Hey Neb, do u take communion??

[the answer]

Jesus said we were to take it until he comes...u say he already came...do u still do communion at ya church?

[king neb]

yes

* i was going to respond in fuller detail, but i don't want to presume anything, so i'll wait for your next response *

[OrthodoX]

It is true that there are many theological and biblical consequences to ANY position. I agree with Roldan that those of the full preterist are so that they actually redefine 'Christianity'.

Roldan has brought up a great point, the purpose of the Lord's Table is for the proclaiming of the Lord's death TILL his return. The full-preterist is different from others who practice communion in that they say that communion WAS once for both announcements BUT NOW it is for the proclaiming of his death and work...which we can see is redefined within the fullpreterist paradigm as well.

Not to be unfair, since I am not a full preterist, I am interested to hear Neb's take on this. Do the full- preterist say that the Lord's Supper is now to proclaim his return which has taken place, or that the Lord's supper is a proclaimation of his death only?

Also, it is clear to me that the Lord's Table is a sort of badge worn by the people of God, since the Lord replaced the Temple with the Table. And this badge is a sort of Kingdom announcement in effect saying that the Old system is done, the New is here.

Grace and Peace-

DoX

[king neb]

how is Preterism an “entirely different christianity all together”?

Really? You mean to tell me that the doctrine of the Trinity is an “entirely different Christianity”?

The doctrine of election/predestination is an “entirely different Christianity”?

The belief that Christ is the ONLY way to the Father and THAT by grace alone through faith alone is an “entirely different Christianity”?

Is the inerrancy of Scripture an “entirely different Christianity”?

How about the full deity and humanity of Christ..is that an “entirely different Christianity”?

What about the absolute sovereignty of God… is that an “entirely different Christianity”?

What about the belief that Christ, in his humanity, sinned not one time…is that an “entirely different Christianity”?

Or, how about total depravity, particular atonement, effectual sovereign grace, preservation of the elect, and unconditional election…is that an “entirely different Christianity”?

ALL OF WHICH I AFFIRM.

Not only that, but to add: YOU affirm that there was ‘some type of coming’ in ad 70 and that there was some sort of great significance to ad 70.

And so I carry over the remaining 15-20% of prophecy that you don’t (despite the absolute clear, unambiguous teachings of the Apostles) and all of a sudden it’s an “entirely different Christianity”?

Ooooooooootay.

[OrthodoX]

Jason-

Jesus is very delibrate in his actions and teachings concerning the his table. It IS the symbol of the new covenant. He himself replaced the Old's temple symbol with it. It seems that your camp changes the meaning of this symbol and the worldview it represents.

You yourself admit that you do it to out of concern for how Christians will view you. This is an understandable concern as a pastor. But by admitting this you are admitting that you have no biblical grounds for participating in communion. Your church and the orthodox Church sit at different tables so to speak.

I believe that Roldan raises an important question. One that you have already answered.

grace and peace-

DoX

[king neb]

John,

No, i don't. I don't take communion solely out of concern for the 'orthodox'. That may be a 'practical' concern that is far down the list, but that is not the reason i continue in it. furthermore, you bring up an interesting point - if it is the symbol of the New Covenant and i believe we are IN the NC, why does that necessitate a cessation of the symbol? Is not the NC everlasting?

* im typing my reasons now..will post soon*

[king neb]

And lastly, in response to Chea and John:

“Jesus said we were to take it until he comes...u say he already came...do u still do communion at ya church?”

First, there’s something that must be pointed out that would immediately squash this whole thing: Absolutely nowhere did Jesus say, ‘Take this until I come and then stop’. NOWHERE! Read it again:

1 Corinthians 11:26 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Chea’s question is not even a legitimate question – he misquoted the verse. This would be enough to end all this, but I’ll continue. (:

Two reasons why that verse does not mean (or even say), ‘Take this until he comes and then stop’.

