The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part V

                                                                 I. Introduction

Francis Chan admitted that he was never instructed by the Master's Seminary (the seminary that he attended) that the Body and Blood of Christ was what was central to all church services until five hundred years ago. He also never learned from the Master's Seminary that All of this he learned in later years, and was shocked by the truths that he learned. Watch his three-minute video below: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP9roQQwzsA

Tragically, Chan never learned that the altar, not the performance of one preacher, was the center of all church services from the New Testament until the Reformed Churches in the sixteenth century. Sadly, he is not the only one. Many Evangelical seminaries have ignored many passages in Scripture that pertain to the Eucharist and two thousand years of church history. 

In this post, I will briefly use Christian philosophy to justify the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ as well as reasons against those who hold the sermon to be more important the Eucharist. No theologian relies on Scripture alone as his only source. Using philosophy and reason can help us make sense of what Scripture teaches. Paul, himself, used his knowledge of Greek philosophy to evangelize those outside of the faith (Acts 17). Likewise, philosophy can aid us in important discussions among our fellow believers over the doctrines of God and His holy church. 

                                                                 II. The Sermon vs. The Eucharist

In the New Testament, the apostles and evangelists preached in the outdoors and in Jewish Synagogues, though Scripture never articulates them ever having preached in the church. Let me use an analogy to explain. 

I think that there is a lot to learn from John Calvin. Imagine Calvin preaching about the Pslams to us. Likely, he would teach many of us aspects of Old Testament theology something that we did not already know. However, when Calvin preaches, it is not literally just the Psalms that he is using. He is invoking his personal views about them as he preaches (often based on what He believes is Biblical). I too am instructing from this post what I believe is Biblical but sermons don't merely read Scripture alone. The preacher tries to understand its meaning as he teaches others about it.

When sermons are done in Baptist Churches, whether they be good or bad sermons, they are still not the Scriptures themselves. Neither Charles Stanely nor John Macarthur preaches literally only the words in Scripture and nor do I think they must. Understand my point. 

In the New Testament, the letters of Ephesians, Romans, etc, were read to the churches. This is not the same as preaching sermons in those churches. There is simply no record of a sermon in a New Testament church-congregation after Pentecost. We have examples of sermons on mountains and elsewhere, but not in the churches themselves. Paul's preaching in Athens in Acts 17: 16-33 was to those outside the Christian faith and not in a church setting. 

John the Baptist preached in the outdoors (Matthew 1). The Sermon on the Mount was outside and before the institution of the church at Pentecost (Matthew 5: 13-16). In other passages, Jesus preached to the Jews in the Synagogues (Matthew 4: 13, Mark 4: 21-28, Luke 4: 16-37). Even when Peter preached after Pentecost in Acts 2, it was to Jews outside of the church (vs. 14-42).  The case of Stephen preaching before his death (Acts 7: 1-53) was not in a congregation. When Paul did preach in his letters to the churches, they were inspired by God (2 Timothy 3: 17). Thus, his inspired letters cannot be compared to the fallible opinions of modern ministers. 

There is not one single example of a sermon preached in a New Testament congregation yet many ''Bible believing'' Christians claim that all they believe is in the Bible (but then ignore actual Scriptural teachings on topics like the Eucharist). 

I don't think that those make sermons bad. I love hearing good sermons. I think it's unfortunate that many liturgical churches lack solid sermons about deep theology. Oftentimes, they preach more general homilies that do not call us to Holy living. However, while I love good sermons, it is the Eucharist, not the sermon, which is central to the New Testament Church in Scripture. We know that they partook in it every day (Acts 2: 46, 1 Corinthians 11.) (as the Catholic Church still does). Tragically, the Baptist Churches have replaced the Eucharist (found throughout the New Testament)  with the sermon (nowhere found in the New Testament Church). They prioritize the opinions of ministers from the pulpit over the precious Body and Blood of Christ. If they are not careful, they may be guilty of breaking the first commandment, which is to take something else before God. 

This is not an issue of the Eucharist vs. the Bible as being more important in the life of the Christian believer. Sermons are not equivalent to reading the Bible. Pastors are not infallible. Scripture, however, teaches all truths needed for our salvation and unlike the minister, will never lead us into theological error. But the minister can lead us into error. His preaching of Ephesians is not the same as reading Ephesians, a book fully inspired book of God. 

Thus, while I think that we should all have healthy sermons in our churches, the pattern of the New Testament Church was primarily believers congregating and receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Those who simply take the Baptist preacher's word as truth have made him their own pope and are guilty of taking him over the authority of Scripture. 

''But,'' the Evangelical may object, ''you are taking a low view of Scripture.''

