Share This Episode
Outer Brightness  Logo

What About Sacraments?, Redux: The Lord's Supper, Pt. 2 (Articles of Faith Series)

Outer Brightness /
The Truth Network Radio
January 17, 2021 12:01 am

What About Sacraments?, Redux: The Lord's Supper, Pt. 2 (Articles of Faith Series)

Outer Brightness /

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 165 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

January 17, 2021 12:01 am

The sons of light continue their deep dive discussion of the Lord's Supper. They begin to look closely at the relevant New Testament passages related to this sacrament, and discuss their meaning and application. Here they cover Luke 22:17-21, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, and begin their discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:17-29.

Insight for Living
Chuck Swindoll
The Truth Pulpit
Don Green
Alan Wright Ministries
Alan Wright
Core Christianity
Adriel Sanchez and Bill Maier
More Than Ink
Pastor Jim Catlin & Dorothy Catlin
The Truth Pulpit
Don Green

Beginning with all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life and the life light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in court in Salt Lake City, Utah, commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on teachings name of our podcast outer brightness reflects John 19 calls Jesus, the true light gives light to every we have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told in the light, we have is not our own. It comes to us from without.

Thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith in what God has done in drawing us to his son. We have conversations about all aspects of the transition fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between were glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around listening to our greatness podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God, to walk with Jesus rather than turn away out of this brightness brightness wailing and gnashing of teeth. Here, except when Michael's angry that is angry that is angry. That is why Matthew, the nuclear columnist Michael BX Mormon apologist on Paul Bunyan the fourth LDS article of faith states. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Our first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, repentance third baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Fourth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In our previous episode of the outer brightness podcast. We each discussed our past experiences as Latter Day Saints related to the nest necessity of baptism and the sacrament what most Christians refer to as the Lord's supper, communion, etc. whether differences in viewpoints on the sacraments or ordinances disrupts the unity of the Christian church and how we now prepare and receive the Lord's supper and baptism as born-again Christians. In this episode we would like to take a closer look at the subject in previous episodes we described our personal journeys out of the LDS church and toward biblical Christianity and continuing our faith journeys.

One topic that was of particular concern to me was what water baptism is what it signifies, who must receive it and whether it is still an absolute requirement for eternal life. The same is true for the sacrament. Why do Christians do it, do they believe the same things that I did about it.

Does God do anything. The sacrament or is it a memorial only during this episode we hope to address some of these questions and describe how we have grown in our understanding of Scripture concerning the Lord's supper. The Lord's table or communion. While we three may have differing views on these topics. We recognize that there is room for disagreement based on the teachings of the word of God. We all recognize this to be an important topic in the baptism and communion are commanded to be observing Christchurch by the Lord himself while he may not understand them in the same way.

We acknowledge that we are brothers in Christchurch and that we each are seeking to follow him to be conformed to his image and that we must be willing to be teachable Christians journey never ends when instituting the sacrament or ordinance of the Lord's supper at the Passover table the night of his betrayal. The Lords of the following in the gospel according to Luke chapter 22 verses 17 through 21 quote and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, take this and divide it among yourselves, for I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes in he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body which is given for you.

Do this in remembrance of me and likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." This passage what is Christ saying here when he says, quote this is my body" and quote this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Paul ejected Zach my first yes so as you mentioned this, Christ instituting the Lord's supper is coming Passover. The Passover meal with his disciples and so the broken bread and the wine.

They are representative of his sacrifice that he was going to carry out the following day, it doesn't literally mean that the elements the bread and wine.

All are or become Christ's body and blood.

You can see is an example of this, Jesus is language in Luke chapter verse 11, which is the explanation part of your summation of the parable of the sower where Jesus says that the seed is the word of God right it is so figuratively just like the bread and the wine or figuratively, his body and blood and so metaphorical language like that is 60 stick goal of the typical Hebrews on and so when his disciples gathered together with him for the Passover meal that was in remembrance of God's deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt right and it was also prophetic type of Jesus's sacrifice. So when Jesus was about to do the following day and laying down his life that would fulfill the symbolism of the Passover.

So the institution of the Lord's supper is the new remembrance of deliverance, which is why Jesus says do this in remembrance of me, I'm a midnight. I totally agree with with all of that and I think that whole line right there where he says do it, in remembrance of me. Basically disproves the idea that there is a localized presence. You know, in the in the brand or the water or that it literally becomes Christ because you wouldn't be doing it in remembrance of him if it actually was him because that's like you know, saying hey y'all come hang out with me so that you can remember me, you know that you're actually in. In the presence of somebody that time so I think it is saying that it is a symbolic thing. This is metaphorical language but that said, I don't think that it necessarily disproves Lycos spiritual communion with with the Lord when you're taking the sacrament because he is talking about the other wind and the bread and sweet symbolizing his localized physical form. At that time and we are remembering the sacrifice that he made in that form.

So I don't know what you think about that. Sorry I was trying to follow and if the guy lost its are so using agree that they that they represent the localized form of Christ. Could you repeat that. Sorry. Yes, I was saying. I don't think that they represent the localized form of Christ or that it becomes the actual your bladder or flesh of Christ because were doing it, in remembrance.

So it's a it's a symbol that helps us remember him.

