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

Thank you. So the eucharist/communion is NOT necessary for salvation.
God's grace, unmerited favor, in the person and work of Christ to and for all men excludes all legal requirements or merits on the part of men for salvation.

As you noted below, Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. Since neither our will, works, or faith are Christ they are not the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father by them.
What part do you disagree with? That Jesus was using symbolism when He took and broke the bread and said it is His body and gave the wine and said it was His blood or that when those who claim the bread and wine become His body and blood are resacrificing Him everytime they invoke this claim?
I could have been more specific, but I thought that photo negative analogy provided enough context. There appears to be a similar misunderstanding of the gospel in your view and that of Roman Catholics. That similarity is that you both seem to think everyone is out and people are trying to find their way in. That type of view is opposed to the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ to and for all men.
Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life. He IS God. He is Savior. He IS the living water. His claiming the bread and wine ARE His blood and body,
That is true, but from this point on your comments don't rightly reflect what Scripture actually says and means
irrespective of certain denominations that claim otherwise, is nothing but symbolizing for His disciples and all His future children what is about to happen to Him.
There is nothing in His speech to indicate He was "symbolizing "
The disciples as that time had no idea what He was talking about but after His crucifixion they, and we knew/know.
They knew, and all Christians should know, that Jesus said, *This is my body..." and that it was necessarily true even if they didn't understand it. Please note that in their recording of the event and it's explanation of it no one calls it a symbol or that He was symbolising.
Consequently that is why we are called to do communion in remembrance of His sacrifice. Remembrance, as in bringing to mind His sacrifice when we take communion.
What we are do is based on what He freely gives in the Supper, His body and blood for us in, or with, or under the bread and wine. We proclaim His death and resurrection, that He is the Christ.

I'm out of battery and will finish responding later.
 
Finishing up.
1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore, 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 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
I'm confident that we agree that those are great verses.

We must never dishonor His sacrifice by taking communion in an unworthy manner. Be in sin but not that we are literally eating His flesh and blood. Else, why would He tell His disciples He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until we meet Him in heaven?
I would prefer using the word truly because literally is a word that is easily misconstrued. The bread and wine are truly bread and wine in a similar manner to Jesus being truly man.

Jesus was saying what He would not do. His death was imminent.
Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” 27 Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Maranatha!
He is!



He cannot lie. But that does not mean He also doesn't use symbolism when giving us truth.
Other than objecting to the words of Jesus for some unstated reason why would any Christian insist His words indicate symbolism? If you know the unstated reason that you object to the plain reading of the historical accounts of the Supper then would you mind posting it?
That does not negate symbolism.
Grammatically and semantically it does because they are participles. They inform all of an aspect of what matter is to be understood as true, namely, that He in, or with, or under, the bread and wine is truly giving His body and blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.
If that were true then no symbolism would be used by the Holy Spirit when He breathed the Scriptures (OT and NT) to the writers.
That isn't true or logical. There are numerous figures of speech in Scripture, but that doesn't mean that if one instance of an interpreted figure of speech is not a figure of speech then all others are also necessarily excluded from being a figure of speech. For example, there is poetry, parables employing symbolism, the Apocalypse using symbols etc.

The thing to remember is that the accounts of the Supper are historical accounts like much of Moses. Jesus and the Apostles understood the creation account and other historical accounts to be true in a literal sense rather than as symbolism.
 
Finishing up.

I'm confident that we agree that those are great verses.



I would prefer using the word truly because literally is a word that is easily misconstrued. The bread and wine are truly bread and wine in a similar manner to Jesus being truly man.

Jesus was saying what He would not do. His death was imminent.

Maranatha!

Other than objecting to the words of Jesus for some unstated reason why would any Christian insist His words indicate symbolism? If you know the unstated reason that you object to the plain reading of the historical accounts of the Supper then would you mind posting it?

Grammatically and semantically it does because they are participles. They inform all of an aspect of what matter is to be understood as true, namely, that He in, or with, or under, the bread and wine is truly giving His body and blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

That isn't true or logical. There are numerous figures of speech in Scripture, but that doesn't mean that if one instance of an interpreted figure of speech is not a figure of speech then all others are also necessarily excluded from being a figure of speech. For example, there is poetry, parables employing symbolism, the Apocalypse using symbols etc.

The thing to remember is that the accounts of the Supper are historical accounts like much of Moses. Jesus and the Apostles understood the creation account and other historical accounts to be true in a literal sense rather than as symbolism.

