Waste of time?

[Jim47]

Has anyone ever reached anyone in the GT forum and done any good?

I very seldom go there and wonder if its even a good idea?

[KagomeShuko]

Never personally, but I've heard that others have.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[RedneckAnglican]

I take things to personally...I never go there...

[Lutherrunner]

I get pretty aggravated with a lot of other forums, but I still have to look.....why is that?

[Rechtgläubig]

My opinion is the GT is a big joke... ... but its not even a good one.


ok well it is a little funny when the you know whos try to direct the stuff into their forum where no debating is allowed instead of answering the question. :P

[SPALATIN]

My opinion is the GT is a big joke... ... but its not even a good one.


ok well it is a little funny when the you know whos try to direct the stuff into their forum where no debating is allowed instead of answering the question. :P

All I have to do is look at the titles of the threads and I pretty much give up on the GT forum. They are so wrapped up in their Arminian or Calvinistic rhetoric that they will never be able to understand Lutheran theology.

Many of them will come here if they really want to find out anything about Luther. And then they want to argue about why they are right and we are wrong.

Best to stay out of the GT forum.

[ctay]

I go over to read, I don't post much, I don't like arguing.

[catzinjammies]

to having a wee bit of a lazy streak in me. Because of that I prefer to go outdoors and bang my head against the bricks on the side of my house. So much easier than trying to get a point across to those loathe to listen. :doh:

CIJ

[Jim47]

I think I met the Devil :eek:

This person is trying to convince me that I am just like him!

[Rechtgläubig]

Dang... now I went in there and blew my top lol.

Thanks.

:D


Guess I better edit before i get more warnings....

[Jim47]

I think the only way to maintain your "cool" in that forum is if Yer in a stupor!


Have you read this one yet?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2462579-the-truth-about-the-bible.html


Not even a good imagination. ^_^

[Rechtgläubig]

I think the only way to maintain your "cool" in that forum is if Yer in a stupor!


Have you read this one yet?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2462579-the-truth-about-the-bible.html


Not even a good imagination. ^_^

Wow I never been that drunk before! :eek:

[Jim47]

Wow I never been that drunk before! :eek:



^_^ Yer killing me Reacht! I'm headin for the doctor to get my sides sewed up.

[RedneckAnglican]

I think the only way to maintain your "cool" in that forum is if Yer in a stupor!


Have you read this one yet?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2462579-the-truth-about-the-bible.html


Not even a good imagination. ^_^


that old boy is smokin' the GOOD stuff...:eek:

[LilLamb219]

It was a very creative posting, that's for sure. But it's sad that this man is so uniformed as to what the cross meant since he said, "His death was not planned."

I had to post and give him the truth :)

[Jim47]

I'm betting he isn't old at all. Probably a young SDA or Morman

[ctay]

Well I didn't know what to think.......

[filosofer]

It was a very creative posting, that's for sure. But it's sad that this man is so uniformed as to what the cross meant since he said,

While it is a typo (should be "uninformed"), "uniformed" might be what is needed in his case.

:D ;)

:wave:

In Christ's love,
filo

[LilLamb219]

LOL thanks for the catch! I didn't really proof my post, I just wanted to say it before I forgot my train of thought ;)

[LilLamb219]

Well, guess what, guys? I now do not have access to that page any longer. What a hoot this place can be if you know what I mean. Christianity cannot be spoken of in truth when it really needs to be spoken it seems, n'est pas?

For the New Year, I pray that all the trigger happy mods of the world think twice about what they're doing before playing their authoritative role. I pray that God works through them in spite of their Old Adams creeping through as I also pray God works through all of us as well to the glory of His Holy name.

[LilLamb219]

Jim, where was that posting located on this board? I have no idea how to locate it. I believe it's important that the original poster be given a chance to read about the truth of who Christ is. From what he indicated, it didn't seem that he viewed Jesus Christ as being God. He believes in a very weak God who cannot control the events on earth.

[Jim47]

Jim, where was that posting located on this board? I have no idea how to locate it. I believe it's important that the original poster be given a chance to read about the truth of who Christ is. From what he indicated, it didn't seem that he viewed Jesus Christ as being God. He believes in a very weak God who cannot control the events on earth.


It was in General Theology, but itappears to be gone altogether. I can't find it. The link doesn't work for me either. Maybe the OP yanked it.

[SPALATIN]

I would say that there is a level of ignorance and apathy on the General Theology forum. Those that post there regularly don't like it when someone disagrees with what they say and inevitably they report them to the MODS if there is a continue disagreement. Most who post there are Dispy's, Arminians, crypto Calvinists. There is not enough room for the truth of the Lutheran Confessions on such a forum.

[LilLamb219]

There is not enough room for the truth of the Lutheran Confessions on such a forum.

So much for uniting Christians, eh? ;)

[KEPLER]

Personally, I think I spend more time there than in TCCL...trust me, there's nothing that shocks a Baptist more than when a non-Roman Catholic makes an arguemnt for infant baptism from the bible. I'm not claiming I've convinced anyone, but I know that I've shaken a few foundations out there.

And I do consider it my calling in life to aggravate Baptists!....The main reason is that while the general public is (mostly) smart enough to write-off the TBN crowd as a bunch of wing-nuts, they (the general public) are not smart enough to know that Baptists do NOT represent orthodox Christianity: they think that Jerry Falwell speaks for all Christians. Baptists ( in my experience) get pretty uppity about that. SOmeone needs to knock 'em down a few pegs and point out that Baptist theology is essentially no different that Roman Catholicism, just without a Pope, without Mary,and with really BAD music.

Kepler

[LilLamb219]

and point out that Baptist theology is essentially no different that Roman Catholicism

I've noticed that over the past few years. But when you try to point that out to them, they really get offended ;)

[SPALATIN]

I've noticed that over the past few years. But when you try to point that out to them, they really get offended ;)

How would you like it if you became the very thing you despise? ;)

[KEPLER]

Yeah, Baptists really hate it when I point out that they have the same basic theology as RCs, but that Roman Catholics do it better....at least the RCs have real sacraments.

[Jim47]

I'm working on Catholics for now. I've only just started to do a mini-study on them and I think I'm more confused now than before I started.


I went to Catholic.com and read their Primer on indulgences. A lot of fancy writing to convince people that indulgences are O/K. :D

Anyone want to help Little Ole Me?

Most of the the posts on GT forum are simply oppinionated arguments over everything. :( but I haven't given up yet.

[SPALATIN]

I really find forums like these to be a bad place to really witness your faith in the first place. Most of the people here consider themselves "saved" so the only thing you are technically doing is to be polemical and tell them why their theology is all screwed up. True witnessing is face to face.

[EastChief]

Yeah, Baptists really hate it when I point out that they have the same basic theology as RCs, but that Roman Catholics do it better....at least the RCs have real sacraments.

Oh man! My boss and my office manager would go into orbit if they read this. They are Baptists, but so off the scale that they are not only split from the Southern Baptists, but being Free Will Baptists, they even split from most other Free Will Baptists.

Shortly after I first got my job, my boss introduced me to a client by saying "he's a Lutheran, not a Christian". I kid you not. He may have been trying to make a joke, but that has stuck with me. I wish I didn't need that job so bad - these people are so annoying. They really give Christians a bad name.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

I thought I would chime in here as a Baptist...

I hope my brother KEPLER does not mind :P :hug:

It is my hope that all you Lutherans would not neglect the GT forum as I find it allways interesting when a Lutheran posts there and read the post with great interest. I do agree it does get nasty there some times, but I still think debate is a usefull tool in the learning process.

Peace to u,

Bill

[KEPLER]

Good Day, All

I thought I would chime in here as a Baptist...

I hope my brother KEPLER does not mind :P :hug:

It is my hope that all you Lutherans would not neglect the GT forum as I find it allways interesting when a Lutheran posts there and read the post with great interest. I do agree it does get nasty there some times, but I still think debate is a usefull tool in the learning process.

Peace to u,

Bill

Good day, Bill!

Funny, why have I always thought you are a Presbyterian? Don't you hang around Semper Reformanda a lot?

Sorry if I offended. There are, of course, all kinds of Baptists and it's the kinds like EastChief described in his post that I get most cranky about, which is to say, the ones who think they have the market cornered on being a "bible-believing Christian"....

Cheers!

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

Good Day, All

I thought I would chime in here as a Baptist...

I hope my brother KEPLER does not mind :P :hug:

It is my hope that all you Lutherans would not neglect the GT forum as I find it allways interesting when a Lutheran posts there and read the post with great interest. I do agree it does get nasty there some times, but I still think debate is a usefull tool in the learning process.

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill,

How ya doin'? I think the reason I don't like it is because of the rules regarding debate on GT. They really don't like a debate forum to exist there and it becomes a very polemical atmosphere. Not only that but the topics are always the same. they could recycle some of the topics from a year ago and they would pretty much replicate what is being talked about now.

