when Jesus stands in the courtyard of the Temple and says “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” rationalism demands that Christ is speaking of the physical Temple, and that is how the Pharisees and disciples understand Him. Any interpretation of Jesus’ words that are of significance must include the supernatural realities behind them. Rationalism doesn’t allow for this.

Also, in connection with that (what the disciples see), we do not base the meaning of Jesus’ words on the reaction of the disciples, but on the words of Christ.

#1 is merely the “is” means “is” argument…which can’t prove anything

Not by itself, no. It has to be seen in the light of the rest of the text, as well as how that text is later put forward by the disciples once they are enlightened by the Spirit. As well as how the Church has universally attested to it.

#2 I would suggest that the covenant is actually enacted by the sacrifice on the cross

It is. But, as you know, the covenant in Scripture is always carried on by God’s people through a physical action either in re-enactment of, or in remembrance of the event. In the case of the Lord’s Supper, it is both. Both as a remembrance of the event of the crucifixion and also as a re-enactment, as the grace and forgiveness won for us at the cross is given, as by means, through that very same body and blood that was broken and shed for us. There is no true sharing in Christ’s work at the cross without faith given through an actual participation. The Old Testament Jews were given faith in God’s promises through the covenant by the Spirit working through the Scriptures. One could argue the events of the Exodus inaugurated the covenant. It wouldn’t make sense, however, to say that God was not supernaturally working through the Scriptures of the covenant to bring them into it… just because words, ink, or paper could not possibly be the means by which the Spirit operates in the hearts of people (rationalism).

 

[Radical]

Certainly, except that it isn’t the case with the symbolism of Christ that you referenced.

I still don’t get how you believe that you have made your point…if the bread was representative of his body (which was about to be sacrificed) then obviously it is an edible symbol.

How is it connected?

by the manner in which Christ used both…

When the text states that Jesus walked on water, it simply means that He walked on water, without the necessary step of explaining the metaphysical characteristics of how He was able to do so.

well, I guess if Jesus was in view, standing at the front of the boat and he then told his disciples that the mist to the left of the boat was, not only mist, but also his body which was walking on water for them…then you would have a pretty good comparison between miracles and could point out that in neither case was a metaphysical explanatian provided. But such is not the case and so we have the claim of “this is my body” w/o any indication through instruction, example or precedent that the co-existence of two physical entities under the appearance of only one was even possible. Such a novelty takes one outside of “plain”, “obvious” and “literal”.

We can see that both are present in the text. Therefore, there isn’t a need to explain away the elements, as in transubstantiation, in order to explain how the presence was there. The text doesn’t tell us, so we can’t begin to guess, nor should we.

I would suggest that the more one tries to explain the RP, the more difficult it becomes to defend.

Except that by saying this is my body truly means this represents my body, it shifts the discussion to what way the text is either literal or non-literal because then you have to demonstrate that we should take any portion of the text as non-literal as opposed to what it says.

I don’t see this as any grave danger. It is not as if the memorialists are interpreting the other passages of the NT with a much greater degree of figures than are the RPers…and it is not as if the RPers are seeing a real bodily presence being manifested at other passages. Fact is, I don’t know anybody that is using “this is my body” as an interpretive template…it is the resulting doctrine that serves as the template for certain other passages.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I still don’t get how you believe that you have made your point…if the bread was representative of his body (which was about to be sacrificed) then obviously it is an edible symbol.

Then you would have to approach the words of Christ with the presupposition that the bread is symbolic of His body. Unfortunately for the presupposition, the language doesn’t support it.

well, I guess if Jesus was in view, standing at the front of the boat and he then told his disciples that the mist to the left of the boat was, not only mist, but also his body which was walking on water for them…then you would have a pretty good comparison between miracles and could point out that in neither case was a metaphysical explanatian provided.

But you know that that is not my point in comparing the miracles. In any instance of a miracle, you have something that does not conform to the workings of nature. Yet in one instance, you insist that the workings of nature do not allow the text to say what it says because it would be beyond the reason or understanding of the disciples (or you). While in the other, you do allow it. This is true of any supernatural claim or action stated by Christ. When Jesus says to Nicodemus, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man,” you should immediately begin to debate how it is possible for Jesus to say this to him when Nicodemus would plainly see a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth who was born to Jewish parents in a stable and clearly didn’t descend from anywhere. But you don’t expect Jesus to launch into a discourse on the Incarnation or Hypostatic Union. Yet you expect Him to do so in the institution of the Supper in order for it to be teaching the real presence. Why?

