Comments on: Oh No, It’s Magic… Or Maybe Not.

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:39:12 +0000

I think the scriptural examples you cite at first seem very reasonable, however, with regard to another concept (individual will of God) I have found myself asking new questions about scriptural “proof” for certain doctrines. For example, is the bronze serpent really a normative example? Can we take an isolated incident in Israel’s history and then clump that with a few more non-normative illustrations (healing by Jesus garment, maybe?) to form something as standardized as guaranteed grace via communion? Especially when this seems to, if not violate, at least fall outside the realm of established normative scriptural principles? I am not saying your view is not supported in scripture, but I don’t think a passage like the bronze serpent lends any weight to it.

I realize you say this:

None of this is proof, or even an argument, that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s supper, thats not the point here. The point is to give the person pause who rejects that view out of hand because it comes across as magic.

…and it does give me pause. However, while I agree that God has used objects (clearly) to perform certain acts, even divine acts - this does not mean that we can jump to the idea that God will always impart grace via bread and wine.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:44:30 +0000

I would agree, the examples I cite do not show that grace is given in communion in any way. It is simply a response to the magic argument. I will, I hope, get around to writing more entries on this topic which will actually address what happens in communion. At this point I haven’t even explained what I mean by sanctifying grace, nor given any evidence for it in either one of my posts on this topic.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:52:13 +0000

Other examples the above commentators would perhaps like to investigate include Apostolic Church fathers who see the Lord’s Supper as ‘magical’ or, perhaps more appropriately, Sacramental.
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus all have apostolic connections to St. John. They all see it as being Sacramental.
St. Paul thinks it is Sacramental, as he thinks that abusing it is what is killing people, or at the very least making them sick (see 1 Cor. 11)
Even Martin Luther thought it to be Sacramental, even if he disagreed with transubstantiation.

By: thainamu

thainamu — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:05:12 +0000

Bryan said, “At this point I haven’t even explained what I mean by sanctifying grace, nor given any evidence for it…”

Yes, that was going to be my question.

Also, there are both sacramental and non-sacramental protestant denominations–you could school us a bit about that difference.

Bryan said, “The absolute dichotomy between physical and spiritual is not one found in scripture.”

True, true. Our scientific mindset makes us wish that dichotomy did exist.

By: TANK

TANK — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:34:57 +0000

Hmm. As an ex-Catholic, I’ve pondered and studied this topic many times. I appreciated you article. Grace is truly an amazing thing. I’ve always seen the bronze serpent explained as a precursor to Christ on the cross. All who look and believe will be saved. The Lord’s Supper is more like the manna that God gave the Israelites in the desert. It just keeps us spiritually alive instead of physically. Baptism is a work as is praying. Our whole life is filled with work, and it only makes sense that we should be doing it all for the Lord. The problem only comes when we do the work to save ourselves. Wanting ourselves to be saved is how we are wired, but our sinful nature keeps us from looking to God as a first reaction. So God steps in and shows us where we should be putting that faith for salvation. I haven’t said much about the Lord’s Supper, but I’m still not sure that I’m going to be able to fully grasp that one on this earth.

By: thainamu

thainamu — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:46:54 +0000

Hi Tank, nice to see you here. I appreciate, for personal reasons, hearing the Catholic point of view on various topics.

I hope you feel welcome and will stick around.

By: Atanamis

Atanamis — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:52:40 +0000

Paul is very clear that abuse of the Lord’s Supper results in harm. The reason for this is that abuse of the Lord’s Supper indicates a lack of respect for the thing which it represent, Christ’s sacrifice. He is also clear that we do it to proclaim the truth of Christ’s sacrifice: 1 Corinthians 11:17-33

Romans 4 wrote:

4Money paid to workers isn’t a gift. It is something they earn by working. 5But you cannot make God accept you because of something you do. God accepts sinners only because they have faith in him.

No man does any action to merit grace, it it granted as a gift as a result of works. What happens when a man sin’s more greatly?

Romans 4 wrote:

9Are these blessings meant for circumcised people or for those who are not circumcised? Well, the Scriptures say that God accepted Abraham because Abraham had faith in him. 10But when did this happen? Was it before or after Abraham was circumcised? Of course, it was before.

Abraham was COMMANDED to be circumcised (just as we are commanded to be Baptised and to take Communion). His circumcision though was NOT what granted him grace though, but his faith.

Romans 5 wrote:

20The Law came, so that the full power of sin could be seen. Yet where sin was powerful, God’s kindness was even more powerful. 21Sin ruled by means of death. But God’s kindness now rules, and God has accepted us because of Jesus Christ our Lord. This means that we will have eternal life.

It is not our rightdoing that merits our reward, but Christ’s gift. Nothing we do or don’t do will merit it. In fact, this complete lack of need for action causes Paul to address in the next verse (6:1) whether there is even any reason why we shouldn’t just go on doing bad things. The answer is that we shouldn’t because we are new creations.

Romans 6 said:

1What should we say? Should we keep on sinning, so that God’s wonderful kindness will show up even better? 2No, we should not! If we are dead to sin, how can we go on sinning? 3Don’t you know that all who share in Christ Jesus by being baptized also share in his death? 4When we were baptized, we died and were buried with Christ. We were baptized, so that we would live a new life, as Christ was raised to life by the glory of God the Father.

It isn’t our actions that give us grace, it is our faith that results in upright actions. I don’t get grace because I obey, I obey because I’ve been given grace. Like circumcision, the sacrament isn’t about causing a change to take place in us, it is representing the change that has ALREADY occurred. The physical act of looking at a snake never saves anyone, it was the decision to trust God that caused people to look at the snake. Faith, like sin, only occurs in the heart. Physical actions are merely the manifestation of the heart’s condition.

All citations were in CEV (Contemporary English Version).

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:01:25 +0000

All citations were in CEV (Contemporary English Version).

At first I feared the Message - and I thought the world had turned upside-down.

By: Atanamis

Atanamis — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:31:43 +0000

No, I would NEVER cite the Message… I don’t get into many fights regarding versions, but the Message often ends up adding or subtracting meaning when compared to any other version. As CEV demonstrates, clear language is possible without distorting the meaning compared to other versions.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:00:16 +0000

Atanamis, although I don’t directly interact with you in the next entry on this subject (just finished writing it) I hope it will clear up, or at least bring to a head, our disagreements on this. If not the post after that one will since it will deal with the sacraments as a whole before turning to baptism.

Bryan
SDG

By: Atanamis

Atanamis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:06:52 +0000

Atanamis, although I don’t directly interact with you in the next entry on this subject (just finished writing it) I hope it will clear up, or at least bring to a head, our disagreements on this.

While there are many minor doctrines of Scripture that are likely to remain debatable until we speak face to face with Christ, the core doctrines are clearly outlined repeatedly in Scripture (particularly in Romans). One of those core doctrines is the mechanism by which we have access to grace. The Bible is explicitly clear that the ceremonies and symbolism is intended to point us toward a faith in Christ, rather than having innate magical powers to “force” God to bestow grace on us.

I have many, many passages backing up my point, and NONE of the passages addressing communion indicate that taking communion bestows grace upon us. The closest to this is Paul’s comments that improper observation of communion bestows harm, guilt, and death, but the context makes it pretty clear that this is due to the disrespect it shows for the memory of Christ and to his body (the Christian church).

To convince me of your point, you’re going to have to do better than show me the logic of fellow man (such as Calvin), and point to the SCRIPTURE from which you draw your views.