Starting a thread on the Lord's Supper for Catholics to read...

Does taking communion as a Lutheran save you or as an Evangelical save the Evangelical? No. We are saved by grace, through faith and not of works. You spend a large amount of time trying to impose your understanding of Communion on me and as an uncatecized I am certain, beyond any doubt, irrespective of whether you believe communion as you do or I believe communion as I do, neither invalidates our salvation and your continued adamant declarations only divides us, one from the other.
By definition the catechumens echo what they have been taught. If people are unwilling to echo the Christian revelation regarding Christ, that which is revealed in Scripture, then they have been poorly catechized, taught wrong or false things; forgotten their catechism, forgotten the right or true things; or misunderstood or rejected their catechism of right and true things.

Saying a person is saved by grace while at the same time denying the expressly stated grace of God, the unmerited favor of God, for our salvation in the person and work of Christ in the Supper is demonstrably illogical and false.

It was the LORD GOD incarnate who said, “26. ¶And as they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Mat 26:26-28, KJVA) Etc

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep [guard] my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (Joh 14:23, KJVA)

The Savior saves.

Peace.
 
By definition the catechumens echo what they have been taught. If people are unwilling to echo the Christian revelation regarding Christ, that which is revealed in Scripture, then they have been poorly catechized, taught wrong or false things; forgotten their catechism, forgotten the right or true things; or misunderstood or rejected their catechism of right and true things.

Saying a person is saved by grace while at the same time denying the expressly stated grace of God, the unmerited favor of God, for our salvation in the person and work of Christ in the Supper is demonstrably illogical and false.

It was the LORD GOD incarnate who said, “26. ¶And as they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Mat 26:26-28, KJVA) Etc

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep [guard] my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (Joh 14:23, KJVA)

The Savior saves.

Peace.
Romans 11:And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."
NIV
 
Yes, we have already established that -- what about the ministerial priesthood for the Eucharist? Do you believe as @Lutheranian does about bread becoming the body of Christ through my hands?
You're asking if we believe the Roman Catholic philosophical myth regarding how an RC priest confects the body and blood of Christ. The answer is obviously no since the myth is not the witness of Scripture.This necessarily means that Roman Catholics do not follow the early church in this regard.

For the record, Luther rejected the Scholastics use of Aristotle that permeates RC teaching before he wrote the 95 Theses.
 
Romans 11:And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."
NIV
It is always a bad idea to take Scripture out of context to place it in opposition to other Scripture and then pick a winner. In this case it appears to be an attempt to take Paul out of context in order to oppose or negate what he wrote regarding the Supper.

The illogical nature of the reply from Romans 11 also extends to apparently implying that the words and work of Christ in the Supper are the work of men. The grace of God, the unmerited favor of God, in the person and work of Christ for our salvation is categorically not the work of men.

There are several common myths regarding what occurs in the Supper and why, but replacing the Roman Catholic myth of their priests confecting, transforming, or transubstantiating the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord with another myth of choice
is just replacing one error with another.

All of the myths with regard to the Supper place the reason or speculation of man above what Scripture actually says and means in this regard.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
 
You're asking if we believe the Roman Catholic philosophical myth regarding how an RC priest confects the body and blood of Christ. The answer is obviously no since the myth is not the witness of Scripture.This necessarily means that Roman Catholics do not follow the early church in this regard.

For the record, Luther rejected the Scholastics use of Aristotle that permeates RC teaching before he wrote the 95 Theses.
Really, vis a vis, your last line?

I have pointed out to Roman Catholics on that board that Jesus Himself proclaimed that the wine has two natures, in the Lord's Supper. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, right after Jesus says "take and drink of it, all of you, this cup is the new testament in My blood..." He then says that "I will not drink the/this FRUIT OF THE VINE again with you until I drink it new in My Father's Kingdom." (slightly paraphrased)

Right here, Jesus gives two natures to the cup of wine--His blood AND fruit of the vine, which would be wine. By extension, the same thing with the bread--both Jesus's body AND it is also still bread.

In 1 Cor. 11, Paul warns against partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

For those who think the Lord's Supper is strictly symbolic--HOW can someone sin against a mere symbol?
 
It is always a bad idea to take Scripture out of context to place it in opposition to other Scripture and then pick a winner. In this case it appears to be an attempt to take Paul out of context in order to oppose or negate what he wrote regarding the Supper.

The illogical nature of the reply from Romans 11 also extends to apparently implying that the words and work of Christ in the Supper are the work of men. The grace of God, the unmerited favor of God, in the person and work of Christ for our salvation is categorically not the work of men.

There are several common myths regarding what occurs in the Supper and why, but replacing the Roman Catholic myth of their priests confecting, transforming, or transubstantiating the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord with another myth of choice
is just replacing one error with another.

All of the myths with regard to the Supper place the reason or speculation of man above what Scripture actually says and means in this regard.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
I am not attempting what you are alluding at. I am trying to reinforce my earlier comments that stated irrespective of what we believe about communion, we are brothers in the Lord and are saved by Grace, not how we take communion.
 
