Literal or Symbolic?...

[Andromedus]

Yeah, we have problems sometimes with catechesis, just like you guys do.

I have no doubt both groups sometimes have problems with catechesis, but as I have understood it, consubstantation has also been taught by Lutherans during historical times, I mean, not just some random fellow in our times but by priests during 17th century or something like that. Though, I don’t have any proof at the moment so you can just ignore this.

You are correct, and I apologize for not acknowledging this point you made, that not all protestants believe it is symbolic.

Nothing to apologize for

On the first part, I don’t believe that’s what the confessions say. Also the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone speaks to how we access justification. I wouldn’t say it speaks to disputes about doctrine. Certainly Catholics, and other Christians, are saved, and to judge who is and who is not is well above our “pay grade”, so to speak.
On the second part, you are right. Obviously, we believe our sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, and Absolution from our pastors is valid. The relationship between our communions is asymmetrical - we believe your sacrament is valid, you believe ours is not becuase of the nature of our orders outside apostolic succession.

Well, so if I confess to the Arian or the Mormon or why not the Gnostic-Valentinian view on Jesus, am I still saved through faith in Christ alone? We who are Catholics hold views which isn’t part of Lutheran doctrine, so don’t we have a faith which is wrong according to you? You have already said that you don’t agree about our views on the Pope for example.
So if our faith is wrong, but you say that we are only saved through faith, the why are we not damned and why will we not go to Hell? Sure, you just said that you don’t think ‘‘it speaks to disputes about doctrine’’ and that you can not judge who is saved and who is not, so this questioning might be unnecessary.

But Luther taught that God chose who is going to believe in the first place right? If that is the case, why would he make someone believe in Christ and his Church but in the wrong way? By the way, I saw now that according to wikipedia (which I know isn’t the most trustworthy source there is) that Luther said that Erasmus of Rotterdam was not a Christian because he didin’t agree whith him. The last thing was more something like trivia I suppose.

 

[david_ruiz]

David Ruiz, My view, please, it is not my view, it is Jesus Christ’s view regarding His Body and Blood, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Jesus Christ! Did not Jesus Say: …(John 6: 53- 58) Understood. Sometimes I put parenthesis in "your’ or "my "view, instead of CC (Catholic Church) or P (protestant) for ease of conversation .I can be more precise if you like .So yes, we both are arguing/ promoting views we believe are the Lord’s.

Ruiz, do you really believe that Jesus Christ is referring to His Body and Blood as a symbol?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david your whole line of reasoning is implying that the spiritual and figurative replaces the Spirit as non existence and your belief makes the Spirit a symbol.

There is no such thing as a symbolic or figurative Spirit.

The Spirit is a person. Now if you apply the biblical revelations of the Spirit being an eternal reality in the perfect Godhead of the Trinity, to your commentary, your figurative or spiritual excercise falls apart.

Unless you can prove that a figurative or symbolic “Spirit” exists? Your “figurative,” “spiritual,” “symbolic” eating is a new gospel and is never revealed in sacred Scripture, nor sacred Tradition.

Your “spiritual” symbolism is a new phenomenon introduced by Evangelical Protestants. Sentimental or Emotions are not considered the Spirit but gifts from the spirit.

Fulton Sheen = “Holiness must have a philosphical and theological foundation, namely, Divine Truth.” Truth is Jesus Himself. “Other wise it is sentimentality and emotionalism.”

I think if you clear this up that the Spirit is a person not a sentiment or emotion the revelation of Jesus Christ “this is my body”, “you must eat my flesh”, “drink my blood” will elevate grounded knowledge into the mystery of God.

Then you hear Peter state truly 1Peter 2:3…“For you have tasted that the Lord is good, Come to him”…

see also Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible in the case of** those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift* and shared in the holy Spirit 5and tasted the good word of God** and the powers of the age to come,

There is no symbolic spiritualism in scripture.

david ruiz;8373390
No ,His body is real .His Blood is real.He really meant that we are to eat Him. But the fact is , it can be taken two ways :literally or figuratively. Both ways can lead **to a spiritual eating of him **,for the flesh availeth nothing.It is a spiritual eating, **whether you believe in a mere symbol ,or earthly ,fleshly **(teeth and belly) eating.The “bridge” to the spiritual fulfillment and obedience, literal or figurative, is not as important as what is on the other side -a spiritual eating of Him and His words, with no “teeth and bellies” Augustine’s words) Again ,false .We both use the symbol of bread and wine (Catholics before the consecration).Catholics don’t believe you can spiritually eat , with out “teeth and bellies”.

 

[david_ruiz]

please do not forget this 2000 year old revelation from Jesus Christ practiced in the Catholic Church unchanged since the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[david_ruiz]

Gabriel of 12;8370770]Just as the same Holy Spirit overshadowed the blessed Mother who concieved the body of Christ.

