What do Lutherans believe?

[NewCreation435]

[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]





I don't follow you. Is it that you don't understand the "Real Presence" view OR you don't agree with it? Is the failure on my part to share the 3 major views OR that you do understand the view but don't find it to your liking? If I said "Bob believes the world is flat" you probably would understand the view but perhaps not agree with it. Two completely different issues, obviously. This thread is about what Lutheranism teaches. I don't regard it as likely a debate thread (but certainly the one about the 3 common Western views of the Eucharist is).


As to your "contrary to human logic" objection, frankly this is not a point ever raised in Lutheran theology. Do you believe that Jesus is BOTH God and man? 100% man and 100% God? IF you do, then your objection is destroyed - theology can be correct to embrace ALL Scripture says, even if that means two things are both fully true. Do you believe that God is Father AND Son AND Holy Spirit? IF so, then you are holding that multiple full realities can all be true. Logical? Probably not. Correct? Yup. God is not bound to physics as you understand it or to fallen human logic. Real Presence simply accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned. Exactly for the same reason we accept that Jesus is BOTH fully man and fully God even though logically that's not possible. Exactly for the same reason we accept that God is Father and God is Son and God is Holy Spirit yet there is one God. IF you hold that we can't have it "both ways" then we can't have a Savior who is both God and Man, we can't have a God who is TRI-une (having it THREE ways, lol).


Your objection that "it's a contradiction" is factually untrue. IF the view were "It's blood but not blood" that would be a contradiction, but that's not the "Real Presence" view. IF Christian theology said, "Jesus is divine but not divine" that would be a contradiction, but holding that He is BOTH human and divine" is not a contradiction - it's simply embracing two concurrent, co-existing truths.


Look, everyone knows that Zwingli rejected Real Presence. And today, a lot of "Evangelicals" have bought into his views on many matters. I don't expect Zwinglians to accept Real Presence but it is pretty easy to understand: "Is" = is, "Blood" = blood, "Body" = body, "Bread" = bread, "Wine" = wine. Not too hard to grasp, IMO. And for Christians who passionately believe that "both/and" IS the case where the Bible says, well... accepting both/and can be accepted as the case. No Christian had a problem with that for 1500 years until Zwingli.


I hope that helps.


- Josiah




.

I find the belief to be illogical. I hear what your saying, but in what sense is it presence? If the bread is bread and the wine is wine in what way is it presence?

 

[NewCreation435]

Of course it could be. And it could also be his body in a supernatural or spiritual sense, not literally. For 2000 years, the prevailing belief in the Christian church has been that the bread and wine are changed, so don't dismiss it too quickly.

That is my understanding of what Catholics believe. But he is saying that Lutherans reject that. So i'm completely confused about in what sense it is presence? is God hovering over the elements? Is he more presence when the elements are shared because my view is that God is present everywhere at all times. He's omnipresent. So, how could he be more present?

 

[Lamb]

I find the belief to be illogical. I hear what your saying, but in what sense is it presence? If the bread is bread and the wine is wine in what way is it presence?

The bread is bread. And the bread is His body. The wine is wine. And the wine is His blood.

Is means is

 

[Lamb]

That is my understanding of what Catholics believe. But he is saying that Lutherans reject that. So i'm completely confused about in what sense it is presence? is God hovering over the elements? Is he more presence when the elements are shared because my view is that God is present everywhere at all times. He's omnipresent. So, how could he be more present?

Lutherans say that His body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine. We don't limit God.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

The bread is bread. And the bread is His body. The wine is wine. And the wine is His blood.

Is means is

It's all in Scripture, all in Scripture.. My goodness, what are they teaching young people these days?

 

[Albion]

That is my understanding of what Catholics believe. But he is saying that Lutherans reject that.

Lutherans reject the kind of change that Catholics believe in. Catholics believe the b & w become, completely, Christs physical and spiritual body and blood. Lutherans think the b & w are changed to the extent that the bread and wine have Christs body and blood added to them.

So i'm completely confused about in what sense it is presence? is God hovering over the elements?

Not that. We are speaking of the bread and wine in particular.

Is he more presence when the elements are shared because my view is that God is present everywhere at all times. He's omnipresent. So, how could he be more present?

He is omnipresent, but he's present in a special, more personal way in the Communion elements.

