Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Paul

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Albion


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

Jesus had words for the "doubting Thomas."


Blessings on your Advent season!!


- Josiah


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

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican said Christ is in heaven and must remain there until he returns at the end of the world. So he cannot be involved in the eucharist elements. But more importantly, He is no longer flesh and blood (it cannot inherit the Kingdom where He dwells). He is of a glorified Spiritual essence since the ascension. So this really rules out the Eucharistic claims of his flesh and blood being in or becoming the eucharist.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
5,405
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican said Christ is in heaven and must remain there until he returns at the end of the world. So he cannot be involved in the eucharist elements.

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


But more importantly, He is no longer flesh and blood (it cannot inherit the Kingdom where He dwells).
And now, in order to deny the Real Presence, you have to also deny the Creeds and the Bible's testimony concerning the Ascension. I wonder where this will lead to next.

He is of a glorified Spiritual essence since the ascension.
His physical body was in a glorified condition at the time of the Resurrection.

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

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

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
When, exactly, did Thomas Cranmer become your infallible authority, replacing the Bible??



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


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

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

That was the body which ascended to heaven and was seated on the right hand of the Father.
He died for His beliefs. Have you ever suffered for the faith?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
12,312
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
He didn't say what you make him out to say.

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

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

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


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

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



.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lutheran position here is simply the exact echo of what Jesus and Paul said, simply the repeat of the words of Scripture. Believed rather than denied.

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

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


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

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



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

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
12,312
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You have no scripture to support your interpretation.

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


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

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

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


Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers

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

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





.
 
Last edited:

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is no interpretation in the Lutheran position.
The words ON THE PAGE, as the Spirit inspired them, are simply echoed. Believed. Accepted.

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

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

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


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

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
5,405
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No spin.
No interpretation.
No explanations.
Acceptance, not denial.

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

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

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
898
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's all your interpretation unsupported by scripture. What about Jesus in heaven with a glorified human body, where flesh and blood cannot enter? Until he returns at the end of the world?
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2 (KJV 1900)

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

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

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
12,312
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In view of what he goes on to say about these elements (forgive sins, for instance), this cannot mean they became mere symbols of his body and blood.

@Albion


Exactly!!!

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



@1689Dave

1689Dave said:
our problem is that you present an interpretation


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



.
 
Last edited:

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
755
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You have no scripture to support your interpretation. Zero. Not any more than the hyper-literalists Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers.
You’re offensive.
 
Top Bottom