I had an email conversation recently with Paul Pavao (Shammah) about baptism which led to this conversation about the Eucharist:
Jennie,
The Lord's Supper is a lot harder than baptism because there are less Scriptures on it. Not only that, but I'm firmly convinced that the Scriptures that do mention the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion are often at least partially symbolic.
My argument would be that in John 6, when Jesus says to eat his body and drink his blood, he is talking in the present tense, not in the future. They were already supposed to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Since that didn't mean biting him, it's obviously symbolic.
In fact, Jesus sort of says so in Jn. 6:35: "I am the Bread of Life; he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes in me will never thirst."
Does this not strongly suggest that coming to him is eating of him and believing in him is drinking of him?
It's just a chapter later when he says, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of belly rivers of living water will flow" (7:37-38).
Now, keep in mind that I am aware that Ignatius, a man chosen by the apostle John to lead the church in Antioch, says that communion is "the medicine of immortality, the antidote which prevents us from dying, and a cleansing remedy driving away evil so that we should live in God through Jesus Christ."
He adds that the gnostics don't eat the Eucharist because they don't agree that it's the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
The fact is, none of us like the priestly hocus pocus [hoc est corpus] that goes on in the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that if the Catholic Church were the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and if its Eucharist were the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, then there ought to be a lot of sick and dead Catholics (1 Cor. 11:30). The fact is, though, that the Catholic Church has awful fruit, it is not the church, its communion is not the body of Christ, and its priestly hocus pocus is as false as it seems to be.
But ...
I've never met a free Christian that didn't love the idea that the bread of communion is "the medicine of immortality."
Think about it. If communion can make an unworthy partaker ill or dead, shouldn't it be able to communicate grace to the worthy partaker?
Like baptism, there's no indication that anyone considered the Lord's Supper to be purely symbolic until at least the Reformation. Zwingli did not believe it to be the actual body of Christ, but I don't think he considered it purely symbolic, either.
However, there's so much more to be said on the subject of the Lord's Supper that it makes me tired to think about it.
For example, the word "communion" is a silly word. The Greek word it comes from is koinonia, the word for fellowship. If we want to speak English, then we ought to translate 1 Cor 10:16 should be translated, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"
I don't believe this is referring to physical eating. I believe it is referring to the fellowship of the church. The blood of Christ not only forgives sin and cleanses us from our weaknesses, but it also gives us fellowship with one another (1 Jn. 1:7-9).
Paul also entirely puts the context of the Lord's Supper into the fellowship of the church. We have discern the Lord's body, he says. What was he rebuking them for? He was rebuking them for not taking care of each other. Some went hungry, others were drunk. This is what it means to not discern the Lord's body. That intense self-examination people go through is not what God is after. He wants us to eat and drink as participants in the fellowship of the body of Christ, joined to one another by the body and blood of Christ.
So I don't think the Eucharist is purely symbolic, but I believe the effect of it is spiritual. There's no physical transformation. That's ridiculous, and it could be tested by science, anyway.
I believe all of God's "symbols" are not mere symbols. They convey power.
Baptism does something because it is, as you say, an act of obedience to the Word of God. It is our response to the Gospel, the answer to God from a good conscience or the appeal to God for a good conscience. Either way, it was meant to be our "sinner's prayer" or our initial act of obedience.
The Eucharist, too, is both an act of fellowship for the body and a meal that brings grace from heaven, the product of our faith and worship, not the product of the bread and wine itself. The bread and wine is to remember him, but in remembering him, he responds. God inhabits the praises of his people.
The early churches universally took those things seriously. Speaking for them, it was important to them. It was so important that if a person was sick when the Lord's Supper was served, the deacons brought some to the sick person's home after the meeting.
Of course, back then it was a meal, not a tiny cracker. So it's possible that they delivered it to the sick person as food, a meal they needed, not just as a ceremony.
I've been forced to ramble a bit because that's all I know to do on this subject. It's so wide, and there's areas that seem to me to be free for interpretation. I can say that the early church clearly did not see the meal as symbolic, and I can say the Catholic Church has gone too far and gotten silly and powerless, but where in between we should land? Now that's a question, and I've only thrown out some bits of evidence to help decide.
