Do you trust God or Man when it comes to the creation?

[dwb001]

What weird babbling is this? Understanding the style and purpose of ancient writings does not lead to "your god cannot help you".

Then you have not followed your belief structure till the end.

 

[trophy33]

Then you have not followed your belief structure till the end.

Or your conclusions (and/or understanding) are simply wrong.

 

[dwb001]

Or your conclusions (and/or understanding) are simply wrong.

I am just following your logic to the inevitable conclusion and drawing your attention to the conclusions.

If the major stories that make the foundation of the faith are just fiction... then how can you believe in ordinary miracles.

Did Jesus make the lame walk? How... exactly.
Did Jesus heal blind eyes? How... exactly.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? How... exactly.

If you do not have a scientific answer for these simple questions then you can not believe in them... by your own criterion.

 

[FaithT]

Oh, the geological record, perhaps? Oh, but God didn't leave that, that was Evil Scientists who faked all that stuff. Either that or God just Made Everything Look Old, and the universe was actually created last Thursday.


All the fossils and rock strata and radiological evidence and all are just God having a laugh.


It doesn't to me, but then I think you can look at His Creation itself and see what He actually did, without having to worry about what it says in a two page teaching story.

No, Evil Scientists invented fossils.

Or maybe your lot should pay a bit more attention to His actual handiwork and less to what your doctrine says you have to believe about it. But it wouldn't do to believe that God did a bit more design work than the "None" which you believe He did. In your world it was all just a magical incantation, and shaazam! everything was there and working out of the box. God didn't have to be the Great Architect or the Great Engineer. All He had to be was a really good magician.

I mean, how are we to believe that that God spent an unimaginable amount of time getting the universe to work accirding to His purposes? God is magic, so He said it and it happened, end of. Ignore all that stuff that sho boy makes it look like He worked on it over (to us) endless aeons.

Part of that is because of the utterly unimaginable complexity and scale of the thing. We can't fathom that. So we pare it down to a managable size, a safely comprehensible little universe that doesn't require too much believing. A nice pizza-looking earth sitting on a rock or a turtle or something, safely bound by an ice wall we can reach tomorrow afternoon if we have the cash. No space above us, just the underside of the planetary Astrodome that the lights hang from on their cords.

Relax K-Mart shoppers, Qantas flight 1473 to Sydney will take you as high above the earth as anyone has ever been. It's a safe snuggy little universe, with a kindly little God whose Creation will never frighten you.

I come at it in the other direction. I was a Christian before I ever read Genesis. But if, as you people often and loudly insist, that our Lord can't be taken literally when He says "Take, eat, this is My Body", why should I credit even a single syllable of the obvious teaching story that is Genesis? If the Word of Christ Himself can be cast aside as merely symbolic, what reason exists to believe for even an instant that the Creation story in Genesis is literally true, when the simplest observation of nature itself shows it to be merely symbolic?

You’ve got a point in that last paragraph, about some posters disbelieving what Jesus said about the Eucharist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am just following your logic to the inevitable conclusion and drawing your attention to the conclusions.

False.

If the major stories that make the foundation of the faith are just fiction... then how can you believe in ordinary miracles.

The foundation of the faith is Jesus Christ.

Did Jesus make the lame walk? How... exactly.

He's God.

Did Jesus heal blind eyes? How... exactly.

He's God.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? How... exactly.

He's God.

If you do not have a scientific answer for these simple questions then you can not believe in them... by your own criterion.

What does science have to do with the Holy Gospel? The answer, of course, is nothing.

In spite of your aggression and hostility, you have failed to present anything resembling a cohesive argument, and have refused to elaborate. It's also clear that, in spite of your protests to the contrary, you weren't being misunderstood.

You're simply wrong. Both biblically and theologically.

If the foundation of your faith in Jesus is a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1, then you've got the wrong foundation. Jesus Christ said the wise man builds his house on a solid foundation, He is that solid foundation.

One of the hymns we sing in my church is The Church's One Foundation, and it begins "The Church's one Foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord".

As Dr. Luther said, "We believe the Scripture's for Christ's sake, we do not believe in Christ for the Scripture's sake."

The point of the Bible is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

False.

You have not proved that.
Try.