I will still make a visit every now and again but I am not going to spend a lot of my time there.

[Edial]

Now that I am a Lutheran, it still never ceases to amaze me an incredible unity that is often defined at these forums in their hatred of Baptists.

Ed

[SPALATIN]

Now that I am a Lutheran, it still never ceases to amaze me an incredible unity that is often defined at these forums in their hatred of Baptists.

Ed

It's not the baptists themselves that we hate. We just don't care for the theology they purport. I know a good deal of people in the Baptist church that are very nice people, but they err in their theology on Baptism and the sacraments. To say that anyone here hates them is a wrong conclusion made by you Ed.

[LilLamb219]

I'm with Scott. No one has said they hate the Baptists, but being who we are, we cannot help but hate false doctrine.

[KEPLER]

Greetings, Ed, and Happy New Year to ya.

So, who exactly is it that hates baptists, anyways...?

Cheers,

Kepler

[Edial]

Greetings, Ed, and Happy New Year to ya.

So, who exactly is it that hates baptists, anyways...?

Cheers,

Kepler
... And I do consider it my calling in life to aggravate Baptists!....

[RedneckAnglican]

I can't hate Baptists...my wife was one...her whole family still is Baptist...heck...I was a Baptist for almost a year...I don't HATE any Christian...I may not like some of what they stand for, but I don't hate em'...if I did...I'd never get to go the Thanksgiving dinner...

[KEPLER]

... And I do consider it my calling in life to aggravate Baptists!....

:D :D :D

Doesn't mean I hate them, now does it???

[Edial]

It's not the baptists themselves that we hate. We just don't care for the theology they purport. I know a good deal of people in the Baptist church that are very nice people, but they err in their theology on Baptism and the sacraments. To say that anyone here hates them is a wrong conclusion made by you Ed.
You (not you specifically) are addressing living and breathing people for whom Christ died.

One says it is his calling to aggravate Baptists, another one chuckles.

In some instances, the unity that I personally observe here is not necessarily based on the right values.

Ed

[KEPLER]

I can't hate Baptists...my wife was one...her whole family still is Baptist...heck...I was a Baptist for almost a year...I don't HATE any Christian...I my not like some of what they stand for, but I don't hate em'...if I did...I'd never get to go the Thanksgiving dinner...
Indeed...my parents are pentecostal dispensationalists. I think they believe some genuinely absurd things...but I don't hate them.

[Edial]

:D :D :D

Doesn't mean I hate them, now does it???
It certainly does not mean you love them.

[RedneckAnglican]

Can't we all just get along?...

[KEPLER]

You (not you specifically) are addressing living and breathing people for whom Christ died.

One says it is his calling to aggravate Baptists, another one chuckles.

In some instances, the unity that I personally observe here is not necessarily based on the right values.

Ed

I would remind you, Ed, that Lutherans consider a Baptist baptism a valid baptism. But Baptists do NOT consider a Lutheran baptism valid.

EDIT: Baptists do not consider ALL Lutheran baptisms valid.

Who exactly are the ones not showing unity, here?

Kepler

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Hi, :wave: Scott...,

I did not mean to start a fight here! :doh:

Peace to u,

Bill

[homewardbound]

Shortly after I first got my job, my boss introduced me to a client by saying "he's a Lutheran, not a Christian". I kid you not. He may have been trying to make a joke, but that has stuck with me. I wish I didn't need that job so bad - these people are so annoying. They really give Christians a bad name.

Whoa! That would've sent me into orbit! :)

Reminds me of a couple of friends who refer to us as Catholic-lite. :sigh:

[EastChief]

Now that I am a Lutheran, it still never ceases to amaze me an incredible unity that is often defined at these forums in their hatred of Baptists.

Ed

I'm sorry if that's the image I conveyed. I don't hate Baptists but when I saw a post that made me think about how some Baptists I work with would react, I wanted to comment.

I think most of what annoys me about these particular people is how critical they are of EVERYONE! It is amazing that our office manager is a pastor's wife and she is the most hateful, gossiping, intolerant person I think I have ever met. These people think the Pope is the anti-christ. They hate Yankees (I live in the South :)), they are constantly talking nasty about somebody. It is a major downer to be around them.

I don't think they represent most Baptists though. :D

[BBAS 64]

I'm sorry if that's the image I conveyed. I don't hate Baptists but when I saw a post that made me think about how some Baptists I work with would react, I wanted to comment.

I think most of what annoys me about these particular people is how critical they are of EVERYONE! It is amazing that our office manager is a pastor's wife and she is the most hateful, gossiping, intolerant person I think I have ever met. These people think the Pope is the anti-christ. They hate Yankees (I live in the South :)), they are constantly talking nasty about somebody. It is a major downer to be around them.

I don't think they represent most Baptists though. :D

Good Day, EastChief

I hate the Yankees also, not because I am a Baptist but because I live in Boston...^_^ :P

Peace to u,

Bill

[LilLamb219]

These people think the Pope is the anti-christ.

I thought Lutherans believed the office of the pope is the anti-christ? I never did learn this one right...help me out, guys.

[Jim47]

About two years ago, while on another forum I was debating a Baptist Minister about his view of the NIV bible. He had no use for it, and said the only bible was KJV. This was a very friendly debate and there was no animosity, but he sharply broke off the discussion I'm guessing cause he couldn't beat me. The only reply he made to me after that was to thouroughly bad mouth me. Maybe he just didn't understand me, but it left a rather poor impression for me.


I do have some Baptists friends, but they have never evven considered sound doctrine and bible teachings in reguards to baptizm, especially for infants and children. They simply ignore the scriptures which say that we are born with sin. I certainly don't hate anyone for their teachings or beliefs, but it is rather sad that some choose to totally ignore clear bible teachings in favor of their man made teachings.

[Rechtgläubig]

Good Day, EastChief

I hate the Yankees also, not because I am a Baptist but because I live in Boston...^_^ :P

Peace to u,

Bill

rofl! ^_^

[BBAS 64]

About two years ago, while on another forum I was debating a Baptist Minister about his view of the NIV bible. He had no use for it, and said the only bible was KJV. This was a very friendly debate and there was no animosity, but he sharply broke off the discussion I'm guessing cause he couldn't beat me. The only reply he made to me after that was to thouroughly bad mouth me. Maybe he just didn't understand me, but it left a rather poor impression for me.


I do have some Baptists friends, but they have never evven considered sound doctrine and bible teachings in reguards to baptizm, especially for infants and children. They simply ignore the scriptures which say that we are born with sin. I certainly don't hate anyone for their teachings or beliefs, but it is rather sad that some choose to totally ignore clear bible teachings in favor of their man made teachings.

Good Day, Jim

I am not looking to debate the infant Baptism thing, just what to assure you that "I" have never ignored the Scripture in reguard to this sin issue.

Hope you are feeling well today.

In Him,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

rofl! ^_^

:wave: Rech.

Hope you and yours are being blessed daily.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Tetzel]

I thought Lutherans believed the office of the pope is the anti-christ? I never did learn this one right...help me out, guys.

That can be found in the smalcald articles, and I shall say no more on the issue here. www.wels.net (http://www.wels.net) has good info in their Q & A section for more detailed explanation.

[DIANAC]

Hello, all,
I wandered into this thread since my brother, Edial is a member of a Lutheran church now. How quickly I was disappointed to find the same old rhetoric: US, THEM. Calvinists vs. Arminianists, Lutherans vs. Baptists, Baptists vs. non-Baptists, everyone else vs. Catholics, etc. We were Armenian Orthodox. Once we got saved, we joined the Baptists church. My husband grew up in the Presbyterian Church. My brother, as I said is a member of a Lutheran Church now. But we all, praise God, are the children of The King. I keep remembering that at the end times Christ will be judging seven churches. And Jesus with a full knowledge that there will be seven churches called us to unity. Maybe, just maybe, it can start with a small step, by not dividing the Body into US and THEM.
Be well,
Diana

[Edial]

I'm sorry if that's the image I conveyed. I don't hate Baptists but when I saw a post that made me think about how some Baptists I work with would react, I wanted to comment.

I think most of what annoys me about these particular people is how critical they are of EVERYONE! It is amazing that our office manager is a pastor's wife and she is the most hateful, gossiping, intolerant person I think I have ever met. These people think the Pope is the anti-christ. They hate Yankees (I live in the South :)), they are constantly talking nasty about somebody. It is a major downer to be around them.

I don't think they represent most Baptists though. :D
I am not saying that they are nice.
I was in a Baptist church for 14 years. They need to be shaken up and Scripturally challenged.
They know Scriptures well, but they are trapped by own knowledge in many ways. Many ways.
And many "think" they know the Scriptures.

I constantly shake them and Scripturally challenge them on various topics. (And scripturally, I am one of their better ones).

Pope is not the anti-Christ. It can be proven Scripturally. Period.