We will have to agree to disagree on the bread and wine since the question of in, with our under is not an essential of the faith, as we both agree communion is NOT necessary for salvation, that it is God's Grace, through faith that we are saved I now know Lutherans don't believe communion is necessary for salvation as Rc's do. That said, I lack the gas to answer your comments but do so greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to respond. Perhaps at a later date we could continue this discussion as it has brought up many interesting points.

Bless you BJ.

Ldb
 
We will have to agree to disagree on the bread and wine since the question of in, with our under is not an essential of the faith, as we both agree communion is NOT necessary for salvation, that it is God's Grace, through faith that we are saved I now know Lutherans don't believe communion is necessary for salvation as Rc's do. That said, I lack the gas to answer your comments but do so greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to respond. Perhaps at a later date we could continue this discussion as it has brought up many interesting points.

Bless you BJ.

Ldb
Ok, but I would never agree that God's grace has set men free to believe whatever they want about the person and work of Christ to and for all men. Denying what occurs in the Supper is at best an expression of confusion or misunderstanding, and at worst an expression of unbelief in the person and work of Christ.

Peace.
 
I don't want to go too off topic on the CATH board, in explaining our beliefs about the Real Presence of the Lord's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, yet they also remain bread and wine, after consecration. We Lutherans don't attempt to explain it, as Catholics do, we just accept it as a joyful mystery.

I have explained the above I don't know how many times on the CATH board, when the Eucharist comes up. So far as I know, Lutherans are fairly unique in our understanding as to what happens to the Bread and Wine during Communion, though maybe Anglicans believe the same way.

Of course, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation--that after consecration, the bread and wine retain the appearance of those elements, but the substance changes completely to Jesus' body and blood. I asked one Catholic what would happen if a priest drank all of the wine after consecration and this Catholic admitted he would get drunk. I then wrote "But you said the substance was no longer wine. The SUBSTANCE in wine that causes intoxication is ethyl alcohol. IF the wine is no longer wine but entirely Jesus' blood, how could the wine then make the priest drunk?" Or words to that effect. So far I have not received an answer.


I thought I had better bring this to the Lutheran board, since it is about our beliefs about the Lord's Supper. Anyway, does anyone on here have another way of explaining about the Real Presence in the Bread and Wine in Holy Communion?

(On a side note, one Catholic actually wrote that the Eucharist isn't the Lord's Supper! I pointed out the error by quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians, where he plainly calls it just that. )
Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The bread and the wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine and the taste of bread and wine, but they have been completely transformed. The bread is still round, white, thin and crisp when bitten and the wine is red, liquid and a little bit sweet. We call this illusion of appearances the accidents.

“The Church teaches that the substance of the bread changes, and that means the deepest reality of the bread changes and becomes the Body of Christ, even though the accidents or appearances are the same color, texture, taste, etc.”
 
Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The bread and the wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine and the taste of bread and wine, but they have been completely transformed. The bread is still round, white, thin and crisp when bitten and the wine is red, liquid and a little bit sweet. We call this illusion of appearances the accidents.

“The Church teaches that the substance of the bread changes, and that means the deepest reality of the bread changes and becomes the Body of Christ, even though the accidents or appearances are the same color, texture, taste, etc.”
@Misfit

Luther's question, "Was ist das?" (What does this mean?) is appropriate at this point.

The Evangelical Church confesses what the Lord said, namely, that His body and blood are truly present in, or with, the bread and the wine and it is given for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, since His body and blood are truly present then we are receiving all the benefits of Christ, the primary one being the forgiveness of sins. It is just as the Lord said in His words of Institution.

The Roman Catholic Church says His body and blood are truly present and given but they anathematized what the Lord flatly said, that is, His body and blood are given for the forgiveness of sins.

The RCC did this in the thirteenth session, Canon V. "If anyone says, either that the foremost fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins, or that no other effects result from it, let him be anathema."

So the Lord says His body and blood are given for the forgiveness of sins, and the RCC says anyone who affirms this in the sense which Scripture says is anathema.

Why would the RCC fight against the clear words of the Lord? The RCC was trying to make room for their defense of some of their other extra biblical doctrines, for example, "contrition, confession, satisfactions, the sacrifice of the mass,"* etc.

Their true body and blood of Jesus may forgive little sins, but not the big stuff. For that the RCCers must turn to some of the accrued novelties and errors of their church.

