:: wikimiki.org ::

Holy Communion

Holy Communion

The Eucharist is the rite that Christians perform in fulfillment of Jesus' instruction, recorded in the New Testament, to do in memory of him what he did at his Last Supper. Jesus gave his disciples bread, saying "This is my body", and wine, saying "This is my blood." Christians generally recognize a special presence of Christ in this rite, though they differ about exactly how, where, and when Christ is present. The word "Eucharist" is also applied to the bread and wine consecrated in the course of the rite. The word "Eucharist" comes from the ancient Greek language. It means "to give thanks" or "thanksgiving." The word "Eucharist" is found in the Greek text of the New Testament in such passages as Matthew 15:36, 16:27, Mark 8:6, 14:23, Luke 22:17,19, John 6:11,23, Acts 27:35, 1 Corinthians 11:24. In each of these passages Jesus Christ offered his followers the bread or the cup and "he gave thanks (Eucharist)." It may be noted that the same word is found in many other passages of the New Testament describing the giving of thanks completely separate from the occasion of rite of Communion, (John 11:41, Romans 1:8, 7:25, 1 Corinthians 1:4, Ephesians 1:16, etc.) Most Christians classify the Eucharist as a sacrament, but many Protestant traditions avoid the term sacrament, preferring ordinance. In these traditions, the ceremony is seen not as a specific channel of grace but as an expression of faith and obedience of the Christian community.

Names for the Eucharist

- Eucharist (from Greek eucharistia, "thanksgiving") is the term with the earliest established historical use. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome in about 110, used the term "Eucharist", referring to both the rite and the consecrated elements, three times in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/smyrnaeans.html] and once in his Letter to the Philadelphians [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/philadelphians.html]. Justin Martyr, writing around 150, gave a detailed description of the rite, and stated that "Eucharist" was the name that Christians used: "This food is called among us the Eucharist..." (Apology, 66 [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html]). Today the term "Eucharist" is used by Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans. Most other Protestant traditions use this term rarely, but few reject it entirely.
- Communion (from Latin communio, "sharing in common") is a term used by Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, and many Protestants; Holy Communion is also prevalent. Catholics and Orthodox typically apply it to the partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, and to these consecrated elements themselves, rather than to the Eucharistic rite as a whole. In their understanding, it is possible to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic rite without "receiving Holy Communion" (partaking of the consecrated elements). On the other hand, groups that originated in the Protestant Reformation usually apply this term to the whole rite. Many, especially Anglicans, prefer the fuller term "Holy Communion" rather than just "Communion". The term Communion holds further ambiguity in that it also refers to the relationship of Christians, as individuals or as a Church, with God and with other Christians (see Communion (Christian)) and can also refer to the relationship between the Three Divine Persons within the Trinity, which relationships are considered the archetype of the other forms of communion.
- The Lord's Supper and the Breaking of Bread are terms that the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11:20; Acts 2:42, 46) applies to celebration of the Eucharist. The first of these terms tends to be preferred by "minimalist" traditions, especially those strongly influenced by Huldrych (or Ulrich) Zwingli and the Restoration Movement. The Lord's Supper is also a common term among Lutherans, as is the sacrament of the altar. Other Churches and denominations also use these terms, but generally not as their basic, routine term.
- Certain terms are limited to the Orthodox Christian and Catholic traditions, and are typically applied to the rite as a whole. The Divine Liturgy is used by Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches, who also, especially for the consecrated elements, use the Divine Mysteries. Roman Catholics use many other terms, including the Mass, the Memorial of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Holy Mysteries. The Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar are also common terms for the consecrated elements, especially when reserved in the Church tabernacle.

Eucharist in the Bible

The three synoptic Gospels (Matthew [http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew&chapno=26&startverse=26&endverse=29], Mark [http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Mark&chapno=14&startverse=22&endverse=24], and Luke [http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Luke&chapno=22&startverse=19&endverse=20]) as well as Saint Paul's first Letter to the Corinthians [http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=1+Corinthians&chapno=11&startverse=23&endverse=26] contain versions of the Words of Institution spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "Take, eat, this is my body ... Take, drink, this is my blood ... Do this in remembrance of me." All subsequent celebration of the Eucharist is based on this injunction. John 6 is also interpreted in connection with the Eucharist: " For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." (John 6:55-56) See also: Historical roots of Catholic Eucharistic theology

Christian Theology

The Eucharist has always been at the center of Christian worship, though theological interpretations vary. In general, the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions see the Eucharist as the fulfillment of God's plan for the salvation of humanity from sin (the "Divine Economy"), a commemoration and making present of Jesus' Crucifixion on Calvary and his Resurrection, the means for Christians to unite with God and with each other, and the giving of thanks for all these things. Differences in Eucharistic theology tend to be related to differences in understanding of these areas. Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of theologies led in the 1980s to consultations on [http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem1.html Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry] (BEM) through the World Council of Churches, and included the Roman Catholic Church.

Roman Catholic: Sacrifice; Transubstantiation

In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments, but is also considered the "queen of the sacraments" and "the blessed sacrament." The Eucharist is a commemoration, or, in Greek, anamnesis of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, understood in the fullest sense given to it in Biblical tradition. In other words, it is a memorial which does not just bring to mind the event celebrated, but also makes it truly present. The Eucharist is therefore understood to be not simply a representation of Christ's presence, or a remembrance of his Passion and Death, but an actual participation in the Sacrifice of Christ, the manifestation, in the present, of an event that occurred once for all in time. The Eucharist makes present that one sacrifice, not a different sacrifice. The priest and victim of the sacrifice are one and the same; the only difference is in the manner in which it is offered—the Church teaches that the Mass is the sacrifice at Calvary made present in an unbloody manner. The only minister of the Eucharist, that is, one authorized to celebrate the rite and consecrate the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest (either bishop or presbyter) acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi). In other words the priest celebrant represents Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and acts before God in the name of the Church. The matter used must be wheaten bread and grape wine; this is essential for validity. According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ. The empirical appearances are not changed, but the reality is. The consecration of the bread (known as the host) and wine represents the separation of Jesus's body from his blood at Calvary. However, since he has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood can no longer be truly separated. Where one is, the other must be. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says, "The body of Christ", when administering the host, and, "The blood of Christ", when presenting the chalice, the communicant who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire. The hosts are kept in a tabernacle after the celebration of the Mass, so that they can be brought to the sick and dying outside the time of Mass, and also so that the Eucharistic presence may be worshipped and adored. On occasions, the Eucharist is exposed in a monstrance, in order for it to be the focus of prayer and adoration. The mysterious change of the reality of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, a change to which patristic writers had given other equivalent names, began to be called "transubstantiation" in the twelfth century. In the judgement of the Catholic Church, this term, with its accompanying unambiguous distinction between "substance" or underlying reality, and " accidents" or humanly perceptible appearances, still best safeguards against the opposite extremes of a cannibalistic or of a merely symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is given to Catholics who wish to receive either at Mass or outside of Mass. This is called the administration of Holy Communion. When it is given at Mass, it may be given under one kind (usually the host), or under both kinds (both the host and the consecrated wine, referred to by Catholics as the Precious Blood). Regular use of Communion under both kinds requires the permission of the bishop, but bishops in some countries have given blanket permission to administer Holy Communion in this way. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are Bishops, Priests and Deacons, the latter traditionally ministering the chalice. Members of the laity can also be commissioned as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, where there is a necessity. This is, in a way, a return to a very early practice, whereby the ordinary faithful took Communion to the sick and to others unable to come to the Eucharistic celebration.

