JFJ Forums

Did it turn to the corporal presense of the Lord Jesus Christ at that time ? Yes or not ?




Did it turn to the corporal presense of the Lord Jesus Chirst from Exodus 12 up to the time of the appearing of Jesus Christ in the incarnation ? Yes or no ?





John 2 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. Your in using a claimed type as proof for transsubtiation. Does not fly. As the water did really become wine. It looked, smelled and tasted like wine and therefore really was turned from water to wine. In reality it provides no proof at all for the RCC position on the coporal presense of Jesus in the elements of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

That is clearly an overstatement of reality. The only way you can make such claims is through the use of anachronism. There was no doctrine of " Transubstantiation ". While several held to a physical presense it is not the same as that doctrine of Rome on this matter as decreed at the Council of Trent. Others such as Lutherans who hold to a physical presense yet reject the position of Rome on this. And cite the very same early church fathers as Rome as well. Why should I accept the claims of the RCC and reject the claim of Lutherans ? I personally feel that Lutherans make a better and reasonable claim than the Church of Rome on this matter.




Your distorting history there. Dispensationalist do not claim that the early church fathers were " dispensational premillennialist " at all. The fulll blown doctrine did have some foundation from the Premillennial early church fathers through. Dispensationalism involves hundreds of scholars and bible teachers of the past and present and not John Darby alone or mostly from him either. Dispensationalism is in reality as refinement of previous premillennial teachings of the early church fathers. You never studied dispensationalism at all and not aware of it's exact claims on it's history or it's doctrinal positions and it's defense of it. Your claim is merely a dogmatic pronouncement and nothing of substance and is an argument of silence at best. Logical fallacies are invalid arguments. For a history of dispensationalism read the book DISPENSATIONALISM : Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Dr. Michael J. Vlach.  Remember this thread is not about dispensationalism at all and has no bearing on the issue of the Lord's Supper. Please remain on the subject of the Lord's Supper with the others in the thread.

You need not. But the Council of Trent does and pronouced condemnation on all those who reject transubtantiation specifically as a doctrine.




Sorry but you error in several things there. First off, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox do not embrace the specific doctrine of transubstantiation. As far an Anglicans are concerned it's Thirty-Nine Articles specifically condemns the RCC doctrine . So any Anglian who holds to transubstantiation is in violation of it's article on the Lord's Supper. For the historical Anglican position read THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas. That is an Anglican systematic theology book based on the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church and gives an exposition of each of the thirty-nine Articles.




The problem is the specific doctrine of transubstantiation. That is the specific position of the Church of Rome and no one else. If you want a " spiritual presense " being taught read Saint Augustine in John tractates 50, 92, 102 , and 118 and John : 25:12. What is in there is way too long to post in here. Though there are many others after him who held to this position , all cite Augustine for it. He is the only one I need to cite since all who embraced a spiritual presense position list Augustine on it.





Real presense does not mean transubnstantiation. That is what is rejected specifically. The full doctrine of a corporal presense was first put forth by Paschasius Radbertus around 840ad and many disagreed with it such as Ratramnus and Bertram. And finally proclaimed as offical dogma at the Council of Trent. See THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY : AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THRITY-NINE ARTICLES pg. 388-405, by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas.

Chafer - what part of Real Presence don't you understand? Why do you insist on rehashing old arguments?  I'm fully aware of the differences between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.  BUT both hold to a real, physical presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  The view of a real, physical presence is NOWHERE contested prior to the reformation.  I'm willing to table the differences between trans and cons for later discussion but let's at least first deal with REAL vs. SPIRITUAL presence.  I would like you (or anyone) to provide a single shred of evidence that ANYONE opposed the Real Presence (trans of cons) prior to the reformation.  There is none!  Instead of acknowledging this, you distract us and turn this into a debate about Catholicism.

I will address your remaining posts (kinda like deja vu all over again) in a separate thread.

Tertullian (200 AD):



    "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)



Hippolytus (200 AD):

Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:

    "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

    For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)


WK How do you deal with these church fathers sayings?





Justin Martyr (150 AD):


Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

What ever happened to: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Hebrews 10:10, KJV
By making wine turn into "blood" and bread turn into "body" over and over again "in the literal sense" aren't you making his sacrifice "literally" over and over again???

Krisi - Evidence from early church writings as far back as the Didache (c. 90 A.D.) show that the early Christian worship service was considered a "sacrifice".  It is not a "re-sacrifice" but in a mysterious way by the grace of God, a "re-calling" of the original only Perfect Sacrifice.  This is how Jewish people are called to celebrate Passover (see post#4).  When Jews celebrate the Sabbath, they "enter into" a day of rest.  When they celebrate Passover, they "enter into" the original Passover.  When Christians celebrate the Eucharist, they "enter into" the Life, Death, and Resurrection of the Passover Lamb.  It is a mystery that we cannot understand but nevertheless, it is also a reality.  That is why, when Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, it is not a new sacrifice or even a “re”-sacrifice but a mysterious union with the original.  

Wk are you going to Ingore the clear words of some church fathers that speak as communion as being a "figure" and is to be to remember of The one who came flesh?

as for The Didache



Chapter 9 -- The Eucharist

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.



And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."


can you highlight anything that suggest a literal change in the elements?
http://www.forerunner.com/churchfathers/...DACHE.html


can you find anyhwere they mention a change of the elements?

Yes, let's look at post 4:



He did NOT say that they "enter into" the actual Passover event, he said they are told to "imagine" if they had been there...but what does God say?

God says, "do this in remembrance", "teach your children"...NOWHERE does he state that they are "entering into" the actual event. Lev 12 CJB

Contrast that with what Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of Me." We do NOT participate in the sacrifice/atonement. He, ALONE, by Himself, without anyone else, died for the sin of the world...

We do not "enter in" as in "part of", we "enter in" as in "receive the benefits of".

The whole principle of atonement is that WE DON'T PARTICIPATE, *we* have a proxy/stand in/relacement: the Innocent (Him) pays the price that we deserved, BUT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN. "We" watched as He bore the full punishment. The faithful AND unfaithful watched. Not even the sadness that the faithful felt while watching was part of the Process. Christ has no participants. Not then, not now.

So, do you mostly go by early church writings that aren't part of the Bible? Not being rude, or sarcastic...serious question.