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

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
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.
Why do you find my response unusual? Do you not agree that Scripture is the final authority for our faith? Should this not be an agreed upon point rather than turned into something it was not intended to be?
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.
You spend much time trying to turn my responses into "unusual" and "like an illogical response". A type of response I expect from Roman Catholics or Mormons but not from a fellow follower of the way.
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?

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)
These Scriptural references, with attendant interpretations, does not provide the Scripture that states Jesus is in, with and under the bread and wine. There is no Scripture that states this philosophy and that is what I am trying to get you to the point of agreement. That said, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters in the Lutheran denomination, constubstantiation seems more like Roman Catholic transubstantiation lite, and as you stated given as a response to past claims of cannibalism, rather than taking communion for what it is, taken in remembrance of what Jesus did upon the cross, as He commanded.

Bless you BJ,

Ldb
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Why do you find my response unusual?
Because it is illogical and out of place for the reasons already stated.
Do you not agree that Scripture is the final authority for our faith?
It is apparent from your replies that it is not always true for you. The evidence is below.
Should this not be an agreed upon point rather than turned into something it was not intended to be?
It cannot be agreed upon when you are not consistent in it's application. Again, the evidence is below
You spend much time trying to turn my responses into "unusual" and "like an illogical response". A type of response I expect from Roman Catholics or Mormons but not from a fellow follower of the way.
I spent little time demonstrating why your reply was unusual. Even a poor typist can type a couple of simple sentences in a short time.

Below, your latest reply incidentally demonstrates why your replies have been illogical.

In the meantime, you were asked to clarify what you were writing. The question was whether you find a difference (a substantive difference) between the use of the definite pronoun with a single category in evidence and the use of the definite pronoun with a redundant, "only," with a single category in evidence?
These Scriptural references, with attendant interpretations, does not provide the Scripture that states Jesus is in, with and under the bread and wine.
It didn't occur to me that anyone telling rank stories about the passages or familiar with the passages would then illogically ask for a literalistic citation. This is especially true of someone who denies both the literal meaning of a passage, and the literalistic wording of a passage. In this case it is, “¶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, KJV)
There is no Scripture that states this philosophy and that is what I am trying to get you to the point of agreement.
There is no agreement because you illogically, that is, with no valid logical reason, do not accept that the prepositions used individually or in combination are used to express the same physical location of His body and blood expressed by the LORD GOD in the passages. Instead you make a Scripturally, historically, and logically invalid and baseless reference to philosophy.

Consider that just as the LORD GOD used simple straightforward words with regard to the supper, there are also analogous examples from nature using similar simple straightforward words. For example, one guy hands another a banana and says, "Take and eat This is a source of potassium." A third guy later says, "I only saw a banana, where was the potassium?" Like with regard to the Supper, someone else replies, "In the banana," meaning that the location of the potassium spoken of was in the banana.

People who are like the disciples, that is, people not trained in the foolishness of pagan philosophy, accept that the preposition, "in," expresses the physical location of the potassium.

If someone wants to argue from pagan philosophy how the bread and the wine are no longer bread and wine, but are instead the body and blood of the LORD GOD then that is on that person. In the same way, if someone wants to argue from pagan philosophy how the bread and the wine are not the body and blood of the LORD GOD then that is on that person. In both instances the person denies the actual Scriptural witness for philosophical reasons while differing and quibbling over the details of why they do so.
That said, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters in the Lutheran denomination, constubstantiation seems more like Roman Catholic transubstantiation lite,
There is no respect for Scripture, history, or the Evangelical Church and it's members in that statement. Instead it is a reflection of sixteenth century philosophical error and propaganda.

There is no respect for Scripture because it denies what Scripture actually says with regard to the Supper and replaces it with contrary to Scripture philosophy, that is, the philosophical framework which brought about transubstantiation, et al.