I am not attempting what you are alluding at. I am trying to reinforce my earlier comments that stated irrespective of what we believe about communion, we are brothers in the Lord and are saved by Grace, not how we take communion.
It is a alien faith if you speak of a grace of God which saves that is apart from the grace of God in the person and work of Christ for you. If you love Him guard or keep His words, they are the words of the one judge.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
 
It is a alien faith if you speak of a grace of God which saves that is apart from the grace of God in the person and work of Christ for you. If you love Him guard or keep His words, they are the words of the one judge.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
Is that what you think I am writing about? An "alien" faith?
 
Really, vis a vis, your last line?
Yes. Luther was appalled by the influence of philosophy early on. In 1516 Berhardi drew up the Theses and Amsdorf in early 1517 shared them with some of Luther's teachers. They were not pleased. The actual disputation occurred later in 1517. Brecht outlines these events, page 166ff., in Martin Luther His Road To Reformation, (c) Fortress Press.

Initially, Karlstadt was such an opponent of Luther that he threatened to rat Luther off as a heretic to Rome. But, Karlstadt came to realize that the scholastics through philosophy had deceived him regarding Scripture and he became an ally of Luther.

That pattern would be repeated among those who could and would distinguish between the influence of philosophy and what Scripture actually says.
I have pointed out to Roman Catholics on that board that Jesus Himself proclaimed that the wine has two natures, in the Lord's Supper. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, right after Jesus says "take and drink of it, all of you, this cup is the new testament in My blood..." He then says that "I will not drink the/this FRUIT OF THE VINE again with you until I drink it new in My Father's Kingdom." (slightly paraphrased)

Right here, Jesus gives two natures to the cup of wine--His blood AND fruit of the vine, which would be wine. By extension, the same thing with the bread--both Jesus's body AND it is also still bread.

In 1 Cor. 11, Paul warns against partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner:
Indeed. :giggle:
For those who think the Lord's Supper is strictly symbolic--HOW can someone sin against a mere symbol?
Yes, unfortunately some people think that if they construct or receive a superficially coherent system then it must be correct, but people who place their reason or philosophy before or above what Scripture actually says will always reach absurd and false conclusions.
 
I was referring to bread being prayed over at my home -- you said it would become His body [The Eucharist]. Do we [all] have that ability? Thanks
The question you are asking is do we hold the Roman Catholic view? The answer is no.

The difference is Jesus took the bread, gave thanks or blessed it, and said, "This is...," and Roman Catholics say it isn't His body and blood until their Priest confects, transforms, or transubstantiates it.

Your specific question only transfers the point on which we disagree from a RC priest to an anonymous individual.
 
Yes, unfortunately some people think that if they construct or receive a superficially coherent system then it must be correct, but people who place their reason or philosophy before or above what Scripture actually says will always reach absurd and false conclusions.
Apology for stepping into your reply to Bonnie but where does Scripture declare Christ is "in, with, and under the bread and wine"?. Please provide the Scriptural proof. Thank you in advance.
 
Apology for stepping into your reply to Bonnie but where does Scripture declare Christ is "in, with, and under the bread and wine"?. Please provide the Scriptural proof. Thank you in advance.
No problem.

In the centuries which followed the crucifixion a common charge against Christians was cannibalism.
The list of prepositions are the historical way the church has described or answered the question of where is the body and blood of Christ.

We also remember them when RCs make in accurate historical claims regarding transubstantiation. For example to anathematize all who don't accept transubstantiation is to anathematize the early church.

I don't have my glasses so I hope there aren't to many typos.
 
No problem.

In the centuries which followed the crucifixion a common charge against Christians was cannibalism.
The list of prepositions are the historical way the church has described or answered the question of where is the body and blood of Christ.

We also remember them when RCs make in accurate historical claims regarding transubstantiation. For example to anathematize all who don't accept transubstantiation is to anathematize the early church.

I don't have my glasses so I hope there aren't to many typos.
Thanks for the reply.

But now I'm a little confused. Is what Lutherans believe about Christ's presence in, with and under the bread and wine Biblical, as I don't see any Scripture pointing to such a belief or understanding as defined for the Lutheran sacrament, or was it created to counter claims of cannibalism and is therefore extra-Biblical?
 
If what Scripture says is the measure then it is an error based or alien faith that finds salvation apart from Jesus, the Word made flesh. See Genesis.
I do not find salvation apart from Jesus. I was asking if you were directing this at me as you and I are at loggerheads concerning communion.
 
Thanks for the reply.

But now I'm a little confused. Is what Lutherans believe about Christ's presence in, with and under the bread and wine Biblical, as I don't see any Scripture pointing to such a belief or understanding as defined for the Lutheran sacrament, or was it created to counter claims of cannibalism and is therefore extra-Biblical?
If we start with the context of our discussion then there are only two straightforward mutually exclusive categories. There are those who affirm The LORD GOD incarnate's words, for example, "This is my body, etc.," and those who deny them and when speaking plainly say that the Lord may have said that but He really meant was, "This is not my body, etc."

