The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

[RileyG]

The Holy Eucharist is Eschatological. In this moment time and eternity meet.

Amen!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Time and eternity meet in the entire mass.

...Transcending time and space!

 

[dogs4thewin]

Mod hat on

This thread has undergone a clean up for back and forth flaming and trolling


Mod hat off

 

[dogs4thewin]

Mod Hat on

Thread reopened

Mod hat off

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

The thread has had more of a clean up done.
Be careful to not imply that others may not be Christians. ​

 

[HopeSings]

No offense intended here. My faith is mine. God gave it to me. He is my teacher as scripture says. No one can lord over my faith..I don't need man's wine and bread. I need the word and spirit. That's my food.

Jesus isn't wine or bread. These are symbolic only. We don't turn wine into blood or bread into flesh. We eat the bread of affliction and we drink our tears as King David did. We bear our cross.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't turn wine into blood or bread into flesh.

No church teaches that we humans turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. Rather, the bread and wine are changed, according to most churches that believe in the Real Presence, and which have a position on this, through the action of the Holy Spirit.

The fundamental problem with your Zwinglian approach to the Eucharist is that our Lord said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, and further said that we would need to eat His Body and drink His Blood for eternal life in John ch. 6. Nowhere did he say “This bread is a symbol of my body” and “This wine is a symbol of my blood.” And in 1 Corinthians 11:26-34, the Holy Apostle Paul mentions that some of those who had partaken of the Eucharist unworthily and had not discerned the Body and Blood of our Lord in that church had become sick or died as a result.

So the reality is that there is no scriptural support for the Zwinglian interpretation.

The only scriptural alternative to a belief in the Real Presence, such as the Lutheran “in with and under” approach, or Roman Catholic transubstantiation, or the Orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence, would be the beliefs one encounters among some Anglicans and some Calvinists that assert that our Lord is spiritually present in the Bread and Wine, but not physically present.

Receptionism, which is the idea that it becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord when we partake of it, is also discredited, because our Lord said “this is my Body” and not “this will become my Body when you partake of it.” And of course the memorialist interpretation simply fails altogether, since it requires us to simply disregard what Christ our God actually said according to the four Gospels and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

So, there are two scripturally valid approaches, and only two: either our Lord is in some respect physically present in the Eucharist, which was the belief of the Early Church, as is attested to by several liturgies and hymns dating as far back as the second and third centuries, with many attested to in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which I can provide examples of and would rather enjoy providing examples of if anyone should doubt this, or one can believe our Lord is spiritually present and that we partake of Him spiritually. This second approach suffers from the disadvantage of a lack of Patristic support, but it is not contrary to the plain interpretation of scripture, in contrast to the Zwinglian symbolic sacramental theology you are advocating.

 

[HopeSings]

No church teaches that we humans turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. Rather, the bread and wine are changed, according to most churches that believe in the Real Presence, and which have a position on this, through the action of the Holy Spirit.

The fundamental problem with your Zwinglian approach to the Eucharist is that our Lord said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, and further said that we would need to eat His Body and drink His Blood for eternal life in John ch. 6. Nowhere did he say “This bread is a symbol of my body” and “This wine is a symbol of my blood.” And in 1 Corinthians 11:26-34, the Holy Apostle Paul mentions that some of those who had partaken of the Eucharist unworthily and had not discerned the Body and Blood of our Lord in that church had become sick or died as a result.

So the reality is that there is no scriptural support for the Zwinglian interpretation.

The only scriptural alternative to a belief in the Real Presence, such as the Lutheran “in with and under” approach, or Roman Catholic transubstantiation, or the Orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence, would be the beliefs one encounters among some Anglicans and some Calvinists that assert that our Lord is spiritually present in the Bread and Wine, but not physically present.

Receptionism, which is the idea that it becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord when we partake of it, is also discredited, because our Lord said “this is my Body” and not “this will become my Body when you partake of it.” And of course the memorialist interpretation simply fails altogether, since it requires us to simply disregard what Christ our God actually said according to the four Gospels and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

So, there are two scripturally valid approaches, and only two: either our Lord is in some respect physically present in the Eucharist, which was the belief of the Early Church, as is attested to by several liturgies and hymns dating as far back as the second and third centuries, with many attested to in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which I can provide examples of and would rather enjoy providing examples of if anyone should doubt this, or one can believe our Lord is spiritually present and that we partake of Him spiritually. This second approach suffers from the disadvantage of a lack of Patristic support, but it is not contrary to the plain interpretation of scripture, in contrast to the Zwinglian symbolic sacramental theology you are advocating.

It's ok. I don't need to argue about it. Argument is not discerning the body.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's ok. I don't need to argue about it. Argument is not discerning the body.

Well respectfully, it would have been better if you had not made your initial post if you’re unwilling to discuss it. It is offensive to those of us who believe in the Real Presence, and who in some countries endured persecution for believing in the Real Presence, when someone simply dismisses our faith as being incorrect on an arbitrary basis.

Also, you know, we believe God is our teacher as well, and we believe he teaches us through His scriptures, and indeed the Lutherans, who are among the most ardent defenders of the doctrine of the Real Presence, also happen to have originated the idea of Sola Scriptura. So it is distressing when people simply dismiss our faith in this manner.

