Non-denominational view of how to get to heaven.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

bbbbbbb said:
Our church has communion weekly, although we never participate in your sacraments. We are not into eating flesh and drinking blood. However, if you prefer to be a cannibal, then, I suppose, that is your prerogative.

Of course he's not a cannibal because he's not literally eating anyone's flesh. However, he is participating in communing with the Lord by participating in an observance he created and told us to perpetuate. However it is defined, the sacrament must have benefits for us, meaning that infrequent communion (as in non-denominational churches and many others, too) is questionable.

ViaCrucis · Nov 5, 2012

OliverC said:
Forgive my ignorance, but could the communion be on par to being saved by works i.e. we are acting to save ourselves?

The Sacraments are called "Means of Grace", that is we are entirely passive in our reception of the grace unconditionally given through them. In the same way that we are passive in our hearing of the Word (which is also called "Means of Grace").

It's not my going forward to eat and drink that makes the Eucharist efficacious; it's Christ Himself alive, real, and present in the bread and the wine that makes the Eucharist efficacious. I can no more make bread the real flesh of Jesus than I can make the moon stand still; it is an act of God alone who makes it so on our behalf.

-CryptoLutheran

OliverC · Nov 5, 2012

Thanks ViaCrucis. That's helpful.

bbbbbbb · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
Of course he's not a cannibal because he's not literally eating anyone's flesh. However, he is participating in communing with the Lord by participating in an observance he created and told us to perpetuate. However it is defined, the sacrament must have benefits for us, meaning that infrequent communion (as in non-denominational churches and many others, too) is questionable.

I know he is not a cannibal and he knows he is not a cannibal because all he is eating is bread and all he is drinking is wine. We all know that. However, he wishes to perpetuate the fiction that he is actually eating flesh and drinking blood and not just ordinary flesh and blood, but that of Jesus Christ Himself.

The benefits of communion depend in large part on the spiritual condition of the communicant, but they are there undeniably. I also agree that infrequent communion is highly questionable.

wordsoflife · Nov 5, 2012

bbbbbbb said:
We are not into eating flesh and drinking blood. However, if you prefer to be a cannibal, then, I suppose, that is your prerogative.

John 6:53-56
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Forge3 · Nov 5, 2012

wordsoflife said:
John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.[/SIZE][/B]

Interesting....

wordsoflife · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
Of course he's not a cannibal because he's not literally eating anyone's flesh.

Lutherans actually believe that the bread and wine is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

wordsoflife said:
Lutherans actually believe that the bread and wine is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You mean to say "physical" or "literal" body and blood, but, even so, this doesn't mean that that's what the elements are.

wordsoflife · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
You mean to say "physical" or "literal" body and blood, but, even so, this doesn't mean that that's what the elements are.

Yes, here is a link to Eucharist in the Lutheran Church:

Eucharist in the Lutheran Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Forge3 · Nov 5, 2012

I am here to learn.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

wordsoflife said:
Yes, here is a link to Eucharist in the Lutheran Church:

Eucharist in the Lutheran Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is also known as the sacramental union.

My point there was that other Christians (myself, for example) believe that we do receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper...so that wording you used, while correct, isn't specific enough to separate us who believe that the true body and blood of Christ are received only in a spiritual and heavenly way from the carnal view that the Medieval Roman Catholic Church conceived of and Luther retained.

wordsoflife · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
My point there was that other Christians (myself, for example) believe that we do receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper...so that wording you used, while correct, isn't specific enough to separate us who believe that the true body and blood of Christ are received only in a spiritual and heavenly way from the carnal view that the Medieval Roman Catholic Church conceived of and Luther retained.

I see. This is however how the wording is done in our Church and Catechism, "true body and true blood." It makes sense to me but I can see how it could be confusing to others who hold this in a spiritual sense.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

wordsoflife said:
I see. This is however how the wording is done in our Church and Catechism, "true body and true blood." It makes sense to me but I can see how it could be confusing to others who hold this in a spiritual sense.

It's not confusing. It's just not specific. That probably doesn't matter when it comes to your own catechism, but when you're comparing your view to that of members of other churches, it does. When you get right down to it, that wording, however accurate as far as it goes, only separates you from those who consider the elements to be completely unchanged, i. e., the representational or symbolic view of the Supper.

Willie T · Nov 5, 2012

Why does this keep on being such a big deal?

Don't you think that if Protestants felt it was genuine meat and blood, that they would go that way? Do you honestly think Protestants are saying, "Well, yes, it means real flesh and blood, but we will deliberately ignore that because it's not convenient"?

Either way, you eat a little bread wafer (actually, some of us do the actual bread hunks), and they eat a little bread wafer.... You drink some wine (some drink juice, and some won't give it out to the laity at all), and they drink some wine.

Neither one is eating anything that does not taste (melt?) like simply a little bread wafer.... not a firm, thick, chewy hunk of meat. And neither is drinking anything that is not simply wine....... not thick, smelly blood.

I have never seen why it has to be an issue of contention.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

Willie T said:
Why does this keep on being such a big deal?

Don't you think that if Protestants felt it was genuine meat and blood, that they would go that way? Do you honestly think Protestants are saying, "Well, yes, it means real flesh and blood, but we will deliberately ignore that because it's not convenient"?

Either way, you eat a little bread wafer (actually, some of us do the actual bread hunks), and they eat a little bread wafer.... You drink some wine (some drink juice, and some won't give it out to the laity at all), and they drink some wine.

However, wordsoflife is correct that Lutherans, like Catholics, do believe that they are consuming the real physical as well as spiritual body and blood of Christ. The only difference between the two of them is that Lutherans don't believe that the bread and wine cease to be that when the change occurs. And Lutherans certainly are Protestants. In fact, there are more Lutherans in the world than any other Protestant denomination.

Willie T · Nov 5, 2012

Great, more arguing. You know very well what I meant.

wordsoflife · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
And Lutherans certainly are Protestants. In fact, there are more Lutherans in the world than any other Protestant denomination.

Yes, and in fact Lutherans were key in starting the Protestant Reformation.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

Willie T said:
Great, more arguing. You know very well what I meant.

I know what you meant all right. Unfortunately, in several places it was dead wrong. And it's not ''arguing" to set the record straight.

It deserves to be said, though, that if you don't care for arguing, your characterization of other Christians' view of the Lord's Supper was rather provocatively worded.

Willie T · Nov 5, 2012

wordsoflife said:
Yes, and in fact Lutherans were key in starting the Protestant Reformation.

Careful guys. The baptsts may not appreciate you trying to steal their first place ranking.

Tangible · Nov 6, 2012

LOL. Baptists came along about 200 years later, an offshoot of the Anglican communion.

Non-denominational view of how to get to heaven.

Facilitator

Confessional Lutheran

happy

bbbbbbb

Guest

Well-Known Member

Forge

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Forge

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Facilitator

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency