Real Presence

[MrHollow]

Does the ELCA believe in and teach the Real Presence during communion?

 

[IowaLutheran]

Yes - we believe that the body and blood of Christ is really present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine.

 

[MrHollow]

Out of curiosity then, how do they claim to be in "Full Communion" with a bunch of reformed churches, that most assuredly do not teach real presence? I'm asking as I have an ELCA and LCMS church close by, and am trying to see which of the 2 I most agree with on their stance on things.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Out of curiosity then, how do they claim to be in "Full Communion" with a bunch of reformed churches, that most assuredly do not teach real presence? I'm asking as I have an ELCA and LCMS church close by, and am trying to see which of the 2 I most agree with on their stance on things.

As a part of the theological discussions between Lutherans and Reformed churches, it appears that the Reformed churches made concessions in this area. You can read the entire text of the full communion agreement here:

http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/formula/official_text.html


If I am reading it right, the two sides recognized that exact consensus was not reached, but that because the Reformed churches did acknowledge the presence of Christ in communion, and that was sufficient enough in the ELCA's view for full communion. As you can see below, they went even as far as akcnowledging that the presence of body and blood of Christ cannot be separated from eating and drinking the Lord's Supper. The relevant part of the text is here:

In the Lord's Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in his body and blood, given for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who receive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord's Supper for salvation, unfaith for judgment (Leuenberg Agreement, III.1.18).
We cannot separate communion with Jesus Christ in his body and blood from the act of eating and drinking. To be concerned about the manner of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper in abstraction from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of the Lord's Supper (Leuenberg Agreement, III.1.19).








​

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Is the agreement also an abstraction since it is not conisistent with the public confessions and practices of the Reformed churches? What did the agreement say in regards to the offer of forgiveness in the sacrament? This is kind of like the RC saying they have reached an understanding of justification in abstraction.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Is the agreement also an abstraction since it is not conisistent with the public confessions and practices of the Reformed churches? What did the agreement say in regards to the offer of forgiveness in the sacrament? This is kind of like the RC saying they have reached an understanding of justification in abstraction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "abstraction" in this context, but I think we are talking apples and oranges here. I think that you are implying that the RC agreement was an abstraction because nothing tangible resulted from it - it was merely a statement saying that some agreement was reached on justification on one level, and acknowledging that differences remained. The Reformed agreement was not an abstraction, as it led to a tangible result - full communion and the ability to exchange ministers under certain circumstances.

As far as to what the agreement says as to the offer of forgiveness in the sacrament, I posted the link to the agreement so any further questions could be answered "straight from the horses mouth." I think that this is perhaps what you were looking for:

"In the Lord's Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in body and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thereby grants us forgiveness of sins and sets us free for a new life of faith. He enables us to experience anew that we are members of his body. He strengthens us for service to all people. (The official text reads, "Er starkt uns zum Dienst an den Menschen," which may be translated "to all human beings") (Leuenberg Agreement, II.2.15)."

 

[BigNorsk]

MrHollow,

If I may, instead of trying to look at a lot of individual issues and weigh them to decide which you agree with. The fundamental area of disagreement between LCMS and ELCA would be the area of hermaneutics. The LCMS follows a grammatical historical method, the ELCA follows a historical critical method. If you get into it, you will find that most of the disagreements come down to that.

If you follow a grammatical historical method yourself, you will fit best in LCMS. If you follow a historical critical method, the ELCA. And if you decide your position and then force scripture to follow it you would be Reformed. If you don't care much what the scripture says because you are following experts you would be Catholic or Orthodox and if the reason you don't care what the scripture says is because you are having continuing special revelation and your feelings convince you you are right, you would be charismatic.

It's really pretty simple, it comes down to hermaneutics.

Problem is, most people have never thought of hermaneutics much less studied it. They just kind of assume and absorb that the group to which they originally belong must be doing it correctly.

I would suggest that would be where you should look to find out where you agree, you might even find that you are not being consistent in you own methods but kind of construct your beliefs like shopping in a supermarket and taking some from every aisle.

Sorry for interrupting the thread.

Marv

 

[IowaLutheran]

I think that was an excellent interruption, Marv.

I wholeheartedly agree with your advice.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Just read this...
If you don't care much what the scripture says because you are following experts you would be Catholic or Orthodox and if the reason you don't care what the scripture says is because you are having continuing special revelation and your feelings convince you you are right, you would be charismatic.

Very well put, and I am laughing my @$$ off...

 

[gtmyers]

BigNorsk said, "If you follow a grammatical historical method yourself, you will fit best in LCMS. If you follow a historical critical method, the ELCA. And if you decide your position and then force scripture to follow it you would be Reformed. If you don't care much what the scripture says because you are following experts you would be Catholic or Orthodox and if the reason you don't care what the scripture says is because you are having continuing special revelation and your feelings convince you you are right, you would be charismatic."
This is kool the way you broke this out. Probably true, especially about the reformed!

 

[Healed_IHS]

But the entire thing about the "Bible", is we have no idea what the real bible said. It makes me laugh to hear "Jesus said to the disciples..." when what it really should say is "Jesus may have said something like this to the disciples (at least we think he might of - we aren't sure - see you can't translate from one language to another with out error... imagine over centuries and MANY translations)."

The Bible is the "pure light of God" as seen through the prism of human understanding.

 

[RevCowboy]

But the entire thing about the "Bible", is we have no idea what the real bible said. It makes me laugh to hear "Jesus said to the disciples..." when what it really should say is "Jesus may have said something like this to the disciples (at least we think he might of - we aren't sure - see you can't translate from one language to another with out error... imagine over centuries and MANY translations)."

The Bible is the "pure light of God" as seen through the prism of human understanding.

What do you mean by the "real bible"?

But indeed there many issues that need to be considered. As far as translations go, scholars are quite certain that what we have today is exceptionally accurate. And its because we have 1000s of manuscripts that they can feel certain that the bible we have today is quite accurate.

As far as translations go, again most translations are very, very accurate. But indeed knowing original languages is the best.

Its true that the Gospels may not contain the exact to the letter words of Jesus. But they do convey his "voice and character" they give us a very good idea of the kind of stories and lessons he gave and the kind of things he was accustomed to sayings. The Synoptics in particular, John is a little more of John speaking through Jesus about Jesus.

Finally, we also trust that the Holy Spirit has had a great role in guiding the writing and formation of scripture and that what is in the bible needs to be there for one reason or another.

 

[Healed_IHS]

The real bible is the one composed in first century AD, the first actual compilation.

scholars are quite certain that what we have today is exceptionally accurate

Who do you believe? The people who compiled it originally? Lancelot Andrewes and the other others who said "Look, it's a translation, and therefore we probably screwed some stuff up". Or the modern scholars? I would put my trust in the ones who actually composed it.

we also trust that the Holy Spirit has had a great role in guiding the writing and formation of scripture

ABSOLUTELY! The bible is the pure light of God as seen through the prism of man's understanding, therefore it's fallible.

Just as surely as God doesn not want us feeding Hemlock to babies (Though Genesis said he gives all the seed bearing plants for food), one needs to look at the bible as written by mortals who
1. Were illterate - as in the case of Peter and the "fisherfolk", which necessitated translating the first time his story was conveyed.
2. Were ignorant compared to modern time)
3. Written A LONG time after Jesus left the planet.

I don't believe in the bible.

 

[RevCowboy]

The real bible is the one composed in first century AD, the first actual compilation.

There was no first compilation. There was only a multitude of letter and gospels in circulation. The Canon wasn't agreed upon until afer Nicaea.

Who do you believe? The people who compiled it originally? Lancelot Andrewes and the other others who said "Look, it's a translation, and therefore we probably screwed some stuff up". Or the modern scholars? I would put my trust in the ones who actually composed it.

Its impossible to put trust in the originals because we don't have them. Rather we have thousands of copied manuscripts. However, the reason we can be very certain that these show us what the original text said is by looking at scribal errors or editing and comparing the manuscripts to each other.

As far as translations go, I use the the Greek.

