Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | May 23, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

[Elsie]

Tell me where in the gospel Jesus said it was okay to commit adultery SYMBOLICALLY.

Can I show where He said, "Go and sin no more."?

[Arthur McGowan]

You are, of course, ignoring my point.

You don’t deny that Jesus said, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”

You say that the drinking of Jesus’ ACTUAL blood would be a sin, and therefore, the Eucharist must be a mere symbol.

You say that the words are symbolic.

Fine. What that means is that Jesus is telling the apostles to perform a ritual that SYMBOLIZES A SIN.

I asked for any other examples of Jesus recommending that we COMMIT a SIN SYMBOLICALLY.

You ignored my point, and pointed out that Jesus was, in general, opposed to sin. Duh.

[Arthur McGowan]

You say that the Eucharist is a symbol, BECAUSE drinking the blood of Jesus would be a sin.

But you can’t deny that Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink, all of you..This is the chalice of my blood...”

So you are defending the proposition that Jesus commanded the apostles to carry out a ritual that SYMBOLIZES A SINFUL ACTION, drinking his blood.

I asked you to point to other examples of Jesus’ commanding us to SIN SYMBOLICALLY, like a ritual that SYMBOLIZES ADULTERY, or SYMBOLIZES IDOLATRY.

You ignored what I said, and instead ranted some more against Eucharistic realism, and ranted some more about how I have been stuffed full of Catholic propaganda.

Here’s an idea: How about READING what I wrote, and RESPONDING to it rationally?

[roamer_1]

ALL of us. See John.

[Springfield Reformer]

According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.

Arthur, that appears to me to be a misrepresentation of CA's argument.  That is not a consequence of his position, but yours.  His position, that Jesus is using metaphor, resolves the dilemma.  Especially because a dietary restriction is what is known in the law as a "thing indifferent," versus a moral prohibition, such as adultery or lying.  With a moral prohibition, there is an evil that is occurring that is inherent to the act, the act in moral law encompassing the mind as well as the body.  

But there is no inherent moral issue in eating or not eating a particular substance.  Paul makes that clear in his discussion of meat offered to idols.  Therefore, there is no way to "symbolize" moral sin (I shudder to think of how that might look) without actually engaging in the sin itself, because the mental component would be there, and as we know from the Sermon on the Mount, that is sufficient to produce real guilt.  No such mental aspect exists in consuming blood.  The sin cannot be committed except by doing it in physical terms.  Therefore doing it by symbol is not a violation of the law.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

>>He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.<<

Not any more then Ezekiel was symbolically eating the physical scroll. I don't think it "symbolizes" anything. Christ said to do it as a "remembrance" just as the passover meal was a "remembrance".

It's God's word that feeds us. Jesus is the word. As Ezekiel did we "eat" as in "take in" or "internalize" the word of God. He didn't literally eat the physical scroll. As Ezekiel we feast on the information which feeds our souls. Just as manna in the desert sustained the Israelites so God's word sustains us today.

Christ's death on that cross and the shedding of His blood is the atonement for our sins. We are redeemed by the shed blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19). Peter wrote that election is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). Do Catholics also sprinkle real blood? Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. It refers to atonement. To eat His flesh and to drink His blood means to believe on Him and "eat" the words and internalize them.

\ Just as the Israelites commemorated or remembered the passover so we commemorate or remember the broken body and shed blood of Christ for our atonement. Christ said "this do in remembrance of me". He didn't say "repeat doing this to me".

Christ also said He would again drink of the vine in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25). Would you say He is once again going to drink the blood?

As I have said often. Jesus lived as an observant Jew, keeping the Torah or Laws of Moses and teaching others to do the same. Jews were strictly forbidden to consume blood or even to eat meat that had not had the blood properly drained and removed (Lev. 7:26-27). Had He condoned the eating of blood and done so at the last supper He would have been breaking the law and would have been unworthy to be the forever atonement for our sins.

Now, you love to ask questions but haven't answered mine. We know that death is the result of sin. Christ died for our sins having "taken our sins upon Him". Whose sins did Mary die for?

[CynicalBear]

>>You say that the words are symbolic.<<

You like that new tactic don't you. It ain't working!!!!

[CA Conservative]

Very well said, but it will fall on deaf ears.

As you and I know, the wine, being red, is to remind us of the blood He shed for our sins. The bread being broken reminds us of His body being broken for us. When we take these elements during Communion, we are to meditate on these things, to remember the tremendous sacrifice He made on our behalf.

Since Communion is not what saves us, it is not necessary to believe that the wine and the bread become the literal body and blood of Christ - we are commanded to partake in Communion as a memorial, a remembrance of the price He paid. We are never told how often we should do this, but as often as we do, we are do it in remembrance of Him.

[Springfield Reformer]

He who has ears to hear, let him hear ...

[Arthur McGowan]

^^He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.^^

Not any more then Ezekiel was symbolically eating the physical scroll. I don't think it "symbolizes" anything. Christ said to do it as a "remembrance" just as the passover meal was a "remembrance".

