Protestant non-participation in Communion

Jed said:

“I am not aware of any protestant group that doesn't participate in the sacrament of communion.”

I replied:

“just off the top of my head, there are people within your own movement that don't. Not the "Grace" churches probably, but the more Acts 28 types. If you disagree, I can show evidence.”

Jed then said:

“Regarding Communion: I don't disagree that there are splinter factions of many churches that either do it very rarely or not at all.”

 

But you did deny that exact thing! And the main ones are Dispensationalist “splinters” like the Acts 28 types. And they use much of the same reasoning you use to reject water baptism.

“If we were really going to be serious and follow Jesus' example we would do it while eating a feast as they were at the last supper. There is a strong tradition in both the Circumcision and Grace for communion.”

Jesus example was not to have a “feast” per se, it was to have a liturgy. The celebration of the passover meal was a liturgical act for the Jews, where they participated in the actual passover, and Jesus transformed that act into the liturgical act of the new covenant when He said “this is my Body” and then said “do this in remembrance of me”. In the original passover the word “remembrance” is used also, and the disciples knew what was going on. And the Hebrew idea of remembrance is far different than ours. Their concept was one of “reliving” but more like actually being there. They would actually refer to themselves in the passover meal as having been there with Moses! It is much more than a feast Jed. It was a participation in the passover for those celebrating it. And they had to actually eat the flesh of the sacrifice to participate. So when Jesus changes it into the “passover” of the “new covenant in His Blood”, they would have understood this in a liturgical way, just as they understood the passover meal. And when He said “this is my body”, you can bet they thought back to the incident in John 6 when he goes on and on about eating his flesh, and that his flesh is “real food”. Once it is in the context of the passover, it is an “aha” moment for them.

And EVERYTHING we know about the early church shows they thought of it this way as well, that it was literally the flesh of God that must be eaten (with faith of course) to gain eternal life. Ignatius in 107AD called it the “medicine of immortality.” St. Paul is really clear to the Cointhians as well that it is “a participation in the body and blood of our Lord”.

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Just like the passover, when we follow the Tradition handed down to us by the apostles and partake in the liturgy of the Eucharist (thanksgiving), we “participate”. We don't merely “remember” in the english meaning of the word.

This leads me to your use of the word “sacrament.” Your denomination calls it an ordinance, and I will bet you $100 bucks that if you ask your pastor if it is a sacrament he will adamantly say “no, it is an ordinance” and he will say it does absolutely nothing other than help us have a reminder of Christs death for us. Sacraments “do” things Jed. Dou believe the eating the bread and wine “does” something? That God acts in a special way? If not, you do not believe it is a sacrament. If so, then you do. But if you do believe it is a sacrament, I would be very interested to know that! Jesus and Paul sure thought it was a sacrament!

Demographics of the Real Presence



Demographics of World Religion 2011 compiled by David Meyer

 Kendra said:

Just a side note, "most Christians" do not take John 6 literally the way you do, just Catholics. Do Calvanists also?

Actually, you are badly mistaken, "most Christians" do take it quite literally, and it is central to their doctrine.

2/3 of them (67%)!

And it is not just Catholic. Remember that Eastern Orthodoxy is half the size of Protestantism, and Catholicism alone is over half of Christianity. And that is just in 2011. Historically it was near 100% who believed in the real presence. Until Protestantism in the 16th century, the vast majority of Christians believed in the Real Presence. So if we take the # of Christians of all time who believed it, I would estimate it being well above 90%

Also, Calvin’s view would be considered by Zwinglians (your view is the Zwinglian view) to be a “Real Presence” view. But most modern Calvinists do not follow Calvin in his thinking on this and have become Zwinglians on the issue.

Calvin believed that we truly and substantially parkate of the flesh of Christ, but that it happens through the intermediary of the Holy Spirit. This was my view as a Calvinist, and I took John 6 quite literally, as the text itself demands.

How do I get 67%?

As far as the demographics of who believes in the Real Presence, We can take the Catholic (51%) and Orthodox (11%) and get 62% of Christendom right there. Although they explain it poorly, I would add 25% of Calvinists, All Lutherans, and certainly some % of Anglicans and other groups to the “Real Presense” list. They (including Luther himself) would interpret John 6 literally. (“Truly I say to you…My Flesh is real food, and my Blood is real drink…”) So I think it is fair to include Anglicans (12% of Protestants) and Lutherans (11%) with a quarter of the Reformed and “other” (3+% of Protestants) ... for a total of ~26% of Protestants being convinced from scripture of the Real Presence. Protestants are 21% of Christianity, and ~26% of 21% is ~5.5%. So 5.5% of Christianity is protestants who believe in the real presence.

If we combine the 100% of Catholics (51%) 100% of Orthodox (11%) and 26% of Protestants (5.5%) we get a total of 67.5% of Christianity which believes in some way in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I think a lesson here is that we often have a colored view of demographics and history. You seemed to think your view was the strong majority, when it is the minority. When I was Reformed, I knew that Reformed people made up only 11% of Protestant Christianity, and conservative ones far less than that, perhaps 5%? Yet even with that 5% in mind, I was tempted to think of my Reformed theology/Calvinism as a serious player in the game. It just isn’t. If we are talking about conservative Protestants, they are Pentecostal… hands down, and that trend is increasing rapidly.

You might be interested to know that your Mid-Acts Dispensationalist denomination Grace Gospel Fellowship reports 60,000 members. Perhaps we could double or triple that figure for all people on earth with your particular views about scripture? If you are correct, you are really lucky to have found the truth while nearly the entire globe is so deceived! And who believed what you believe before Stam and the others in the 20s/30s? From what I can tell they are the first. (other than St. Paul *of course*) Bulinger would be the closest, but I know you guys don’t agree with his more Acts 28 type view. (he rejected communion btw Jed) Just food for thought. I mean, numbers don’t make something true of course. But isn’t it just a bit weird to be part of something that is so small and goes back less than a hundred years? 150 years tops if you include “traditional” Dispensationalism?

My overarching point is that Protestantism continues to splinter, while it still contains people who truly desire the truth from scripture. Either the scripture is false, or the way Protestants are trying to access its truth is wrong. You simply cannot claim the scripture is “clear” and have thousands of conflicting interpretations. The only option then is to say all the other guys just don’t get it. That is the position you are in. You are forced to say that even among fellow Protestants, who have largely only been around <500 years, that even they have totally missed the whole point of scripture.

So not only have the Catholics and E.O. been utterly and fatally wrong for 2000 years, but even the 99.9% (not an exaggerated # btw) of your fellow Protestants have gotten the scripture totally wrong until Stam and the boys came along.

You can choose to dismiss all this by saying numbers don’t matter, and your right, alone they prove nothing. But it is really hard to take you seriously if you say the Scripture is clear and at the same time only 0.000000001% of Christians who have ever lived and read the scripture can see that same *clarity*. It can’t be clear and yet billions of spirit filled Christians completely missed the main point of the new testament for 1900 years!

Does the Bible say the Church rejected St. Paul and immediately apostatized?

In the context of the Catholic claim to succession, Kendra cites verses in scripture showing people “rejecting the truth within the church since before the church even began.”


My response which I will defend here is twofold:


One, that these verses do not show that the Church was “plunged into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years”.

And two, these verses do not show the Catholic conception of apostolic succession to be false.

The verses are from this article:
www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/HTML/BEREANFEBRUARY1936/notes.html
Here is the pertinent paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the devil also seems to have scored a great victory in that he instigated a deadly hatred, against the human teller of this secret. It is very important to see that from the time he told this mystery, Paul was forsaken by many of his old friends. Study carefully Philippians 2:20 and 21; Colossians 4:11; II Timothy 1:15; II Timothy 4:10; II Timothy 4:17; Ephesians 6:19 and 20. The great apostasy which plunged the Church in the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry. At least eighty per cent of the confusion and delusion of our troubled days is also directly attributable to the same cause.”

First, I will admit that these verses showing very early apostasy are *consistent* with there being “The great apostasy which plunged the Church in[to] the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.”

But they do not prove any such thing happened, and they are also consistent with a quite opposite situation with a faithful remnant of a Church under severe persecution (what I would say), which is what we find in the scripture (St. John) and in the late 1st and early 2nd century with men like Pope St. Clement (90’s) and St. Ignatius (107). These men also speak extensively about unity and apostasy. Clement does so to the SAME Corinthian church Paul had written to! That right there shows that the Corinthians had not apostatized even as late as the 90’s. In 107 Ignatius writes to 6 different churches (including Ephesus, where St. John had been) that had not apostatized. And as far as these apostates rejecting Paul in some *specific* way, no, because every single other (I’m pretty sure) New Testament writer besides Paul gives examples of or speaks against apostasy. For instance if we look at 1John, which was probably written in the 90’s, he also talks about apostates and “anti-christs”. 30 years after Paul’s death there are still Christians apostatizing, just like today. Also Paul nowhere implies in these verses the apostasy is universal (could effect the entire Church.)

These verses do not prove a mass apostasy started with Paul any more than the rich young ruler leaving Jesus or many of his disciples who leave Him in John 6 proves that that was the point of a great apostasy, or that the apostles abandoning him on the cross proves it. We all can agree that in the early church before and after Paul there was apostasy. No one denies that, but the entire NT taken as a whole paints a picture of a Church losing apostates yet surviving intact.


Second, these verses do not show the succession (which we clearly see in scripture) to have been broken or to not be in effect in the NT. One of the great things about succession is that it shines light like a laser on apostasy. In fact it is the only way to objectively identify apostasy. When multiple men claim to speak with the authority of God and all use scripture to back their claims, succession can show us who is legit and who is not. The actual scriptural proofs for succession are not the topic here, so I wont side track.

My point is merely to say that these verses are consistent with apostolic succession and in no way disprove it or show it to not be in effect in NT times. Apostolic succession does not imply there will not be apostasy from the Church, in fact it assumes it! It is an objective way of identifying the Church and who seperates from the Church. Those who do not even claim apostolic succession (such as you Pauline Dispensationalists) generally have some other way of determining if they are an apostate. (for your denomination I believe it would be something on the order of "not recieving the free gift of God's grace") But history (even right away in NT history) has shown that abandoning physical apostolic succession and the teaching of the apostles is what makes an apostate. That is why John says “they went out from us”, and why Paul says he hands people over to Satan. There is a positional change, not just merely a change of doctrinal opinion, but a change in *who’s authority* the apostate is under. From the apostles and their successors they leave to go to some other authority.

I will comment briefly on a few of the verses:

Here is a link to Biblegateway with the scriptures all on the same page for reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:20-21;%20%20Colossians%204:11;%20II%20Timothy%201:15;%202%20Tim.%204;%20Ephesians%206:19-20&version=DRA


Phil. 2:20-21: “For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” Paul is highly recommending Timothy, one of the faithful men whom he has ordained in the line of succession. His point is not to say the whole Church is apostate, but that Bishop Timothy is a diamond in the rough. (Btw, in 2 Tim. 2:2 Paul give the first four generations of apostolic succession.)

Col. 4:11: “and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” He is talking about those “fellow workers” he is working with directly, face to face. He is not implying everyone else is apostate. Side note: Notice he is working for the “Kingdom” program as well, which is the only NT program.

1Tim. 1:15: “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.” Paul is talking about those who have left him to rot in prison, as the following verses show. He is not saying that every believer in all of Asia (Turkey) has apostatized.

2 Tim. 4:10, 17: (The writer of the article meant 16, not 17 I think) Again Paul is merely talking about those who have abandoned him in prison. As verse 9, and 10-15 put into context. There is no “Great Apostasy” that is “commencing with the rejection of Paul’s message”. Just in chapter 4 alone, Paul mentions 14 people by name that are not apostate, he mentions a whole household, plus 5 cities (including “all the brethren” at Rome, including the future pope Linus who is also mentioned) including Ephesus and Corinth which have non-apostate churches.

Eph. 6:19-20 I am at a loss. I don’t understand how this verse relates even a little bit. Paul asks for prayer that he may boldly preach the gospel. How does that relate? Perhaps it was mis-cited?


I set out to show two points. And I think I have shown here how #1 these verses *do not* prove that “The great apostasy […] plunged the Church into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenc[ing] with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.” And that #2, they do not in any way contradict the clear NT teaching on apostolic succession. Even if half the NT Church apostatized, there still was a sizeable Church that we see (in the NT and early Christian writings) handing down the apostolic faith.

At the very least, someone inclined to use these verses as reason to believe that a “Great Apostasy” began directly after Paul must concede that it is quite reasonable for others to disagree about that particular interpretation even based on scripture alone. (The vast majority of Protestants disagree vigorously with that interpretation) If we include post NT history which shows a continuing faithful church directly seeded by the apostles…

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

...the case becomes even more undeniable.

Preliminary questions to "two gospels" discussion

Jed and Kendra,


I have gone through the document you linked, at http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html, and it is a really good (but brief) summary. It is an overview full of lots of statements. And that is fine, it was not attempting to go in depth on any of them. I would like to continue on the topic of the different gospels of Paul and Peter if you are game. Would the other articles on the Matthew Mcgee site be in line with your thinking? If not, how not? Also is there any "exceptions you guys take to Stam. Anything in his book you would not agree with? And please, if you don't want to go into all this, please let me know and I will not go into it with you. (although I will still be going into it, but perhaps less informed than if you or Doug or someone engaged me on it first)

As a preliminary question to the (Disp. of law/Disp. of grace) conversation (which I am still in process of further researching if you have other resources to offer), I want to know if we agree on something or not. My claim is this:

All interpretive methods (paradigms) in Protestantism which rely on the concept of sola Scriptura are on the same level of authority. Put another way, there is no principled reason to choose one method over another, other than personal conviction of the methods reliability.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, it seems just to be true. But I think it will help me understand your epistemology more to know if you agree with this statement or not. If we get too bogged down and can't agree very much on the epistemology, we could just set it aside. But otherwise it will help me narrow the focus of my questions.

Could I try an experiment to show you where I am coming from here? Read the following link from a Reformed perspective. If you don’t have time, then just read my excerpts below. I think these statements are common to all Protestant interpretive paradigms. I will put in red the parts I think you would replace with other more "Mid-Acts Dispensational" words. See if you find this as interesting as I do:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/12/what_is_covenant_theology.php

“At first glance, it is apparent that the Bible is a very complex book: it was written in three different languages, by dozens of human authors, over the course of many centuries, and in a wide variety of styles and genres. However, beneath this dauntingly complicated surface, there must be a unified purpose and message; … So what is that unified message of the Bible?... the idea which most rigorously allows the Bible itself to indicate its own major emphases and underlying structural elements, is commonly called Covenant Theology.”

However, the sad truth is that, in contemporary Evangelicalism, many believers have only a very fuzzy understanding (at best) of this helpful and biblically-faithful way of understanding the over-arching message of the scriptures. And yet, in the author's experience, there are few teachings which will enable a Christian to make better and more fruitful use of his scripture-reading than the basic components of Covenant Theology – understand these few, scriptural themes, and you will be able to mark out and follow the general flow of the unfolding saga of redemptive history, as recorded in God's Word.”

“Basically, Covenant Theology attempts to unfold the biblical story with constant reference to the universal display and glorification of God…”

“Covenant Theology differs from other systems in that it sees the biblical structure giving great weight and importance to a series of divine covenants. These covenants are like the framework of a house – without them, all the doctrines and stories in the Bible fall down into a hopelessly confused jumble of unrelated bits of information.”…

“So what are these covenants? Theologians speak, first, of a Covenant of Redemption, made between the members of the Godhead; second, of a Covenant of Works, made between God and man; and third, of a Covenant of Grace; which is basically a repetition to man of the first Covenant of Works, with the added proviso that a Redeemer would be provided to fulfill the required works in the place of all covenant-members, as their federal head. Let's look at each of these three covenants in a little more detail…”

O.k. so what I think is interesting is that the language here (minus the red) is almost identical to what I read from Traditional Dispensationalists, Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc, etc. Not to even mention more unorthodox people like Harold Camping or worse weirdos.

Now here is a selection from the Matthew McGee article you linked:

"One aspect of the context which is often overlooked is the dispensation. God has provided His Word in the Bible in several different dispensations. Every Bible passage is written in the context of one dispensation or another. Therefore, proper understanding of the different dispensations is needed in order to understand the context of each Bible passage. After becoming aware of this need, many Bible students will then ask about how they can determine which dispensation any particular Bible passage is under, so that they can more fully comprehend the context of the passage."

There are some obvious similarities in their views of the superiority and simplicity of their interpretive method, but of course the results of those methods are quite different.
The following are some facts I think are uncontroversial. If you disagree with these facts, please, by all means tell me, but honestly they seem to be obviously true to anyone who looks at the evidence. So, concerning the proponents of the various Protestant interpretive paradigms:

1. They all (using the same language) claim that their method is clear and biblical.
2. They all claim their method "gets to the bottom" of things, and simplifies interpretation by focusing on some key interpretive principle that other Christians have ignored or missed. (covenants for Reformed, dispensations for Dispensationalists, Law/gospel for Lutherans the quadrilateral for Methodists, etc.).
3.They generally claim other Christians "just don't understand" their interpretive method, and if they did, would adopt it.
4. They all can be assumed to have good motives, to be followers of Christ, and to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they all desire the truth of God's infallible word, and are using the method of interpretation that they truly and honestly believe gets closest to the truth of the scripture.
5. They all pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to properly interpret.
6. They all can be assumed to have studied the other methods of interpretation and found them to not be the right ones.
7. They all believe ONLY the Bible is authoritative for faith and practice.
8. They all disagree on how to interpret the bible at key points of doctrine, and they all disagree on what those doctrines actually are. (they take different roads, and find different destinations.)

So to summarize, do you agree with my statement at the beginning of the post, and do you agree with these 8 statements?

Peace,

David Meyer
P.S. If we continue the conversation, I will try to keep things short. Staying on topic will really help me with that.