Hold Up, wait a minute, rewind!

[Music4Hym777]

Okay maybe this is the missionary church background in me, but what do Lutherans believe about communion?

I've always been taught that it represents the body and blood, not actually turns into the body and the blood, am I mistaken in this Lutheran theology?

[Rechtgläubig]

am I mistaken in this Lutheran theology?Yes ma'am. :D

You listed 2 (representation and transubstiation), but there is a third! Real Presence - that is what Lutherans confess! :D

Simply put that we truely do recieve the Body and Blood along with the elements (bread+wine).


54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. (The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article X, Of the Holy Supper) http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/8_holysupper.html
Hope that helps! :D

[Music4Hym777]

Oh great, this puts me at another roadblocker since the missionary church believes that it represents the body and the Lutheran church believes that the body is present.

It is definately hard going back to the Lutheran church after being out of it for 10 years! I have known a lot of Lutheran doctrine all my life, but there are still things that are very hard to comprehend.

Recht- can you elaborate more on what that means, you must realize that my brain needs things in simple terms these days!

In Christ,
Monica

[Rechtgläubig]

Recht- can you elaborate more on what that means, you must realize that my brain needs things in simple terms these days!
Absolutely! I just didn't know how much of my yappin' you'd tollerate LOL! ^_^ Anyway...

Most Protestant churches teach that although the bread and wine (or grape juice) are present, the Body and Blood of our Lord are only spiritually present or that those elements only represent the Body and Blood.

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine have changed into the Body and Blood, without affecting the outward appearances. Meaning it looks, smells and tastes like bread and wine, but it is truely and only the Body and Blood present.

Real Presence means that while we take Lord Christ's words literally, "This is my Body" (+Blood), and believe that they are really and truely present, we also recognise that the bread and wine are still present as well. The quote from the Defense of the Augsbure Confession explained why. When Paul uses the word "Communion" and says that the bread is the communion of the Lord's Body...



Without a doubt Paul is referring here to the real presence found in the Lord’s Supper. "Communion," koinwni/a, with the genitive of the object denotes actual and real participation. There is then an actual and real participation between the wine and blood and the bread and body at the Lord’s Supper. So when one partakes of the wine, one also partakes of the very blood of Christ and when one partakes of the bread, one also partakes of the very body of Christ. In this way the Lord’s Supper connects one to Christ and the forgiveness won by him as he gave his body and shed his blood on the cross. The copula, e0sti\n, never means reprents but points to the fact that as one partakes of the bread and wine at the Lord’s table, one also partakes of the body and blood of Christ.
</FONT>(Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10:14-33)
http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/M/MuellerCorinthians/MuellerCorinthians.htm

[Rechtgläubig]

Now what does all that mean to you?

The Lord's Supper is a sacrament. Meaning that the Word comes together with an earthly element (just like Baptism is water and Word - Ephesians 5:25-26).

The absolute best children's sermon I have ever heard was by pastor John Herring (Divine Peace Garland, TX). He showed the children an envelope and told them there was a dollar in it. He asked if they believed him. A couple kids didn't believe him (he had to remind them he was a pastor - he wouldn't lie to them LOL!). He then asked a kid to put his hand in and feel the contents. The pastor asked the kid if he believed there was a dollar inside. The kid said he was sure of it. Another child was allowed to touch (again, without actually seeing it). She was certain there was a dollar inside too.

He then related the dollar to Forgiveness of our sins and Eternal Life. We won't actually SEE it yet, but by the Holy Spirit's Gift of Faith we believe it. If we actually saw it, it couldn't be called Faith, it would be knowing. He said that telling them about the dollar was like preaching the Gospel. When some were allowed to touch, but not actually see the dollar, that was like Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I know I slaughtered the account, but I hope you sort of understand what I am trying to tell you. You believe because the Holy Spirit created Faith in your heart. Someone tells you about Christ's sacrifice or you read it in scripture and believe. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are real elements that you can touch, taste, and smell and they carry the Gospel message of Forgiveness with them. They strengthen and feed your Faith.

God Bless Music and please if you need further clarification, just ask!

:D

[ChiRho]

Great job, Recht!

