Holy Water

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:b8726f214d][i:b8726f214d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b8726f214d]


Lets not slide down the slope.

Thats like saying ministers shouldn't wear special dress because they'll end up turning into Roman priests. Or that we shouldn't have a liturgy because it will turn into a Mass. [/quote:b8726f214d]

I understand.

But this brings up a good point.

What is the purpose or reason that some denominations have special dress. Why do some wear those big fancy gowns? Is it purely traditional? Does it serve any special purpose?

Just wondering.

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:f617dda2f2][i:f617dda2f2]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:f617dda2f2]
I am not concerned about the source of the water.
I am concerned that the elements used for Holy Communion be wine not grape juice and unleavened bread not ordinary leavened bread. In any case the elements should be set aside for their special use with a prayer of thanks giving. [/quote:f617dda2f2]

Why must it be unleavened bread? Does it really matter scripturally?

 

[tcalbrecht]

[quote:032b525788][i:032b525788]Originally posted by Scott[/i:032b525788]
It seems like there would be good prudential reasons for doing something special with the elements. If done right, it could increase the sense of sacred and mystery that should surround the sacraments.
[/quote:032b525788]

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Calvin taught against in [i:032b525788]The Necessity of Reforming the Church [/i:032b525788]? At one point he wrote:

[quote:032b525788]
The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God.
[/quote:032b525788]

We should be wary of such actions and attitudes built on prudence.

The thing which makes the elements "holy" (set apart) is the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the bottles of Welchs are just a bottle of Welchs regardless of their intended use.

 

[tcalbrecht]

[quote:f2a5fbbe08][i:f2a5fbbe08]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:f2a5fbbe08]
[quote:f2a5fbbe08]
In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash.
[/quote:f2a5fbbe08]


That's awful.

[/quote:f2a5fbbe08]

I know. We used to take our bread home and make toast.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:053e2bcf1e]Paul, with regard to this part of your post, Bruce already beat me to the word...straw man. Obviously none of us are saying that if Rome does anything, we can't. Using the example of paedobaptism as you did is equally straw-man to using the Trinity or deity of Christ. Simply put, no one here is saying that Rome is wrong on every point of doctrine, and thus that we have to form our standards by the opposite of whatever she does! Stick to the topic, which is that we are saying she has a radically false and warped view of this sacrament! Would you disagree with even that?[/quote:053e2bcf1e]

It seemed like ya'll were arguing: Rome does it, therefore it should not be done. Or "this is only Roman." I was just pointing out that that doesn't disqualify the practice.

[quote:053e2bcf1e]I would say immediately after the elders are done administering its reception, signaling for its partaking, and then actually partaking of the elements. Once everyone has partaken, and the service progresses to another part, the elements are no longer sacramental in my opinion. Following the analogy of the cash dollars, this time would be analogous to the time at which everyone is finished trading in their dollars for other currency.[/quote:053e2bcf1e]

Why would it be wrong, if after the service is over, and people are fellowshipping, for someone to come up and start smashing the bread (if they knew the church didn't want it)? People attach something sentimental to the sacraments. That is what they are for.

Paul

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by rembrandt]

 

[Scott]

[quote:9eed172d5d]
I would say immediately after the elders are done administering its reception, signaling for its partaking, and then actually partaking of the elements. Once everyone has partaken, and the service progresses to another part, the elements are no longer sacramental in my opinion. Following the analogy of the cash dollars, this time would be analogous to the time at which everyone is finished trading in their dollars for other currency.
[/quote:9eed172d5d]

That is probably how it is treated in practice in Protestant circles, even if people have not thought it out. This does reflect certain theological convictions. For example, the early church would send the elements by deacon to the sick or otherws who were not able to attend. This is from Justin Martyr, which was written around 150 AD:

[quote:9eed172d5d]
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
[/quote:9eed172d5d]

I am not familiar with historical Reformed practice in this regard. None of the churches I have been affiliated with have done this.

 

[yeutter]

I believe it should be unleavened bread and wine not grape juice to identify the Lord's Supper with Passover.

That was the historic position of the Western Church prior to the Reformation.

When and with whom did the custon of using leavened bread start in Protestant churches?

 

[staythecourse]

Weak Christian vs Strong

Guys, please bear with me in this.

I believe Paul the apostle who was a strong Christian knew that there was nothing special about the wine or the water by themselves and it was all symbolic.

As humans we want to make them special - I want to - but the stronger a believer is, the less important elements are before or after the event and the more important of what the act represents. It does start to get religious fast otherwise.

Paul would have a clear conscience in not treating them special before or after.

 

[staythecourse]

I believe wine is a better representation (literal) as well as what the unleavened bread signifys. They make for the easiest arguement.

 

[Scott]

[quote:da37c9f5d3]
I believe Paul the apostle who was a strong Christian knew that there was nothing special about the wine or the water by themselves and it was all symbolic.
[/quote:da37c9f5d3]

It is definitely more than symbolic.

You mention that you have to struggle to not make it more. I think this may be the work of the Holy Spirit in your life given you recognizition of what is really happening.

I have the opposite problem. I have to struggle to recognize that it is more than symbolic. I think mine is a more common problem in a rationalistic, anti-supernatural culture.

It is interesting how Christ says the bread and wine [b:da37c9f5d3]are[/b:da37c9f5d3] his body and blood. He also says they are "real food and real drink," which to me seems to be a contrast to "symbolic food and symbolic drink."