If that's what you think, then you are the first person in the history of the world who thinks that the Seder is not symbolic.

Jesus actually DID SAY that the chalice he was holding was filled with his blood. He told the apostles to drink his blood.

You say that drinking blood was a sin, and that drinking the wine at a "communions service" is symbolic.

Thus, according to you, Jesus was telling the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED committing the sin of drinking his blood.

You have not answered why Jesus would command a ritual action that SYMBOLIZES a sinful action.

[CynicalBear]

>>You have not answered why Jesus would command a ritual action that SYMBOLIZES a sinful action.<<

You haven't answered the my question about who's sins Mary died for.

[FourtySeven]

I think the following addresses and rebuffs this "If we drink the actual blood of Jesus then we sin according to the OT" claim. Some of the points there Father already made but there are some others there that haven't been considered in your discussion/debate so far.

Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

Also two points made there haven't been addressed in your debate even though Father made the original point to whit:

When Jesus declared all foods clean, it took effect immediately, not "after the Cross". There is nothing in the text that necessarily says otherwise.

Secondly, even a symbolic act that symbolizes something evil is itself evil, so even if the Eucharist is meant to be just a symbol, it would still be blasphemous to engage in an act that would break an OT law, even if it's just symbolic.

To say otherwise is akin to saying, "it's not really sinful to dip a Crucifix in urine, after all that's not really Jesus on the Cross its just a symbol".

The above two points may be contended further but speaking for myself I don't see a reason to respond to any post unless all points (in the linked article) are addressed (and even then maybe no response is necessary if the only "rebuttal" is something to the effect of "I don't agree with that interpretation of Scripture").

[Arthur McGowan]

In the book of Revelation, we find liturgical action, centered on an altar. Among the features of the liturgical action and the community carrying it out, we see the following:

Sunday worship: 1:10
A HIGH PRIEST: 1:13
an altar: 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:8
PRIESTS: 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
VESTMENTS: 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
CONSECRATED CELIBACY: 14:4
lamp stands: 1:12; 2:5
penitence: chapters 2 and 3
INCENSE: 5:8; 8:3-5
the book, or scroll: 5:1
the EUCHARISTIC HOST: 2:17
CHALICES: 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
the SIGN OF THE CROSS: 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
the Gloria: 15:3-4
the Alleluia: 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts: 11:12
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus: 4:8
the Great Amen: 19:4; 22:21
the Agnus Dei: 5:6 and throughout
the prominence of the VIRGIN MARY: 12:1-6; chapters 13-17
INTERCESSION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS: 5:8; 6:9-10; 8:3-4
DEVOTION TO SAINT MICHAEL: 12:7
antiphonal chant: 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
readings from Scripture: chapters 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
the priesthood of the faithful: 1:6; 20:6
CATHOLICITY OR UNIVERSALITY: 7:9
silent contemplation: 8:1
the marriage supper of the Lamb: 19:9, 17

What is the explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church has or practices all these things contained in Scripture, while Protestant or “Reformed” Christians do not have or practice so many of these things contained in Scripture?

In other words: Are there “Christians” who disregard much of what Scripture says are features of Christian worship and life?

[CA Conservative]

You don’t deny that Jesus said, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”

Arthur, the one thing you continually ignore is that immediately after giving the disciples the cup of wine and saying, "this is My blood of the new testament...", Jesus then said, "I will drink no more of this wine (fruit of the vine) until I drink it new in the Kingdom of God." So even Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as wine AFTER giving to the disciples.

Furthermore, in John 16, AFTER the Last Supper when Jesus was talking to the disciples He told them, "These things I have spoken unto you in proverbs (figures of speech); but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs." So Jesus plainly tells His disciples He has been using metaphors and proverbs with them.

Care to provide a Scriptural rebuttal to the very words of Christ?

[Arthur McGowan]

I must not have seen that question.

Mary didn’t die for anybody’s sins, At least, not as those words are applied to Jesus. Nobody ever said she did, so I don’t see why you ask.

Did Martin Luther King, Jr., or Edith Stein, or Maximilian Kolbe die for anybody’s sins? In SOME sense, they certainly did.

[CA Conservative]

Where did Jesus declare all foods clean? I remember Paul making that statement, but where did Jesus say that?

[CynicalBear]

>>Mary didn’t die for anybody’s sins, At least, not as those words are applied to Jesus. Nobody ever said she did, so I don’t see why you ask.<<

Catholics claim Mary was sinless. Christ died for the sins of us. Did Mary die for her own sins or the sins of others.

[CynicalBear]

>>Did Martin Luther King, Jr., or Edith Stein, or Maximilian Kolbe die for anybody’s sins?<<

Yes, their own. The wages of sin is death. "all men once to die" and all that.

[FourtySeven]

Mark 7:18-19

[CynicalBear]

I don’t guess I have ever seen a larger compilation of the corruption of scripture by Catholicism then you just posted. It starts with your first point. Not once in scripture does “day of the Lord” refer to a single day and for sure not Sunday.