Lex Rex

verbum sat sapienti

Lex Rex

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

"Habemus papam!"

Nothing more, just wanted to use some latin to announce the new Bishop of Rome...

Friday, April 08, 2005

Early Church: Sacraments

I would like to hear input on Augustine, he seems to support more of the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and not so much real presence. I do not know how accurate this is, but Schaff claims there was considerable debate over the issue of the Eucharist early on (its meaning, not practice) and obviously, that debate continues today.

Let's look at John 6, and read this in the context that Jesus Himself provides: (my comments will be in IT, and no BGM, I am not quoting White or any other of your proclaimed enemies, the following are just mere observations of Scripture of which I am sincerely open to feedback):

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." (Here, Jesus IMO is establishing the context, making a distinction between perishable nourishment that sustains you for a while and that of spiritual nourishment that is everlasting) 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (Notice here the Jewish audience ignore the food reference and focus on the labor) 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (Here again, Jesus is referring to belief in Him) 30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat." 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (here, this bread must be metaphorical as Jesus is obviously not standing before them appearing like manna or a loaf of bread, but in flesh) 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (He refers to himself as the bread of life and in the same sentence refers to the belief in Him) 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (Again, refers to belief in Him)41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven?" (notice here, the Jews focus again not on the bread reference but on clearly what Jesus is saying, that He is of Heaven) 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, "And they will all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." (This seems to be a clear reference to his coming sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of his flesh is the "bread" of life).
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus [3] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (Jesus reveals the clear meaning to His disciples, as He does other times when He uses allegorical teaching, i.e. leavened bread)(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

It is with this revelation in private to His disciples that Jesus, IMO, lays out what He meant. He spoke directly to their confusion, it is the Spirit that gives life, the reference to flesh was an allegory.

Here is another example of where Jesus employed allegory, but in this case revealed the true meaning, perhaps because He knew the heart of Nicodemus,
John 3:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus [1] by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [2] he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [3] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." 8 The wind [4] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Are we now to have the sacrament of the womb where we ritualistically climb into a womb and engage in a birthing experience? I am not being smart here, I sincerely ask)Another example of Jesus using symbolism to illustrate a point:Matthew 16:5:

When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Notice they again mistook His example for literal meaning, ironically involving a metaphorical Bread. These men walked with Jesus and made mistakes, is it possible that after the ascension, without Jesus there to re-direct or rebuke, that the church once again mistook allegory for a literal interpretation? Not only possible, but seems likely, which is why from the start I have been hesitant to rely on what the church fathers did as ipso facto proof that is what we are to do today.

And again,

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

Bread is referenced in the OT as sacrifice, it is fitting for Jesus in NT to refer to Himself as the bread from heaven, or sacrifice:


21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the LORD who sanctifies them."

So my question is, with all of the times Jesus uses allegory to illustrate who He was/is, why is the church insistent on reading a literal interpretation into the sacrament of the Eucharist in the form of the real presence doctrine? Is not the clear context and Jesus' revelation to His disciples indicate what he meant, i.e., that the bread, or His presence in thereof, is not the point, it is clearly your belief in Him, a belief that looks alone to Jesus as the sustenance of our soul, in the spiritual sense, and that the sacrifice of His body was sufficient? Does this not mesh well with how we interpret the NT vs. the OT in all other matters, i.e. circumcision, temple sacrifice, etc....Jesus replaced it all, once and for all.

Thursday, April 07, 2005


Lex Rex and BGM,

As I have been doing little else than reading through the earliest Church Fathers of late (up through Tertullian and Origen), I wanted to interject this initial observation as to the Sacraments. Second century emphasis, at least in the surviving texts, is limited to Baptism and the Eucharist. Unless I have missed something, which is always possible, I simply do not see any reference to other Sacraments (other than perhaps that Marriage is of God).

At the beginning of third century, Tertullian does expand the Sacramental discussion, along with many many many other topics. But, frankly, without knowing BGM's take on Tertullian, I find much in his writing to be over the top. I am simply not sure what level of trust to put in either Tertullian or Origen, in that both were quite off in many of their teachings (not just in my opinion, but the opinion of their contemporaries as well). The Church of their day obviously distrusted them as they were both either given the boot or they themselves broke fellowship with the very Church they had vigorously defended. That being said, I have, however, found some very interesting conclusions they arrived at on various topics but will fight the urge to rant and rave off of topic.

I will await BGM's and Lex Rex's, and even perhaps Simon_Templar's, valued input before devolving further except to say that as to the Eucharist, I believe I have found evidence that has significantly raised the importance of said Sacrament in my heart and mind (and body as may be). Based upon the NT and OT I believe that there indications of the importance of treating the elements of the Eucharist with reverence. I will explain the Scriptural basis for this statement when time presents. After reading the earliest Fathers I have been left with the impression that they believed it was more than mere symbol, but actually imparts physical sustenance to those who partake in a worthy manner. I am still admittedly in deliberations on this topic and, thus, have chosen to limit my comments until seeing what my highly esteemed brothers have to say.



Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Early Church: Sacraments

In honor of the passing of the Bishop of Rome, let's shift away from the great schism for now (we should return later to have BGM respond regarding succession) and study the sacraments. This study will necessarily involve both history and scripture.

1. Besides Baptism and the Eucharist, when were the other 5 sacraments instituted?

2. Do the sacraments effectuate grace or are they mere symbols as Luther posited?