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

[RnMomof7]

False. In the Mass, JESUS offers himself to the Father. Jesus is the priest and victim.

He already did that Arthur ..on Calvary. He does not need to do it over and over ..

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him

The OLD covenant has been replaced by the NEW covenant.

I would be interested in what difference a Roman sees in the Old and the New Covenants

[RnMomof7]

Bingo !!!

[RnMomof7]

Do you eat the Passover lamb? Do you eat pork? Do you sacrifice animals to God?

No only Catholics continue to make sacrifices

Why not? You just said that Jesus himself could not change the Mosaic Law.

Ohhh Arthur ...The entire OT is about Christ.. He FULFILLED that law..every jot and tittle of it.. ...He did not change it

The only way to be saved is to keep the law PERFECTLY, and only Christ could do that.
That is the gift of the cross...His imputed righteousness

[RnMomof7]

The MORAL law is unchangeable. The Jewish RITUAL law could and did change.

Arthur what is the purpose of the Moral law?

[RnMomof7]

1Co 11:1
¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

...Paul was Born again .. now in the image of God

Jas 3:9
Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Written by a saved James.. to a saved church

. but scripture is clear..man needs to be born again.. That is why we needed a 2nd Adam

1John 3:10

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Ephesians 2: 1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 5:1-5 Adam was made in the image of God; but when fallen he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail, wretched, and mortal, like himself. Not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul, but a sinner like himself. This was the reverse of that Divine likeness in which Adam was made; having lost it, he could not convey it to his seed. Adam lived, in all, 930 years; and then died, according to the sentence passed upon him, To dust thou shalt return. Though he did not die in the day he ate forbidden fruit, yet in that very day he became mortal. Then he began to die; his whole life after was but a reprieve, a forfeited, condemned life; it was a wasting, dying life. Man's life is but dying by degrees.

[CA Conservative]

Why not? You just said that Jesus himself could not change the Mosaic Law.

He did not change the Mosaic law - he fulfilled the Mosaic Law at the the Cross. Until His death on the Cross, the Mosaic Law was still in force - with His death, the law was fulfilled, the veil of the Temple was torn, and man was no longer under the law but under grace.

But at the Last Supper, they were still under the Law. You really need to study these things more...

[CA Conservative]

The prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim existed for a certain reason—that the victim’s life belonged to God. That reason ceased to exist when the victim was no longer an animal, but Jesus himself. The life of Jesus belongs to US. He gave it to us.

And yet you can provide no support for your position other than the tradition of men and your own opinion...

[redleghunter]

>>But we are all sinners and fall into sin again and again. What do we do then?<<

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom

[Arthur McGowan]

Are you seriously asserting that Scripture never says that Jesus gave his life for us??? Try the Gospel of John, and every letter Paul wrote.

[Arthur McGowan]

The purpose of the Moral Law is to enlighten us as to how to behave in such a way that it is possible for us to grow in charity.

[CA Conservative]

Are you seriously asserting that Scripture never says that Jesus gave his life for us???

Where on Earth did you get that? Are you reading and comprehension skills that bad? I never once suggested that Jesus didn't die for us. Put down the crack pipe and step away slowly, sir...

[Arthur McGowan]

The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper. The passing away of the Old Covenant was COMPLETED when Jesus says so on the Cross.

Jesus knew that he was going to die, and how. He SAYS he is instituting a sacrament of the New Covenant. Notice that JESUS SAYS “Take this and drink. This is the chalice of my blood of the NEW COVENANT.” See? NEW COVENANT. The night BEFORE the Crucifixion.

You really should try reading the Bible sometime. In it, Jesus says a lot of interesting things.

[Arthur McGowan]

Are you saying that they had to abstain from the blood of animals..but human blood was ok?

No. I'm saying that they weren't even THINKING about anybody drinking human blood.

It would have been necessary for Christians to be murdering people in order to have human blood to drink? Do you think the Council of Jerusalem would be okay with that?

[Arthur McGowan]

Right. And Jesus replied to John the Baptist: “Baaaah! Baaaah!”

[boatbums]

In other words, to REJECT drinking Christ's blood is to say that, in his sacrifice, Christ did NOT give his life TO US as a gift. To refuse to drink the blood of Jesus is to CLING TO THE OLD COVENANT AND THE OLD SACRIFICES, refusing to accept the life Jesus has given to us.

