BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[Jane_Doe22]

I found this....I do seem to remember learning this (not from the net)...
It does seem that Martin Luther believed in some type of transubstantiation..or the Real Presence -- I don't really understand the difference.

The two basic camps are about the Last Supper are:
1) It is literally the flesh and blood of Christ
2) It is symbol for remembering not super natural in any way.

There are possible subtle variations are those too. For example Lutherans don't believe that the bread and drink turn literally into flesh and blood, but become Christ through a supernatural union of bread and Christ (and drink and Christ). The bread never becomes literally flesh.

Another vacation would be LDS: whom believe that the bread and drink are symbols, and through partaking & remembering Him, a person supernaturally renews their previous promises with God.

 

[ScottA]

I found this....I do seem to remember learning this (not from the net)...
It does seem that Martin Luther believed in some type of transubstantiation..or the Real Presence -- I don't really understand the difference.

I just wish I could make up my mind about this...



The Eucharist in the Lutheran Church (also called the Mass, the Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Table, Holy Communion, the Breaking of the Bread and the Blessed Sacrament[1][2]) refers to the liturgical commemoration of the Last Supper. Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, affirming the doctrine of sacramental union, "in which the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, offered, and received with (cum) the bread and wine."[3]

source: Eucharist in Lutheranism - Wikipedia


In the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. Martin Luther held that "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist".[27] In his "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (published on 6 October 1520) Luther wrote:

Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.
Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.[28]
In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper he wrote:

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body", even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union", because Christ's body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[29]
What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans. In "On the Babylonian Captivity", Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, defended adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

source: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

We do know that God can make donkeys talk and raise up stones to give witness if men do not. We also know that all that is in the world was "made manifest" or spoken into existence. But to confuse the inanimate objects of parable language with the subject thereof...is simply foolish. It misses the point...which is not about the object, but rather about the subject. Which means the message has fallen on deaf ears.

This is true of all parable language. In which case, Luther would have been wrong.

 

[Marymog]

I was just going to comment, but first things should be first, and you were getting ahead of yourself.

The Jews made the wrong decision. But that does not mean that the church adopted the right understanding after the apostles themselves did not even understand. But it is a good point to reference, because if you will read on, Jesus declares that all of what He said was spirit. Thus, to think that He meant His actual flesh and blood and the elements, after He said "the flesh profits nothing", is just foolishness.

Thank you Scott. I agree the Jews made the wrong decision when they walked away from Jesus.
The Apostles made the right decision and stayed with him to learn HOW they were to eat Him. Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus showed them HOW to eat/drink Him. First he told them, then he showed them.

In the Bread of Life Discourse Christ, multiple times, had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh. However you are of the belief that He then said their doing so would be pointless? You think that’s what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"? That would make Jesus a horrible teacher. To say one thing MULTIPLE TIMES and then something totally oppisite in the next sentence. Notice how he didn’t say MY flesh profits nothing?

Paul said if you eat it in an unworthy manner you bring damnation upon yourself. How can one eat a “symbol” in an unworthy manner?

The earliest Christian writings (Didache) says of the Eucharist “Do not give what is HOLY to dogs”.

The Apostolic and ECF’s unanimously agreed it was His flesh/blood, just like He said it was.

Historical writings from the earliest times of Christianity show that your Christian brothers and sisters were accused of being cannibals. They died for holding that belief.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Didn't even Luther believe in transubstantiation?
I seem to remember that he did.....not sure.

Yes, he did. It has been believed and practiced for 2,000 years and the earliest historical Christian writings show that our Christian brothers/sisters were accused of cannabilism because of this belief. All the Apostolic and ECF’s believed it also.

The “symbol” theory became popular 500 years ago.

Historical Mary

 

[Nancy]

The two basic camps are about the Last Supper are:
1) It is literally the flesh and blood of Christ
2) It is symbol for remembering not super natural in any way.

There are possible subtle variations are those too. For example Lutherans don't believe that the bread and drink turn literally into flesh and blood, but become Christ through a supernatural union of bread and Christ (and drink and Christ). The bread never becomes literally flesh.

Another vacation would be LDS: whom believe that the bread and drink are symbols, and through partaking & remembering Him, a person supernaturally renews their previous promises with God.

