Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

A protestant "real presence"?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post

    Thank you Thomas for your very well articulated answer. If I'm understanding correctly, a sinner's prayer, such as Billy Graham's version, asks God "into their hearts", is there a change in the substance? Since it doesn't seem to be merely symbolic, could it be explained by the "physics of matter yet to be written" in much the same way as the Holy Eucharist? I'm not suspecting that protestants believe asking God "into their hearts" would be a body, blood, soul and divinity presence, but I do wonder what the similarities are.

    BGM
    The soul, or "heart" in this instance, is not a physical part of a person; it is spiritual. Therefore, there is no "change of substance". We are a spirit, we have a soul, and reside in a physical body.
    Allen (Unless noted otherwise, Bible quotations are from the 1984 edition of the NIV)

    Faith--Sees the invisible, believes the incredible, and receives the impossible.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
      My question is, in what way do protestants ask God "into their hearts" in a sinner's prayer? I can't imagine it's symbolic
      What does the "sinner's prayer" have to do with the Eucharist?

      Part One: the Eucharist is symbolic

      Think about the moment in which Jesus first uttered those word, "This is my body...." The body of Jeuss was sitting there in front of all the disciples holding the bread as he was saying those words. In other words, Jesus' body - the fingers of his hands - were holding the bread. His body was holding that which he was saying was his body. His body was holding his body.


      Now.....


      Which was his actual body and which was a (future) symbol of his body?


      So unless you are willing to literally say Jesus literally has two literal bodies, one of flesh and bone and one literally of literal bread, then you must concede the body of bread is symbolic. The question then becomes,"Of what is the bread symbolic?" and Jesus tells us the answer to that question.
      "When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.' And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood...." (Lk. 22:14-22)
      So first of all we see that they were having a Passover meal and they were eating unleavened bread, not compressed yeast wafers. So anyone who is eating wafers has already participated in an adulteration of the ritual and has no business saying anything to anyone about their manner of practice until they've acknowledged the problem of wafer-rituals. This was a Passover, and Jesus was the Paschal lamb. They were celebrating the Passover early because Jesus would be in the grave during the Passover holy days and the disciples would be in hiding. Jesus fulfilled the prophetic precedent set by the Passover and as a consequence the Passover would take on new symbolism; it would no longer commemorate Jewish slavery in and subsequent release from Egypt, but human slavery to sin and the release provided by the death and resurrection of God's Son. This was no longer to be done in remembrance of Egypt but in remembrance of Christ and the new covenant. The Sabbath is symbolic, the Passover is symbolic, the bread is symbolic.

      In other words, by saying "...in remembrance..." Jesus is necessarily saying the ritual is symbolic; it is a remembrance. At no point does Jesus say this is about him being physically present in the bread (or wafer).




      Part Two: The "sinner's prayer" might be construed as an extension of the Lord's supper, but only by way of the new covenant and the sending of the Holy Spirit that comes as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice. Otherwise the last supper and the sinner's prayer are unrelated. It is the Spirit of Christ that regenerates and indwells us thereby making us "the body of Christ." But this body of Christ that is the church is not the body of Christ that is Jesus body that as holding the bread that is his symbolic body when he says "This is my body..."


      Same word, "body;" three completely different meanings.


      Conflation isn't just logically fallacious; it is theologically fatal. We are Christ's body, but we are not Jesus. God does not live in little circles of compressed yeast any more than He lives in houses built with human hands.



      Passover brought the death of a lamb and the spirit of death. The sinner's prayer is based on the death and resurrection of God's son and the spirit of life. When a person sincerely prays to become a slave of righteousness s/he has already been brought from life to death and literally has the Spirit of Christ within them by which they will be created in Christ to do good works God already has for them to perform (Eph. 2:10). Those taking the "Eucharist" are already saved, already alive or regenerate, already the body of Christ. To partake of the Lord's supper in a fleshly manner is "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" and brings judgment upon himself (1 Cor. 11). The person who says a sinner's prayer in a fleshly manner remains unchanged; s/he was dead in sin prior to the prayer and remains dead in sin afterwards.
      All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

      “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by AlFin View Post

        The soul, or "heart" in this instance, is not a physical part of a person; it is spiritual. Therefore, there is no "change of substance". We are a spirit, we have a soul, and reside in a physical body.
        Thank you AlFin for the response. So is it a "real" presence in the spiritual nature of the body? I guess that would be defined as not a tangible or corporeal part of the body. If that makes sense.

