John Wesley and Communion

[JADE]

Originally Posted by historyb

No, I'm in flux right now. I am not a Calvinist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Episcopalian, Methodist, SDA. Just a Christian with different ideas from the norm on every side

Be careful, most folks that find themselves that confused at who or what they are end up being liberals.

[historyb]

I'd rather have my teeth drilled, given a root canal, and yanked out then become a liberal any day

[HansC]

Hb

However the language given does not give leeway for one to see the Eucharist as just a symbol.

Opinions vary.

Many believe that there is that leeway, and that a detailed explanation of how symbols function is not always necessary in a culture permeated and accustomed to symbolic interaction. Jesus was well aware that the disciples knew how representative elements worked and did not necessarily need to explain the minutia of the basics to them, but could have easily and simply have put it in end terms.

Think of it like this; a football coach at half time draws a bunch of X's and O's on a board and lays out the game plan. He points to an X and and looks to his running back and says "Johnson, this is you." Then he draws an O and says "This is their middle linebacker."

Note, the coach does NOT have to say, "This X represents you." he also does not have to say "This O represents their line backer." The coach assumes that his running back understands the simple principles of symbolic representation. Actually, if the coach did say "This X represents you." I think the team would have found it extremely odd. Just because a person does not explicitly say "This represents", does not indicate that representation is not taking place.

People do not ordinarily speak like that, we simply indicate an item and say what it is and the representation is understood. If I draw a map of my house, to help somebody get there, I simply say "This is my house" and then draw in roads to help them see how to get there. I do not say, "This is a representation of my house, but is not the actual house." I do not say, This is not the actual road, but merely functions as a representation of the road." Your conclusion, to me, is based upon the assumption that Christ and the disciples spoke in a way that is uncommon when establishing symbols.

There is no doubt that the wine represents blood, and counts as such, but many believe it is not actual blood.

Hans

[historyb]

I have heard that many times, but it just doesn't wash with the text. Christ was not a coach and He never corrected the ones who walked away, He never said "Hey dudes it's just a symbol." Many may believe as they wish, but that doesn't make one right. If it was just a symbol I am pretty confident that God would have spelled it out in the text, instead we are left with "..this is my blood" not this could be a symbol.

Now I hope others chime in too.

[michaelbowers]

Christians have never been able to resolve their differences on these sorts of issues, (hence denominations) so I don’t expect to come to a consensus here. I just like sharing/reading ideas about this stuff. Jesus said many things in parables without announcing that they were parables. He used many symbols without identifying them as symbols.

He wasn’t ever a shepherd after all… And I’m not really salt…

27 So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking the cup. 29 For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself.

To me, this says that if I partake of the Eucharist (and profess belief in Jesus, etc.) and don’t really believe, then I bring God’s judgment upon myself. After all, who of us is worthy?

And to me, taking Eucharist is a public profession of belief in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the sake of the world. I am saying that it is this very sacrifice that “nourishes” me; gives me “life”. I don’t think I’m literally eating human meat, and I don’t think it disqualifies me as Christian to hold this belief. It just makes me a brother with a different relationship with God than you have.

In fact, I think a lot of nuanced biblical interpretation is part of God’s plan. There are dozens and dozens of controversies like this. For a book that is so truth laden, how can this be? I think God made the book this way because it is what best suits his purpose. Some people won’t look twice at Christianity simply because we cannot agree on much of anything even among ourselves. Also, part of the plan…

I see how you could see it the way you do, but try to see how I might see it the way I do.

Most of the symbols in the Bible are not spelled out as such. It is the destiny of some people to never understand. Some times we are told that only those enabled by God will able to understand. Some times we are told wisdom is required to understand. Always, the Holy Spirit should guide our understanding as you read the word.

[JADE]

Neither are deal breakers in salvation. It really doesn't matter whether one thinks the wine they are drinking is truly blood(although I'd love to see the DNA breakdown and see if there are any traces). This is truly a "thought that counts" ritual. Whether one believes it is blood or just wine(or grape juice), we all agree that it is remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice for our salvation.

One who doesn't believe it is truly blood feels the same bond with God as the one who thinks it is blood.

[HansC]

Jesus said many things in parables without announcing that they were parables. He used many symbols without identifying them as symbols.

Good point, that's what I have been saying. When teaching his parables, Jesus didn't say "Yo,listen up, this is a parable." No, he just gave the parable. If I took the argument that says it is NOT a symbol unless he explicitly says it's a symbol, then most of Christ's parables would not even be considered as parables.

Also, if we applied the idea that something is NOT a symbol just because it is not explicitly declared to be one, we really would have to be salt, and our spirit really would have to be a candle, and we really would have to beware of the bakery products of the Pharisees.

Hans

[historyb]

Originally Posted by JADE

Neither are deal breakers in salvation. It really doesn't matter whether one thinks the wine they are drinking is truly blood(although I'd love to see the DNA breakdown and see if there are any traces). This is truly a "thought that counts" ritual. Whether one believes it is blood or just wine(or grape juice), we all agree that it is remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice for our salvation.

One who doesn't believe it is truly blood feels the same bond with God as the one who thinks it is blood.

It is a deal breaker in Salvation if when Christ said "...this is my blood." If it's not than the Bible contains lies. The great reformers never assumed the Holy Eucharist was just a symbol that idea grew later

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[HansC]

The great reformers never assumed the Holy Eucharist was just a symbol that idea grew later

The apostles never assumed the Holy Eucharist was not representative that idea grew later. You would think that people would know whether or not they have the Spirit of God and that salvation is not merely an unknowing dependence on a creed intellectually assented to, but rather a living relationship with the living God.

If what you believe is true, then all members of the Catholic religion who have ever taken the Eucharist would be automatically saved upon doing so. Sure I have meet Catholics who I believe are saved, but the truth is I have meet many, many more Catholics that have no saving knowledge of Christ, and are not part of His body and are not washed in the blood. If what you say is true, then that could not be the case, but it is.

[historyb]

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"

John 6:53–56

The apostles knew what Christ meant, so did those who walked away. As LW observed the Eucharist is much more than a symbol. I have meant many who said they were Christians, only God knows the truth. I could easily judge from one moment of meetings that they aren't yet at the same time I could be wrong.