"...a person supernaturally renews their previous promises with God."
How, do you know, do the LDS back this with scripture? I'm sure a good "word" search study could wrest it out of context and make a doctrine of it? I have never heard of this belief before, in reference to The Lords Supper.

 

[ScottA]

Thank you Scott. I agree the Jews made the wrong decision when they walked away from Jesus.
The Apostles made the right decision and stayed with him to learn HOW they were to eat Him. Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus showed them HOW to eat/drink Him. First he told them, then he showed them.

In the Bread of Life Discourse Christ, multiple times, had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh. However you are of the belief that He then said their doing so would be pointless? You think that’s what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"? That would make Jesus a horrible teacher. To say one thing MULTIPLE TIMES and then something totally oppisite in the next sentence. Notice how he didn’t say MY flesh profits nothing?

Paul said if you eat it in an unworthy manner you bring damnation upon yourself. How can one eat a “symbol” in an unworthy manner?

The earliest Christian writings (Didache) says of the Eucharist “Do not give what is HOLY to dogs”.

The Apostolic and ECF’s unanimously agreed it was His flesh/blood, just like He said it was.

Historical writings from the earliest times of Christianity show that your Christian brothers and sisters were accused of being cannibals. They died for holding that belief.

Mary

This comes under Christ's principle, of:

Matthew 23:17
"Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?"

You have chosen. So have I.

 

[Jay Ross]

This comes under Christ's principle, of:

Matthew 23:17
"Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?"

You have chosen. So have I.

Yes, Scott, we have noticed what your choice has been, and accordingly view your posts in that light.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

"...a person supernaturally renews their previous promises with God."
How, do you know, do the LDS back this with scripture? I'm sure a good "word" search study could wrest it out of context and make a doctrine of it? I have never heard of this belief before, in reference to The Lords Supper.

(LDS person writing here)

LDS aren't sola scriptura, so taking a sola scriptura approach doesn't make for a strong stance. I'll grab you the references later tonight (sorry, got work has me swamped until then).

 

[mjrhealth]

Do not give what is HOLY to dogs”.

yet the dogs still eat the scraps off the table...

 

[amadeus]

yet the dogs still eat the scraps off the table...

In the post below @VictoryinJesus cited verses where people were eating the wrong things, not "good" table scraps but that which was truly garbage:

'Wherever there is a carcass......' Matthew 24:28

If we eat scraps from the Master's tables instead of the tables of carnal men, we will receive some good nourishment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.): ἄγρωστιν, of mules, Homer, Odyssey 6, 90, and often in other writers of animals feeding; also of men from Herodotus down (as σῦκα, Herodotus 1, 71; βότρυς, Aristophanes eqq. 1077; blackberries, the Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 [ET] (where see Harnack, Cunningham, Müller); κρόμυον, μετά δεῖπνον, Xenophon, conv. 4, 8); universally, to eat

But...I would caution: Jesus came fulfilling the word of prophecy to speak in parables, then Paul referred to such as speaking in [different] tongues in need of translation and spiritual discernment. Meaning, that all these writings are subject to the confounding of all language by God at the tower of Babel. Also, we live not in the time of the first fold brought by Christ, but the second...which is not under the first Adam, but the Last, whom is Christ, a life-giving spirit. As such, these things are not literature, but are spirit.

You left out the fact that the normal word for HUMAN eating is “Phagon”. This is NOT the word used here in John 6:54 when talking about “eating” the flesh of Christ.

The word changes to “Trogon”, which is the way an animal eats his food. John is making a point here to show that Jesus meant what He said about eating His flesh – and that this isNOT symbolic OR metaphorical language. Jesus meant for us to EAT His flesh.

Just as the Jews ate their Passover Lamb – so are WE to eat OUR Paschal Lamb.

NT Fufillments are ALWAYSmore glorious and perfect than their OT Types – without exception.

 

[amadeus]

You left out the fact that the normal word for HUMAN eating is “Phagon”. This is NOT the word used here in John 6:54 when talking about “eating” the flesh of Christ.

The word changes to “Trogon”, which is the way an animal eats his food. John is making a point here to show that Jesus meant what He said about eating His flesh – and that this isNOT symbolic OR metaphorical language. Jesus meant for us to EAT His flesh.

Just as the Jews ate their Passover Lamb – so are WE to eat OUR Paschal Lamb.

