Friday, April 24, 2009

Jay Adams - More Debunking Transubstantiation
















Yesterday's blog post over at The Institute for Nouthetic Studies dealt with, ironically enough, the aberrant doctrine of transubstantiation. Recently, I posted a two-part series examining how the early Church saw the ordinance of the Lord's Supper - as a memorial to the crucified and risen Lord.

Dr. Jay Adams, in typical concise fashion, sums it up nicely in yesterday's post (I even fixed his spelling typos):

"What about transubstantiation? Were the bread and wine actually changed into the body and blood of Christ? Millions of people claim to believe they were. If it were true, it would be a continuous miracle—totally unlike any other in the Bible.

But consider the facts.

First, notice that Jesus said to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. What goes on at the supper has mnemonic value.

Secondly, He said that eating was a means of declaring (literally, “preaching”) His death until returns. There is not a whisper about the cannibalistic act of actually eating Him.

“Ah. But He said ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is My blood.’ How do you get around that fact?”

We don’t have to get around it, as you put it. We simply do regular exegesis. When Jesus said I am the Bread of life, the Water of life or the Door to the sheepfold, for instance, we don’t say He is a fluid, or a board hanging on hinges, or a loaf of bread. Thank God that there is a meaningful and important purpose of proclaiming the Lord’s death for sinners that comports with rather than contradicts, the way of salvation. The once-for-all death of Christ (Hebrews 9:28; 10:1,2; 11-14) must be maintained rather than the opposing doctrine of Jesus dying in un-bloody sacrifices again and again on Roman Catholic altars, as is presupposed in transubstantiation.

How foolish to think that the apostles understood something more than what Jesus said—that the supper was an act of remembrance and proclamation. After all, there He was sitting before them in His living flesh and blood. If I hold up a picture of myself and say, “See, this is me,” what do you suppose–that the picture is somehow morphed into me? Of course not! Friend, if you are caught up in this sophistry of the scholastics, think again."


(There's an SAT word of the day for you - 'sophistry'. I'm going to figure out a way to use that in a sentence this weekend.)

8 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Excellent. But you need to fix a spelling error - "morphed into mef?"

Marie said...

LOL! You're right - I missed that one. Hard to believe the guy is 80. And has his own blog. How many 80-year-olds do you know who blog??

4simpsons said...

An 80 year old blogger? That's great!

Good analysis. I've never understood why they are so literal with that passage.

Marie said...

It gets better, Neil. An 80-year-old, PRESBYTERIAN blogger, no less.

Jay Adams is the founder of NANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) who wrote "Competent to Counsel" in 1967.

NANC rawks.

Donn said...

Typos are fixed . . . I hope. Do not blame Jay. He writes them, I post them (and try to catch typos) and then he reviews them after posting. Jay is out of town this week so I am on my own without him to look over my shoulder--and this was the result.

Marie said...

Hi Donn! Thanks for visiting. I liked today's entry on zeal being channeled appropriately, as well.

levana said...

Loved the post, very well written! By the way the author of From Fear to Freedom is Rose Marie Miller. How did everything go with driving stick? I see you are alive and well, lol

Marie said...

Drove all the way back from Boston last night! (downtown Boston, no less). Sure, there were moments where my husband was shouting "Now clutch! Now gas!" while manuevering the stick for me, but I can honestly say I have conquered this fear. I will have to check out that book - you clearly have good taste in reading materials!