Within each of those two categories there will be a range of teaching, but to merely affirm the words, "This is my body, etc." with an acknowledgement through the use a preposition of what is in the Lord's hand and that which He distributes to the disciples in the Supper is not Scripturally unfounded an extra biblical doctrine.

It also may help to consider that the Symbols of the Evangelical Church were not written in a vacuum.

Among the things which influenced the listing of the prepositions are that they were sometimes used individually and sometimes in a combination throughout church history.

Another is that the Roman Catholics were throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the Evangelicals. (See this work by Eck for an example.) A secondary benefit to listing the prepositions was to demonstrate that nothing new was being introduced.

So the way it worked out in real life, and continues to work out in the same way in real life, is that in a dispute with those who already know that it is the bread and wine, body and blood of the Lord, which are under discussion then it is Scripture in the words of institution that are the infallible rule.

A verifiable historical example of this occurred at the Marburg Colloquy. Luther affirmed the words of institution regardless of the philosophical assertions used against those words by Zwingli.

Peace.
 
I do not find salvation apart from Jesus. I was asking if you were directing this at me as you and I are at loggerheads concerning communion.
I am posting about doctrine.

Jesus came to save sinners. For example, consider Saul. He had a passing knowledge of Scripture but he didn't understand it. Regardless, he was not outside the love of God in the person and work of Christ which is to and for all men.

When the Preacher came, struck him blind, and made him alive it wasn't because of any merit on the part of Saul.

Our disagreement over the Supper is the tip of the iceberg.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
If we start with the context of our discussion then there are only two straightforward mutually exclusive categories. There are those who affirm The LORD GOD incarnate's words, for example, "This is my body, etc.," and those who deny them and when speaking plainly say that the Lord may have said that but He really meant was, "This is not my body, etc."

Within each of those two categories there will be a range of teaching, but to merely affirm the words, "This is my body, etc." with an acknowledgement through the use a preposition of what is in the Lord's hand and that which He distributes to the disciples in the Supper is not Scripturally unfounded an extra biblical doctrine.

It also may help to consider that the Symbols of the Evangelical Church were not written in a vacuum.

Among the things which influenced the listing of the prepositions are that they were sometimes used individually and sometimes in a combination throughout church history.

Another is that the Roman Catholics were throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the Evangelicals. (See this work by Eck for an example.) A secondary benefit to listing the prepositions was to demonstrate that nothing new was being introduced.

So the way it worked out in real life, and continues to work out in the same way in real life, is that in a dispute with those who already know that it is the bread and wine, body and blood of the Lord, which are under discussion then it is Scripture in the words of institution that are the infallible rule.

A verifiable historical example of this occurred at the Marburg Colloquy. Luther affirmed the words of institution regardless of the philosophical assertions used against those words by Zwingli.

Peace.
The only infallible rule IS Scripture. Not an institutions, or an individuals interpretation of Scripture. So I return to the question I posed, please provide the Scipture(s) that state Jesus is in, with and under the bread and wine.
 
The only infallible rule IS Scripture. Not an institutions, or an individuals interpretation of Scripture.
That is an unusual response considering that it is common knowledge among those with an interest in church history that Luther caused quite a hubbub when he said and wrote that Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth.

Based on the context of your question which follows, what you wrote above seems like an illogical response rather than a affirmation of what was written. Is it that you find a difference between the use of a definite article in the identification of one category in a context which only had one category, Luther's basis of assertion and response from the text of Scripture at the colloquy, and the use of a redundant "only" in the identification of that one category?
So I return to the question I posed, please provide the Scipture(s) that state Jesus is in, with and under the bread and wine.
That has already been done more than once in this thread,. but perhaps you missed it or overlooked what was written so here it is again. It is from one literal quote which is selected from multiple options followed by associated questions and answers for explicit clarification. The quote and question answer format will also work out in a similar manner with regard to the wine and blood of the LORD.

“¶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.” (Mat 26:26, KJVA)

Question: Who took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples?

Answer: It was the LORD GOD incarnate, Jesus.

Question: What did the LORD GOD incarnate say about the bread which He took, blessed, broke, and gave to the disciples to eat?

Answer: The LORD GOD incarnate said, "Take and eat. This is my body."

Question: To the person who believes Jesus is the LORD GOD incarnate what is the bread?

Answer: It is bread and the body of the LORD GOD incarnate, just as He said.

Question: What then did the disciples receive orally?

Answer: They received the bread which is the body of the LORD GOD incarnate, Jesus.

Question: What are some consistent with the Scriptural witness responses or answers to the unbeliever who after hearing the words of institution then stares at the bread like a cow stares at a gate and says, "I see the bread, but where is the body of the LORD GOD incarnate?

Answer: Some consistent with Scripture responses or answers to the unbeliever are to physically point at the bread to indicate the location of where is the body of the LORD, or to point or indicate verbally through the use of a preposition, or a combination of prepositions, for example, in, with, and under, the location of where is the body of the LORD.

Question: Is there an analogous Scriptural example of a preposition being used to express an aspect of the LORD GOD in a particular physical location for you?

Answer: Yes. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9, KJV)
 
Back
Top