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

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,676
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ignatius of Antioch



"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).



Justin Martyr



"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).



Irenaeus



"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



Clement of Alexandria



"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).



Tertullian



"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).



Hippolytus



"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).



Origen



"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).



Council of Nicaea I



"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).



Aphraahat the Persian Sage



"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).



Cyril of Jerusalem



"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).



Ambrose of Milan



"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).



Theodore of Mopsuestia



"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).



Augustine



"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).



Council of Ephesus



"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
One of the countless problems with Matt Slick is that he doesn't even begin to know the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation (which he wrongly thinks ALSO includes the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice). Many have TRIED to inform Rev. Slick but.... well..... no one informs Rev. Slick of anything.

In any case, Lutherans do not regard the (often wrong) internet rantings of Rev. Slick as Confessional and definitive of Lutheranism. I would only consider a quote from this one man of ANY significance when speaking of Calvinism (since he roughly considers himself Reformed but of his own unique type).
Did he not quote the church fathers?
I'm beginning to think this issue revolves around where people start and end their quotes.
Regadless, the Bible does not teach real presence...unless the reader is going to be a strict literalist who denies free-will exists. That person is the only person I can imagine holding to real presence and being consistent. Of course a strict literalist would look silly, but I could accept her/him believing in real presence. Everyone else has to dance a tightrope of inconsistency.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I checked out a few of the references Matt Slick used and they're out of context...so...yeah. Plus, Real Presence is not equivalent to Transubstantiation so I think that most people don't realize that. A lot of people who believe in the Real Presence do not use John 6 as one of their scriptural verses so when the Early Church Fathers speak of John 6 and faith...they aren't denying the Real Presence.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
What a pickle. Shall we believe the early church fathers...or Matt Slick?? Let's see....
If you believe the early church fathers, you will not believe in real presence. You believe the Roman church, which is entirely different. More so, you ignore scripture itself and cling to tradition as your sole argument.
I will let scripture speak for itself and let you trust in the teachings of Rome.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,676
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I will let scripture speak for itself

Thus, the Real Presence view. Where all the words are believed and accepted, as stated. IS = is (not "is not", not "changed from one reality to a different one via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a blend of reality and Aristotelian Accidents"). Body = Body (not not Body), Blood = Blood (not not Blood).
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Thus, the Real Presence view. Where all the words are believed and accepted, as stated. IS = is (not "is not", not "changed from one reality to a different one via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a blend of reality and Aristotelian Accidents"). Body = Body (not not Body), Blood = Blood (not not Blood).
Jesus was not being literal. The text provides this truth. It's interesting to me to observe such mysticism being promoted.
 

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
Reading thru post#221, my stomach started turning, it really was unsettling to read all those quotes and see so much, dare I say, heresy, intermingled.
Just unbelieveable that ppl believed in such mystical mumbo-jumbo, (but perhaps bibles were scarce back then, Im really think so) but wow, not only mysticism but works-righteousness, confessions to priests, scripture twisting where it was quoted, a total misrepresentation of God at one point... Just awful stuff.
I was about to say ... So glad we didnt have to live back then with that teaching, but then I remembered we're nearly in 2018 and Im like, oops, well ... Lol,thank the Lord for His amazing grace and longsuffering.
For such a time as this, eh?
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Thus, the Real Presence view. Where all the words are believed and accepted, as stated. IS = is (not "is not", not "changed from one reality to a different one via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a blend of reality and Aristotelian Accidents"). Body = Body (not not Body), Blood = Blood (not not Blood).

Ah. There is the problem. Logic of people. Just like with predestination etc. ppls minds make different conclusions.
I believe is is is too. Bread is body. Not body is body.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If you believe the early church fathers, you will not believe in real presence. You believe the Roman church, which is entirely different. More so, you ignore scripture itself and cling to tradition as your sole argument.
I will let scripture speak for itself and let you trust in the teachings of Rome.

Which church/denomination held to the symbolic view for over a thousand years? You do realize that Eastern Orthodox also believe in the Real Presence? The Baptists, although they try to claim they've been around all that time weren't really started until 1612 by Thomas Helwys. So please, go ahead and point to something more than some modern blog trying to take quotes out of context and attempting to use modern language to interpret what the early church fathers were saying. Especially since tradition that you want to avoid backs up that the Real Presence was believed from the beginning. Please show us where tradition from the early church shows that to be wrong? And not one or two heretics! It was called heresy for a reason ;)
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
All of these ancient churches believe in the Real Presence:

-- The church in Iberia (Spain), founded by James the Greater.
-- The church in Jerusalem, whose first bishop was James the Lesser.
-- The Coptic Church in Egypt, founded by St. Mark
-- The Assyrian Church of the East (predecessor to the Chaldean Church), founded by St. Thomas
-- The Greek Orthodox Church, founded by Paul
-- The Antiochian Orthodox Church, founded by Peter
-- The Syrian, Georgian & Byzantine Churches, founded by St. Andrew
-- The Armenian Orthodox Church, founded by Jude and Bartholomew
-- The Syro-Malabar Church in India, founded by St. Thomas
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Which church/denomination held to the symbolic view for over a thousand years? You do realize that Eastern Orthodox also believe in the Real Presence? The Baptists, although they try to claim they've been around all that time weren't really started until 1612 by Thomas Helwys. So please, go ahead and point to something more than some modern blog trying to take quotes out of context and attempting to use modern language to interpret what the early church fathers were saying. Especially since tradition that you want to avoid backs up that the Real Presence was believed from the beginning. Please show us where tradition from the early church shows that to be wrong? And not one or two heretics! It was called heresy for a reason ;)
Which of those churches were Jewish and recognized Jesus symbolism in the Sadir meal?
Sola Scriptura, not scripture plus gentile cultural tradition.
Somewhere, in the pagan gentile culture, we get people teaching a mysticism that Jesus never taught. Jesus did not change the bread and the wine into his actual flesh and blood for the disciples to eat. He didn't magically make it be in, around, over, through, or whatever other mystical term you want to add. He had the bread and blood be a remembrance of his sacrificial death, just as the Passover lamb was a remembrance of Egypt and the freedom from bondage.
It is interesting to me to see how Gentiles twist the practice into something Jesus did not teach.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Which of those churches were Jewish and recognized Jesus symbolism in the Sadir meal?
Sola Scriptura, not scripture plus gentile cultural tradition.
Somewhere, in the pagan gentile culture, we get people teaching a mysticism that Jesus never taught. Jesus did not change the bread and the wine into his actual flesh and blood for the disciples to eat. He didn't magically make it be in, around, over, through, or whatever other mystical term you want to add. He had the bread and blood be a remembrance of his sacrificial death, just as the Passover lamb was a remembrance of Egypt and the freedom from bondage.
It is interesting to me to see how Gentiles twist the practice into something Jesus did not teach.

Did you see who began those churches? They were Jewish.

Now, please, if you can find any proof, which I doubt, list the churches here that held a symbolic view from the ancient days.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,676
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus was not being literal.

Then YOU have chosen to not accept the words "as is." You keep STRESSING we are to believe Jesus - now you are rebuking all who do so.

Yes, Zwingli came along in the 16th Century and invented this idea that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said, we should not accept what Scripture says. Now, you are parroting that denominational view. And insisting we should NOT parrot denominanational views but should just accept the words of Jesus... then rebuking those who do as you demand while you do the opposite of what you demand. Hum.

Yes, you MAY insist, "Jesus didn't mean it." You MAY insist "THIS is one of the extremely rare cases where metaphor is being employed." Okay. But then it's YOU distancing yourself from what Jesus actually said, what Paul actually penned. And since metaphor is so rare (especially in Paul's writings), the burden of proof lies with you. And since you are going against 1500 years of every Christian disagreeing with you, inventing a new and radicially different view than Christians held until Zwingli, the burden of proof also lies with you. Maybe you could go through Paul's letters and tell us every case when Paul didn't mean what he so clearly states, where Paul is obviously using metaphor... and prove that his statement about the Eucharist MUST be one of those.



- Josiah
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Did you see who began those churches? They were Jewish.

Now, please, if you can find any proof, which I doubt, list the churches here that held a symbolic view from the ancient days.
Right...and the apostles did not teach real presence, they taught remembrance.
You are clinging to a weak tradition of men in order to make the remembrance of Jesus sacrifice into a mystical event that Jesus never taught, nor did his disciples teach.
The history of mysticism within monasticism is quite fascinating as much of it has no connection to the scripture, but instead relies upon cultural superstition, which gets passed on as reality. Your example of the real presence is a fascinating example of such a superstition entering the gentile churches with no connection to the actual supper that Jesus had with his disciples.
I will stick with Sola Scriptura, but you're welcome to hold to superstition...as long as you don't teach continual re-saving via partaking of communion. That teaching is completely contrary to scripture and must be outright rejected by followers of Christ Jesus.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Then YOU have chosen to not accept the words "as is." You keep STRESSING we are to believe Jesus - now you are rebuking all who do so.

Yes, Zwingli came along in the 16th Century and invented this idea that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said, we should not accept what Scripture says. Now, you are parroting that denominational view. And insisting we should NOT parrot denominanational views but should just accept the words of Jesus... then rebuking those who do as you demand while you do the opposite of what you demand. Hum.

Yes, you MAY insist, "Jesus didn't mean it." You MAY insist "THIS is one of the extremely rare cases where metaphor is being employed." Okay. But then it's YOU distancing yourself from what Jesus actually said, what Paul actually penned. And since metaphor is so rare (especially in Paul's writings), the burden of proof lies with you. And since you are going against 1500 years of every Christian disagreeing with you, inventing a new and radicially different view than Christians held until Zwingli, the burden of proof also lies with you. Maybe you could go through Paul's letters and tell us every case when Paul didn't mean what he so clearly states, where Paul is obviously using metaphor... and prove that his statement about the Eucharist MUST be one of those.



- Josiah
I choose not to accept the is as literal flesh and blood...because the context makes it obvious that it should not be taken literally. I just responded to Lämmchen regarding this.
You are reading with a gentile cultural mind and imputing gentile tradition over scripture. Once again, you forego Sola Scriptura and rely upon faulty tradition as your source for belief. I wonder if you really hold to the Sola's as you claim when you hold the position you are claiming. I do not doubt the sincerity of you and Lämmchen on this issue, but I find it is not based on a sound reading of scripture.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I choose not to accept the is as literal flesh and blood...because the context makes it obvious that it should not be taken literally.
Once again, the issue does not come down to "Which of the two views that are at opposite ends of the Christian belief spectrum is to be believed?"
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Once again, the issue does not come down to "Which of the two views that are at opposite ends of the Christian belief spectrum is to be believed?"
You're right.
Which of the two views is taught in scripture.
Not...which of the two views was taught by former pagan Gentiles far removed from Jerusalem and ignorant of the Passover meal.
Let's focus in on scripture and note that it cannot be literal flesh and blood in the gospels. That would be abhorrent to the Jewish mind.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You're right.
Which of the two views is taught in scripture. .

Neither.

But how can you say that I'm right...yet immediately pose a question suggesting that one or the other of those two views must be the correct one from Scripture?
 
Top Bottom