Posted on 12/28/2008 8:28:44 AM PST by Gamecock
Very well said, I completely agree.
I do remember a discussion about Baptism and that is where I first heard the term "means of grace" and I am assuming (admittedly a jump) that if it is applied to Baptism it is applied to the other ordinance.
See over time I knew you would join us Baptists. ;0
Baptists believe the LORD is with us during the Lord's Supper, but the bread and wine do not transform nor is grace imparted to the believer because they partake of them.
reqire for all values of require where require = rewrite.
In terms of the sacramental union, it surely is. One may use the terms bread/body and wine/blood interchangeably, as we see Paul doing in 1 Cor. 11. That does not require us to admit that Christ is physically located in the sacramental elements of bread and wine unless one is given to force more into the text than what is there. Imagery and figures of speech were part of Christ’s method of communication (cf. John 10:9; 15:1). "I am the bread of life" is no less art and imagery than "I am the sheep gate".
The Romanist view requires us to suspend the rules of logic and common sense (Christ’s intact resurrected body is co-located with the Father in heaven, not scattered amongst a million wafers simultaneously by some divine Star Trek transporter gone awry). When Christ said "this is my body" His actual body (which was standing before them and not in the host) was qualitatively different from the resurrection body He enjoys today. So, by Rome’s standards, it must be admitted that very nature of the first Supper was qualitatively different from all subsequent ones since Christ’s body was changed at the resurrection, and not before. The first Supper must have been a fraudulent one by Rome’s standard.
He told His disciples, "It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." It is the Holy Spirit that brings Christ and His benefits to His people. Christ is truly albeit spiritually present in the sacrament by the agency of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I, too, vaguely recollect that Luther (perhaps as a holdover from his years as a monk) held that baptism was a means of conferring some form of grace on children. Apparently, this raised the likelihood of the child listening to the gospel or some such thing. Whatever his position, I would respectfully disagree that any work, any incantation, any act at all could affect the election of a human.
Along this line (even if it is a stretch), you would think that those Protestants holding to “an age of accountability” and the need for free-willed “acceptance of Christ” would actually support abortion. Logic holds that this would guarantee the unborn a spot in heaven, whereas if we allow anyone to be born and grow up, they risk their own rejection and, thus, eternal damnation.
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Westminster Confession of Faith; Chapter 27:3)Like public worship and prayer, the sacrament are means of grace. Unlike worship or prayer, the sacraments are tangible, carnal expressions of God’s gracious work among His people. By the Lord’s Supper in particular we are truly nourished in our spirit to continue in His presence and in His work. The supper is not a mere memorial, but offers real spiritual benefit and blessing to the children of God.
When discussing beliefs I think we should try to be accurate as possible. Catholics do not believe the mass is a recreation of the crucifixion and as such being offered up over and over but rather that the crucifixion was a singular event in time and also was an eternal event outside of time. And the mass is the mystical union of the faithful throughout the ages made present in that one moment of time of the crucifixion.
Just to pick on the Arminians briefly, they could logically extend this condition all the way out to the so-called "age of accountability" subsequent to their birth. Until that point in time, a child is free from all actual sin and incapable of unbelief, so they are, by definition, bound for heaven. If they should die before that mythical age, so much the better. The only tricky question is, at what age do people acquire the ability to exercise genuine unbelief?
I think the early Reformers only rarely fully overcame the conditioning they had received as youths.
At Marburg in 1529 Luther and Zwingle debated the subject of the Lord's Supper and many were converted to the position that Zwingle debated. Among those he converted was Francis Lambert.
Francis Lambert, the principle theologian of Hesse,...(Miller's Church History pg 785)
Luther always fell back to his belief "Hoc est corpus meum", I believe that His body is really there. Zwingle argued that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
I had never thought of that.
Is there something in the wine & bread?
Christ's sacrifice was given "once for all," and that was on the cross see Hebrews 9 and 10, especially Hebrews 9:24-28: … The idea that Christ's "once for all" sacrifice on the cross was repeatedly "re-presented" in the Lord's Supper was rejected by all the major branches of the Reformation.
Catholics do not believe the mass is a recreation of the crucifixion and as such being offered up over and over but rather that the crucifixion was a singular event in time and also was an eternal event outside of time.
I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism and learned it this way:
Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?I believe the article is accurate in its portrayal of Roman beliefs. The Roman mass is an unbloody yet continual repeat of the sacrifice of the cross. Christ is continually victimized in the mass.The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.
>>Could you enlighten us as to the specific “abuses” taught by the Catholic Church...which most every Christian believed for 1500 years??<<
And why not? They couldn’t read the Bible so they had to trust a priest. Once people started reading the Bible they looked at some of their own churches teaching and went, “huh?!”
Heck, it happens to this day in ALL churches.
My wife was Catholic most of her life. Her family is as “diehard” Catholic as I have ever seen. The communion is a very simple thing. It is to be done as a reminder of what Christ did and why he did it. It is so simple it should be impossible to muck up and complicate. But the Catholic church did it.
Jesus clearly said in Luke: And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
It is a symbol to be used as a reminder. It’s pretty clear actually. And the bread can be a cracker, and the wine can be grape juice. Symbols are like that.
The cool thing is that our family can do it after every single meal if we so choose.
Yet all the magisterial Reformers, including Zwingli, continue to practice infant baptism, as the Lutherans, Reformed, and Presbyterians do to this day.
You are relying on an English translation of the Greek Text. The translation is not necessarily accurate. In fact, it is my understanding that the word that is translated as "remembrance" has a much greater meaning than a mere memorial. If I am not mistaken, the term is "kornneia" or something close and it means to be present or to re-present. Some Greek Scholar out there might expand on what I have written.
This should, by all rights, compel a person to look for support of such position in the Scriptures and wonder over the conspicuous silence. Yet, we know God manages their misunderstanding. Good thing that error-free theology is not a prerequisite of election.
A great example of how the Reformers were human and should not be blindly followed. Anything that they taught should always be measured by Scripture. In their era, the populace was only beginning to get the opportunity to read Scripture for themselves.
Jn: 6: Christ said: I am the bread of life....If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
They understood Christ to be speaking literally. Why did not Christ "correct" them and say he was only speaking figuratively?
They admit this is a hard saying who can hear it.
And he let's them walk away:
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
"Christ’s intact resurrected body is co-located with the Father in heaven, not scattered amongst a million wafers simultaneously by some divine Star Trek transporter gone awry"
You seem to think that God cannot be in different places at one time.
In the book of Exodus, God, (who is in heaven), says to his people on earth: Ex 25:8 " And they shall make me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in the midst of them."
Also in Mt 28: 20, Jesus says: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."..How can he be with his disciples and be in heaven at the same time?
God is beyond human logic, and limitations, he can do whatever he pleases and be wherever he pleases...
Q. 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?A. Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ.
(a) Matt.26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor.10:16,17; 1 Cor.11:23-25; 1 Cor.12:13.
Q. 76. What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood of Christ?
A. It is not only to embrace with believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin, and life eternal; (a) but also, besides that, to become more and more united to his sacred body, (b) by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven (c) and we on earth, are notwithstanding "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone" (d) and that we live, and are governed forever by one spirit, (e) as members of the same body are by one soul.
(a) John 6:35,40,47-54. (b) John 6:55,56. (c) Col.3:1; Acts 3:21; 1 Cor.11:26. (d) Eph.3:16; Eph.5:29,30,32; 1 Cor.6:15,17,19; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13; John 14:23. (e) John 6:56-58; John 15:1-6; Eph.4:15,16.
Q. 77. Where has Christ promised that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and bleed, as they eat of this broken bread, and drink of this cup?
A. In the institution of the supper, which is thus expressed: (a) "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and: said: eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor.11:23-26. This promise is repeated by the holy apostle Paul, where he says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Cor.10:16,17.
(a) 1 Cor.11:23-25; Matt.26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor.10:16,17.
Q. 78. Do then the bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ?
A. Not at all: (a) but as the water in baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, neither is the washing away of sin itself, being only the sign and confirmation thereof appointed of God; (b) so the bread in the Lord's supper is not changed into the very body of Christ; (c) though agreeably to the nature and properties of sacraments, (d) it is called the body of Christ Jesus.
(a) Matt.26:29. (b) Eph.5:26; Tit.3:5. (c) Mark 14:24; 1 Cor.10:16,17,26-28. (d) Gen.17:10,11,14,19; Exod.12:11,13,27,43,48; Exod.13:9; 1 Pet.3:21; 1 Cor.10:1-4.
Q. 79. Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"?
A. Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God.
(a) John 6:51,55. (b) 1 Cor.10:16,17.
Q. 80. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?
A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; (a) and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, (b) who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, (c) and will there be worshipped by us. (d) But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry. (e)
(a) Heb.7:27; Heb.9:12,25-28; Heb.10:10,12-14; John 19:30; Matt.26:28; Luke 22:19,20. (b) 1 Cor.6:17; 1 Cor.10:16. (c) Heb.1:3; Heb.8:1,2; John 20:17. (d) Matt.6:20,21; John 4:21-24; Luke 24:52; Acts 7:55,56; Col.3:1; Philip.3:20,21; 1 Thess.1:10; Heb.9:6-10. (e) Heb.9:26; Heb.10:12,14,19-31.
Q. 81. For whom is the Lord's supper instituted?
A. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves. (a)
(a) 1 Cor.10:19-22; 1 Cor.11:28,29.
Amen!
We are truly blessed to live in a time when the Bible is assessable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.