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.
Are protestants guilty of the Blood and body of the Lord?
- Thread starter W2L
- Start date
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What do you mean by "guilty"?
Does that mean that every individual of Protestant conviction is as guilty as the Corinthians?
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Mark_Sam
Veteran Newbie
If the Lord's Supper really is the Body and Blood of our Lord, then many Protestants (but certainly not all) are not giving our Lord proper honour and worship - God is there before their eyes, but they think it is simple bread. However, if the Lord's Supper is only a symbol, then Catholics, Lutherans and Orthodox (and more) are worshipping bread.
(And yes, for the sake of the argument, I will not bring up the validity - or lack of validity - of Protestant celebrations of the Lord's Supper.)
(And yes, for the sake of the argument, I will not bring up the validity - or lack of validity - of Protestant celebrations of the Lord's Supper.)
Upvote
0
If protestants are not discerning the Lords body, then are they not drinking damnation to themselves? Isnt that what the scriptures say?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2014
- 17,708
- 8,068
- Country
- Norway
- Faith
- Traditional. Cath.
- Marital Status
- Single
We`re all guilty of murdering Christ in the sense that we do so daily by failing to live up to his standards. We take the dignity from our brethren whos sitting at the street begging for money. When we hate people etc...
We could very easily have been Iskariot in the gospel if given the chance. The blood of christ was shattered by the entire mankind, but so are the salvation offer to all those who repent and seek Christs mercy.
I dont know which catholics youve been talking to or whatnot, but they may have meant that as you dont have valid apostolic succession you dont have a priesthood that have been given the power by Christ himself to consecrate his body and blood and we know that those who do not eat his body and drink his blood have no part in him. Its his words not mine (before you guys jump at me).
That may be why they say that you wont get saved at the end of times. I wouldnt make such a blatant statement however. The limit of Christs mercy is a matter he alone knows not us mere mortals. Id encourage people to go for the safer route though...
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As always, context, context, context.
The Corinthian church was guilty of thinking the "Lord's Supper" was just that. A time to get together and have a banquet.
As far as 1 Cor. 11:27 is concerned, I'll add this:
"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." -1 Cor. 11:28 (KJV)
The Greek word here means:
"δοκιμάζω,v \{dok-im-ad'-zo}
1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy"
Source
Basically, you need to thoroughly examine yourself, to see if you have any unconfessed sin, or anything that needs to be brought before God, to make yourself "worthy" of receiving the Lord's Supper.
It is a most solemn ceremony in which we are brought to remember the finished work of Christ on the cross. And to celebrate it.
John Gill comments:
"But let a man examine himself
Whether he has a true sense of sin, sorrow and repentance for it; otherwise he will see no need of a Saviour, nor will he look to Christ for salvation, or be thankful to him for redemption by him; all which are necessary in a due observance of this ordinance; also, whether he is in the faith, whether he is a partaker of the true grace of faith, which is attended with good works, and shows itself by love to Christ, and to the saints; whereby a man goes out of himself to Christ for spiritual food and strength, peace and comfort, righteousness, life, and salvation; and by which he receives all from Christ, and gives him all the glory: this is absolutely necessary to his right and comfortable partaking of the Lord's supper, since without faith he cannot discern the Lord's body, nor, in a spiritual sense, eat his flesh, and drink his blood, nor attend on the ordinance in a manner acceptable unto God. Let him also examine and try whether he is sound in the doctrine of faith; or let him prove himself to be so, or show that he is one that is approved thereby; to whom the word of faith has come with power, and who has received it in the love of it, and firmly believes it; since an heretic is to be rejected from the communion of the church, and to be debarred the ordinances of it: let him examine himself, whether Christ is in him, whether he is revealed to him, and in him, as God's way of salvation, and the hope of glory; whether he is formed in his soul, his Spirit put, and his grace implanted there; since if Christ is not within, it will be of no avail to partake of the outward symbols of his body and blood. But if a man, upon reflection, under the influence and testimony of the Spirit, can come to a satisfaction in these things, however mean and unworthy he may seem in his own sight, let him come to the table of the Lord, and welcome."
Source
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This thread has the potential to turn into an "all out" debate on the underlying topic of whether or not Protestants like myself, accept and believe, or not, in the subject of "transubstantiation".
To avoid stepping on my Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican brothers and sisters, let me say right up front:
If it is your belief that the doctrine of transubstantiation is the correct position, God Bless You!
It is not mine however.
The reason is simple, if one searches the Old Testament "Laws" there are quite a few than "forbid" partaking of "blood" in any fashion, shape, or form.
Now, you may make the argument based on Jesus' or Paul's words, but I should point out, at the First Apostolic Council, it came out again.
Here is where it is very important to examine the Hebrew, Greek, and to some extent, the Aramaic words.
Scripture cannot contradict itself. Just like what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount: "How can Satan cast out Satan? If Satans kingdom be divided, how can Satans kingdom stand?"
If it was a sin in the OT, if the First Apostolic Council forbid it in the NT, its still a sin.
God said "For I am the Lord, I change not;" (cf. Mal.3:6)
Likewise, the scriptures being His word, they do not change neither.
If it was a sin from the time of the giving of the "Law" at Mt. Sinai, and then all of a sudden, it is not a sin. The God not only contradicts Himself, but His word contradicts itself.
If you take this as "the standard" by which everything and everybody is to be judged by:
Each and every "Protestant" from the First Apostolic Council until today, are guilty and there will be no "Protestants" in heaven.
I absolutely will NOT get drawn into a debate on transubstantiation, and the validity of said doctrine.
And I will repeat this:
If it is your belief that the doctrine of transubstantiation is the correct position, God Bless You!
It is not my position.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dave G.
Well-Known Member
- May 22, 2017
- 4,633
- 5,310
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
A priest can say all the words he wants of consecration over the elements but if you send those elements off for lab analysis you absolutely know it will still be a wafer and wine in content. No conversion was ever made except in the minds of those participating ( one could say perhaps in the heart as well, because they really do believe this).. However, Jesus wants us to "do this in remembrance of Me". If Catholics and others feel compelled to do this consecration act so be it. I think it's imperative that we have communion services though, which ever way. We honor Jesus Christ in so doing and are following His command. I don't feel it is for man to determine the format for others, as long as it is done in honor. Jesus himself gave no directive within scripture to convert the bread and wine,he did no special words over the bread and wine, He simply stated it was his body and blood, to take and eat, to take and drink of this cup. And incidentally if we want to get all kinds of specific, we should be breaking pieces of bread and not offering wafers. Because that's what Jesus did and He did that breaking bread during the meal and the cup after the meal. So really we should get together for dinner as well, so we get the timing right. No NO, Man will take this to extremes, I'm convinced that Jesus meant for it to be simple but for it to be carried out when we gather together .
Also he didn't say you always have to do this, He said " 'when' you do this do it in remembrance of me".
Also he didn't say you always have to do this, He said " 'when' you do this do it in remembrance of me".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Some Protestants do indeed say that "the Lord's Supper is only a symbol." They are in the minority, I believe.
Many Protestants (possibly even most Protestants) believe in the Real Presence but not in Transubstantiation. There is a difference.
There is also a debate on what 1 Corinthians 11:29 means. It does not mean "do you believe in Transubstantiation?"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2014
- 17,708
- 8,068
- Country
- Norway
- Faith
- Traditional. Cath.
- Marital Status
- Single
Of course you dont, if you did you wouldve been catholic now wouldnt you?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes but i needed to clear that up because i think my position has been misunderstood. Catholics believe that if you dont agree that the bread and wine are the real flesh and blood of Christ, then you are not discerning the body. If thats true then are us protestants not guilty of the blood of Christ?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2014
- 30,521
- 16,866
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Actually, there are four different doctrines in the mix here.
Transubstaniation, Consubstantiation, and Real Presence all affirm the body and blood of our Lord, but in varying quantities and modes. That leaves only Symbolic as actually denying the body and blood.
In my Wealeyan upbringing, I was taught Real Presence. After changing to Messianism, I find RP fits here as well. Communion was based on the Passover Seder where all participants put themselves in Egypt and bondage, and then are liberated progressively during the ceremony. While we do not actually travel back in time 3500 years, we are there in spirit. In the same way, RP lets us partake of the Body and Blood without violating the Torah (and NT) prohibition on ingesting blood. DeaconDean did a good job on pointing that out.
But there is one more point to "discerning the body" that very few of any doctrinal background pick up on. DeaconDean says "Context!" and he is right. In the wider context, Paul criticized the Corinthians in regards to communion: " one gets drunk while another starves." A few minutes later in chapter 12 he describes the congregation itself as Christ's body. In his Semetic mindset he is saying two different things with the same words.
Not only were they not seeing Christ Himself properly, they were not seeing their fellow congregants as the Body of Christ either.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2014
- 17,708
- 8,068
- Country
- Norway
- Faith
- Traditional. Cath.
- Marital Status
- Single
Im perhaps a bit slow, but I fail to see the connection between the two. If you recieve communion we believe that you recieve the Lord even if you dont believe so yourself.
If a person without apostolic succession "consecrates" communion he doesnt actually do anything other than to engage in a pseudo sacrament.
I dont understand what that has to do with guilt ?
Upvote
0
Dave G.
Well-Known Member
- May 22, 2017
- 4,633
- 5,310
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
That's ok most of the Catholics don't believe it either. How can you when supposedly this host was changed to the body and the wine to blood but son of a gun if it doesn't taste just like a wafer and wine ( if you get a sip of the wine at all that is). I do know that when I was an altar boy way back when, that the priest really really liked that chalice full of blood though, enough to turn his cheeks red, you know, kind of like wine can do..
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