        BGM

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Josheb View Post
          What does the "sinner's prayer" have to do with the Eucharist?

          Part One: the Eucharist is symbolic

          Think about the moment in which Jesus first uttered those word, "This is my body...." The body of Jeuss was sitting there in front of all the disciples holding the bread as he was saying those words. In other words, Jesus' body - the fingers of his hands - were holding the bread. His body was holding that which he was saying was his body. His body was holding his body.


          Now.....


          Which was his actual body and which was a (future) symbol of his body?


          So unless you are willing to literally say Jesus literally has two literal bodies, one of flesh and bone and one literally of literal bread, then you must concede the body of bread is symbolic. The question then becomes,"Of what is the bread symbolic?" and Jesus tells us the answer to that question.
          "When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.' And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood...." (Lk. 22:14-22)
          So first of all we see that they were having a Passover meal and they were eating unleavened bread, not compressed yeast wafers. So anyone who is eating wafers has already participated in an adulteration of the ritual and has no business saying anything to anyone about their manner of practice until they've acknowledged the problem of wafer-rituals. This was a Passover, and Jesus was the Paschal lamb. They were celebrating the Passover early because Jesus would be in the grave during the Passover holy days and the disciples would be in hiding. Jesus fulfilled the prophetic precedent set by the Passover and as a consequence the Passover would take on new symbolism; it would no longer commemorate Jewish slavery in and subsequent release from Egypt, but human slavery to sin and the release provided by the death and resurrection of God's Son. This was no longer to be done in remembrance of Egypt but in remembrance of Christ and the new covenant. The Sabbath is symbolic, the Passover is symbolic, the bread is symbolic.

          In other words, by saying "...in remembrance..." Jesus is necessarily saying the ritual is symbolic; it is a remembrance. At no point does Jesus say this is about him being physically present in the bread (or wafer).




          Part Two: The "sinner's prayer" might be construed as an extension of the Lord's supper, but only by way of the new covenant and the sending of the Holy Spirit that comes as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice. Otherwise the last supper and the sinner's prayer are unrelated. It is the Spirit of Christ that regenerates and indwells us thereby making us "the body of Christ." But this body of Christ that is the church is not the body of Christ that is Jesus body that as holding the bread that is his symbolic body when he says "This is my body..."


          Same word, "body;" three completely different meanings.


          Conflation isn't just logically fallacious; it is theologically fatal. We are Christ's body, but we are not Jesus. God does not live in little circles of compressed yeast any more than He lives in houses built with human hands.



          Passover brought the death of a lamb and the spirit of death. The sinner's prayer is based on the death and resurrection of God's son and the spirit of life. When a person sincerely prays to become a slave of righteousness s/he has already been brought from life to death and literally has the Spirit of Christ within them by which they will be created in Christ to do good works God already has for them to perform (Eph. 2:10). Those taking the "Eucharist" are already saved, already alive or regenerate, already the body of Christ. To partake of the Lord's supper in a fleshly manner is "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" and brings judgment upon himself (1 Cor. 11). The person who says a sinner's prayer in a fleshly manner remains unchanged; s/he was dead in sin prior to the prayer and remains dead in sin afterwards.
          Thank you Josheb for taking time to answer. I think there is a miscommunication though. I don't believe the sinner's prayer has anything to do with the Eucharist. It was mentioned as a similarity in theological "presence". As to Part One of your response - do you believe it was impossible for God to change the substance He held in His hands into His very body, blood, soul and divinity? As I mentioned in my initial statements, most I speak with don't doubt the ability, just whether God did or not. We could discuss but I'm more interested in next part.

          As to Part Two, which is what I was hoping for - I love the explanation, thanks again! You say the Spirit of Christ regenerates and indwells us. Is this a type of real presence in the sinner? I 100% agree we are part of the Body of Christ but we are not Jesus. I'm trying to understand what form the indwelling takes upon the spiritual or corporeal sinner.

          BGM

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
            Thank you Josheb for taking time to answer. I think there is a miscommunication though. I don't believe the sinner's prayer has anything to do with the Eucharist. It was mentioned as a similarity in theological "presence". As to Part One of your response - do you believe it was impossible for God to change the substance He held in His hands into His very body, blood, soul and divinity? As I mentioned in my initial statements, most I speak with don't doubt the ability, just whether God did or not. We could discuss but I'm more interested in next part.
            Think about what you're asking.

            Jesus is lounging around the food with a piece of bread in his hand. That hand of his body extends that bread and he says, "This is my body...." If God or Jesus does make that bread his actual body then Christ has two bodies - the one with which he's extending the bread, and the bread which is his body. If we take this to its logically necessary conclusions that would mean there are two Jesuses.

            And that is just incorrect nonsense.


            The doctrine of omnipotence doesn't require God to be able to do anything irrational, like make a round square, a spherical cube, or a rock so heavy He can't lift it. Such exercises in hypotheticals betray reason. God is almighty but He cannot make two Sons and call them His only begotten Son. That would be self-contradictory. The only reason folks make that error is because they're thinking about Jesus seated in heaven and the host" far away here on earth. Anyone who bothers to take that premise to the actual original event sees the problem.

            And avoids it.

            The bread is symbolic. Jesus treated it that way. We should do likewise.
            Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
            As to Part Two, which is what I was hoping for - I love the explanation, thanks again! You say the Spirit of Christ regenerates and indwells us. Is this a type of real presence in the sinner? I 100% agree we are part of the Body of Christ but we are not Jesus. I'm trying to understand what form the indwelling takes upon the spiritual or corporeal sinner.

            BGM
            Hmmm... I read scripture literally to say the indwelling is literal and real. When Paul asks, "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" and "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" I take that to be real and valid inquiries about a real condition. When he writes, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him," I take that literally.




            Perhaps I err, but I will add this: my life is changed. I was once a big deep pit of sin. I am now a big deep pit of sin covered in Christ's blood, regenerated and filled with God's Spirit by which I endeavor to live a life enslaved to righteousness, not sin.

            If you'd known me BC any comparison between the old Josh and the new is observable.

            To a huge gigantic and enormous degree; like the difference between death and life.

            I did not change myself. Left to my own devices I'd post things here that would make your skin crawl, induce dry heaves, and get me forever banned. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am forever grateful.



            God gets all the glory.


            That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



            Stop wondering. Live it. if you want to read something other than the Bible on the matter then I recommend "The Mystery of the Holy Spirit," by R. C. Sproul, or "The Holy Spirit" by Sinclair Ferguson. The former is very accessible; the latter much more rigorous a read. Remember this: Knowing God and knowing about God are two entirely different things and those converted from death rto life and indwelt with God's Holy Spirit know and are known by God whether they "feel" it or not. At the risk of visiting criticism from my reformed kin I will also suggest Watchman Nee's "The Spiritual Man." What it lacks in theological veracity it makes up for in the repeated admonition to make practice of God's word, not just intellectual possession.
            All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

            “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Josheb View Post
              Think about what you're asking.

              Jesus is lounging around the food with a piece of bread in his hand. That hand of his body extends that bread and he says, "This is my body...." If God or Jesus does make that bread his actual body then Christ has two bodies - the one with which he's extending the bread, and the bread which is his body. If we take this to its logically necessary conclusions that would mean there are two Jesuses.

              And that is just incorrect nonsense.


              The doctrine of omnipotence doesn't require God to be able to do anything irrational, like make a round square, a spherical cube, or a rock so heavy He can't lift it. Such exercises in hypotheticals betray reason. God is almighty but He cannot make two Sons and call them His only begotten Son. That would be self-contradictory. The only reason folks make that error is because they're thinking about Jesus seated in heaven and the host" far away here on earth. Anyone who bothers to take that premise to the actual original event sees the problem.

              And avoids it.

              The bread is symbolic. Jesus treated it that way. We should do likewise.
              I'm splitting these so I don't miss anything you bring up. You have a well thought out way of explaining that I really appreciate.

              If we approach this logically I can see where it is problematic. But like the disciples in John Chapter 6, Jesus's teaching was a difficult teaching for most and many no longer followed Him after that. It's not a question of logic but of faith. The Lord is not bound by time, He lives outside it. He is able to apply the merits of Christ throughout history, not just after our timeline of the historic death and resurrection. Think about the prophet Elijah. He was assumed into heaven prior to Jesus' birth. Wasn't that only possible because of Christ's sacrifice?

              BGM

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Josheb View Post
                Hmmm... I read scripture literally to say the indwelling is literal and real. When Paul asks, "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" and "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" I take that to be real and valid inquiries about a real condition. When he writes, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him," I take that literally.




                Perhaps I err, but I will add this: my life is changed. I was once a big deep pit of sin. I am now a big deep pit of sin covered in Christ's blood, regenerated and filled with God's Spirit by which I endeavor to live a life enslaved to righteousness, not sin.

                If you'd known me BC any comparison between the old Josh and the new is observable.

                To a huge gigantic and enormous degree; like the difference between death and life.

                I did not change myself. Left to my own devices I'd post things here that would make your skin crawl, induce dry heaves, and get me forever banned. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am forever grateful.



                God gets all the glory.


                That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



                Stop wondering. Live it. if you want to read something other than the Bible on the matter then I recommend "The Mystery of the Holy Spirit," by R. C. Sproul, or "The Holy Spirit" by Sinclair Ferguson. The former is very accessible; the latter much more rigorous a read. Remember this: Knowing God and knowing about God are two entirely different things and those converted from death rto life and indwelt with God's Holy Spirit know and are known by God whether they "feel" it or not. At the risk of visiting criticism from my reformed kin I will also suggest Watchman Nee's "The Spiritual Man." What it lacks in theological veracity it makes up for in the repeated admonition to make practice of God's word, not just intellectual possession.
                When you say the indwelling is literal and real. That's the heart of what I'm asking. Clearly, when someone is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and has an open heart surgery, the doctor does not see something different in the heart. This spiritual indwelling, this changing that you and countless others have experienced and can point directly to is very much real. However, we are still flesh and blood not just spiritual. We all have corporeal bodies that we must command for the Glory of God. So since a symbolic presence when referring to the indwelling is off the table. Could it be described as a change in the substance of the soul? Obviously, it sounds like I'm leading you, but I'm not. Unlike the Eucharist, we do not see the soul, we can only experience the changes. I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know.

                BGM

                I'll have to check out those books, thanks for the suggestion!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
                  If we approach this logically I can see where it is problematic. But like the disciples in John Chapter 6, Jesus's teaching was a difficult teaching for most and many no longer followed Him after that. It's not a question of logic but of faith.
                  That's not quite correct.

                  To address the problem correctly we must understand the problem correctly. To understand the problem correctly we must understand the problem from the first century disciples' point of view, not those in the 21st. We in modern times invent problems that were not on the minds of those sitting with Jesus during his last supper.

                  When Jesus says, "This is my body given for you..." he's referencing the OT manna (which was a then-veiled messianic image). When Jesus says, "This is my body given for you..." he is elaborating (in still figurative terms) what he had already preached in John 6,
                  John 6:41-58
                  "
                  Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down out of heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'and they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.' Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 'He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."
                  In other words, not only are Jesus' words figurative, but his references are too!. Figures referencing figures, so to speak.

                  The issue of literally eating his body was addressed in John 6. At the time some foolish people actually thought he was speaking literally, that he was asking them to commit cannibalism, a practice considered a curse in the OT (see Jer. 19:9 for example), a request that if taken literally would have instantly precluded Jesus from being the spotless sacrifice and propitiation of our sin. The issue in Luke 22 isn't cannibalism, it's the death of the Messiah. This was a recurring theme of Jesus' teaching once he began his approach to Jerusalem. Sometimes he spoke of it plainly (Mt. 20:18, Mk. 10:33, Lk. 24:7), but usually he spoke of his own death in figurative, often veiled terms.

                  We must understood there were several realities of Jesus that were largely untenable in the Jewish thinking. For one, God can't be human. You asked if it was theoretically possible for God to make the bread into Jesus. Imagine how much the mind was stretched by suggesting God was come down in human form, die, and come back from the dead to a first century Jew, even a Hellenist Jew who was familiar with the Greek and Roman mythologies. The Jewish God didn't do such a thing as be human.

                  Until He did.

                  And until the Pharisees arose (around the time of Malachi) the far prevailing belief was that death was final; there was no after life. No one comes back. Even with the Pharisees belief in an afterlife it was still not the orthodox pov. What happens on the other side of death was one of the most prominent teaching of Jesus; he radically confronted all the then-existing beliefs. Sheol, Hell, Hades, Gehenna were all corrected. Those models in the first century mindset were corrected because they were all wrong.

                  The issue of the last supper was his brokenness and the giving of himself for others, not cannibalism.