I would suggest that the more one tries to explain the RP, the more difficult it becomes to defend.

Only when trying to explain how it is possible. The theologians of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Reformed made the opposite errors. Lateran tried to explain how it was possible, and the Swiss Protestants tried to explain how it wasn’t possible. The first fell into philosophical error, the second fell into Christological error.

 

[Radical]

No, common sense doesn’t demand that. Rationalism demands it. Likewise, when Jesus stands in the courtyard of the Temple and says “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” rationalism demands that Christ is speaking of the physical Temple, and that is how the Pharisees and disciples understand Him. Any interpretation of Jesus’ words that are of significance must include the supernatural realities behind them. Rationalism doesn’t allow for this.

I still think it’s common sense. The reason the Pharisees and disciples didn’t understand that Jesus was speaking about raising his body in 3 days had nothing to do with rationalism. Rationalism allows for figures of speech. The pharisees and the disciples both allowed for the miraculous. When someone is standing in front of a temple and refers to “this temple” the plain and obvious meaning would be the temple that all could see. After the fact, when the disciples could observe that Christ was killed and that he was raised from the dead within 3 days, then they could come to the realization that he was referring to his body. The experiences that developed their common sense would have included: When wine was changed to water, what was water actually became wine for all to see and enjoy. When the Word became flesh, the Word was actually there in the flesh to be seen and touched. When Jesus said that obedient disciples were his mother, brother and sister, they knew that a coexistence or transformation had not been enacted. They knew a man’s body had weight, took up space and had a certain appearance. Their experiences would have pointed to “this is my body” being a figure of speech (beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt). This is verified by the demand of Thomas. To know that Jesus was actually risen, he wanted to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands. The disciples were still trusting their senses…it is the obvious and common thing to do.

Also, in connection with that (what the disciples see), we do not base the meaning of Jesus’ words on the reaction of the disciples, but on the words of Christ.

When considering the options, taking into account what the disciples would have understood is something that should be considered.

Not by itself, no. It has to be seen in the light of the rest of the text, as well as how that text is later put forward by the disciples once they are enlightened by the Spirit. As well as how the Church has universally attested to it.

The Church simply did not possess a monolithic view of the Lord’s Supper in the first few centuries. The variations attest to the fact that the pious weren’t satisfied with leaving the Lord’s Supper as a profound act of remembrance, but decided that it was necessary to understand it as being something more than that. Variations arose out of different efforts by different imaginations and those variations persisted until political power could achieve uniformity.

It is. But, as you know, the covenant in Scripture is always carried on by God’s people through a physical action either in re-enactment of, or in remembrance of the event. In the case of the Lord’s Supper, it is both. Both as a remembrance of the event of the crucifixion and also as a re-enactment,…

I see mention of a remembrance in scripture, but not of any re-enactment.

…as the grace and forgiveness won for us at the cross is given, as by means, through that very same body and blood that was broken and shed for us. There is no true sharing in Christ’s work at the cross without faith given through an actual participation.

were is participation in a re-enactment specified?

The Old Testament Jews were given faith in God’s promises through the covenant by the Spirit working through the Scriptures. One could argue the events of the Exodus inaugurated the covenant. It wouldn’t make sense, however, to say that God was not supernaturally working through the Scriptures of the covenant to bring them into it… just because words, ink, or paper could not possibly be the means by which the Spirit operates in the hearts of people (rationalism).

I think your reference to rationalism is misplaced. Do you think that memorialists would really argue that “words, ink, or paper could not possibly be the means by which the Spirit operates in the hearts of people”? It seems to me that they would say the opposite…that they would say that the words, ink, and paper of scripture is a main (if not the main) tool of the Spirit and that they do not need to be supplemented by some mysterious consumption of Christ’s body…just saying.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I still think it’s common sense. The reason the Pharisees and disciples didn’t understand that Jesus was speaking about raising his body in 3 days had nothing to do with rationalism. Rationalism allows for figures of speech. The pharisees and the disciples both allowed for the miraculous. When someone is standing in front of a temple and refers to “this temple” the plain and obvious meaning would be the temple that all could see.

While they did allow for the miraculous, I do not believe that the resurrection of the dead was all that common. Hence, why they didn’t understand what he was saying and simply relied on human reason to discern His words. Again, my point being, if the supernatural, heavenly realities are not foremost what drives how we see Christ’s words, we end up making those same mistakes.

