1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you remember?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by thessalonian, Aug 26, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    John Gillmore wrote:

    "All Lutherans subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions which reject consubstantiation.

    There are so-called Lutherans who do not subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions just as there are so-called Roman Catholics who do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope."

    Huh? Luther espoused consubstantiation from what I can see from just about every website that talks about it online. So was Luther not really a lutheran (i.e. "so-called"). Is one who teaches incorrectly about the Lord's Supper not really a Christian? Is true Lutheranism, whichever brand is true based on what kind of a Lutheran you are talking to, wholy true? Are your true Lutherans really un-lutherans? Kind of like un-cola. I never new this thread would be so much fun.
     
    #21 thessalonian, Aug 27, 2003
  2. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all.
     
    #22 Eladar, Aug 27, 2003
  3. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's interesting. Could you please provide a link to a document where Luther espouses consubstantiation?

    Are there not any un-Catholics? Seems like the internet is litered with people calling themselves Catholics but denying all sorts of Papal teachings. Some of these people even claim the guy in the vatican is not the real Pope! Are all these people your Catholic brothers?
     
    #23 John Gilmore, Aug 27, 2003
  4. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "That's interesting. Could you please provide a link to a document where Luther espouses consubstantiation?"

    I know where this is headed. That's okay. My question is answered.

    Blessings
     
    #24 thessalonian, Aug 27, 2003
  5. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny how this is getting so little attention. Common guys defend your defense. Is rememberence a nostalgic look at the past or is it a remberence of what Christ is currently doing for us. Actually I would say it is all of the above and then some.

    Blessings
     
    #25 thessalonian, Aug 28, 2003
  6. Kiffin

    Kiffin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi thessalonian,

    I am not Anglican and maybe Dale could better explain this than me [​IMG] but the Book of Common Prayer from what I have read holds to the Spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion and therefore the Anglican view is essemtially the same as that of Calvin since it is by Faith one eats the body and blood of Christ in communion. The confessions of early Anglican separatists such as Presbyterianism and Baptists (Westminister, 1689 London) both show a Anglican influence on the understanding of the Eucharist. My understanding is that the later Oxford Movement(aka the Anglo-Catholic movement) view of Communion was at best the Lutheran view and not that of the Roman Catholics. Edward Pusey the most notable of the Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England stated ."That the sacramental bread and wine remain in their very natural substances; and yet that under these poor outward forms ,His creatures of bread and wine,the faithful verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ."

    The Zwinglian view is very popular now though in many ways the view of the total absence is more a view some believe developed in the 1800's when the Lord's Supper began to be de emphasized.

    You asked,

    John 6 can only be understood to refer to the Eucharist in a secondary sense. I have no problem however using that text to refer to Holy Communion. Any one who walks away from Christ show their profession to be a vain one is what I get from John 6:66 not any theological disertation on the Eucharist. God Bless [​IMG]
     
    #26 Kiffin, Aug 28, 2003
  7. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #27 Eladar, Aug 28, 2003
  8. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]Tuor,

    Why do you not understand. It is not food for our bodies. I am not sure how you can keep getting it wrong. The verse you quote is not about the Eucharist but about speach and what defiles us. It is about what defiles us. How could the Eucharist which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ defile us. When Protestants keep coming up with such silliness it makes me wonder how there are not 100,000 denominations. This is the first time I have seen this verse used against the Eucharist. I can search through 800 years of Church Fathers and not find it used in this manner. So Tuor has a new revelation that this is how this verse should be used I guess. Sad. You keep refusing to believe what Jesus over and over makes VERY PLAIN.

    Blessings
     
    #28 thessalonian, Aug 28, 2003
  9. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    The verse is about the effect that literal food has on salvation, absolutely none. As Jesus said, it is simply eliminated. The heart is what matters.
     
    #29 Eladar, Aug 28, 2003
  10. MikeS

    MikeS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    The verse is about the effect that literal food has on salvation, absolutely none. As Jesus said, it is simply eliminated. The heart is what matters. </font>[/QUOTE]But the literal heart is eliminated also.

    The Eucharist is unlike any other food in the world, just as Christ is unlike any other man in the world. Therefore, it is largely fruitless to compare the Eucharist to any other food, just as it is largely fruitless to compare Christ to any other man.
     
    #30 MikeS, Aug 28, 2003
  11. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I meant by heart is what Jesus meant by heart. It is the place where seeds are sown.
     
    #31 Eladar, Aug 28, 2003
  12. MikeS

    MikeS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what I mean by food and drink is what Jesus meant by food and drink in John 6.
     
    #32 MikeS, Aug 28, 2003
  13. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you did, then you'd know he was talking about the gospel message, not literal food.
     
    #33 Eladar, Aug 28, 2003
  14. MikeS

    MikeS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another one of those infallible private interpretations? [​IMG]
     
    #34 MikeS, Aug 28, 2003
  15. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is just an interpretation that fits with other scripture.
     
    #35 Eladar, Aug 29, 2003
  16. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Tuor I recognize he is talking about both. Why do you protestants insist on dichotomizing everything. 1 interprutation per verse is what the Protestant radio guy says in town here. Let's limit God and keep things simple so our simple minds can grasp it all in one reading.

    Sad.
     
    #36 thessalonian, Aug 29, 2003
  17. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't recognize anything. You believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe. In essence, you simply recognize that the CC speaks for God.

    As far as John 6 goes, if one simply reads the scripture, one will not come to the CC position on the scripture.
     
    #37 Eladar, Aug 29, 2003
  18. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't recognize anything. You believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe. In essence, you simply recognize that the CC speaks for God.

    As far as John 6 goes, if one simply reads the scripture, one will not come to the CC position on the scripture.     </font>[/QUOTE]You judge me Tuor. How do you know what goes on inside me except by your bias against me. As for John 6, I know many non-catholics who have come to the Catholic view (my wife and mother-in-law to name to) so I think your are speaking from your own bias and lack of enlightenment. Of course with regard to any truth we have to recieve it from above. "blessed are you Simon Bar-jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.". Same is true of the Eucharist. You will not get it until God gives you it (the grace to get it).

    Blessings
     
    #38 thessalonian, Aug 29, 2003
  19. MikeS

    MikeS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't recognize anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, neat power you have! OK, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. What number is it?
     
    #39 MikeS, Aug 29, 2003
  20. MikeS

    MikeS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #40 MikeS, Aug 29, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3
Loading...