Bread Worship

Have you actually read Luther? And I mean really Luther not what somebody says about him?

These are not the words of a man who believes in transubstantiation, nor the words of a man who believed that ordination makes the sacrament legit.

Unlike the RCC who believes only the accidents of bread and wine remain we believe the bread and wine are still there but that because of Christ's promise his body and blood are also there.

 

I still don't see any reason to not take Jesus' words metaphorically. That's the simplest way to see them (at least in my opinion), and the simplest meaning is usually the one that's right.

 

HP: What I am describing would be building a systematic theology harmonizing first truths of reason with Scriptural truths incorporating possibly your last sentence. I see God first and foremost revealing truth to man via conscience, granting man some guiding principles of truth that cannot be ignored or discarded as we come to Scripture. Even the heathen which have not the law do the things contained in the law, therefore have became a law unto themselves. Certainly God has indeed shown even the heathen, apart form the law, some guiding principles, some first truths of reason that serve to enlighten our understanding of truth, yes and especially as theologians.

 

I have the translation of Luther's Works (56 volumes), Concordia Publishing House and numerous other translated works. I have not read all of Luther's Works. I am sure I do not have all of his writings. I have read many of his other translated works on the internet.

In volume 27 on page 62, the footnote by the Editor makes a comment regarding Luther's condemnation of the Anabaptists; "This may be a covert attack on Zwingli, for Luther believed that a theology {Zwingli's} which had begun as a rejection of the doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper had ended as a repudiation of the Gospel itself." {added}

I do understand that Luther's theology evolved over the years. In his earlier writings, he harshly argued for the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist against Zwingli (as I would interpret the quote you gave to say). I have not ever found any conclusive statements where he changed to a spiritual presence as held by Zwingli and Calvin/Besa.

 

I agree. This is the "law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:5). However, the Word of God of written inspiration supercedes and confirms the Law of the Conscience. The Law of the Conscience is that all men are born with moral consciousness and, therefore, are not totally depraved as defined by Calvinism (total inability). The Law of the Conscience makes them culpable for their own sins (in other words, they CAN help it). Even the heathen can make correct moral choices according to the Law of the Conscience.

 

Ok then it appears that you do not understand what transubstantiation really is, particularly if you are going to claim that is what Luther believed.
Transubstantiation is the teaching that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood with merely the accidents or forms of bread and wine remaining hence the reason it still looks like bread and wine. Essentially according to transubstantiation the bread and wine cease to exist. Where as according to Luther the bread and wine still remain in accordance with 1 Cor 11. Unlike Zwingli, Luther does not teach the error that it is only bread and wine. It is instead the bread and wine with the body and blood mysteriously united.

 

I think I have a pretty good grasp on understanding it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

"The refutation of the so-called Sacramentarians, a name given by Luther to those who opposed the Real Presence, evinces as clearly the impossibility of a figurative meaning."

I believe that when Luther was arguing for the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, that he was arguing for Transubstantiation, as opposed to a spiritual presence (Consubstantiation). Obviously, you disagree. So be it!

 

And you are flat out wrong in your belief.

These are the words of Luther himself
[quote
Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians. 2] And that not only one form is to be given. [For] we do not need that high art [specious wisdom] which is to teach us that under the one form there is as much as under both, as the sophists and the Council of Constance teach. 3] For even if it were true that there is as much
under one as under both, yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ. 4] And we especially condemn and in God's name execrate those who not only omit both forms but also quite autocratically [tyrannically] prohibit, condemn, and blaspheme them as heresy, and so exalt themselves against and above Christ, our Lord and God [opposing and placing themselves ahead of Christ], etc. 5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread. (Emphasis mine)
Art VII. Smalcald Articles
[/quote]
In his own words he condemns the teaching of Transubstatiantation. There is more to the world than transubstantiation and spiritual presence which you have misconstrued as consubstantiation ( a word usually misapplied by memorialist/spiritualist to describe Luther's teaching)

 

Thank you! I will amend any future statements regarding Luther in this matter to reflect this quote. However, did he still argue for some degree of real presence in the Eucharist? Although I would disagree with any presence, I would be interested in understanding exactly what you believe and what you think he believed. Do you then believe that Christ was then present in some way in the Manna in the wilderness or in the water from the rock or in the rock itself?

