What do Lutherans believe?

[Andrew]

Then Jesus drank His own blood and ate His own body, if it's literal.

I never thought of it that way

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

..which is one reason for thinking of the body and blood as changed in a supernatural (not symbolic, note) way, rather than in a literal, physical, "carnal" way, which is a purely Medieval idea that came along during the age when alchemy and magic fascinated the imagination.

 

[Albion]

Mark 14:16-26
[16]So the two disciples went into the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and they prepared the Passover meal there.
[17]In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
[18]As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me.”
[19]Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one?”
[20]He replied, “It is one of you twelve who is eating from this bowl with me.
[21]For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
[22]As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take it, for this is my body.”
[23]And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
[24]And he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
[25]I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”
[26]Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

Alright.
Notice that they were partaking in the Sadir meal.

Notice that they were partaking of what was expected to be a Seder.

Notice that they eat first and they drink first. It is after that he makes the comment about his body and blood..

It doesn't matter; he clearly spoke of the elements as being his body in the usual sense.
.

The context lets us know he's not being literal. We know that the Sadir meal calls Jews to remember the Passover and the lamb that was slain.

...and there apparently was no lamb in this case UNLESS it is Christ, the Lamb of God. At any rate, we see that it is not a routine Seder.

 

[Josiah]

..which is one reason for thinking of the body and blood as changed in a supernatural (not symbolic, note) way, rather than in a literal, physical, "carnal" way, which is a purely Medieval idea that came along during the age when alchemy and magic fascinated the imagination.

The texts say NOTHING about any elements changing....

The texts say NOTHING about anything supernatural.

IMO, the meaning of "is" nearly always is "is."

 

[Josiah]

THIS thread is about what Lutheranism teaches; I don't think it's a debate forum but an informational one.

There IS a thread where the 3 major modern Western views of the Eucharist are conveyed, it is here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical The opening post there is as follows:

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. 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



SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many "Evangelical" denominations


This view is association with Zwingli.

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

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:


LUTHERAN: 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.


EVANGELICAL: 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.



.

IF you wish to debate the 3 views, I recommend you do so in the thread on that




- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

The texts say NOTHING about any elements changing....[/quote If they later are not, in substance, what they started out as, the word "changed" is entirely appropriate.

[quoted The texts say NOTHING about anything supernatural.

I should think that we would all recognize that such developments as God making a covenant with a chosen people and Christ giving his life for the remission of the sins of the world (which are both referred to by him during the Last Supper narrative) are inherently supernatural.

 

[MennoSota]

Mark 14:16-26
[16]So the two disciples went into the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and they prepared the Passover meal there.
[17]In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
[18]As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me.”
[19]Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one?”
[20]He replied, “It is one of you twelve who is eating from this bowl with me.
[21]For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
[22]As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take it, for this is my body.”
[23]And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
[24]And he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
[25]I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”
[26]Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

Notice that they were partaking of what was expected to be a Seder.

It doesn't matter; he clearly spoke of the elements as being his body in the usual sense.
.

...and there apparently was no lamb in this case UNLESS it is Christ, the Lamb of God. At any rate, we see that it is not a routine Seder.

Do this...literally?
No. Do this in remembrance of me. Just as all Jews remembered the Passover. The symbolism is great.
Jews never, ever, drank blood. Never. To call it the literal blood is to miss all of the truth of Israel and the Passover.
Again, if Jesus is being literal here, then why is the judgment of the sheep and the goats not literal as well? Be consistent and interpret everything literally.
The context of the Sadir meal is very clear that Jesus is not being literal.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

THIS thread is about what Lutheranism teaches; I don't think it's a debate forum but an informational one.

There IS a thread where the 3 major modern Western views of the Eucharist are conveyed, it is here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical The opening post there is as follows:






IF you wish to debate the 3 views, I recommend you do so in the thread on that




- Josiah



.

I did. I offered also a fourth alternative: the Memorial view.

 

[Albion]

MennoSota,

Do this...literally?

'Do this' as opposed to not doing it (the symbolic view).

No. Do this in remembrance of me. Just as all Jews remembered the Passover. The symbolism is great.

None of the 3, 4, or 5 main views on the subject deny that there is a symbolic and memorial aspect to the sacrament. That isn't an issue here.

Jews never, ever, drank blood. Never. To call it the literal blood is to miss all of the truth of Israel and the Passover.

If so, you have an issue with the Catholics and Lutherans, but not with the doctrine of the Real Presence, which has been the dominant view of the sacrament since the first century..

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota,

'Do this' as opposed to not doing it (the symbolic view).


None of the 3, 4, or 5 main views on the subject deny that there is a symbolic and memorial aspect to the sacrament. That isn't an issue here.

If so, you have an issue with the Catholics and Lutherans, but not with the doctrine of the Real Presence, which has been the dominant view of the sacrament since the first century..

Share the 1st century beliefs of real presence written by disciples of the Apostles. I have read early texts, but I would like to see the sources you are referring to. The Bible does not teach a doctrine of real presence, though you and others infer it by forcing a literal interpretation into the text.
I find it interesting that in this issue, there is a demand to take the passages literally, yet on infant baptism their is a demand to create a doctrine from silence.
Lutherans and Romans are an enigma in these matters.

 

[Albion]

Share the 1st century beliefs of real presence written by disciples of the Apostles. I have read early texts, but I would like to see the sources you are referring to.

A number of the Early Church Fathers spoke, unequivocally, about the bread being changed in some way, of it now being special bread, and of it being the Lord's body in some sense. That establishes a belief, during the Apostolic era, in the Real Presence, although it doesn't answer all the questions about how to understand it or how it occurs.

The Bible does not teach a doctrine of real presence...

That's strictly a matter of interpretation.

I find it interesting that in this issue, there is a demand to take the passages literally, yet on infant baptism their is a demand to create a doctrine from silence.

I do not believe that is correct to say. The majority of the world's Christians (who do believe in and practice infant Baptism) certainly do refer to various Bible verses for support. I believe that they have all been quoted here at one time or another.

 

[MennoSota]

A number of the Early Church Fathers spoke, unequivocally, about the bread being changed in some way, of it now being special bread, and of it being the Lord's body in some sense. That establishes a belief, during the Apostolic era, in the Real Presence, although it doesn't answer all the questions about how to understand it or how it occurs.


That's strictly a matter of interpretation.


I do not believe that is correct to say. The majority of the world's Christians (who do believe in and practice infant Baptism) certainly do refer to various Bible verses for support. I believe that they have all been quoted here at one time or another.

Any documents to share?

 

[Albion]

Any documents to share?

I'd have to do a search to find them again. I'm sure neither of us would have a lot of difficulty if we did that.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's a blog presenting a number of 2nd century writers views on the Eucharist. The author is refuting transubstantiation, not consubstantiation, but in our context, I think it is worth the read.

Conclusion
The church of the first three centuries, indeed, did not possess a real presence doctrine; the writings of the church fathers from that era certainly portray that. In particular, Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen explicitly deny that such a doctrine could have existed.
*The real presence doctrine of the Catholic Church was, in fact, unheard of in the early centuries of the Christian church. It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.

*https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

 

[Albion]

Well, "Brian Culliton" clearly does not understand the issue(s), so I'd recommend that you find something more authoritative than some blog entry.

 

[Lamb]

Here's a blog presenting a number of 2nd century writers views on the Eucharist. The author is refuting transubstantiation, not consubstantiation, but in our context, I think it is worth the read.

*https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

Lutherans don't believe in consubstantiation. You haven't been paying attention to our posts.

 

[MennoSota]

Lutherans don't believe in consubstantiation. You haven't been paying attention to our posts.

Really, you believe like the Romans, in transubstantiation?

 

[MennoSota]

"Luther did teach that the body and blood of Christ are present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine, and present-day Lutherans hold to this statement while disagreeing about its exact meaning. Some Lutherans do use the term "consubstantiation" to refer to this belief."
https://www.theopedia.com/consubstantiation

 

[Albion]

Really, you believe like the Romans, in transubstantiation?

You know better than that, I believe.

Lutherans are usually said to believe in Consubstantiation because of the "In, With, and Under" kind of explanation that's used to explain why they do NOT accept Transubstantiation. "Con," meaning "with" in Latin, seems an appropriate term, and "Trans" absolutely wouldn't fit the Lutheran view, but Lutherans sometimes say that "Consubstantiaton" is what Anglicans believe (which, to me, makes no sense at all).

This theology stuff is a piece of cake, isn't it? :wink:

 

[Lamb]

Consubstantiation is NOT what Lutherans believe. Lutherans believe in a sacramental union. See the Lutheran Confessions where you will not find any term of consubstantiation.

Consubstantiation is defined as the Lord's body and blood coexists with the bread and wine as if the body and blood were located somewhere in the bread and wine. That is not what Lutherans believe. Lutherans believe that the bread is Christ's body...and it is bread. The wine is Christ's blood and it is wine.