The foundation of the faith is Jesus Christ.



He's God.



He's God.



He's God.

So that is a valid answer but when I say the God created the everything in 6 days you want specifics?

What does science have to do with the Holy Gospel? The answer, of course, is nothing.

Nope... or why would archeologists use the Bible as their reference when working in that part of the world?

In spite of your aggression and hostility, you have failed to present anything resembling an argument, and have refused to elaborate. It's also clear that, in spite of your protests to the contrary, you weren't being misunderstood.

I have not been aggressive or hostile.

You're simply wrong. Both biblically and theologically.

Read your above statement and ask yourself if you have done any more than "protests to the contrary".

If the foundation of your faith in Jesus is the a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1, then you've got the wrong foundation, and your faith is flimsy. Jesus Christ said the wise man builds his house on a solid foundation, He is that solid foundation.

-CryptoLutheran

If evolution is how man came about, then there was no original Adam, then Adam did not sin, therefore Jesus is not needed to forgive sin.

Where do you think the Creation story came from?
If it is man made then the basis of the Jewish religion is based on fables and myths.
And the Christian religion is based on the Jewish religion(Jesus King of the Jews).
So if you are looking for foundation... maybe dig to the bottom.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have not proved that.
Try.

So that is a valid answer but when I say the God created the everything in 6 days you want specifics?

Here is how it is demonstrably false:

If the creation story in Genesis one is not a literal record of history and/or science, here are things that are still true:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
We believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord. Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
We believe in the Holy Spirit.
We believe in the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

On this rests my salvation: Christ died, Christ is risen, Christ is coming again.

Now you make your case why any of that is untrue if Genesis 1 isn't literal.

Nope... or why would archeologists use the Bible as their reference when working in that part of the world?

Which has nothing to do with the Holy Gospel. The best one could argue here is that academics are of the agreement and consensus that there was a Jesus of Nazareth--but archeology and science can't demonstrate that He is the Virgin-born Incarnate Deity. That is something only faith can receive.

I have not been aggressive or hostile.

You have been quite hostile and aggressive toward others in this thread.

Read your above statement and ask yourself if you have done any more than "protests to the contrary".

If evolution is how man came about, then there was no original Adam, then Adam did not sin, therefore Jesus is not needed to forgive sin.

There can still be Adam and Eve while there also being evolution. Plenty of Christians accept both. More than that, the problem of sin is made obvious by a simple observation. Look at yourself, honestly, there's something wrong with you. There's something wrong with me. There's something wrong with each and every one of us. This is not a world in which justice resides. This is a world where sin, death, and suffering are plentiful.

You can look at all that and still say, "Well, if the story didn't happen, to the exact details, literally, as I read it in Genesis, then Jesus is unnecessary"?

That seems shocking to me. I know I'm a sinner. I know I need Jesus. I need Jesus every day. Daily I cry out for mercy, the mercy which only God has, who saves me, rescues me, and reconciles me out of His great love for me. And all of that is found in Christ and Christ alone. And that remains true regardless of how literal the details in some parts of Genesis are.

Where do you think the Creation story came from?
If it is man made then the basis of the Jewish religion is based on fables and myths.
And the Christian religion is based on the Jewish religion(Jesus King of the Jews).
So if you are looking for foundation... maybe dig to the bottom.

The creation stories, there's more than one in Genesis, were written by mean and inspired by God. Because the entire Bible is divinely inspired.

God inspired the Psalms, poetry.
God inspired wisdom literature, the Proverbs.
God inspired the writings of the Prophets.
God inspired apocalyptic writings, Daniel and Revelation.

Are the Parables of Jesus Divinely inspired? Does there have to be a literal prodigal son for it to be true?

And yet, I already know you take plenty of things in the Bible non-literally. Things I DO take literally.

When Jesus said that bread was His own body, He meant that literally. When I go up to the altar and receive the Holy Eucharist, that's literally Jesus.

When Paul says that I am cleansed by the washing of water with the word, he really means that--I was cleansed in the water of Holy Baptism, where I was clothed with Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27), I died with Christ and received new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

Baptism and Communion aren't symbols, or ordinances, or fancy rituals we do to make us feel religious. They are precious, divinely-given Means of Grace which God uses to accomplish His own loving and gracious work in our lives.