 

[HopeSings]

Well respectfully, it would have been better if you had not made your initial post if you’re unwilling to discuss it. It is offensive to those of us who believe in the Real Presence, and who in some countries endured persecution for believing in the Real Presence, when someone simply dismisses our faith as being incorrect on an arbitrary basis.

Also, you know, we believe God is our teacher as well, and we believe he teaches us through His scriptures, and indeed the Lutherans, who are among the most ardent defenders of the doctrine of the Real Presence, also happen to have originated the idea of Sola Scriptura. So it is distressing when people simply dismiss our faith in this manner.

Yes but you offend me in the same way brother. So love must be the answer I guess.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes but you offend me in the same way brother. So love must be the answer I guess.

Firstly, nothing i posted had the intent to offend, and if I have caused offense, I apologize. What I provided was a defense of my beliefs against your unsolicited criticism, which I would note that you did not back up with any kind of theological argument or explanation as to your position. You basically made a post that asserted that your belief is correct, and that the shared belief of the very large number of Christians who do believe in the Real Presence is wrong, without even explaining why that is the case.

I do agree that love is the solution to this sort of dogmatic conflict; if we dialogue in love we might be able to understand each other. But if we want to receive love, we must give love, and merely saying someone is wrong, without trying to explain to them why they are wrong, is not a particularly loving approach to apologetics.

Now on the other hand, if you did articulate a logical basis for your belief, if you tried to show me why you thought your argument was correct, because you thought it was important for my salvation, I could accept a loving intention as being behind that action, even if I disagree with your conclusions. The reason why I replied to you in the manner I did was love; I feel it would not have been loving had I not addressed your criticism, to show you how the kind of criticism you presented was hurtful, and also to try to show you some of the scriptural problems with it.

I also made a point of highlighting the alternative belief to the Real Presence doctrine which I think anyone would have to concede is compatible with scripture, that being the doctrine of the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Now, I would rather people simply accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, but I understand it is difficult for some to believe that our Lord is physically present in the Eucharist; the alternative view that our Lord is spiritually present, and that by partaking of the bread and wine we are spiritually partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a much more scripturally robust doctrine than Zwinglianism, Symbolism or Memorialism.

Now, I don’t believe in ecumenical reconciliation via a lowest common denominator approach, that is to say, dogmatic compromise, so I do not propose the adoption of a belief in the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist as a substitute for my beliefs or your beliefs. But rather, I do feel it is important that people who do not believe in the real physical presence of our Lord are aware of the alternatives to Memorialism and Zwinglianism that are more consistent with what Christ our True God actually said about the Eucharist.

God bless you.

 

[The Liturgist]

...Transcending time and space!

This is a very important point about Baptism and the Eucharist that many people overlook. When we are baptized, we are there with Christ in the Jordan. And when we partake of the Eucharist, we are there, at the Last Supper, in Holy Communion with our Lord, and with the Disciples, and with all other Christians who have received Holy Communion over the past two thousand years.

Christ is fully God and fully man, and in His divinity He transcends time and space, for it was by Him that all things (which logically include time and space) were made (John 1:1-17), and it is through Him that the Father is revealed, and it is by the Holy Spirit that we are able to partake of the actual Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, which is the very medicine of immortality.

So thank you @Philip_B @MarkRohfrietsch and @RileyG for raising this point.

 

[HopeSings]

Firstly, nothing i posted had the intent to offend, and if I have caused offense, I apologize. What I provided was a defense of my beliefs against your unsolicited criticism, which I would note that you did not back up with any kind of theological argument or explanation as to your position. You basically made a post that asserted that your belief is correct, and that the shared belief of the very large number of Christians who do believe in the Real Presence is wrong, without even explaining why that is the case.

I do agree that love is the solution to this sort of dogmatic conflict; if we dialogue in love we might be able to understand each other. But if we want to receive love, we must give love, and merely saying someone is wrong, without trying to explain to them why they are wrong, is not a particularly loving approach to apologetics.

Now on the other hand, if you did articulate a logical basis for your belief, if you tried to show me why you thought your argument was correct, because you thought it was important for my salvation, I could accept a loving intention as being behind that action, even if I disagree with your conclusions. The reason why I replied to you in the manner I did was love; I feel it would not have been loving had I not addressed your criticism, to show you how the kind of criticism you presented was hurtful, and also to try to show you some of the scriptural problems with it.

I also made a point of highlighting the alternative belief to the Real Presence doctrine which I think anyone would have to concede is compatible with scripture, that being the doctrine of the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Now, I would rather people simply accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, but I understand it is difficult for some to believe that our Lord is physically present in the Eucharist; the alternative view that our Lord is spiritually present, and that by partaking of the bread and wine we are spiritually partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a much more scripturally robust doctrine than Zwinglianism, Symbolism or Memorialism.

Now, I don’t believe in ecumenical reconciliation via a lowest common denominator approach, that is to say, dogmatic compromise, so I do not propose the adoption of a belief in the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist as a substitute for my beliefs or your beliefs. But rather, I do feel it is important that people who do not believe in the real physical presence of our Lord are aware of the alternatives to Memorialism and Zwinglianism that are more consistent with what Christ our True God actually said about the Eucharist.

God bless you.

I trust in the spirit of the Lord who is always with me. He never leaves or forsakes me. Nothing can separate me from God's love in Christ. No one can take me from Jesus hand or condemn me. That's my theological stance.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's ok. I don't need to argue about it. Argument is not discerning the body.

Neither is denying it as so many Churches seem to do.