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

[user1234]

Silly, yes. I was being a bit of a smart aleck with my reply but you don't quite catch the irony.

Solo scriptura=bible only in it's self is a misnomer in and of it self. The translation version itself that might be used is rot with interpretation not to mention the lens/paradigm the reader or preacher is wearing and interpreting it as. This is not found in the early church or scripture. This is what Roman catholics and Orthodox keep arguing. They would argue that the proper interpretation of scripture is Scripture and their brand of Holy Tradition. Therefore by a process of elimination solo scriptura would had to of arose from within the broader Protestant family. Heck you could even include J.W's as solo scriptura.

Now sola scriptura as property defined tries in encompass the original meaning being related in the scripture using the culture, ecumenical creeds, writings of the ECF's ..... to get a proper interpretation of scripture but not excepting anything not reinforced in scripture or contradicting it.

Thanks, tigger, .... You know, I kind of thought as much from you, yes, I was catching the bit of smart-aleckiness (is that a word?) and not in a mean way, and especially coming from you I wasnt figuring on that, so thanks, ..... it's just that some folks have been rather abrupt and a bit unfriendly towards me, and then it gets hard to divide good-natured sarcasm from nastiness or mean-spiritedness, and I sure didnt want to even think that way about you, so I really do appreciate you clearing that up, I mean that very sincerely.

The reason I questioned that graphic you posted, is because it does seem from what I've experienced over the years, that when the term, 'the protestants' gets used, it's nearly always derogatory, and I really don't know what it's supposed to stand for, or who the OTHERs are who would be considered 'NOT the protestants'. And are these also self-ascribed labels, or just labels that one group puts on another?

For example, when the term 'christian' was first used, it was a label ascribed by non-believers onto the saved believers in Jesus as a sort of insult. It wasn't a compliment, it meant 'little christs' basically, and the ppl of 'the Way' were called 'christians' with a sneering tone.

But of course it soon became a term of endearment to the millions who Jesus saved, and though some may still use it with contempt, most people are glad to be called that, if it means being associated with our Saviour. (I try to avoid labels if I can, personally, but it's not always practical)

But, on the other hand, if a person self-identifies with a certain group or organization, then it's not an insult to refer to them as that.

When I saw that post, I had to click on it to see what it was, and when I read what it said about sola scriptura and 'the protestants' , I just wanted to know what was the intent of what was written in the graphic, and since you posted it without any commentary, I was hoping you could lend me some insight into it.

I still dont really know what the whole protestant label is supposed to mean in these days, but I wasn't really meaning to question you're position, moreso the position in the graphic.

As far as sola scriptura, I will address Turtlehares reply to my post in another one.
Thanks again, brother, for clearing up at least part of it for me.

 

[user1234]

Why would it make sense to use some modern advertisement to figure out the text of ancient biblical documents? ;P Let us depart with modern language and revert back to what is at hand and that is what God has had written for us so now let us look to see if there is anywhere else where "is" is used in metaphor and we find there is no such instance.

Let us also while we're at it look to see what else Jesus says that isn't metaphor which is my body given for you and then I ask if you do not believe that Jesus body was given to die for you or was that only metaphor as well since your taking the script as metaphor?

The answer to this last question was already answered in the post directly above it, #77, but perhaps you missed it, so I will post it again. Of COURSE I believe Jesus died for my sins. All of them. And yours, too. And He rose from the grave and He's coming again! I say it all the time here, I'm rather surprised to be asked that question at this point, lol, but I'm happy to answer it again. That truth is what saved me and is really the only thing that can. The gospel of our salvation ... Jesus shed His blood and died for our sins, He rose from the grave and is coming again. Hallelujah!

Your first question I explaned many times, not sure why some folks are having a hard time getting it. I haven't used modern ads to find the meaning of ancient texts, lol, where did you get THAT idea?
I used the ad to show how the term 'This is...' can be used to mean something figurative, not necessarily literal. Of COURSE it's not your brains, it's an egg in a pan.
How about if someone says, 'This is my chair' Come sit on my chair, and we will partake of sitting on my chair together.
But the person is sitting on a log on the woods. Or a pile of laundry. But to him, it's his chair, even though it didn't suddenly turn into a nice custom-made recliner ..... it's still a pile of laundry, even though he said, 'This is my chair' and your both sitting on it, and it serves a purpose as a chair.

Yes, analogies can be iffy, and not exact, but the point should be clear.
The use of the term 'This is ...' does not necessitate a literalness, it can be figurative.
When Jesus said, 'Take and eat, THIS IS my body...', He wasn't literally holding His own body in His hands, He was holding a loaf of passover bread, which He would then break, in demonstration that His own body would be broken for us. (And His blood would be shed, as demonstrated in the wine being poured out).

As for metaphors, the bible has many, do we really need to list them, or is that accepted as an obvious fact. (I believe Rens listed some in an earlier post, also)
- - - - - - - - - -
~Here's my post from earlier that you may have missed.~

~The blood of Jesus DOES save. The blood He shed at the cross, not because He was bleeding, but because He shed His blood unto death.
Our sin required the payment of death. Jesus died for us.
The sacrifice was complete and accepted by God on our behalf, as proven by the empty tomb.
It's the shed blood and death at the cross that saved us, we are saved by FAITH in THAT blood He shed, not by DRINKING things.~

God has chosen to deliver the forgiveness won at the cross by His word, through baptism (which is His word and water) and the Lord's Supper (which is His body and blood shed for us for the forgiveness of sins).

We do not say that our drinking or eating is what gives us forgiveness. In Holy Communion we are actually in communion with God whose blood was shed for us for our forgiveness.

*See above* ... Salvation, forgiveness, etc. is by faith, not by literal physical eating/drinking. Agreed? I hope? But I don't believe we get forgiveness by water-baptism or communion wafers, but by His grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross and the empty tomb, the Risen Saviour.

Your last statement, I'm not sure what you mean.
Are we not in communion with God by faith as well, through prayer, reading His Word, by His Spirit being with us, and in us as saved believers?
The very announcement of the Name of Jesus proclaims Emannuel, God with us.
'Thou shall call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins'.
So let's praise the Lord and rejoice together in God our Saviour for this great thing He has done! :=D: Peace.

 

[Lamb]

Snerfle, as turtlehare said you're using modern language and not what is found in the bible. There is no proof of Jesus saying "This is..." for anything as a metaphor in scripture to back up your belief. That is modern thinking to apply it as a metaphor.

Faith comes by hearing and this by God's word. God's word is found in the waters of baptism. That is why baptism gives faith. God's word is found in the Lord's Supper because we have the Lord himself in communion with us. Were not the Israelites strengthened by the manna in the desert? Why would God ever give us an ordinance that was empty?

 

[user1234]

Snerfle, as turtlehare said you're using modern language and not what is found in the bible. There is no proof of Jesus saying "This is..." for anything as a metaphor in scripture to back up your belief. That is modern thinking to apply it as a metaphor.

Faith comes by hearing and this by God's word. God's word is found in the waters of baptism. That is why baptism gives faith. God's word is found in the Lord's Supper because we have the Lord himself in communion with us. Were not the Israelites strengthened by the manna in the desert? Why would God ever give us an ordinance that was empty?

That's still a misunderstanding. How is saying, 'This is ...' today, any more modern than saying, 'This is ...' 50 years ago, or 500 years ago?
When the bible was translated to English, they wrote, 'This is...' I guess it was modern language 400 years ago or whatever, but it's still 'This is...' . Then and now.

And sometimes that phrase can be literal:

Let's say there's an actual chair...
This is a chair, (and it is)

Let's say there's a real drug-infected brain, in a jar. (play along. No I'm not a mad scientist, lol.)(maybe) ...
This is a brain on drugs, (and it is)

Let's say I'm pointing to my chest, my arms, my legs ...
This is my body, (and it is)

And sometimes the phrase can be figurative:

Let's say there's a pile of laundry, someone's sitting on it ...
This is a chair, (But it's actually a pile of laundry)

Let's say there's a pan with an egg frying in it ...
This is a brain on drugs, (But it's actually an egg in a pan)

Let's say there's a loaf of passover bread ...
This is my body, (But it's actually a loaf of bread)

'This is' can be literal.
'This is' can be figurative.

I believe the Bible is using it in the figurative sense, because Jesus' literal body was sitting right there. The phrase, 'This is my body...' was a referring to the bread in His hands, so the phrase was used figuratively in reference to the bread.

 

[Rens]

Snerfle, as turtlehare said you're using modern language and not what is found in the bible. There is no proof of Jesus saying "This is..." for anything as a metaphor in scripture to back up your belief. That is modern thinking to apply it as a metaphor.

Faith comes by hearing and this by God's word. God's word is found in the waters of baptism. That is why baptism gives faith. God's word is found in the Lord's Supper because we have the Lord himself in communion with us. Were not the Israelites strengthened by the manna in the desert? Why would God ever give us an ordinance that was empty?

It's not modern thinking. He was not in the bread and wine when He said that to His disciples and it was not His literal blood and body, cause He was alive in their midst. So why would He now all of a sudden when He already lives in me (that's eat my flesh and drink My blood: abide in Me, He says in John 6), be in the bread and wine? He also said we are His body.

 

[Josiah]

It's not modern thinking. He was not in the bread and wine when He said that to His disciples and it was not His literal blood and body, cause He was alive in their midst. So why would He now all of a sudden when He already lives in me (that's eat my flesh and drink My blood: abide in Me, He says in John 6), be in the bread and wine? He also said we are His body.

John 6 is not about Holy Communion.

 

[user1234]

John 6 is not about Holy Communion.

How much does it matter , if at all, if a person does NOT believe in the 'presence' in the wafer?

 

[user1234]

How much does it matter , if at all, if a person does NOT believe in the 'presence' in the wafer?

And I'll ask, how much does it matter for a saved person, and for an unsaved person?

 

[Tigger]

John 6 is not about Holy Communion.

Although I respectfully disagree with both you and Dr Luther on this one understanding the context is faith, I plan to no longer use it as a defense for the teaching of the real presence to someone who doesn't except the teaching clearly demonstrated in scriptures concerning Holy Communion. It only serves to muddy the conversation and gives them something to cling to.

 

[user1234]

Why do so many questions seem to be unanswered or ignored?

 

[atpollard]

So the Calvinists do not believe in the Real Presence because they believe that one of Christ's natures is stuck someplace? At God's right hand? You do know God is everywhere. Right?

Since you asked, I offer the following:

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

66. What are the Sacraments?
The Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals, appointed by God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.

67. Are both these, then, the Word and the Sacraments, designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
Yes truly; for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.

68. How many Sacraments has Christ appointed in the New Testament?
Two: Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.

****

75. How is it signified and sealed unto thee in the Holy Supper that thou dost partake of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross and all His benefits?
Thus; that Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, and has joined therewith these promises: First, that His body was offered, and broken on the cross for me, and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that, with His crucified body and shed blood, He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister, and taste with my mouth, the bread and cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.

76. What is it to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?
It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the suffering and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life; but moreover also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that although He is in heaven, and we on the earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are governed for ever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.

77. Where has Christ promised that He will thus feed and nourish believers with His body and blood, as certainly as they eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup?
In the institution of the Supper, which runs thus: The Lord Jesus Christ, 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 often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.

And this promise is repeated also by St. Paul, where he says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.

78. Do then the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ?
No: but as the water, in Baptism, is not changed into the blood of Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins itself, being only the divine token and assurance thereof, so also, in the Lord’s Supper, the sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though agreeably to the nature and usage of sacraments it is called the body of Christ.

79. Why then doth Christ call the bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the New Testament in His blood; and St. Paul, the communion of the body and blood of Christ?
Christ speaks thus not without great cause: namely, not only to teach us thereby, that, like as the bread and wine sustain this temporal life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink of our souls unto life eternal; but much more, by this visible sign and pledge to assure us, that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood, through the working of the Holy Ghost, as we receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of Him; and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own, as if we had ourselves suffered and done all in our own person.

While our Lutheran and Catholic brothers will certainly disagree, can you honestly say that what 'Calvinists' believe somehow dishonors God?

 

[atpollard]

I think all the quotes Tigger offered clearly show an affirmation of Real Presence.

Here's what a two minute internet search brought up.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
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)

... and here is the first quote in the context of the entire seventh paragraph of his letter:

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

What a surprise, what St. Ignatius was talking about had nothing to do with the sacrament of the Eucharist. Did it?

(That's the problem with a two minute Internet search that 'proves' that all of the early church fathers believed in the physical presence in the bread and the wine. It yields statements taken out of context that 'prove' nothing but bias and dishonesty by the people creating internet pages.)