It's it's not actually him, but I was was saying that it doesn't disprove like a spiritual presence of the Lord being there because he's saying that this is my is my body and my flash basically to remember me, and in this form and the sacrifice that is made, you know, at this time. I agree with that sentiment. It's it's one of the. I brought this question up just because it was such a huge this is actually the first thing that the saints separated over after the Reformation there is pretty much unity in the beginning until the Marburg colloquy so as the Marburg colloquy where Zwingli and Luther.

They try to resolve this dispute over what was really going on in the Lord's supper and they I think that correspondence before then back and forth, some of it might've been kind of heated, so this they met in 1529 to Try to resolve this ended up doing is they didn't end up resolving it up scanner splitting the factions a little bit Luther.

He was a Roman Catholic priest and so he when it wounded when Roman Catholics on when their priests bless the bread and wine when they say in Latin when they say the words as my binds my blood or the equivalent in Latin. They believe in that moment that by the priesthood authority… That priest holds. They believe that there is that miraculous transformation of the elements of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but they remain in their outward appearance to remain as as bread and wine, so those are called the accidents where outward form still stays the same without outward appearance, but the essence what it actually is is completely and miraculously transformed from bread and wine to body and blood of Jesus.

So Luther he he had. He didn't really have very strong sentiments against the mass until a little bit later in his life for you have very strong words against the mass, but he didn't believe in transubstantiation as their CHURCH teaches. He believed he believed in all the reform called consubstantiation but Lutherans hate that term so but they call its real presence, so they say that Christ is really present physically and in the in the bread and wine but the bread and wine are still there so it's kind of like Christ presence is added to the bread and wine glasses.

Just because there's very different understandings of what this passage means and RC Sproul send a video he's he said jokingly but seriously, he said.

So which which view is it isn't Luther's ear. Zwingli's viewing how we know which is correct and he said well depends on what the definition definition of is is is meant Jokingly but you serious you know what is it mean when Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood is meant literally does it literally comes body, blood, and I and I don't think we can say it is as if Artie spoken it symbolic and another point to say is, is that Christ had not yet given his body up on the cross as a sacrifice so he had not yet perform that work and so how could it be transformed before the work was Artie accomplished because that because because Roman Catholics don't believe that that the Passover had transubstantiation. They believe it was like a spiritual meal then believe it was blue.

His body blends of the new covenant. Since I want to bring that up.

I think I, deviated from where our conversation was going. But opening go too far me ask you a question though. Matthew Tran maybe just just push a slightly more down the rabbit hole but I mean like we learn and we read in Scripture where it says you know where two or three are gathered together my name, there I am in the midst of them, would you say that that is kind of the same spiritual presence that happens at communion or is it different ethic. It's similar similar. Because yes, I have to think about all that more will because if it is similar moment of crisis in our presence. When were gathered together in his name. How can anyone not believe that the spiritual presence of the Lord is there when were having communion right you okay that's what message I just want to ask.

I wasn't sure but that's just my thought on it when I was thinking about that just because in reading Herman, Bev, Inc. he is the hero, the reform dogmatics is really great. It's kind of been maligned of Zwingli. It's been said of him that he believed that was purely memorial the Lord supper like theirs. There may be grace that's given but it's like purely memorial. There's no presence of Christ there at all, but he explained that he asked that Zwingli actually did believe in a spiritual presence in the Lord's supper some kind of spiritual presence, but he sought is more like a confession, you know, he sought is more like just as when you respond to the gospel. Just as when in baptism or in church when you're praying together or seeing together. He kind of saw the Lord's supper is an extension of that is like it's in another way to confess Christ is another way to commune in that sense were re-confessing our faith and so he believed in us spiritual presence and in the sense of kind of like to know how to explain it, like what you're talking about Paul Mayberry. Michael sorry about maybe like you know were all confessing together were all here in the name of the Lord Jesus and so his spirit is within us and so that's how we we are communing together.

Do not me, but I think it depends on here talking to Mike the reformed view. I think my goal a bit further than that because the reformed view is that it is spiritual, real presence, but it's not merely that Christ spirit is present in the congregation or that is present when you are taken supper.

It's like it's, like a sacramental union of the body of Christ when they partake of it for those have faith as a sacramental union to Christ, so you are communing with the spirit of Christ because Christ divine spirit is omnipresent.

It's not limited by time space so were communing with the spirit and printing in the body and blood and so in so doing we commune not only with the spirit of Christ, but with the physical human body of Christ in heaven because when you commune with the spirit, the divine spirit of Christ.

You are communing with the person of Christ and because of the hypostatic union meeting that in Christ there teenagers human and divine, you commune with one of those divine natures you commune with both so we really do commune of Christ, whose human exalted glorified body is in heaven at the right hand of the father and commune with his with his spirit with his body and with his blood sacramentally and all the benefits of his body and blood, that he should so it's kind of limit deeper than that. Just the way I kind of hesitant to state the exact same as what your discovery yeah I do I see the sand so I have to think all them on that but I think it's slightly different know it is been a talkative spiritual presence is slightly different yeah when I was one is really studying the Lord supper. The reformed perspective, you know, you think of reformers like really dry the call them the frozen chosen.