Shammah
My response (so far):
Paul (Shammah),
Your answer is very helpful, even though you thought it was rambling. I have a thought about the Eucharist being partly symbolic. Could it be that the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit? In other words, the believers fellowship together in faith by obeying Jesus' command to 'do this in remembrance of Me' and God in turn is with us and gives us His grace and goodness in a special way in return. But are we missing out on this by not understanding the nature of the Supper? Are we missing out on the benefits of it by thinking it's symbolic, and also by not really being in full fellowship as we are meant to?
Thanks for taking the time to address my question.
In Christ,
Jennie
UPDATE: Paul's response:
I found a neat quote on this just today from the Anabaptists:
"Those who believe receive remission of sins, not by but in baptism. ... They trust in the merits of the blood of Christ. Then they receive the sign of obedience, water baptism, as proof before God and his church that they firmly believe in the remission of sins through Jesus Christ as it was preached and taught to them from the Word of God. When all this takes place, they receive remission of their sins in baptism."
That's from Menno Symons. If I'm translating the Dutch title correctly, it's Explanation of the Christian Baptism.
That's to say, I agree wholeheartedly with your "the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit."
In addition, I assure you that you are correct and modern believers are missing out on lots of things because of unbelief. We have grown used to a powerless Christianity. I have been learning to walk in faith for 25 years, but America is bathed in unbelief, and I have a long ways to go to be the kind of faith-filled believer that Stephen and others were in the early church.
Paul/Shammah
33 comments:
In Catholic theology, there are two things to consider with regard to the Sacraments. The Sacraments, to use the Latin phrase, work 'ex opere operato' (i.e. from the work worked). Therefore, because our Lord told us to do this nd gave us the power to make present His Body and Blood, it is really not the priest confecting the Eucharist but it is really the power of Christ flowing through him. Therefore, no matter how sinful the priest is the sacramental presence of Christ occurs, because using the form (words), matter (bread and wine), and intent (to make present His body and Blood Soul and Divinity), is achieved by the power of Christ. So objectively, Christ appears. The second aspect to understand is 'ex opere operantis' which has to do the recipient's preparation in receiving this great Sacrament. If, heaven forbid, a dog should come walking into Mass and consume a consecrated host, the dog 'objectively' would receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, because 'ex opere operato' Christ is Really, Truly, and Susbstantially Present in the Eucharist. However, because the dog does not have arational and immortal soul 'ex opere operantis' the dog receives no benefit from the grae bestowed because there is no receptacle for the grace to enter. The same is true for people who receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. It does cause them to die, but a death far worse than physical death. They die a spiritual death (mortal sin) which if coupled with physical death leads to eternal separation from God which is called hell.
With regard to the "symbolic nature" of Holy Communion, it say in John 6 that many people left His company because they could accept this teaching. When Nicodemus talked with Jesus in John Chapter 3:4-5, “Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” Nicodemus was taking Jesus’ words about being born again, literally, and Jesus corrected his misunderstanding. When the Jews were taking Jesus literally about the Eucharist, he did not correct them but confirmed the truth about what they thought.
In addition too ignatius of Antioch you may also want to consider this quote by St. Justin Martyr (c. 165 A.D.) And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the one who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ, our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have, thus, delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.
Fr. Larry,
Welcome, and thank you for commenting on my blog.
I'll respond to your specific comments later, but I just want to say that one thing that we object to in the Catholic practice of the Eucharist is that it takes the focus away from Christ Himself, and from His Body, which is the believers united to each other and to Christ our Head by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and instead places the focus on the priest and the physical bread and wine. The sacrament, which includes the physical bread and wine AND the believers acting in faith and obedience to Christ's command, is not meant to be Christ's physical body, but is a picture and true enactment of the fellowship of the full body of Christ in reality; Christ and His people together. We believe that the priest between God and His people is a replacing of the veil of flesh which Christ died to remove. Also, the Catholic teaching is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice for sin, whereas it is Christ's once and past sacrifice on the cross that is the only sacrifice for sin. This is another instance of taking the focus off of Christ and His finished work and placing it on the flesh of the priest and the created bread and wine. This has the opposite effect of what Jesus intended by His command. We are supposed to remember His death (past) and His coming (future), which is our hope.