Eastern Christianity: Sacrifice and Objective Reality but Pious Silence on the Particulars

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East agree with the Roman Catholic Church that Christ is really, fully, and uniquely present in the Eucharistic elements, and that, in the Divine Liturgy, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present; however, beyond that, these traditions reject any further analysis. Instead, they hold that the exact means by which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is a mystery. They are not particularly interested in the precise moment the change occurs, although this "change" or "fulfillment" of the bread and wine is usually identified with the Epiklesis. As in the Roman Church, the change is regarded as permanent, and any of the consecrated elements, or "gifts," that remain at the end of the Divine Liturgy are normally consumed by a priest or deacon. Gifts reserved for the communion of the sick are specially consecrated on Holy Thursday, or at other times as needed, and are not simply leftovers from the previous Divine Liturgy. Since the Eucharistic gifts are regarded primarily as food, Eucharistic adoration is unknown outside the Liturgy itself, except among those Orthodox Christians who worship according to a Western Rite.

Anglicans/Episcopalians: Real Presence with Opinion

The historical position of the Anglican Communion is found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, which state "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ"; and likewise that "the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ" (Articles of Religion, Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper). The fact that the terms "Bread" and "Wine" and the corresponding words "Body" and "Blood" are all capitalized may reflect the wide range of theological beliefs regarding the Eucharist among Anglicans. However, these same articles also deny that adoration, or worship per se, of the consecrated elements is appropriate and state that those who receive unworthily do not, in fact, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Contemporary Anglicans almost all believe in the Real Presence, but the specifics of that belief range from Transubstantiation, possibly with Eucharistic adoration (mainly Anglo-Catholics), to a belief in a spiritual-only presence, which may or may not be tied to the eucharistic elements themselves (almost always Reformed, or "low church" Anglicans). The normal range of Anglican belief ranges from Objective Reality to Pious Silence, depending on how Traditional or Reformed the individual Anglican's theology is. A small minority reject the doctrine of the Real Presence altogether, in violation of Anglicanism's historic position on the matter.

Lutherans: presence as "in, with and under": the Sacramental Union

Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under" the bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true body and blood of Christ Himself (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10). The doctrine of the Real Presence is also known among some Lutherans as the "Sacramental Union." For Lutherans there is no sacrament unless the elements are used according to Christ's institution (consecration, distribution, and reception). As a result, only bread and wine remain after the distribution and reception of the Lord's Supper, and after the conclusion of the service. The elements are treated with respect, but are not "adored" or reserved as in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican practice. Lutherans use the terms "in, with and under" and "Sacramental Union" to distinguish their understanding of the Lord's Supper from those of the Reformed and other traditions.

Methodism: presence as "mystery"

There is no definitive Methodist statement on how the Christ is present in Holy Communion. The followers of John Wesley have typically affirmed that the grace of Christ is experienced via his real presence in the sacrament, but have allowed the details to remain a mystery, rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation (see "Article XVIII" of the Articles of Religion, Means of Grace). In 2004, the United Methodist Church more clearly defined its view of the sacrament and its belief in the Real Presence in an official document entitled [http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html This Holy Mystery].

Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding

Many Reformed Christians, particularly those following John Calvin, hold that Christ's body and blood do not come down to inhabit the elements, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space" (Calvin). Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that "no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith". "The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God's elect believers", Calvin said, "but those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith (not a mere mental apprehension), and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's actual presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in." Calvin specifically rejected adoration of the Eucharistic bread and wine as "idolatry", however. The elements may be disposed of without ceremony; they are unchanged, and as such the meal directs attention toward Christ's bodily resurrection and return.

Reformed/Congregational: non-presence

Some Protestant groups see Communion (also called the Lord's Supper or the Lord's Table) as a symbolic meal, a memorial of the Last Supper and the Passion in which nothing miraculous occurs. This view is known as the Zwinglian view, after Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss leader during the Reformation. It is commonly associated with Baptists and the Disciples of Christ. Many of the Reformed hold that Calvin actually held this view, and not the Spiritual feeding idea attributed to him by some; or that the two views are really the same.

Summary of views

Because Jesus Christ is a person, theologies regarding the Eucharist involve consideration of the way in which the communicant's personal relationship with God is fed through this mystical meal. However, debates over Eucharistic theology in the West have centered not on the personal aspects of Christ's presence but on the metaphysical. The opposing views are summarized below.
- Transubstantiation – the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is held by the Roman Catholic Church and many Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholic Anglicans.
- "In, with and under" - the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present in, with and under the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. This is the view held by most Lutherans, and some Anglicans. Some refer to this view as consubstantiation, but many Lutherans reject this term.
- Objective reality, but pious silence about technicalities - the view of all the ancient Churches of the East, including the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East as well as perhaps most Anglicans. These, while agreeing with the Roman Catholic belief that the sacrament is not merely bread and wine but truly the body and blood of Christ, have not adopted the "substance" and "accidents" terminology, preferring not to scrutinize the technicalities of the transformation. Some Eastern Orthodox Christians speak of "tranessentiation" in this regard. Most Eastern Christians, as well as some Anglicans, would understand this view as being "incarnational," reflecting the analogy Justin Martyr drew between the incarnation of the eternal divine Logos and the presence of that incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, in the consecrated bread and wine.
- Real Spiritual presence - not only the spirit, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence "real") are received by the sovereign, mysterious, and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (hence "spiritual"), but only by those partakers who have faith. This view approaches the "pious silence" view in its unwillingness to specify how the Holy Spirit makes Christ present, but positively excludes not just symbolism but also trans- and con-substantiation. It is also known as "mystical presence," and is held by most Reformed Christians, such as Presbyterians, as well as Methodists and some Anglicans, particularly Reformed Anglicans. See [http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF.html Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 19.] This understanding is often called "receptionism" and is exemplified by the "invocation" of the Anglican Rite as found in the American Book of Common Prayer, 1928 and earlier and in Rite I of the American BCP of 1979 as well as in other Anglican formularies: ::And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.
- Symbolism - the bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ. This view is also known as "memorialism" and Zwinglianism after Ulrich Zwingli and is held by several Protestant denominations, including most Baptists.
- Suspension - the partaking of the bread and wine was not intended to be a perpetual ordinance, or was not to be taken as a religious rite or ceremony (also known as adeipnonism, meaning "no supper" or "no meal"). This is the view of Quakers and the Salvation Army, as well as the hyperdispensationalist positions of E. W. Bullinger, Cornelius R. Stam, and others.

Ritual and liturgy

The Agape feast

The Agape feast was the Eucharistic celebration of the early Christians. While centered on the ritual of the bread and wine, it also included various other ritual elements, including elements of the Passover seder and of Mediterranean funerary banquets, also termed Agape Feasts. Agape is one of the Greek words for love, particularly applied to selfless love. Such meals were widespread, though not universal, in the early Christian world. This service was apparently a full meal, with each participant bringing their own food, but eating in a common room. Perhaps predictably enough, it could at times deteriorate into merely an occasion for eating and drinking, or for ostentatious displays by the wealthier members of the community. This was criticized by St. Paul in the New Testament (cf. ). Because of such abuses, the Agape gradually fell into disfavor, and after being subjected to various regulations and restrictions, it was definitively dropped by the Church between the 6th and 8th centuries. Some contemporary Christians participate in Agape meals on rare occasions, to experience this historical form of the Eucharist. Many Christians, however, after celebrating the Eucharist, now routinely participate in a sharing of light refreshments and conversation in an informal ritual that is functionally an Agape. This post-Eucharistic gathering is often called "fellowship hour" or "coffee hour" and is regarded by many clergy as a particularly opportune time for engaging adults in Christian education.

Eastern Christianity

Among Eastern Christians, the Eucharistic service is called the Divine Liturgy. It comprises two main divisions: the first is the Liturgy of the Catechumens which consists of introductory litanies, antiphons and scripture readings, culminating in a reading from one of the Gospels and often, a sermon; the second is the Liturgy of the Faithful in which the Eucharist is offered, consecrated, and received as Holy Communion. Within the latter, the actual Eucharistic prayer is called the anaphora (Greek:, "offering" or "lifting up"). In the Byzantine Rite, two different anaphoras are currently used: one is attributed to St. John Chrysostom, and the other to St. Basil the Great. Among the Oriental Orthodox, a variety of anaphoras are used, but all are similar in structure to those of the Byzantine Rite. In the Byzantine Rite, the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom is used most days of the year; St. Basil's is offered on the Sundays of Great Lent, the eves of Christmas and Theophany, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, and upon his feast day (January 1). At the conclusion of the Anaphora the bread and wine are held to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Conventionally this change in the elements is understood to occur at the Epiklesis (Greek: "invocation") by which the Holy Spirit is invoked and the consecration of the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ is specifically requested, but since the anaphora as a whole is considered a unitary (albeit lengthy) prayer, no one moment within it can be readily singled out.

Roman Catholicism

See Mass and Divine Liturgy.

Protestantism

Anglican

See Book of Common Prayer.

Lutheran

The Lutheran Eucharistic service is similar in form to the Roman Catholic and "high" Anglican services. Administration of the bread and wine varies between congregations. The bread can be a thin wafer, or leavened or unleavened bread. The wine or grape juice may be administered via a common cup (the "chalice"), or through individual cups that may be either prefilled or filled from the chalice during the communion. Intinction is acceptable, but rarely used. Some congregations that use wine make grape juice available for those who are abstaining from alcohol, and some will accommodate those with an allergy to wheat or grapes.

Reformed/Presbyterian

Minimalist

The elements of the Lord's supper are most commonly unleavened bread and wine. In traditions in which temperance movements have had strong influence, grape juice is substituted for the wine. The term "grape juice" is usually not used in services; instead terms such as "unfermented wine," "wine," "the fruit of the vine," or simply "the cup" are used. Teachers from such movements often assert that oinon, the Greek word used in the original New Testament to mean wine, may mean either fermented or unfermented wine. This claim was unknown prior to the temperance movement, however. A few Holiness bodies, and the Mormons, substitute water for wine.

Open and closed communion

: Christian denominations differ in their understanding of whether they may receive the Eucharist together with those not in full communion with them. Closed communion was the universal practice of the early Church. The famed apologist St. Justin Martyr, ca. A.D. 150, wrote: "No one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true...." For the first several hundred years of Church history, non-members were forbidden even to be present at the sacramental ritual; visitors and catechumens (those still undergoing instruction) were dismissed halfway through the liturgy, after the Bible readings and sermon but before the Eucharistic rite. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used in the Byzantine Churches, still has a formula of dismissal of catechumens (not usually followed by any action) at this point. The ancient Churches, such as the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox exclude nonmembers from Communion under normal circumstances, though they may allow exceptions, e.g. for non-members in danger of death who share their faith in the reality of the Eucharist and who are unable to have access to a minister of their own religion. Many conservative Protestant communities also practice closed communion, including conservative Lutheran Churches like the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Mennonites and the Landmark Baptist Churches also practice closed communion, as a symbol of exclusive membership and loyalty to the distinctive doctrines of their fellowship. Most Protestant communities practice open communion, including some Anglican, Reformed, Evangelical, Methodist, and more-liberal Lutherans (such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church of Sweden). Some open communion communities adhere to a symbolic or spiritual understanding of the Eucharist, so that they have no fear of sacrilege against the literal body and blood of Christ if someone receives inappropriately. Others feel that Christ calls all of his children to his table, regardless of their denominational affiliation. Many churches that practice open communion offer it only to baptized Christians (regardless of denomination), although this requirement is typically only enforced by the recipients' honesty.

Footnotes

- : Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
- as Anabaptist leader Pilgram Marpeck put it, "The true meaning of communion is mystified and obscured by the word sacrament." Nevertheless as far as his theology goes Marpeck was decidedly more incarnational than many of his Anabaptist peers, and thus closer to the Roman Catholic position than even Zwingli.
- : cf. , and ::[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1328]
- : See Article 9 of the Agreed Statement of Eucharist Doctrine.
- e.g., see

Resources

- Anderson, S. E. The First Communion
- Chemnitz, Martin. The Lord's Supper. J. A. O. Preus, trans. St. Louis: Concordia, 1979. ISBN 0-570-03275-X
- Elert, Werner. Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. N. E. Nagel, trans. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966. ISBN 0-570-04270-4
- Felton, Gayle. This Holy Mystery. Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2005. ISBN 088177457X
- Father Gabriel. Divine Intimacy. Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1996 reprint ed. ISBN 0895555042
- Grime, J. H. Close Communion and Baptists
- Jurgens, William A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970. ISBN 0814604323
- Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. (ISBN 0800627407)
- Lefebvre, Gaspar. The Saint Andrew Daily Missal. Reprint. Great Falls, MT: St. Bonaventure Publications, Inc., 1999.
- Macy, Gary. The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper. (2005, ISBN 1878009508)
- McBride, Alfred, O.Praem. Celebrating the Mass. Our Sunday Visitor, 1999.
- Nevin, John Williamson. The Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. 1846; Wipf & Stock reprint, 2000. ISBN 1579103480.
- Oden, Thomas C. Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995. ISBN 0-570-04803-6
- Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. ISBN 1579107664
- Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. ISBN 0881410187
- Stoffer, Dale R. The Lord's Supper: Believers Church Perspectives
- Stookey, L.H. Eucharist: Christ's Feast with the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993 ISBN 0687120179
- Tissot, The Very Rev. J. The Interior Life. 1916, pp. 347-9.
- Wright, N. T. The Meal Jesus Gave Us

External links

Liturgical texts & services

- [http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/ord.htm The Ordinary of the Sacred Liturgy according to the Roman Rite, Missal of 1962]
- [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html The Ordinary...according to the Roman Rite, Missal of 1962] alternate source.
- [http://www.sspeterpaul.org/priest.html The Priest's Service Book] Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
- [http://www.saintgabriels.org/prayerbook.html The Book of Common Prayer], used by the US Episcopal Church. Contains the liturgy for Eucharist and other rites.
- [http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/d/t/dtrememe.htm Do This; Remember Me!], a 21st century hymn text telling the Upper Room story

History, theology, etc.

- [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm Eucharist] in [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ Catholic Encyclopedia]
- [http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp Patristic citations] concerning the Holy Eucharist.
- [http://www.fisheaters.com/mass.html The Catholic Understanding of the Eucharist]
- [http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Holy-Eucharist.html Holy Eucharist] from The Orthodox Faith by Fr Thomas Hopko, online essay from the website of the [http://www.oca.org Orthodox Church in America].
- [http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion]
- [http://gbgm-umc.org/Umhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-101.stm The Duty of Constant Communion] by John Wesley
- [http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/do_this.html Do This!: The Eucharist as a Key to Pastoral Care & Church Renewal]
- [http://www.emersoncentral.com/lordsupper.htm The Lord's Supper] - by Ralph Waldo Emerson, rejecting the Lord's supper as a perpetual rite.
- [http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/celiasprue.shtml A Short Introduction to Holy Communion and Celiac Sprue Disease] from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- [http://www.twinbrook.net/view/?pageID=8173 a Baptist viewpoint]
- [http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/job003u.htm a Church of Christ viewpoint]
- [http://www.thirdway.com/menno/as/as7.asp a Mennonite viewpoint]
- [http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=25|52|367 a Reformed (Presbyterian) viewpoint]
- [http://www.angelfire.com/fl2/truthleads2life/Guestteaching1.html The Lord's Supper: Four Views] by Joe Slowiaczek
- [http://capo.org/cpc/mat2626s.htm Four Views of the Lord's Supper] - discusses transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, and symbolism (from spiritual presence point of view)
- [http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/book/print/226 Pilgram Marpeck's defense of continuing to practice Lord's Supper (1531)] Category:Sacraments Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services Category:Catholic Eucharistic Theology Category:Methodism Category:Christian theology ja:聖餐

ChristianIty

Christianity

New Testament

The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, is the name given to the part of the Christian Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus. The phrase "New Testament" is a translation of the Greek Η Καινή Διαθήκη, which is also often translated as The New Covenant. The phrase was originally used by early Christians to refer to the new covenant with God that formed the new basis for their relationship with God (see Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 22:20; 2 Corinthians 3:6; and Hebrews 9:15-20). About two centuries later, at the time of Tertullian and Lactantius, the phrase was being used to designate a particular collection of books that embodied this covenant. In recent times, the Biblical term New Covenant is also used by some to refer to the books of the New Testament.

Naming of the New Testament

Tertullian, in the 2nd century, was the first to use the terms novum testamentum/new testament and vetus testamentum/old testament, for example, in Against Marcion book 3 [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian123.html], chapter 14, he wrote: :This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel and in book 4 [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html], chapter 6, he wrote: :For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. Lactantius, in the 3rd century, in his Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 20 [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-07.htm#P1533_624437], wrote: :But all Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ - that is, the law and the prophets - is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: [Jer. 31:31-32] "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord." ... For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that that which was to be given by Christ would be complete. The Vulgate translation, in the 5th century, used testamentum in 2nd Corinthians 3 [http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=8&c=3]: :(6)Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the spirit. For the letter killeth: but the spirit quickeneth. (Douay-Rheims) :(14)But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). (Douay-Rheims) However, the more modern NRSV translates these verses from the Koine Greek as such: :(6)who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. :(14)But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Thus, it is common to conflate the English terms testament and covenant, even though they are not synonymous.

Books of the New Testament

The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a relatively narrow span of time, probably over less than a century, from c. AD 50 to c. AD 125. The following is a list of the New Testament books, followed by the author traditionally associated with that book.

The Gospels

The Gospels focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus:
- The Gospel of Matthew - Matthew, a tax-collector and apostle.
- The Gospel of Mark - Mark, a follower of Peter and also of Paul.
- The Gospel of Luke - Luke, possibly a follower of Paul.
- The Gospel of John - John, a fisherman and apostle. None of the Gospels identifies its author by name; rather, traditions about authorship are based on early Christian writings that identify them. The earliest references to the Gospels do not indicate an author - such as Justin Martyr who refers to "memoirs of the apostles" also "called Gospels", but gives no names; or Aristides who refers to the (singular) "Gospel, as it is called", but also gives no name(s).

History

The history of the early Christian church after the death of Christ is related here.
- The Acts of the Apostles - Luke

Epistles

The epistles contain various letters written sometimes to individuals but mainly to early Christian congregations. These epistles expound important theological points and give insight into the developing Christian church. The NT epistles are of varying quality and it is not at all certain if they were actually written by the person whose name they bear. Modern scholars argue that many of the epistles are pseudepigraphical.