 

Essentially what Luther taught and most Lutherans teach today is what we call the sacramental union. In its simplest form it means that the body and blood are united in an unrevealed manner to the bread and wine in the context of the sacrament. Generally this is expressed in laymans terms as Christ Body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine.

For a concise and itemized collection of Lutheran teachings check out this website

 

What a contradiction!
If you are not saying His body and blood are physically present, and during the Communion Service they are consumed, then its logical conclusion (which you deny) is that the rules of cannibalism and blood consumption do apply for that is what you are doing.

 

There is no contradiction here. In pagan lore, people would consume other people generally their enemies in order to gain special attributes. Specifically, it was widely believed that a measure of immortality was gained through the consumption of their blood. In consuming their fellow beings these people were looking towards other means of "salvation" outside of God. Therefore, the said law against such consumption. Whereas, in communion we are turning towards God to recieve from him the gift of life there in lies the distinction between cannablism and the partaking of Christ's body and blood.

 

There is an old Baptist expression which says 'the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it. Well for some reason, Baptist just don't want to believe it when it comes to the Lords Supper. One reason I believe the words Christ spoke are not in metaphoric language as they are in "I am the vine, you are the branches" is because it is clear in another passage. Others have clearly explained in this thread why the words of institution do no fit this metaphoric view you want to embrace.

If the Bible were not clear enough itself, the Early Church Fathers make it clear that they believed the bread and the wine were more than mere symbols. Does I Cor. 10:16 not make it clear that the Lords Supper is not just a symbolic observance? DHK's explanation still assumes that the elements are merely symbolic. Nothing in the text would lead us to think that without first assuming it to be so. DHK also poo-poo's the Early Church Fathers. That is unfortunate.

 

Chemnitz,

And here we have evidence of the Roman Catholic false church doing what she has done best for 1700 years now...the practice of turning Christianity into paganism. For what you just posted is precisely what the church of Rome believes about her false ritual.

In the same vein, just as paganism has Goddesses, the false church of Rome has invented "her" Goddess who must be worshipped...Mary.

Just as the pagans have their "magic" prayer beads, so the false church has her rosary beads, with the "vain repititions" directed to the goddess.

On and on and on it goes.

And its so very sad to see weakened protestant organisations following after the false church and "her" paganism, in order to join with "her".

Very very sad.

Mike

 

What is sad is that you have no understanding of what the Church of Rome teaches about Mary, the Mass, the Rosary, etc. That church does not, nor ever has taught people to worship Mary. You need to forget what you think you know and actually do some reading. I suggest you try reading the Catholic Catechism or visit a Catholic apologetics sites such as http://www.catholic.org to find out what the church actually believes. I'm not a Roman Catholic but I believe in being fair.

I used to think just like you do now when I was a Baptist. I started visiting this board and learned over the years what that church actually teaches.

 

As I have already posted in two areas on Hebrews chapter 10, those arguing for either a physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist are treading on some very dangerous ground and you should carefully evaluate those beliefs compared to the Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). I hope, for your sakes that my understanding is wrong and God one day rebukes me for it. If my understanding is not wrong, you are leading millions to Hell with a false gospel. I would love to be ecumenically inclusive about all of this, but Truth and my conscience will not allow it. May God have mercy on your souls!

 

d28guy

Here is another site you might want to visit in the 'interest of fairness'

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/

Click on the 'apol' icon


I used to believe "she" was the great whore as well.

 

As Hebrews is dealing with the lack of a need to continue sacrifices, I really do not see where it is the least bit pertanant towards the discussion of Holy Communion as Communion is not a sacrifice. Seeing as how I am not the one preaching a different Gospel, I can't say as I am the least bit worried.

 

That is the contradiction. When the RCC came into existence in the fourth century during the time of Constantine so did idolatry. You have just demonstrated that transubstantiation is a copy cat pagan practice. It was never practiced in the NT, or by early believers. It was always symbolic in nature. It is metaphorical in nature just like Jesus saying, "I am the door." But when the RCC let paganism into the Church, then Christianity, so-called, became paganized.
And thus your form of pagan transubstantiation.

 

So you are saying that Jesus was ripping off the pagans when he said this is my body? Interesting.

Who is to say that the Pagans haven't ripped off God? It is well documented that many pagan religions can trace their origins back to half truths based on Divine revelation. Your statements about the early church do not match with historical records, part of the Christian persecution was based on the charge of supposed cannabilism. A charge that would not have come about if the christians believed it was a glorified coffee and donut fellowship hour.