*This post is an adaptation of some observations made by Martin Chemnitz in his Examination Of The Council Of Trent, (The reader friendly English translation.) Vol. Ii, (c)CPH.
 
@Misfit

Luther's question, "Was ist das?" (What does this mean?) is appropriate at this point.

The Evangelical Church confesses what the Lord said, namely, that His body and blood are truly present in, or with, the bread and the wine and it is given for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, since His body and blood are truly present then we are receiving all the benefits of Christ, the primary one being the forgiveness of sins. It is just as the Lord said in His words of Institution.

The Roman Catholic Church says His body and blood are truly present and given but they anathematized what the Lord flatly said, that is, His body and blood are given for the forgiveness of sins.

The RCC did this in the thirteenth session, Canon V. "If anyone says, either that the foremost fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins, or that no other effects result from it, let him be anathema."

So the Lord says His body and blood are given for the forgiveness of sins, and the RCC says anyone who affirms this in the sense which Scripture says is anathema.

Why would the RCC fight against the clear words of the Lord? The RCC was trying to make room for their defense of some of their other extra biblical doctrines, for example, "contrition, confession, satisfactions, the sacrifice of the mass,"* etc.

Their true body and blood of Jesus may forgive little sins, but not the big stuff. For that the RCCers must turn to some of the accrued novelties and errors of their church.

*This post is an adaptation of some observations made by Martin Chemnitz in his Examination Of The Council Of Trent, (The reader friendly English translation.) Vol. Ii, (c)CPH.
Did Dave Armstrong refute this or was he refuting vol. 1

Thanks
 
Did Dave Armstrong refute this or was he refuting vol. 1

Thanks
It would be interesting if you posted which point or idea you are thinking of and the manner in which it was refuted.

The only claim I can remember from a relatively modern RCC person is there was a quote or reference that the writer felt was not accurate. Whatever that claim may have been the evidence was so weak I can't even remember what it was.
 
It would be interesting if you posted which point or idea you are thinking of and the manner in which it was refuted.

The only claim I can remember from a relatively modern RCC person is there was a quote or reference that the writer felt was not accurate. Whatever that claim may have been the evidence was so weak I can't even remember what it was.
I'll link what I see as a PM since I am not sure if it is allowed here.
 
Did Dave Armstrong refute this or was he refuting vol. 1

Thanks
For the casual passers by, there was no rebuttal. Instead there was an equivocation on the term justification, and a different method of reckoning, that is, counting noses was the method of reckoning rather than what Scripture actually says.
 
Scripturally, the body and blood, bread and wine, are present because the Lord says they are rather than because the Lord commanded an officiator or priest to confect them.

Historically, the individual prepositions in, with, and under with regard to the Supper were used throughout church history.
Some Lutherans believe in the receptionist of Holy Communion where the body and blood of Christ isn’t there until the person actually receives it in the mouth. My Lutheran Church believes that Christ body and blood is there at words of institution. I tend to believe that it is there after the service has ended in the leftover Host. The pastors drink the wine.
 
Thank you. So the eucharist/communion is NOT necessary for salvation.
Remember the analogy of the old school photo negative? We are looking at the matter very differently. The Lord's Supper is a gift from God for us, it is gospel.
What part do you disagree with? That Jesus was using symbolism when He took and broke the bread and said it is His body and gave the wine and said it was His blood or that when those who claim the bread and wine become His body and blood are resacrificing Him everytime they invoke this claim?
Given those two choices, both are errors and rejected. You've summarized the suggested method of the sixteenth century lawyer, Hön, to Zwingli on how to undercut or overturn the claims of Rome regarding the Supper. His suggestion only replaces one set of errors with another set of errors.
Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life. He IS God. He is Savior. He IS the living water.
So far we agree.
His claiming the bread and wine ARE His blood and body, irrespective of certain denominations that claim otherwise, is nothing but symbolizing for His disciples and all His future children what is about to happen to Him.
That is Scripturally baseless rhetoric which denies what you wrote about Jesus above. If a person believes that Jesus is God then things are the way He says they are. How things are in this regard was previously demonstrated through the grammar.
The disciples as that time had no idea what He was talking about but after His crucifixion they, and we knew/know.
The risen Lord later opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, see Luke 24:44ff. Neither those disciples, Paul, or their companions, wrote or implied in Scripture that those words of Christ are symbolic. There is also no recorded confusion or dispute by anyone rregarding those words being symbolic in Scripture. They took those simple straightforward words of the Lord according to their common or natural meaning.
Consequently that is why we are called to do communion in remembrance of His sacrifice. Remembrance, as in bringing to mind His sacrifice when we take communion.
What the faithful do in partaking of the Lord's Supper is not the same as what the Lord does in the Supper.
1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore, 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 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

We must never dishonor His sacrifice by taking communion in an unworthy manner.
See the bold red above.
Be in sin but not that we are literally eating His flesh and blood.
I can't make sense of this sentence. Would you please rephrase it? Thanks.
Else, why would He tell His disciples He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until we meet Him in heaven?
See the bold blue above. Saying that in the Supper we eat bread and drink wine doesn't exclude that we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord given for the forgiveness of sins any more than saying Jesus is true man excludes Him from being true God.

The dispute over the Supper is really a Christological dispute.
Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” 27 Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
That is a great section of Scripture which demonstrates the historical nature of the accounts of the Supper.
He is!



He cannot lie. But that does not mean He also doesn't use symbolism when giving us truth.
The question isn't whether Jesus ever used symbolic speech. Unless historical accounts are qualified in Scripture, for example, Paul saying these things can be taken figuratively, they convey actual truth in concrete terms. The accounts of the Supper are neither poetry or parable
That does not negate symbolism.
In this case it does because Jesus is making truth claims which are neither poetry or parable.
If that were true then no symbolism would be used by the Holy Spirit when He breathed the Scriptures (OT and NT) to the writers.
That is an illogical conclusion. A particular historical account in concrete terms doesn't say anything to exclude poetry and parable being used elsewhere in Scripture.

A general rule which Luther used, and in which I agree, is that when reading Scripture take the words in their common or natural sense first. That doesn't exclude someone from choosing an alternative understanding of a word or words but the burden of proof for such an action is on the person who does so.

For what it is worth, this is what we teach our children regarding the Supper. And this is our teaching geared for adults
 
Some Lutherans believe in the receptionist of Holy Communion where the body and blood of Christ isn’t there until the person actually receives it in the mouth.
Interesting, but the way that one synod regards Scripture anything is possible. :(
My Lutheran Church believes that Christ body and blood is there at words of institution.
So far as I know, this is the common understanding.
I tend to believe that it is there after the service has ended in the leftover Host. The pastors drink the wine.
Yes, so far as I know what happens to any leftover elements is adiaphora.
 
Ok, but I would never agree that God's grace has set men free to believe whatever they want about the person and work of Christ to and for all men. Denying what occurs in the Supper is at best an expression of confusion or misunderstanding, and at worst an expression of unbelief in the person and work of Christ.
Believing what Lutheran's believe in "the Supper", I'm certain, is great comfort to you and yet it is still not essential to our salvation, is it. The claim that those who don't claim Jesus is in, with and under the wafer and wine, as you do, and claim are somehow expressing "...confusion or misunderstand and at worst an expression of unbelief in the person and work of Christ." is pure division amongst the brethren but only if you claim us as brethren. I have no hesitation to call you my brother but perhaps you hesitate because of what you claim above. That said;

Jesus spoke metaphorically of Himself 7 times in the NT.

“I am the bread of life" (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51).
“I am the light of the world" (John 8:12; 9:5).
“I am the door (John 10:7, 9).
“I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11, 14).
“I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25).
“I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine" (John 15:1, 5).

We understand Jesus is metaphorically calling Himself these things (with the spiritual indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us) so what is the difference in His speaking of the bread and wine as His body and blood at the Last Supper? Jesus and His disciples were meeting for the seder, yes? And Passover was a memorial to bring into remembrance Israel leaving Egypt, yes? And as Jesus used the bread and wine to symbolize what He was going to accomplish on the cross through His body and blood, the New Covenant, how then is the bread and wine literally His body and blood in, with and under? Remembrance is to remember, recollect (remembrance: ἀνάμνησις anámnēsis, an-am'-nay-sis; from G363; recollection:—remembrance-a remembering, recollection) and if He is in, with and under communion, physically present, communion ceases to be a remembrance at that point and like the rc's, it becomes doing something to receive something (forgiveness of sins, not a remembrance). Paul illuminates this for us well in 1 Corinthians (see the boldened).

