Communion of the Body of Christ

[Lamb]

Right. All it means is thanks or thanksgiving. It has nothing to do with a sacrament where there is an alleged giving of grace because of an action by a human.
Therefore, it is an term that we should forego because it has been misapplied by the Roman Catholic Church.

Even though the term is derived from scripture...the verses we're discussing...you think it should just be cast aside because you don't believe in Real Presence?

 

[Particular]

Even though the term is derived from scripture...the verses we're discussing...you think it should just be cast aside because you don't believe in Real Presence?

Nope. Other synonyms should be used because Rome has a twisted concept of grace. Perhaps we can use Thanks or Thanksgiving to better convey the meaning.
As for real presence, I have told you that Jesus is really present with us. What doesn't happen is the communion wafer doesn't become Jesus flesh nor does the wine become his blood. That, unfortunately is what the man-made concept of real presence actually is.
Lutherans, well, Lutherans live in a limbo world of mystery where real doesn't actually mean real.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Right. All it means is thanks or thanksgiving. It has nothing to do with a sacrament where there is an alleged giving of grace because of an action by a human.
Therefore, it is an term that we should forego because it has been misapplied by the Roman Catholic Church.

If you go with that understanding, that it's just a remembrance or symbolic ritual, then no sins are forgiven by God by observing it. It becomes all about you doing something and ceases to be about God forgiving your sins through this sacrament.

 

[Particular]

If you go with that understanding, that it's just a remembrance or symbolic ritual, then no sins are forgiven by God by observing it. It becomes all about you doing something and ceases to be about God forgiving your sins through this sacrament.

Correct. Sins are not forgiven by taking communion.
Sins are forgiven by repentance and confession. (1 John 1:9)
Communion is about remembering the atoning work of Christ by which God graciously pardons those whom he chooses to pardon.
If you come to communion with known sin that is unconfessed, you should refrain from partaking.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Correct. Sins are not forgiven by taking communion.
Sins are forgiven by repentance and confession. (1 John 1:9)
Communion is about remembering the atoning work of Christ by which God graciously pardons those whom he chooses to pardon.
If you come to communion with known sin that is unconfessed, you should refrain from partaking.

Why should anyone refrain from partaking? If Communion is just a memorial you do to remember Jesus and nothing more, as you've stated many times, what does it matter if sins are confessed or unconfessed?

I maintain that sins are forgiven as stated in Matthew 26:28. Through this sacrament the forgiveness of sins that Christ won for us by dying on the cross is delivered to the one receiving His body and His blood in Communion. It's what is known as a means of grace in Lutheran churches. In your church it's all about you acting out a performance of the Lord's Supper. It has no purpose. In churches that teach the Bible, that thing you claim you stand on, the Lord's Supper is where we go to receive forgiveness of our sins because that is oneplace where Christ has promised forgiveness of our sins will be found. In Lutheran churches before we take Communion we have already corporately confessed our sins and have received absolution for them. But we take Communion seriously.

 

[Particular]

Why should anyone refrain from partaking? If Communion is just a memorial you do to remember Jesus and nothing more, as you've stated many times, what does it matter if sins are confessed or unconfessed?

I maintain that sins are forgiven as stated in Matthew 26:28. Through this sacrament the forgiveness of sins that Christ won for us by dying on the cross is delivered to the one receiving His body and His blood in Communion. It's what is known as a means of grace in Lutheran churches. In your church it's all about you acting out a performance of the Lord's Supper. It has no purpose. In churches that teach the Bible, that thing you claim you stand on, the Lord's Supper is where we go to receive forgiveness of our sins because that is oneplace where Christ has promised forgiveness of our sins will be found. In Lutheran churches before we take Communion we have already corporately confessed our sins and have received absolution for them. But we take Communion seriously.

One refrains because one is in unconfessed sin. The Corinthians didn't refrain while being in unconfessed sin and God judged them.
You seem confused by obedience for obedience sake here. There does not have to be bread turned to human flesh or wine turned to blood for a Christian to obey what God has ordained.
As to Matthew 26:28, wow you misunderstand that verse.

"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus is referring, as a foreshadow, to his death, which was poured out for the elect so the elects sins could be forgiven. It has nothing to do with communion forgiving sins.

 

[Lamb]

Nope. Other synonyms should be used because Rome has a twisted concept of grace. Perhaps we can use Thanks or Thanksgiving to better convey the meaning.
As for real presence, I have told you that Jesus is really present with us. What doesn't happen is the communion wafer doesn't become Jesus flesh nor does the wine become his blood. That, unfortunately is what the man-made concept of real presence actually is.
Lutherans, well, Lutherans live in a limbo world of mystery where real doesn't actually mean real.

