Debating the real presence w/ a Protestant

[JonNC]

My protestant friend and I are currently debating the real presence. He does not believe in it; I definately do. Here is his response to my explanation, based around the Gospel of John:
*In this passage, Christ does not speak literally. Have you never heard Christ called the Bread of Life? By His flesh we are saved, not by eating his flesh, which would mean we would take part of His immortality, but that through His death, our sins are forgiven. The symbolic nature of this passage becomes clear, upon the prayer to Christ Himself, not through man, but through direct connection with God. The apostles mumbled against this because it blasphemed everything they believed (or so they thought at first). They did not yet realize that Jesus was the Messiah from prophecy. You must realize that this is early on in Jesus’ ministry. Of the 21 chapters in John, this was the 6th. *
I would appreciate help with how to come up with a rebuttal without sounding rude. I know what I want to say, but I’m still working out the fine points.
Thanks!

It has always seemed to me to be very hard to convince someone of His true and substantial body and blood in the Eucharist using the predicting, yet figurative sounding of John 6. Instead, the best words we have regarding His intent are His words, “take and eat this is my body…”
Unlike clear metaphors such as “I am the door”, Christ does not use the same language at the Last Supper. He doesn’t say “I am this” or “I am that”. He puts His hands on the bread and say, “This is me”, not even this is like me, or represents me. And frankly, I believe Him.

In closing, I offer you the words of the Apology to the Augsburg Confessions

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. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

Here the reformers site scripture, common sense, and Church History - east and west - in its defense of the real presence.
bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

Hope that helps,
Jon

Jon

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I find John 6 to be rather confusing; But that shouldn’t be a surprise - everybody there in His presence in John 6 were confused too. Everybody.

John 6 can obviously be taken as figurative - but that doesn’t explain why He allowed some to walk away for taking Him literally. And He certainly didn’t help to quash any literal interpretations by saying His flesh is “real food”.

But things become clearer at the Last Supper when He took bread and said “This is my body”. I think these are the only words of Christ that St Paul repeats in his letters. Furthermore, St Paul tells the Corinthians that when we break the bread we are partaking in the body of Christ, and if you do not understand the meaning of this, you eat judgement upon yourself. There is nothing to suggest that eating judging upon yourself is figurative.

P.S. It’s also interesting to note that Melchisedech, the king of Salem and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Gen 14:18). Psalm 110:4 predicted Christ would be a priest `according to the order of Melchisedech’.

 

[Silyosha]

I find John 6 to be rather confusing; But that shouldn’t be a surprise - everybody there in His presence in John 6 were confused too. Everybody.

John 6 can obviously be taken as figurative - but that doesn’t explain why He allowed some to walk away for taking Him literally. And He certainly didn’t help to quash any literal interpretations by saying His flesh is “real food”.

But things become clearer at the Last Supper when He took bread and said “This is my body”. I think these are the only words of Christ that St Paul repeats in his letters. Furthermore, St Paul tells the Corinthians that when we break the bread we are partaking in the body of Christ, and if you do not understand the meaning of this, you eat judgement upon yourself. There is nothing to suggest that eating judging upon yourself is figurative.

P.S. It’s also interesting to note that Melchisedech, the king of Salem and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Gen 14:18). Psalm 110:4 predicted Christ would be a priest `according to the order of Melchisedech’.

Thank you for your response. You’ve put it into a clear and easy-to-understand form. I also appreciate the P.S., which really brings the point home, in my opinion. And that is pretty interesting about Melchisedech…