First, it is being assumed by Chea that ‘until’ means some sort of ‘cessation’ is to take place and that is NOT what the word means. The Greek is ‘hou achris’. Pull your Greek lexicons out. Thayer says, "It is used of things that actually occurred and up to the beginning of which something continued." In other words, it’s a point of reference and not a point of cessation. This is further seen in that the exact phrase appears in I Cor. 15.25 as well:

“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”

Now, is Paul saying that when Christ is finished putting all his enemies under his feet, He will cease to reign? I don’t know of a single Christian who believes that and even if they did, it would contradict the teaching of Luke, Isaiah, Daniel, and a host of others who affirm that His rule is FOREVER…” But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”

So, the first point is that hou achris does NOT imply cessation, so Chea’s question, from the get go, is wrong and is an assumption placed on the text to make it say something Paul never said AND if we were to carry that faulty reasoning over to chapter 15 where the exact same Greek occurs, futursits would have to conclude that Christ will cease to reign at His coming. If anything, it could actually serve to affirm a coming in that generation because Paul said TO THE CORINTHIANS, as often as “you eat…you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” It would hardly make sense for Paul to tell Jim Bob over in Corinth to proclaim His death until he comes knowing that the coming would possibly take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years (see Postmillennialism) to happen and Jim Bob would never see it. (at least not from earth)

Second, Jesus Himself said that the Table would continue, which again rules out any talk of cessationism for the table regardless of whether you’re a preterist or not, and again exposes the wrong assumption/reading of I Cor. 10 on your part:

Luke 22:18 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

Matthew 26:29 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Jesus CLEARLY did not teach cessationism for the Table. Regardless of whether you are a preterist or not, a ceasing of communion is nowhere taught in Scripture, period. Again, it’s not even a legitimate question.

This is further seen in that the Israel’s Passover meal, of which was a type for the Lord’s Supper, was continued by the Israelites even AFTER they entered the land.

Joshua 5:9-12 9 And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day. 10 While the people of Israel were encamped at Gilgal, they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening on the plains of Jericho. 11 And the day after the Passover, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. 12 And the manna ceased the day after they ate of the produce of the land. And there was no longer manna for the people of Israel, but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

If the type did not cease upon entrance into the promised land, why would the fulfillment of the type, the Lord’s Supper, cease upon entrance into the ‘heavenly country’? Not only would it break the parallel, but it’s not what the phrase hou achris means and it’s contrary to Jesus’ teaching that He would partake with us when ‘the kingdom comes.’

So, HOW do I take it today? Jesus gives us the clue with the word, ‘new’. The word "new" is kainos; it means new in quality. Arndt-and Gingrich says the word "new" from kainos (Greek), means new in the sense of never having been before, or new as in superior, in contrast to old. Vines says it means "new as form of quality, of different nature what is contrasted as old." (Vol. III. p.109.) See also Thayer, p. 317. Kittel says that kainos emphasizes what is "new and distinctive...What is new in nature...better than the old, superior in value or attraction..." (Vol. III. p.447.)

This, I believe, points to the ‘already/not yet’ nature of Paul’s generation. The Lord’s Supper had taken on a ‘new’ meaning as the anti-type to the Passover meal. As John pointed out, and I believe rightly so, “It IS the symbol of the new covenant.” But the old covenant, including the Passover type, was not fully consummated until ad 70 at His coming. Therefore, during Paul’s generation, the meal was ‘being perfected’ along with everything else the saints were receiving during that time, including the kingdom. Ad 70 brought about the ‘perfection’ of the table, not a cessation.

Therefore, I take communion today, not only in celebration of his death/burial/resurrection, but also in celebration of the FACT that Christ has fully redeemed us from ‘Egypt’ and has brought us into the promised land, that heavenly country, that SPIRITUAL city, the New Jerusalem.

It doesn't cease because the New Covenant never ceases, of which it symbolizes. It doesn't cease because Christ Himself said He would drink with us in the kingdom. It doesn't cease because 'until' doesn't mean cease. And it doesn't cease for the same reasons the type did not cease when they entered the land.

So, the burden is on those who insist that it ceases when Scripture says just the opposite. It's an assumption that has no Biblical basis and is therefore a false 'dilemma' to begin with.

[king neb]

now, may we get back to some serious chat...Chea? John?

also Chea, i still realize that you havent really explained why you asked that..may just be mere curiosity, so understand that the length of my post and content was mainly in response to rick and John. Maybe you did not want all that explanation...i don't know...98% of the time that im asked that question, it is usually an attempt to make preterism look silly, but i realize that may not be the case from you.

[the answer]

hey neb,

I'm really trying to come up with a escatalogical view now. So my questions are ones to gain info. Since u are the only preterist I know, I like to get info from ya. It's part challenge and part curiosity. As I form my view I want to know how u take certain passages. Then once I get an answer, i decide whether I buy it or not.

I still have questions about the last post, but I'll re read it and post later.

BTW...Chea is not my name ( it's like saying YEAH...but with the 'c' sound...CHEA) At HCR we say it all the time. LOL I was wondering why u kept saying that LOL...but u can call me that if u want..or just answer is cool

CHEA

[king neb]

hahaha...

dude, i have been wondering about that...lol...i could have sworn i saw someone call you that before...sheesh, do i feel like an idiot....and to think, i almost asked you how you pronounce your name..haha...anywho, signing off

nah

[eternal]

LOL, Roldan why did you delete our posts?

[OrthodoX]

Eternal-

What posts were deleted...were they from this thread?

DoX

[eternal]

Yeah. Roldan quoted my post and said "figures "

My responding post was something like, "Wow. Another ambiguous one worded answer. Who woulda thought."

Next thing I know both posts are gone...

[DoGMaTiX]

eternal said:

LOL, Roldan why did you delete our posts?

The posts (all of mine included) were deleted because they have NOTHING to do with this thread or has any bearing or fruit for this thread so they were deleted so the real topic can continue.

If my post was considered a cheap shot then I apologize and removed it along with what stemmed from it. Nothing personal. Notice that the posts that deal with the topic remains.

God Bless

I

[eternal]

Oh, ok. I only noticed the last two being erased. Erasing them all was a good move. Respect.

[king neb]

Care to comment on hou achris and Jesus' statement of drinking of the vine NEW in the Kingdom and explain to me where Scripture speaks of a cessation of the table?

[DoGMaTiX]

kingneb said:

Care to comment on hou achris and Jesus' statement of drinking of the vine NEW in the Kingdom and explain to me where Scripture speaks of a cessation of the table?

Sure

[eternal]

dogmatix said:

kingneb said:

Care to comment on hou achris and Jesus' statement of drinking of the vine NEW in the Kingdom and explain to me where Scripture speaks of a cessation of the table?

Sure

Now you did that on purpose

[DoGMaTiX]

eternal said:

dogmatix said:

Sure

Now you did that on purpose

;D

But seriously I will respond today

[DoGMaTiX]

kingneb said:

And lastly, in response to Chea and John:

“Jesus said we were to take it until he comes...u say he already came...do u still do communion at ya church?”

First, there’s something that must be pointed out that would immediately squash this whole thing: Absolutely nowhere did Jesus say, ‘Take this until I come and then stop’. NOWHERE! Read it again:

1 Corinthians 11:26 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Chea’s question is not even a legitimate question – he misquoted the verse. This would be enough to end all this, but I’ll continue. (:

Two reasons why that verse does not mean (or even say), ‘Take this until he comes and then stop’.

First, it is being assumed by Chea that ‘until’ means some sort of ‘cessation’ is to take place and that is NOT what the word means. The Greek is ‘hou achris’. Pull your Greek lexicons out. Thayer says, "It is used of things that actually occurred and up to the beginning of which something continued." In other words, it’s a point of reference and not a point of cessation. This is further seen in that the exact phrase appears in I Cor. 15.25 as well:

I'm not going to respond to every jot and tittle ;D but will focus on Nebs main thrust.

Neb says that the greek word for "until" does not even IMPLY a cessation of any sort and exhorts us to pull out our Greek lexicons to see if he is correct.

I first want to point out that I am no greek expert but do have the tools available to me to investigate the meanings of the greek usages.

I did as Neb exhorted us to do and what I found was the complete opposite of his assertions. For example he used Thayers.(NOTE: remember Neb stated that ACHRIS HOU did not EVEN IMPLY no sort of cessation) The first meaning that the Thayer lexicon gives is a meaning of "terminius" or termination or in other words a cessation of an event.

Strongs greek lexicon also gives this FIRST meaning. Hopefully we will not get into a debate of who is the smartest and best greek scholar now. Nebs definition is a valid one but not the ONLY one.

So my conclusion on this first point that Neb makes holds no weight. (NOTE: Neb asserted that this point would squash the Answers question once and for all)

The Answers question is definately a valid one because in the historic orthodox reformed camp Christ has NOT returned and we must continue to proclaim His death until His return.

“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”

Now, is Paul saying that when Christ is finished putting all his enemies under his feet, He will cease to reign? I don’t know of a single Christian who believes that and even if they did, it would contradict the teaching of Luke, Isaiah, Daniel, and a host of others who affirm that His rule is FOREVER…” But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”

Allow me to introduce a christian who believes that and I am in good reformed and nonreformed company.

Christ threefold ministries will be accomplished and consumated at His coming, Prophet, Priest, KING.

Jesus will not reign as Christ King of His Church/kingdom but as GOD not that Jesus is not God now but Christ being King now over His church is still part of His earthly mission, which part of the mission? To put all His enemies under His feet as the King of kings.

Then what does the scripture says Christ as King will do after He puts all enemies under His feet? He will TURN OVER the Kingdom to the FATHER.

1 Cor. 15:24

1 Corinthians 15:24 NIV

24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Lets also look at a passage you used.

Matthew 26:29

29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

According to Nebs paradigm Christ has ALREADY handed over the Kingdom over to the Father and is no longer King at this moment.


The Kindom will be ruled by Triune God. Hence you passages that the Kindom of GOD is everlasting.

The greek word here again being ACHRIS HOU meaning an ending of an event.

Second, Jesus Himself said that the Table would continue, which again rules out any talk of cessationism for the table regardless of whether you’re a preterist or not, and again exposes the wrong assumption/reading of I Cor. 10 on your part:

Luke 22:18 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

Matthew 26:29 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Jesus CLEARLY did not teach cessationism for the Table. Regardless of whether you are a preterist or not, a ceasing of communion is nowhere taught in Scripture, period. Again, it’s not even a legitimate question.

I don't think the Answers point was a cessation of the Table for we all know that will continue to feast but the difference is that it will be in the PRESENCE of God the Son. Do you partake of the table with Christ present? If no then He hasn't come yet, if yes then do you take the Reformed presbyterian (Calvin's) view of the Lords Supper?

Again the passage of Matthew

Matthew 26:29

29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

This is further seen in that the Israel’s Passover meal, of which was a type for the Lord’s Supper, was continued by the Israelites even AFTER they entered the land.

If the type did not cease upon entrance into the promised land, why would the fulfillment of the type, the Lord’s Supper, cease upon entrance into the ‘heavenly country’? Not only would it break the parallel, but it’s not what the phrase hou achris means and it’s contrary to Jesus’ teaching that He would partake with us when ‘the kingdom comes.’

Neb is assuming that the Passover meal only pointed to the promised land that they entered.

What Neb fails to realize is that the Passover Lamb was the OT sign of the Covenant and its main importance was pointing the pefect Lamb that was to be slain it pointed to Christ. Of course they continued the meal Christ has not come yet. But when He did come, guess what? The passover meal was replaced by the Lords Supper hence NO MORE passover meal.

So, HOW do I take it today? Jesus gives us the clue with the word, ‘new’. The word "new" is kainos; it means new in quality. Arndt-and Gingrich says the word "new" from kainos (Greek), means new in the sense of never having been before, or new as in superior, in contrast to old. Vines says it means "new as form of quality, of different nature what is contrasted as old." (Vol. III. p.109.) See also Thayer, p. 317. Kittel says that kainos emphasizes what is "new and distinctive...What is new in nature...better than the old, superior in value or attraction..." (Vol. III. p.447.)

Absolutely correct!

The word "new" is important here. And I strongly believe that Nebs evaluation of the word in its greek gives more credibility to the orthodox interpretation of the Supper.

Lets use one of Nebs proof texts again.

NOTE: Let the readers take note of the meaning of the word new above in Nebs quote especially the meaning of different in NATURE.


Matthew 26:29

29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Not only was it new for the apostles and for us right now but it will be NEW at His coming when the Lords supper will take upon once again a different nature, that hasn't happened yet.

This, I believe, points to the ‘already/not yet’ nature of Paul’s generation.

Notice Neb says in "Pauls generation". According the to Full Preterist everything has been fulfilled. In the Non full preterist( how you like that ) we still have a not yet.

For example. Yes we have had our exodus from Egypt ALREADY(freed from the slavery to sin) BUT not yet FULLY for we still sin.

The Full preterist position is a dangerous system because its leavs open the possibility that we will continue to sin EVEN IN THE HEAVENLY STATE because they teach that sin and death has been defeated already but we still sin, what make you think you will not sin in heaven?

Neb is there a possibility of sinning after death?