St. Paul wrote to the Collosians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of His body, which is the Church,
Yet their is nothing lacking in the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus' one definitive sacrifice on Calvary was sufficient for every human being that ever lived or ever will live. So what does St Paul mean when he talks about "what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ"? The key is in the second phrase, "His Body, the Church." Elsewhere St. Paul, talks about the mystical BODY OF CHRIST, of which Christ is the head. Not every member of the Church that will ever exist is yet present. Therefore, Christ offers his sufferings in union with Christ so that those who have come after him can experience the saving power of the Cross. This is what happens at Mass, the one definitive sacrifice accomplished in history is made present for us in its reality and power so that as St. Paul says we may make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ's Body the Church. Christ is not re-sacrificed. Because the first thing God created, according to St. Augustine was time (In the Beginning), God exists outside of time and so God can make the one definitive sacrifice of Christ nearly two thousand years ago present to us here today. The Eucharist does not separate us from Christ it brings into an intimate union with Him because when we eat His Body and drink His Blood, He lives in us in a very intimate and personal way. As Christ promised he would.
Fr. Larry,
I believe the passage in which Paul says he makes up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ is talking about the sufferings that Paul went through in bringing the gospel to others in his travels. This was 'making up what was lacking' only in the sense that Christ was using Paul's further sufferings to add to the body of Christ through the gospel message.
You are correct that there is nothing lacking in Christ's sacrifice; there is more to be done and suffered by the Body of Christ in order to bring all members into the Body by sharing and living out the gospel.
You said:
Therefore, Christ offers his sufferings in union with Christ so that those who have come after him can experience the saving power of the Cross. This is what happens at Mass, the one definitive sacrifice accomplished in history is made present for us in its reality and power so that as St. Paul says we may make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ's Body the Church. Christ is not re-sacrificed.
I disagree with you that this is what happens at the Mass, and that this is what is supposed to happen when believers celebrate the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper. This is never stated in scripture that 'the one definitive sacrifice accomplished in history is made present for us in its reality and power'. It IS stated repeatedly that the supper is celebrated as the 'fellowship of the body of Christ' and 'the fellowship of the blood of Christ' and to do this 'in remembrance' of Christ and to remember His death until He comes. We are the true body of Christ united with Him as our head. The bread is only a symbol, but the act of faith is the sacrament. The bread and wine don't change but hopefully the actual members of the body do by faith and the power of the Spirit who is in us. That is the true sacrament.
It seems the Catholic Church is substituting the Mass for the working of the Holy Spirit through the word of the gospel spoken by the believer. The Holy Spirit is the One, through the Word of God, that brings the experience of the saving power of the cross to each person. It is not eating the bread and wine that saves. It is coming to Christ and believing in Him by faith that saves. The bread and the wine are for those who already ARE the body of Christ, NOT to make us the Body of Christ.
You said:
Christ is not re-sacrificed. Because the first thing God created, according to St. Augustine was time (In the Beginning), God exists outside of time and so God can make the one definitive sacrifice of Christ nearly two thousand years ago present to us here today.
It was within the last 50 years that the Catholic church taught in it's catechism that the Mass was a resacrifice of Christ. The wording and the explanations seem to continually change, it seems to me in order to counteract the concerns of those who see contradictions between scripture and Catholic teaching. Is it or is it not a re-sacrifice? Is Christ physically present or metaphysically present? (Metaphysical really means nothing; it's just a word used to try to say something is there physically but doesn't appear to be there)
You said:
The Eucharist does not separate us from Christ it brings into an intimate union with Him because when we eat His Body and drink His Blood, He lives in us in a very intimate and personal way. As Christ promised he would.
I didn't say that the Eucharist separated people from Christ; I said the Catholic practice of it separates people from Christ. The true Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving for what Christ has already done for us, not a sacrifice for sin. If we are born again in Christ by faith, we are new creations and don't need a new sacrifice for sin. We may need to confess sins and be forgiven, but forgiveness is there as soon as we confess and repent. The Catholic practice separates people because, first of all many who take it are not saved and are trusting in IT to save them, without faith in Christ. Secondly it separates because it and the practice of penance makes people believe they are not saved by faith but by the sacraments, and that they lose justification every time they sin and must have a priest (another veil) to give them Mass and penance to be re-justified. This is not the gospel. It is depending on man and on works.
when we eat His Body and drink His Blood, He lives in us in a very intimate and personal way. As Christ promised he would.