When you said - "They hate Yankees (I live in the South :)), they are constantly talking nasty about somebody. It is a major downer to be around them,... " I can echo that to some degree concerning the Lutheran Forum here.

What I am saying in general terms is that traditionally the Lutherans are much gentler believers then the Baptists are. They are also more loving.
It is a shame to see them falling into the same trap that the Baptists are in right now.

I also understand a certain degree of frustration from the Lutheran side, since the Baptists think they own the Scriptures because they know them so well. And they beat people with it. Beat them down. Many faiths were destroyed because of such beatings.
You see, theology can "kill" faster than a bullet.
(Baptists do not realize this. Many sincerely think they are doing God's will).

Also, the reputation of the Baptists among the non-believers is poor. Very poor.

Again, I am speaking in general terms.

More is expected from the Lutherans.
They should challenge the Baptists Scripturally (the emphasys on the Baptism and the Communion MUST be minimized) and love them.

I spoke to Baptists and they stated concerning the Lutherans this and that, and then ... they look down and say that the Lutheran couple that lives around the corner are really nice people.

Or, I know of a very strong Baptist missionary. So Scripturally unyiealding that even the Baptists do not like him. He passed away now. (I personally liked him very much).
When he was about 85 (?) I asked him :" Which church do you go to?"
His answer stunned me. He said :" I am going to a little Lutheran church."

I asked :"WHY ?"
His answer shocked me. He said: "They love me there".

This stayed with me for years.

The Lutherans should not lose what God himself gave them.

Ed

[SPALATIN]

You (not you specifically) are addressing living and breathing people for whom Christ died.

One says it is his calling to aggravate Baptists, another one chuckles.

In some instances, the unity that I personally observe here is not necessarily based on the right values.

Ed

By aggravating the Baptists, I believe that Kepler means that he confounds them with the truth and they often can't respond with anything substantive from their own understanding of scriptures to refute what he says. I don't think he has it in them to condemn them in anyway shape or form other than to give them the truth and let them deal with it.. This often does aggravate them and when aggravated they become beligerent in their attitude because more than anything they want to be proven more correct than the Lutherans. We are to them to close to Roman Catholicism, but in reality they are the ones who are more "Roman" than we.

[SPALATIN]

Good Day, All

Hi, :wave: Scott...,

I did not mean to start a fight here! :doh:

Peace to u,

Bill

Quite alright Bill. Someone else actually started it after you started your OP. We don't mind and this is all to make clear what we are about anyways.

Peace back at ya.

Scott

[SPALATIN]

Good Day, EastChief

I hate the Yankees also, not because I am a Baptist but because I live in Boston...^_^ :P

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill that is wicked awesome that you are a Red Sox fan. Hey what is the fan climate like now that Damon has become a Yank?

[KEPLER]

By aggravating the Baptists, I believe that Kepler means that he confounds them with the truth and they often can't respond with anything substantive from their own understanding of scriptures to refute what he says. I don't think he has it in them to condemn them in anyway shape or form other than to give them the truth and let them deal with it.. This often does aggravate them and when aggravated they become beligerent in their attitude because more than anything they want to be proven more correct than the Lutherans. We are to them to close to Roman Catholicism, but in reality they are the ones who are more "Roman" than we.

Bingo.

[RedneckAnglican]

I think maybe we are getting something of a bum wrap here...

when I first started on this board (as RedneckAnglican) I was Episcopalian and was used to the STR/Anglican-Old Catholic Board...There wasn't all of the arguements and the "I'm right; You're wrong" sort of mentality...well I left the Episcopal Church to come back home to my roots...the Lutheran Church...

To say that I wasn't perpared for this board was an understatement...the Lutherans Argued...they corrected...and as you can tell by some of the posts...they truly studied GOD's WORD (emphasis out of respect...not yelling)...but the way it came across was, "Your not right...your not even a proper Lutheran...You may not even be CHRISTIAN"...there were many times when I said I would quit this board because of something comment I considered mean or just plain ugly...but as I got to know them and began to understand thier positions and the way they argued it became clear that the Lutherans on this board do truly love each other...and yes they love other Christians as well...I love the Baptist Church...I love the way they worship...I love the fact that the WORD is preached there...do I have problems with the Baptist Church?...absolutely...I don't think they do communion enough...and other things that I won't go into here lest it be considered an attack...

long story short (yes...I know...too late)...I think the style which we talk to each other and post to each other had gotten misunderstood for spite, or worse, insult...

as a very good friend of mine used to say, "Think how I'd treat you if I didn't like you"....

[KEPLER]

I am not saying that they are nice.
I was in a Baptist church for 14 years. They need to be shaken up and Scripturally challenged.
They know Scriptures well, but they are trapped by own knowledge in many ways. Many ways.
And many "think" they know the Scriptures.

I constantly shake them and Scripturally challenge them on various topics. (And scripturally, I am one of their better ones).

Pope is not the anti-Christ. It can be proven Scripturally. Period.

When you said - "They hate Yankees (I live in the South :)), they are constantly talking nasty about somebody. It is a major downer to be around them,... " I can echo that to some degree concerning the Lutheran Forum here.

What I am saying in general terms is that traditionally the Lutherans are much gentler believers then the Baptists are. They are also more loving.
It is a shame to see them falling into the same trap that the Baptists are in right now.

I also understand a certain degree of frustration from the Lutheran side, since the Baptists think they own the Scriptures because they know them so well. And they beat people with it. Beat them down. Many faiths were destroyed because of such beatings.
You see, theology can "kill" faster than a bullet.
(Baptists do not realize this. Many sincerely think they are doing God's will).

Also, the reputation of the Baptists among the non-believers is poor. Very poor.

Again, I am speaking in general terms.

More is expected from the Lutherans.
They should challenge the Baptists Scripturally (the emphasys on the Baptism and the Communion MUST be minimized) and love them.

I spoke to Baptists and they stated concerning the Lutherans this and that, and then ... they look down and say that the Lutheran couple that lives around the corner are really nice people.

Or, I know of a very strong Baptist missionary. So Scripturally unyiealding that even the Baptists do not like him. He passed away now. (I personally liked him very much).
When he was about 85 (?) I asked him :" Which church do you go to?"
His answer stunned me. He said :" I am going to a little Lutheran church."

I asked :"WHY ?"
His answer shocked me. He said: "They love me there".

This stayed with me for years.

The Lutherans should not lose what God himself gave them.

Ed

Ed,

I apprciate this post; it's the best you've written. However...

More is expected from the Lutherans.
They should challenge the Baptists Scripturally (the emphasys on the Baptism and the Communion MUST be minimized) and love them.
Why must this emphasis be minimized?

When Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me," He was making a VERY strong statement. The greek word "anamnesis" which gets translated "remembrance" is a very strong word. Do this in the "never-forgetting" of me.

The spiritual life of the Lutheran Churches revolves around the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments. Without the sacraments, there is no unity. The bread of which we partake is what makes us one body.

We do "this" [partake of His body and blood] in order to never forget. Why should we not emphasize it?

Cheers,

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

Bingo.

Ok sir would you mind reading those numbers to verify that you have BINGO. ;)

[DIANAC]

Hello, RedneckLutheran. Unrelated question. What does redneck means? Sorry for the lack of knowledge in this area.
Diana

[RedneckAnglican]

Hello, RedneckLutheran. Unrelated question. What does redneck means? Sorry for the lack of knowledge in this area.
Diana

polite folks would say "Cowboy"...non-polite folks would say "Hick"...

comes from working outside a lot...farm hands, cowboys, ranchers would be in the sun a lot so they would all have red-necks...

[DIANAC]

Thank you much. Now I understand.
It looks like I also somewhat qualify to be called a redneck. During my college years in Russia we were requested to do a lot of farm work.
Diana

[KEPLER]

Thank you much. Now I understand.
It looks like I also somewhat qualify to be called a redneck. During my college years in Russia we were requested to do a lot of farm work.
Diana

Russia??! That gives redneck a whole new meaning....

[RedneckAnglican]

Thank you much. Now I understand.
It looks like I also somewhat qualify to be called a redneck. During my college years in Russia we were requested to do a lot of farm work.
Diana

spent prenty of time on my Aunt's ranch growing up...bailing hay was my first real job...and I did that for 3 years...also helped with branding...moving the cattle...that sort of thing...

[Edial]

Ed,

I apprciate this post; it's the best you've written. However...


Why must this emphasis be minimized?
Because one cannot Scripturally prove that the bread and wine actually become the body and bread of Christ.

A Lutheran should say that this is what they believe, which is fine.
They must not say that this is what it is. They DO NOT know Scripturally.

The Baptists also must not say that it IS symbolic. They cannot prove it and they should be challenged to prove that.
Yet they should say they believe that it is symbolic. In their opinion.
That is fine.



When Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me," He was making a VERY strong statement. The greek word "anamnesis" which gets translated "remembrance" is a very strong word. Do this in the "never-forgetting" of me.
And the Lutherans and the Baptists agree on that wholeheartedly.

The spiritual life of the Lutheran Churches revolves around the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments. Without the sacraments, there is no unity. The bread of which we partake is what makes us one body..
Two observations -

1. Then is becomes a "Lutheran body only".
And that was not an original purpose of the Communion at all.

2. Also, "unity" is a interesting word in the NT.
It is defined only twice in the Ephesians.
It has to do with a continual growth in the unity of the doctrines.

We do "this" [partake of His body and blood] in order to never forget. Why should we not emphasize it?

Cheers,

Kepler
And that MUST be the purpose - to never forget.

And there is NO disagreement on that among ALL the Christians.

We must carefully recognize the altar and not to fight over the ornaments of the altar.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Russia??! That gives redneck a whole new meaning....:D

[DIANAC]

For me it was mostly picking grapes, corn, tomatoes, apples, walnuts. But picking grapes was the hardest. In Ukraine grape vines were allowed to grow close to the ground. So, we did develop real red necks. And the requirements were stringent. If you do not do your requested number of crates you might not pass the year even if you are academically advanced. But I do have good memories of those years.
Diana

[RedneckAnglican]

For me it was mostly picking grapes, corn, tomatoes, apples, walnuts. But picking grapes was the hardest. In Ukraine grape vines were allowed to grow close to the ground. So, we did develop real red necks. And the requirements were stringent. If you do not do your requested number of crates you might not pass the year even if you are academically advanced. But I do have good memories of those years.
Diana

to be honest it kinda sounds like fun...I haven't done stuff like that in ages...of course...i dealt mostly with animals...not plants...it's not fun trying to brand something...

[LilLamb219]

Maybe, just maybe, it can start with a small step, by not dividing the Body into US and THEM.

Disunity begins with poor doctrine. When a denomination strays from the truth (as in baptism and communion), it's that denomination that has disunited from the whole.

Because one cannot Scripturally prove that the bread and wine actually become the body and bread of Christ.

The bread IS the body of the Lord...because He says it is ;)

The wine IS the blood of the Lord...because He says it is ;)

Lutherans agree with what scripture says.

[Edial]

to be honest it kinda sounds like fun...I haven't done stuff like that in ages...of course...i dealt mostly with animals...not plants...it's not fun trying to brand something...
It might sound like fun, but when I was there once (I was 12,13), they forgot to deliver lunch for us.
So, we were stuck with a huge container of sour cream and grapes.

Since we were young, it was fun.
But when my sister (DIANAC) found out about it when I got home - she was quite upset at them.

[Edial]

Disunity begins with poor doctrine. When a denomination strays from the truth (as in baptism and communion), it's that denomination that has disunited from the whole.



The bread IS the body of the Lord...because He says it is ;)

The wine IS the blood of the Lord...because He says it is ;)

Lutherans agree with what scripture says.
Winking is not a proof.

You can say you believe it is to be so, but not that it is so.

NO ONE knows.
The Bible is not clear on it.

Ed

[DIANAC]

Yes, russian redneck...

[SPALATIN]

Your winking is not a proof.

You can say you believe it is to be so, but not that it is so.

NO ONE knows.
The Bible is not clear on it.

Ed

Ed,

It depends on whether you take the bible literally where it means to be literal or you take it to be figurative where it means to be literal. From what I have seen you seem to be taking things figuratively where they should be taken literally.

Just an observation
Scott

[Edial]

Ed,

It depends on whether you take the bible literally where it means to be literal or you take it to be figurative where it means to be literal. From what I have seen you seem to be taking things figuratively where they should be taken literally.

Just an observation
Scott
I am taking it very literally.
Yet the very context presents it to be a metaphore. The similar metaphore of him calling himself a gate.

Also, hermeneutically speaking, it becomes more and more apparent that it is not clear at all.

If you would see the presentation that the Baptists have - it is quite impressive.
But they do not know. Yet, it could be understood why they believe that way.

One cannot prove that.

And since our salvation does not depent on this (and it should not) - communion methods must not take a primary role.
Any dogmatics while the Scriptures left certain things unclear are divisive.

Body of Christ suffers because of it.

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

The text is clear in and of itself: "This is my body". This should be enough.

However, in light of the historical context, Paul's repitition of our Lord's words, "This is my body," is indeed definitive proof.

We know that already by the time Paul wrote to the Corinthians (mid-to-late 50s), Christians were already being accused of cannibalism. The simple fact that Paul doesn't back down when he reiterates Christ's words, in spite of the cultural opposition, is proof enough for me.

[KEPLER]

I am taking it very literally.
Yet the very context presents it to be a metaphore. The similar metaphore of him calling himself a gate.

Also, hermeneutically speaking, it becomes more and more apparent that it is not clear at all.

If you would see the presentation that the Baptists have - it is quite impressive.
But they do not know. Yet, it could be understood why they believe that way.

One cannot prove that.

And since our salvation does not depent on this (and it should not) - communion methods must not take a primary role.
Any dogmatics while the Scriptures left certain things unclear are divisive.

Body of Christ suffers because of it.

Thanks,
Ed

Yes, indeed, Jesus said, "I am the door." That is a metaphor.

But Jesus never pointed at any specific door and said, "I am THAT door."

The statements in John 6 & ff, are categorically different kinds of statements than when Jesus took the bread, pointed at it, and said, "This is my body."

Peace,

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

I am taking it very literally.
Yet the very context presents it to be a metaphore. The similar metaphore of him calling himself a gate.

Also, hermeneutically speaking, it becomes more and more apparent that it is not clear at all.

If you would see the presentation that the Baptists have - it is quite impressive.
But they do not know. Yet, it could be understood why they believe that way.

One cannot prove that.

And since our salvation does not depent on this (and it should not) - communion methods must not take a primary role.
Any dogmatics while the Scriptures left certain things unclear are divisive.

Body of Christ suffers because of it.

Thanks,
Ed

Either you take the words on faith or you don't. Hoc est corpus meum

Take and Eat, this is my body given for you.
Take and Drink, This cup is the new testament in my blood, shed for the remission of your sins. This do as often as you do it in remembrance of me.

Where is the metaphor? Unless you add the words Bread and Wine to each of these two areas there is no metaphor.

The real presence of Christ is there when the word of God is connected to the elements. It then ceases to be bread and wine but is now Christ's Body and Blood. The only time you can claim metaphor is when you still recognize the elements as they are and make a comparison to the two. I do not believe that scripture does this, but man has been know to interpret scripture to suit his case.

[Protoevangel]

I am taking it very literally.
Yet the very context presents it to be a metaphore. The similar metaphore of him calling himself a gate.

Also, hermeneutically speaking, it becomes more and more apparent that it is not clear at all.

If you would see the presentation that the Baptists have - it is quite impressive.
But they do not know. Yet, it could be understood why they believe that way.

One cannot prove that.

And since our salvation does not depent on this (and it should not) - communion methods must not take a primary role.
Any dogmatics while the Scriptures left certain things unclear are divisive.

Body of Christ suffers because of it.

Thanks,
Ed
The body of Christ suffers because people do not tolerate sound doctrine. Christ makes himself perfectly clear, and let's his followers abandon him over the fact that they knew he was talking literally. Did he explain this so-called "metaphor" to his Disciples after the rest abandoned him? No, he asked them point-blank, "Do you also want to go away?"

[Edial]

Yes, indeed, Jesus said, "I am the door." That is a metaphor.

But Jesus never pointed at any specific door and said, "I am THAT door."

The statements in John 6 & ff, are categorically different kinds of statements than when Jesus took the bread, pointed at it, and said, "This is my body."

Peace,

Kepler
OK.
Without going into words, and I can, but rather not, let's look at it from this angle.

Do you know that the bread that you are partaking turns into the body of Christ every Sunday?
How? And how do you know that God honor's Pr. John Doe's invokation?

What if an unrepentant murderer partakes of it? He ate the body of Christ and is forgiven?

And what if a Pr. John Doe is a mass murderer and a non-believer? God would still honor his request because he is in that specific position?
Since when God was swayed by positions?

Ed

[Edial]

The body of Christ suffers because people do not tolerate sound doctrine. Christ makes himself perfectly clear, and let's his followers abandon him over the fact that they knew he was talking literally. Did he explain this so-called "metaphor" to his Disciples after the rest abandoned him? No, he asked them point-blank, "Do you also want to go away?"
And then he said that flesh counts for nothing. It is his words that give life.

[KEPLER]

OK.
Without going into words, and I can, but rather not, let's look at it from this angle.