After the fact, when the disciples could observe that Christ was killed and that he was raised from the dead within 3 days, then they could come to the realization that he was referring to his body.

Yet you don’t allow this possibility for the disciples when it comes to the Lord’s Supper?

When considering the options, taking into account what the disciples would have understood is something that should be considered.

Why? During your debate with mikeledes on John 6, you mentioned numerous times that the disciples didn’t understand Christ’s words (in fact, they almost never did, unless He explained them, which He didn’t always do). So no, we shouldn’t take it into consideration at all.

The Church simply did not possess a monolithic view of the Lord’s Supper in the first few centuries. The variations attest to the fact that the pious weren’t satisfied with leaving the Lord’s Supper as a profound act of remembrance, but decided that it was necessary to understand it as being something more than that. Variations arose out of different efforts by different imaginations and those variations persisted until political power could achieve uniformity.

Can you provide evidence of this?

I see mention of a remembrance in scripture, but not of any re-enactment. were is participation in a re-enactment specified?

In the words of institution themselves and in the words of Paul. This is my body…given for you… for the forgiveness of your sins. This is precisely what happens on the cross, and is now communicated to us who live 2000 years removed from the event through word and sacrament.

I think your reference to rationalism is misplaced. Do you think that memorialists would really argue that “words, ink, or paper could not possibly be the means by which the Spirit operates in the hearts of people”? It seems to me that they would say the opposite…that they would say that the words, ink, and paper of scripture is a main (if not the main) tool of the Spirit and that they do not need to be supplemented by some mysterious consumption of Christ’s body…just saying.

Actually, this is precisely what many of the Anabaptists did, such as the followers of Schwenkfeld, who emphasized the immediate working of the Spirit over Scripture, as well as the Rationalist Radicals, such as Socinus. You are right that the mainstream did hold to Scriptural authority, but this is a happy inconsistency between that and their memorialist views. You argue that it is opposed to common sense to say that Christ communicates Himself to us through the elements of bread and wine, but do not say the same about Scripture and the Spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

From a layperson here not in master’s program, I don’t think you can prove anything without the people.

We have a tremendous history of devotions, practices and responses to faith in our belief in the Divine Presence that hasn’t been covered in these threads concerning the Eucharist…

But I will keep quiet again…

 

[TriuneUnity]

From a layperson here not in master’s program, I don’t think you can prove anything without the people.

We have a tremendous history of devotions, practices and responses to faith in our belief in the Divine Presence that hasn’t been covered in these threads concerning the Eucharist…

But I will keep quiet again…

By all means don’t, Kathleen! To what to do you refer?

 

[KathleenGee]

Well, when we were on indulgences, you and Guerney told alot of entertainment jokes so as I was no so intellectual, thought may be…I was being ignored…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, when we were on indulgences, you and Guerney told alot of entertainment jokes so as I was no so intellectual, thought may be…I was being ignored…

I don’t recall ever saying you weren’t intellectual! Yes, gurney and I do crack a lot of jokes because we both have a very bizarre sense of humor. None of them were directed at you, I assure you!

 

[Radical]

Again, my point being, if the supernatural, heavenly realities are not foremost what drives how we see Christ’s words, we end up making those same mistakes.

Well, what comes first? Christ’s words came first and the question then becomes: is he communicating a heavenly reality involving a RP or is he communicating with a figure of speech. We shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that everything is a heavenly reality unless specifically denied and we shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that God does not create heavenly realities….and as indicated before, given that heavenly realities are not the norm, the plain, ordinary and/or literal meaning is not one that specifies a heavenly reality.

Yet you don’t allow this possibility for the disciples when it comes to the Lord’s Supper?

I allow the possibility, but given the circumstances, the words used and the context I believe that the likelihood that Jesus was using a figure of speech far exceeds the likelihood that he was communicating a heavenly reality.

Why? During your debate with mikeledes on John 6, you mentioned numerous times that the disciples didn’t understand Christ’s words (in fact, they almost never did, unless He explained them, which He didn’t always do). So no, we shouldn’t take it into consideration at all.

The gospel explains that the disciples often did not catch Jesus’s meaning, however, the gospel gives the reader what he needs to know to catch Jesus’s meaning. Often the clarification is provided in the passage itself and sometimes it is found elsewhere. Where in the synoptics do we have a clarification that Jesus’s was communicating a heavenly reality at the Last Supper? W/o that clarification we should explore what the disciples would have understood, b/c if Jesus didn’t clarify the misunderstanding, then either the disciples got it right or their misunderstanding was not important.

Can you provide evidence of this?

yes….on another thread in response to this quote from JND Kelly:

Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

I replied with:

*Protestant? Would that be a Protestant from a communion which holds to a RP?..and if so, then what would be his bias? In any event, I’ll see your Kelly and raise you a Pelikan and a Van der Meer. Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence .

So here we have a very respected and established scholar who understood that early Eucharistic views were very diverse with one extreme being close to a purely symbolic view. What does one need to believe in order to hold to something which is just less than a purely symbolic view? Is it that the bread is viewed as a symbol, but that it is understood that the symbol and the act possess the power to unify the participants in the body of Christ (aka the church)?

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, writes:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

If Pelikan and van der Meer are correct, then it would seem that Africa (from Alexandria to Carthage), to a large degree, wasn’t on board with this real bodily presence stuff that you want to project back onto the early Church. Now if a RP mass was always the centre piece of Christian worship form Christ onwards, it is rather odd that the earliest ECFs weren’t all on board. As we learn more and more about the earliest church it becomes clearer that a considerable variety existed amongst the orthodox wrt things such as the Eucharist. That variety is consistent with the RP view as being a product of the imagination of the pious.*

I would strongly suggest that, amongst historians, the “monolithic view” is fast losing favor …except of course, it will always be favored by those committed to validating the claim of a consensus of ECFs.

In the words of institution themselves and in the words of Paul. This is my body…given for you… for the forgiveness of your sins. This is precisely what happens on the cross, and is now communicated to us who live 2000 years removed from the event through word and sacrament.

I still don’t see a re-enactment specified

You argue that it is opposed to common sense to say that Christ communicates Himself to us through the elements of bread and wine, but do not say the same about Scripture and the Spirit.

No, what I am saying is that it is against the common sense (of the disciples) to interpret “this is my body” as communicating a heavenly reality that relies on a unknown and unfathomed manner of existence instead of understanding it as a figure of speech…they would need something to pull them to the “heavenly reality” meaning

 

[Radical]

Yes, gurney and I do crack a lot of jokes because we both have a very bizarre sense of humor.

and that is a good thing…I have never seen a bunch of posters that kid around so little and are so inclined to be offended as I have seen here (but then again, I haven’t really looked that much)

God bless you (and your sense of humor)

 

[TriuneUnity]

and that is a good thing…I have never seen a bunch of posters that kid around so little and are so inclined to be offended as I have seen here (but then again, I haven’t really looked that much)

God bless you (and your sense of humor)

LOL, indeed, brother. I look forward to responding to your latest post.

I don’t get to debate fellow Protestants enough here (which I suppose makes sense LOL)!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, what comes first? Christ’s words came first and the question then becomes: is he communicating a heavenly reality involving a RP or is he communicating with a figure of speech. We shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that everything is a heavenly reality unless specifically denied and we shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that God does not create heavenly realities….and as indicated before, given that heavenly realities are not the norm, the plain, ordinary and/or literal meaning is not one that specifies a heavenly reality.

You are correct that we should not approach the text with a presupposition. Unfortunately, this is almost never possible. However, that Christ’s words indicate a heavenly reality to the meaning of His words, we have the later interpretation of St. Paul. I won’t restate those arguments here as I laid out that passage in the second thread. The only point being, that Christ is giving us a divine truth beyond an action that is simply a symbolic remembrance of His coming crucifixion is borne out not only in the institution passages, but in the interpretation of those passages by the apostles and later, by the early church.

I allow the possibility, but given the circumstances, the words used and the context I believe that the likelihood that Jesus was using a figure of speech far exceeds the likelihood that he was communicating a heavenly reality.

And yet this doesn’t become a view with wide acceptance until Wycliffe, Zwingli, his descendants in the Reformed church and the Anabaptists. It is not until the incarnational realities of the faith begin to be denied on the basis of anti-supernaturalism, rationalism, and erroneous Christology that the interpretation you put forward becomes any where near a dominant view. It still isn’t the dominant view taking all of the Christian churches into consideration.

The gospel explains that the disciples often did not catch Jesus’s meaning, however, the gospel gives the reader what he needs to know to catch Jesus’s meaning. Often the clarification is provided in the passage itself and sometimes it is found elsewhere. Where in the synoptics do we have a clarification that Jesus’s was communicating a heavenly reality at the Last Supper? W/o that clarification we should explore what the disciples would have understood, b/c if Jesus didn’t clarify the misunderstanding, then either the disciples got it right or their misunderstanding was not important.