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
 
Believing what Lutheran's believe in "the Supper", I'm certain, is great comfort to you and yet it is still not essential to our salvation, is it. The claim that those who don't claim Jesus is in, with and under the wafer and wine, as you do, and claim are somehow expressing "...confusion or misunderstand and at worst an expression of unbelief in the person and work of Christ." is pure division amongst the brethren but only if you claim us as brethren. I have no hesitation to call you my brother but perhaps you hesitate because of what you claim above.
Participation in the Supper is not necessary for salvation, but it is no less a gift from God for our salvation in Christ.

It is the old school photo negative analogy being demonstrated again. You're looking at the Supper, and apparently other matters, through the lens of what must you do to be saved? We look at the Supper and other matters and see the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, in other words, we see the person and work of Christ for all men.

Judgement belongs to God, what He has done in the person and work of Christ is to and for all men. I am discussing what Scripture says and doctrine.
That said;

Jesus spoke metaphorically of Himself 7 times in the NT.

“I am the bread of life" (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51).
“I am the light of the world" (John 8:12; 9:5).
“I am the door (John 10:7, 9).
“I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11, 14).
“I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25).
“I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine" (John 15:1, 5).
In each of your seven examples which word or words acquire a new meaning through the speech of the Lord? Everyone should recognize that Jesus is not saying, for example, the bread of life symbolizes me.
We understand Jesus is metaphorically calling Himself these things (with the spiritual indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us) so what is the difference in His speaking of the bread and wine as His body and blood at the Last Supper? Jesus and His disciples were meeting for the seder, yes? And Passover was a memorial to bring into remembrance Israel leaving Egypt, yes? And as Jesus used the bread and wine to symbolize what He was going to accomplish on the cross through His body and blood, the New Covenant, how then is the bread and wine literally His body and blood in, with and under? Remembrance is to remember, recollect (remembrance: ἀνάμνησις anámnēsis, an-am'-nay-sis; from G363; recollection:—remembrance-a remembering, recollection) and if He is in, with and under communion, physically present, communion ceases to be a remembrance at that point and like the rc's, it becomes doing something to receive something (forgiveness of sins, not a remembrance).
The antitype is greater than the type, for example, the second Adam, Christ, is greater than the first Adam. It is the same with the other shadows and types of the Law and the Prophets. This includes the relationship of the Supper to the first Passover. Its about the blood.

The RCs may think they are doing something to get something, but the gifts of God are gifts. They are not merited or earned, otherwise they would be a wage.

That being said, you're focusing on what the participants in the Supper do and denying what the Lord says occurs in the Supper. Take and eat, this is my body, given for you, etc.

Paul illuminates this for us well in 1 Corinthians (see the boldened).

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
Again, that is an abridged account of what Paul wrote with regard to the Supper in which you focus on what the participants in the Supper do while ignoring or denying what the Lord says occurs in the Supper.

What is a consequence for those who do not discern the Lord's body in the Supper? In KJV terms it is damnation. For this reason many of them were sick and dead.
 
Participation in the Supper is not necessary for salvation, but it is no less a gift from God for our salvation in Christ.
Ok...so communion is not necessary for salvation but for our salvation? Your sentence doesn't really jive.
It is the old school photo negative analogy being demonstrated again.
You must know what you mean but I have no clue.
You're looking at the Supper, and apparently other matters, through the lens of what must you do to be saved?
Shouldn't we be doing that? Looking at all we see through that lens, what is pleasing to God, what He requires of us for our salvation? His Grace, through faith and not of works. Unmerited favor. Freely given. Nothing else required. I don't know, you seem to be making it seem that's a bad thing. Perhaps I misunderstand and if so you can unpack that claim for me. That said, Roman Catholic's make their eucharist required for the forgiveness of sins, do Lutheran's? And if so doesn't that place Christ's propitatory sacrifice as incomplete as far as forgiveness of sins as His written Word tells us?
We look at the Supper and other matters and see the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, in other words, we see the person and work of Christ for all men.
I don't disagree with that. But that said, when we share the Good News with the lost wouldn't that be in the testimony of what He accomplished as recorded in the God-breathed Scriptures? The account of His life, death and resurrection? Putting the horse before ton the cross.
Judgement belongs to God, what He has done in the person and work of Christ is to and for all men. I am discussing what Scripture says and doctrine.
And I'm not? Seems we are both discussing Scripture and doctrines. We just tend to differ on what I believe is non-essential doctrines, such as communion.
In each of your seven examples which word or words acquire a new meaning through the speech of the Lord?
What do you mean?
Everyone should recognize that Jesus is not saying, for example, the bread of life symbolizes me.
Why? He isn't stating He is literal bread. He is our spiritual bread that leads to life, just as He is the living water that we drink of and never thirst again, and when He rerences Himself as the bread of life He is telling us He feeds our soul, but not bread that feeds our body.
The antitype is greater than the type, for example, the second Adam, Christ, is greater than the first Adam. It is the same with the other shadows and types of the Law and the Prophets. This includes the relationship of the Supper to the first Passover. Its about the blood.
It is in that communion will be used to remember what He did, in that communion symbolizes what He accomplished on the cross that day on Golgotha. He is the perfect Lamb who was slain for the sin of the world. He was the sinless sacrifice. The willing sacrifice for the world and now He is the resurrected King, sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us. So, I reiterate, for communion to be in remembrance He does not need to be present else it's not in remembrance but a celebration and I am very thankful for what He did for me but I don't celebrate what He went through.
The RCs may think they are doing something to get something, but the gifts of God are gifts. They are not merited or earned, otherwise they would be a wage.
Exactly. Communion is not essential to our salvation else it becomes a work.
That being said, you're focusing on what the participants in the Supper do and denying what the Lord says occurs in the Supper. Take and eat, this is my body, given for you, etc.
I am not denying anything. I take communion in remembrance of what He did. It seems the opposite is true for you though.
Again, that is an abridged account of what Paul wrote with regard to the Supper in which you focus on what the participants in the Supper do while ignoring or denying what the Lord says occurs in the Supper.
See my comment above.
What is a consequence for those who do not discern the Lord's body in the Supper? In KJV terms it is damnation. For this reason many of them were sick and dead.
But we know that communion is not essential for salvation so your point is moot.
 
It seemed like the reply I was writing was getting kind of long so it was scrapped. Instead of that only some key points are first addressed.
Ok...so communion is not necessary for salvation but for our salvation? Your sentence doesn't really jive.
It jives when a person remembers that God showers men with His gifts rfor our salxation rather than withholds them like an old miser who struggles to give the bare minimum to bless or save and not a drop or penny more.
You must know what you mean but I have no clue.
Well, if you look at the section above and apply the analogy to what you wrote and what I wrote then you might see what I mean. We are looking at the same thing or the same, "picture," but what appears light or dark to you often appears dark or light to us, respectively. In the same way if the order is reversed, what looks light or dark to us often looks to you dark or light, respectively.
Shouldn't we be doing that? Looking at all we see through that lens, what is pleasing to God, what He requires of us for our salvation? His Grace, through faith and not of works. Unmerited favor. Freely given. Nothing else required. I don't know, you seem to be making it seem that's a bad thing. Perhaps I misunderstand and if so you can unpack that claim for me.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is by definition objective true good news to all men and for all men. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a good maybe or good possibility. It also gives what it demands, namely, faith. For example, check out this special pleading by the KJV translators regarding the word pistis or faith in Acts 17. It is the only place in the KJV where those translators did not translate pistis as faith.

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance [pistis, faith] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Act 17:31, KJVA)

The gospel is true and people believe it. The gospel is never true because people believe it. (a recollection from Our Great Heritage, Vol I, (c)NPH) To put it another way, faith only receives what is already true and unbelief denies what is already true.
That said, Roman Catholic's make their eucharist required for the forgiveness of sins, do Lutheran's?
No, but that doesn't exclude what the Lord says occurs in the Supper, namely, that we receive His body and blood given for us, given for the forgiveness of sins.

With regard to the damnation spoken of in 1 Cor. 11 you wrote:
But we know that communion is not essential for salvation so your point is moot.
That is an illogical conclusion and another demonstration of the photo negative analogy.

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” (1Cor 11:29, KJVA)

According to what the passage actually says, to eat and drink unworthily is to not discern the Lord's body in the bread and the cup. That action is an expression of unbelief, a denial of Christ, which leads to damnation.

“For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (1Cor 11:30, KJVA)

Don't mistake the long suffering of God in this regard for a right understanding of the matter.

Someone reading may ask, if the Supper is not necessary for salvation then how can people not discerning the Lord's body in the bread and the cup eat and drink judgement or damnation upon themselves? The Supper exposes whether a person actually has faith in the incarnate, crucified, and risen LORD or faith in a faith that the person has imagined for himself.
 