NT Fufillments are ALWAYSmore glorious and perfect than their OT Types – without exception.

Indeed and is his flesh not the Word of God?

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indeed and is his flesh not the Word of God?

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

Only if you understand that flesh did NOT become the Word, but the other way around.

 

[ScottA]

You left out the fact that the normal word for HUMAN eating is “Phagon”. This is NOT the word used here in John 6:54 when talking about “eating” the flesh of Christ.

The word changes to “Trogon”, which is the way an animal eats his food. John is making a point here to show that Jesus meant what He said about eating His flesh – and that this isNOT symbolic OR metaphorical language. Jesus meant for us to EAT His flesh.

Just as the Jews ate their Passover Lamb – so are WE to eat OUR Paschal Lamb.

NT Fufillments are ALWAYSmore glorious and perfect than their OT Types – without exception.

And just how do you suggest that one actually sit down to a solemn meal and literally eat the flesh of Christ that has not been seen for 2000 years?

Please use bold and CAPITAL text to answer so everyone can understand your mind perfectly!

 

[amadeus]

Only if you understand that flesh did NOT become the Word, but the other way around.

Yes, the Word became flesh in Jesus and he was Alive; He was Life. We then are to eat the dead carcass of Jesus [one certain source is the scriptures] and then have that flesh quickened within us by the Holy Spirit so we may become like Him:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2

 

[GodsGrace]

We do know that God can make donkeys talk and raise up stones to give witness if men do not. We also know that all that is in the world was "made manifest" or spoken into existence. But to confuse the inanimate objects of parable language with the subject thereof...is simply foolish. It misses the point...which is not about the object, but rather about the subject. Which means the message has fallen on deaf ears.

This is true of all parable language. In which case, Luther would have been wrong.

I don't think we'll know who's wrong till we get to heaven.
Jesus sounded pretty literal....OTOH, it's difficult to understand how this could be...but with God all things are possible.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, he did. It has been believed and practiced for 2,000 years and the earliest historical Christian writings show that our Christian brothers/sisters were accused of cannabilism because of this belief. All the Apostolic and ECF’s believed it also.

The “symbol” theory became popular 500 years ago.

Historical Mary

Thanks for reminding me about the cannabilism.
AND the ECF's.
I go back and forth...it makes me crrrrazy!
I envy catholics that are so sure of this.
Don't know why I have to be so cerebral....

 

[Marymog]

This comes under Christ's principle, of:

Matthew 23:17
"Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?"

You have chosen. So have I.

Only a blind fool can not see that Scripture shows us HOW we can eat his body and drink his blood (something He said we MUST do).

Jesus SHOWED us HOW to do that at the Last Supper.

I thank you Jesus for showing us how to fulfill your words in the Bread of Life discourse and in The Lords Prayer: If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. Give us this day our daily bread. You then took bread, broke it and gave it to us, saying, “This IS my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

I thank the 1st century Christians for writing down HOW they fulfilled the demands of Jesus by writing Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread. And for Paul for reminding us that if we eat this bread in an unworthy manner we bring damnation upon ourselves.

Sadly some twist scripture to their own destruction and do not have faith that you are in fact present in the bread as you said when holding bread in your hand "This IS my body".


Bible study Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thanks for reminding me about the cannabilism.
AND the ECF's.
I go back and forth...it makes me crrrrazy!
I envy catholics that are so sure of this.
Don't know why I have to be so cerebral....

The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important.

 

[Marymog]

This comes under Christ's principle, of:

Matthew 23:17
"Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?"

You have chosen. So have I.

Only a blind fool can not see that Scripture shows us HOW we can eat his body and drink his blood (something He said we MUST do).

Jesus SHOWED us HOW to do that at the Last Supper.

I thank you Jesus for showing us how to fulfill your words in the Bread of Life discourse and in The Lords Prayer: If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. Give us this day our daily bread. You then took bread, broke it and gave it to us, saying, “This IS my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

I thank the 1st century Christians for writing down HOW they fulfilled the demands of Jesus by writing Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread. And for Paul for reminding us that if we eat this bread in an unworthy manner we bring damnation upon ourselves.

Sadly some twist scripture to their own destruction and do not have faith that you are in fact as you said when holding bread in your hand "This IS my body". in you or practice your words.