No, the term is theologically correct since it's actually derived from a word that is used in those verses pertaining to communion. Stop letting your hate of Catholics stand in the way of learning about scripturally correct language.

 

[Particular]

No, the term is theologically correct since it's actually derived from a word that is used in those verses pertaining to communion. Stop letting your hate of Catholics stand in the way of learning about scripturally correct language.

The word is correct. The theology created by the Roman Church is wrong because it calls the "giving of thanks" a sacrament, meaning that a special grace is imparted upon the recipient because of the works done by the recipient.
Paul addresses this false concept in Romans 11, verses 5 & 6.

"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

So, because of the bad theology being used, it is best not use the word eucharist since it has a false meaning today by association.

 

[Andrew]

Non-literal presence is kind of an a oxymoron, it's either literal or it's not..
Yes God is everywhere and Jesus had to descend into hades to conquer all places above and below, but there is meant a very real and literal presence in communion no matter what it's named or how it's presented.. it's still presence of the Body of Christ either Spiritually or physically (or both) regardless of whether or not it's symbolic of the seder meal/Passover meal (which was also symbolic of Israel's escape from bondage and what God had done for them)
Like Father like Son

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

One refrains because one is in unconfessed sin. The Corinthians didn't refrain while being in unconfessed sin and God judged them.
You seem confused by obedience for obedience sake here. There does not have to be bread turned to human flesh or wine turned to blood for a Christian to obey what God has ordained.
As to Matthew 26:28, wow you misunderstand that verse.

"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus is referring, as a foreshadow, to his death, which was poured out for the elect so the elects sins could be forgiven. It has nothing to do with communion forgiving sins.

I'm not confused, I simply asked why anyone should refrain from observing a symbolic ritual that doesn't do anything.

As to Matthew 26:28, how is the forgiveness that Christ won on the cross delivered to the sinner? Lutherans and others believe it is through the Word and Sacrament. Since you don't believe in the Sacraments or the forgiveness of sins through them, what is your answer to the question posed?

 

[Particular]

As to Matthew 26:28, how is the forgiveness that Christ won on the cross delivered to the sinner?

God delivers his redemption by grace, through faith, not of works, lest you should boast.
Therefore, forgiveness is not attained by performing a so-called "sacrament". Forgiveness is attained solely by God's choice to forgive. God's call to the redeemed saint is to confess our sins, because God is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us.
That means that performing a sacrament is not required for forgiveness or for God to extend grace to whomever he wills.

Lutherans and others believe it is through the Word and Sacrament. Since you don't believe in the Sacraments or the forgiveness of sins through them, what is your answer to the question posed?

See the above answer.

Forgiveness is given only to the elect saints for whom Christ died. Christ may elect to save you by any means he wishes. For Saul of Tarsus, it was by blinding light on the road to Damascus.
Only those who are made alive with Christ may partake in communion. We who are citizens of the Kingdom of God, partake in communion as a remembrance of what our King has done for us. Note: We partake, we don't "receive". The term receive implies a sacrament that God does not provide via a ceremony of works. It is too bad that communion and baptism have been profaned by turning them into works based means of causing God to give grace, rather than them being obedient acts of honor to the King for the blessed work that he has done on our behalf.
Second note: You should recognize the legalism that is inherent in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Lutheran Church. You should see it and repent since salvation is not by works, but by God's unmerited favor.

 

[Lamb]

God delivers his redemption by grace, through faith, not of works, lest you should boast.
Therefore, forgiveness is not attained by performing a so-called "sacrament". Forgiveness is attained solely by God's choice to forgive. God's call to the redeemed saint is to confess our sins, because God is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us.
That means that performing a sacrament is not required for forgiveness or for God to extend grace to whomever he wills.



See the above answer.

Forgiveness is given only to the elect saints for whom Christ died. Christ may elect to save you by any means he wishes. For Saul of Tarsus, it was by blinding light on the road to Damascus.
Only those who are made alive with Christ may partake in communion. We who are citizens of the Kingdom of God, partake in communion as a remembrance of what our King has done for us. Note: We partake, we don't "receive". The term receive implies a sacrament that God does not provide via a ceremony of works. It is too bad that communion and baptism have been profaned by turning them into works based means of causing God to give grace, rather than them being obedient acts of honor to the King for the blessed work that he has done on our behalf.
Second note: You should recognize the legalism that is inherent in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Lutheran Church. You should see it and repent since salvation is not by works, but by God's unmerited favor.

