Francis Chan and Church History

[JM]

Anyone in Semper finding it difficult to believe Chan didn't know about different views on the Lord's Supper? Recently he has claimed he "didn't know" the Lord's Supper was central to early Christian worship and that the early church taught and believed in the real presence of Christ in the Supper. I think he's being dishonest. He also claims to only have studied back to the Reformation, however, Luther and Calvin BOTH believed in the real presence of Christ in the Supper although they disagreed on the details because how each others views affected Christology. Calvin pushed to celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly but was overruled.

Anyway, what do you think? Chan being dishonest or is he kinda dumb for having gone to Masters Seminary and missed entire chapters on church history?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[ByTheSpirit]

What's the point of this question? I don't think disparaging church leaders is wise or prudent for any child of God

 

[Saucy]

There are things we all learn later on. Even those with PhDs are still figuring things out. Show him and other Christians a little grace. I've been studying the Bible for over 20 years and never once looked at who taught what about the Lord's supper. There are a lot of Christians like myself who are non-denominational and focus on scriptures, not church history or tradition.

 

[Jonaitis]

I heard a little bit from Chan many years ago, and I never listened to him ever since. He is all over the place it seems.

 

[JM]

I heard a little bit from Chan many years ago, and I never listened to him ever since. He is all over the place it seems.

That has been my experience as well. I concerned his recent divergence will negatively impact his followers.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Anyone in Semper finding it difficult to believe Chan didn't know about different views on the Lord's Supper? Recently he has claimed he "didn't know" the Lord's Supper was central to early Christian worship and that the early church taught and believed in the real presence of Christ in the Supper. I think he's being dishonest. He also claims to only have studied back to the Reformation, however, Luther and Calvin BOTH believed in the real presence of Christ in the Supper although they disagreed on the details because how each others views affected Christology. Calvin pushed to celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly but was overruled.

Anyway, what do you think? Chan being dishonest or is he kinda dumb for having gone to Masters Seminary and missed entire chapters on church history?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Didn't he run a non - liturgical church ???

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'real presence' issue did not arise in his former flavour of Christianity.

 

[Jonaitis]

That has been my experience as well. I concerned his recent divergence will negatively impact his followers.

And Piper, following after the SJW and progressive stances he has taken in recent years.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, personally I can't say I'm really familiar with what Chan understood or didn't understand?

And I know this can be a "sticky wicket" in relation to what personalities of past history believed; but I believe it is a valid question as to the best of our understanding, what can we determine of what does Scripture say?

I agree that what theologians of past history understood can be useful; but also recognizing that they were limited by certain perimeters that made their access less than what we have of Scripture today, simply based on advancements of our access to. (Luther and Calvin didn't have concordances and computer programs to aide them!)

Thus the comparisons aren't exactly fair.