There is no respect for history and is only the fruit of sixteenth century propaganda because the philosophy which led to transubstantiation, which necessarily includes consubstantiation, was flatly rejected in the Symbols of the Evangelical Church and elsewhere as sophistry.

For example:
"As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread."

The above quote is from a document written in 1537AD. At a minimum if you come across any later document or person referring to consubstantiation as a teaching or belief of the Evangelical Church then you know the author or speaker doesn't know what he is writing or talking about or that person is a rank untruthful propagandist.
and as you stated given as a response to past claims of cannibalism, rather than taking communion for what it is, taken in remembrance of what Jesus did upon the cross, as He commanded.
That is again a confusion of categories. Apart from the miswording of your claim, Jesus, the LORD GOD incarnate, is the one acting in, “¶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, KJV)

What He did and does in the Supper is different from what the disciples then and now receive in the supper, namely, they receive the bread and wine, body and blood of the LORD, given and she'd for you for the forgiveness of sins.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Because it is illogical and out of place for the reasons already stated.

It is apparent from your replies that it is not always true for you. The evidence is below.

It cannot be agreed upon when you are not consistent in it's application. Again, the evidence is below

I spent little time demonstrating why your reply was unusual. Even a poor typist can type a couple of simple sentences in a short time.

Below, your latest reply incidentally demonstrates why your replies have been illogical.

In the meantime, you were asked to clarify what you were writing. The question was whether you find a difference (a substantive difference) between the use of the definite pronoun with a single category in evidence and the use of the definite pronoun with a redundant, "only," with a single category in evidence?

It didn't occur to me that anyone telling rank stories about the passages or familiar with the passages would then illogically ask for a literalistic citation. This is especially true of someone who denies both the literal meaning of a passage, and the literalistic wording of a passage. In this case it is, “¶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, KJV)

There is no agreement because you illogically, that is, with no valid logical reason, do not accept that the prepositions used individually or in combination are used to express the same physical location of His body and blood expressed by the LORD GOD in the passages. Instead you make a Scripturally, historically, and logically invalid and baseless reference to philosophy.

Consider that just as the LORD GOD used simple straightforward words with regard to the supper, there are also analogous examples from nature using similar simple straightforward words. For example, one guy hands another a banana and says, "Take and eat This is a source of potassium." A third guy later says, "I only saw a banana, where was the potassium?" Like with regard to the Supper, someone else replies, "In the banana," meaning that the location of the potassium spoken of was in the banana.

People who are like the disciples, that is, people not trained in the foolishness of pagan philosophy, accept that the preposition, "in," expresses the physical location of the potassium.

If someone wants to argue from pagan philosophy how the bread and the wine are no longer bread and wine, but are instead the body and blood of the LORD GOD then that is on that person. In the same way, if someone wants to argue from pagan philosophy how the bread and the wine are not the body and blood of the LORD GOD then that is on that person. In both instances the person denies the actual Scriptural witness for philosophical reasons while differing and quibbling over the details of why they do so.

There is no respect for Scripture, history, or the Evangelical Church and it's members in that statement. Instead it is a reflection of sixteenth century philosophical error and propaganda.

There is no respect for Scripture because it denies what Scripture actually says with regard to the Supper and replaces it with contrary to Scripture philosophy, that is, the philosophical framework which brought about transubstantiation, et al.

There is no respect for history and is only the fruit of sixteenth century propaganda because the philosophy which led to transubstantiation, which necessarily includes consubstantiation, was flatly rejected in the Symbols of the Evangelical Church and elsewhere as sophistry.

For example:
"As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread."

The above quote is from a document written in 1537AD. At a minimum if you come across any later document or person referring to consubstantiation as a teaching or belief of the Evangelical Church then you know the author or speaker doesn't know what he is writing or talking about or that person is a rank untruthful propagandist.