Again, Jesus said He would never leave us. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us and comfort us. Taking the Eucharist is not Jesus 'always' with us. The Holy Spirit is always with the believer, and dwells in us. When we take the Lord's Supper, He is with us in a special way, because we are obeying Him by faith and are in fellowship together with the Body of Christ. The bread and the wine are symbols of coming to Christ and believing in Him by faith which makes us all one with Him. The meal nourishes us, as His word nourishes our souls.
Fr. Larry,
Going back to your initial comments,
you said:
Nicodemus was taking Jesus’ words about being born again, literally, and Jesus corrected his misunderstanding. When the Jews were taking Jesus literally about the Eucharist, he did not correct them but confirmed the truth about what they thought.
First of all, in John 6 Jesus is not talking of the sacrament but of Himself as the Bread of Life. He said clearly that "the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” and “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe."
He Himself is the bread and coming to Him and believing in Him is eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Those who questioned Him had hearts of unbelief, unlike Nicodemus who believed but was sincerely questioning to try to understand. Jesus never ran after people to explain Himself if they did not choose to believe.
He also said: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
This clearly says that He is speaking of Spiritual Bread, which is life in Him by faith, NOT physical bread. He says, again, that coming to Him and believing in Him is what gives everlasting life and that He Himself is the bread, because He gave His flesh on the cross for the life of the world. This is repeated again and again in that passage.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ, our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the sacrament began to develop over time in the churches. Christ is the Bread of life, and we are His body when we are united to Him by faith and in the Holy Spirit. WE with Christ are the flesh and blood of Jesus. The bread and wine remind us of this and feed our bodies as He feeds our souls. See Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. The sacrament reminds us of and nourishes this unity until He comes.
--"(Metaphysical really means nothing; it's just a word used to try to say something is there physically but doesn't appear to be there)"--
Metaphysical is “real” it is simply just a different reality than the one we are used to. A fish could no more think about living outside of water than a human being could think about living outside of time. This is the meaning of eternity. Eternity is beyond our physical experience (meta= beyond; physical=our bodies). The soul exists but it does not have physical characteristics. You cannot point to a specific spot in the body and say “there is the soul.” You cannot perform surgery and physically remove the soul from the body; but that does not make the soul any less real. It makes the soul metaphysical—beyond the physical.
--“It was within the last 50 years that the Catholic church taught in it's catechism that the Mass was a resacrifice of Christ.”--
The Council of Trent in 1553 stated that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was one sacrifice for all which is made present through the celebration of the Mass.
Chapter 1; Session 22 “whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, [made present again] and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,”
--"I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the sacrament began to develop over time in the churches."--
Justin Martyr was writing in 165 A.D.; roughly 130 years after the Resurrection. St. Ignatius of Antioch writing in c 115 A.D (roughly 85 years after the Resurrection). St Ignatius wrote: “They stay away from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior, Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up by His goodness. Shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to hold an agape [Eucharist] independently of the bishop.”
How could a “fundamental misunderstanding” enter the Church less than 100 years after its founding when Jesus promised (John 14:26) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church? Did Jesus break His promise?
Fr. Larry,
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but one thing I will say. Our final authority is the scriptures, and if Justin Martyr and Ignatius don't fully line up with the scriptures then those things that don't line up are not to be used as a rule. I'm not saying these men were heretics; I'm saying their writings are not scripture; they are not infallible; and they are often inconsistent with each other and even with their own other writings.
One more thing. God has preserved His inspired word. God had no reason to preserve uninspired words of other believers. The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else. Only the writings that we know are from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses that were inspired by the Holy Spirit should be used as our final authority.
Another thing occurs to me about the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians Paul writes about the Lord's Supper to correct the believers about their practice of it. He is writing to all the congregation, not to a bishop. He is telling the members that they are not practicing the Supper correctly because they are not loving each other in it and are not remembering it's purpose. He mentions nothing about a bishop or about the Mass or anything that resembles the priestly practices of the Catholic Church. He never says a bishop is needed to do anything except lead and teach humbly. and a bishop was only a pastor of ONE church. This was probably so in Ignatius' time too.