I can point to my baptism and know that I belong to Jesus Christ. Because the Bible says so.
I can point to the altar where the bread and wine are consecrated and say that's Jesus Christ. Because the Bible says so.
I can know that my sins are forgiven when I confess my sins and my pastor pronounces the words of Absolution in Christ's name and stead. Because the Bible says so.

I'm willing to go out on a limb that you don't believe any of that. Even though the Bible says so.

"You have an elegant way of rejecting God's precepts in order to establish your own tradition." - Mark 7:9

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

Here is how it is demonstrably false:

If the creation story in Genesis one is not a literal record of history and/or science, here are things that are still true:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
We believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord. Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
We believe in the Holy Spirit.
We believe in the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

On this rests my salvation: Christ died, Christ is risen, Christ is coming again.

Now you make your case why any of that is untrue if Genesis 1 isn't literal.

Why.
Why did Christ do all that.
Was Jesus just on holiday? Bad last week but that happens when holiday is rapping up.
Without Genesis 1-3 you do not have a reason why Jesus would do what He did.

Which has nothing to do with the Holy Gospel. The best one could argue here is that academics are of the agreement and consensus that there was a Jesus of Nazareth--but archeology and science can't demonstrate that He is the Virgin-born Incarnate Deity. That is something only faith can receive.

I was addressing your question. If you forgot that then maybe reread before responding.

You have been quite hostile and aggressive toward others in this thread.

Name one instance of hostility or aggression.

There can still be Adam and Eve while there also being evolution. Plenty of Christians accept both. More than that, the problem of sin is made obvious by a simple observation. Look at yourself, honestly, there's something wrong with you. There's something wrong with me. There's something wrong with each and every one of us. This is not a world in which justice resides. This is a world where sin, death, and suffering are plentiful.

And plenty of Christians will get the "I never knew you" treatment at the end.
How can there be an Adam while there is evolution.
Who were Adam's parents?
So you deny Romans 5?

You can look at all that and still say, "Well, if the story didn't happen, to the exact details, literally, as I read it in Genesis, then Jesus is unnecessary"?

Yep.

That seems shocking to me. I know I'm a sinner. I know I need Jesus. I need Jesus every day. Daily I cry out for mercy, the mercy which only God has, who saves me, rescues me, and reconciles me out of His great love for me. And all of that is found in Christ and Christ alone. And that remains true regardless of how literal the details in some parts of Genesis are.

I never said it didn't.

The creation stories, there's more than one in Genesis, were written by mean and inspired by God. Because the entire Bible is divinely inspired.

God inspired the Psalms, poetry.
God inspired wisdom literature, the Proverbs.
God inspired the writings of the Prophets.
God inspired apocalyptic writings, Daniel and Revelation.

Are the Parables of Jesus Divinely inspired? Does there have to be a literal prodigal son for it to be true?

So you refuse to answer the question.
Moving on.

And yet, I already know you take plenty of things in the Bible non-literally. Things I DO take literally.

When Jesus said that bread was His own body, He meant that literally. When I go up to the altar and receive the Holy Eucharist, that's literally Jesus.

So what experiments have been done to prove what you say?
Was the wafer DNA tested?
How about after ingestion?

How do you know that Jesus meant that literally?
Does the Bible say that Jesus meant it literally?
References please.

When Paul says that I am cleansed by the washing of water with the word, he really means that--I was cleansed in the water of Holy Baptism, where I was clothed with Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27), I died with Christ and received new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

So you need no further resurrection as you already have been resurrected?
Are you walking on this Earth with your resurrection body... because you were dead and are now alive... or are you a zombie?

Baptism and Communion aren't symbols, or ordinances, or fancy rituals we do to make us feel religious. They are precious, divinely-given Means of Grace which God uses to accomplish His own loving and gracious work in our lives.

We differ on what the acts of Baptism and Communion signify... but we both agree they happened as written down.
As the events of Genesis were written down.
As the eye witness to the events faithfully relayed.

I can point to my baptism and know that I belong to Jesus Christ. Because the Bible says so.
I can point to the altar where the bread and wine are consecrated and say that's Jesus Christ. Because the Bible says so.
I can know that my sins are forgiven when I confess my sins and my pastor pronounces the words of Absolution in Christ's name and stead. Because the Bible says so.