That is again a confusion of categories. Apart from the miswording of your claim, Jesus, the LORD GOD incarnate, is the one acting in, “¶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, KJV)

What He did and does in the Supper is different from what the disciples then and now receive in the supper, namely, they receive the bread and wine, body and blood of the LORD, given and she'd for you for the forgiveness of sins.

The Savior saves.

Peace.
You have no Scripture to offer, just veiled adhoms. Thanks for the discussion
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
You're asking if we believe the Roman Catholic philosophical myth regarding how an RC priest confects the body and blood of Christ.
I am asking if I have the same power as the ministerial priesthood. A fellow poster claims I have that ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
If you want to see a sig rotate your screen so that it is landscape mode.
Thank you, let's give that a try...
Well I've seemed to run into a problem unless it's just while posting. At least on the phone I can't as of yet see signature lines, that may change after I post, but neither can I find where I can confirm whether or not I'm set to view signatures.
I'll be right back to make known my discovery.

No apparent change. I'll log out and try that.
I was thinking if I tried another agent to access the forums we may not be having this side exchange.🙃

Tried several things... if Bonnie has Charles Spurgeon in her siggy, then I at least see hers. Do you not have one as we speak? I don't believe I do, so maybe with the next profile edit, I will do something about that
Thanks again.
Oh. I finally saw setting in preferences...

Nic🙂
 
Last edited:

BJ Bear

Well-known member
You have no Scripture to offer, just veiled adhoms. Thanks for the discussion
That mischaracterization is a convenient way to avoid what Scripture actually says with regard to the Supper.

If the analogy of a banana is a source of potassium were extended, and the same logic you have used with regard to the Supper were applied, would it be fair to say that a person who says, "The banana symbolizes potassium, there is no potassium in the banana," is a potassium denier in this regard?

God's word is sure. Denying what His word actually says is always a bad idea.

The Savior saves. (See Ephesians 2:1-10.)

Peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Thank you, let's give that a try...
Well I've seemed to run into a problem unless it's just while posting. At least on the phone I can't as of yet see signature lines, that may change after I post, but neither can I find where I can confirm whether or not I'm set to view signatures.
I'll be right back to make known my discovery.

No apparent change. I'll log out and try that.
I was thinking if I tried another agent to access the forums we may not be having this side exchange.🙃

Tried several things... if Bonnie has Charles Spurgeon in her siggy, then I at least see hers. Do you not have one as we speak? I don't believe I do, so maybe with the next profile edit, I will do something about that
Thanks again.
Oh. I finally saw setting in preferences...

Nic🙂
No sig. Nt
 

Nic

Well-known member
I am asking if I have the same power as the ministerial priesthood. A fellow poster claims I have that ability.
Pleaae let me try to put forth what seems to be missed at this time.
"Confect" is the issue that is being denied as a valid understanding or avenue for the communion rite for anyone. We merely believe the words of the institution as true and all that entails (believe, reflect, bless, break, penitent hearts consume for the forgiveness of sins in sustaining us through this rite of the gospel) with various parallel and subsequent references to the supper as well. Inpenitent (state or embrace of unbelieving) souls risk death in reception of communion. So they are asked not to partake. One loaf theology indicates beliefs about the supper should be agreed upon according to faith in what biblical revelation states, for one to partake even if repentant. The pastor officially is the gatekeeper as to whom receives.
A few highlights for you.
Questions? Objections? Agreement?
Any and all would be appreciated, thank you!

Nic🙂👍
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Pleaae let me try to put forth what seems to be missed at this time.
"Confect" is the issue that is being denied as a valid understanding or avenue for the communion rite for anyone. We merely believe the words of the institution as true and all that entails (believe, reflect, bless, break, penitent hearts consume for the forgiveness of sins in sustaining us through this rite of the gospel) with various parallel and subsequent references to the supper as well. Inpenitent (state or embrace of unbelieving) souls risk death in reception of communion. So they are asked not to partake. One loaf theology indicates beliefs about the supper should be agreed upon according to faith in what biblical revelation states, for one to partake even if repentant. The pastor officially is the gatekeeper as to whom receives.
A few highlights for you.
Questions? Objections? Agreement?
Any and all would be appreciated, thank you!