ABSOLUTELY! The bible is the pure light of God as seen through the prism of man's understanding, therefore it's fallible.

Just as surely as God doesn not want us feeding Hemlock to babies (Though Genesis said he gives all the seed bearing plants for food), one needs to look at the bible as written by mortals who
1. Were illterate - as in the case of Peter and the "fisherfolk", which necessitated translating the first time his story was conveyed.
2. Were ignorant compared to modern time)
3. Written A LONG time after Jesus left the planet.

I don't believe in the bible.

There are a couple of responses I have to this.
1. Illiterate folks didn't write the bible. Literate Greek speakers wrote it. Most New Testament scholars today don't think that Gospels were actually written by those disciples, no are all the epistles attributed to him actual letters of Paul.
2. They were not ignorant. Rather their cultural and cosmological understanding of the world was different. For example, oral tradition of that time is exceptionally reliable and stable. Accuracy in memorization was highly developed skill. Our memory skills pale in comparison to the culture of that time.
3. Most of New Testament compiled within a few decades of Christ's ascension. The letters of Paul were written between 49 and 60 AD, Mark 65AD, Matthew 80-85 AD, Luke 85-90AD, and John 95AD. All within a time frame during which oral tradition can maintain its stability. Look at Gospels written after 100AD and you get crazy stuff like Jesus killing his friends and bringing them back to life when he was a kid.


Now as a far as believing in the Bible, Lutherans do not believe in the Bible. We believe in the Word, the Word made flesh of Christ. Martin Luther said that the bible is the manger that holds the Christ. Indeed within you find our Lord and Saviour, however, along with it is food remnants, straw and dung. The bible is not to worshiped, the Christ is.

 

[Healed_IHS]

There was no first compilation. There was only a multitude of letter and gospels in circulation. The Canon wasn't agreed upon until afer Nicaea.

Depends which canon we are discussing... Marcion's was in the first century. This is technically the first (As far as I am aware of).

Illiterate folks didn't write the bible. Literate Greek speakers wrote it.

Completely agree... though I would say, Peter told a Greek speaker what occured (in his eyes), which was an opportunity for "the message" to be lost.

2. They were not ignorant

I was speaking in context of our time period. People in the OT actually believed there were "windows" in which God let in rain.

3. Most of New Testament compiled within a few decades of Christ's ascension
Precisely my point! We have people who weren't even there (as you stated in #2) writing about events that occured 30 years prior. Myself, I have a hard time remembering what occured last week.

I would LOVE to be able to see the bible as a good source of "how to be a christian", but can't. Part of my problem w/ Sola Scriptura is that I can't base doctrine on fallible text. Believe me... I really wish I could.

 

[RevCowboy]

Depends which canon we are discussing... Marcion's was in the first century. This is technically the first (As far as I am aware of).

Marcion's canon was second century (100-200AD) and Marcion purposely excluded books that were considered scripture by most other Christians because of his theology.

Completely agree... though I would say, Peter told a Greek speaker what occured (in his eyes), which was an opportunity for "the message" to be lost.

It is very unlikely that the apostle Peter actually wrote any letters. More like is that the letter of Peter were attributed to him.

I was speaking in context of our time period. People in the OT actually believed there were "windows" in which God let in rain.

Indeed, as I said their culture and cosmology was different, but lacking the technology we do it doesn't mean they had dumb reasons for believing that. The science and religion class at seminary did survey of university students asking how they new the earth went around the sun. Not a single person could answer.

Precisely my point! We have people who weren't even there (as you stated in #2) writing about events that occured 30 years prior. Myself, I have a hard time remembering what occured last week.

Literacy has actually decreased our capacity for memory. This is not simply the assertion Biblical scholars, but scholars of all oral traditions. Oral Tradition had the capacity to stay incredibly accurate for 3 generations. When you couldn't read, when you didn't have paper to remember for you, good memory and the capacity to retell stories accurately was highly valued skill in oral tradition cultures.

I would LOVE to be able to see the bible as a good source of "how to be a christian", but can't. Part of my problem w/ Sola Scriptura is that I can't base doctrine on fallible text. Believe me... I really wish I could.

