How does it become the Body and the Blood?

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I made no such assumption about any of the denominations that have been named here.

However, I think you are warming up to saying "Who knows? The statistics don't mean anything definite. Maybe there are millions upon millions of people who identify with the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance church or several other splinter churches, but do not hold membership. And there are none who are in the same situation with regards to the Lutheran or Episcopal or Catholic or other traditional church bodies," thereby refuting what you argued in your earlier posts here. There is no way for you to prevail by doing that.


It is not taught in my church.
I assume you are neither Roman Catholic nor Lutheran if salvation by baptism is not taught.

I have answered you questions about other denominations so I proved your assumption incorrect.

Baptist Churches: 105 million
Methodists: 80 million
Reformed: 100 million
Congregational: 5 million
Mennonites: 4 million
Brethren: 1 million
Pentacostal: 500 million
Non-denominational evangelical: 100 million
Compare that to Lutherans

Lutherans: 90 million

My point has been made that there are many who do not teach the means of saving grace as coming via the Lord's Supper or baptism. I hope you can acknowledge this.

 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I assume you are neither Roman Catholic nor Lutheran if salvation by baptism is not taught.
They don't believe it either. Just like most churches.

I have answered you questions about other denominations so I proved your assumption incorrect.
LOL

Baptist Churches: 105 million
Methodists: 80 million
Reformed: 100 million
Congregational: 5 million
Mennonites: 4 million
Brethren: 1 million
Pentacostal: 500 million
Non-denominational evangelical: 100 million
Compare that to Lutherans

Lutherans: 90 million
I was speaking of membership in the United States, But if we want to switch to worldwide membership figures, your claim is even less true.

Look here where you incorrectly included some churches that (1) do not agree with your thinking, plus how you conveniently (2) made no mention of the largest Christian denominations in the world--ones that likewise do not agree with your claim.

Your comparison is a mess.

If you were just to include the ones that were wrongly omitted, your preferred sects would be down another 2 BILLION souls! 😄
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Nowhere in the Bible do we observe an unrepentant sinner receiving communion and then, by God's gracious choosing, that person is saved.


I have no clue what that has to do with ANYTHING....

How does your weird comment prove that Jesus and Paul were just kidding, that it's "OBVIOUS" that they didn't mean what they said/penned, that "IS" means "isn't" and "not"?


It seems you are claiming that you can do anything you want and by circumstance God may, at that moment, graciously save a person so therefore teach that such an action is a means of grace.


As everyone knows, I NEVER remotely said any such thing, so all it seems is that you aren't reading anything written to you. Try READING THE WORDS instead of invented weird, strange, silly things out of thin air and claiming "it seems." Maybe that's your problem with the eucharistic texts? Maybe you aren't actually reading the words and instead invented weird, strange things out of thin air and claiming "it seems?" Perhaps.



What approach strikes me as horrific policy and an extremely poor way to manufacture doctrine out of silence.


I'm sticking with what Jesus said and Paul penned IF you actually READ THE WORDS. THIS .... IS...... MY..... BODY.... BL0OD..... BREAD..... WINE..... REMEMBER...... FORGIVENESS.

The Zwinglian tradition you parrot (first invented in the 16th Century) is based on a bunch of words not there (you may call that "from silence" if you choose). NOT.... ISN'T..... CAN'T BE..... JUST KIDDING.... SYMBOLIZE.



I reject your rubric of appointing self to determine if what Jesus says can be true.... and if you yourself feel it's not, then just deleting all the words He said and replacing them with a bunch of words He never said so you can feel that therefore Jesus is now saying the truth. Bad way to do theology, IMO.

I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in the first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).







.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I have no clue what that has to do with ANYTHING....

How does your weird comment prove that Jesus and Paul were just kidding, that it's "OBVIOUS" that they didn't mean what they said/penned, that "IS" means "isn't" and "not"?





As everyone knows, I NEVER remotely said any such thing, so all it seems is that you aren't reading anything written to you. Try READING THE WORDS instead of invented weird, strange, silly things out of thin air and claiming "it seems." Maybe that's your problem with the eucharistic texts? Maybe you aren't actually reading the words and instead invented weird, strange things out of thin air and claiming "it seems?" Perhaps.






I'm sticking with what Jesus said and Paul penned IF you actually READ THE WORDS. THIS .... IS...... MY..... BODY.... BL0OD..... BREAD..... WINE..... REMEMBER...... FORGIVENESS.

The Zwinglian tradition you parrot (first invented in the 16th Century) is based on a bunch of words not there (you may call that "from silence" if you choose). NOT.... ISN'T..... CAN'T BE..... JUST KIDDING.... SYMBOLIZE.