Nic🙂👍
Would the pastor need hands laid on him through Apostolic Succession?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
I am asking if I have the same power as the ministerial priesthood. A fellow poster claims I have that ability.
Hi Arch Stanton🙂 (Bold portions indicate areas with emphasis of interests for me)

Is communion not synonymous with the gospel?
If so, is baptism also not synonymous with the gospel?
And is not the word of God both a broad and narrow expression of the exact same gospel?

Can a person read or hear the message from a secular source and still be forgiven? How so?


I realize RC absolution is often titrated and at times, if not almost always not comprehensive but I'll ask just the same.

Do you as a layman see yourself in any layman context an opportunity to profess and perform any of these where real and complete forgiveness is extended to the recipient?

If yes to any, is the word of God, the promises of God, the forgiveness of sins impotent without the RC back story of laying on of hands. To what degree is God's forgiveness of sins predicated on the papacy and their traditions?

Or to put it another way,
Would you (please) describe a context where without the laying on of hands with any of these forms of absolution are either effective or ineffective? I would like to see one or more examples of both, thank you!!! The more the merrier yet I'm not seeking an exhaustive response.

Would the pastor need hands laid on him through Apostolic Succession?
In brief, NO.
The MESSAGE is all powerful and SUPREME. This message is clearly not all there is to know of GOD himself and GOD himself has literally placed himself within the heart and throughout that message and that message is SUFFICIENT to SAVE man to the utmost. EVERYTHING else rightly and frankly, reeks of death.

Thanks for your reply and continued participation in this otherwise potentially perceived hostile territory! 😇👍 😁

Nic
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Hi Arch Stanton🙂 (Bold portions indicate areas with emphasis of interests for me)

Is communion not synonymous with the gospel?
If so, is baptism also not synonymous with the gospel?
And is not the word of God both a broad and narrow expression of the exact same gospel?

Can a person read or hear the message from a secular source and still be forgiven? How so?


I realize RC absolution is often titrated and at times, if not almost always not comprehensive but I'll ask just the same.

Do you as a layman see yourself in any layman context an opportunity to profess and perform any of these where real and complete forgiveness is extended to the recipient?

If yes to any, is the word of God, the promises of God, the forgiveness of sins impotent without the RC back story of laying on of hands. To what degree is God's forgiveness of sins predicated on the papacy and their traditions?

Or to put it another way,
Would you (please) describe a context where without the laying on of hands with any of these forms of absolution are either effective or ineffective? I would like to see one or more examples of both, thank you!!! The more the merrier yet I'm not seeking an exhaustive response.


In brief, NO.
The MESSAGE is all powerful and SUPREME. This message is clearly not all there is to know of GOD himself and GOD himself has literally placed himself within the heart and throughout that message and that message is SUFFICIENT to SAVE man to the utmost. EVERYTHING else rightly and frankly, reeks of death.

Thanks for your reply and continued participation in this otherwise potentially perceived hostile territory! 😇👍 😁

Nic
Fwiw, a person canl find agreed upon historical examples regarding ordinations and bishoprics in the Book of Concord which didn't follow the later Roman Catholic standard that is based upon custom.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Hi Arch Stanton🙂 (Bold portions indicate areas with emphasis of interests for me)

Is communion not synonymous with the gospel?
The Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments.
If so, is baptism also not synonymous with the gospel?
Baptism is one of the seven sacraments.
And is not the word of God both a broad and narrow expression of the exact same gospel?
We have the written Word of God and the Magisterium.
Would you (please) describe a context where without the laying on of hands with any of these forms of absolution are either effective or ineffective?
As far as I know, Baptism can be performed without a priest.
In brief, NO.
The MESSAGE is all powerful and SUPREME. This message is clearly not all there is to know of GOD himself and GOD himself has literally placed himself within the heart and throughout that message and that message is SUFFICIENT to SAVE man to the utmost. EVERYTHING else rightly and frankly, reeks of death.
Not sure what that means
Thanks for your reply and continued participation in this otherwise potentially perceived hostile territory! 😇👍 😁

Nic
You are welcome :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
The Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments.
So it is a different message than the gospel? Recall the gospel saves and forgives sins.
I anticipate a titration of the gospel for forgiveness and salvation as I alluded to earlier that RC embraces.