Music,

Purpose of Communion

Q. My Lutheran (not LCMS) Bible study leader said that the purpose of communion is to remember Jesus. This startled and confused me. I grew up and was confirmed in the LCMS. Communion, as far as I am aware, is a means of grace. A sacrament instituted by Christ so that we may see and participate in this forgiveness. The only part that throws me off theologically, is the words of institution where we say "this do in remembrance of me." Perhaps you can shed some light on my confusion.

A. Question 294 of our synodical Catechism (1986) asks, "What does Christ command when He says, `This do in remembrance of Me'?" The Catechism responds: "Christ commands in these words that His Sacrament be celebrated in the church till the end of time as a living proclamation and distribution of His saving death and all its blessings." Likewise, the Augsburg Confession states:

Christ commands us to do this in remembrance of him. Therefore the Mass was instituted that faith on the part of those who use the sacrament should remember what benefits are received through Christ and should cheer and comfort anxious consciences.

For to remember Christ is to remember his benefits and realize that they are truly offered to us; and it is not enough to remember the history, for the Jews and the ungodly can also remember this. (AC XXIV, 30-32).


If by "remembrance" of Jesus one would understand that through the sacrament Christ is present for us for the forgiveness of our sins and for the strengthening of our faith, then such understanding would be in keeping with what the Lutheran confessional writings understand the Scriptures to mean. If, however, "remembrance" of Jesus were understood as a simple "memorial" or mental "recall" of Jesus and His work, such understanding would not be in keeping with Scriptural teaching.

[Rechtgläubig]

Great job, Recht!
Right back at ya! :D

[Music4Hym777]

Okay. finally I am seeing the light! It is pretty much the same as what my missionary church believes.

Heres another one to tackle, why do Lutheran's believe it is not present among other denominations?

[Rechtgläubig]

Okay. finally I am seeing the light!:D

It is pretty much the same as what my missionary church believes. Just make sure you understand the difference between representing the Body and Blood and Real Presence. You also might hear Lutherans say, "in with and under the bread and wine" to describe how the two are present together. (that's fancy talk for, I dunno, but it is there" :D )

Heres another one to tackle, why do Lutheran's believe it is not present among other denominations?From the Confessions...


32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion. Fol. 245. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Holy Supper)
... what that is saying is that churches that openly deny Christ's Body and Blood is present and those who interpet the words of the sacrament to mean other then what God intended, clearly have no intention of celebrating the Lord's Supper as Jesus instituted, because He didn't intend for only symbols when He said "this is my Body".

Are you confused yet? :P

:D

[Music4Hym777]

Yeah, Recht,I think ya just confused me even more. Can I have the definition of Real Presence?

[ChiRho]

Real Physical Presence yet still bread and wine= Lutheran

Anything else = heresy and anti-Scriptural

[Music4Hym777]

Yeah, that doesn't make sense...I wish I could understand seriously, I know I look like a blonde but seriously, I am a confused burnette!

[Rechtgläubig]

Yeah, Recht,I think ya just confused me even more. Can I have the definition of Real Presence?Sure! :D

Real Presence - "the scriptural teaching that in the Lord's Supper Christ's true body and blood are actually present with the bread and the wine. As the Bible declares, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving . . . a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread . . . a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16)" http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=776&contentID=2525&shortcutID=4773


It is certain that "this" refers to bread and wine, because the Lord says, "Take and eat; this is my body." "This" is what they are to take and eat, the bread. But "this" does not refer merely to bread and wine. We see that from the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16. He does not use tou=to/, "this," as the subject. He makes bread and wine the subjects. But now he does not say, "The bread is the body." He says, "Is not the bread that we break the communion of the body of Christ?" From this we see that it makes a big difference whether it says "this is" or "this bread is." In the former case, it goes on to say "my body," and in the latter, "the communion of my body." Thus Paul teaches us that the bread is not the body. It bears the body and has it bound to itself in such a way that whoever partakes of the bread also partakes of the body, or has partaking communion with the body. Thus when the Lord says, "This is my body," "this" is bread and body together in sacramental union. But why does the Lord himself not say, "This bread? Answer: the disciples see that it is bread. It was a Passover ordinance that the Lord distribute it to them. The new feature instituted by Christ is that he, at the same time, imparts his body in a mysterious way. This imparting of the body is what really matters to the Lord, the high and important part of the whole action. Therefore he does not mention everything included under "this," both the less important and the supremely important. He doesn’t say, "This is bread and my body," but bases his expression on the higher things that he gives and says, "This [which I give to you] is my body.".... A corresponding comparison would be a bottle of medicine. I say, "This is belladonna16," although it is only a few drops of belladonna diluted with water. Strictly speaking I would have to say, "This is water and belladonna." In any case, we may not say, "This water is belladonna," but "In and under the water is belladonna" or "This water contains belladonna." Christ’s manner of speaking is therefore perfectly normal.

