Today Joel Watts posted a quote from one of the Early Church Fathers on the subject of the Eucharist (a.k.a. the Lord’s Supper or Communion):
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. [Emphasis all Steve's]
This wasn’t post-Nicea, folks. The doctrine of transubstantiation, or Real Presence, which teaches that the bread and wine literally become Christ’s body and blood upon the blessing from the Church leader, goes way back. The above quote was from Justin Martyr in his First Apology (ch. 66), written about 155. When looking at the Early Church Fathers, we don’t get a whole lot earlier than Justin Martyr. Interestingly, wider context shows that his main point wasn’t even that the elements became Christ’s body and blood — that was a given — but that the Church leadership was entrusted with the administration of the sacrament. And it’s clear that Justin is under the impression that this teaching was handed down by the Apostles, so at very least it well predates 155.
I’m not taking a position on whether he was right or wrong here, but that this was an exceptionally early witness to a doctrine that many “orthodox” Protestants who highly depend upon “historic, orthodox Christianity” nevertheless reject (this was not true of Martin Luther, who insisted on a literal interpretation of “Hoc est corpus meam,” meaning “This is my body.”). These same orthodoxy-loving Protestants characteristically dismiss out of hand all kinds of perfectly compelling textual, historical, and scientific evidence that contradicts what they regard as the teaching of “historic Christianity”.
From my experience, dissenting from another Christian’s belief on the grounds that it has somehow departed ways with “historic Christianity” is simply the most convenient way of ignoring that belief without having to address it honestly. Granted, not all beliefs warrant the same level of scrutiny before being put on the back shelf or dismissed; I certainly wouldn’t expect everyone to personally debunk every shady conspiracy theory, fantastic claim, or alternative explanation with transparently misguided motivations. But many other beliefs deserve to be examined and not simply ignored, particularly when they’re held by other well-intentioned, critical thinking believers. Letting the question of whether a point of view is right or wrong be answered solely by an appeal to ”orthodoxy” is not critical thinking: it’s blind faith that an intellectually honest lover of truth should not allow to be kept under lock and key to exempt it from analysis and authentication.
Related posts:
- Clash of Titans: Christianity vs. Dr. Mohler’s theology The fireworks continue between BioLogos and the esteemed Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology and President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, God’s chosen...
- Proving Christianity with inerrancy In a discussion involving my rejection of inerrancy, a frequent commenter mentioned the inerrantist objection, ”Without [our Bible] can we confidently walk up to a non-believer and ask...
- In Luther’s footsteps Last Sunday night, our church hosted a Reformation Party for the kids. It was sort of a Halloweenish deal, with lots of games and candy,...
- Does majority rule in theology? In this week’s installment of Theology Unplugged, a podcast I highly recommend, Reclaiming the Mind Ministries president Michael Patton made the following comments about full...
- When Christianity undervalues truth Using an analogy especially interesting to me as an historical linguist, Sabio Lantz at Triangulations reminds us of the power of understanding that the Christian...
View Comments on “Not historic, orthodox Christianity”
You can track this conversation through its atom feed.
One of the problems I think we Protestants have is that we don’t know church history pre-Martin Luther. Perhaps I’m projecting my own experience on all of Protestantism, so I’m open to correction here. Personally, I love learning about church history; it gives perspective and a sense of belonging.
.-= Thomas´s last blog ..Saint Quadratus =-.
Posted on December 19, 2009 at 11:37 am.
Your point about appealing to orthodoxy to prove a point is well taken. I think you took an extremely sensitive subject (transubstantiation) in order to prove how extreme people can get on this whole “origination” issue for doctrines unless it agrees with their own already held views.
If they were honest, as you pointed out, then there would be a whole lot more Catholics around, wouldn’t there?
Posted on December 19, 2009 at 7:58 pm.
My position on church history and the beliefs of early believers is somewhat of a balancing act. It is certainly a bit ignorant, if not arrogant, to strike out in new territories theologically without looking to see what our forbears had concluded on those subjects. They’re like any reference an author should use in writing a book: in some sense, the testimony of the early church was the definitive treatment of the material (if only because of chronological priority), and so the author of the new book must interact with it in order to be at all diligent and to appear credible. But even definitive works can be wrong; if I’m not willing to claim inerrancy for the human authors of Scripture, I’m certainly not going to attribute it to other humans getting along as best they could without a canon, scattered throughout the Roman Empire and splintered into factions of theology, if not as fractured in polity as we are today.
If you’ll notice, one of the tags I used with this post was “preterism”. This is because preterism has been condemned by even the segment of Protestantism most skeptical of the pre-modern church most adamantly on the grounds that it seems too radically different from what everyone’s always been taught in that it denies a yet future physical return of Christ and a bodily resurrection of believers, even though there is cogent exegetical evidence in favor of it and some pretty decisive exegetical evidence against a multi-millennial delay in the eschatological expectations of the authors of the New Testament. There are other areas I explore that depart from the received tradition that are condemned on these grounds, but this is the one that first brought it home to me what a convenient bludgeon tradition and orthodoxy can be, even for Protestants.
Posted on December 21, 2009 at 9:08 am.
Patristics Carnival XXXI | The Church of Jesus Christ says:
[...] Steve responds to my post on Justin and the Eucharist. [...]
Posted on January 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm.