Without the church fathers, how do you explain the shift away from the Lord's Supper and the denial that John 6 is literal?


I have read all the pre-300 AD church fathers. How do you explain the "Lord's Supper," not a man preaching, has always been the center of a church service and in evangelical services today it's a man? How do you explain all the early church fathers who were not later Gnostics or other heretics took John 6 literally?


I teach the Bible from the Bible. "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen" (I Peter 4:11).

That the Lord's Supper is a primary focus of worship is found in "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). It is also implied in Paul's scolding, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper" (I Corinthians 11:20). That partaking of the Lord's Supper is not the exclusive reason for gathering is seen in "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (I Corinthians 14:26).

That some people took Jesus' statement "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51) literally is seen in the very next verse, "The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"" (John 6:52). Of course, the Jews, as they did so often, did not understand what Jesus meant. A detailed explanation of this is found in What did Jesus mean by "eat my flesh and drink my blood?" And when you are done, notice that there was no need to cite any early Christian writer, outside the Bible, to prove the point.

It is amusing that to frame your question you had to eliminate all contradictory evidence. That alone should tell you something.