Is this any help?

[Rechtgläubig]

Yeah, that doesn't make sense...I wish I could understand seriously, I know I look like a blonde but seriously, I am a confused burnette!It makes about as much sense as the Holy Trinity. :D I don't think you can or will ever understand it. Don't take that personally, no one can ever grasp it fully. I find simplicity to be the key. Just like with the Trinity, the more you try to understand, the harder it becomes (I think St. Augustine said that). Stick to the basics and don't try to overanalyze it. "But how can this be?" Because God in the flesh said so. That is enough reason. I think my signature applies to this topic perfectly, "When Jesus Christ utters a word, he opens his mouth so wide that it embraces all heaven and earth, even though that word be but in a whisper. The word of the emperor is powerful, but that of Jesus Christ governs the whole universe." Reception of the bread and wine, means you recieve the true Body and Blood of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and all of the benifits He won for you. You are getting a taste of your salvation.

[JVAC]

I think Ol' Marty said it best in the 'Pagan Servitude':

I would therefore allow anyone to hold whichever opinion he prefers. The only thing I aim at present is to banish scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear being called a heretic if he believes that the bread and wine on the altar are real bread and wine. .... Here Luther talks about the method of Real Pressence, that is he despises the Church's (Rome) attempt to explain the Divine Mystery of the Real Pressence. He wishes freedom to choose from the Aquinian view of Transubstantiation to other views such as the bread and wine remain but Christ, however, still makes himself pressent in them (which was Luther's opinion, yet he did not invent it).

Let him understand that, without endangering his soul's salvation, he may believe and think and opine either the one or the other, because no particular view is a necessary article of faith. The Roman church made the Aquinian theory manditory to be believed, and if one didn't their soul was endangered. He argued for freedom of conscience.




So what does this mean, today's ELCA does not define the Divine Mystery of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. We accept it as true body and true blood, and the opinion of manifestation is of no real matter. Thus we are content to believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus, the Christ of God, are truly present in this most blessed Sacrament.

-James

[Marie]

I know I look like a blonde but seriously, I am a confused burnette!
...who can't even spell 'brunette!' :P

Luvya Monica! :P

[Music4Hym777]

Haha Marie!!! Yeah right! I was tired and rushed and really dont care!

[Marie]

Lol! Suuuurreee.....:P

[Music4Hym777]

Yeah, no debating with out the LUtheran Icon Miss Marie!!! So anyways this is not the place to get into a sibling rivalry!

[Marie]

Tell me about it! lol! :P

Ya'll'll talk me to death! ;) :P

Yes, that is a word!! :D

[JVAC]

And, Man can Lutherans write!!! :D

-James

[Marie]

Pssh, tell me about it! ;)

I got lost after the first post!! :P

[Rechtgläubig]

Pssh, tell me about it! ;)

I got lost after the first post!! :P
Aww man! That's when I opened my big mouth :sigh:

[JVAC]

Aww man! That's when I opened my big mouth :sigh:
^_^ :hug:

-James

[Marie]

Aww man! That's when I opened my big mouth :sigh:
:hug:

Just cuz I'm easily confused with all of this lutheran stuff doesn't mean you have a big mouth, lol! :D

I'm just not Lutheran!! :P

[JVAC]

I'm just not Lutheran!!
That is one of the most awesome quotes ever!! Profound, witty, and greatly explatory!

I give this quote one of my higher ratings 9.98

-James

[Rechtgläubig]

I'm just not Lutheran!! :P
...YET! MUAHAHAHAHA ^_^

[JVAC]

LOL!! An even more perfect rebuttle, you guys are on a role!!!