You know but but they really have this really deep sacramental theology and we don't believe that Jesus is body, but are locally present in the supper is as we both as we all agreed on, but through communing partaking in the community. We do commune with his body and blood in heaven and it's kind of the working of the Holy Spirit that that does that work and so and so here's something I also wanted to bring up. Maybe I should wait on till another passage, Ellis went off on so convinced and has a son. I was out there so is anything else you wanted to ring them talk about this passage talked a lot. Sorry I'm gonna but I wanted to. Yeah I want that one more quick thing I wanted to share as I think I tried to talk about it another time, but a fumble through it. Another thing that points to the fact that when Jesus said this is my body is my blood is it was in the context of the Passover meal right and in the Passover meal they all their different aspects of the Passover's Seder as I was called I don't speak Hebrew.

So please correct me.

So in the Seder meal. There's different aspects of it so they have the Lamb, which reminds participants of the feast of God's salvation so it's kinda like with the God preserved those who had put the lamb's blood on their doors and that also points to Christ, keeping the Lamb of God saw all these there's always symbols in the Passover supper itself.

And so when they have each part of the supper. Whether it's the Lamb danced on the unleavened bread.

So each of these things represent something in Israel's past and the redemptive history and they also have 4 cups of wine, which is what I didn't know that so I study that recently I thought there was this 1 cup of wine so so the 4 cups of wine. They will say that one the 1st cup the first glass is the cup of sanctification. The second is a couple of judgment. The third is the cup of redemption and the fourth is the cup of praise so at the Last Supper, when they were all gathered together, Jesus, he took the 1st cup.

The couple sink vacation and he promised his disciples that next time he would drink it with them would be in the kingdom. So then later on in the in the Seder, Jesus took it. He took the 3rd cup which is the couple redemption and he added additional symbolism to it.

He said he use that as a cup to symbolize the new covenant so when we when we point to that company say this is the cup of redemption.

You know, I don't think that the Jews were looking at that and thinking that that wind literally, in and of itself was redemption physically redemption to see what I mean. It was symbolic of of God's redemption and so then when Jesus took the cup, and he said this is my blood in the new covenant.

I think that he was speaking primarily symbolic in saying this is my blood and they would associate his blood with redemption so I don't think that the apostles would've taken that as a literal meaning. This is literally my blood just as much as they would've taken the concept that this is the couple redemption being literal either. So I think when you take the whole Seder together and that each part of the supper symbolize something else in their the Jewish reproductive history. And then he says now this represent something new. He's adding new symbolism to it and it and it's establishing a new covenant, then it would make sense so it made sense to them with what you're saying you know they didn't have to stop and say wait a minute. Racing is literally your blood, you know, I think they think they understood what he was saying there so I got the ads when you add the context of of the Passover meal itself to the Last Supper and the institution of the body and they got a body and blood of Christ in the new covenant for communion that I think it makes makes a stronger case for for not being literal physical local presence. Now not saying that that necessarily negates the Lutheran view.

I just mean primarily the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation that the Lutheran views, or mystical. They say that Jesus is body and blood are added to the supper, but it's kind of left a mystery, and I don't really go further than that.

You know they don't want to try to quantize in terms of like the and the atomic structure you know of of the bread and wine, like Roman Catholics, do a little bit easier to me.

They don't try to like really solve the problem, they just leave it to mystery from Paul warned the saints in Corinth about the temptation to commit idolatry in first Corinthians 10 verses 14 to 22, he says. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak is to sensible people judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ, the bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ because there is one bread, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one bread, consider the people of Israel are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar.

What do I imply that that food offered to idols is anything or that an idol is anything no I imply that what pagan sacrifice. They offered to demons and not to God.

I do not want you to be participants with demons.

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table demons. Shall we provoke the Lord's jealousy are we stronger than he." So, long passage, but hopefully we can get some good discussion. So what do you think it means when Paul says the cup of blessing that we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ, the bread that we break is not a participation in the body of Christ must just be a literal interpretation or is there another understanding that could be possible. So this would put Kelly piggybacking on. We talked about before, but hopefully we can get some more discussion going here so how about you Michael would like to start us off so I do think it piggybacks on what we were talking about before, and that it doesn't have to be a literal translation but there's a lot of metaphor in here, but because it's a sacrament and it's actually a physical thing that we are doing. There is a literal aspect as well.

Not to the bread and wine actually being Christ body but as far as to how we are princes participating in are we participating in the blood in the flesh of Christ or we you know are we to mitigate idolatry and know why but when I was thinking about this passage the The Fall came to mind my mind because it was one of those instances is almost like an anti-sacrament.

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit. It made immortal wheel. We also understand and were all under that it's imputed all of us and as a latter-day St. I just didn't think that that was fair. You know why we where we being punished for something that somebody else did. But in reality we are all participants in that in that sin, because were all committing sin every every single day in our actions and in the things that we do in this this scriptural passage can my mind. I just wanted to read it, but it's Matthew 23.