Do you know that the bread that you are partaking turns into the body of Christ every Sunday?
How?
Yes. Because God says it does.
And how do you know that God honor's Pr. John Doe's invokation?
Because God keeps His promises. It is His very nature.
What if an unrepentant murderer partakes of it? He ate the body of Christ and is forgiven?
He most definitely receives the body of Christ. Whether or not he is forgiven is a condition to which neither of us can speak.
And what if a Pr. John Doe is a mass murderer and a non-believer? God would still honor his request because he is in that specific position?
Yes.
Since when God was swayed by positions?
It's not about positions (I'm assuimg by "position" you mean the ministerial office, yes?) so much as it is about God's promise. In peculiar circumstances, even an unordained layperson can administer the sacraments.

[Edial]

Either you take the words on faith or you don't. Hoc est corpus meum

Take and Eat, this is my body given for you.
Take and Drink, This cup is the new testament in my blood, shed for the remission of your sins. This do as often as you do it in remembrance of me.

Where is the metaphor? Unless you add the words Bread and Wine to each of these two areas there is no metaphor.

The real presence of Christ is there when the word of God is connected to the elements. It then ceases to be bread and wine but is now Christ's Body and Blood. The only time you can claim metaphor is when you still recognize the elements as they are and make a comparison to the two. I do not believe that scripture does this, but man has been know to interpret scripture to suit his case.
What I am saying is that when you look at the entire Scripture concerning thos subject - it is a good case that it is not literal.
One cannot prove it to be so.

Let's leave it at that.

If you believe this - fine. No one is condemning you.

But if you state that another believer (for whom Christ also died) cannot partake woth you on remembrance of the event of Christ's death, just because he sees it to be symbolic - communion looses its purpose.

It is no longer a communion of the saints, but a communion of some saints - more precisely, of the Lutheran saints.

And is this is a communion of some saints, then the body of Christ (which is composed of all the saits) suffers.

Ed

[Protoevangel]

OK.
Without going into words, and I can, but rather not, let's look at it from this angle.

Do you know that the bread that you are partaking turns into the body of Christ every Sunday?
How? And how do you know that God honor's Pr. John Doe's invokation?...
...And what if a Pr. John Doe is a mass murderer and a non-believer? God would still honor his request because he is in that specific position?
It is the Word of God that makes the Body and Blood present, not the words of the man.

What if an unrepentant murderer partakes of it? He ate the body of Christ and is forgiven?
The Bible is clear on that as well. The unrepentant lack faith, and take the Body and Blood to their own judgement.

Since when God was swayed by positions?

Ed
Exactly. Let God be true even if every man is a liar.

[Edial]

Yes. Because God says it does.

Because God keeps His promises. It is His very nature.

He most definitely receives the body of Christ. Whether or not he is forgiven is a condition to which neither of us can speak.

Yes.

It's not about positions (I'm assuimg by "position" you mean the ministerial office, yes?) so much as it is about God's promise. In peculiar circumstances, even an unordained layperson can administer the sacraments.
How does God say that it turns into the body of Christ every Sunday?

[Melethiel]

Russia??! That gives redneck a whole new meaning....
My great-uncle's side of the family are all rednecks...quite so...Slavic rednecks are more redneckish than American ones. :P

[KEPLER]

How does God say that it turns into the body of Christ every Sunday?

Jesus took the bread and after he had blessed it, he broke and said, "This is my body"...

Then He said, "Do this for the never-forgetting of me"....

We infer from this passage (and the passage in Matthew that says whereever two or more are gathered in His name, etc) then when the bread and cup are blessed, His body and blood are truly present in, with and under the bread and wine.

It is an absolute historical certainty that this is what the early Church believed, and so do we.

I have a book recommendation for you, Ed. The author's name is Werner Elert, the title of the book is Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0570042704/qid=1136481903/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3068363-3786333?n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

Actually, I recommend anything by Elert, but especially this and another title, The Structure of Lutheranism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0570033179/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/104-3068363-3786333?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

Good stuff. Especially for someone in the process of becoming Lutheran.

Cheers,

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

What I am saying is that when you look at the entire Scripture concerning thos subject - it is a good case that it is not literal.
One cannot prove it to be so.

Let's leave it at that.

If you believe this - fine. No one is condemning you.

But if you state that another believer (for whom Christ also died) cannot partake woth you on remembrance of the event of Christ's death, just because he sees it to be symbolic - communion looses its purpose.

It is no longer a communion of the saints, but a communion of some saints - more precisely, of the Lutheran saints.

And is this is a communion of some saints, then the body of Christ (which is composed of all the saits) suffers.

Ed

Ed,

If a believer comes to the communion rail and his confession is that it is symbolic which means that he doesn't believe the "Real Presence" exists then his confession is not the same as the other's taking communion. He is there on false pretenses and could be taking the sacrament to his judgement. The people at the rail come together in "communion" in that they agree with each other's confession of faith. that is the horizontal relationship of the sacrament.

The vertical relationship is that of The Heavenly Father bestowing on us his gifts of Mercy and Forgiveness through the sacrament. They meet together at the cross which is where the vertical and horizontal axis meets and where Christ was crucified for us.

[Edial]

Jesus took the bread and after he had blessed it, he broke and said, "This is my body"...

Then He said, "Do this for the never-forgetting of me"....

We infer from this passage (and the passage in Matthew that says whereever two or more are gathered in His name, etc) then when the bread and cup are blessed, His body and blood are truly present in, with and under the bread and wine.

It is an absolute historical certainty that this is what the early Church believed, and so do we.
Excellent answer.
And that is exactly what I am saying.
One cannot prove that. We just believe it to be true.
I also believe it to be true.
But I do not know for sure. Because the Bible is not clear about this. It needs to be derived.

And the Baptists derived something different, yet also cannot prove it.

I have a book recommendation for you, Ed. The author's name is Werner Elert, the title of the book is Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0570042704/qid=1136481903/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3068363-3786333?n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

Actually, I recommend anything by Elert, but especially this and another title, The Structure of Lutheranism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0570033179/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/104-3068363-3786333?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

Good stuff. Especially for someone in the process of becoming Lutheran.

Cheers,

Kepler
Thanks for the books.

Also, I am not in the process of becoming a Lutheran. I am a Lutheran.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Ed,

If a believer comes to the communion rail and his confession is that it is symbolic which means that he doesn't believe the "Real Presence" exists then his confession is not the same as the other's taking communion. He is there on false pretenses and could be taking the sacrament to his judgement. The people at the rail come together in "communion" in that they agree with each other's confession of faith. that is the horizontal relationship of the sacrament.

The vertical relationship is that of The Heavenly Father bestowing on us his gifts of Mercy and Forgiveness through the sacrament. They meet together at the cross which is where the vertical and horizontal axis meets and where Christ was crucified for us.
But you are not talking about a communion of the saints here. You are talking about a communion of the Lutheran saints.
And there is no such thing, Scripturally speaking.

If one comes to the rail and partakes without ignoring the body of Christ and with repentance and does that in the remembrance of Christ's death - he partakes in the communion of the saints.

Since we simply cannot know that the bread we partake of today is indeed the body of the Christ, we can just believe it to be, but cannot know it to be.

The Scriptures are silent concerning what we eat today.

When we say that the Pastor's invokation is honored by God - we do not KNOW that, but we believe it.

The only things that we KNOW is what is in the Bible. Not in the confessions, not in the examples, not in the comments.

And this applies to all believers. We must separate what we believe from what we know.
Once we see that difference and apply it - much will be accomplished.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

It is the Word of God that makes the Body and Blood present, not the words of the man.


The Bible is clear on that as well. The unrepentant lack faith, and take the Body and Blood to their own judgement.


Exactly. Let God be true even if every man is a liar.
How does the Word of God make the Christ present in today's elements?

We cannot prove that, because the only proof concerning such things are the Scriptures. And the Scriptures do not say that today, every Sunday, the bread turns to the body of the Christ at the invokation of a Pastor.

Yet, we believe that. OK. That is different.

And other Christians believe differently.

The reason it is so, is because the Scriptures are not clear on that.

So, since we believe and do not know - we can all partake as long as we remember what Christ did for us on the cross.

A communion of the saints.
Not separate communions of Lutheran, or Anglican, or Armenian Orthodox, or Baptits saints.
But ONE communion of the saints.

If it is separate - it is denominational. And if it excludes a believer for whom Christ also died - it cannot be pleasant in Christ's eyes.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

How does the Word of God make the Christ present in today's elements?

Because God's Word is "effective" in that it effects what it says. God's promises are attached to the element via His Word and if He says This is my body, then it is. Just like God said, Let there be light...and there was light. His Word is effective.

[KEPLER]

But I do not know for sure. Because the Bible is not clear about this. It needs to be derived.
Ah, yes. Like the Trinity.

Should we then allow Mormons and JWs to come to our tables as well? After all, the primary area in which these cults err is in their denial of the Trinity and the Divintiy fo Christ, both of which are inferred doctrines. Perhaps we should let Jews and Muslims come to the table as well...
And the Baptists derived something different, yet also cannot prove it.