I'm willing to go out on a limb that you don't believe any of that. Even though the Bible says so.

And you would be wrong.

"You have an elegant way of rejecting God's precepts in order to establish your own tradition." - Mark 7:9

-CryptoLutheran

The tradition I am trying to uphold is the tradition of believing God when He says something.

 

[Jipsah]

I would have to make something up because I do not know what the light was.

So you just made one up to support a specious argument.

God could tell you what it was because He did it.

But was unfortunately it waa not mentioned in SScripture, and has remained unguessed until you discovered it. Right.

You believe the Creation, Garden and Flood are all morality tales?

No. Do you know what a morality tale is? I have said, repeatedly, that the Creation account was a teaching story, tell how a thing was done, directed toward an audience that doesn't have the knowledge to understand an actual summary. much less detailed account.

I even provided an example of a teaching story I offered to non-engineers as to the nature of a software problem I had fixed. I described the problem in symbolic terms ("a chicken pecking corn" and what I had done to fix it in the same mode. They understood it, as they most certainly have not understood a load of techno-babble. That's th whole purpose of a teaching story - to convey information at a level the intended audience can understand.

Did the execs declare that I'd lied because I didn't belabor them with unintelligible-to-them engineering jargon? They did not. They laughed at my analogy and said, "Got it, thanks!" They weren't, you see, clueless enough to declare that our phone software required chickens and corn to operate properly.

Then you have a Bible written by men

As opposed to having been written by elves? I'm sorry, are you of the opinion that the Old Testament fell from Heaven in all its leather-bound Jacobian English glory? You may be surprised to learn that it was written by plain old human beings. Originally it was believed that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, but that's no longer generally held to be true. So who did write it? Apparently now it's assumed to have been written by more than one person. I'm sure, though, given your exhaustive research into the Jewish Scriptures, you have all that sussed out, right?

You have a man made religion. And as that is the case your god can not help you.

Really OK, just for drill, here's the summary of what I believe:


I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,c the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

There, I've shown you what I believe. Your turn.

 

[Jipsah]

Why.
Why did Christ do all that.
Was Jesus just on holiday? Bad last week but that happens when holiday is rapping up.
Without Genesis 1-3 you do not have a reason why Jesus would do what He did.

I was addressing your question. If you forgot that then maybe reread before responding.

Name one instance of hostility or aggression.

And plenty of Christians will get the "I never knew you" treatment at the end.
How can there be an Adam while there is evolution.
Who were Adam's parents?
So you deny Romans 5?

Yep.

I never said it didn't.

So you refuse to answer the question.
Moving on.

So what experiments have been done to prove what you say?
Was the wafer DNA tested?
How about after ingestion?

How do you know that Jesus meant that literally?
Does the Bible say that Jesus meant it literally?

Do you deny it? If so, why should you believe any of the Bible to be true?

The tradition I am trying to uphold is the tradition of believing God when He says something.

Unless, of course, He says "take, eat, this is My Body", right?

 

[Jipsah]

If the major stories that make the foundation of the faith are just fiction... then how can you believe in ordinary miracles.

The Creation story isn't a foundation of our Faith. Jesus Christ, as presented in the Gospels, is.

Did Jesus make the lame walk? How... exactly.

The same way He created the Universe.

Did Jesus heal blind eyes? How... exactly.

See above.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? How... exactly.

Yes, triumphantly.

If you do not have a scientific answer for these simple questions then you can not believe in them... by your own criterion.

Have you ever actually read the Gospels, or did you just get mired up in the Old Testament and decide you'd read enough?

 

[Jipsah]

You’ve got a point in that last paragraph, about some posters disbelieving what Jesus said about the Eucharist.

I know, right? Tossing out the cornflakes and trying to eat the box.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what experiments have been done to prove what you say?
Was the wafer DNA tested?
How about after ingestion?

Isn't it just a little bit funny that when I observe creation, for example the record of age embedded in the earth's strata, or in ice core samples, or the use of radiometric dating and discover the earth is very old--much older than six thousand years. I'm told that "man's science is wrong" and "who are you going to believe about creation, God or man?"

But when I point out that Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is My blood", you--and others--can just say "Oh, well have you tested the DNA?"

Ignoring, of course, the simple fact that we shouldn't expect a DNA test to come back and show us that there's just the material elements of bread and wine--so maybe we'll find some wheat DNA and some grape DNA. As nobody believes we should expect to find human DNA in the Eucharist--because that's not what the Christian doctrine of the Real Presence is about. In the same way, of course, that if we somehow managed to find a sample of Jesus' shed blood from the cross we wouldn't find in it to be anything other than the DNA of an ordinary Jewish man from the time. And yet, Jesus is God. And the bread and wine is the true flesh and blood of that same God-Man.

But let's ignore that, because what really matters is this: Jesus said it, that should be enough.

Yet here you are demanding a DNA test on the elements of the Lord's Supper, and are willing to try and use "man's science" to say it's not actually the body and blood of Jesus, even though He says it is.

And out of the same mouth you are also saying that if I don't believe the six days of creation were six literal days then I've completely thrown away the foundation of the faith.

It's a fascinating bit of cognitive dissonance.

I don't think the days of creation are literal, I'm obviously an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness where there is unquenching fire and a worm that never dies. And, no doubt, I'm also an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness also because I believe what Jesus says when He talks about being born again, about His flesh and blood.

However,

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness,
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name."

I know who my Savior is. and neither you nor the old wiley serpent can take away what God has given.

Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

-CryptoLutheran

 

[trophy33]

I am just following your logic to the inevitable conclusion and drawing your attention to the conclusions.

If the major stories that make the foundation of the faith are just fiction... then how can you believe in ordinary miracles.

Did Jesus make the lame walk? How... exactly.
Did Jesus heal blind eyes? How... exactly.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? How... exactly.

If you do not have a scientific answer for these simple questions then you can not believe in them... by your own criterion.

You are not following my logic, you are ignoring facts about history and literature and your conclusions do not follow my words.

Gospels are a different genre than Genesis and from a different era.

My argument has never been "you must know exactly how". My argument was that you read an old text and ignore the time, style and purpose.

 

[dwb001]

Isn't it just a little bit funny that when I observe creation, for example the record of age embedded in the earth's strata, or in ice core samples, or the use of radiometric dating and discover the earth is very old--much older than six thousand years. I'm told that "man's science is wrong" and "who are you going to believe about creation, God or man?"

But when I point out that Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is My blood", you--and others--can just say "Oh, well have you tested the DNA?"

Ignoring, of course, the simple fact that we shouldn't expect a DNA test to come back and show us that there's just the material elements of bread and wine--so maybe we'll find some wheat DNA and some grape DNA. As nobody believes we should expect to find human DNA in the Eucharist--because that's not what the Christian doctrine of the Real Presence is about. In the same way, of course, that if we somehow managed to find a sample of Jesus' shed blood from the cross we wouldn't find in it to be anything other than the DNA of an ordinary Jewish man from the time. And yet, Jesus is God. And the bread and wine is the true flesh and blood of that same God-Man.

But let's ignore that, because what really matters is this: Jesus said it, that should be enough.

Yet here you are demanding a DNA test on the elements of the Lord's Supper, and are willing to try and use "man's science" to say it's not actually the body and blood of Jesus, even though He says it is.

And out of the same mouth you are also saying that if I don't believe the six days of creation were six literal days then I've completely thrown away the foundation of the faith.

It's a fascinating bit of cognitive dissonance.

I don't think the days of creation are literal, I'm obviously an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness where there is unquenching fire and a worm that never dies. And, no doubt, I'm also an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness also because I believe what Jesus says when He talks about being born again, about His flesh and blood.

However,

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness,
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name."

I know who my Savior is. and neither you nor the old wiley serpent can take away what God has given.

Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

-CryptoLutheran

Your little rant here has shown a rift in thinking that leads to fights.

Is it RCC theology that the bread and wine do not transform into the actual flesh and blood of Christ in the DNA changing type of way?

A phrase jumped out "Real Presence". Now I was never taught such a thing so is there some difference between Real Presence and the bread turning physically into a piece of flesh?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your little rant here has shown a rift in thinking that leads to fights.

Continually referring to posts responding to you as "rants" is an example of that "hostility and aggression" I was talking about. Being dismissive and putting other people down is aggressive and hostile.

I will freely admit that, in my last couple of posts I became heated.

Is it RCC theology that the bread and wine do not transform into the actual flesh and blood of Christ in the DNA changing type of way?

I'm not RCC, I'm Lutheran. But the RCC teaching, Transubstantiation, holds that the substance changes from bread to body, wine to blood; but the accidents remain. The term "accident" here refers to the external and outward appearance--it still looks, tastes, feels like bread and wine. That also means that a test on the elements would show that it is still bread and wine. Only the substance has changed has changed.

A phrase jumped out "Real Presence". Now I was never taught such a thing so is there some difference between Real Presence and the bread turning physically into a piece of flesh?

The doctrine of the Real Presence is simply the historical and biblical Christian view of the Lord's Supper. Transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. However, the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other historic churches also hold to the Real Presence but without subscribing to Transubstantiation.

For Lutherans, we maintain that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are the real body and blood of Jesus, but we insist that the how of this is unknown. Jesus said it, so we believe it. The closest we get to explaining it is what's referred to as the Sacramental Union, which is meant more as analogy than explanation. In the same way that Jesus Christ in His one undivided Person is both God and man, without any separation or confusion (the Hypostatic Union) so also is the bread and wine the real body and blood of Jesus while still being bread and wine. So the language one can find in the Lutheran confessional texts is that Christ's body and blood is "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine. Yes, of course it's bread, and yes, of course it's wine; but "in, with, and under" those elements is the very real flesh and blood of the Savior. It's Jesus. Jesus is really, actually here giving Himself to us in His Supper.

The Real Presence was as common a view among Christians as the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and that He died for our sins up until the 16th century, when some extremists in the Reformed and Radical wings of the Reformation began to teach otherwise. The first to teach Memorialism, that the bread and wine are only symbols or tokens representing Jesus' body and blood, and the Supper is only a memorial of His death was Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss theologian. Zwingli's theology became common among many Reformed churches, and through the Reformed tradition it entered into some Anglican* thinkers who were influenced by the Reformed tradition. Which is how it ended up being the view of the Puritans and various Separatist/Nonconformist groups in England, such as the Baptists.

*Emphasis on some Anglicans. Many Anglicans reject Zwinglianism, especially High Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics.

And in the United States, but not exclusively there, but also in other English-speaking countries which were formerly British colonies, Reformed Protestantism was often the dominant form of Protestantism. And since Arminianism is also part of that Reformed tradition, that means both Five-Point Calvinists and Five-Point Arminians (and the in-betweens) have historically held to a Zwinglian view of Communion.

Which is why you were never taught it. And it's also why I was never taught it in the churches I grew up in. It's something I had to learn by studying the Bible for myself and learning more about Christian theology and history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

Continually referring to posts responding to you as "rants" is an example of that "hostility and aggression" I was talking about. Being dismissive and putting other people down is aggressive and hostile.

It really isn't an example of aggression nor hostility.

I will freely admit that, in my last couple of posts I became heated.



I'm not RCC, I'm Lutheran. But the RCC teaching, Transubstantiation, holds that the substance changes from bread to body, wine to blood; but the accidents remain. The term "accident" here refers to the external and outward appearance--it still looks, tastes, feels like bread and wine. That also means that a test on the elements would show that it is still bread and wine. Only the substance has changed has changed.

Then before starting a fight about something you should define it better.
We have very different views on what some words mean. So why not explain before complain?

The doctrine of the Real Presence is simply the historical and biblical Christian view of the Lord's Supper. Transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. However, the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other historic churches also hold to the Real Presence but without subscribing to Transubstantiation.

For Lutherans, we maintain that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are the real body and blood of Jesus, but we insist that the how of this is unknown. Jesus said it, so we believe it. The closest we get to explaining it is what's referred to as the Sacramental Union, which is meant more as analogy than explanation. In the same way that Jesus Christ in His one undivided Person is both God and man, without any separation or confusion (the Hypostatic Union) so also is the bread and wine the real body and blood of Jesus while still being bread and wine. So the language one can find in the Lutheran confessional texts is that Christ's body and blood is "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine. Yes, of course it's bread, and yes, of course it's wine; but "in, with, and under" those elements is the very real flesh and blood of the Savior. It's Jesus. Jesus is really, actually here giving Himself to us in His Supper.

The Real Presence was as common a view among Christians as the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and that He died for our sins up until the 16th century, when some extremists in the Reformed and Radical wings of the Reformation began to teach otherwise. The first to teach Memorialism, that the bread and wine are only symbols or tokens representing Jesus' body and blood, and the Supper is only a memorial of His death was Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss theologian. Zwingli's theology became common among many Reformed churches, and through the Reformed tradition it entered into some Anglican* thinkers who were influenced by the Reformed tradition. Which is how it ended up being the view of the Puritans and various Separatist/Nonconformist groups in England, such as the Baptists.

*Emphasis on some Anglicans. Many Anglicans reject Zwinglianism, especially High Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics.

And in the United States, but not exclusively there, but also in other English-speaking countries which were formerly British colonies, Reformed Protestantism was often the dominant form of Protestantism. And since Arminianism is also part of that Reformed tradition, that means both Five-Point Calvinists and Five-Point Arminians (and the in-betweens) have historically held to a Zwinglian view of Communion.

Which is why you were never taught it. And it's also why I was never taught it in the churches I grew up in. It's something I had to learn by studying the Bible for myself and learning more about Christian theology and history.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah I didn't ask for a bunch more words that come with even more baggage.
You already know I will not read a long statement that rambles on. I have bad eyesight and don't read sermons.
So you understand that people have different views on this and you show that it is a complicated issue.
But you take offense if someone asks why not take a DNA test of the bread? Not very honest of you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It really isn't an example of aggression nor hostility.

Then before starting a fight about something you should define it better.
We have very different views on what some words mean. So why not explain before complain?

Yeah I didn't ask for a bunch more words that come with even more baggage.
You already know I will not read a long statement that rambles on. I have bad eyesight and don't read sermons.
So you understand that people have different views on this and you show that it is a complicated issue.
But you take offense if someone asks why not take a DNA test of the bread? Not very honest of you.

If your bad eyesight is really what's holding you back from reading what other people are saying then try holding the Ctrl key and the + key together a few times to enlarge your browser window.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

If your bad eyesight is really what's holding you back from reading what other people are saying then try holding the Ctrl key and the + key together a few times to enlarge your browser window.

-CryptoLutheran

Or you could write a sorter response.
I have let you know why I skip longer articles... and that is that.

 

[FaithT]

Isn't it just a little bit funny that when I observe creation, for example the record of age embedded in the earth's strata, or in ice core samples, or the use of radiometric dating and discover the earth is very old--much older than six thousand years. I'm told that "man's science is wrong" and "who are you going to believe about creation, God or man?"

But when I point out that Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is My blood", you--and others--can just say "Oh, well have you tested the DNA?"

Ignoring, of course, the simple fact that we shouldn't expect a DNA test to come back and show us that there's just the material elements of bread and wine--so maybe we'll find some wheat DNA and some grape DNA. As nobody believes we should expect to find human DNA in the Eucharist--because that's not what the Christian doctrine of the Real Presence is about. In the same way, of course, that if we somehow managed to find a sample of Jesus' shed blood from the cross we wouldn't find in it to be anything other than the DNA of an ordinary Jewish man from the time. And yet, Jesus is God. And the bread and wine is the true flesh and blood of that same God-Man.

But let's ignore that, because what really matters is this: Jesus said it, that should be enough.

Yet here you are demanding a DNA test on the elements of the Lord's Supper, and are willing to try and use "man's science" to say it's not actually the body and blood of Jesus, even though He says it is.

And out of the same mouth you are also saying that if I don't believe the six days of creation were six literal days then I've completely thrown away the foundation of the faith.

It's a fascinating bit of cognitive dissonance.

I don't think the days of creation are literal, I'm obviously an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness where there is unquenching fire and a worm that never dies. And, no doubt, I'm also an infidel who will be cast out into outer darkness also because I believe what Jesus says when He talks about being born again, about His flesh and blood.

However,

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness,
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name."

I know who my Savior is. and neither you nor the old wiley serpent can take away what God has given.

Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

-CryptoLutheran

Good points!