Starting in verse 29. This is Christ talking. He says woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous saying if we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets us to witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets fill up then the measure of your fathers you serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell. Therefore, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify some you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town, so that on you become all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barrick ISO basically saying to them that their unit have the blood of people. He didn't even kill on them because they are you know they're part of that that head there with their fathers did is going to affect them because they are participating in the same things that their fathers participated in and so you can hit me that we aren't guiltless but it kinda works the other way with the Lord's supper were were participating in Christ's righteousness that he is given us were relying on the good somebody else did on our behalf to cancel the debt of our transgressions and we are kinda talking off of the podcast and came up with this baseball analogy that I really like you know we've all struck out. It's like Jesus took the bad in and got a home run and won the game and even though we all struck out and did really horrible just by virtue of being on his team.

We are all victors we've all one so to me that's that's kind going along scenic route here, but to me that's what it means to be partakers to participate in the blood in the flesh of Christ as we are basically saying like, hey we are taking Christ as our is our head as our representative. You know were on his team and we want the gift that he is giving us amendments great think that Michael Baldridge anything else he wanted to offer them yeah just a little bit Michael to the baseball analogy is not down the park that was really good and beautiful answer, Michael thought you brought some really good insights there really enjoyed what you had to say about the fall in the partaking of the fruit by Adam being kind of an anti-Eucharist.

It's interesting so mightily and talk about how we partake of the Lord's supper were participating in and what the Lord has done a number on our behalf right and that's there's there's real but biblical support for that idea right because the word that is translated here in this passage over talking about is participation or similar transitions have this communion is the Greek word queen on yeah and it did means to have two having common to participate and have partnership with so yeah.

KJV renders it communion and it is for that reason that that I personally hold to the real presence you of the Lord's supper because you were when a believer partakes to communes with the Lord in remembrance of Lord sacrifice and I like what what John MacArthur has to say about this passage, he says, commemorating the Lord's supper was a regular and cherished practice in the early church, by which believers remembered their Savior's death and celebrated their common salvation and eternal life, which reflected their perfect spiritual oneness so solemnly communion of the individual believer with Christ. But it's also the communion of the body come together in unity, both touched on them various ways tonight.

But yes if the communion of the body of Christ, together with with their Lord.

So in spiritual real real presence for individuals and and communally Brought great comments. I was again what touchy about the horizontal and vertical aspects of the Lord's supper and maybe will go a bit more in-depth on the on the next one because they there are some horizontal aspects to it that Paul kinda warned about in his epistle to the Corinthians, so will get more depth that so this passages. He it's kind of focused specifically on fleeing from idolatry and soup to buttress that argument or that command. He refers to the Lord's supper.

So it seems like he starts off like that idolatry and then he moves on to the Lord's supper, but so related to the warnings of idolatry from Paul, why do you think he is comparing the cup or table of the Lord to the cup or table of demons and how might that apply to Christian worship today so Michael Yorty cut touched on the is there anything else you want to add to what Yorty spoke on. I don't know if it applies directly, but one of the things it that I thought of when I was looking at this question is just this probably is a real popular opinion that I'm about to give, but we went to several churches after I came out of Mormonism and then a couple more after I got married, trying to find a church that kind of fit both of us and a lot of a lot of the churches that we went to. It seem like they were really worldly district, trying to be entertaining, like the world and just I don't know a lot of the sermons were just real punchy and real.

Try to think how to word this, but they seem to really pull their the punches that the gospel supposed to get a move.

I think they call it seeker sensitive churches and we went to the church that were going to now. And remember, they were just talking about how you when you become a Christian.

It you have to take up your cross and follow Christ, and that does not mean that you're going to be in your naming and claiming it or just getting everything that you want, and being happy all the time like the.

That means that you're going to walk through sorrow and that's that's just part of what being a disciple of Christ is and I just spoke to me so much. You know might be… This is the kind of church that I want to go to so I do.

I do worry sometimes is setting this one of the things that scares me the most about my new faith is just how many congregations that are out there are out there that just don't seem to want to just teach the whole scope of the of the gospel that want to get a sweep some things under the rug and just talk about the things that feel good or sound good so could you so would you say that may be in a modern context, the table of demons might be kind of referring to placing something other some someone or something over and above God in our worship services, focusing on the Lord is kind what you're yeah I thinks I think so because I went to my brothers baptisms and a member they sing a song in the in the middle of church and it had nothing to do with Christ. It was just a contemporary song that they decided to saying for some reason and so I do think that the I think that just putting something else above Christ or taking the focus off of him would be what I would consider the table of demons and I think that's something that can creep in to churches. So yeah, that's interesting. I don't think I was thinking of that when I wrote the question, but it is interesting when you're talking about. Like the bands and the smoke machines. Whatever in the laser lights yeah I mean I guess you know I'm not against necessarily certain instruments but you know like it's the atmosphere, what you're talking about is the atmosphere, entertainment, or the atmosphere of praising and worshiping God to seek him first round and just preface what I am saying and what I'm not necessarily saying that every euro congregation that is fun and energetic is necessarily a bad thing because socially coming out of Mormonism for me that was really free.

You know for a while.

Like all my gosh like I can. I can really just sing praises to God mean as long as it is focused on Christ that it's not a problem like we have different worship styles and things.

I think it's when you when you're not giving the full gospel truth.

You know when it starts to to take the message away. You know when you're not being biblical. I think that's when you're really starting to have a problem. I think those things can lead to that, but it's when you cross that line that you you really started to have a problem that's great. I like how you said that when you went to that church and they said that you need to pick up your cross and follow Christ.