But this is an argument from silence. For one, the text doesn’t give us what the disciples understood about His words. The text only indicates they followed His command to take, eat, take, drink. There is nothing in the text to support the view that it is symbolism unless you begin by inserting the word “represents” into the word “is.” If you do so, then there is evidence that it is representational.

Protestant? Would that be a Protestant from a communion which holds to a RP?..and if so, then what would be his bias? In any event, I’ll see your Kelly and raise you a Pelikan and a Van der Meer. Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:

To the best of my knowledge, Kelly was an Anglican. I am not sure of his views on the RP, though.

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence.

To say that Origen or Clement came close to a symbolic view may be true. I haven’t examined any of the writings that would support that so I will reserve judgment. Yet even allowing that they did, that would be two individuals compared to the dozens from the 2nd and 3rd century who were quite clear on the RP. And that is only taking the 2nd and 3rd centuries into consideration.

I don’t see how you can assert that it wasn’t a universal view (even if the understanding of the specifics, like later developments that led to transubstantiation were not monolithic) based on the fact that Origen and Clement may have sounded somewhat symbolic from time to time.

I am aware of the errors of anachronism and projecting either Roman or Protestantism onto the ECF’s (it’s done all the time, especially with tradition); but the clear view of that era of church history that remained in place for 1500 years is far from anachronistic.

I still don’t see a re-enactment specified

I should probably use a different term as it may lead you to think by re-enactment, I mean re-sacrifice. What I mean here is that the benefits of the crucifixion…life, forgiveness, and salvation, are given to us through the Supper.

No, what I am saying is that it is against the common sense (of the disciples) to interpret “this is my body” as communicating a heavenly reality that relies on a unknown and unfathomed manner of existence instead of understanding it as a figure of speech…they would need something to pull them to the “heavenly reality” meaning

Which would be the Holy Spirit. Which is the same means by which they went from cosmic dunces on theological topics to the founders of the post-ascension church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Triune Unity…

OK, because some times we Catholics begin to discuss comfort food or trips when a difficultl or relentless bizarre posting comes up…

I’m back. But won’t be able to post much. Going to retreat.

 

[Radical]

Then you would have to approach the words of Christ with the presupposition that the bread is symbolic of His body.

No, I think we are agreed that presuppositions should be avoided if at all possible…however, we both know that such doesn’t happen all that often. Linguists and theologians from the Reformed school of thought believe that the scriptures endorse a spiritual presence. Linguists and theologians from the (conservative) Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran schools of thought believe that the scriptures endorse a real bodily presence. Linguists and theologians from the Anabaptist school of thought believe that the scriptures do not endorse any unique presence. Occasionally, an expert will cross over the floor to another position, but that doesn’t happen all that often. More often it seems that a more liberal outlook is adopted which might cause a Catholic scholar (for example) to reinterpret the passages to acknowledge that they need not refer to a real presence or cause him to conclude that their advocation of a real presence is the result of later interpolations made after Greek influences took hold within the Church…at least that is the way it looks to me.

Unfortunately for the presupposition, the language doesn’t support it.

Having read your effort I am still not close to being convinced of this claim…perhaps you could direct me to what you believe is your “knock out punch”…or is it that you believe that the symbolic view has been beaten into submission by the sum total of the body shots? (please have, what you believe to be a knock out punch…I don’t want to have to read the whole thing again )

But you know that that is not my point in comparing the miracles. In any instance of a miracle, you have something that does not conform to the workings of nature.

understood, but this brings into focus my point. All the other miracles are preformed within nature…the Word becomes flesh by taking on our (natural) form. Water (a natural thing) becomes wine (another natural thing). Jesus’s (natural) body walked on (another natural thing) water. A dead body becomes a live body…with miracles God achieves within nature what nature can’t do on its own. When we come to the claim of a RP, however, we seem to have taken a step outside of nature into another realm (one might term it a heavenly reality…for lack of a better term). I am not saying that God can’t take a step outside of nature into another realm, but I am saying that the disciples’ experience with miracles wouldn’t have predisposed them to accept “this is my body” as a miracle outside of nature (b/c they hadn’t experienced such) instead of accepting it as a figure of speech (something that they had heard a lot of).

Yet in one instance, you insist that the workings of nature do not allow the text to say what it says because it would be beyond the reason or understanding of the disciples (or you).

I trust that above clarifies the distinction that I want to make between the miracles.

But you don’t expect Jesus to launch into a discourse on the Incarnation or Hypostatic Union. Yet you expect Him to do so in the institution of the Supper in order for it to be teaching the real presence. Why?

There is a reason we are having this debate wrt the RP and not the Inc or the HU. When one reads the gospels one reads reports of a conception, a birth of a male child, and a good bit of interaction (physical and verbal) between Jesus and others and between Jesus and his environment. I am not aware of any one who would think that those reports would be better understood as figures of speech. We also have reports that Jesus was God and that he came down from heaven. Given those reports some sort of incarnation and some sort of union seems absolutely necessary…it is not left to doubt that an incarnation and a union happened. With respect to the synoptic gospels and regarding the RP all we have is “this is my body”. Scripture does not report any interaction between this alleged “heavenly reality body” and Jesus or between it and some other person or between it and the enivironment. Now that is a heck of large theological pyramid to build atop one phrase…a phrase that can be understood as a figure. Now, I know you think you can find more in 1 Cor, but as yet I haven’t seen anything in that book that requires an RP.

 

[Radical]

And yet this doesn’t become a view with wide acceptance until Wycliffe, Zwingli, his descendants in the Reformed church and the Anabaptists. It is not until the incarnational realities of the faith begin to be denied on the basis of anti-supernaturalism, rationalism, and erroneous Christology that the interpretation you put forward becomes any where near a dominant view. It still isn’t the dominant view taking all of the Christian churches into consideration.

This is all about how one spins it. I might point out that the memorialist view can be found in the early church and it survived until secular gov’t granted the church hierarchy the ability to quash any dissension. The Lord’s Supper became a tool to keep the masses in line, for with the doctrine of a RP the bishops controlled something that the faithful could get nowhere else and that was vital for salvation. (Quite a useful doctrine, that). With freedom from repression by the hierarchy and with access to scripture the church proper (ie not the hierarchy) could finally free themselves from the additions made by pious imaginations and return to a purer gospel. The quick growth (despite severe persecution by the RPers) demonstrates the degree to which Jane and Joe in the pew already new that something was seriously amiss. As for numbers, those of the RP view are in the minority amongst those who identify themselves as Christian…now granted, among the devout Christians the RPers might still be a majority (hard to say, we haven’t got numbers in from China yet etc.) but given how the balance is shifting, it would seem to be only a matter of time…

But this is an argument from silence. For one, the text doesn’t give us what the disciples understood about His words. The text only indicates they followed His command to take, eat, take, drink. There is nothing in the text to support the view that it is symbolism unless you begin by inserting the word “represents” into the word “is.” If you do so, then there is evidence that it is representational.

This is the exact same objection I had with mikeledes…Yes, it says, “this is my body”. You think a reason to insert “representing” is required and I think a reason to find (in those words) a “heavenly reality by way of a real bodily presence” is required.

 

[Radical]

TU…that word limit is gonna mess with this next post so I’ll have to split it…please try to view it as one.

To say that Origen or Clement came close to a symbolic view may be true. I haven’t examined any of the writings that would support that so I will reserve judgment. Yet even allowing that they did, that would be two individuals compared to the dozens from the 2nd and 3rd century who were quite clear on the RP. And that is only taking the 2nd and 3rd centuries into consideration.

Your numbers are off at both ends. I would be interested in seeing a list of the dozens of RPers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries…But do me this favor, when you make your list don’t just include everyone who mentions the Eucharist. Google “real presence early church fathers” and you’ll get sites that list the Didache (of all things). They think that these sorts of words from the Didache show a belief in the RP:

• “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”*

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

I guess wrt the first they think the mention of “sacrifice” means that a bodily presence must be involved and I suppose that they aren’t aware that the ECFs consistently envisioned prayers as being a pure sacrifice. Wrt the second, it seems that they can’t envision that anything can be considered sacred unless a RP is involved…so, please do a better job with your list of “dozens” as I want to see only those who were “quite clear on the RP”. While I am mentioning my desire for only the clear ones, let’s consider this from Calvin (Inst. IV.17):

…so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life?

Now, if that had come from the pen of an ECF and you had nothing or little more, then I suspect you would label that ECF a clear RPer. Calvin, however, wasn’t and so what you need to do for your list of clear ones is to produce those ECFs that are actual, no “ifs, ands or buts” RPers…and not just using flowery words such as Calvin did in that quote. Let me give you a specific example. Ignatius is another ECF that the RPer sites typically list, but I am not prepared to concede that he belongs on your list. Here is my reasoning from another thread where these quotes from Ignatius were provided:

*“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).*

Here is how I replied there (with a bit of editing):

Did you note that Iggy says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love? Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a RP. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail.

