COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered 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 (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

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 (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever 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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....



REAL PRESENCE:
Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this is the Body of Christ."


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church


This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church (alone), officially and dogmatically since 1551.

The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and irrelevant ones at that), until western Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518, Art. "Paschasius Radbertus;" / 6. Samuel Edgar. Tenth complete American edition, p. 405.



SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations


Look again at the Eucharistic texts. An important aspect is (with apologies to Bill Clinton), what the meaning of "is" is....

While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common begining in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here - physically anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us), a matter of Law rather then Gospel.





One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.


EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.






Pax Christi



- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
If it was literally His body then how could they eat it when He was alive with them and now His body is transformed, He also said to the Jews that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood btw. Don't even know how I see it, literal but not too literal or something? What I always found weird was the kids from church eating the leftover crackers after the service so they didnt have to throw them away but then I was like oh well, it's better than throwing it away.
 
Last edited:

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
flesh makes it literal, spirit makes it spiritual
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I don't think Jesus is going to return and tell us, Nah, y'all that ain't my body because those disciples misquoted me. Hehe Is means Is. So many believers that God can heal with nary a word but they can't at all believe that Jesus could be present with the wine and bread is ridiculous! It's still the same God who can cure cancer and heal the sick so you better believe that when he says This is my body that it is!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
yes spiritual


I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




Thank you.


- Josiah
 

Brighten04

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
2,188
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




Thank you.


- Josiah

Huh?? :confused:
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




Thank you.


- Josiah

I'm not eating literal flesh. I eat bread. It never changed in my mouth into literal flesh, so it's spiritual literal. Just like that He told those people after he fed them with fish and bread (that was literal, 2 fishes became more fishes) that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He has a new Body that can change from flesh to spiritual, go to heaven, walk through walls, I can't eat that. His old body changed into that and if bread changes into that then it's His spiritual body.
I have no idea. Just believe what the text says and leave your brain out of it I think.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm not eating literal flesh. I eat bread. It never changed in my mouth into literal flesh, so it's spiritual literal. Just like that He told those people after he fed them with fish and bread (that was literal, 2 fishes became more fishes) that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He has a new Body that can change from flesh to spiritual, go to heaven, walk through walls, I can't eat that. His old body changed into that and if bread changes into that then it's His spiritual body.
I have no idea. Just believe what the text says and leave your brain out of it I think.


You believe that Jesus is no longer literally flesh? That He now is only a SPIRITUAL reality, not physical?
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
You believe that Jesus is no longer literally flesh? That He now is only a SPIRITUAL reality, not physical?

No like it's described, He had a transformed new body, He can be everywhere, live in everyone and He showed the disciples that He had flesh and He ate fish and could all of a sudden be in their midst without opening the door.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No like it's described, He had a transformed new body, He can be everywhere, live in everyone and He showed the disciples that He had flesh and He ate fish and could all of a sudden be in their midst without opening the door.

But it's still a body, right?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No like it's described, He had a transformed new body, He can be everywhere, live in everyone and He showed the disciples that He had flesh and He ate fish and could all of a sudden be in their midst without opening the door.

According to the Council of Calcadon (accepted by virtually all Christians - Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic) Christ's body could ALWAYS be everywhere. But in any case, we agree it NOW can. So can it be present.... say..... with the bread and wine in Communion so that what Jesus said is fully true: This is my body? Is that possible, in your opinion?

Just a historical point: All Christians accepted that it is true until a man named Zwingli in the 16th Century questioned it. Not saying that makes it true but it does make it historicallty accepted - universally, 100% - until the mid 1500"s.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No like it's described, He had a transformed new body, He can be everywhere, live in everyone and He showed the disciples that He had flesh and He ate fish and could all of a sudden be in their midst without opening the door.
Where was it shown in scripture that Jesus was 'everywhere' (or even two places) at once? Where is it shown in scripture that Jesus is 'literally' living in everyone? Isn't that the job of the Holy Spirit? Didn't Jesus say that he was leaving and he would return?

Jesus isn't a literal head and we are not a literal body, those are metaphorical language used to express a real, but spiritual, relationship. In the same way, talk of Christ in us and us in Christ is metaphorical language that expresses a real spritual relationship between two beings (us and Jesus) each of which also has a physical body (ours still imperfect, and his glorified). Thus Jesus demonstrated both that his glorified body was very much real (he ate and invited Thomas to touch it) while at the same time, no longer limited by the human constraints of time and place (he could pass through doors and be in one location at one moment and a distant location the next). It is worth pointing out that God demonstrated the ability to do the same thing with Jesus' followers. They were in one location at one moment and suddenly, on the road to meet an Ethiopian reading a scroll. Or chained up one moment and have their chains fall off the next moment.