Fr. Larry,
You said:
How could a “fundamental misunderstanding” enter the Church less than 100 years after its founding when Jesus promised (John 14:26) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church? Did Jesus break His promise?
Much of the New Testament is taken up with Jesus and the Apostles warning the churches that false teachers and 'grievous wolves' will come in, and were coming in even during the Apostles time, and that the believers should take care to hold to the gospel first given by Christ and the Apostles. It should not be surprising that this happened just as Paul said it would. It is not the Holy Spirit that failed or left, it is that the 'church' or parts of it have left Him. And it's not so much that the real church has left but that unbelievers have come in and made more unbelievers like themselves to form so-called churches. And of course real churches have some unbelievers in them, but it should not be the majority; it should be very few, as it was at the beginning.
You wrote “Our final authority is the scriptures.”
Before you start on Sola Scriptura, let me ask you where is that found in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY authority. Second Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is useful” it does not say “scripture alone.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells the church of the Thessalonians “So, then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word or mouth or by letter.” For a further discussion of the problem of Scripture alone see : http://firstcomeslove.wordpress.com/my-story/my-story-part-iv/
What is the “Pillar and the Foundation of the Truth” according to the Bible? First Timothy 3:15 says that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is the Church.
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Furthermore, if you read the original Greek of the Scriptures you will find that we are saved by faith. Martin Luther added the word “alone” in his own personal interpretation.
You wrote, “Only the writings that we know are from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses that were inspired by the Holy Spirit should be used as our final authority.”
How come the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are not included in the canon of Scripture? Who made the decision not to include them? How was this decision communicated to the Church? Or was the Bible simply handed to St. Paul like the Book of Mormon was handed to Joseph Smith by an angel?
Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them! Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change Sacred Scripture?
[St. Paul] mentions nothing about a bishop or about the Mass or anything that resembles the priestly practices of the Catholic Church. (in 1Cor. 11)
St. Paul’s 1st Timothy 4:14 “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.” Timothy was given the “gift” of shepherding by the “imposition of hands” which is the way current deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained for the service of God’s Church.
In the Letter of James, 5:14 we read, “Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,” The priests (presbyters) are to anoint the sick with oil. This is what happens today in the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.
Before you start on Sola Scriptura, let me ask you where is that found in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY authority. Second Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is useful” it does not say “scripture alone.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells the church of the Thessalonians “So, then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word or mouth or by letter.”
Fr. Larry,
Is there another authority which can say of itself "The mouth of the LORD of Hosts has spoken it"? Only scripture can claim this anymore. The Apostles and prophets are gone and have left the inspired word of God for us to use as our FINAL authority, not our ONLY authority. All other authorities must bow to God. The sciptures are God's word and MUST logically be the final word. If any other authority contradicts scripture, that other authority must not be obeyed.
Again, I did not say ONLY scripture is useful. What does the passage in 2 Timothy say scripture is useful FOR? and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It says scripture teaching makes the man of God 'perfect' or 'complete'. That word is the one that counts in that passage, not only the word 'useful.'
In the 2 Thessalonians passage, it doesn't say that the spoken word an the written word were different. I believe those words were the same. The point is they were spoken or written by an Apostle who was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not that spoken words are just as important as Scripture even if they AREN'T inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know that the word was also spoken in Bible times. It is spoken now too when we are preaching it or quoting it.
The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth when she IS BEING the church. She is upholding the truth of the gospel like a pillar upholds a building. BUT this also assumes that the church is built upon the Truth, who is the Word of God Himself, Christ the Lord. So the church is built upon the truth of the gospel AND upholds it. She can't uphold it if she doesn't stand upon it first. This is obvious to those who believe God's word is final.
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Nobody claims that scripture contains everything ever said or done by Jesus or the Apostles, only that it is the final authority to show us the truth if there is a question about it.
Furthermore, if you read the original Greek of the Scriptures you will find that we are saved by faith. Martin Luther added the word “alone” in his own personal interpretation.
