Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Paul

[1689Dave]

@Albion


He DOES seem to have a curious approach to Scripture and theology: To quote Scripture and put a "NOT" in front of proclamations it makes. He seems to see that invisible "not" almost everywhere. It all seems to boil down to what "CANNOT" be true according to his all wise, smarter-than-God, estimation of himself. Fortunately, he doesn't take that as far as the agnostic but he's on that tract. I pray (I mean that), he'll step back... stop swallowing whole and without thought the radical websites he's reading... and accept Scripture and the historic Christian faith.

Jesus had words for the "doubting Thomas."


Blessings on your Advent season!!


- Josiah


.

Your problem is that you present an interpretation that scripture does not mention. If you think it does, quote it.

 

[1689Dave]

Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican said Christ is in heaven and must remain there until he returns at the end of the world. So he cannot be involved in the eucharist elements. But more importantly, He is no longer flesh and blood (it cannot inherit the Kingdom where He dwells). He is of a glorified Spiritual essence since the ascension. So this really rules out the Eucharistic claims of his flesh and blood being in or becoming the eucharist.

 

[Albion]

Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican said Christ is in heaven and must remain there until he returns at the end of the world. So he cannot be involved in the eucharist elements.

When, exactly, did Thomas Cranmer become your infallible authority, replacing the Bible??

But more importantly, He is no longer flesh and blood (it cannot inherit the Kingdom where He dwells).

And now, in order to deny the Real Presence, you have to also deny the Creeds and the Bible's testimony concerning the Ascension. I wonder where this will lead to next.

He is of a glorified Spiritual essence since the ascension.

His physical body was in a glorified condition at the time of the Resurrection.

There is quite a lot of testimony in Scripture to that fact. Of course, people doubted it. You doubt it. But he proved it to be so in a number of instances, as the Bible records.

That was the body which ascended to heaven and was seated on the right hand of the Father.

 

[1689Dave]

When, exactly, did Thomas Cranmer become your infallible authority, replacing the Bible??



And now, in order to deny the Real Presence, you have to also deny the Creeds and the Bible's testimony concerning the Ascension. I wonder where this will lead to next.


His physical body was in a glorified condition at the time of the Resurrection.

There is quite a lot of testimony in Scripture to that fact. Of course, people doubted it. You doubt it. But he proved it to be so in a number of instances, as the Bible records.

That was the body which ascended to heaven and was seated on the right hand of the Father.

He died for His beliefs. Have you ever suffered for the faith?

 

[Josiah]

He didn't say what you make him out to say.

The Lutheran position here is simply the exact echo of what Jesus and Paul said, simply the repeat of the words of Scripture. Believed rather than denied.

"Bread" means bread. Every time.
"Wine/cup" means wine. Every time.
"Is" means is. Every time.
"Body" means body. Every time.
"Blood" means blood. Every time.
"Forgiveness" means forgiveness. Every time.

No spin.
No interpretation.
No explanations.
Acceptance, not denial.


This of course is the exact opposite of the Zwinglian view, now popular among Calvinist/Reformed Christians. They love to put the word "NOT" in front of proclamations in Scripture, they quite often insert NOT into the text so that it reads the exact opposite, so that it contradicts what the Spirit inspired. And they do that here, too. "NOT" is. "NOT" Body. "NOT" blood. They do this with several things. Okay. But it's absurd to argue that's what Lutherans do here.

Dave, you began this thread at least implying that you simply wanted to understand the Lutheran position (especially vis-a-vis Transubstantiation). I think that was done. If you have specific questions regarding what is stated in posts 4, 6 or 8, you may ask them. But friend, we both know it's absurd to insist Lutherans are denying the words of the text, that we are inserting "NOT" into it and then forming our theology entirely from the word we insert to negate what is stated.



.

 

[1689Dave]

The Lutheran position here is simply the exact echo of what Jesus and Paul said, simply the repeat of the words of Scripture. Believed rather than denied.

"Bread" means bread. Every time.
"Wine/cup" means wine. Every time.
"Is" means is. Every time.
"Body" means body. Every time.
"Blood" means blood. Every time.
"Forgiveness" means forgiveness. Every time.

No spin.
No interpretation.
No explanations.
Acceptance, not denial.


This of course is the exact opposite of the Zwinglian view, now popular among Calvinist/Reformed Christians. They love to put the word "NOT" in front of proclamations in Scripture, they quite often insert NOT into the text so that it reads the exact opposite, so that it contradicts what the Spirit inspired. And they do that here, too. "NOT" is. "NOT" Body. "NOT" blood. They do this with several things. Okay. But it's absurd to argue that's what Lutherans do here.

Dave, you began this thread at least implying that you simply wanted to understand the Lutheran position (especially vis-a-vis Transubstantiation). I think that was done. If you have specific questions regarding what is stated in posts 4, 6 or 8, you may ask them. But friend, we both know it's absurd to insist Lutherans are denying the words of the text, that we are inserting "NOT" into it and then forming our theology entirely from the word we insert to negate what is stated.



.

You have no scripture to support your interpretation. Zero. Not any more than the hyper-literalists Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers.

 

[Josiah]

You have no scripture to support your interpretation.

There is no interpretation in the Lutheran position.
The words ON THE PAGE, as the Spirit inspired them, are simply echoed. Believed. Accepted.

It is the Zwinglian position that "interprets" them by denying it, by inserting (by "interpretation") the whole basis of their new dogma, the insertion of the word "NOT" into what Jesus said, Paul wrote and the Spirit inspired.

There is no Scripture that states Zwingli's position.
And nothing before the 16th Century in Christian faith that holds to it.

Zwingli (for the first time in 1500 years) concluded that what the Bible says cannot be true. So, he just inserted "NOT" into the text at several places in order to deny the words - and form a basis for his new view. You can echo him (as I expect you do), and that's fine but clearly, Lutherans are accepting and echoing the words exactly as they appear verbatim in black-and-white words on the page, as Jesus said, as Paul wrote, as the Spirit inspired. It's you "interpreting" (or better, spinning) the words. I think we all realize that.

Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers

I never cease to be surprised by the abundance of your logical fallicies... False Equivalence like this just shows your empty hand.

Look, if you too feel that what Scripture clearly states just is impossible, can't be true, and so want to follow Zwingli in inserting a lot of "NOT" into the text, okay. But it's not the Lutherans denying and doubting and insisting Jesus' words cannot be true, we aren't the ones spinning the words, we're echoing them, believing them, accepting them - as all Christians did until Zwingli came along.





.

 

[1689Dave]

There is no interpretation in the Lutheran position.
The words ON THE PAGE, as the Spirit inspired them, are simply echoed. Believed. Accepted.

It is the Zwinglian position that "interprets" them by denying it, by inserting (by "interpretation") the whole basis of their new dogma, the insertion of the word "NOT" into what Jesus said, Paul wrote and the Spirit inspired.

There is no Scripture that states Zwingli's position. And nothing before the 16th Century in Christian faith that holds to it.
We all know this.

Zwingli (for the first time in 1500 years) concluded that what the Bible says cannot be true. So, he just inserted "NOT" into the text at several places in order to deny the words - and form a basis for his new view. You can echo him (as I expect you do), and that's fine but clearly, Lutherans are accepting and echoing the words exactly as they appear verbatim in black-and-white words on the page, as Jesus said, as Paul wrote, as the Spirit inspired. It's you "interpreting" (or better, spinning) the words. I think we all realize that.


.

It's all your interpretation unsupported by scripture. What about Jesus in heaven with a glorified human body, where flesh and blood cannot enter? Until he returns at the end of the world?

 

[Albion]

No spin.
No interpretation.
No explanations.
Acceptance, not denial.

Something happened to the bread Jesus was holding--and then the contents of the cup--for him to have given these to his Apostles and then said of them that they were his body and blood.

In view of what he goes on to say about these elements (forgive sins, for instance), this cannot mean they became mere symbols of his body and blood.

 

[1689Dave]

It's all your interpretation unsupported by scripture. What about Jesus in heaven with a glorified human body, where flesh and blood cannot enter? Until he returns at the end of the world?

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2 (KJV 1900)

“As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 1 Corinthians 15:48–50 (KJV 1900)

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” Colossians 3:1 (KJV 1900)

 

[Josiah]

In view of what he goes on to say about these elements (forgive sins, for instance), this cannot mean they became mere symbols of his body and blood.

@Albion


Exactly!!!

And of course, Paul's point in what he states in 1 Corinthians 11:17-26. It comes in 11:27-30 (the part Zwinglians always neglect to mention): "Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. This is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." Now, we could discuss the ill and died part, but the obvious, undeniable point is that taking this wrongly is pretty serious! Does the Bible say the same of foot washing (a symbolic act)? Seems that if participating in this wrongly can result in death, that implies it's more than a symbol.



@1689Dave

our problem is that you present an interpretation

Dave, obviously, I'm not "interpreting" anything - I'm just verbatim quoting the words the Holy Spirit put there. Just echoing exactly what God states. And it seems that really upset you; you seem to feel compelled to insert that "NOT" also into the text, so as to get God to say the opposite of what He did. (You put that "NOT" in lots of places, Calvinists LOVE to insert that into texts). Your problem, Dave, is not with what me and what Lutherans state as they just echo God. Your problem is with God. Your problem is with what God said. You gotta correct Him by forcing Him to say the opposite of what He did.



.

 

[Faith]

You have no scripture to support your interpretation. Zero. Not any more than the hyper-literalists Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers.

You’re offensive.

 

[1689Dave]

You’re offensive.

Not to those who love the truth.

 

[1689Dave]

Not to those who love the truth.

Insults only show a person's true nature.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Consubstantiation

The Lutheran view is called consubstantiation (or the real-presence or mystical-presence view). After consecration, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine; however, the real, physical body and blood of Jesus are, as the Lutheran confessions put it, present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. The bread and wine are not the body and blood of Jesus, but they do contain his body and blood.

Transubstantiation

As to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, the Roman Catholic view is called transubstantiation: During the Mass, when the priest consecrates the bread, it actually becomes Christ’s physical body, and when he consecrates the wine, it actually becomes Christ’s physical blood.

Aaron, D. (2012). Understanding Theology in 15 Minutes a Day (pp. 187–188). Bethany House Publishers.

Anglican Thomas Chalmers essentially said Christ is in heaven until the day of His return. So He cannot be in the bread and cup. “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 1900)

Also, does it mean Christ did not come in the flesh if this is the human flesh he supposedly came in? John says whoever denies that Christ came in the flesh is an Antichrist.

It seems that if anyone should be able to interpret Christ’s difficult passages on the Eucharist, it should be Paul. “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, “that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 (KJV 1900)

Notice He says “this is the New Testament in my blood”. It does not mean the wine changes into the New Testament, it represents the New Testament in his blood on the cross. Nor does it mean that His blood, instead of the New Testament, is present in the wine. A DNA test should not be necessary to prove either, but none are willing to prove what they say is true by using it.

Christ does not say what Transubstantiationists or Consubstantiationists say. He says the bread and cup are for remembrance sake. “This do in remembrance of me”.

Paul in scolding the gluttons from Corinth for abusing the communion service Said: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Corinthians 11:26–29 (KJV 1900) The NLT says: “For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29 (NLT)

So many words and all of them playing at a child's game to pretend that Jesus didn't say "this is my body" and "this is the new testament in my blood". It takes only 11 words to refute your many words.

 

[1689Dave]

So many words and all of them playing at a child's game to pretend that Jesus didn't say "this is my body" and "this is the new testament in my blood". It takes only 11 words to refute your many words.

all it means is that some "change the truth" when necessary.

 

[MoreCoffee]

all it means is that some "change the truth" when necessary.

It means 11 words refutes your post's hundreds.

Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said: "Take and eat. This is my body." And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: "Drink from this, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink again from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father."​

Matthew 26:26-29
The underlined words are the 12 that refute your complicated man made doctrine.

 

[1689Dave]

It means 11 words refutes your post's hundreds.

Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said: "Take and eat. This is my body." And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: "Drink from this, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink again from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father."​

Matthew 26:26-29
The underlined words are the 12 that refute your complicated man made doctrine.

Thomas Cranmer used the eucharist to prove the papacy is Antichrist. I have an article on it in Is the Antichrist in your church?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thomas Cranmere used the eucharist to prone the papacy is Antichrist. I have an article on it in Is the Antichrist in your church?

Wasn't he a former Catholic bishop, who signed a paper to approve a divorce, and later signed another paper to approve the King becoming the supreme head of the church in England, then later still abjured his signatures, and later again abjured his former abjuration only to be burned as a heretic. A tragic end for a man of unsteady doctrine. Is he your model?

 

[1689Dave]

Wasn't he a former Catholic bishop, who signed a paper to approve a divorce, and later signed another paper to approve the King becoming the supreme head of the church in England, then later still abjured his signatures, and later again abjured his former abjuration only to be burned as a heretic. A tragic end for a man of unsteady doctrine. Is he your model?

He was Anglican, murdered by Bloody Mary, supposedly Catholic.