-James

[Marie]

rofl! :D

I was quite proud of it! :P

Yet????? *scared* noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

*taps shoes together* I am nondenominational, I am nondenominational........

[ChiRho]

rofl! :D

I was quite proud of it! :P

Yet????? *scared* noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

*taps shoes together* I am nondenominational, I am nondenominational........

"those that stand for nothing, will fall for anything." ;)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Marie]

Ack, are you trying to tell me something???? ;):P:D

I'm standing...that's how I'm tapping my shoes together! ;)

[Music4Hym777]

You'll have to excuse my sister, she is a little bit on the liberal side of church theology (Lutheranism is too complex for her, we go to separate churches even though we are the same age and live together).

[ChiRho]

You'll have to excuse my sister, she is a little bit on the liberal side of church theology (Lutheranism is too complex for her, we go to separate churches even though we are the same age and live together).

Lutheranism is adherence to the simple and searing truth of Holy Scripture. Complexity is transubstantiation....Complexity is the Theology of Glory...Complexity is Double-Predestination...Complexity is attempting to discern truth from emotions...Complexity is attempting to rewrite Scripture to fit one's desire...Complexity is ummm....anything but Lutheranism.

From man comes complexity. Insisting that we contribute, we complicate things.

Lutheranism merely trusts God to do everything. He is faithful and just, this we can be sure of.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[JMRE5150]

transubstansiationOk, what the real question everyone is wondering is:

Where did a jocky weight trainer learn such a $5 word from?
They got a library in that gym?

:P

You know I had to Chi...I couldn't resist even if I wanted to. ;)

But seriously, you nailed it right on the head with that statement. Nice work, brother.

Robb

[ChiRho]

Ok, what the real question everyone is wondering is:

Where did a jocky weight trainer learn such a $5 word from?
They got a library in that gym?

:P

You know I had to Chi...I couldn't resist even if I wanted to. ;)

But seriously, you nailed it right on the head with that statement. Nice work, brother.

Robb

HA! a library?...we dont even have a dictionary! transubstansiation? make that transubstantiation! :blush:

ChiRho

[JVAC]

You'll have to excuse my sister, she is a little bit on the liberal side of church theology (Lutheranism is too complex for her, we go to separate churches even though we are the same age and live together).
Don't worry I have two older sisters, and I don't know what they are. I don't know if they know what they are. *sigh*

-James

[JVAC]

Ok, what the real question everyone is wondering is:

Where did a jocky weight trainer learn such a $5 word from?
ChiRho, you ride horses?:confused:

-James

[ChiRho]

ChiRho, you ride horses? :confused:

Ha! LOL!

[Marie]

Hey, I am offended- I know what I am! :P

I am a non-denominational Christian, thank ya very much! :)

Besides, we're all Christians......why can't we all just get along???? :P ;)

[ChiRho]

Hey, I am offended- I know what I am! :P

I am a non-denominational Christian, thank ya very much! :)

Besides, we're all Christians......why can't we all just get along???? :P ;)

First of all, if you believe the truth that is confessed in the creeds, then you are certainly a Christian. Second, what is a non-denominational church? Thirdly, we can get along, but a cry for unity while ignoring heterodoxy, is a cry for the sacrifice of what is true.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[SPALATIN]

Okay maybe this is the missionary church background in me, but what do Lutherans believe about communion?

I've always been taught that it represents the body and blood, not actually turns into the body and the blood, am I mistaken in this Lutheran theology?
What does it say Christ said at the Last supper?

"This is my Body. . . This is my blood. . ." It doesn't say this represents my Body. Is means is! Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Elements of Bread and Wine. Through these elements we receive the means of Grace and forgiveness. :amen: If you need more info let m know.

[Music4Hym777]

*shakes head* Marie, Marie Marie

This is the Lutheran forum! If you want the short version then here it is

Not only is there the Bible but there is the Book of Concord, the book of Concord is a book of church doctrine set forth by Luther in the 1530's. The Augsburg Confession (what I was reading last night) is the most common confession. There are several others. There are creeds, many of them, the Apostle's and the Nicene are just a couple of them. A Lutheran church wouldn't be caught dead singing the songs at CCV, Luther would be turning over in his grave!