[quote:da37c9f5d3]
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
[/quote:da37c9f5d3]

He could have said, "these are [b:da37c9f5d3]symbolic[/b:da37c9f5d3] of my body and blood." Indeed, He lost many people precisely because He would not do this. See john 6:66. The disciples also exclaimed that Jesus' teaching on eating His body and blood was "a hard teaching." John 6:60. To hold it was purely symbolic is an easy teaching in my opinion. It is neither challenging nor offensive.

Scott

 

[tcalbrecht]

Did the Israelites do anything special with the foreskin? :bs2: Then there's the matter of David eating the old shewbread.

 

[Me Died Blue]

The question of whether or not they are more than symbolic can really be answered with a "yes" or a "no" depending on what is meant by the question. They [i:113f74f61b]are[/i:113f74f61b] more than symbolic in the sense that they are means of grace, and Christ is truly spiritual present during the partaking of the sacrament.

They are [i:113f74f61b]not[/i:113f74f61b] more than symbolic in the sense that no power or spiritual grace rests in the elements [i:113f74f61b]themselves[/i:113f74f61b], nor is any grace part of the elements [i:113f74f61b]by intrinsic nature[/i:113f74f61b]. Rather, all of the power and grace which they confer, and their bringing of Christ's spiritual presence, rests solely in the work of the Holy Spirit, work that God has promised to attach to proper use of the sacraments.

So in summary, when the question is asked, "Are the sacramental elements more than symbolic?" Zwingli would reply with too extreme of a "no," while Romans and Lutherans would reply with too extreme of a "yes." The view I explained above is the view of Calvin and the Puritans.

In Christ,

 

[Scott]

Blue:

I think you are right. I answered the question in the context of seeing that Bryan was a member of a Baptist church. Traditionally baptists see the Lord's Supper in a memorialistic fashion (ala Zwingli) and call it an "ordinance" as opposed to a "sacrament."

Scott

 

[Me Died Blue]

That's true. In fact, that Zwinglian perspective seems to be the mindset that the overwhelming majority of [i:35bdc623f6]all[/i:35bdc623f6] evangelical Christendom has now taken. I find that sort of interesting, since modern evangelicals allow so much mysticism into their thinking in other areas. Take the charismatics for example: They are probably the movement with the [i:35bdc623f6]most[/i:35bdc623f6] mystical emphasis on so many [i:35bdc623f6]subjective[/i:35bdc623f6] things ("see God's face," "I just know God is telling me this," "feel the Spirit's presence&quot, yet they take the Zwinglian hyper-anti-spiritual mindset on the [i:35bdc623f6]objective[/i:35bdc623f6] things (such as the Supper).

 

[staythecourse]

Communion is one of the bigger mysteries to me.

It's GOTTA be symbolic ( "GOTTA" meaning I can't see any other way right now.)

When Jesus said this IS my body - and I agree every word is important - it couldn't literally be his body because He was right in from of them. Our Lord MUST have been saying (I hope I'm right) "Meditate on and grasp what I'm doing right now when I break this unleavened bread and you injest it to your innermost being for everlasting sustainence and drink this wine of the new covenant of my necessary blood between God and your very self." Lousy English but I hope you get the drift. Nothing magic about the elements for sure.

I have never heard that we we bringing Christ's presence into the meal and I may be misunderstanding what you mean by that, Scott, because He's at the right hand of our Father and can't come down (I don't think - just the Holy Spirit is in us and I guess among us now)

We had a lousy teaching on communion last Sunday and even the SS teacher apologized. It was over his head in understanding what Jesus was trying to convey to his disciples. The above is what I get out of what He was teaching at this point in my life.

I'm all ears but just say what you are convinced of and use small sentences.

 

[Scott]

Bryan:

I don't think that the bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of Christ. And part of my reasoning is exactly what you said, namely that Christ's physical body was separate from the bread. Further, when Paul talks about the Supper, he continues to refer to the elements as "bread" and "wine." So, I think we can all reject Catholic transubstantiation. I would also reject Lutheran consubstantiation on similar grounds.

Still, Christ is present in the sacrament in a mystical way. When we eat the sacrament our soulds feed on the body and blood of Christ. He is really present and there in the sacrament.

I would read over John 6 several times. Christ explains that His body and blood are to be eaten and that they are "real food." I can't see how the text can be reasonably understood in a way that makes it exclusively symbolic. Further, he says that they bring life.

This is an excerpt from the Westminster Confession that I believe accurately summarizes the biblical teaching:

[quote:e944a5f7ab]
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
[/quote:e944a5f7ab]

Scott

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

Not saying that anyone on this thread or board is in this camp, but it is ironic that the groups that most stridently advocate an extensive literalism ("literal when possible&quot, don't take John 6 and related passages literally. In fact they take the passage in the most symbolic and figurative sense possible. While they believe that the Jewish temple and sacrifices will be restored (in spite of Christ's once and for all sacrifice), they don't believe in the sacremental nature of the Lord's Supper.

Scott

 

[staythecourse]

I'll read John 6

I will read John 6 - do a lot of "God, I don't get it. Help me understand," and go from there. Thanks for the re-direction.

 

[Scott]

BTW, I don't think it is something that is totally understandable. It is what the Bible terms a mystery. Many traditions call the sacraments the "mysteries." It is one of those things we can know happens without understanding how. The way in which we feed on Christ's body and blood is a deep mystery.

We should be cautious to avoid the Roman error, though.