Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

[Greg Merrill]

I shall respect that you not want to start a kerfuffle over definitions of the Eucharist. Might you have a link handy to some Lutheran official documents?

I am so ignorant. I have never heard of the word "kerfuffle." I like the sound of it. I will look it up later. "Lutheran official documents?" Gotta love ya! I am sorry. The only official documents I have are the 66 books of the Bible. They are totally sufficient for me. Imagine God opening the Bible at "Judgment Day" and then saying "Oh, Yea, let's get out the official Lutheran documents as well." Gotta love ya! Can we laugh at ourselves together?

 

[Greg Merrill]

And God commanding people to murder and assault virgins to take them or keeping slaves is good because it follows God's instructions?

Sounds so horrid, like a lot of things in the Bible, when one takes them out of context and doesn't see the "Big Picture." Let me illustrate: "A man takes a knife and cuts into another man's chest." Sounds pretty bad, until you find out the first man is a doctor, operating in a hospital, saving the other man's life.

 

[Light of the East]

First of all, the Bible is to be taken literally, unless it is obvious that it is to be taken spiritually or symbolically. The first is far more numerous than the second.
Jesus flesh was worthless as far as eating it in order to gain salvation. Jesus wasn't talking about eating his flesh, and was thus explaining that. Jesus body was good for a lot of things, but not this. The three lines on your flesh and my flesh, that you wrote, are correct.

Then Jesus lied.....pure and simple. (John 6: 53-54)

And the Early Fathers were deceived by the Apostles.

Your Lutheran view didn't crop up for 1500 years and yet you want to trust your soul to the musings of an angry, psychotic, and sociopathic X-monk????

Well....have at it. I can't stop you. (Honestly, I feel a bit sorry for you.)

 

[Greg Merrill]

I shall respect that you not want to start a kerfuffle over definitions of the Eucharist. Might you have a link handy to some Lutheran official documents?

"kerfuffle"
noise, excitement, and argument:
British, I think I read.
I like it.

 

[Light of the East]

I am so ignorant. I have never heard of the word "kerfuffle." I like the sound of it. I will look it up later. "Lutheran official documents?" Gotta love ya! I am sorry. The only official documents I have are the 66 books of the Bible. They are totally sufficient for me. Imagine God opening the Bible at "Judgment Day" and then saying "Oh, Yea, let's get out the official Lutheran documents as well." Gotta love ya! Can we laugh at ourselves together?

Kerfuffle is a great word to use in a sentence. Very imaginative.

ker·fuf·fle
kərˈfəfəl/
noun
BRITISHinformal
noun: kerfuffle; plural noun: kerfuffles

1. a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.
   "there was a kerfuffle over the chairmanship"

Etymology:

 

[Light of the East]

I am so ignorant. I have never heard of the word "kerfuffle." I like the sound of it. I will look it up later. "Lutheran official documents?" Gotta love ya! I am sorry. The only official documents I have are the 66 books of the Bible. They are totally sufficient for me. Imagine God opening the Bible at "Judgment Day" and then saying "Oh, Yea, let's get out the official Lutheran documents as well." Gotta love ya! Can we laugh at ourselves together?

I suppose we could laugh at ourselves (me especially) for being so obtuse, ignorant, and stubborn. The part that isn't the laughing matter is that there is a belief that those with heterodox or heretical beliefs will not make the Kingdom of God. If that is true, it is certainly a point for serious concern.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Kerfuffle is a great word to use in a sentence. Very imaginative.

ker·fuf·fle
kərˈfəfəl/
noun
BRITISHinformal
noun: kerfuffle; plural noun: kerfuffles

1. a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.
   "there was a kerfuffle over the chairmanship"

Etymology:


View attachment 200594

I looked this up as well, but didn't get as much as you. Thanks for sharing.
I'm glad you didn't want to make a kerfuffle out of what was posted earlier.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I suppose we could laugh at ourselves (me especially) for being so obtuse, ignorant, and stubborn. The part that isn't the laughing matter is that there is a belief that those with heterodox or heretical beliefs will not make the Kingdom of God. If that is true, it is certainly a point for serious concern.

Absolutely, and I am not concerned one bit about my possibly having made an error in this area. The scripture is crystal clear to me in this area. Again, let's not make a kerfuffle out of it, and just agree to disagree.

 

[Shempster]

Hi, Shempster. Please tell me: What is this key you mentioned? Does said key tell you why God wants to hide the truth?

The key is the gospel in a nutshell. It just looks a bit different than the one we are handed down.
What I mean is that let's say the "key" to the best burger in the world is bar-b-q sauce. Well that only works with those who like bar-b-q sauce. Someone that abhors it is not going to even consider eating it.
There are some who's hearts are in the right state to obtain eternal life and many who's are not.