That was that the spoke to you, not the seeker sensitive.

You know, here's your life skin to be great.

Now here's you know, the prosperity type speeches might hurt other churches but was spoke to you was the opposite. Your life can be hard and you need to trust in Christ as you go throughout life. I really like yeah I mean we really needed Christ to be justified, but that doesn't go away when were saved and if it's the message that is being taught is that you know we don't need Christ anymore except he's just stared at her like he was presence all the time and and pat us on the back.

I just don't think that that is something that's appealing if I needed him than that I still need him now just as much. I think that's the sad part is a lot of those kind of worship services. They try to appeal to the goats and in so doing, the sheep are left starving.

They want to hear the word they want to hear solid preaching. Instead they're not getting it.

So that's why I think it is so important to make sure you go to a solid Bible preaching church. The word is preached faithfully that that they're not afraid to call you not to say we need to repent and trust in Christ and that you know not afraid to say that something is a sin. That's also something that's not politically correct.

Today all Joni thoughts on really good points.

Gentlemen, you just said you about them kind of plan to the goats. I definitely felt that Times Square Selectman. I wish my church would be more serious about discipleship of believers you know because I think that's that's important and it's it's in some ways maybe more important than doing more but solicit no cellular help while I would love to talk about the passage that so this this passage is this is definitely goes back to the supernatural world view of the New Testament writers that that I touched him were talking about. First Peter 221 and so you like to just bring in here. Also, Michael Heiser starter Michael Heiser's take on on this passage from his book the unseen realm. He says is as we can be sure that Paul was thinking of the demonic entities of Deuteronomy 3217. With regard to this issue since he quotes that verse within first Corinthians chapter 1014 and 22.

So when Paul says therefore where my saying that food sacrificed to idols is anything more than an idol is anything no, but that the things which they sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God when he says they sacrifice to demons and not to go.

That's where he's quoting Deuteronomy 3217. Heiser goes on to say for Paul, the pagan gods were demons. This makes perfect sense when considered in light of Deuteronomy 3217, which makes exactly the same connection is interesting that Paul isn't completely categorical.

He allows the new sold in the marketplace can be eaten. First Corinthians 1025 but is fearful of provoking God to jealousy under other circumstances, this phrase is an important clue for it is lifted from Deuteronomy 3216 verse right before 3217 where the gods are called demons. Many quotes from Deuteronomy 32, 15 to 17 which says just run Israel grew fat and kicked you grew fat and bloated and you became obstinate she abandoned God his maker and he scoffed at the rock of the salvation they made him jealous and strange gods with detestable things. They provoked him they sacrifice to demons, not gone to God's family had not known new gods who came from recent times. Their ancestors had not known them. Heiser goes on since it's pretty clear that Paul was worried about sacrificing to demons with respect to the whole issue of new sacrificed to idols wasn't really the issue being involved in the sacrifice was apparently some in the Corinthian church and gone beyond it's actually the actual participation was doing this since I was just a piece of wood or stone participation wouldn't offend God. Paul had to teach them that this wasn't true, and use the Lord's table as an analogy for Paul there was no middle ground. Participation of the more stable meant solidarity with and loyalty to Yahweh, the Lord's table commemorated not only Jesus's death, but the covenant relationship Yahweh had with the participants so I think Heiser makes a really interesting points. They're both about contacts and about what what Paul is actually saying about whether or not it was lawful to eat the meat sacrificed and sold in the marketplace.

So I think today about what Paul was really saying. It definitely applies to us in the same way right all makes the distinction between using new purchase in the marketplace, even though that we had been sacrificed justly makes this distinction between him and he purchased an participation in the actual sacrifice and an participation rate there's that word again the keeps coming up in this passage from Paul so he sees making is the distinction between the meat and participating in the ceremonies where the media sacrificed to idols right so the Lord's supper is reflective of that covenant relationship is Heiser says at the end of the quote I read it's it's reflective of the covenant relationship between God and the believer so believers should abstain from participating in non-Christian religious ceremonies. That's how this would apply today right and ends know that's that's something word where lines are our constantly getting blurred today right in normal multicultural society doesn't mean you can't respect some of you doesn't mean you can't to somebody with stability and with charity who may have different religious views than the new non-Christian religious use. It doesn't mean that you need the mean or offputting towards them, but when it comes to actual participation in and sacrifices or ignoring religious ceremonies that that's what you know.

According to Paul, people should abstain from 1/3 of the believers in Christ and in the covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

That's fantastic.

That's that's a lot of what I was reading from Sunkist marker in his commentary. He is a lot of the same things that that you and Heiser were describing yeah because Balaji said Paul describes out meat surface idols, in and of itself, is not wrong it's just when you actually participate no ceremonies. As you said it starts when dissent comes in and I was thinking about it.

I think Michael you briefly touched on instead of theirs. It was, can anti-sacrament. You know, talking at the table with a cup of demons. That's how I see this this passage. It's like there's a symmetry where on one side, you've got the table and cup of the Lord and on the other side of the table, a cup of demons, and while Paul says that idols are nothing in terms of like actual wooden statues. When you offer sacrifices to that idol that is devotion to a being. That's not of God, so that idol itself. The wooden statue may not be anything but that worship of Yahweh involved with that idol cannot should be worshiping demons and so there is a symmetry and I think when you ask why and and I think probably talk with the students beginning was that I agree that I think this passage to me is stronger than the institution of the Lord's supper in describing spiritual presence in actual spiritual communion real presence in the supper here then and in that passage because it talks or how we participate in the blood of Christ and in the body of Christ were participating were communing were coming together were actually becoming one with it, often in Scripture we see the blood sprinkled on the altar in Israel, we see that blood sprinkling covering no baptism is like covering washing over.

We see this covering this. This motif of covering being like covered in the blood of Christ, the perfection of Christ, so more participating in the cup. It's like we were becoming enveloped in Christ and and as you said, you know eating the meat itself is not wrong.

As we participate in a religious ceremony where become sinful and I was thinking about the opposite. Our thinking well if we drink wine outside of the context of the Lord's supper.

It's not sinful right there's it's it's not moral or immoral it's it's it's a Christian liberty kind of thing. When we partake of wine in the context of the Lord's supper, it becomes a good thing it becomes a holy thing, it becomes it separate from the world and we become weak become communing were communing with Christ, and so just as participating in the religious ceremonies of another God or an idol is sinful. Even though otherwise eating that food or drinking at why Mina might not do anything sinful. Same thing when were participating in the Lord's supper. What normally is not moral or immoral is it becomes moral becomes good to becomes righteous, it becomes pleasing to God. So I just love this passage for the symmetry and like you said Paul. He's drawn a clear line, you're either with us or you're not with us, you can't sacrifice. You can participate with these other God sees other idols and also claim to be Christian. There's there's no it's a clear dividing line is no gray area so I thought that's why this passage is really important to talk about because I think it really does talk, there is something spiritual, something powerful going on in here. It's not merely a memorial. I think this passage really demonstrates that because it was just a memorial you know what's the big deal about you know parts being in a cup of demons.

If you just thinking a demon and they don't or are nylon it doesn't exist and don't do anything but if there's a real spiritual communion going on in the Lord's supper then there is some kind of communion with evil spirits or demons or whatever. If you participate in those ceremonies so lots to do something about digest, for sure, really, really good thoughts on on this passage from both of you is this business reason why I'm glad the last summer together decided to hold off these questions and in discussing this time because one needed to have the time to go in-depth on reason and to the need of the time to also really prepare to go in-depth because these are these are really important passages, so I'm glad we did that to the extreme during move on. I answer, just go straight to first Corinthians know, I might as well just make this a series on RR commentary on the book of perspectives is a good letter.

It is okay so Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, discusses the divisions that had come among the Corinthian church in relation to the Lord's supper quote, but in the following instructions. I do not commend you.

Because when you come together.

It is not for the better for the worse.

For the first place. When you come together as a church. I hear that there are divisions among you, and I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you, in order that those who are genuine among you must be recognized. Sorry maybe recognize when you come together. It is not the Lord's supper that you eat for an eating each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry. Another gets drunk. What do not have houses to eat and drink in or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing what shall I say to you, shall I commend you in this know I will not try received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. The Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said this is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way. Also he took the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks of the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." Okay, so I'll start off by rebuking the sinks in court this passage Paul is clearly describing the Lord's supper and stripes related to integrating church.

What kinds of things was he prohibiting in his instructions to the Corinthians. Why were there divisions and what must Christians do when partaking of the Lord's supper related to quote discerning the body."

Michael elected office space. Yeah. So out of all the questions.

This is the one that I have the least insight on tonight but subject to the rule.

Real briefly just cannot give you my thoughts here because made to me just just kinda comes off at face value what he saying here but loose if there were, he says there divisions among them to show who was devout among them, but says it's usually with you saying that you know people shouldn't be getting drunk off of the Lord's supper like that's just not the purpose and meaning. Yeah, I think if you get that point, you've really just swept under the rug. The whole purpose of communion, but also that there should be people going hungry not know if he was saying that people weren't getting it or or what gas sorry party about to speak.

Yeah so so my God and I don't. I'm not the most I can read this passage. Similarly, when when I first became Christian because the sun this early passage you you read a lot as a latter-day St., and so when I first read this is talking about drunken kind of being gluttonous in the way that people eat it through me. I was like trying to imagine what this you can imagine, like a case of people getting together for the Lord's supper and there's they're doing drunk on the wine and they're eating so much bread there being gluttonous is kind of a weird imagery is not how we use to thinking about the Lord's supper being passed. This is a letter to Santa especially got a couple of things going on here in this passage. So in early in the early church believers held what were called love feasts or agape feasts, and they would come together and enjoy a meal and fellowship together.

So often the Lord's supper was was the culmination of those meals so these feasts are mentioned explicitly in Jude verse 12 and there often also by scholars inferred from this passage in first Corinthians. So what we have here is we have a love feasts going on right where it's kind like if you like a potluck kind of thing where people are bringing food and their fellow shipping with one another and then at the culmination of that is they serve the Lord's supper right pause talking about is this within the context of love feasts you have believers who were wealthy, you have believers who were not well-to-do and you got everyone coming together to share in this fellowship, and you have some people you know.