Martin Luther is not my final authority, nor my authority at all. Scripture is. Martin Luther focused on this because he was reacting to the Catholic Church of his day adding things to the gospel. And he was not the first to say that the word 'alone' is implied there. There were Early Church Fathers that said this too. I think I read that on 'Beggars All' blog which is on my sidebar. The word 'alone' doesn't mean nothing else is involved, but that our works do not save us.
And elsewhere the Bible does say 'faith apart from works.' Luther was only stressing what was implied in the passage and clearly stated elsewhere.
I don't agree with everything Martin Luther said or did, but I admire him for standing for the truth in his time. I think he succeeded in much with God's help, and he also failed at much because he often walked in the flesh, as we all often do.
How come the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are not included in the canon of Scripture? Who made the decision not to include them? How was this decision communicated to the Church? Or was the Bible simply handed to St. Paul like the Book of Mormon was handed to Joseph Smith by an angel?
Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them! Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change Sacred Scripture?
I don't 'see' any such thing.
Martin Luther is not the final authority, nor do we follow his recommendations for what constitutes the canon. We can go back much further than that for authority.
The 'Roman Catholic Church' did not give us the canon. The church councils that did define it (not universally) were the spiritual ancestors of all the churches, not just those who believe the Bishop of Rome is the supreme ruler of all churches.
I believe there was never an ecumenical (universal) council to state a list of books that all the churches accepted as inspired. The council of Trent was probably the first one to claim to be such, but since the bishop of Rome has no right to be the ruler of the churches in the entire world, and the churches represented at Trent were only the ones who recognized the pope's authority, it can't truly be considered ecumenical.
Secondly, the churches had no need of an official list of books at first because they knew which ones were really written by the Apostles, until false gospels and epistles began circulating and there was a need to make a list.
The 'protestants' did not remove any books from the Bible. The deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews or by the Early Church fathers. They were read as possibly being helpful, just as we read books today, but were not considered Holy Spirit inspired.
Certainly presbyters (elders or pastors) have an anointing and a gift from the Holy Spirit that can be conferred by laying on of hands of other elders, as Paul taught. I was referring to the Paul's passages about the Lord's Supper not having anything to do with the practice of the Mass as it developed later. The word 'priest' in the Bible is a separate word from the word for elder or presbyter. And the practices of Rome that make the people totally dependent upon the priests are not scriptural.
I should add that the biblical word for priest is never used of the presbyters and elders but it used for the Israelite priests or the High Priest, who is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
YOU WRITE: The scriptures are God's word and MUST logically be the final word.
How do we know that they are God’s word? Apostolic authorship cannot be the measure of truth because Judas and Thomas are apostles and the gospels attributed to them are not inspired. Who decided whether certain books were inspired? How do we know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired by God and the Gospel of Thomas isn’t?
YOU WRITE: “The deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews or by the Early Church fathers.”
Yet earlier YOU WROTE: “The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else.”
How does one determine which Church Fathers are “really” Church Fathers and which are heretics?
Ignatius of Antioch claimed that we must follow the “ecclesia katolicos” (the universal, i.e. catholic, Church).
Septuagint (a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures completed around 132 B.C.) was the version of the Bible that Paul and the other Apostles would have used in spreading the Gospel. This Septuagint, used by Paul and others contained the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Nobody claimed to use a different canon until Martin Luther. When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, it was the entire Catholic Bible that he translated. Luther, however, only later removed the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament, and put them in an appendix without page numbers - along with Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Initially, he simply transcribed what was accepted by all Christians of the time as the entire Bible. Later, he acted on his own initiative to remove books he felt were "improper". ..Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them!
2 Peter 1:20 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”
Who determines which Church fathers can be believed and which are heretics? Who determines which Books of he Bible are canonical and which are heretical?
The Bible developed out of the lived tradition of the Church. Those books which did not conform to the lived tradition of the Church were declared not inspired. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 396A.D. and 398 A.D. established the Canon of Scripture. It was the Church (whether or not you argue that it was the Catholic Church, is another question) that declared the Canon of Scripture and the Church which declared it closed. No individual can take that authority on themselves. 2Peter 1:20—There is not personal interpretation of Scripture.
How do we know that they are God’s word?