God Bless,
Arthur

[EDIT: Please disregard this post. I missed the context that this was just about the Eucharist. I have nothing to say about Communion which would edify. Enjoy your discussion.]
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just a historical point: All Christians accepted that it is true until a man named Zwingli in the 16th Century questioned it. Not saying that makes it true but it does make it historically accepted - universally, 100% - until the mid 1500"s.
My history is a little fuzzy, but isn't that about the same time that people stopped buying 'forgiveness' (indulgences), trusting the Pope as the final interpreter of scripture, and started to actually read the Bible for themselves?
Historically, they gave up a lot of bad habits in a short period of time.

[I need to go and repent now. That was a bit mischievous of me.] :poke:
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My history is a little fuzzy, but isn't that about the same time that people stopped buying 'forgiveness' (indulgences), trusting the Pope as the final interpreter of scripture, and started to actually read the Bible for themselves?
Historically, they gave up a lot of bad habits in a short period of time.

[I need to go and repent now. That was a bit mischievous of me.] :poke:
That was one of Luther's key points of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Christ being present in the communion elements is not only biblical but historical through out Christendom until the 1600's where arguable indulgences isn't. Lutheran's pride themselves on this doctrinal approach.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
For over 1500 years, all accepted the inseparable Two Natures of Christ and thus could accept the Scriptures in the opening post without hesitation. But in the mid 16th century, Zwingli questioned that historic, ecumenical doctrine of The Two Natures of Christ and thus Real Presence.


The Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed this issue in detail. It is IMPORTANT to remember that in 451, ALL Christians (all those bishops involved) accepted Real Presence in the Eucharist - the Zwinglianview were virtu ally unheard of at that time.

This Council adopted the following credal addendum (strictly, they saw themselves as providing a "footnote" to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly known to us as the Nicene Creed):

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.



Again, remember: all those Bishops affirmed Real Presence. Obviously, they did not proclaim a view that would contradict a view they all had; obviously those bishops saw no conflict between their embrace of Real Presence and the Two Natures of Christ.

Chalcedon insisted that both natures remained inviolable, indivisibly united in one Person. We have neither confusion (which would really result in a tertium quid - a being neither truly God nor man, as in Monophysitism), nor separation (which would in reality undercut the Incarnation, essentially transforming God's presence into a divine indwelling in the man Jesus). Where one is, the other is. These TWO natures are indivisible, united.



Zwingli Objections:

A. The Zwingli argument is that Christ CANNOT be physically present with the elements of the Supper, since He has a genuinely human body, which is subject to the restrictions of locality.


I think there are two problems here (besides forcing a literal rejection of the words Jesus said and Paul penned):


1. It is a heresy to divide the natures, which is the essence of what the Reformed do here. And it flies in the face of the Scriptures that speak of a "communication" or connection of the natures. Notice all the Scriptures that speak of JESUS (who is ALWAYS the God/Man, NEVER only God and NEVER only man), "JESUS is with us" NOT, "The Second Person of the Trinity is with us." "I (Jesus) am with YOU always even to the ends of the Earth" NOT "GOD but no man is......" The above Scriptures (and so many more) all note that what is true of Jesus' divine nature is true of his human nature - and yes, even vise versa. OBVIOUSLY, a great mystery is here (above and beyond any human concept of physics, to be sure!) but if we are to believe Jesus (and it's not wise to consider him false - or even misleading), then JESUS (always the GOD/MAN, never one OR the other) promises much and says much about himself: and it mandates what the Council of Chalcedon affirmed: JESUS is God AND Man - and these two natures cannot be separated, disjointed. It's JESUS. Who is GOD/Man. Two sides of the SAME COIN, as Augustine taught; just as you can't (or shouldn't!) eliminate one side of the coin, so we cannot (or shouldn't) eliminate one of Jesus' natures. Even thought at times MYSTERY will result (remember: We are stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, we are not commanded to revise God's teachings so as to make it make sense to US).