We believe as many early Christian leaders that it is by BELIEVING in Christ that we are "drinking" His blood and "eating" His flesh when we partake of the Lord's Supper. This should be more than obvious seeing that the ACTUAL elements of bread and wine DO NOT CHANGE in any physical, observable way but we eat and drink to express our faith in what Christ did for us as well as the recognition of the body of Christ of which we are all part. What's so hard about just admitting the truth - it is a SPIRITUAL event? Nobody drinks REAL blood, nobody eats REAL human flesh - it has ALWAYS been symbolic.

No matter how many times RCs post threads boasting of their superior sacrament to that of non-Catholic Christians, the truth is that NOBODY has ever had to drink human blood and eat human flesh in observance of Christ's example. It has always been a spiritual exercise and recognition of the once-for-all physical reality of Christ's atonement.

[roamer_1]

The MORAL law is unchangeable. The Jewish RITUAL law could and did change.

No. Not one jot or tittle. There is no distinction within Torah denoting a division between a moral and ritual law. Torah is Torah, and Torah is forever.

[roamer_1]

The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper. The passing away of the Old Covenant was COMPLETED when Jesus says so on the Cross.

Try again. Heb 8:13 Says the old covenant waxes old and is nigh onto passing away ... well after the cross. Elsewhere the time of it's passing is associated with heaven and earth passing away.

[Springfield Reformer]

I assume you reject the Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran view of the Eucharist.

A reasonable assumption.  Except it's not that simple. While any view that holds to corporeal realism in the Lord's Supper is a serious deviation from Biblical truth, the Lutherans don't engage in the very late practice of eucharistic adoration.  This is because the Lutherans have no basis for worship of the Eucharistic elements per se. Sacramental Union does not transform the elements in terms of substance.  Rather, it puts the sign and the thing signified in a special relationship to each other, while keeping creature distinct from Creator, thus giving no occasion to even consider an idolatrous view of the elements.  All this runs in their favor.  As far as I am aware, Christianity in all its forms existed for over a thousand years before anyone thought to bend the knee of worship to the wafer as if it were, in itself, Christ bodily present.  

Do you believe
1.those who receive the elements with faith can receive the actual body and blood of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament (Calvin: Receptionism), or

Receptionism is a term I never heard used in Reformed circles, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Baptist or otherwise.  I did discover the term is more commonly used among Anglicans, and they are, or at least were at their inception, Catholics sans pope.  I can make no association of the term with Calvin. That doesn't mean there is no such association.  Only that I've never heard of it.

As far as what the Reformed do hold, I believe it is most often called Spiritual Presence, the idea that the communicant is partaking of the body and blood, but that it is by operation of the Holy Spirit drawing the communicant into the presence of Christ in Heaven.  Thus the entire transaction is spiritual, orchestrated by God, not the human administrator, and involves no change of the symbolic elements, other than their meaning.

This is a position I have difficulty seeing in Scripture, but as it provides no occasion for idolatry of the elements, it is no barrier to Christian fellowship.  It is technically classed as a Real Presence position (spiritual is still real), but as that term has largely been hijacked by the Aristotelian materialists, it is perhaps less confusing to designate it as Spiritual Presence.

2.there is no form of any physical or spiritual presence of Jesus in the bread and wine; it is just a remembrance (Zwingli: Memorialism)

With one important correction:  Jesus is always present in a most real way in the fellowship of His Ecclesia. We are His body.  How could He not be present, especially in those moments when we reflect on His sacrifice for us? With that adjustment in mind, this is the position that seems to best accord with Scripture.  John 6 is not a teaching about the Eucharist.  It is a teaching about Jesus, and His capacity to satisfy our spiritual need, if we believe in Him.  Each of the other passages that directly address the Lord's Supper all square with the actual, stated purpose of the Lord's Supper,  which is to remember Him, and proclaim His death till He comes, and no Scripture supports extending that purpose to include the granting by ritual of saving grace.  Not that there is no grant of grace.  There is.  But it is initiated by God Himself, made manifest by faith in Christ, and not ever in consequence of the consumption or worship of man-made food items.  

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

RCs point to their magisterium as the solution for having to engage in interpretation, and then show how they can interpret their interpreter.

[Arthur McGowan]

You have the time frame completely wrong. Heb. 8:13 is referring to the time of the PROPHET (who has just been quoted at length), not the time of the author of Hebrews.

How could the Old Law conceivably be “close to passing away” when Hebrews was WRITTEN? It was GONE when the veil in the temple was torn open.

It helps to THINK, rather than just scouting around through Scripture looking for phrases that look like convenient weapons.