 

[Radical]

The article I linked at the end of the last post is a very well written article…I encourage you to read it. The second to last paragraph reads:

I have developed five reasons why we might be able to say that Ignatius could have something short of real presence in mind in his letters. First, Ignatius presents too little information. At no time is he very clear, and when he seems clear he contradicts himself elsewhere. Such is the situation when Ad Smyrnaeans 7.1 is compared with Ad Trallians 8.1, Ad Philadephians 5.1, and Ad Romans 7.3. While the first reference equates the elements of the Eucharist with the flesh of Christ, the others equivocate and relate the elements with faith, gospel, and love respectively.<note: Smyrn. 7.1 “They abstain from the eucharist and prayer, since they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered on behalf of our sins and which the Father raised in his kindess. . .” (Ignatius, Smyrn. 7.1[Ehrman, LCL]) Trall. 8.1 “. . . You should therefore take up gentleness and create yourselves anew in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius, Trall. 7.1 [Ehrman, LCL]) Phld 5.1 “But your prayer to God will perfect me, so that I may attain to God by the lot that I have been mercifully assigned, when I flee to the gospel as to the flesh of Jesus and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the church.” (Ignatius, Phld. 5.1 [Ehrman, LCL])Rom. 7.3 “. . . I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, from the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love.” (Ignatius, Rom. 7.3 [Ehrman, LCL]).> Second, the equivocation mentioned above lends itself to great ambiguity that cannot be surmounted for a clearer understanding. While Schoedel and Kelly may think that all the real presence passages in Ignatius ought to be interpreted in light of Ad Smyrnaeans 7.1, this seems a bit arbitrary especially given its polemical context. Third, the similarity of Ignatius verbiage to John’s means that we have to enough of a difference between John’s gospel and Ignatius to make a distinctively different case. How we understand John will inevitably determine how we understand Ignatius. Fourth, there seems to be too much assumption as to the clarity of Ignatius argument. Roman Catholic ressourcement argues that Docetism in the context supports its assertion that Ignatius speaks rather clearly of real presence. This argument is only valid if we assume that Ignatius was advancing a valid argument. The case may actually be quite to the contrary given the circumstances of travel fatigue, passionate feelings, impending torture, and near death. Fifth, and finally, a definite instance of real presence in Ignatius seems a bit early for such clear statements if we take the development of doctrines seriously. This is by no means a hard and fast rule, but if difficulty is encountered with the Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen. How can we be more certain of Ignatius who predates them? Those who argue for a realistic Ignatius deny both Bauer and any view of doctrinal development. Indeed, they imply a very advanced pristine orthodoxy very early in the history of the church. If they do not allow this for the doctrines of Trinity and atonement, why should they for the Eucharist?

I don’t see how you can assert that it wasn’t a universal view (even if the understanding of the specifics, like later developments that led to transubstantiation were not monolithic) based on the fact that Origen and Clement may have sounded somewhat symbolic from time to time.

b/c they weren’t alone. Remember, Pelikan was describing a broad spectrum with Clement and Origen at one end. The other end would/could be the clear RPers…it wasn’t that everybody else was an RPer. Remember also that Van der Meer saw no RP in Augustine and I surely wouldn’t agree to you suggesting that Tertullian, Cyprian or Eusebius were RPers. So, with respect, I believe that your “dozens” is a gross inflation. Further, there were more than a mere two in the Non-RP camp. I hope the foregoing gives you a good idea as to why I view your pegging of the early situation as: dozens on the RP side vs. perhaps 2 on the symbolic side…as being exceedingly optimistic on your part

God Bless you!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Having read your effort I am still not close to being convinced of this claim…perhaps you could direct me to what you believe is your “knock out punch”…or is it that you believe that the symbolic view has been beaten into submission by the sum total of the body shots? (please have, what you believe to be a knock out punch…I don’t want to have to read the whole thing again )

I wouldn’t rely on a knock out punch argument or specific text. Rather, a combination of the texts as well as the understanding of the church about those texts for 1500 years.

understood, but this brings into focus my point. All the other miracles are preformed within nature…the Word becomes flesh by taking on our (natural) form. Water (a natural thing) becomes wine (another natural thing). Jesus’s (natural) body walked on (another natural thing) water. A dead body becomes a live body…with miracles God achieves within nature what nature can’t do on its own. When we come to the claim of a RP, however, we seem to have taken a step outside of nature into another realm (one might term it a heavenly reality…for lack of a better term). I am not saying that God can’t take a step outside of nature into another realm, but I am saying that the disciples’ experience with miracles wouldn’t have predisposed them to accept “this is my body” as a miracle outside of nature (b/c they hadn’t experienced such) instead of accepting it as a figure of speech (something that they had heard a lot of).