Thats the very short version, now for all the abbreviations that you dont understand

ELCA=Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (my church is this type)
LCMS=Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (Jill's church)
WELS=Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (the church we pass every day coming to the house from school)

Those are the common ones! Welcome, but dont cause to much controversy please!

[Rechtgläubig]

Those are the common ones! Welcome, but dont cause to much controversy please!Controversy is what drives us! :D

[Marie]

that's what I've been tellin ya'll!! :P

[filosofer]

*shakes head* Marie, Marie Marie

This is the Lutheran forum! If you want the short version then here it is

Not only is there the Bible but there is the Book of Concord, the book of Concord is a book of church doctrine set forth by Luther in the 1530's. The Augsburg Confession (what I was reading last night) is the most common confession. There are several others. There are creeds, many of them, the Apostle's and the Nicene are just a couple of them.
Just to be clear (not disagreeing with you but clarifying for those might might assume...), Luther wrote neither the Augsburg Confession nor the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Yes, he read proofs and approved before publicly read and submitted at Augsburg, but P. Melancthon was the author.

Luther also did not write the Formula of Concord (Epitome) nor Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) - they were written after his death (1546), in 1577, and officially gathered with the other writings in the Book of Concord in 1580. And yes, while he did not author these, those who did quoted him freely especially on the Tow Natures of Christ and the Lord's Supper.

So the documents reflect what Luther had written about various doctrinal topics even though he did not specifically write these documents.

[Lotar]

Phillip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz wrote more of the Book of Concord than Luther did. :D

Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles, and the Small and Large Catechisms.

Melanchthon was the main author of the Augsburg Confessions, the Defense of the Augsburg Confessions, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Chemnitz and his contemporaries were the authors of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of Concord, and were the ones who put the Book of Concord together.

[SPALATIN]

Phillip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz wrote more of the Book of Concord than Luther did. :D

Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles, and the Small and Large Catechisms.

Melanchthon was the main author of the Augsburg Confessions, the Defense of the Augsburg Confessions, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Chemnitz and his contemporaries were the authors of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of Concord, and were the ones who put the Book of Concord together.
Also add to this that Phillip Melanchthon departed from much of his earlier writing and leaned more towards the Calvinists. His followers were called Phillipists.:sigh:

[Lotar]

Also add to this that Phillip Melanchthon departed from much of his earlier writing and leaned more towards the Calvinists. His followers were called Phillipists.:sigh:
What he did was try to get everyone to unite again by compromising. He had about as many versions of the AC as there were sects. He didn't become a sacramentarian, but he was willing to compromise with them. The Phillipists were sacramentarians and synergists. It was more that they were taking advantage of what he said than following what he believed.

Still, most of what Melanchthon wrote after Luther's death could be tossed in the fire. The poor guy wasn't fit to lead and look what he had to deal with, the Smalcald wars, the interim, etc. :sigh:

[SPALATIN]

What he did was try to get everyone to unite again by compromising. He had about as many versions of the AC as there were sects. He didn't become a sacramentarian, but he was willing to compromise with them. The Phillipists were sacramentarians and synergists. It was more that they were taking advantage of what he said than following what he believed.

Still, most of what Melanchthon wrote after Luther's death could be tossed in the fire. The poor guy wasn't fit to lead and look what he had to deal with, the Smalcald wars, the interim, etc. :sigh:
Compromise is what Satan wants you to do. Uniting is not always a positive thing and sometimes that which separates us is a good thing. I don't believe that compromise would have been what Luther wanted. He wouldn't compromise with Zwingli or Bucer and Capito. They had to compromise to him. He never conceded that they were correct in their views about Baptism or Holy communion. Chemnitz and those of his era went to the unaltered BOC instead of the one that was altered by Phillip and his crew.

Scott Strohkirch

[Lotar]

I agree. But I believe Phillip's heart was in the right place, even if his head wasn't.

[ByzantineDixie]

I agree. But I believe Phillip's heart was in the right place, even if his head wasn't.

Great response and fittingly complies with Luther's explanation of the 8th commandment.



The Eighth Commandment:

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

We should love and fear God, and so we should not tell lies about our neighbor, nor betray, slander or defame him, but should apologize for him, speak well for him, and interpret charitably all that he does.

Good job, you little brainiac! :D -----R