So you might look at the phrase "the key" and think that is referring to the real issue regarding our salvation but it's not. The key only points to the real issue which is the state of one's heart in relation to the key.It opens a box that contains our motives and intentions.
So it would look like God is "hiding" the key from the guy who hates bar-b-q sauce, but really He is not. He just chose something opposite of that man's nature to lead him to truth, but most refuse it because it is against their nature.
So let us consider that maybe the key is all about LOVE for God and one another. If someone despises his brother because they follow a different denomination then LOVE would not really be in their heart and they become blind to it. Eventually that lack of love works its way into every facet of peoples lives and a destiny is reaped because they rejected the key.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That has not been my understanding of Lutheran sacramentalism at all. Do you have some official documents which I can link to in order to verify this?

The other problem is that of validity. If you understand the nature of succession of authority, once Luther broke with the Church, after the death of those X-priests in the Lutheran church, no one else was consecrated by a bishop with succession back to the Apostles. Therefore, there is no validity, and hence no chance, in the bread and wine you use.

I say this without malice. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so. Why not join the Orthodox Church and get the real thing?

Well, thank you for sharing! I am actually familiar with the Catholic teaching as I've studied it and I understand that what you're saying is not from malice, but rather out of love, so thank you However, on the point of succession of authority I have to respectfully disagree - I won't get into it too much as it's really a topic in and of itself. In short, Lutherans hold that the sacraments can be administered by the church; suffice to say - the sacraments rest God's own promise, which again is apprehended through faith.

Lutherans (in the orthodox sense) hold to the Book of Concord, which are the Lutheran Confessions. It's available online at: www.bookofconcord.org
It has a pretty comprehensive definition on the sacraments, but I can save you the hassle in searching for them and provide some quick references, though please do feel free to check it out. One thing you may find interesting is the Augsburg Confession, which offers the Lutheran teaching, the Roman Catholic Confutation, and again the Lutheran Defense; here you can clearly and systematically compare our doctrines.

Anyway, here are some Lutheran confessions specifically on the Eucharist:
"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."

"Of the Supper of the Lord they (Lutheran Church) teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise."

"Of the Use of the Sacraments they (Lutheran Church) teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.

They (Lutheran Church) therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required."

I hope this provides some insight into the Lutheran confession on Eucharist; that we indeed believe in the Real Presence, that it is the true body and blood of Christ graciously given to us, and that it was commanded and instituted by none other than our Lord Jesus Christ - God in flesh for us.

Very lastly, I wanted to show you a Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession: Dr. Johann Eck (a prominent Roman Catholic theologian of his day) was asked "Can you refute this (Lutheran) doctrine?" Eck answered: "With the Fathers I can, but not with the Scriptures."
Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio also said: "Personally I could admit this (Lutheran) doctrine, but officially we must oppose it."

Now, with caution, I'm not trying to oversell Lutheran doctrine, but I hope to illustrate that the Lutheran teaching, especially on the sacraments, are orthodox and firmly rooted in Scripture. Practically speaking for any Catholic, I wouldn't lump Lutherans in with those who hold to Zwinglian ideas of memorialism, as Lutherans reject Calvin and Zwingli (though there is much overlap in other reformed theology, but not on the sacraments. Here Lutherans and Anglicans are probably the closest to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox).

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I hope this clarifies some popular misconceptions, and feel free to disagree!

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps, but if Christ were more precise, would we be having this conversation? I think rather than saying, "People misinterpreted the Bible," we would instead be saying, "People ignored what the Bible obviously said." For if Christ had said this,

"Take, eat. This is my actual body."
instead of this,

"Take, eat. This is my body."

To me to add the word 'actual' would say the elements are primarily just physical, as if non decaying flesh, or traces that are merely physical. But...remember that verse that the spirit is what gives life (!), the flesh profits nothing. In all, I feel it is best understood as above us. Some would use the term mystery.

Consider -- God is vastly older than you and I. We've lived a handful of decades. How can we reduce Him to a few ideas?

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.


Of course, some things are beyond mere abstractions. The reduction in abstraction would remove part of what is essential. This is one of those things in my view, beyond simple abstractions, thus the poetic wording.

 

[Dartman]

It is the argument which converted me from Protestantism. I simply could not find certain parts of Protestant thought in the writings of the Early Fathers. Why is this important, especially with those who claim that we should use the Bible alone? It is because if you look at today's theological landscape, you see that the idea of the Bible alone is untenable. There are hundreds and hundreds of different denominations, all claiming the Bible as their sole source of guidance, led by the Holy Spirit, and yet none of them can even agree on things like baptism or what salvation means.

This not surprising. No one should assume that a "claim" of "the Bible alone" is accurate, it takes time to determine why someone interprets Scripture the way they do. Nor should one accept a "claim" that someone is guided by the spirit. Again, it takes time to determine which "spirit" is leading them. Remember, Satan quoted scripture.