Pauline Epistles

The Pauline Epistles (or Corpus Paulinum) constitute those epistles traditionally attributed to Paul (for modern views, see below under Authorship). Their names are based on the Christian groups or individuals to whom they are addressed. Some of the Pauline epistles (such as the Pastoral Epistles) are considered by some to not be written by Paul.
- Epistle to the Romans - Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles
- First Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul
- Second Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul
- Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Armenian Orthodox
- Epistle to the Galatians - Paul
- Epistle to the Ephesians - Paul
- Epistle to the Philippians - Paul
- Epistle to the Colossians - Paul
- First Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul
- Second Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul
- First Epistle to Timothy - Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
- Second Epistle to Timothy - Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
- Epistle to Titus - Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
- Epistle to Philemon - Paul
- Epistle to the Laodiceans - Vulgate apocrypha

General Epistles

:See main article: General Epistles The General or Catholic Epistles are those written to the church at large. They are named after their traditional author, but many contemporary scholars believe they are all pseudepigraphical. In medieval times, they were often collected not with the Pauline epistles but with Acts to form the Praxapostolos.
- Epistle to the Hebrews - Anonymous. Historically attributed to Paul, though few scholars would identify him as the author today.
- Epistle of James - James, the brother of Jesus
- First Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle
- Second Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle (normally considered to be written by another author by modern scholars)
- First Epistle of John - John the Apostle (the Johannine letters are usually attributed to members of the community of his disciples, though 1 John closely resembles the Gospel of John in style and vocabulary)
- Second Epistle of John - John the Apostle
- Third Epistle of John - John the Apostle
- Epistle of Jude - Jude, brother of James

Prophecy

- Revelation - John "the Divine." Traditionally identified with John the Apostle. There is still some debate as to whether this is John the Apostle or another prophet by the same name.
- Bible prophecy

Language

The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in first-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. (However, some of the church fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or more likely Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary quality of Matthew and Hebrews suggests that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.) It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospel of Mark and the book of Revelation, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic or Classical Greek one finds composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. Relative exceptions to this include the gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter probably written or redacted by the same person who wrote or redacted Luke. A very small minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation (see Aramaic primacy).

Gospel sources

The sources of the Gospels, and their relationship, is a matter of some debate (see the Synoptic Problem). Some of the Church Fathers said that the Gospel of Matthew was the first written. Many scholars now believe that the Gospel of Mark and the Q document are the main primary sources of the Gospels - the Two-Source Hypothesis. However, as noted below, the nature and existence of Q is hypothetical. (Main article: Historicity of Jesus)

Authorship

The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional view is that all the books were written by apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began. However, it should be noted that scholars such as A. N. Sherwin-White, F.F. Bruce, John Wenham, Gary Habermas and others argue for a high degree of historical reliability of the key New Testament events or the New Testament as a whole (see: Resurrection of Jesus for details).[http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html] [http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wenham][http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html] Prominent liberal scholar John A.T. Robinson argued for early dates of the entire New Testament and ascribed many of the key New Testament texts to their traditional authors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_%281919-1983%29] Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these "undisputed" letters include Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Scholars are divided over the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians (listed in decreasing order of support). It is mainly evangelical scholars who hold Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Almost no current mainstream scholar, however, holds that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, controversy about the authorship of Hebrews, the only anonymous epistle, goes back to the early Church fathers. The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon. The issue is somewhat different for the gospels, because they are all technically anonymous; so the question is whether the traditional attributions (to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are correct. The Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted by many as coming from circles around John the Evangelist; the question there is whether Revelation is ascribed to the circles. Of key concern is the role of presuppositions in Biblical scholarship, especially gospel and historical Jesus studies. It is now widely recognized that every individual comes to historical study with their own experiences, religious beliefs, and philosophical assumptions, and that these factors can play a defining role in the final product that any particular scholar produces. In the case of the gospels, modern research has been approached from a number of perspectives: Jewish, feminist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, agnostic, materialist, historical, and social-scientific, to name just a few. A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often contradictory, "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare, for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar, B. Mack, John Dominic Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright). This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus in the images of the particular authors, as opposed to narrating who Jesus really was, what he did, and what he taught. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated debate has produced viable results. The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels. Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person? The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source". from Quelle, the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available, and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for non-canonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350-400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered and scholars argue about the dating of the originals. Suggested dates run from as early as 50 or as late as the late second century. See Gospel of Thomas and New Testament Apocrypha.

Date of composition

According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating. Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest. However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals. In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95, quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first draft stage, although others were probably not completed until later, while editing, some minor, some major, continued until the present day.

The canonization of the New Testament

:Main article: Biblical canon The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development. In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha. One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was he and his theology, Marcionism. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians. Due to the fact that some of the recognized Books of the Holy Scripture were having their canonicity questioned in the 16th century by Protestants, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional canon of the Scripture as a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Views on New Testament authority

All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authorititativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of inspiration, which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and/or authorititativeness of the Bible. One possible source of confusion is that these terms are difficult to define, because many people use them interchangeably or with very different meanings. This article will use the terms in the following manner:
- Infallibility relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine.
- Inerrancy relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
- Authoritativeness relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice and morality. Chistian scholars such as Professor Peter Stoner see the Bible having compelling and detailed fullfilled Bible prophecy and argue for the Bible's inspiration. This is argued to show that the Bible is authoritive since it is argued that only God knows the future. A common objection in the West regarding this matter is that the miraculous does not occur and therefore other explanations are warranted. C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible. [http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp] [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t011.html] [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html][http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html][http://www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Hoffman.pdf]. On the other hand, in the West those who do not believe in miracles often use the arguments of David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza or argue that Deism is valid. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/#Hum][http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/spinoza01.htm][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism]. All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether literal history, allegory or poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world. A brief outline of these views in different Christian denominations follows.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there are two strands of revelation, the Bible, and the (rest of the) Apostolic Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the Church. In Catholic terminology, the Teaching Office is called the Magisterium; in Orthodox terminology, the authentic interpretation of scripture and tradition is limited, in the final analysis, to Ecumenical councils. Both sources of revelation are considered necessary for proper understanding of the tenets of the faith. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992): :§ 83: As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. :§ 107: The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

Protestantism

Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions supposedly derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to re-evaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in some Protestant traditions even to the re-evaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. However, the adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of Scripture vary widely.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism

Among certain conservatives, fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of Scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth. Fundamentalists accept the enduring authoritativeness and impugnability of a pre-scientific interpretation of the Bible, especially on such issues as the ordination of women, abortion, and homosexuality. However, although they are overwhelmingly opposed to such things, evangelicals are increasingly willing to consider that the views of the Biblical authors may have been intentionally "culturally conditioned", and evangelicals may even argue that there is room for change along with cultural norms and scientific advancements. Fundamentalists may be therefore described as "conservatives", whereas evangelicals might be better characterized as more flexibly "traditional" on these and other issues. Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but the stronger emphasis on literal interpretation by fundamentalists has led to the rejection of many scientific concepts, particularly that of evolution. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to avoid interpretations of the Bible that would directly contradict generally accepted scientific assertions of fact. They do not impute error to Biblical authors, but rather entertain various theories of literary intent, which might give credibility to human progress in knowledge of the world while still accepting the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. While separation from the world and its influences may be the primary message of the New Testament for some fundamentalists, evangelicals try to remain part of wider society as a witness to personal salvation through Christ. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is an influential statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph 4 of its summary states: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives. Critics of such a position point out that there are many statements that Jesus makes in the Gospels or that Paul makes in his epistles, even to the point of making them commands, which are not taken as commands by most advocates of Biblical Inerrancy. Examples of this are Jesus's command to the disciples to sell all they have and give the money to the poor so as to gain treasure in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:21), or Paul's calls to imitate him in celibacy (1 Cor 7:8). Other sections of the Bible, such as the second half of John chapter 6, where Jesus commands that the disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood, are interpreted by most adherents of Biblical Inerrancy as symbolic language rather than literally, as might be expected from the statements of the doctrine. Supporters of Biblical Inerrancy generally argue that these passages are intended to be symbolic, and that their symbolic nature can be seen directly in the text, thus preserving the doctrine.