John 10:4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”
Apostolic authorship cannot be the measure of truth because Judas and Thomas are apostles and the gospels attributed to them are not inspired. Who decided whether certain books were inspired? How do we know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired by God and the Gospel of Thomas isn’t?
When did the gospels of Judas and Thomas first appear in history? We know the gospels and the epistles of Paul come down from the beginning church history. The churches knew which ones were true from the beginning and passed this knowledge down. His sheep recognize His voice. Jesus promised this.
Yet earlier YOU WROTE: “The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else.”
How does one determine which Church Fathers are “really” Church Fathers and which are heretics?
I don't think the Early Church Fathers were heretics, I just think they had some beliefs that were inconsistent with scripture and with each other. If most of them agree with each other on a subject even if it disagrees with Roman Catholic practice, as is the case with the canon that was appoved by Trent, then we can be pretty sure about it. The ECFs in general didn't consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired.
As far as not knowing which might have been tampered with, there are many different translations of the Fathers, and apparently there are sources that can help determine at least some of the spurious quotes. There are scholars on both sides who are familiar with these things. The Fathers shouldn't be our rule, but they can be a source of historical understanding.
Ignatius of Antioch claimed that we must follow the “ecclesia katolicos” (the universal, i.e. catholic, Church).
Which means the church that has held to the teachings of the Apostles, which are given to us in the Scriptures. The only way to know for sure if any teachings are Apostolic is to compare them to the scriptures, which we know are Apostolic and inspired.
The term 'catholic' or 'universal' seems to me to be contradicted by adding the word 'Roman' to it. I know the Church is now trying to distance itself from the term 'Roman' but I would say the Roman part fits and the universal part doesn't, considering the fact that the Bishop of only one city is the head of your church, whereas in the true church, each church has it's own bishop or bishops and Christ Himself is our Head.
About the septuagint, it is actually NOT universally accepted that Jesus and the Apostles, or the other Jews, thought the apocryphal books were inspired; and it is apparently not clear that those books were included in the septuagint as scripture. The Jews had one special case for the inspired books and a separate case to keep the 'outside' books in. The deuterocanonical books were 'outside' books. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from those.
Here's a page with some interesting articles about the Canon, the Apocrypha, and the septuagint:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/lost_books_gnostic_gospels.html
Fr. Larry,
Now I would like it if we could get back to the subject of the post, if you have anything else to say about the Eucharist.
Fr. Larry,
You are trying to get me to answer every disagreement that protestants and Catholics have. I don't think it's necessary to do this on this post. I have lots of posts on different subjects here. If you want to discuss them, please find a post on that subject and comment there, or email me. This is getting too long, and I don't have time to discuss everything we disagree on right now.
You missed the point on the fact that Jesus' sheep will recognize His voice. I know that the scriptures are His word by faith. It is the Catholic church that is sounding like athiests by saying that you can't prove that the scriptures are God's word except by the word of the Catholic Church. Which word is greater, the RCC's or God's? I recognize God's word because I am His child by faith.
The early churches knew that and held to the final authority of scriptures for every question. It is only later as new doctrines came in, such as using images and the doctrines of Mary, that tradition became considered more and more important, until now it is equal with scripture. In actuality it is now above scripture in practice because tradition is used to interpret scripture and this twists the meanings of the original text.
Now please let's get back on subject.
YOU WROTE: “The only way to know for sure if any teachings are Apostolic is to compare them to the scriptures, which we know are Apostolic and inspired.”
This again is a tautology. You cannot say something is white because it is white, you can’t say something is Apostolic because it comes from the Apostles. How do we know it came from the Apostles?
I can say that something is not white because it is black, which is what I was saying above. In other words, the teachings of the RCC about Mary are not scriptural and therefore they are not Apostolic. The teachings that came later in history are different than the scriptural teachings and therefore they are not truth and are not Apostolic. I was talking about comparing teachings that are claimed to be Apostolic to those that we KNOW are Apostolic, which are the scriptures.
I better quit now since I asked you to quit, Fr. Larry.
If you have anything quickly to say in response to what I've said above go ahead.
Thank you for an interesting dialogue. May God bless you and show you His love.
Thank you. He already has, and He does every day, Fr. Larry. I pray the same for you.
Post a Comment