The JWs and Mormons derived something different about the Divintiy of Christ, using the same Scriptures...

Now there is such a thing as inferring too far...as the Calvinists do with double-predestination. In that case, the inferrence directly contradicts Scripture.

And I submit that the Baptist inferrence that the Lord's Supper is merely a memorial is a direct contradiction of the Incarnation. The "logic" of the Baptist (i.e., Zwinglian) position is that the bread and wine can't be Christ's body and blood, because:1) there's no way He could fit in there
2) how can His body be divided all over the world on a Sunday morning?
3) it doesn't taste like flesh and blood
4) He isn't here (on Earth), He is there (in Heaven)
In their gross form, these are all arguments against the Incarnation:1) how can God fit in a human body? (Col 2:8-9)
2) If God took on human form, then He can't be in more than one place at a time (Matt 18:20)
Part of why we take the plain and simple meaning of "This is my body," is because all other ways of understanding it end up contradicting Scripture, or making Scripture subservient to our human logic.

IOW, precisely because the memorialist interpretation cannot be right, the plain intepretation must be.

Cheers,

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

Because God's Word is "effective" in that it effects what it says. God's promises are attached to the element via His Word and if He says This is my body, then it is. Just like God said, Let there be light...and there was light. His Word is effective.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. But you know that he is going to come back with something like "but where in the Bible does it say that?" He is being very persistent.:sigh:

[KEPLER]

How does the Word of God make the Christ present in today's elements?

The Word of God IS Christ.

[SPALATIN]

Ah, yes. Like the Trinity.

Should we then allow Mormons and JWs to come to our tables as well? After all, the primary area in which these cults err is in their denial of the Trinity and the Divintiy fo Christ, both of which are inferred doctrines. Perhaps we should let Jews and Muslims come to the table as well...

The JWs and Mormons derived something different about the Divintiy of Christ, using the same Scriptures...

Now there is such a thing as inferring too far...as the Calvinists do with double-predestination. In that case, the inferrence directly contradicts Scripture.



And I submit that the Baptist inferrence that the Lord's Supper is merely a memorial is a direct contradiction of the Incarnation. The "logic" of the Baptist (i.e., Zwinglian) position is that the bread and wine can't be Christ's body and blood, because:1) there's no way He could fit in there

2) how can His body be divided all over the world on a Sunday morning?
3) it doesn't taste like flesh and blood
4) He isn't here (on Earth), He is there (in Heaven)

In their gross form, these are all arguments against the Incarnation:1) how can God fit in a human body? (Col 2:8-9)

2) If God took on human form, then He can't be in more than one place at a time (Matt 18:20)

Part of why we take the plain and simple meaning of "This is my body," is because all other ways of understanding it end up contradicting Scripture, or making Scripture subservient to our human logic.


Cheers,

Kepler

Kep,

What about the 3 omni's Omni-potent, Omni-present and Omni-scient

These would also seem to put the Zwinglian, Calvinist, Baptists on the spot as well.

[KEPLER]

Kep,

What about the 3 omni's Omni-potent, Omni-present and Omni-scient

These would also seem to put the Zwinglian, Calvinist, Baptists on the spot as well.

Indeed!

[BigNorsk]

Because one cannot Scripturally prove that the bread and wine actually become the body and bread of Christ.

I guess we could argue all day about whether we can prove the bread and wine become the body and blood, but what I think is very clear in this passage is that we are certainly to believe that they do.

1 Corinthians 10:15-17 NET
(15) I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say.
(16) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
(17) Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

Both questions really demand a "Yes" answer, not a "Yes, but..." not a "No" but just a yes. And right in that small passage we are told the effects of the body. That we are united into one body. That would be the church, other places called the body of Christ. If there is no body in the bread, Christians are not one body, there isn't one church, and scriptures lie.

I just don't see how a symbolic body would have any power to unite everyone into one body. Any unity could, at the best, be also symbolic. No real unity, no real body, the church on this world is only a symbol of Christ's body. All because what did we receive in Communion, oh, nothing really, just doing it because it is an ordinance and a memorial. You remember Jesus, he's the guy who said the bread and wine were his body and blood, but he didn't mean that, we've explained it all away.

No body = no church, no blood = no life. That's how I see it.

Marv

[KEPLER]

I guess we could argue all day about whether we can prove the bread and wine become the body and blood, but what I think is very clear in this passage is that we are certainly to believe that they do.

1 Corinthians 10:15-17 NET
(15) I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say.
(16) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
(17) Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

Both questions really demand a "Yes" answer, not a "Yes, but..." not a "No" but just a yes. And right in that small passage we are told the effects of the body. That we are united into one body. That would be the church, other places called the body of Christ. If there is no body in the bread, Christians are not one body, there isn't one church, and scriptures lie.

I just don't see how a symbolic body would have any power to unite everyone into one body. Any unity could, at the best, be also symbolic. No real unity, no real body, the church on this world is only a symbol of Christ's body. All because what did we receive in Communion, oh, nothing really, just doing it because it is an ordinance and a memorial. You remember Jesus, he's the guy who said the bread and wine were his body and blood, but he didn't mean that, we've explained it all away.

No body = no church, no blood = no life. That's how I see it.

Marv

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BigNorsk again.

[BBAS 64]

Kep,

What about the 3 omni's Omni-potent, Omni-present and Omni-scient

These would also seem to put the Zwinglian, Calvinist, Baptists on the spot as well.

Good Day, Scott

How so :confused: , this also assumes your understanding is correct and lacking nothing.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Either you take the words on faith or you don't. Hoc est corpus meum

Take and Eat, this is my body given for you.
Take and Drink, This cup is the new testament in my blood, shed for the remission of your sins. This do as often as you do it in remembrance of me.

Where is the metaphor? Unless you add the words Bread and Wine to each of these two areas there is no metaphor.

The real presence of Christ is there when the word of God is connected to the elements. It then ceases to be bread and wine but is now Christ's Body and Blood. The only time you can claim metaphor is when you still recognize the elements as they are and make a comparison to the two. I do not believe that scripture does this, but man has been know to interpret scripture to suit his case.

Good Day, Scott

There is no metaphor, this is true.

"this cup" what cup what is the historical view of "this cup"?
Is the NT in my blood, does not equal has my blood in it.

Not metaphors but tradition historical Jewish categories, let's understand the basis of such categories. Then apply these in the context of when and what they where stated.

What did Peter belive was in the Cup used in the sader 10 yrs before the last supper with Jesus.

What did Peter believe the Bread to be in that same sader?

I do believe the Cup was the NT in His blood.
And the bread is his Body.

I just do not make the catagory errors that run Historical Tradition a muck..

Image that a Baptist :eek:

These will help to answer the questions at hand... IMHO

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

The body of Christ suffers because people do not tolerate sound doctrine. Christ makes himself perfectly clear, and let's his followers abandon him over the fact that they knew he was talking literally. Did he explain this so-called "metaphor" to his Disciples after the rest abandoned him? No, he asked them point-blank, "Do you also want to go away?"

Good Day, Danhead

They left after, verse 65. He said it to them again it did not go over well the first time and surely went over like a "brick" the 2nd time around I submit the Lord knew that.

That is why they left.. Augustine's commentary may be use full on this issue.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Jim47]

What I am saying is that when you look at the entire Scripture concerning thos subject - it is a good case that it is not literal.
One cannot prove it to be so.

Let's leave it at that.

If you believe this - fine. No one is condemning you.

But if you state that another believer (for whom Christ also died) cannot partake woth you on remembrance of the event of Christ's death, just because he sees it to be symbolic - communion looses its purpose.

It is no longer a communion of the saints, but a communion of some saints - more precisely, of the Lutheran saints.

And is this is a communion of some saints, then the body of Christ (which is composed of all the saits) suffers.

Ed

Is there anything in the bible that can be physically proved? Maybe, but I don't accept science as proof. I accept only what God has given us through His written Word. That is why it is called "Faith"

If you read through the bible, there are many places where our fore fathers were given commands by God to do this or that and they had nothing in the way of physical proof that anything that God said would be done, but because they chose to believe God rather than this world and accepted it by faith, they were blessed and God counted them as faithful for believing "His Word", the very same Word that you and I have.


Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

Heb 11:9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.

Heb 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Heb 11:11 By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

Heb 11:12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Heb 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

Heb 11:14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own.

Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.

Heb 11:16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

Heb 11:18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."

Heb 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.

Heb 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.

Heb 11:23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.

Heb 11:25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time.

Heb 11:26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

Heb 11:27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

Heb 11:28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

Heb 11:29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

Heb 11:31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets,

Heb 11:33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions,

Heb 11:34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

Heb 11:35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

Heb 11:36 Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.

Heb 11:37 They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—

Heb 11:38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

Heb 11:39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.

Heb 11:40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

[Protoevangel]

Good Day, Danhead

They left after, verse 65. He said it to them again it did not go over well the first time and surely went over like a "brick" the 2nd time around I submit the Lord knew that.