I reject your rubric of appointing self to determine if what Jesus says can be true.... and if you yourself feel it's not, then just deleting all the words He said and replacing them with a bunch of words He never said so you can feel that therefore Jesus is now saying the truth. Bad way to do theology, IMO.

I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in the first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).







.
My position is Bible based, not tradition based and not Zwingli based. You make assumptions that are false.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lutherans just accept what Jesus and Paul said. Is. Is = is. It has to do with reality, presence, existence, being there. Jesus and Paul didn't say "change" "transform" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "accident" "symbolizes" "not" "just kidding" or "isn't."
  • [John 6:35 NASB] 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
  • [John 10:7, 9, 11, 14 NASB] 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. ... 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ... 11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. ... 14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
  • [John 14:6 NASB] 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
  • [John 15:1, 5 NASB] 1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ... 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

Lutherans just accept what Jesus and John said.
“is” = “is, “am” = “am“ and “are” = “are”
Jesus and John didn't say "change" "transform" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "accident" "symbolizes" "not" "just kidding" or "isn't."
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My position is Bible based, not tradition based and not Zwingli based. You make assumptions that are false.


Only if nearly all the words of the eucharistic texts are deleted.... and a lot of absent words are substituted.

Your position is a perfect echo of Zwingli's tradition, which he invented in the mid 16th century because, like you, he felt what Jesus so clearly said just could not be true.

See post 64




.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
PARTICULAR...





All the evidence suggests that EVERY Christian for over 1500 years (and most to this day) understood that when Jesus and Paul said (and stressed) "is" well, that's what they meant. There is no evidence for this "is means isn't" view until Zwingli in the 16th Century.







Lutherans do not accept that anything ever did or does turn into anything. There is NO eucharistic text that so much as mentions "isn't" "can't be" "symbolize" "just kidding" "not" "change" "transform" "Aristotle" "accident". Thus, Lutherans do not accept the two new dogmas that delete the word "is" and replace it with one of those;.






Yeah, that IS the basis of the Zwinglian denial in the 16th Century, the changing of the word "is" to "isn't." He insisted what Jesus said cannot be true, thus it's not. Simple. He thought what Jesus said and Paul penned can't be true - so it's not. Doing theology by insisting (after 1500 years of all Christians believing different, in spite of directly contradicting Scripture) "But that just can't be true" seems to me to be a bad approach to dogma.






Yup. Two REASONS for it: Two reasons for DOING this: 1) rememberance/celebration 2) forgiveness.

But WHY it's done is not the same issue as WHAT it is.






Wrong. Neither Jesus or Paul say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the eucharist being a sacrifice or the sacrifice or instead of some sacrifice.

Try reading the words.

Here's what you will find. Very clearly. Sometimes repeatedly.

THIS

IS

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

FORGIVENESS

REMEMBRANCE

Here's what you won't find , perhaps not because Jesus and Paul were remiss but because they aren't the case:

NOT

ISN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

CAN'T BE

CHANGE

TRANSFORM

ACCIDENT

SACRIFICE





.
I notice you like to go back to the 1,500 years of church history argument often. But, what you fail to take into account is that the early church became very political and corrupt early on. The period of time your talking about include a time when Bibles were in Latin and chained to the altar and the masses of people were unable to read them for themselves to clearly understand what it said. It includes times when indulgences were given out at a price by the church and a time of widespread corruption. I suppose you think indulgences was a good idea or we should go back to chaining the Bible in latin to the altar so only a few can read it since you like church history so much?? Not to mention the widespread violence that occurred during the time period you mentioned. The Reformation happened as a course correction due to this corruption.
The argument that it happened in the past in church history is a weak one. When the Bible wasn't even available to the masses then for most people to even know what it said. They had to take a priests word for it.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I notice you like to go back to the 1,500 years of church history argument often.


... because the point I'm responding to is that "IT IS OBVIOUS" to all that Jesus and Paul were just kidding. It seems to ME that if something is so abundantly "OBVIOUS" to everyone, then it SHOULD be possible to give the name of at least two people who lived during the first FIFTEEN CENTURIES of Christianity who believed that. Why would something that's so abundantly OBVIOUS to everyone be entirely missed by everyone for 15 centuries until a man named Zwingli came along? The point I replied to is the "BUT IT'S JUST BEEN OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE"



jsimms435 said:
The period of time your talking about include a time when Bibles were in Latin and chained to the altar and the masses of people were unable to read them for themselves to clearly understand what it said.


1. There was no Latin translation for nearly 400 years.... FOUR CENTURIES.... and yet can the claimants name two people during this time that found it abundantly "OBVIOUS to everyone" that Jesus and Paul meant the opposite of what they stated? It seems not. I find it hard to accept this "BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OBVIOUS..." apologetic.