Your response shows a clear misunderstanding of how Lutherans view what a sacrament is. Perhaps it would do you well in this argument to listen to what the Lutherans are telling you instead of telling us what you've been told a sacrament is and then making meaningless arguments.

 

[Josiah]

God delivers his redemption by grace, through faith, not of works, lest you should boast.

1. This has nothing to do with your view that Jesus and Paul should have said "not" instead of "is"....


2. Yeah, why not. Since you hold that "is" actually means "is not" then why not say that body is not, blood is not, forgiveness is not. What I don't understand is why not also hold that bread is not and wine is not? I know... because you appoint you to correct where Jesus and Paul were wrong and where they were right. Amazing how the words of the texts mean NOTHING to you... you just delete any word you think is wrong. The ego of it all.... just amazing.... but kind of disturbing.


3. Something evidently your Baptist minister never taught you (or you just didn't learn). While God is able to work by "fiat" (as it is called in theology) - that is, immediately (without any means) as when He called Creation into being or perhaps John the Baptist to faith in his mother's womb (no one denies God CAN and occasionally does) act by fiat, God typically uses means. These are called "The Means of Grace." Christians have held to this for 2000 years..... Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglcans, Methodist, Reformed/Calvinist/Presbyterians and more all strongly teach this - I think most Baptists do, too. God may use MEANS and often does. It is NOT true that God will not use evangelism, missionaries, preaching, Bible study and reading, etc. because that involves human effort, it is NOT true that God forbids us to preach the Gospel because that involves human effort, it is NOT true that God forbids us to teach and baptize and love and care and serve because they involve human effort. Indeed, God not only does NOT forbid such but COMMANDS such (and I disagree that God would command sin). Your pastor MIGHT do something to prepare for his sermon and Bible study (then again, maybe he/she doesn't, I don't know) but can God USE his/her proclamation of the Gospel for His purposes? I think yes. This is what is meant by "The Means of Grace." Even a very simple, brief introduction to Christian theology would have taught you this. Luther referred to such as "Tools in the hands of the Carpenter." Tools that in and of themselves are inanimate and powerless - just lying there in the tool box - BUT in the hands of the Carpenter,the Carpenter can do GREAT things (unless you hold to a largely impotent God who can't do whatever YOU think He can't do, and you know more about what He can and can't do than He does). Now, you may disagree that Baptism IS a Means of Grace (and that's a separate discussion) but you denial of the whole concept - on this point too contradicting a virtually universal Christian teaching - is telling. And I don't know why you are also not condemning preaching, teaching, outreach, evangelism, loving, serving and more because there too, human effort is involved.

Now, I sincerely doubt you have read anything in this point.... or that it matters if you did.... but don't continue the charge that no one has tried to explain very simple, very historic Christian things to you.

That means that performing a sacrament is not required for forgiveness

See, IF you actually read what other's post, you'd KNOW what everyone else does - no one said that.

Here's a real problem with you: You seem unable or unwilling to notice the WORDS THAT EXIST. You do that (profoundly!!) with God's words and (I guess just to be fair) with EVERYONE's words. You just ignore them. Then you insert a great many words (many absurd ones you can easily refute) that no one ever said. It makes all discussion impossible.

When presented with the words of God on this, you just delete the words IS, BODY, BLOOD, FORGIVENESS. God just goofed in saying those words, YOU think (and YOU know more than God). But you don't leave it with your doubt, denials, insistence that God is just wrong, you go much further. PUTTING IN words entirely missing, words such as NOT, CHANGE, SEEMS, SYMBOL. The ego of it all. The profound disrespect.

Forgiveness is given only to the elect saints for whom Christ died... Only those who are made alive with Christ may partake in communion. We who are citizens of the Kingdom of God, partake in communion as a remembrance of what our King has done for us..... You should see it and repent since salvation is not by works, but by God's unmerited favor.

And IF you actually read the WORDS posted to you (words THERE rather than words NOT THERE), you'd know what everyone else knows: no one has argued otherwise. But your correct statement does NOT prove that Jesus and Paul misspoke, that is means is not, that what you hold cannot exist after the "is" therefore is not.