That is why they left.. Augustine's commentary may be use full on this issue.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm

Joh 6:62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Peace to u,

Bill

Hey Bill,

Please forgive my obtuseness, it's been a long day... But, what exactly is your point?

BTW, great text you suggested! One I hold dear to my heart!

See how Peter, by the gift of God and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, understood Him. How other than because he believed? "Thou hast the words of eternal life." For Thou hast eternal life in the ministration of Thy body and blood. "And we have believed and have known." Not have known and believed, but "believed and known." For we believed in order to know; for if we wanted to know first, and then to believe, we should not be able either to know or to believe What have we believed and known? "That Thou art Christ, the Son of God;" that is, that Thou art that very eternal life, and that Thou givest in Thy flesh and blood only that which Thou art.

[SPALATIN]

Good Day, Scott

How so :confused: , this also assumes your understanding is correct and lacking nothing.

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill,

Good question,

If the Reformed believe that Jesus can't be in 2 places at the same time doesn't it refute omnipresence. Most Christians will give you Omnipotence and Omniscience but will hedge on Omnipresence which states that God is everywhere. So by saying that he is in heaven and therefore can't be in the sacrament says they disagree with Omnipresence. Is that what you are looking for Bill?

[SPALATIN]

But you are not talking about a communion of the saints here. You are talking about a communion of the Lutheran saints.
And there is no such thing, Scripturally speaking.

If one comes to the rail and partakes without ignoring the body of Christ and with repentance and does that in the remembrance of Christ's death - he partakes in the communion of the saints.

Since we simply cannot know that the bread we partake of today is indeed the body of the Christ, we can just believe it to be, but cannot know it to be.

The Scriptures are silent concerning what we eat today.

When we say that the Pastor's invokation is honored by God - we do not KNOW that, but we believe it.

The only things that we KNOW is what is in the Bible. Not in the confessions, not in the examples, not in the comments.

And this applies to all believers. We must separate what we believe from what we know.
Once we see that difference and apply it - much will be accomplished.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

Closed Communion was practiced by the Early Church before Luther was excommunicated. He carried forth the practice because he believed it to be true. He wouldn't consider Zwingli or Bucer two of his contemporaries to be orthodox or of the same faith because they didn't hold to Christ's real presence in the elements during communion.

The practice was to ask all those that were not of the same confession to leave the church at this time so that the members holding to the confession could have communion.

It has nothing to do with the communion of Saints but everthing to do with Holy Communion.

[BBAS 64]

Bill,

Good question,

If the Reformed believe that Jesus can't be in 2 places at the same time doesn't it refute omnipresence. Most Christians will give you Omnipotence and Omniscience but will hedge on Omnipresence which states that God is everywhere. So by saying that he is in heaven and therefore can't be in the sacrament says they disagree with Omnipresence. Is that what you are looking for Bill?

Good Day, Scott

Not at all. The problem is not the divine attribute of omnipresence, But when one takes that divine and then attributes it to the physical realm of the flesh that historically becomes a problem addressed in early councils.

So to belive that His Flesh is in two places at the same time causes great concern... but I do not think that was Luthers view. The Romanist on the other hand :sigh:

So, I hedge nothing... and find not problem with any of those attributes.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Hey Bill,

Please forgive my obtuseness, it's been a long day... But, what exactly is your point?

BTW, great text you suggested! One I hold dear to my heart!

Good Day, Danhead

You seemed to be saying the reason some left in Jn 6 was due to the teaching of the Bread and wine, as the body and blood. By doing so one would have to skip verse 65.

Augustine Notes:

7. "But," saith He, "there are some among you that believe not." He said not There are some among you that understand not; but He told the cause why they understand not "There are some among you that believe not," and therefore they understand not, because they believe not. For the prophet has said, "If ye believe not, ye shall not understand." We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding. For he who adheres not resists; he that resists believes not. And how can he that resists be quickened? He is an adversary to the ray of light by which he should be penetrated: he turns not away his eye, but shuts his mind. "There are," then, "some who believe not." Let them believe and open, let them open and be illumined. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed, and who should betray Him." For Judas also was there. Some indeed, were offended; but he remained to watch his opportunity, not to understand. And because he remained for that purpose, the Lord kept not silence concerning him. He described him not by name, but neither was He silent about him; that all might fear though only one should perish. But after He spoke, and distinguished those that believe from those that believe not, He clearly showed the cause why they believed not.



"Therefore I said unto you," saith He, "that no man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father." Hence to believe is also given to us; for certainly to believe is something. And if it is something great, rejoice that thou hast believed, yet be not lifted up; for "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" 8. "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him." Went back, but after Satan, not after Christ. For our Lord Christ once addressed Peter as Satan, rather because he wished to precede his Lord, and to give counsel that He should not die, He who had come to die, that we might not die for ever; and He says to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." He did not drive him back to go after Satan, and so called him Satan; but He made him go behind Himself, that by walking after his Lord he should not be a Satan. But these went back in the same manner as the apostle says of certain women: "For some are turned back after Satan." They walked not further with Him. Behold, cut off from the body, for perhaps they were not in the body, they have lost life. They must be reckoned among the unbelieving, notwithstanding they were called disciples. Not a few, but "many went back." This happened, it may be, for our consolation. For sometimes it happens that a man may declare the truth, and that what he says may not be understood, and so they that hear it are offended and go away. Now the man regrets that he had spoken that truth, and he says to himself, "I ought not to have spoken so, I ought not to have said this." Behold; it happened to the Lord: He spoke, and lost many; He remained with few. But yet He was not troubled, because He knew from the beginning who they were that believed and that believed not. If it happen to us, we are sorely perplexed. Let us find comfort in the Lord, and yet let us speak words with prudence.

The ones that left misunderstood the nature of the statement in verse,58 becasue they were unbelivers and could not understand. Thus in there misunderstanding, caused by unbelief that was a "hard saying".



But they did not leave till after verse 65 was spoken, that indeed is a hard saying many fall over it today "No man can" people do not like thier inability to come in to question.

Peace to u

Bill

[Protoevangel]

So to belive that His Flesh is in two places at the same time causes great concern... but I do not think that was Luthers view.
On to your reply to me in a minute.

:scratch: Are you saying here that you do not think Luther believed that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present in Holy Communion?

[BBAS 64]

On to your reply to me in a minute.

:scratch: Are you saying here that you do not think Luther believed that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present in Holy Communion?

Good Day, Dan

It is late here and 4:00 am comes quick..IOW , No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying to give divine attributes to the Flesh and Blood "carnal", is very problemmatic. Does Luther do this??

Can Christ's blood be in two places at the exact same time??

Peace to u,

Good nite,

Bill

[Protoevangel]

Good Day, Danhead

You seemed to be saying the reason some left in Jn 6 was due to the teaching of the Bread and wine, as the body and blood. By doing so one would have to skip verse 65.

Augustine Notes:

<snipped for space>Good, good stuff!!! I encourage everyone to look up at your post if they have not read this yet</snip>

The ones that left misunderstood the nature of the statement in verse,58 becasue they were unbelivers and could not understand. Thus in there misunderstanding, caused by unbelief that was a "hard saying".



But they did not leave till after verse 65 was spoken, that indeed is a hard saying many fall over it today "No man can" people do not like thier inability to come in to question.

Peace to u

Bill
True, they misunderstood the nature of what Jesus was telling them. They thought He was talking about canibalizing Jesus, as seen in verse 52. They knew His words, and understood in a fleshy human manner, but they believed not on Him, therefore they could not understand the true nature of what He was telling them. This is much the same as the Jews wanting to stone Jesus to death because, in His own words, He made Himself equal to God (John 5:18, John 8:58-59, John 10:30-33). Here, just as in John 6, they understood His Words, but not the Truth of what He was telling them.

Don't forget Jesus told the people that they could not come to him unless the Father called them also in verse 44, not just in 65, as your post seems to be iferring. They had every chance to leave him after the first time He said it, too. But what is it that the Jews, in this passage first complained about? "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And how did Jesus respond? "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." This is when many of His diciples said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" Only then does Jesus reply, "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe. For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." This is when the unbelievers left Him, and He asked the 12 if they were going to leave too.

The multitude left him because they could not, as no unbeliever can, believe His Words, and accept that His Body and Blood are truly given to us in His Holy meal. One does not have to understand it, Agustine make that clear, one simply has to believe it.

[Protoevangel]

By the time you read this, it will probably be tomorrow. I hope you had a pleasant night, my friend.

Good Day, Dan

It is late here and 4:00 am comes quick..IOW , No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying to give divine attributes to the Flesh and Blood "carnal", is very problemmatic. Does Luther do this??
No one here is saying that the Body and Blood are recieved in a carnal, capernaitic way. That is the same thing that Zwingli falsly accused Luther of.

Can Christ's blood be in two places at the exact same time??