 

[user1234]

Thanks atpollard for post #91. There's so much of this kind of stuff I just dont know about. That explanation makes a lot of sense. I'm still having a hard time understanding what some folks mean by 'the real presence' in the communion 'elements'.
I mean, in the sense some say Christ being in all things, I'm not sure even what THAT means, but as a special way being IN the elements, what do they mean by that?

I just don't see how Jesus was saying He was in the bread and wine, only that as the bread was broken and the wine was poured (out), so were His own body and blood about to be. Any way you can help me see this more clearly would be greatly appreciated.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks atpollard for post #91. There's so much of this kind of stuff I just dont know about. That explanation makes a lot of sense. I'm still having a hard time understanding what some folks mean by 'the real presence' in the communion 'elements'. I mean, in the sense some say Christ being in all things, I'm not sure even what THAT means, but as a special way being IN the elements, what do they mean by that?

I just don't see how Jesus was saying He was in the bread and wine, only that as the bread was broken and the wine was poured (out), so were His own body and blood about to be. Any way you can help me see this more clearly would be greatly appreciated.

I do not believe that there are any elements after the consecration. There are gifts of bread and wine brought to the altar and the prayer of consecration and then there is the body and Christ and the blood of Christ whole and entire along with his soul and divinity. The real presence is the presence of Christ wholly and completely.

 

[user1234]

I do not believe that there are any elements after the consecration. There are gifts of bread and wine brought to the altar and the prayer of consecration and then there is the body and Christ and the blood of Christ whole and entire along with his soul and divinity. The real presence is the presence of Christ wholly and completely.

Christ's body rose from the grave, walked talked, even ate among us, went up into heaven, is coming again. His blood was shed at the cross.
How is it that 2000 years later His body and blood are in millions of wafers around the world, (but not for everybody, of course) ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Christ's body rose from the grave, walked talked, even ate among us, went up into heaven, is coming again. His blood was shed at the cross.
How is it that 2000 years later His body and blood are in millions of wafers around the world, (but not for everybody, of course) ?

I do not know how God achieves his miracles but I believe him. Jesus said "this is my body" and he said "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" if I believe him for the forgiveness of sins then I shall also believe him when he says this is my body and this is my blood of the covenant. That is what faith is about. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. I am convicted about the unseen presence of the Lord in communion.

 

[user1234]

I do not know how God achieves his miracles but I believe him. Jesus said "this is my body" and he said "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" if I believe him for the forgiveness of sins then I shall also believe him when he says this is my body and this is my blood of the covenant. That is what faith is about. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. I am convicted about the unseen present of the Lord in communion.

That seems an honest enough answer, and I agree, the faith itself is the substance and the evidence.

As I see it in scripture, it's putting faith in the unseen God and His Word, His promises, that counts, just like the list of our elders shows in that great Hall of Faith chapter you referenced.

He shed His blood on the cross, we have faith that His sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to cleanse us from our sin and declare us righteous. Unseen but true.

He rose from the grave, and we have faith that He's alive forevermore, and we worship and serve the true and living God and Saviour. Unseen but true.

He promised to come again and take us to be with Him, and we have faith that His Word is true and He keeps His promises. Unseen, as yet, but true.

He also said He would send His Holy Spirit to dwell with us and in us, and again we have faith in His Word of truth and promise. Unseen but true.

We have faith that He saved us, and is with us, not in things seen like communion wafers, but in things unseen like His grace, His mercy, and His love.

 

[Rens]

John 6 is not about Holy Communion.

No but there He explains what He means with that saying.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No but there He explains what He means with that saying.

John 6:22-71 is about eating Jesus. It's about eternal life. It's about receiving Christ. It is John's explanation of the holy Eucharist. Just like John 1:1-18 is about the incarnation. It is about the birth of the Lord in human flesh. It is about the advent of the saviour.

 

[Lamb]

Christ's body rose from the grave, walked talked, even ate among us, went up into heaven, is coming again. His blood was shed at the cross.
How is it that 2000 years later His body and blood are in millions of wafers around the world, (but not for everybody, of course) ?

Christ is God.

We could also ask how God created the world out of nothing. Or how God can hear all our prayers all at once. There are so many things God can do that we cannot simply figure out. How does God keep track of who has faith or who has turned away?

You see, God has said This is my body. He did not say this represents. That would have been a different word. He did not say this is like my body. He could have. But he did not.