Not at all. In fact, it takes a low view of Scripture to say that the opinions of a minister are equal to the inspired Word of God. I value sermons, but I value Scripture itself more. I also value the Body and Blood of Christ more than the opinions of a pastor. In fact, one should be concerned about adding to Scripture (Revelation 22: 18), for those who believe that the sermon is central to the New Testament Church are doing exactly that.

Those who say that Paul preached to the churches in his New Testament letters must realize that if these letters are to be considered sermons, they have inspired sermons, and thus, not the same as the sermons of a fallible minister behind a pulpit. If the Word of God being read in the New Testament Churches is considered a sermon, then this would be the only example of a sermon in the Early Church after Pentecost, as described in Scripture. 

                                                       III. The Meaning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Much more could be said about why I believe that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ. One of the main sources that convinced me of this is On The Body And Blood of the Lord by Lanfranc of Canterbury, the tenth volume of The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation Series. In it, Lanfranc goes through Scripture, church history, and philosophy to rebuttal claims against the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Christ. His understanding of Transubstantiation was not identical to that of the later Council of Trent. For one, Lanfranc lacked the direction that many later theologians would explain this doctrine by means of Aristotelian Philosophy. Personally, however, I think that Lanfranc was wise to understand the mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ and how they cannot be explained by reason. 

 ''But,'' the Calvinist may ask, ''why? What would be the purpose of Christ being sacrificed again and again? Does this take away from God's glory that He be sacrificed again and again?'' 

Ah, how inconsistent most of the Baptists Calvinists are. Many of them are parrots who have learned to say a few select sayings from their favorite pastors and theologians. 

Contrary to the ideas of many Reformed Baptists, God's glory is not simply measured by His wrath. God's glory may just as well be measured by His mercy. Our God sent His son to the World because He loved humanity (John 3: 16). 

Furthermore, many of the same Calvinists who do not attempt to explain why God predestined some over others (besides the simple explanation of it being for His glory) do not consider that Christ's one-time sacrifice for our sins, though received every time we have the Eucharist, is also a mystery for God's glory. We cannot explain everything that there is to know about God's will concerning the Mass, just as they cannot explain all that there is to know about God's will concerning predestination. Yet, somehow, many of them always expect everyone else to give answers while they so often give none. 

The sacrifice of the Mass grows us in grace (1 Corinthians 11, John 6). It happens because we need God's grace. Those who say that it takes away from Christ's work on the cross would also have to conclude that the Holy Spirit's intervention in our salvation takes away from Christ's work at the cross, yet none of this is true. The Blessed Holy Trinity is saving us continually. The Holy Spirit's work on our lives did not end with the resurrection but began with Christ's ascension. Daily, we need Him, and we need His sacraments. 

Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit is so often downplayed in most Baptists Churches. If they confess the Holy Spirit's role in our salvation and our need for Him, it implies that the Christian life did not end with our acceptance of what Christ did on the Cross. An appreciation of the Holy Spirit will often lead us to believe that we also need His sacraments, which He provides for us in the church. They are the means of grace for us to fight sin and hold fast to what is true. 

John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 prove that the Eucharist is a means of grace. How frightened every church should be by attempting to replace Christ Himself with something inferior. 

On the flip side, it can be asked to the Memorialist, ''Why take Wine/Grape Juice and Bread to remember Christ when we could remember Him any other time?'' 

The Memorialist would likely point out that we use wine and bread to remember Christ because it is Biblical to do so (1 Corinthians 11). Of course, we should remember Christ's earthly ministry even when we don't take Communion, but He specifically calls us to remember Him by these elements (Luke 22: 7-38). 

If the Memorialist is then consistent, they will also realize that we may not understand by reason why we have to use bread and wine to remember our Lord's sacrifice just as we don't have to know why He is present in Body and Blood for us every time we take communion. Faith does not mean explaining everything through the use of reason. Above all, it means trusting in God even when we cannot understand His will. We are bound to obey Him, however. 

                                                                      IV. Conclusion:

The debate is settled. Those who deny the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ deny Biblical teaching, defy historical theology, and hold contrary philosophies to sound doctrine. They assert their beliefs against the teachings of Christ, Paul, and what many believed in the church until the Reformation (and even then, many Lutherans and Anglicans still retained a literal view). 

Those who claim to be all Bible-believing Christians yet deny the centrality of the Eucharist in the Christian life, prove themselves to be either ignorant of Scripture or hypocrites, if not both. Scripture clearly states that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, a denial of the real presence of Christ is heresy. 

In some form, Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all hold to the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist. While I may believe ina  particular thought over the next, I think that all these Christians are within orthodoxy. 

While I do believe that there are many Christians in good faith who deny the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ, I think most of them are unaware of their errors. Hopefully, my post will engage their thoughts on this topic. Scripture is of higher authority than my own words, however, and I encourage all who read this to exam what I am preaching by the words of Holy Scripture. 

Still, I will now turn to Early Christianity's documents outside the New Testament as further evidence that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.