2. It has NEVER been true (well, until about 200 years ago) that theology has been based on any translation of anything into anything. As far as any can tell, ALL the decisions of all the Councils were based on the Hebrew and Greek originals. The first two Ecumenical Councils happened before there even was a Latin translation of the Bible so it would be impossible for those decisions to be based on a Latin translation when none yet existed. EVERYTHING in the Lutheran Confessions is from the Hebrew and Greek. Everything in the Reformed Confessions and in the Thirty-Nine Articles are all from the Hebrew and Greek. Luther never used any translation. Calvin never used any translation. The RCC did not embrace or endorse the Latin Vulgate translation until after the death of Luther. Theologians and Bible scholars never use translations. My Lutheran pastor brings two books to all the Bible studies - his Hebrew OT and Greek NT. I know of no doctrine ever based on any translation. Or by laity. Until the likes of Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy.



BTW..... The Catholic Church never prohibited translations. Nor did any Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church. There were translations of the Bible into virtually every language Christians spoke LONG before Luther or Wesley or King James. The first translation into German happened 800 years before Luther, actually pre-dating German as we think of it. It IS true that tomes before the printing press were often "chained" but this was done everyone - including at colleges; this was simply because these hand printed books were UBER expensive and had to be protected from thieves and those who would mistreat them. Go to most libaries at Oxford or Cambridge even today, in 2020, and you'll find lots of books LITERALLY chained. But you can read them. Sadly, lots of "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Protestant" propaganda just isn't true (or at least is misleading).




.
 
Last edited:

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Only if nearly all the words of the eucharistic texts are deleted.... and a lot of absent words are substituted.

Your position is a perfect echo of Zwingli's tradition, which he invented in the mid 16th century because, like you, he felt what Jesus so clearly said just could not be true.

See post 64




.
Here is what Jesus said.

Matthew 26:26-30 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Mark 14:12,17-26 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:14-23 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat ituntil it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.

Read John 13-18 for a very detailed description of the events at the Last Supper.



1 Corinthians 11:20-34 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is foryou. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

In all these scriptures you never once read a declaration that partaking in communion is a means of grace. Nor do you read anywhere that the bread becomes the literal flesh of Jesus nor the wine becomes the literal blood of Jesus.

atpollard, provided scripture where you should, by your own method of interpretation read Jesus words as extremely literal. But, you don't because you know the context shows it is figurative language.

We are at an impasse as you cling to your tradition and I cling to the Bible as it is declared, not interpreted by a church organization.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here is what Jesus said.

Matthew 26:26-30 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Mark 14:12,17-26 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:14-23 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat ituntil it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.

1 Corinthians 11:20-34 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is foryou. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


.


Right.


Where do we found these words...

ISN'T

NOT

CAN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOL


Here's the words actually present...

THIS (not something else but what He is holding...)

IS

MY

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBER

FORGIVENESS


And the following suggests to me He's not kidding or speaking of some mere "symbol"

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.


.


Are these mandates and warnings found regarding foot washing or the Passover Meal or even circumcision? Or about the Nike swoosh or the Mercedes Benz star? And why this huge issue of "discerning" the Body if there's no Body to discern?




In all these scriptures you never once read a declaration that partaking in communion is a means of grace

I hold that forgiveness is by grace. Obviously we disagree.



Nor do you read anywhere that the bread becomes the flesh of Jesus nor the wine becomes the blood of Jesus.

That's right. Which is why I never so much as even mentioned the word "becomes." In fact, if you actually READ what I've posted, I have very often noted that NOTHING in the ANY eucharistic text says ANYTHING about ANYTHING "becoming" something else. The word is is, not was/then.



We are at an impasse as you just echo your new tradition whereas I cling to the Bible as it is declared.




.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In all these scriptures you never once read a declaration that partaking in communion is a means of grace. Nor do you read anywhere that the bread becomes the literal flesh of Jesus nor the wine becomes the literal blood of Jesus.
How about you sometime addressing the question of this thread, the question asked by its title?

Time and again, you've chosen instead to make your reply be a refutation of the Roman Catholic twist on the subject, which you appear to be doing in order to avoid confronting many of the responses we have posted.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Right.


Where do we found these words...

ISN'T

NOT

CAN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOL


Here's the words actually present...

THIS (not something else but what He is holding...)

IS

MY

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBER

FORGIVENESS


And the following suggests to me He's not kidding or speaking of some mere "symbol"




Are these mandates and warnings found regarding foot washing or the Passover Meal or even circumcision? Or about the Nike swoosh or the Mercedes Benz star? And why this huge issue of "discerning" the Body if there's no Body to discern?






I hold that forgiveness is by grace. Obviously we disagree.





That's right. Which is why I never so much as even mentioned the word "becomes." In fact, if you actually READ what I've posted, I have very often noted that NOTHING in the ANY eucharistic text says ANYTHING about ANYTHING "becoming" something else. The word is is, not was/then.



We are at an impasse as you just echo your new tradition whereas I cling to the Bible as it is declared.




.
I was reprimanded for saying your views are narrow _ _ _ _ _ _. Yet you show how narrow they are.
I only ask this of you. Interpret every word that Jesus ever uttered with extreme literalness. It is the only way that you can maintain your position on communion and have it be a legitimate argument. Will you agree to being extremely literal with every word Jesus ever said? If not, I take your position as poor exegesis of scripture.
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
910
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
None of the above are means of grace.

We can and should do all the above. God is not obligated to show saving grace in any of those activities. It would be foolish to call them a means of grace. They are however a means of learning more about God. How a person responds to that information is solely at God's discretion. God may choose to bring a person to salvation and he may not.

With communion and baptism, however, those two commandments are only given to those who are already saved. We don't provide communion to the unsaved on the hopes that God might save them when they partake. We don't baptize a person on the hopes that God might save them when we do. Therefore, neither communion nor baptism are a means of grace. These are not activities designed to persuade God to save someone.
What lol? This thread has had its subject derailed pretty far. But I’ll reply to this.
So you’re saying that neither Communion or Baptism is an dispensation of God’s Grace, and so then the Holy Spirit isn’t working in those. So then why do them?
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
910
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It’s quite sad to see a denial that the Holy Spirit can work through Communion, and rather just taken as some to be a little snack that they take once every month.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It’s quite sad to see a denial that the Holy Spirit can work through Communion, and rather just taken as some to be a little snack that they take once every month.
Who is denying that the Holy Spirit can work through communion? Nobody. Jesus said that the Spirit would remind the disciples about what Jesus did. So, the Spirit uses communion to remind us of Jesus and his sacrifice.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Who is denying that the Holy Spirit can work through communion? Nobody.


Actually, it has been denied. And that denial is what was replied to.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was reprimanded for saying your views are narrow _ _ _ _ _ _.


We are at an impasse as you just echo your new tradition whereas I cling to the Bible as it is declared.



.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
What lol? This thread has had its subject derailed pretty far. But I’ll reply to this.
So you’re saying that neither Communion or Baptism is an dispensation of God’s Grace, and so then the Holy Spirit isn’t working in those. So then why do them?

We do them because God tells us to do them.
With communion we do this in remembrance as a memorial meal.
With baptism we do this as a statement to the world that the person was already transformed by God's adoption. (Infant baptism is an unsupported introduction by Rome, not by scripture.)

The Holy Spirit has already done the work prior to communion and baptism. This is why neither are provided to the lost and unredeemed. Communion and Baptism are for we who are already citizens of the Kingdom of God.

The Holy Spirit is active in everything. Grace is provided only to the elect. The elect are chosen by God, not because of merit, but solely by the Sovereign (and unrevealed) will of God. There is nothing you can do that would cause God to extend to you saving grace. No ceremony, no set of good deeds, nothing. Your attempted righteousness is as filthy rags before the Holy King. You fall at the mercy of God and pray that He extends grace. You don't do something to earn it.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
We are at an impasse as you just echo your new tradition whereas I cling to the Bible as it is declared.



.
You have been shown your claim is illegitimate and is a use of very poor hermeneutics. If you intend to butcher the Bible do it elsewhere.
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
910
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
We do them because God tells us to do them.
With communion we do this in remembrance as a memorial meal.
With baptism we do this as a statement to the world that the person was already transformed by God's adoption. (Infant baptism is an unsupported introduction by Rome, not by scripture.)

The Holy Spirit has already done the work prior to communion and baptism. This is why neither are provided to the lost and unredeemed. Communion and Baptism are for we who are already citizens of the Kingdom of God.

The Holy Spirit is active in everything. Grace is provided only to the elect. The elect are chosen by God, not because of merit, but solely by the Sovereign (and unrevealed) will of God. There is nothing you can do that would cause God to extend to you saving grace. No ceremony, no set of good deeds, nothing. Your attempted righteousness is as filthy rags before the Holy King. You fall at the mercy of God and pray that He extends grace. You don't do something to earn it.
So then you're saying it's a one and done, the Holy Spirit did it, so then it no longer needs to move. As far as your eluding to predestination is another matter, and no one said about being righteous. Your posts would be more respected if you did not come in hijacking topics and trying to bully everyone. And that's what we do, we pray that he will send down his Holy Spirit and change the Bread and Wine, so I don't see the issue.
 
Top Bottom