You've never offered ANYTHING to support Zwingli's radical reivention of Communion in the 16th Century, his insistence that because HE felt that what Jesus and Paul said violated HIS concept of physics, it THUS could not be true and HE had to correct what they said. You've offered NOTHING to support that. NOTHING to support "can't be true, must be metaphor" nothing to support that something is just "OBVIOUS" when nothing in the text suggest that and NOT ONE PERSON on the planet saw that at all (much less as 'obvious') for over 1500 years, all you is propose that you are so smart as to know when Jesus and Paul misspoke.... and echo the horrible accusation of PAGAN, UNBELIEVING, HATERS of Christ, perferring to stand with haters of Christ than with the words of Jesus and Paul.



- Josiah




.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

God delivers his redemption by grace, through faith, not of works, lest you should boast.
Therefore, forgiveness is not attained by performing a so-called "sacrament". Forgiveness is attained solely by God's choice to forgive. God's call to the redeemed saint is to confess our sins, because God is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us.
That means that performing a sacrament is not required for forgiveness or for God to extend grace to whomever he wills.



See the above answer.

Forgiveness is given only to the elect saints for whom Christ died. Christ may elect to save you by any means he wishes. For Saul of Tarsus, it was by blinding light on the road to Damascus.
Only those who are made alive with Christ may partake in communion. We who are citizens of the Kingdom of God, partake in communion as a remembrance of what our King has done for us. Note: We partake, we don't "receive". The term receive implies a sacrament that God does not provide via a ceremony of works. It is too bad that communion and baptism have been profaned by turning them into works based means of causing God to give grace, rather than them being obedient acts of honor to the King for the blessed work that he has done on our behalf.
Second note: You should recognize the legalism that is inherent in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Lutheran Church. You should see it and repent since salvation is not by works, but by God's unmerited favor.

This is pointless. I've told you numerous times that Sacraments are how God delivers forgiveness of sins to us. It is not a work we do to earn forgiveness. As long as you wilfully Co tinue to ignore what has been explained countless times, we'll keep going back and forth, but the conversation will not advance. You are unwilling to learn.

 

[Particular]

Your response shows a clear misunderstanding of how Lutherans view what a sacrament is. Perhaps it would do you well in this argument to listen to what the Lutherans are telling you instead of telling us what you've been told a sacrament is and then making meaningless arguments.

I listen. Your answers are not clear. Call it a...mystery.
Do you not believe that a sacrament confers grace upon the recipient?

 

[Josiah]

This is pointless. I've told you numerous times that Sacraments are how God delivers forgiveness of sins to us. It is not a work we do to earn forgiveness. As long as you wilfully Co tinue to ignore what has been explained countless times, we'll keep going back and forth, but the conversation will not advance. You are unwilling to learn.

Frustrating, isn't it? It is VERY hard to have a constructive conversation with one whose entire rubric is to just IGNORE/DELETE words he doesn't like and (to make it worse) INSERT/IMPOSE words never said - then mock the things HE imputed to others that they never remotely said and obviously don't believe.


This is how our friend rolls. He does that with the words of Jesus and Paul; he doesn't like IS.... BODY.... BLOOD.... FORGIVENESS... can't be true, so he just deletes them (easy). Then inserts a whole bunch of words into the text that HE feels Jesus SHOULD have said if Jesus was actually truthful and smart: NOT, SEEMS, SYMBOLIZE. Bread and wine exist after the "is" because HE feels that's true, but body and blood and forgiveness CANNOT exist after the "is" because that's just not truthful. My guess is when we get to other topics with him (Baptism especially.... but maybe monergism, the Two Natures of Christ and more) we'll get the identical thing: Jesus and Paul often misspoke.... he is just smarter..... he is the Divine Corrector for Jesus.

But this happens here too. Things NO ONE REMOTELY said are imputed to us.... things we DID say are entirely ignored. Is it a reading problem? Probably not. But it is frustrating.

Are we wasting our time? On him, maybe.... although who knows how the Holy Spirit might use what is presented to him! But when dealing with such a person (I'm no Dr. Phil but I chuck it up to insecurity), I look at it this way. I'm not here to convert or convince, I'm here to extend MUTUAL understanding. IF he had presented anything to defend his view, that might have been informative. And several here were quite articulate in presenting Real Presence (his pretense that he didn't understand is absurd, I know for a FACT that second graders have no problem because I didn't in my First Communion Class - and no one else in the class did either). But my posts.... they DID help me more clearly understand..... my reading the posts of others did help me. And who knows who ELSE is reading here (who maybe CAN read, lol). Not all participating in the thread are going to benefit.... but often some do!



Blessings!


- Josiah

 

[Particular]

1. This has nothing to do with your view that Jesus and Paul should have said "not" instead of "is"....


2. Yeah, why not. Since you hold that "is" actually means "is not" then why not say that body is not, blood is not, forgiveness is not. What I don't understand is why not also hold that bread is not and wine is not? I know... because you appoint you to correct where Jesus and Paul were wrong and where they were right. Amazing how the words of the texts mean NOTHING to you... you just delete any word you think is wrong. The ego of it all.... just amazing.... but kind of disturbing.


3. Something evidently your Baptist minister never taught you (or you just didn't learn). While God is able to work by "fiat" (as it is called in theology) - that is, immediately (without any means) as when He called Creation into being or perhaps John the Baptist to faith in his mother's womb (no one denies God CAN and occasionally does) act by fiat, God typically uses means. These are called "The Means of Grace." Christians have held to this for 2000 years..... Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglcans, Methodist, Reformed/Calvinist/Presbyterians and more all strongly teach this - I think most Baptists do, too. God may use MEANS and often does. It is NOT true that God will not use evangelism, missionaries, preaching, Bible study and reading, etc. because that involves human effort, it is NOT true that God forbids us to preach the Gospel because that involves human effort, it is NOT true that God forbids us to teach and baptize and love and care and serve because they involve human effort. Indeed, God not only does NOT forbid such but COMMANDS such (and I disagree that God would command sin). Your pastor MIGHT do something to prepare for his sermon and Bible study (then again, maybe he/she doesn't, I don't know) but can God USE his/her proclamation of the Gospel for His purposes? I think yes. This is what is meant by "The Means of Grace." Even a very simple, brief introduction to Christian theology would have taught you this. Luther referred to such as "Tools in the hands of the Carpenter." Tools that in and of themselves are inanimate and powerless - just lying there in the tool box - BUT in the hands of the Carpenter,the Carpenter can do GREAT things (unless you hold to a largely impotent God who can't do whatever YOU think He can't do, and you know more about what He can and can't do than He does). Now, you may disagree that Baptism IS a Means of Grace (and that's a separate discussion) but you denial of the whole concept - on this point too contradicting a virtually universal Christian teaching - is telling. And I don't know why you are also not condemning preaching, teaching, outreach, evangelism, loving, serving and more because there too, human effort is involved.

Now, I sincerely doubt you have read anything in this point.... or that it matters if you did.... but don't continue the charge that no one has tried to explain very simple, very historic Christian things to you.








See, IF you actually read what other's post, you'd KNOW what everyone else does - no one said that.

Here's a real problem with you: You seem unable or unwilling to notice the WORDS THAT EXIST. You do that (profoundly!!) with God's words and (I guess just to be fair) with EVERYONE's words. You just ignore them. Then you insert a great many words (many absurd ones you can easily refute) that no one ever said. It makes all discussion impossible.

When presented with the words of God on this, you just delete the words IS, BODY, BLOOD, FORGIVENESS. God just goofed in saying those words, YOU think (and YOU know more than God). But you don't leave it with your doubt, denials, insistence that God is just wrong, you go much further. PUTTING IN words entirely missing, words such as NOT, CHANGE, SEEMS, SYMBOL. The ego of it all. The profound disrespect.







And IF you actually read the WORDS posted to you (words THERE rather than words NOT THERE), you'd know what everyone else knows: no one has argued otherwise. But your correct statement does NOT prove that Jesus and Paul misspoke, that is means is not, that what you hold cannot exist after the "is" therefore is not.

You've never offered ANYTHING to support Zwingli's radical reivention of Communion in the 16th Century, his insistence that because HE felt that what Jesus and Paul said violated HIS concept of physics, it THUS could not be true and HE had to correct what they said. You've offered NOTHING to support that. NOTHING to support "can't be true, must be metaphor" nothing to support that something is just "OBVIOUS" when nothing in the text suggest that and NOT ONE PERSON on the planet saw that at all (much less as 'obvious') for over 1500 years, all you is propose that you are so smart as to know when Jesus and Paul misspoke.... and echo the horrible accusation of PAGAN, UNBELIEVING, HATERS of Christ, perferring to stand with haters of Christ than with the words of Jesus and Paul.



- Josiah




.

Josiah, in your world, real does not mean real.
Now, either Jesus body and blood are really present in the elements of the bread and wine or they are not really present.
You try to straddle a nebulous world where real doesn't mean real. Real only means it's mysterious and somehow the bread and wine don't really become flesh and blood, but the essence of it is mysteriously present in the elements. So, for you, real presence doesn't actually mean real presence. It means mysteriously present, but not really present. It's an odd twisting of the scripture so as not to take the passages literally and not to take them figuratively. Alas, it is a mystery.

 

[Particular]

Frustrating, isn't it? It is VERY hard to have a constructive conversation with one whose entire rubric is to just IGNORE/DELETE words he doesn't like and (to make it worse) INSERT/IMPOSE words never said - then mock the things HE imputed to others that they never remotely said and obviously don't believe.


This is how our friend rolls. He does that with the words of Jesus and Paul; he doesn't like IS.... BODY.... BLOOD.... FORGIVENESS... can't be true, so he just deletes them (easy). Then inserts a whole bunch of words into the text that HE feels Jesus SHOULD have said if Jesus was actually truthful and smart: NOT, SEEMS, SYMBOLIZE. Bread and wine exist after the "is" because HE feels that's true, but body and blood and forgiveness CANNOT exist after the "is" because that's just not truthful. My guess is when we get to other topics with him (Baptism especially.... but maybe monergism, the Two Natures of Christ and more) we'll get the identical thing: Jesus and Paul often misspoke.... he is just smarter..... he is the Divine Corrector for Jesus.

But this happens here too. Things NO ONE REMOTELY said are imputed to us.... things we DID say are entirely ignored. Is it a reading problem? Probably not. But it is frustrating.

Are we wasting our time? On him, maybe.... although who knows how the Holy Spirit might use what is presented to him! But when dealing with such a person (I'm no Dr. Phil but I chuck it up to insecurity), I look at it this way. I'm not here to convert or convince, I'm here to extend MUTUAL understanding. IF he had presented anything to defend his view, that might have been informative. And several here were quite articulate in presenting Real Presence (his pretense that he didn't understand is absurd, I know for a FACT that second graders have no problem because I didn't in my First Communion Class - and no one else in the class did either). But my posts.... they DID help me more clearly understand..... my reading the posts of others did help me. And who knows who ELSE is reading here (who maybe CAN read, lol). Not all participating in the thread are going to benefit.... but often some do!



Blessings!


- Josiah

We are having a discussion in an attempt to understand the positions of the others. I have no dreams of convincing you to change. I merely explain how I receive your discussion and thus see the contradictions in your position. You return a similar response to my position. It is enlightening, not frustrating.

 

[Particular]

This is pointless. I've told you numerous times that Sacraments are how God delivers forgiveness of sins to us. It is not a work we do to earn forgiveness. As long as you wilfully Co tinue to ignore what has been explained countless times, we'll keep going back and forth, but the conversation will not advance. You are unwilling to learn.

I have responded by stating you are wrong. God doesn't deliver forgiveness in sacraments. That is your church dogma talking, not the Bible.
Your sacraments are a form of legalism, not grace, as I pointed out from Romans 11.
I don't expect the conversation will advance. You will not give up your church dogma as your source of truth and I will not give up the Bible as my source of truth.

 

[Josiah]

Now, either Jesus body and blood are really present in the elements of the bread and wine or they are not really present.

EXACTLY!


Either Jesus and Paul told the truth OR Zwingli was right and they did not (cuz to HIM what they said CANNOT be true).

Either "is" means real, exists, present (as every Christian for over 1500 years believed vis-a-via Communion) OR it means "not" as you hold. Either what follows the "is" is: BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS. Or "is" means "is NOT" and so they don't exist (but ODDLY, bread and wine do - go figure).

Either the words Jesus said and Paul penned are correct (IS.... BODY..... BLOOD.....BREAD..... WINE..... FORGIVENESS) or they aren't (and need to be corrected).

Either the words you claim ARE in the text or are NOT in the text (NOT, SYMBOLIZE, METAPHOR, SEEMS, WAS, CHANGE)

You try to straddle a nebulous world where somehow the bread and wine don't really become flesh and blood

Again, please, pray tell, please embolden the word "BECOME" in the text.

Again, get out your dictionary (any dictionary, even a Baptist one) and look up the word "IS". Actually look it up (because I'm not sure you know the meaning of this word). There are a number of definitions. Look for this one: "Changed from one reality into a completely different one." If you find that definition, please give the reference. But I'm certain you won't do this because you KNOW that's not what the word means.

And what comes AFTER the "is?" IF the ONLY things were bread and wine, you'd have a point. But it equally states body.... blood.... forgiveness. So why does the "is" apply to the bread and wine but when it comes to the body, blood and forgiveness, the word "NOT" applies (and so in those cases, you declare Jesus and Paul incorrect and appoint you to correct them)?




.