 

[Josiah]

I find the belief to be illogical. I hear what your saying, but in what sense is it presence? If the bread is bread and the wine is wine in what way is it presence?

The issue of HUMAN philosophy, the issue of CURRENT HUMAN understanding of physics - is irrelevant and evaded. "IS" means is. "BODY" means body. "BLOOD" means blood. And yes "WINE" means wine and "BREAD" means bread.

It MAY be that to you the TWO full natures of Christ is "illogical" - that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, always and inseparably. It may be the Trinity is "illogical." But that doesn't make what the Bible says wrong. It simply means God is not bound to your or mine sense of "logic" or physics, that God is bigger than man. Christianity is not a man-made, it's God revealed.

For 1500 years, no Christian had any problem just accepting what the Eucharistic texts say. It doesn't seem too hard to me to accept all Christians for 15 centuries being totally okay with God as BOTH God and man (both/and), with God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit... okay with "is" = is, "body" = body, "blood" = blood, wine = wine, bread = bread. Not until a man named Zwingli came along in the 16th Century did any Christian see God's Word as "illogical" or "contradictory" or "impossible."

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION] [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]

That is my understanding of what Catholics believe. But he is saying that Lutherans reject that.

Since you read the thread I referred you to, you realize that since 1551, the RCC has a different Eucharistic theology than do Lutherans (Lutherans holding to Real Presence).

Lutherans do NOT teach that "Is" = "changed from one reality to an entirely different reality via the precise physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." Lutherans hold that "is" = is. It refers to reality, presence, being. And while Catholics accept that the Body and Blood that the Bible mentions after the "is" well ... is, it since 1551 teaches that the wine and bread that are equally mentioned after the "is" well... aren't (they are Aristotelian Accidents). You are likely more comfortable with the new RCC dogma since like you, the RCC holds that we can't have multiple realities (thus putting into question the Two Natures of Christ, etc.), Zwingli followed the RCC's lead here.


I mentioned very early in this thread that Lutherans accept mystery and allow for tensions: God gets the last word. It's okay to ask questions (as you have), it's just not okay to appoint self to answer the questions of self and then require that God agrees with self or God is wrong, illogical, impossible or doesn't understand science (and isn't submitting to man's current sense of physics). My Greek Orthodox friend complains bitterly of the tendency of Western Christianity to "answer" everything with "foolish philosophy and logic," the inability "to shut up and believe." While Lutherans don't put it that way, Lutherans believe in believing - not in telling God He's being illogical or nonsensical or impossible or contradictory. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all theology." Many Protestants disagree, insisting that my "logic" and my sense of "physics" is the foundation of all good theology.

Lutherans reject the kind of change that Catholics believe in. Catholics believe the b & w become, completely, Christs physical and spiritual body and blood. Lutherans think the b & w are changed to the extent that the bread and wine have Christs body and blood added to them.

Not exactly.... you are saying too much. Lutheranism believe that "is" = is. We don't use the word "become." And while we may speak of the SACRAMENT "changing" we don't speak of the bread and wine "changing." What you convey is closer to the EOC (non-binding, non-dogmatic) perspective. Lutherans simply hold that the words Jesus said and Paul penned are true. As is. No explanations, no denials, no rebuttals. No "can't be true!" No "that's impossible for God!" No imposed and infused ancient, pre-science, wrong theories. No ancient, weird, pagan philosophy imposes. No deletions of any words and the substitutions of others. God is right. God has the last word. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Wine" = wine. "Bread" = bread. IS. It typically means is.


I hope this helps understand the Lutheran position on this particular issue....



The following is satire (always dangerous, lol) but it DOES convey the view of every Christian for 1500 years who simply accepted what Christ said and Paul penned. Before Zwingli came along with his "Can't be true! God can't do that! It violates my sense of physics and how the WORLD works!" philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pKrwnn_2s




I hope that helps.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Not exactly.... you are saying too much.

Possibly, but I didn't want to make a seminary lecture out of my answer and I did want the reader to understand the difference between the RC and Lutheran views. :wink:

You are likely more comfortable with the new RCC dogma since like you, the RCC holds that we can't have multiple realities (thus putting into question the Two Natures of Christ, etc.), Zwingli followed the RCC's lead here.

