[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding "it is fulfilled", the argument is thus:
The Fourth Commandment tells us to enact a ritual that typifies a higher spiritual reality. That reality was fulfilled in Christ, and so by being in Christ, we obey the " true meaning" of the Fourth Commandment, and are freed from obligation to re-enact the typifying ritual."

This argument contains an unspoken premise, namely, "If the higher spiritual reality of a typical action is achieved, the typical action is dispensed with."

But this is not true.

The Lord's Supper is a recurring, ritual action that typifies or represents higher spiritual realities: not only the historical death of Jesus, but the making of the New Covenant, the (new) Atonement accomplished, the (new) Passover offered and eaten, the uniting of believers into the mystical Body of Christ, the spiritual unity of believers with one another, and the spiritual unity of the believers with Christ, etc. These spiritual realities have taken place, the believer partakes of those higher realities by faith, through union with Christ.

You miss the all-important aspect of Paul’s words in Colossians 2 telling us that we have Christ who was foreshadowed by sabbath , along with the words of Gal 4 telling us not to keep holy days from law. There is no such thing about the other commandments as these references to the fourth in the bible. I know it’s an interpretation issue, but I am not going to sacrifice my interpretation for your accusation that it’s incorrect just because you say it is incorrect. So, until you see the true context of Gal 3 through 4, you will always make this blunder of a wrong accusation about my viewpoint.

So, it is TRUE IN PART ALONE that if the issue is a shadow fulfilled in a greater manner then we dispense of the old shadow, BUTU ONLY IF WE ARE TOLD TO DISPENSE OF IT as we are about Sabbath in Gal 4. Without that last aspect, I would agree with you! It’s like CIRCUMCISION. Circumcision as a required law that one could not avoid under law or else be considered outside the covenant. So, there is another example. We do not need to be circumcised physically to be covenant people because it was a shadow and the reality is baptism into Christ’s death removing the body of sins of the flesh. Or DO YOU DEMAND PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION?

So then, the Lord's Supper is now "fulfilled" and we need not actually DO it? We may dispense with the typical physical action of blessing, breaking and sharing the loaf of bread, and of blessing and sharing the cup? Well, if the argument about "fulfillment" concerning the Sabbath is correct, the answer is YES, and the "spiritual communion" folks have it right.

Nope. We are not told to stop keeping the Lord’s supper as we are told to stop keeping Sabbath day and all the other feast days in Gal 3 through 4.

And, so do the Quakers, in regard to their doing away with water baptism, and for the exact same reasons.

Strawmen arguments continue to abound.