Gluttonous sleep eating and getting drunk within the context of this love feasts while other people are going hungry, and pulses enough that that's eager to do when you come together as believers. You might as well just stay home by you making a mockery of what were doing here so it is in the context of Lord's supper, but it's also in the context of those love feasts. He's calling out those who were within the context of love feasts were eating and drinking selfishly and gluttonous sleep.

Those who weren't regarding the love that they should have for their fellow believers who did maybe didn't have so so much for your abundantly the way they did. They failed to discern the sacred nature of that culminating Lord's supper that they would do.

Afterwards, in which each individual believer enacts ritually a participation in the communion with the risen Christ but also with the body of believers still selfish attitude at the preceding agape feast represented an affront to the unity of believers and the unity that believers experience in the Lord's supper mess us, my answer to the first part of your question Matthew that that makes a lot more sense. See, I didn't. I never heard of these love feasts. Yeah, I had me there and then let Micah 7 is taken my theology course and we were going over the Lord's supper passages in the Bible and this came up and I just know I have a list of passages to read and study to read I read this when I was equally perplexed with you Michael. I was like what is going on here. Some guy like to know. I grab and you know this big jug of wine and just slugging it down. You know the man and it just didn't make sense until I a dog in the commentaries whether there's the little Mormon voice that never never died out in my head saying Yep that's why we should be using water because that why it's so dangerous you know in one. One little sip.

That's probably enough to make you get drunk great comments great comments. I wanted to just piggyback on you Paul for a quick I think. I think you might've Artie said some of things here, but there might be some tiny little details that I think just a marker Contras in it.

I thought were interesting. He says in all probability the Corinthians observed class distinctions in worship services and at the love feasts, prominent members receive preferential treatment. The rich people consume choice food from their own larders and left the remainder for the poor had no patience to wait until everyone had arrived. Instead, they ate without waiting for the day laborers and slaves. We conjecture that some of the poor who were unable to come earlier saw that all the food had been consumed. They're the ones whom Paul describes as being hungry the affluent. By contrast, had use their time to eat their fill and drink excessively. The word each of the text applies to the rich not the poor so I don't know if you added that Tito and Paul, but I thought that was interesting where he said that there were a day laborers and slaves that were working all day and by the time they arrived, all the get all the good food is gone and so Paul is really sharply rebuking him for doing that. That's that's wrong. The need to prepare and keep so that food for the people who can't come this really good ~sharp in the context yeah that's really yeah when you read this is a latter-day sounding off.

I read this is a latter-day St. To be honest, I might've read the part where he quotes you know this too short supper but yet it's a really fascinating passage so so there were divisions because of this classicism, and so you noted. Do you guys think we have that today are Christians all perfectly unified. You know, and we don't have no clicks in everyone's equal heavy heavy heavy seen any of that kind of the churches you been in. I mean I don't if it's there.

I haven't even noticed it because it's so much more subtle compared to where I came from.

So now yeah I haven't noticed it at all, but you Paul you really notice to either think what I want to say here.

So on the one hand, I think that there's some truth in the idea that largely the distinction made between the more wealthy amendment and the poor can be soft sometimes you won't necessarily have a mixture within a church because of where church is located.

So think.

I think sometimes you might largely see that there is no distinction in and maybe socioeconomic status within the church because of where it's located and then you if you go to another community. You might find people who are less well-to-do than maybe another church and another community and that's that's just that this part of Christianity where you noticed is different than than Mormonism where you kinda go within Mormonism.

You go to the ward where you live and that's where you have to go people within Christianity can choose to go anywhere they want to go so people I think will generally gather with people who are comfortable with many of the same socioeconomic status, something that's always the case. I do think there's some some variation within churches in it and I can think of some some really cool examples from the church that I attended. Note that the pastor's wife got involved with starting a ministry called off the streets where she, you know, when administered to prostitutes and brought them into into our congregation and had had a Bible study class for them and clothing ministry for them and know anybody who was who was willing to repent and then work to get off of the streets. You know, was was willing to come and there were quite a few ladies who were who were doing, selling, and you know that's that's obviously a very different subset of society then you know people in the suburbs of Cincinnati typically interact with.

But they were welcomed within our church and they were viewed as part of the community and end, and it was a really cool ministry to see going on. Sometimes the others that there's some variation of the depends this can depend on the church and then kind of parachurch ministries. They get involved with, but it can be really cool app that's great that some interesting ideas in it and I thought about before about people choosing a church, you know, possibly because of similar socioeconomic statuses. That's interesting. I kind of always considered it mostly just like a doctrinal thing like well you know the presbyteries I want to associate with us.

You know dirty Baptists go to their church you getting a course but that is interesting and really thought about that aspect. You are our church does ministries to in terms of I think we every week we have someone, usually Deacon go to nursing our nonnursing home retirement home while you normally do anymore because of over 19, but it would go there and preach the word to them, but I think they have started doing it again. Now that I think about it you know if I have 1,000,001 regulations and so that the data prepare, but in the end I we we've also had people that help with the mission and in Albany and so will get will get sometimes I people from the mission come up to our church and you know I think it I think. Just as human beings we naturally gravitate towards people in terms of friends. You know like you just click with some people better and so I think I may have seen stuff like that you know our friends Mace talk to each other. When you have lunch together and's the fact that people generally stick to the same people but I didn't really see any kind of like this kind of classicism that I thought you know that Depaul is preaching against in his letter to the Indians own thing every Sunday thing like that and so on. And when I came they were very welcoming and also some kids that showed up off the street and are very welcoming and made friends and grateful for that and every time we have a visitor. I think we try to do our best to welcome them in your shake your hand and make the soil common you know we would always invite them for lunch and we would always make sure to bring extra because there were some members that were actually like like the comment that customer commit in his text is interesting to make that connection till now there is someone who who unfortunately can't get off work on Sunday morning so you would come as soon as he could off of the shifts I think and he would show up just in time for lunch and in the second afternoon service and so we would always make sure to have a plate prepared for him or you know something left over so that he can have it. We know we we wouldn't you make sure there something that you give Gideon when he comes close by. So I think I think that's a good thing to see that there consciously thinking about everyone trying to take care everyone, rather than just gorging themselves and sticking the best stuff you know there's there's limited everything and everyone shares in it. That's it's it's it's great. It's is actually something that I really enjoy that.

I wonder why you know it's kind like Mormons do it sometimes, but it's only usually after Sunday the have the Woodley College is an important not to linger long as it linger longer without the glass break the fast.

Yet, we could linger longer. Yeah I don't like the one we always called a dead tell you guys about the sneaky thing that I did on the my linger longer.

They asked me to bring dessert and then like a couple days later they asked me to bring a vegetable because he is enough not enough people were signing up. So I brought candy corn two birds with one into three groups, baby is instantly when you said that I thought you were going to say like yeah gorged all the root beer. No, I mean like I like to talk about the so I won't put a little bit finer point on what I was saying socioeconomic differences and classicism so you talked before about Eugene England, who was a latter-day St. writer professor at Brigham Young University and he had an essay called why the church is true is the gospel and think you think you'd originally titled it why the church is true than the gospel and then change it to why the church is as true as the gospel when you know a friend of his had read it and given students editing advice and I think it was good advice, but he makes that playwright has made the point that because of the way Mormonism is organized in wards and stakes in you, you have to go to the ward with them with whose boundaries you live you don't decant juiced up inside to to attend a different ward and another community that it forces Mormons to attend church with people that they may not choose to attend church with amendment therefore it provides opportunities for growth and your conflict and and that did lead to growth. Basically, I think it's an interesting it's an interesting thought and another friend of mine who are released to discuss things with related to Mormonism you thought the Mormonism had a better view of salvation because as a communal view of salvation right it's not just this, not just an individual's family is not just the family is all of the human race right every every change and extend all the way back to Adam Brady for that.

Those kind of things with regards to genealogy and temple work with you know what, what's really missing there but if you think about Eugene England's essay in the point he's trying to make.

Okay, yeah, you're forced to attend church with with people who may be a different socioeconomic class than you are the different races people you wouldn't people who speak different languages. People you wouldn't normally maybe choose to go to church with. But minus the true gospel that actually changes individuals that can be very damaging to people within the ward and so you like like I was talk about the church that I attend some of the some of the really cool parachurch ministries that I've seen people getting involved with. You know going in serving meals to homeless people at a homeless shelter, and getting involved with would like us to be off the streets. The distribution really really effective in good ways that the gospel gets out there and ways that people into the church. You are different, but because because the church teaches and preaches the true gospel that act that actually you know is sharper than intuition to extort amendment and actually does change people from the inside out. There's a love towards people who are different, but I didn't see before, so that the just like us at the finer point on what I was talking about and how scary I was also thinking to in your district. I think that there are some people that are generally just want to help people, but I think even for the most you know, even for the most noble latter-day St. I think in the back of their mind always got this works righteousness mentality like this perfection that they have to reach so it's like if I'm helping them something myself everything you know and so I think just taking it out of that context into the Christian context words like in it, which is confusing to let any sense because Michael why would you do anything good you know you are. Got your access to heaven and cycle because we want to know the yet Christians didn't genuinely want to help, not because they know not because they try to reach a high level of heaven, but because they've felt the blessings of being in Christ, of having forgiveness. They will help others you agree with that to mean mean not only when the Mormon does service is there. You know that blessings in the back of their minds. But if they don't do it know there's that is that cursing business like if I really done all that I can do my really willing to carry other people's burdens.

Like I said I would, in my baptismal covenant is if I was really willing to do it would not have done it.

And so you've got this blessing and this cursing, it's kind of dictating your actions, but yet when you're when you're Christian that's just not there. And it's it's at a genuine love. We thank you for tuning into this episode of the outer brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the outer brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page. We would appreciate it if you give the page alike. We also have an outer brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. you can also send us an email at outer We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the outer brightness podcast on Apple podcasts cast box Google podcasts pocket cast pod be specified in stitcher. Also you can check our new YouTube channel and if you like it be shirts to lay hands on the unsubscribe button and confirm it if you like what you hear. Please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word.

You can also connect with Michael. The next Mormon apologists from water to blogs and sometimes pond method you as well. Music for the outer brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road. Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry Stay bright and I is a and I is

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime