Are protestants guilty of the Blood and body of the Lord?

thecolorsblend · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
Jesus said this soon after the miracle of feeding 5000.
Jesus contrasted a physical nourishment with a spiritual nourishment. Jesus said, without spiritual nourishment you are dead.

Do you dare judge Baptists going to Hell for not receiving "proper" nourishment in the "proper" Lord's Supper?

I dare quite a lot of things, especially when it comes to the Baptists.

Daniel9v9 · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wish you to consider two domains, a physical and a spiritual. Now Jesus did use parables and physical examples to "symbolize" heavenly/spiritual things. But, there are also other times where there is both a physical and a spiritual meaning to the same thing.

Do you believe you are born again? As Jesus explained, we are first born physically, but must be born again spiritually. He is not teaching that baptism represents/symbolizes a rebirth. He is not teaching a physical rebirth. He is teaching a spiritual rebirth.

Now apply the same to the Lord's Supper. Even though Jesus said we eat flesh in John 6:55, he clarifies it to mean a spiritual meaning in John 6:63. As John does not record the words of the Lord's Supper, it is a good bet that John 6 teaches the meaning of the Lord's Supper.

Lastly consider Jesus' words, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." You could rewrite it "Jesus is where two or three gather". Now, I just want to point out the Jesus is present spiritually, not physically. The word is does not insist equality in every characteristic of the subject. Is could mean: spiritual, physical, both spiritual and physical.

Good question. I'll try my best to summarize, but you've touched on a very complex subject, so please bear with me

We (Lutherans) certainly do distinguish between physical and spiritual, but it should be understood correctly. The Lutheran view (that I hold to) is that the Eucharist is a Holy Mystery expressed as Sacramental Union. This means that the bread, being ordinary bread, is consumed in an ordinary and bodily way. But, in, with and under the bread, there is a spiritual eating of the true body of Christ. This rests on the institution, command and promise of God. Likewise, in Baptism, the water is regular water, but by the word and promise of Christ, they are joined together and form a Sacrament. viz a Holy Baptism into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, through faith. It's not a work that we do, but a gift from God; a means of grace.

When I say "spiritual", what is meant is divine and incomprehensible; something only rightly apprehended through faith. I don't mean "spiritual" in the sense that's not substantially real or symbolic, because it is the true body and true blood of Christ given for us. (It is not Consubstantiation, although Lutherans are often accused of this)

I don't know what your teachings are on the Eucharist, but IF it's in line with Calvin, then I would perhaps summarize it thus: Lutherans confess that Christ is present in the Eucharist and that the bread and the wine are channels or means of grace. This is a bit different from the Calvinistic school of thought, that makes the Holy Spirit an intermediary person, making the Real Presence somewhat indirectly, yet real (and arguably direct, given God's oneness - though it can be viewed with implications). So, if we say "spiritual eating of Christ", Lutherans don't mean via the Holy Spirit, but Christ directly. Christ offered himself, and so that is who is offered. However, we also believe that the Holy Spirit is present, but in a different form; namely through God's Word, and operating within us - sanctifying, producing faith and good works.

Lutherans differ from Roman Catholic teaching in that the body of Christ is not local, but we do not mean that the body of Christ entirely absent nor by extension either. What is meant is that it's holy and mystical; Christ, being fully man and fully God, glorified and at the right hand of the Father, is both present among us and not. He's not locally present with us according to his human nature (as he was with the apostles), but he is spiritually present with us, in accordance with his human nature through the power of his divine nature. Just as the Holy Spirit can be everywhere at all times, so the Son can be everywhere at all times; that is, through his divinity. Yet, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. In a word, the fullness of the deity dwells in Christ and Christ offers himself in the supper, even though he reigns in heaven, and will again return (locally) on the last day.

Sorry that my answer is very long-winded, but the reason I wanted to explain this difference (even if you don't believe in a Calvinistic view or Roman view) is just so that I can more easily explain the second part of your question: "Jesus is where two or three gather". We hold that - though closely and naturally connected - this is different from the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because this rests on a different institution and promise, to wit, the institution of the Church - that we, the believers, are the body of Christ and Christ is the head. In this respect, and through faith, new birth, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christ is with us, because we are united with Christ through faith.

I hope that helps clarify a bit, even if my description is imperfect. Should you be interested in a more accurate definition of the Lutheran doctrine on the Eucharist, I'd recommend checking out our Confessions: The Large Catechism - Book of Concord

sunlover1 · Apr 6, 2018

SolomonVII said:
...communion is meant to be bringing people together and the sharing of a common faith and a common belief in what this bread and wine signifies. "One Body." People coming in with their own ideas and their own agendas in Paul's time were in effect destroying the unity of their community.

Indeed it has to be this
'

I would guess that when Paul is talking about how weak and sick they have become and how some have fallen asleep, what he is talking about is a weakening and a sickening and even a death of their spirit. There are no thunderbolts from heaven involved, but a relentless malaise setting in on individuals and the community as a whole as a result of these abuses of the Agape Feast. Christianity is nothing without faith, and the faith to be shared here was that the Eucharist was deemed to be very, very, very important.

I disagree about it being a "spiritual" illness.
Healing is the children's bread.
Besides, there's no reason for us to take that as being a spiritual weakness and death.
One won't "die" spiritually by being foolish.
IMO, it's very physical, and if we can use anecdotal proof, I'm sure we all know plenty of examples. (And of course, experience is a great indicator, regardless of how folks like to poo poo it.)

Nice post, ty for the work!
Be blessed!

ViaCrucis · Apr 6, 2018

As Gospel, the Eucharist should not be comprehended in terror, but rather in faith and confidence in God's grace and promise for us in Christ. For it, being Christ's very body and blood, being Christ Himself come to us, ought to be received in faith, and that it therefore bring us hope and comfort. For Christ our Lord gave Himself once and for all, upon the cross, for the sins of the whole world, and by Him and what He has done we have forgiveness of sins and peace with God.

As such the Sacrament is Peace, we come to the Table to share in God's Peace, God's Shalom. There is no room for enmity here, for this is God's Peace, for us, as we gather around the Table of our God in foretaste of the glorious banquet feast that is to come.

It is indeed imperative that we show right respect and reverence to these precious gifts, for to sin against these is not to sin against mere bread and wine, but against the body and blood of Jesus Christ; for these are the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, broken and shed for us.

But we should not turn this beautiful Agape into harsh law that weighs down upon us to instill a deep dread, we ought to encourage one another to come to the Table, for here we have our Peace, here is the naked and bare flesh of our God offered to us freely in which, because of Christ's blood, we are right before and with God on His account. Here is Food which satisfies, Drink which quenches, and Medicine for eternal life: Jesus Christ, the Bread and Water of Life, our Good Physician, and Savior.

-CryptoLutheran

Sine Nomine · Apr 6, 2018

Radagast said:
The essence of the Tridentine doctrine of Transubstantiation is that it is possible for accidents to exist while inhering in no substance (this is what Wycliffe was condemned for denying).

To quote the Catechism of Trent: "The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding, although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine."

I'm prepared to offer $100 to anyone that can successfully defend this doctrine (like Wycliffe, I find that it makes no sense at all to me).

Hi Radagast,

I’m a Protestant but I think I can explain this doctrine—I think it will make some sense to many Protestants who believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Lords Supper.

To start, I believe “accidents” refer to the material substance that we call real. The true reality is spiritual. So, while we can see and touch and analyze the bread and wine, when used in the Lord’s Supper they take on a “wonderful and ineffable” nature independent of the physical object. As this spiritual reality is truly real, the bread and wine are no more bread and wine (how could they be), but truly the body and blood of Christ (but they continue to appear to be just bread and wine).

The memorial position that I believe Wycliffe held is in opposition to this—a materialistic view. Just bread, just wine, just something we do.

Variations on Real Presence seem compatible, but don’t disregard the subject of material reality. Really bread and wine, Christ present somehow.

The Reformation successfully encouraged a more literal and material view of the physical world than the medieval Catholic Church—which is in some ways very unfortunate...

Radagast · Apr 6, 2018

Sine Nomine said:
I think it will make some sense to many Protestants who believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Lords Supper.

I'm one of them.

Sine Nomine said:
To start, I believe “accidents” refer to the material substance that we call real. The true reality is spiritual.

"Substance" and "accidents" are terms from Aristotelian physics. I don't think you can just redefine them.

Sine Nomine said:
So, while we can see and touch and analyze the bread and wine, when used in the Lord’s Supper they take on a “wonderful and ineffable” nature independent of the physical object.

And that is basically the Reformed Protestant view. It's not the Catholic one.

And you haven't even attempted to explain "accidents inhering in no substance."

Sine Nomine · Apr 6, 2018

Radagast said:
I'm one of them.

"Substance" and "accidents" are terms from Aristotelian physics. I don't think you can just redefine them.

And that is basically the Reformed Protestant view. It's not the Catholic one.

And you haven't even attempted to explain "accidents inhering in no substance."

From “catholicculture.org”

ACCIDENTS

Definition
Things whose essence naturally requires that they exist in another being. Accidents are also called the appearances, species, or properties of a thing. These may be either physical, such as quantity, or modal, such as size or shape. Supernaturally, accidents can exist, in the absence of their natural substance, as happens with the physical properties of bread and wine after Eucharistic consecration.

Accidents existing in the absence of their physical substance, by definition “inhere in no substance”—they are supernatural—ie spiritual. (This also may help explain Luther’s odd statements that the presence of The body and blood are “under” the elements)

Aristotlian Philosophy (from Wikipedia)

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.[3][4][5]

So, perhaps I can refine my definitions a bit, but the essence of what I shared is still a reasonable explanation—the spiritual nature of the meal is not connected to its physical nature, except it being the thing that’s physically eaten. (I’d need a catholic theologian, but I think this also means it’s possible to receive the supernatural accident without the physical substance itself—only makes sense)

Yes, this is what many Protestants believe, so we’re not that far from our Catholic brethren. Is only when we start to focus on transsubstantiation and assert that the “accident” has the physical nature of Christ’s body and blood—which it clearly and verifiably does not.

SolomonVII · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
I think you are on the right track. Some in the early church did live communally, but I don't think they did in Corinth. Everyone ignores 1 Corinthians 11:34. The solution Paul gives clearly points out the problem in Corinth. Paul said to eat at home if hungry before the Lord's Supper. This means people had homes and ate there so they were not living communally. The problem was that people were getting together for both physical and spiritual nourishment. Paul taught that the Lord's Supper should not be for physical nourishment, but only spiritual nourishment. This is the meaning of the most misunderstood verse 29. We are to discerning/recognize only spiritual nourishment when we participate in the Lord's Supper.

I think the problem with the early church was a continuation of the traditions of OT festivals into the Lord's Supper. Often these were celebrated with excessive food and wine consumption. Paul specifically calls out those getting drunk. Paul taught this practice to be against what Jesus wanted. And so it survives today as a token amount of bread and wine such that it provides a pittance of physical nourishment, but enormous spiritual nourishment.

I wasn't implying that this was a commune. I was noting that what Catholics have come to call "communion" was in Paul's time a full communal meal, maybe like a Scandinavian smorgasbord, except that the body and blood of Christ was in that meal. It was a part of the religious service being attended.

The whole point of a smorgasbord is lost when people eat what they bring themselves without sharing it. ( I have seen that happen, btw, when cultures that don't understand the meaning of smorgasbord get involved, eat what they bring and go to the communal table for extra goodies).

The Last Supper was for spiritual nourishment for sure, but it was also a meal, a Jewish ritual meal even, and like manna from heaven, it was for both physical and spiritual nourishment. The meal that Paul was talking about in this instance, was a remembrance of that Last Supper in all its aspects, and it was being abused.

Now I went over the text again and I don't see anywhere where it says that Paul says that physical nourishment was something to be specifically precluded.
And, the ritual drinking of Jewish celebrations are the antithesis of Greek patterns of bacchanalian drinking, that seemed to be a part of what Paul was calling an abuse. Jews until recently in this age of disbelief have had very, very low rates of alcoholism, because drinking during their feast was limited. The "fourth cup" was often the last. There has been some good theology written about how this applies to the crucifixion and extends even to the cross and the 'vinegar' given to Jesus while on the cross. I don't think that it was because Paul was trying to cleanse the gentile Christian communities of the taint of Jewish practices that he was talking against the practices here. The Church did eventually start to do that cleansing against all things Jewish, but that was a much later development.

I liken some of his admonitions somewhat to what happened to Jesus after the miracle of feeding of the five thousand. Subsequently people became more interested in the free food than in coming to listen to the Word and become a part of his family. In the hierarchy of human needs, the flesh is very persistent in having its needs met first, and it takes a remarkable spiritual maturity to refrain from seeing the free wine and food as less important than the spiritual nourishment being provided. It was almost inevitable then that the ritual meal commemorating the Last Supper came to relegate the possibility of physical nourishment to the sphere of symbolic in order that people would be focused on the spiritual nourishment that comes with being fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Winken · Apr 6, 2018

W2L said:
I have heard catholics say that if we dont believe that the lords supper is the real flesh and blood of the Lord, that we are not discerning His body. That would mean that we are guilty of the blood and body of Christ.

THE Answer:
Don Watson

LadyCrosstalk · Apr 6, 2018

W2L said:
Im referring to this scripture. Those who dont believe that the Lords supper is real flesh and blood, are they guilty of not discerning the body of Christ? Catholics seem to think so.

1 Corinthian 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[a] of the Lord.

Again, the Corinthians were guilty of having near brawls at their "love feasts" and the Apostle Paul was warning them that it was important to be serious and circumspect in their observances or be guilty of disgracing themselves before the Lord.

☦Marius☦ · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
There is another possibility. The bread is physically bread, but spiritually Jesus' body.

That would be the Orthodox idea of the Holy Mysteries. It is mystically the body and blood.

Afra · Apr 6, 2018

W2L said:
Im referring to this scripture. Those who dont believe that the Lords supper is real flesh and blood, are they guilty of not discerning the body of Christ? Catholics seem to think so.

1 Corinthian 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[a] of the Lord.

Well, from my perspective, 1 Cor. 11:27 would not apply to you because you only have bread and wine at your communion. I think you would be guilty if you were to attempt to receive communion at a Catholic Church, because we receive our Lord's body and blood. From what I understand, this is one reason why we do not allow Protestants to receive communion at our churches, while we allow Eastern Orthodox and others who share a similar belief in the real presence.

☦Marius☦ · Apr 6, 2018

Afra said:
Well, from my perspective, 1 Cor. 11:27 would not apply to you because you only have bread and wine at your communion. I think you would be guilty if you were to attempt to receive communion at a Catholic Church, because we receive our Lord's body and blood. From what I understand, this is one reason why we do not allow Protestants to receive communion at our churches, while we allow Eastern Orthodox and others who share a similar belief in the real presence.

I am pretty sure I would not be allowed to commune at a RCC parish, but yes we consider each other's sacraments valid.

AnticipateHisComing · Apr 6, 2018

thecolorsblend said:
I dare quite a lot of things, especially when it comes to the Baptists.

I don't care about all your lot of things you have in contention with Baptists. Can you defend or clarify your response to a symbolic view of the Lord's Supper as having no life? Do you think they are going to hell?

Afra · Apr 6, 2018

☦Marius☦ said:
I am pretty sure I would not be allowed to commune at a RCC parish, but yes we consider each other's sacraments valid.

Yes, from what I understand the Eastern Orthodox Church would not allow you, even though from our perspective you would be welcome.

☦Marius☦ · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
I don't care about all your lot of things you have in contention with Baptists. Can you defend or clarify your response to a symbolic view of the Lord's Supper as having no life? Do you think they are going to hell?

We have a saying in the Orthodox Church; "we know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he isn't.

I left the Baptist Church for many reasons. The foremost being that they, along with all protestants, allow their theology to be so influence by trying to be anti Catholic, that they will actually allow logical fallacies to enter it. I get being against the Catholic dogmas, I really do, but when you are so scared of something that you refuse to allow anything resembling Catholicism to be part of your theology and creeds even when it makes sense... well. I will never go back. I will never go back to ignoring church history, to disregarding the church fathers, to disregarding the virgin as important, to thinking works don't matter at all, to denying the Eucharist as central to the Christian life. I left at seminary and from what I have learned now, there will never be a reason to return.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 6, 2018

W2L said:
I have heard catholics say that if we dont believe that the lords supper is the real flesh and blood of the Lord, that we are not discerning His body. That would mean that we are guilty of the blood and body of Christ.

...actually, this is one of those issues I don't argue about. No, I just roll my eyes ...

... and keep smiling.

AnticipateHisComing · Apr 6, 2018

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This verse is often quoted, but little pondered. Consider two kinds of food and two kinds of man. You have physical food and spiritual food. You have the physical man and the spiritual man.

Do we eat spiritual food for physical life?
Do we eat physical food for spiritual life?

Now when Jesus said "you have no life in you", it should be obvious that Jesus was speaking of spiritual life, not physical life. Now if spiritual life is only nourished by spiritual food, than John 6:53 while saying flesh, Jesus was actually referring to spiritual food. Jesus says this explicitly in John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life."

While Jesus did talk about physical nourishment, he came to earth to teach and guide us for spiritual nourishment. John 6 tells the story of the feeding of the 5000. This was nourishment for physical life. But, Jesus used this as a teaching moment. He used the people's physical hunger to make them aware of their spiritual hunger. Many miss this point. We are so aware of our physical hunger, but dismiss our starving spiritual life and the need to nourish it. Jesus said we need to eat him for spiritual nourishment, to obtain eternal life. Now what is "eating him"? He is the Word and he is our Savior. When we study his word, we are "eating" him, taking in the Word. When we partake in the Lord's Supper, we are receiving the grace God bestows on us with Jesus' death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

Some may disagree with my argument that only spiritual food can nourish our spiritual life, but I challenge you to find a single example in scripture that teaches physical food provides spiritual nourishment.

Radagast · Apr 6, 2018

Sine Nomine said:
Accidents existing in the absence of their physical substance, by definition “inhere in no substance”—they are supernatural—ie spiritual.

That's still not an explanation.

☦Marius☦ · Apr 6, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This verse is often quoted, but little pondered. Consider two kinds of food and two kinds of man. You have physical food and spiritual food. You have the physical man and the spiritual man.

Do we eat spiritual food for physical life?
Do we eat physical food for spiritual life?

Now when Jesus said "you have no life in you", it should be obvious that Jesus was speaking of spiritual life, not physical life. Now if spiritual life is only nourished by spiritual food, than John 6:53 while saying flesh, Jesus was actually referring to spiritual food. Jesus says this explicitly in John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life."

While Jesus did talk about physical nourishment, he came to earth to teach and guide us for spiritual nourishment. John 6 tells the story of the feeding of the 5000. This was nourishment for physical life. But, Jesus used this as a teaching moment. He used the people's physical hunger to make them aware of their spiritual hunger. Many miss this point. We are so aware of our physical hunger, but dismiss our starving spiritual life and the need to nourish it. Jesus said we need to eat him for spiritual nourishment, to obtain eternal life. Now what is "eating him"? He is the Word and he is our Savior. When we study his word, we are "eating" him, taking in the Word. When we partake in the Lord's Supper, we are receiving the grace God bestows on us with Jesus' death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

Some may disagree with my argument that only spiritual food can nourish our spiritual life, but I challenge you to find a single example in scripture that teaches physical food provides spiritual nourishment.

Sure, but the Eucharist isn't just physical food. It's spiritual food as well. It unites the church together in love. During lent the Orthodox are given strength during the strict fast by communion. Why? Do you think it is because a teaspoon of bread and wine does that on its own? No. It is because physical life lives by spiritual means.

My patron saint St. Mary of Egypt live decades in the desert off of nothing but shrubs. Yet right before she died she said she was missing one thing, the Holy Supper. So St. Zorosimas a priest brought it to her. She walked on water to come to it, and afterwards she died a peaceful death. If the Eucharist is not legitimate, then why do 2000 years of recurring miracles within both the Catholic and Orthodox happen? Are they not testament to the legitimacy of our claims? I see no myrrh streaming Icons in a Baptist church. No saintly monastics, no prayer of the heart. I see no holy fire, or light of tabor. No uncorrupt saints. I see no respect for the blessed virgin and no visitations by her or Christ.

The most troublesome thing about not sharing communion in the proper light is the lack of forgiveness that it brings. Before taking the gifts our priest asks every member of the Church not to come if there is any hatred towards anyone in their heart. Mercy and Peace, a sacrifice of praise! Christ binds us together in Christian love during the sharing of the supper. I see no respect for this when as a Baptist all I received was stale wafers and grape juice (which in itself is a heresy).

Are protestants guilty of the Blood and body of the Lord?

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

†

Beloved, Let us love one another

Confessional Lutheran

Scientist and Christian

comes and goes

Scientist and Christian

Well-Known Member

Heimat

Well-Known Member

Murican

Well-Known Member

Murican

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Murican

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Newbie

comes and goes

Murican

Similar threads