Mainline and liberal Protestantism

Mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but officially interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching, from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the Scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly. For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is increasingly regarded as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. The most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted. Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report that: We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or pre-scientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail. Those who are more liberal view the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy (which ironically, leads them to read certain passages far more literally than most evangelicals, so that the text is interpreted in a way that necessarily conflicts with a modern, scientific view of the world). These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their Evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of Scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for justice. The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Golden Rule and admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative. As such, belief in the errancy of the words of Scripture is in practice as important to Protestant liberalism as inerrancy is to its evangelical and fundamentalist counterparts. There are some movements that believe the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus but who reject the churches that were formed following its publication. These people believe all individuals can communicate directly with God and therefore do not need guidance or doctrines from a church. These people are known as Christian anarchists.

External links -- Source Text

Greek:
- [http://www.ntgateway.com/ The New Testament Gateway - Dr. Mark Goodacre.]
- [http://www.greekbible.com Greek New Testament text (searchable only; no downloads) with lexical aids]
- [http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html Greek New Testament] This is a Greek text of the New Testament, specifically the Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants. Other Languages:
- [http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/10 King James version of New Testament at Project Gutenberg]
- [http://st-takla.org/Bibles/Holy-Bible.html Full text of the New Testament in English, Arabic, Amharic, Hebrew and French]
- [http://www.romansonline.com/sources/Nwt/indxNT.asp The New Testament at romansonline.com]

External links - References

- [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy]
- [http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Overview of Inerrancy]
- [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church]
- [http://www.bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html State Church Of The Roman Empire]
- [http://www.ApologeticsCourses.Com Apologia] - Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions
- [http://www.Bible4U.Info Christian Faith] - Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith
- A comprehensive discussion of the development and authorship of the New Testament can be found at these pages:
- [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm]
- [http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm]
- [http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ Synoptic Problem Home Page]
- For more information on the Evangelical view on the time of writing, see:
- [http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm]
- More Than a Carpenter, chapter 4, by Joshua McDowell
- Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson, who dates every book of the N.T. to before 70.
- For further reading:
- Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack, Harper, 1996
- Who Wrote the Gospels? by Randel McCraw Helms.
- [http://www.new-testament-ethics.org/ Ethics of the New Testament] - article by V.Antonov
- Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament is considered by many scholars to be one of the finest general introductions to the NT.
- [http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm]New Testament Alterations
-
- [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament]
- [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: New Testament] zh-min-nan:Sin-iok Sèng-keng nb:Det nye testamente ja:新約聖書 th:คำพยากรณ์ในคัมภีร์ไบเบิลใหม่

Christ

Christ is the English representation of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated as Khristós), which means anointed. The Christian religion takes its name from Christ, as a title given to Jesus of Nazareth, always capitalized as a singularly descriptive title meaning literally The Anointed One. In English translations of the New Testament, the Greek Ιησούς Χριστός, and related phrases, are almost invariably translated Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, leading to the common, though inaccurate, perception that 'Christ' was the last name of Jesus of Nazareth. The part of Christian theology focusing on the identity, life, teachings and works of Jesus, is known as Christology.

Full etymology

The spelling Christ in English dates from the 17th century, when, in the spirit of the enlightenment, spellings of certain words were changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, in Old and Middle English, the word was spelt Crist, the i being pronounced either as a long e, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short i, preserved in the modern pronunciation of Christmas. The term appears in English and most European languages owing to the Greek usage of it in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. In the New Testament, it was used to translate Hebrew as Mashiach (Messiah) meaning "anointed". This term implied a match to the criteria of being anointed that Jewish tradition had given to their predicted future saviour. The Greek term is cognate with Chrism, meaning perfumed oil; in fact Christ in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is thus a literal and accurate translation of Messiah (anointed).

"The Anointed" in the Old Testament

In the Hebrew faith tradition, anointing (with oil) was a key element of religious ceremony by which specific people were explicitly marked or set aside for a specific role: priests, kings, and prophets. In some cases other materials were anointed with oil as well, to prepare them for religious ceremony. The importance of anointing is sometimes stressed by mentioning the need for it alongside reference to the person in question: e.g., "The priest that is anointed shall carry of the blood into the tabernacle of the testimony" (Lev [http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=03&ch=004&l=16 4:16]). The Jews came to expect a savior who would embody the elements of priest, king, and prophet, and whom they therefore termed "the Messias", which served as a title. The association with being anointed and being a savior makes these words in some senses equivalent. They expressed their hopes for this savior particularly in their prayers known as the Psalms, which often make reference to God and "his anointed", many of which references Christians interpret as prophetic.

History in the New Testament

In the New Testament it is indicated that the savior, long awaited, did come: however, there is no record of his being officially anointed with oil as Messiah, priest, or king in the gospels. Instead Luke says he "is inducted by His heavenly Father into His Messianic office" (Ott, Ludwig; see Lk [http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=003&l=22 3:22]). However, He is anointed by a woman, reported in Mark 14: 3-9 as happening just before his death, and in a different context in Luke 7. As Jesus demonstrates, over time, to his disciples that he is the savior, they come to call him by that name, which again was a title, i.e. normal usage being "the Christ". After the Resurrection "Christ" became a proper name used to refer to Jesus.