Part 2 (Although the first question was already addressed it and my reply are retained for context.)
That said, Roman Catholic's make their eucharist required for the forgiveness of sins, do Lutheran's? And if so doesn't that place Christ's propitatory sacrifice as incomplete as far as forgiveness of sins as His written Word tells us?
No, but that doesn't exclude what the Lord says occurs in the Supper, namely, that we receive His body and blood given for us, given for the forgiveness of sins.

I agree with you based on their practice of Penance, but as far as the Supper goes I think they still would say that they confect (A term from a sixteenth century catechism translated by TAN. Another term may now be preferred.), offer to God, and distribute through the one element or species the same sacrifice. Errors all, but not all their errors with regard to the Mass and the Lord's Supper.

I don't disagree with that. But that said, when we share the Good News with the lost wouldn't that be in the testimony of what He accomplished as recorded in the God-breathed Scriptures? The account of His life, death and resurrection? Putting the horse before ton the cross.
If by the, "lost," you mean avowed unbelievers then it would be irresponsible to let them participate in the Supper. They cannot discern the body and blood of the Lord in, or with, or under, the bread and the wine and consequently would only eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.

I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make between the Lord's Supper and the God-breathed Scriptures. It is the Scriptures which tell us what occurs in the Supper on account of Christ, and what to believe about the Supper on account of Christ.

If someone were to consistently apply the logic that you appear to be using to Scripture then it would follow that since X is stated in Scripture then the same basic content stated in terms of Y and Z are superfluous and to be excluded or denied.

Although Scripture often says the same basic truths in multiple and various ways I don't think there are many, if any, right thinking believers who say that those multiple and various expressions are superfluous and to be excluded or denied.

If a reader is thinking along the lines of, "The Christian faith is spiritual, therefore, physical matter is excluded," then I would encourage that person to read Moses and consider Christ.

Although God spoke the creation into existence out of nothing, He didn't speak man into existence. God formed man from the dust of the earth, from the creation, and then breathed life into him, Genesis 1. Later, the Word that was with God, and was God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

If a person believes that all fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily, Colossians 2, then it is no stretch at all to believe that we receive the LORD's body and blood in, or with, or under, the bread and the wine of the Supper. It is just as He said and Scripture records.
 
Part 2 (Although the first question was already addressed it and my reply are retained for context.)

No, but that doesn't exclude what the Lord says occurs in the Supper, namely, that we receive His body and blood given for us, given for the forgiveness of sins.

I agree with you based on their practice of Penance, but as far as the Supper goes I think they still would say that they confect (A term from a sixteenth century catechism translated by TAN. Another term may now be preferred.), offer to God, and distribute through the one element or species the same sacrifice. Errors all, but not all their errors with regard to the Mass and the Lord's Supper.


If by the, "lost," you mean avowed unbelievers then it would be irresponsible to let them participate in the Supper. They cannot discern the body and blood of the Lord in, or with, or under, the bread and the wine and consequently would only eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.

I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make between the Lord's Supper and the God-breathed Scriptures. It is the Scriptures which tell us what occurs in the Supper on account of Christ, and what to believe about the Supper on account of Christ.

If someone were to consistently apply the logic that you appear to be using to Scripture then it would follow that since X is stated in Scripture then the same basic content stated in terms of Y and Z are superfluous and to be excluded or denied.

Although Scripture often says the same basic truths in multiple and various ways I don't think there are many, if any, right thinking believers who say that those multiple and various expressions are superfluous and to be excluded or denied.

If a reader is thinking along the lines of, "The Christian faith is spiritual, therefore, physical matter is excluded," then I would encourage that person to read Moses and consider Christ.

Although God spoke the creation into existence out of nothing, He didn't speak man into existence. God formed man from the dust of the earth, from the creation, and then breathed life into him, Genesis 1. Later, the Word that was with God, and was God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

If a person believes that all fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily, Colossians 2, then it is no stretch at all to believe that we receive the LORD's body and blood in, or with, or under, the bread and the wine of the Supper. It is just as He said and Scripture records.
With all due respect this discussion has become too bulky, legalistic and disjointed for me to follow. Each and every comment referring back to another and so forth, so if you wish to continue this discussion let's concentrate on the issue that started it. Either the communion is in remembrance or it is literal.
 
Back
Top