Logically, therefore, the idea of the Bible alone as the only source of truth does not work. Understanding the Early Fathers is to understand the consensus of how passages were interpreted. I wanted to know how the first Christians understood what Jesus taught.

NEVER will you find a warning in the Scriptures about using the Scriptures for "doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction", or the demand that believers just take the apostles opinion as truth, no matter what the Scriptures say! In fact, the Bereans were STRONGLY commended for checking up on the apostles;
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

By contrast, Paul made it VERY clear, the "Church Fathers" were going to cause HUGE problems for the rest of the Church age!
Paul told the Elders (Church Fathers)...
Acts 20:16-17 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28-31 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Paul told the Thessalonians much the same thing;
2 Thess 2:1-12 .. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

This "falling away" was going to sit AS GOD, in the Temple of God, AND was "already" at work, and would last until Jesus destroys it at his coming.

Your decision to trust the "Church Fathers" was EXACTLY the wrong move!! THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

You can make the Bible pretty much say anything you wish it to say.

Not if you truly accept ONLY the Scriptures. It's when people insert THEIR reasonings, and ignore Scriptures, or "wrest" Scriptures to their own destruction, that the variable teaching occurs.

Going back to the head of the stream, where the waters are pure, is a good idea.

You've been misled, the pure water is God's word... not the opinions of men.

 

[Light of the East]

Well, thank you for sharing! I am actually familiar with the Catholic teaching as I've studied it and I understand that what you're saying is not from malice, but rather out of love, so thank you

Actually, I am Orthodox in Communion with Rome, so my views on the Eucharist come from the East

However, on the point of succession of authority I have to respectfully disagree - I won't get into it too much as it's really a topic in and of itself. In short, Lutherans hold that the sacraments can be administered by the church; suffice to say - the sacraments rest God's own promise, which again is apprehended through faith.

A good book for you to read - free online at the FreeBooks from the Institute for Christian Economics
website would be Ray Sutton's book on Covenant. And here's the interesting thing for you - he's a Protestant, yet he absolutely nails the 5 working principles of a covenant as found in Scripture.

Covenant principle shows us that authority in a covenant structure is passed down - not assumed. This is why being the first born was so important in OT covenant structured societies. The first born assumed both the responsibility for and authority over the covenant family. This is why opposing the authority is a bad idea - just ask Dathan and Abihu.

Well, thank you for those quotes. I find what you have posted to be interesting and worth at least another consideration, if for no other reason than to get the doctrine correct.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, thank you for sharing! I am actually familiar with the Catholic teaching as I've studied it and I understand that what you're saying is not from malice, but rather out of love, so thank you However, on the point of succession of authority I have to respectfully disagree - I won't get into it too much as it's really a topic in and of itself. In short, Lutherans hold that the sacraments can be administered by the church; suffice to say - the sacraments rest God's own promise, which again is apprehended through faith.

Lutherans (in the orthodox sense) hold to the Book of Concord, which are the Lutheran Confessions. It's available online at: www.bookofconcord.org
It has a pretty comprehensive definition on the sacraments, but I can save you the hassle in searching for them and provide some quick references, though please do feel free to check it out. One thing you may find interesting is the Augsburg Confession, which offers the Lutheran teaching, the Roman Catholic Confutation, and again the Lutheran Defense; here you can clearly and systematically compare our doctrines.

Anyway, here are some Lutheran confessions specifically on the Eucharist:
"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."

"Of the Supper of the Lord they (Lutheran Church) teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise."

"Of the Use of the Sacraments they (Lutheran Church) teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.

They (Lutheran Church) therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required."

I hope this provides some insight into the Lutheran confession on Eucharist; that we indeed believe in the Real Presence, that it is the true body and blood of Christ graciously given to us, and that it was commanded and instituted by none other than our Lord Jesus Christ - God in flesh for us.

Very lastly, I wanted to show you a Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession: Dr. Johann Eck (a prominent Roman Catholic theologian of his day) was asked "Can you refute this (Lutheran) doctrine?" Eck answered: "With the Fathers I can, but not with the Scriptures."
Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio also said: "Personally I could admit this (Lutheran) doctrine, but officially we must oppose it."

Now, with caution, I'm not trying to oversell Lutheran doctrine, but I hope to illustrate that the Lutheran teaching, especially on the sacraments, are orthodox and firmly rooted in Scripture. Practically speaking for any Catholic, I wouldn't lump Lutherans in with those who hold to Zwinglian ideas of memorialism, as Lutherans reject Calvin and Zwingli (though there is much overlap in other reformed theology, but not on the sacraments. Here Lutherans and Anglicans are probably the closest to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox).

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I hope this clarifies some popular misconceptions, and feel free to disagree!

Wonderful information. Now I can see what's behind the words said as the elements are given = not just a good form, but arising by the understanding you lay out. I can testify that our Eucharist is transformative for me, over and over, consistently.