Distinctions between "Jesus", "Christ", and "God"

The term "Christ" is often used synonymously with "Jesus". A difference in usage is sometimes for variety of speech, and sometimes a subtlety intended to emphasize the totality of His person and function in Salvation. For example, Ott refers to "Jesus" when emphasizing an event in the New Testament, while he refers to "Christ" in discussing the nature of God. There is a temporal distinction between "Jesus" and "Christ", not to mention "God". God, in the Christian belief system, exists outside of the time continuum and is not restricted by the confines of time (e.g., limitations, aging, development, evolution, etc.). "Jesus", on the other hand, is the temporal manifestation of the "Logos" -- the divine "Word" of God, and, in Christian Trinitarian parlance, the second person of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). "Jesus" was born, lived, suffered, and died. However, for the Christian believer, the story of "Jesus" does not end there. With the Resurrection, there is the fulness of recognition within the Christian community of the interconnectedness of the Logos and the person of "Jesus" -- the human person now intensely glorified and beyond the confines of the temporal sphere of events and effects. "Christ" is an appelation in Greek (Χριστός), corresponding to the Hebrew word "Messiah" -- the Savior or Anointed One. This term pertains more to the role to be performed by the "chosen one of God" (another possible translation of the term "Christ"). The problem with this word for the person of Jesus is that the term means different things to different people. Most especially, the term "Messiah" refers most often in Jewish beliefs of the Roman era to the hoped-for leader who would not only be a spiritual leader but a political one as well. Hence, we have grounds for why this term might cause consternation and skepticism -- if not downright hostility -- not only for Romans, but also for the Jewish leadership of the Temple at the time of Jesus.

Related uses of anointing

Anointing is used in the New Testament to heal the sick, to bless for ministry, to give thanks to Jesus, and to prepare for burial. According to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions, as Christ was the anointed one, so is apostolic succession, manifest in those priests who carry on the ministry of Christ, premised upon an anointing. Oil is used in a number of the sacraments of these traditions. Practices vary slightly from East to West. Every Christian in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches is anointed with oil at least once, if they receive the sacraments according to each organization's plan. Protestant organizations' rites, however, do not always include anointing with oil.

Gnostic Christ

The gnostics generally believed not in a Jesus who was both a Divine Person and a human person, but in a spiritual Christ who indwelt Jesus and left him at different times, and who did not suffer death, because that was impossible for a deity. Through the spiritual path of gnosticism, followers of these schools believed that they could experience the same knowledge, or gnosis. Their theology was or is dualistic and premised upon demigods, salvation for the elect, and the actions of God who sends periodic saviors. This was considered heresy by the Early Church as per the first Ecumenical Council, which occurred at Nicaea in 325 ad, although condemnation of the belief existed well before.

Expansions and appropriations of "Christ"

"Christ" has taken on such power and significance as a theological, religious and/or devotional term that it has been appropriated and/or expanded by various theologians and religious writers so as to take it beyond its merely Christian context. The development of Judeo/Christian religious concepts in a world religious context may be startling to the orthodox, but is part of the full picture and contemporary meaning of the term "Christ". Paramahansa Yogananda - writes about a "Christ Consciousness" interchangeably with "Krishna Consciousness" Matthew Fox - speaks of "the Cosmic Christ" etc. One belief is the idea or concept that 'Jesus became Christ;' i.e. his 'flesh was transformed to spirit.' By taking a spiritual and good path through life, Jesus was reunited with his true holy nature (redemption) and preserved forever in God. However in this view, this psychic force is often called 'the Christ,' or sometimes 'Christ consciousness,' etc; drawing a separation between God (whose nature some maintain we cannot fathom or comprehend) and the Holy Spirit, which has experience (through Jesus) and therefore compatibility with our mortal and frail humanity. This separation of spiritual concepts is embodied in the Christian Trinity. In many branches of Christianity, some limitations on extra-cultural interactivity result in dogmatic interpretations of the meaning of "the Christ" to refer only to "Christendom" (i.e. confirmed "Christians") as opposed to all of spiritual humanity, that may have equal devotion to 'the Christ,' yet may refer to it by another name: i.e. God, Krishna, etc. In Eastern religious traditions, for example, "God" remains mysterious and unknowable and therefore only implied; described instead by personifications (deities) which are manifestations of particular aspects of God's power. In mortal form, the Christian Jesus is akin to these personifications, with the caveat that he alone is the deity; all of God's powers that are relevant or understandable to man, are manifest through Jesus. Thus, where Christ is a synonym for the Holy Spirit, the Trinity of Father (God) Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit (Christ) are unified, though each remain distinct.

Slang usage

The interjection "Christ!" is often used as a sign of surprise or anger, without a direct religious reference - that is, as a swear word. Many religious people find this usage blasphemous, as they feel it cheapens a holy term and violates the Commandment against taking God's name in vain. "Christ" is also the name of a British humour fanzine.[http://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/christ/]

References

- [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374x.htm A. J. Maas, Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ, Catholic Encyclopedia]
- Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1957.
- [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/6111/pneumatikos/gnostic.htm Paul A. Hughes, The Gnostic Christ: Gnosticism vs. Christianity]
- [http://www.salagram.net/jesus-christ-kristos-page.htm The Etymological Derivation Of The Name "Christ", NZs Hare Krishna Spiritual Network]
- Joshua McDowell and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today's Religions, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.
- Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light." Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto, (2004) Category:Jesus ja:キリスト

Sacrament

A sacrament is a Christian rite that mediates divine grace. Among many Protestants, the word mediates would mean only that it is a visible symbol, reminder or manifestation of invisible divine grace. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Christians, members of the Anglican, United Methodist, and Old Catholic traditions, the Independent Catholic Churches and Lutherans hold that sacraments are not mere symbols, but rather, "signs or symbols which effect what they signify", that is, the sacraments in and of themselves, rightly administered, are used by God as a means to communicate grace to faithful recipients. Christian churches and sects are divided regarding the number and operation of the sacraments, but they are generally held to have been instituted by Jesus. Sacraments are usually administered by the clergy to a recipient or recipients, and are generally understood to involve visible and invisible components. The invisible component (manifested inwardly) is understood to be God's grace working in the sacrament's participants, while the visible (or outward) component entails the use of water, wine, or oil that is blessed or consecrated.

Etymology

The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e. "something holy"; '"to consecrate", which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery". The latter term is often used by Eastern Christians in preference to "sacrament."