Well, I am not sure that that is totally accurate. While the real presence is outside of the natural order, in that, it contains the presence of Christ, it doesn’t do anything “outside the ordinary” in that, His body and blood exist alongside a common, every day element. While it’s true that Jesus’ body was purely natural, it also existed “along side” His divine nature. I don’t see a great difference between the two. Also, at the resurrection, we see His glorified body do things that a non-glorified body could not do. Appearing and reappearing would have been outside the experience of the disciples as well.

There is a reason we are having this debate wrt the RP and not the Inc or the HU. When one reads the gospels one reads reports of a conception, a birth of a male child, and a good bit of interaction (physical and verbal) between Jesus and others and between Jesus and his environment. I am not aware of any one who would think that those reports would be better understood as figures of speech. We also have reports that Jesus was God and that he came down from heaven. Given those reports some sort of incarnation and some sort of union seems absolutely necessary…it is not left to doubt that an incarnation and a union happened. With respect to the synoptic gospels and regarding the RP all we have is “this is my body”. Scripture does not report any interaction between this alleged “heavenly reality body” and Jesus or between it and some other person or between it and the enivironment. Now that is a heck of large theological pyramid to build atop one phrase…a phrase that can be understood as a figure. Now, I know you think you can find more in 1 Cor, but as yet I haven’t seen anything in that book that requires an RP.

What I was responding to here was your comment about the understanding of the disciples as well as Jesus’ not explaining to them, to where they could understand that Jesus was holding His presence and distributing it to them. My point here is not about the HU, but rather, that you do not expect Jesus to explain the supernatural workings of His actions to men like Nicodemus, who could only see a regular Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi explaining to Nicodemus that He had descended from heaven. Yet you seem to indicate that He would have had to at the institution of the Supper in order for it to be teaching the real presence.

 

[Radical]

To the best of my knowledge, Kelly was an Anglican.

yah, I think he was high at the time that he wrote it

Rather, a combination of the texts as well as the understanding of the church about those texts for 1500 years.

regarding this claim that keeps resurfacing:

a) you already know that I wouldn’t agree that you present THE understanding of the church for the first few centuries.

b) around 1050 Berengar tried to provide a different understanding, but was forced to recant…a monopoly that is maintained by force and intimidation isn’t to be valued for its lack of challengers

Well, I am not sure that that is totally accurate. While the real presence is outside of the natural order, in that, it contains the presence of Christ, it doesn’t do anything “outside the ordinary” in that, His body and blood exist alongside a common, every day element. While it’s true that Jesus’ body was purely natural, it also existed “along side” His divine nature. I don’t see a great difference between the two.

Well if you were saying that only his divine nature was present alongside the bread, a common every day element then there would be a consistency…but you are claiming a bodily presence along side the bread which is also bodily/physically present.

Also, at the resurrection, we see His glorified body do things that a non-glorified body could not do. Appearing and reappearing would have been outside the experience of the disciples as well.

…and when he disappeared he was still considered to be bodily present?..or was it, if we can’t see him, then he isn’t bodily present?

What I was responding to here was your comment about the understanding of the disciples as well as Jesus’ not explaining to them, to where they could understand that Jesus was holding His presence and distributing it to them. My point here is not about the HU, but rather, that you do not expect Jesus to explain the supernatural workings of His actions to men like Nicodemus, who could only see a regular Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi explaining to Nicodemus that He had descended from heaven. Yet you seem to indicate that He would have had to at the institution of the Supper in order for it to be teaching the real presence.

With Nicodemus Christ actually said things such as the Son of Man came from heaven and that God sent his Son into the world…if we are comparing and expecting something similar then somewhere, in one of the institution passages, we should find something such as: “This is my body. Although it can’t be seen, my body is miraculously present with the bread to be eaten by those who believe in me.” The metaphysics of the presence is not important…but at least we should find a claim to its presence on par with the detail of the claim that the Son was sent from heaven. It is a heck of a theological edifice to build on what looks like a figure of speech to so many.