                  Think for a moment about what the Lk. 22 text tells us about the disciples' understanding at that moment: Jesus says this bread is his body which he then broke apart and distributed. He then says he's going to be betrayed and the disciples begin discussing who among them that betrayer might be and the almost instantly turns into a debate over who among them is the greatest (they argue this in Jesus presence!). Foolish men with the insight of a gnat's butt.

                  The point is that it was difficult for them to understand because of their OT mindset, not because they were wrestling with 21st century quantum mechanics. That pov is the 21st century of foolish men with the insight of a gnat's butt.

                  And none of it was understood until after the resurrection and Pentecost. He'd begun explaining as far back as Matthew 16 but these things apparently remained veiled by God. It's not until Luke 24 that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures..." and explains to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day." If we proof-text the single verse saying, "This is my body..." it's understandable how any wild and fantastic explanation arises but when exegeting scripture properly there is no problem to be solved.
                  Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
                  The Lord is not bound by time...
                  BGM
                  None of which is relevant. This isn't a problem of quantum mechanics or divine omnipresence. Look, some form of modalism would be much more reasonable than transubstantiation. The bread is Christ's body, but the collective of believers is the body of Christ too so the principle of equivalency would dictate that we - you and me - .............................are bread . I'll bet you're not ready to go there, are you? Good. So don't.

                  The facts of scripture is that Jesus was speaking figuratively of symbols that referred to him and his conciliatory life, death, and resurrection.

                  Consider how the Lord's supper is treated in the epistolary. Take, for example, what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10,
                  1 Corinthians 10:14-21
                  "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."
                  Does that read literal or figurative to you? Is Paul saying because we all literally eat (consecrated) bread we're therefore "one body"? Is he asserting salvation-by-bread-eating? No, of course not.



                  Note: HTacianas has begun a new op on the subject of the Orthodox Church's position on the topic of transubstantiation. Watch how that unfolds. Bone up on you logic basics because I suspect we're gonna see them abused a bunch.
                  All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                  “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bluegrassmandolin View Post
                    When you say the indwelling is literal and real. That's the heart of what I'm asking. Clearly, when someone is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and has an open heart surgery, the doctor does not see something different in the heart. This spiritual indwelling, this changing that you and countless others have experienced and can point directly to is very much real. However, we are still flesh and blood not just spiritual. We all have corporeal bodies that we must command for the Glory of God. So since a symbolic presence when referring to the indwelling is off the table. Could it be described as a change in the substance of the soul? Obviously, it sounds like I'm leading you, but I'm not. Unlike the Eucharist, we do not see the soul, we can only experience the changes. I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know.

                    BGM
                    lol. Big hugs, BGM. We sure do use the term "heart" quite diversely, yes.

                    Does scripture say the HS indwells in our "heart"? I don't think that's what passages like Ps. 51:10, or Eze. 36:26 are intended to mean. It most certainly intended to say the HS resides (solely) in the blood pump organ. I think the closest we're gonna come is the HS circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29?).


                    I don't think a change in the substance of the soul is quite correct, either, even though clearly body, soul and spirit are changed. The word of God is able to separate soul from spirit, so the two can't be conflated. I think the answer to your inquiry will require a definition of terms. The tripartite model (like Nee will assert) where there is body, soul, and spirit and the cognitive affective, and volitional qualities are contained in the soul might offer one example and a dualist view another. I, for my part take a noumenous view of the human creature: no part can be wholly separated from the whole without the loss of the creature as a whole. There are no disembodied human souls in scripture. The same is true of disembodied spirits. The term soul is more accurately understood as "being." We don't "have: souls, so much as we are souls. These dichotomies are false dichotomies.

                    So the answer within the noumenous context would affirmative, yes the soul, body, and spirit are changed in their very substance. None of it has to do with parcels of bread, though. The changes could be evidenced by comparisons between what the scripture tells us about the unregenerate and the regenerate. For example, the mind of flesh is hostile to God but the mind of spirit is life. The thinking of the unregenerate is futile and their hearts darkened. The mind of the regenerate is being renewed and their hearts circumcised and newly given, but these are not the sort of things we can take a slice of and place under a microscope and measure with a micrometer (at least not as far as I know). The change is evidenced in our relationships (or at least it should be).

                    That does not mean the giving of the HS and the commensurate change(s) are not real.

                    To understand that last comment I recommend Frnacis Schaeffer's trilogy. After the Bible, and alongside Packer's "Knowing God," I think that a book every Christian should read.
                    All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                    “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X