Application

The seven sacraments traditionally recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are (see also Catholic sacraments):
- Baptism
- The Eucharist (Communion)
- Matrimony
- Holy Orders
- Confirmation or Chrismation
- Penance and Reconciliation
- Anointing of the Sick In addition to these seven, some Christian groups (Anabaptist and Brethren groups, in particular) consider foot washing to be a sacrament (see Gospel of John 13:14). The seven sacraments accepted by Roman Catholicism are generally accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, as well, but the latter traditions do not limit the number of sacraments to these seven, holding that anything the Church does as Church is in some sense sacramental. The numeration, naming, and understanding of sacraments and the adoption of the remaining sacraments vary according to denomination. Most Protestants consider only the "evangelical," or "dominical," sacraments — baptism and Communion — to be sacraments per se, understanding these to be the only such practices directly instituted by Jesus, as reported in the Gospels. They hold that the other five rites are not made sacraments by the New Testament. So while almost all Protestant churches have marriage ceremonies, and many have ordained clergy and a ceremony conferring ordination, they consider these rites to be ordinances rather than sacraments. As is often the case, views within the churches of the Anglican Communion vary. The '39 Articles' from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (the root expression of all Anglican theology) declares that Baptism and Communion are the only two sacraments recognised in the English Church. Anglo-Catholics have always counted the sacraments at seven. Many others do now as well, with the other five considered lesser sacraments. The catechism of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America states: "God does not limit himself to these rites; they are patterns of countless ways by which God uses material things to reach out to us." Roman Catholics also have sacramentals, acts of worship that differ from sacraments proper, but which are also means of grace. Items such as the rosary or the various scapulars and holy medals issued by some Roman Catholic groups are counted among these sacramentals. For the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christian the term “Sacrament” is a Westernism that seeks to classify something that is rather difficult to classify. Preferably the term “Mystery” is used, the reason being that the “How it is possible” is unanswerable to human understanding. God touches us through material means such as water, wine, bread, oil, incense, candles, altars, icons, etc. How God does this is a Mystery. On a broad level, the Mysteries are an affirmation of the goodness of created matter, and are an emphatic declaration of what that matter was originally created to be. On a specific level, while not systematically enumerating Mysteries, the most profound Mystery is, without a doubt, the Eucharist, in which, by participation in the liturgy and receiving the consecrated bread and wine, understood to have become the body and blood of Christ itself, direct communion with God occurs. This perceived vagueness is considered by the Orthodox to be piety and respect for something profound and incomprehensible. Orthodox do not like to try to classify things to any great degree as this is seen to be a fruitless and unnecessary waste of time. This approach is characteristic of Orthodox theology in general, and is often called "apophatic," meaning that any and all positive statements about God and other theological matters must be balanced by negative statements. For example, while it is correct and appropriate to say that God exists, or even that God is the only Being which truly exists, such statements must be understood to also convey the idea that God transcends what is usually meant by the term "to exist." The Community of Christ, formerly known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" practices eight official sacraments along with seeing other rites as sacramental in nature. The Salvation Army does not practice formal sacraments for a variety of reasons, including a belief that it is better to concentrate on the reality behind the symbols; however, it does not forbid its members from receiving sacraments in other denominations [http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/C28E39B2CA06E8F98025708A003D9FAC?openDocument]. Quakers do not practice formal sacraments, believing that all activities should be considered holy.

References

Ecumenical

- Stookey, Laurence Hull. Baptism: Christ's Act in the Church. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1982. ISBN 0687023645
- Stookey, Laurence Hull. Eucharist: Christ's Feast With the Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993. ISBN 0687120179
- World Council of Churches. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order paper. Geneva: World Council of Churches,1982. ISBN 2825407097

Orthodox

- Coniaris, Anthony. These Are the Sacraments: The Life-Giving Mysteries of the Orthodox Church Minneapolis: Light & Life Publishing, 1981. ISBN 0937032220

Roman Catholic

- Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Revised Ed. Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 2001. ISBN 0764807188
- Power, David Noel. Sacrament: The Language of God's Giving. New York: Herder & Herder, 1999. ISBN 0824517989

Anglican

- MacQuarrie, John A Guide to the Sacraments'.' London: Continuum International Publishing, 1997. ISBN 0826410278
Protestant

- Neal, Gregory S. Grace Upon Grace Koinonia Press, 2000. ISBN 0967907403
- Stamm, Mark W. Sacraments & Discipleship: Understanding the Sacraments in a United Methodist Context. Discipleship Resources, 2001. ISBN 0881772852
- White, James F. The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999. ISBN 0687034027
External links

- [http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem1.html Baptism, Eucharist, & Ministry] (an ecumenical statement by the World Council of Churches)
- [http://www.fordham.edu/Academics/Programs_at_Fordham_/Theology/Graduate_Studies/CompsSysTheo_Sacrame_8356.html Sacramental Theology reading list]
- [http://www.revneal.org/Writings/sactheol.html The Sacraments as Means of Grace] by Gregory Neal Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services Category:Seven sacraments Category:Methodism Category:Christian theology ja:サクラメント

Divine grace

Divine grace is believed by Christians to be the sovereign favour of God exercised in the bestowment of blessings upon those who have no merit in them. Most broadly, divine grace refers to God's gifts to humankind, including life, creation, and salvation. More narrowly but more commonly, grace describes the means by which humans are saved from original sin and granted salvation. This latter concept of grace is of central importance in the theology of Christianity, as well as one of the most contentious issues in Christian sectarianism. sect.]]

Shared concepts of grace

Most Christians believe that people receive salvation through the grace of God. Most Christians of any of the major Western denominations agree that mankind is born in a state of sin. This is a consequence of original sin; a sinful nature is inherited; it is part of man's condition. Traditionally, original sin is explained as a result of the fall of man through the first sins of Adam and Eve in Eden. Some would now reject the story from Genesis as history. But even those who reject it still agree that men are born in sin. The original state of grace enjoyed by the once-good people God created has been lost, for them and for their descendants. We are born having forfeited any claim to salvation. (By contrast, Eastern Orthodoxy does not subscribe to this particular doctrine of original sin.) God's grace responds to this otherwise hopeless situation. God, at His initiative, sent prophets and other teachers to reveal His existence to mankind. He gave the Torah, the Law of Moses, to the Jews, and made them his chosen people to provide a moral example to the rest of mankind. It was also through the Jews that God's grace sent his Son, Jesus Christ, who sought to make atonement for the sins of mankind through his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. God's grace is freely given, on behalf of the men He has called to salvation. God was not obliged to save anyone; men cannot make themselves good enough to earn their way into Heaven on their own initiative, or give rise to a duty on God's part to save them. It is only through the redemption bought by Christ's sacrifice that anyone is saved, and the path of salvation for men lies in participating in that redemption. Indeed, some denominations of Christianity paraphrase grace as "God's Rewards At Christ's Expense" to represent this. The apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesians (NT) makes this teaching clear, "For by Grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)" It is by God's Grace (unmeritted favour), therefore, that salvation is granted to man, on the condition that we put our faith (piðstiv: meaning belief i.e trust)in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour i.e. belief that Jesus is from God, Jesus is the Messiah (Messiðav: meaning anointed one. Also the Hebrew word for Christ) and that his death on the cross has the power to take away our sins, thus making us blameless in the sight of God. Grace, then, is God's initiative and choice to make a path of salvation available for men. On this, almost all Christians agree, though they may disagree on the meaning of some terms, or on which parts of the narrative of grace to emphasize. But from here out, it gets more contentious.

Biblical concepts of grace

Ideas of grace in the Hebrew Bible

While a single word rendered into English as grace is not strictly speaking present in the Hebrew Bible, a number of concepts used to describe God in Biblical-era Judaism are forerunners to the Christian concept of grace. One such concept is named by the Hebrew word chesed, which in one of William Tyndale's happier coinages was