Actually, and as a routine Anglican, I am not comfortable with any of those. I simply believe that the body and blood of Christ are present in an heavenly and spiritual sense with none of the mechanical or "scientific" explanations that are part of both the RC and L explanations.

The early church believed in the Real Presence but knew or said nothing about how any change can occur while our sense receptors perceive no change.

To me, that stance is sufficient. Luther, unfortunately, truly wanted to return the church to its Apostolic beginnings but could not break away from all that had been built into him through years of Roman Catholic training. Consequently, he wound up rejecting the most unacceptable parts of Medieval Catholic doctrine while he retained more than he should have lest he draw too close to the views of the religious extremists of his day.



.

 

[Josiah]

Actually, and as a routine Anglican, I am not comfortable with any of those. I simply believe that the the body and blood of Christ are present in an heavenly and spiritual sense with none of the mechanical or "scientific" explanations that are part of both the RC and L explanations.

Lutheranism has no "mechanical" or "scientific" explanations (or any explanations at all). Nor do we insist that Jesus' presence must be "limited." The Lutheran position has nothing to do with what can't be or what isn't, and has nothing to do with explanations. It simply accepts all that Jesus said and Paul penned. The "HOW" is left entirely, wholly to MYSTERY.

The early church believed in the Real Presence but knew or said nothing about how any change can occur while, at the same time, there appears to be none. To me, that stance is sufficient.

That is the Lutheran position. And yes, it was the position for 1500 years until Zwingli and the RCC messed with it. Lutherans simply continue the "Real Presence" position, which we call "MYSTERY" just as Christians did for 1500 years.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

The Lutheran position has nothing to do with what can't be or what isn't, and has nothing to do with explanations. It simply accepts all that Jesus said and Paul penned. The "HOW" is left entirely, wholly to MYSTERY.

IMHO, it would be good if Lutherans did that, but you know as well as I do that the "in, with, and under" kinds of explanations/clarifications are typically Lutheran. We even read it given to jsimms a few posts back (post 144).

 

[Josiah]

IMHO, it would be good if Lutherans did that, but you know as well as I do that the "in, with, and under" kinds of explanations/clarifications are typically Lutheran. We even read it given to jsimms a few posts back (post 144).

AGAIN, 3 times in his entire life, Luther said "in" and/or "with" and/or "under" in reference to the Body and Blood. The millions of other times (lol) he simply said "is."

Again, the reason for the 3 times in his entire life, Luther indicating "in" and/or "with" and/or "under" was simply and only to distance himself from Transubstantiation (not yet doctrine but commonly taught in the RCC) - a way to indicate that he accepted all that follows the "is" - not denying the bread and wine (as the RCC unofficially did) or (later) the body and blood as Zwingli did. Luther's "with" in my view is better than the "under" and "in" (both of which have been confused with Consubstantiation, which Luther rejected). But again, only 3 times in his entire life did he use any of those 3 words (but one of those is in his small Catechism!). I agree, he should have ONLY said "is" and resisted the 3 times when he said "with" and/or "under" and/or "in." But they were not meant to be "explanations" but rather distancing from Transubstantiation's denial of the bread and wine as only "Aristotelian Accidents." Luther was affirming all 4: Body, blood, bread and wine.... all as "is."


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

AGAIN, 3 times in his entire life, Luther said "in" and/or "with" and/or "under" in reference to the Body and Blood. The millions of other times (lol) he simply said "is."

OK, but we are talking about the beliefs of Lutherans and Lutheran churches, not what Luther himself thought or said.

If it were the latter, you would also have to affirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and a lot more that Luther retained but Lutherans since the 16th century have not.

 

[Josiah]

OK, but we are talking about the beliefs of Lutherans and Lutheran churches, not what Luther himself thought or said.

In my experience, Lutheran churches and Lutherans do understand and accept Real Presence, and also reject the "can't be true" denials and explanations that were dogmatized in the 16th century. The issues I discuss here http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical are actually discussed at length in Confirmation classes. Lutherans I think DO understand that the Lutheran position is "the meaning of is is is" and that it's MYSTERY (and why the denial issues of Trent and Zwingli are to be rejected); it's an issue well taught quite thoroughly in Confirmation classes. Now, if you were to discover that X% of "Lutherans" in reality hold to Zwingli's denials - I wouldn't deny that (it's true of some Catholics, too) but Zwingli is not Luther, and all the denials are not Lutheranism.



.

 

[Albion]

I don't want to lean on this issue like a bulldog with a bone, but I checked online and found, in minutes, the LCMS page, the WELS page, and the CPH page all saying some version of what I referred to. Here is the WELS version:

"The Bible and Lutherans teach that Holy Communion is a holy act instituted by Christ. Together with bread and wine we receive Jesus’ true body and blood." The other two sources explained it using the expression, "under" the bread and wine.

So it may be that the traditional way of explaining has been softened, but it is still necessary (apparently) to describe a kind of change in the substance that's sort of a halfway transubstantiation but more like a 'two things at once' happening, etc, etc. In fact, if we turn to Luther's own example of a poker put into a furnace until it glows red-hot, that's a change that isn't completely a changeover, and it does require some explaining to show that we're not talking about either Transubstantiation or, OTOH, mere representationalism.

 

[Josiah]

Here is the WELS version:

"The Bible and Lutherans teach that Holy Communion is a holy act instituted by Christ. Together with bread and wine we receive Jesus’ true body and blood."

Well said. Again, necessary to uphold the affirmation of the text and to distance from both of the 16th Century denials - from Trent and Zwingli.

The other two sources explained it using the expression, "under" the bread and wine.

Several times I have explained the rationale with the expression. AGAIN, I prefer "with" over the "in" and "under" terms but all of them are simply a reaction to the RCC's medieval invention of Transubstantiation, made its Eucharistic Dogma in 1551 (a couple of years after Luther's death). 99% of the time, Luther simply said "is" and I think that's best; admittedly the "under" and "in" expressions have caused some to assume Luther held to
Consubstantiation, which he did not. But again, denying Transubstantiation is not offering some scientific or philosphical "explanation." The Lutheran position is that the meaning of is is is. This is STRESSED in Confirmation classes; the reasons why both Transubstantiation and Zwingli's theory are rejected is also stressed in these classes. I can't say that THEREFORE all Lutherans hold to the Lutheran position, but I think the vast majority know what it is.

it is still necessary (apparently) to describe a kind of change in the substance

Lutherans reject any change to the bread and wine, Lutherans believe the bread and wine "are" just as the body and blood "are." They may be completely insignificant (and not mentioned at all in the Eucharistic liturgy) but they are affirmed. The meaning of is is is. And it refers to Body, Blood, bread and wine. That's the whole point of the "with" comment. The Confessions do NOT say, "in stead of the bread and wine" but "with" the bread and wine. The Confessions do not say "changed from bread and wine INTO Body and Blood so that there is no bread and wine."



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Several times I have explained the rationale with the expression. AGAIN, I prefer "with" over the "in" and "under" terms but all of them are simply a reaction to the RCC's medieval invention of Transubstantiation...

Very well, but that is what we have been discussing--the Lutheran "explanation." And the Lutherans churches do offer one, even if that seems unnecessary to you.

Interestingly, in the Anglican statement, no such modification of or alternative to the RC change mechanism was thought necessary, yet we believe in the Real Presence and not in the way that RCs, Lutherans, or Zwinglians see the matter.

 

[Lamb]

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord from this link of the Book of Concord:

6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

Capernaitic refers to the people in Capernaum that thought the teaching of Real Presence meant cannibalism...it is not.

 

[Albion]

One truth here is that Lutherans define everything, right down to the last jot and title, just as Catholics do. And they state that it is necessary for Christians to be correct on all of them. This may be good or it may not be, but it is the way it is. Maybe it owes to something inherent in being German or maybe it owes to something else, but it is there.

 

[Josiah]

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord from this link of the Book of Concord:

6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

Capernaitic refers to the people in Capernaum that thought the teaching of Real Presence meant cannibalism...it is not.

[emphasis mine]


Thank you, Lamm....

The word "with" here is not an "explanation" of the mystery, it is simply an affirmation of the text and rejection of the medieval, Roman Catholic, "Scholastic" invention of Transubstantiation (made dogma by the individual RC a few years after Luther's death but often taught in his day). Unlike the post-Trent RCC or Zwingli, Lutherans have no need or desire to replace the word "is" with something else or deny much of what follows the 'is." like virtually all believers for 1500 years, Lutherans simply accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - acknowledging there is mystery here.


Thanks again, Lamm...



- Josiah