The Bible is so much more than set of rules, faith is about much more than rules. The Bible is indeed full of ancient cosmology, it has contradictions. However, these things are incidental to its message, they are incidental to encounter of the Word made Flesh.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Ok, 2nd century- thank you - thought it was the first.

It is very unlikely that the apostle Peter actually wrote any letters. More like is that the letter of Peter were attributed to him.

Definitely a possibility as well as we see the name of Solomon appearing on writing he may not have done... saying Peter dictated to someone else though gives a greater possibility of info being accurate.
The science and religion class at seminary did survey of university students asking how they new the earth went around the sun.

And how many thought that there were "windows" that allowed rain in?

faith is about much more than rules
Totally agree with you. It just seems that if the bible was an accurate representation of God's will (in my opinion) it would be easier to get a bead on what's expected.

 

[RevCowboy]

Ok, 2nd century- thank you - thought it was the first.

Definitely a possibility as well as we see the name of Solomon appearing on writing he may not have done... saying Peter dictated to someone else though gives a greater possibility of info being accurate.

Still its quite unlikely that Peter wrote anything in the New Testament.

And how many thought that there were "windows" that allowed rain in?

So how you would you explain rain without the use of any technology? I don't know why you are holding this against the ancients... it doesn't affect the message of faith.

Totally agree with you. It just seems that if the bible was an accurate representation of God's will (in my opinion) it would be easier to get a bead on what's expected.

The Bible is the story of God's interaction with humanity. Its about what God has done for us. Its NOT about what God expects of us. God's will is done in Christ.

As as Lutheran I would say you are getting hung up on trying to save yourself.

Now if the Bible weren't clearly a fallible human document we would have burned it and forgotten about it by now. Humanity's response to God in Christ was to put him to death. Imagine what the response of our sinful nature would be to another perfect word. Besides, I don't think there needs to be any more worship of the Bible instead of worshiping the Word made flesh.

Christianity uses the Bible to encounter the perfect revelation of Christ. The revelation is not diminished by an ancient cosmology, and to me that is much more awesome than having "perfect" bible. Besides its God' m.o. to use imperfect and fallible means to reveals Himself and His work in the world. If the Bible were the "perfect" book that told all these stories of God using imperfect means for his purposes I would be suspicious.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Wow, this forum went off in far directions...
let me go astray with you guys from the original point for a little bit...
1) While no cannon was agreed upon for hundreds of years, by the mid-late second century there was a core group of texts that were consistantly found in various church scriptures. Some had a much harder time getting in, like revelation. As Dr. Fred Niedner once put it (if I may paraphrase), "some did not want to put revelation in because it was so complicated and they were afraid Christians would argue for years having no idea of what it meant. They put it in, and now hundreds of years later we still have no idea what it meant."
2) While Marcion is an important point that many of these books were already seen as important, lets remember also that Marcion was a heretic that denied the entire Old Testament, saying that the God of the OT was a much different God than the one of the NT, (while we do not outright dismiss the OT, look how close we come today to that stance, how many Bibles are printed NT only now?).
3) I think the Bible contains truth. God's truth. Not always though fact. But you can decide for yourself which is more important, truth or fact. I would take truth any day (I also believe that this is absolute truth)
4) Believing simply the Bible's message, not even that it is God-inspired, but simply believing the message of sin and grace requires I think more than a Kiergigaardian leap of faith.
...ok, I'm done wandering.
Lutherans (ELCA) do believe in the true body and blood "in, with, and under" just as it is written in the Lutheran confessions.
In regards to Lutheran relations to the Reformed tradition, I would remind that Calvin did not teach sign only, or more specificly, that there was no true presence. He argued for a different mode in which Christ was present within the sacrament (i.e. the issue is not is Christ truly present, but how). In his institutes he wrote:
"they insist that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no other way by which they can communicate with him than by his descending into bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself."
This clearly objects to the mode of presence, though he does write also,
"He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive."
o wow...you Lutherans always get me ranting...
Peace be with you