Peace to u,

Good nite,

Bill
To answer carnally, if I leave a drop of my blood on a bandage, does it cease to be my blood? Even though it then ceases to nourish me, My blood can still nourish another. How much more so the Blood of Diety? This is not a proper answer, though.

On the other hand, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?" - Jeremiah 32:27
What other answer can be given to one who asks "can (you do it)" of God?

[KEPLER]

Good Day, Dan

It is late here and 4:00 am comes quick..IOW , No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying to give divine attributes to the Flesh and Blood "carnal", is very problemmatic. Does Luther do this??

Can Christ's blood be in two places at the exact same time??

Peace to u,

Good nite,

Bill

Bill,

This is basic Chalcedonian Christology. There is a thread on this topic in Lutheran theology here (http://www.christianforums.com/t2325926-finitum-capax-some-tricky-theology.html#post21187473), if you'd like to comment there. Or we can keep it up here, whatever.

But the short answer is, we can only speak of Christ the Person. We ought not speak of one nature or another, without regard for the other. Since Christ is God, and since God is present everywhere, then so too is the Person of Christ present everywhere. This is not a violation of His human nature, because we don't have any knowledge as to what a "glorified" human nature can do. We know the limitations of our fallen human nature, but since Christ was not fallen, those limitations don't apply.

IOW, We don't have enough information to speak authoritatively on the subject. Christ's omnipresence is something we must affirm, even though it seems strange to our unregenrate minds. However, in affirming the presence of Christ everywhere, we say it is an illocal presence.

The authoritative work on this matter is Martin Chemnitz, On the Two Natures of Christ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0570032105/qid=1136556743/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3068363-3786333?n=507846&s=books&v=glance), published by Concordia Publishing House. The other definitive work is Vol 37 (http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=171971&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=37) of the American Edition of Luther's Works.

Cheers,

Eric

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Eric

Thank you for these recommendations, It has been a while ... so I guess it would be a good thing to read the councils writting on this issue.

Thanks again,

Bill

[KEPLER]

Bill, for further reading, I offer this excerpt from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord (entire passage available HERE (http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html)):

91] Now, as regards the various imaginary reasons and futile counter-arguments of the Sacramentarians concerning the essential and natural attributes of a human body, concerning the ascension of Christ, concerning His departure from this world, and such like, inasmuch as these have one and all been refuted thoroughly and in detail, from God's Word, by Dr. Luther in his controversial writings: Against the Heavenly Prophets, That These Words, "This Is My Body," Still Stand Firm; likewise in his Large and his Small Confession concerning the Holy Supper [published some years afterwards], and in other of his writings, and inasmuch as since his death nothing new has been advanced by the factious spirits, we would for the sake of brevity have the Christian reader directed to them and have referred to them.

92] For that we neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom, whatever outward appearance or authority they may have, from the simple, distinct, and clear sense of the Word and testament of Christ to a strange opinion, other than the words read, but that, in accordance with what is above stated, we understand and believe them simply, our reasons upon which we have rested in this matter ever since the controversy concerning 93] this article arose, are those which Dr. Luther himself, in the very beginning, presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words (Dr. Luther in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper): My reasons upon which I rest in this matter are the following:

94] 1. The first is this article of our faith: Jesus Christ is essential, natural, true, perfect God and man in one person, inseparable and undivided.

95] 2. The second, that God's right hand is everywhere.

96] 3. The third, that God's Word is not false, nor does it lie.

97] 4. The fourth, that God has and knows of many modes of being in any place, and not only the single one concerning which the fanatics talk flippantly, and which philosophers call localem, or local.

98] Also: The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a threefold mode or all three modes of being anywhere.

99] First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about bodily upon earth, when, according to His size, He vacated and occupied space [was circumscribed by a fixed place]. This mode He can still use whenever He will, as He did after the resurrection, and will use at the last day, as Paul says, 1 Tim. 6, 15: "Which in His times He shall show, who is the blessed God [and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords]." And to the Colossians, 3, 4: "When Christ, who is our Life, shall appear." In this manner He is not in God or with the Father, neither in heaven, as the mad spirits dream; for God is not a bodily space or place. And this is what the passages how Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father refer to which the false spirits cite.

100] Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].

101] Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since He is one person with God, according to which, of course, all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode. For if, according to that second mode, He can be in and with creatures in such a manner that they do not feel, touch, circumscribe, or comprehend Him, how much more wonderfully will He be in all creatures according to this sublime third mode, so that they do not circumscribe nor comprehend Him, but rather that He has them present before Himself, circumscribes and comprehends them! For you must place this being of Christ, who is one person with God [for you must place this mode of presence of Christ which He has by His personal union with God], very far, far outside of the creatures, as far as God is outside of them; and again as deep and near within all creatures as God is within them. For He is one inseparable person with God; where God is, there must He also be, 102] or our faith is false. But who will say or think how this occurs? We know indeed that it is so, that He is in God outside of all creatures, and one person with God, but how it occurs we do not know; it [this mystery] is above nature and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood and known only by God. Now, since it is unknown to us, and yet true, we should not deny His words before we know how to prove to a certainty that the body of Christ can by no means be where God is, and that this mode of being [presence] is false. This the fanatics must prove; but they will forego it.



Two notes:
1) Where this passage says "Sacramentarians", you may insert "Reformed".
2) In section 91, where the text refers to a writing titled, That these words, "This is my body", still stand, this work is found in LW Vol 37.
Cheers,

Kepler

[Edial]

About 15-20 years ago I went to a Catholic wake for a co-worker's family member.
The priest began administering the Communion and people lined up to receive the Sacraments.

I was not a believer then. ...

(Before I became a believer I was a type of an atheist. I did not think about God. I could not define him. I "felt" that there was an "unknown" outside of this visible world. And the church was somehow a link to that "unknown".
I knew of a historical person of Jesus Christ and deeply sympathized with him. In the 70's, when I was listening to the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar" I could not understand why they were whipping that guy. It was totally unfair. I was visibly upset and angry for them doing that.
Later on in life, after I received Jesus Christ as my Savior I still could not see how a man hanging on the cross could be God. Man is man and God is spirit. That of course changed later on ...)

... So, when the priest began administering the Communion I also lined up to receive the Sacraments. (I knew about them, since my uncle was a high ranking official of the Armenian Orthodox Church).
When I approached, the priest offered the bread to me and asked me to repeat something.
I did not hear him and did not understand what he wanted.
He repeated. I still did not understand him, since it was some type of a "Christian terminology".
(If I would have understood him I wold have repeated anything he wanted :) ).
He gave me the sacraments. I partook of them and went to the pew.

After the service, people were shaking the priest's hand as they were leaving.
I also approached to shake his hand.
He looked away and clearly ignored my hand. He did not want to shake it.

I knew that there was a certain uncomfortable snag when I did not repeat his words prior to the partaking. But I was surprised that he refused to shake my hand.

This stayed with me.

I became a believer in Jesus Christ about 14 years ago.
I wound up in Baptist church and thank God for it.
The reason I thank him is because the first thing they impart on you is that one must learn the Bible. Period.
Currently, I teach the Bible on most levels.

One of the things that was cofusing me concerning Christianity was the visible and raw disagreement that they had among the denominations. Yet they were still considering the "opposing" denomination a Christian.

When I was learning Communion from the Scriptures I decided to objectively study the topic.
I did this heremeneutically.
I was quite stunned to learn that neither the Baptists (symbolic), not the Lutherans (consubstantion), nor the Catholics (transubstantiation) had their ways correct.
They all had truth in them, but also had their own interpretation attached to them that could not be proven Scripturally.
And the interpretation is something that we believe, yet cannot Scripturally (hermeneutically) prove.
Yet all were sticking to their interpretation as the truth of the Scriptures.

What surprised me even more was that most could not divide the Scriptural truth from an interpretation.

All denominations would agree that the primary purpose of participating in the Communion is to remember Him. "Do this in remembrance of me".

All also agree that this is a mystery that is not fully revealed to us.

I personally believe that it is not merely symbolic.
I believe that it is a body of Christ, but not in a way that the Catholics believe.
But I do not know. Since the absolute knowledge is preserved in the Scriptures and this part IS a mystery.

I differentiate "believe" from "know"

In "believe" one applies faith. But that faith must be based on Scriptures. Christianity does not have "blind faith".

In "know" one does not apply faith.
We know that there is one God.
We know that Jesus Christ is God.
We know that there is Trinity.
We know that salvation is through Christ only.

We know these things because they are plainly defined in the Scriptures.
Example:
JN 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Yet we talk about the Communion like we know. :)

The primary purpose of the Communion is to unite the entire body of the believers in the rememberance of him.

The essense of the elements is a matter of private interpretation... because we do not know.

What is important is when one approaches the altar is that he does not ignore the body of Christ that was broken for him 2000 years ago.

When I approache