2. The Zwingli point that the union cannot be violated is an interesting one, but misapplied here. Consider this verse, "John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them." Now, PHYSCIALLY, a man cannot walk through locked doors. Those disciples where in a room surrounded by WALLS.... with a LOCKED DOOR. Either Jesus just transported himself into the room borrowing the Transporter from Scotty (crawling through a window seems to violate the surprise of how Jesus got there) OR Jesus walked through the door or the walls (a DIVINE action that violates the physics of biological cells - if you doubt, try it!). I think it is undeniable that JESUS (remember: ALWAYS the GOD/MAN, never just man.... never just God) walked through something - something humans CANNOT do, but obviously the MAN Jesus did ("put your hands here....See that ...."). I think the reasonable view is that BY HIS DIVINE NATURE, this is doable (we all agree?) - and somehow ("Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God!!!!"), somehow, we know not how.... this ability impacted his human nature; essentially, His human nature went along for the ride. IMO, this verse does not in any way indicate that The Council of Chalcedon in 451 was wrong, only that it is possible for one nature to "communicate" (to use the ancient, ecumencial term) with the other - without violating that nature. One can "go alone for the ride." Luther spoke of a hot iron that has been sharing a furnance with fire..... the heat "communicated" with the iron, it did not in any way change the essence of the iron (it's still IRON) but it's sharing the heat. Not the best illustartion, but as is TYPICAL, illustrations almost never capture MYSTERY.


Jesus said, "This is my Body..... Blood." For 1500 years, all accepted that. Most still do. JESUS is present - as JESUS always is and only can be: as GOD/MAN, divine/human, both/and. Is there a mystery here? YES!!!!!!! (darn near ALWAYS is in theology!..... We are Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God). Just as in "I am with you always." True..... in the Upper Room, they would have seen Jesus' human nature, but isn't Jesus' entire point of that appearance to stress, "Blessed are you who have NOT seen and yet have believed?" Those who insist that JESUS cannot be present unless we SEE his flesh and bones seem to be missing the whole point. IMO, those who insist the HUMAN nature of Jesus CANNOT do what all humans can do need to explain away John 20:19 (etc., etc., etc.); their denial of the words of the Communion texts has opened wide the necessary explaining away of a chain of Scriptures.


B. Zwinglians insist that Acts 3:21 makes it IMPOSSIBLE for JESUS (the inseparable God/Man) to be anywhere but in heaven. This objection, very closely related to the first, is (sadly) based on Calvin's unique mistranslation of the text. Here's the verse: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:21 KJV "whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." Acts 3:21 ESV "whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." Acts 3:21 NAB. But Calvin mistranslated the verse in his Geneva Bible of 1599, "Whome the heauen must containe vntill the time that all thinges be restored, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began." See Acts 3:21 Greek Text Analysis

Then, focusing entirely on his mistranslation, Calvin insists, “The principle I always hold is, that in order to gain possession of Christ, he must be sought in heaven because the body in which the Redeemer appeared to the world, and which he once offered in sacrifice, must now be contained in heaven, as Peter declares.” It's a point he will make repeatedly, but sadly is based entirely on his mistranslation. Again, “The same is to be said of the words of Peter, that the heavens must contain him. Peter is not there speaking of a visible form, and yet he fixes the abode of Christ in heaven, which he says must contain him." It's a central argument for Calvin but it's simply based on his mistranslation of a verse.



Accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned OBVIOUSLY cannot be explained in terms of normal physics, anymore than "I am with you always" and similar Scriptures (indeed, as cannot be done with the Trinity and a lot of theology!). We are called to be 'STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD." We are not called to deny things simply because our puny brains can't understand how it can be true (and certainly not because we mistranslated a verse). So, what is the PHYSICS of Real Presence? For 1500 years, Christians left that as God in Scripture does: unanswered (mystery). Orthodox, Lutheran and some Anglicans and Methodist continue this. But in the 16th Century, some arose to deny the mystery and the words. The RCC went one direction with their dogmatic embrace of alchemic Transubstantiation and Aristotelian Accidents, Calvin and Zwingli in another - but both proceeded from a foundational claim that "it can't be" and the mandate that the words of Jesus and Paul be subject to their understandings of physics (however bad or wrong such may be).




.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hi all ...
I would like to toss my two cents worth of opinion here, but I will probably be condemned by the Catholics/RC church as Anathema,
the Protestants as a heretic
(whoever 'the Protestants' actually are, I'm still never quite sure)
and maybe even excommunicated by the good folks here at Christianity Haven, so I guess I shouldn't say anything. °~° GBU.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hi all ...
I would like to toss my two cents worth of opinion here, but I will probably be condemned by the Catholics/RC church as Anathema,
the Protestants as a heretic
(whoever 'the Protestants' actually are, I'm still never quite sure)
and maybe even excommunicated by the good folks here at Christianity Haven, so I guess I shouldn't say anything. °~° GBU.

muhahaha
 
Top Bottom