Baptism is one of the seven sacraments.
So this is a different message than the gospel?
(see above)

We have the written Word of God and the Magisterium.
The word of God surely boast having the message of the gospel in both wide and narrow understanding.
The magisterium isn't the gospel and cannot save themselves let alone anyone else. In fairness its a ruling or governing body of the RC see. That sums it up.

As far as I know, Baptism can be performed without a priest.
Sure. What about sharing the gospel with your door to door bike peddling cult member? Can they be in fact saved and their sins forgiven because you shared the gospel?
Not sure what that means
My previous comment to which you replied lacked sufficient detsil perhaps. Only God is Supreme. However God's message is supreme to all other writings and messages on earth. Everything else pales in comparison or as I said reeks of death. Only the gospel with the Holy Spirit begets life, that's why all else is death.
You are welcome :)
Thank you. 🙂
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
So it is a different message than the gospel?
Not sure if you are oversimplifying 'the gospel' as just believing 1Cor15
The magisterium isn't the gospel and cannot save themselves let alone anyone else. In fairness its a ruling or governing body of the RC see. That sums it up.
For debate sake -- lets say you were a Catholic and your understanding of authority from the Bible leads you to believe that the 'ruling body' has the authority given directly from Christ. Would that change your outlook on the 'gospel message'?

Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
Not sure if you are oversimplifying 'the gospel' as just believing 1Cor15
I never said just believing 1Cor15 was the gospel in particular. FWIW that chapter does contain both aspects of the gospel in a wide and narrow sense. I mentioned a distinction between the two expressions of the gospel. These distinctions can be understood as to what specifically saves versus what specifically saves plus the rest of the story. The latter is collectively known as the wide sense. I offered in my reminders to you that two endpoints of that message were that the gospel both saves and forgives sins. I also asserted RC titrates the power of that message to limit the function of the gospel to save and forgive only SOME sins.
RC baptism and communion isn't forgiveness for sins without the qualifier that scripture never asserts, "some." Like RC baptism extreme unction is again titrated if the person doesn't die in the immediate future.
RC also deny that message itself has the power to save failing to recognize the power of the message and the absolution found within that message. However, where RC really go off the rails is where they teach an atheist, agnostic or otherwise pagan can be saved through whatever "light" they've they were given both apart the message that saves and confessing Christ through their concept and teaching of the anonymous Christian. This is the view of your Magisterium that is nowhere found in Christ's message in either sense. What we do findbin the gospel that people go to hell for their unbelief. This blatant obscuring of the message once delivered to the saints that saves is a place where RC appear to check their reasoning at the door or perhaps embrace their reasoning over and above the message itself by extending this unfortunate false teaching as the gospel that saves. In an attempt to exercise fairness to pre-Vatican II this innovative teaching was absent from their doctrine.
For debate sake -- lets say you were a Catholic and your understanding of authority from the Bible leads you to believe that the 'ruling body' has the authority given directly from Christ. Would that change your outlook on the 'gospel message'?

Thanks
Ruling bodies themselves are not synonymous with the message that saves. This in no way denies the office of the pastor as a valid office of the church. The person of Peter nor Paul or take your pick isn't a message that saves anyone. You appear to confounding the content of the saving message with those whom may proclaim or preach/teach that message.

Thanks again for your participation here.

Nic🙂
 
Last edited:
Top