I do not think this is quite the same as RP .RP is figurative or literally spiritualy discerned .The bread and wine remain .Everything with the Incarnation was earthly literal ,nothing figurative about it .Mary did not remain unchanged to the senses. She literally changed, no spiritual discernment needed, just human eyes. The “how” is spiritually discerned, that is the Holy Spirit conceived her. You can’t see that , just like you can’t see me eat His flesh spiritually. You can see the effects ,a bloated stomach and eventual baby ,and a changed life,bearing spiritual fruit.

 

[david_ruiz]

cont;

I have extolled the latter (being illumined of His loving death personally) is the million dollar issue at hand,not RP .Even Paul said, “I preach Christ crucified”, plain and simple.Unimbellished .He never said that about RP .

 

[david_ruiz]

david your whole line of reasoning is implying that the spiritual and figurative replaces the Spirit as non existence and your belief makes the Spirit a symbol.

Sorry, I am thick ,do not get your inference .There is a physical realm ,and there is a spiritual realm .We are physical and if regenerated are spiritual beings also .God is is a spirit. Jesus is ,both a man (physical,fleshly) and a spirit (divine).Paul referred to our dual nature after rebirth also .We have the old man ,carnal ,and we have the new man spiritual,all within this body of flesh.Jesus used figurative speech at times ,that is, he used earthly realities to show spiritual realities …Are we on the same page ? Do you believe you have a spiritual man ,an inner man ,that is you ,but in your fleshly body ? When you eat whole wheat bread does it feed your flesh or your spirit ? When you pray or read the Word does it feed your flesh or your spirit ? When I “do in remembrance communion” what is being fed , my flesh or my spirit ? My fleshly ears and eyes can hear and see things that my inner man perceive as spiritual food (hearing by the Word ,or seeing a corporal work or miracle). My mouth only receives earthly elements ,as my eyes and ears only earthly sights and sounds.But my spirit discerns the remembrance , and it’s spiritual significance . This can totally be done without RP .Why ? Because I already have a spirit in me partaking of His divinity and I can discern these things. Just as words are not transubstantiated yet I can spiritually be built up by these Words .Just like I can see and discern a good work of a brother,untransubstantiated, and be built up by it. The only thing that is transubstantiated ,are not elements or words or sights ,but our spirits . He indwells us, though with your 5 senses you may still only see a fleshly human being.

Unless you can prove that a figurative or symbolic “Spirit” exists? Your “figurative,” “spiritual,” “symbolic” eating is a new gospel and is never revealed in sacred Scripture,

Spiritual eating ,even spiritual running ,standing, sitting is scriptural .There is also spiritual warfare . Augustine speaks of this spiritual eating. Paul refers to eating milk or meat as to the word of God .This is not new .Historically transubstantiation ’ is new, and not from the beginning, in my opinion.You can state the opposite ,as your or the CC’s opinion… No one is talking of a symbolic “Spirit”.

Fulton Sheen = “Holiness must have a philosphical and theological foundation, namely, Divine Truth.” Truth is Jesus Himself. “Other wise it is sentimentality and emotionalism.”

Love my old Bishop .Totally agree, “knowledge of him” (in truth and spirit) is the key as 2nd Peter 1:2,3 says.

I think if you clear this up that the Spirit is a person not a sentiment or emotion the

Hopefully I cleared this above. Yes the Spirit is God .But we have His spirit also if born again. There is also “spiritual” as pertaining to the spiritual realm.

revelation of Jesus Christ “this is my body”, “you must eat my flesh”, “drink my blood” will elevate grounded knowledge into the mystery of God.

This is only an alluring mystery in the CC RP. There is nothing mysterious in the remembrance of His sacrifice,thru the elements of communion/old passover.They are arrows that fly straight and true , finding their target ,in the spiritual realm.(Thank-you Cooterhein for your arrow analogy)

Then you hear Peter state truly 1Peter 2:3…“For you have tasted that the Lord is good, Come to him”…

Vs 2-“desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow ,if so be ye have tasted the Lord is good” Sorry ,the primary context is milk ,not flesh ,not RP, but his Word.His Word is effectual (says nothing here of an effectual sacrament) .His word is effectual.

see also Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once ]been enlightenedand tasted the heavenly gift

Again he speaks of milk and meat as relating to the word of God vs 12-14 ch 5 .Would have been a good place to mention RP but Paul says nothing of it.

There is no symbolic spiritualism in scripture.

You just showed me scripture that showed a spiritual eating of milk and meat as to the word of God. Hence, the spiritual eating of his flesh has some biblical kin ,in this realm of figurative speech.

 

[JonNC]

=Andromedus;8373311]I have no doubt both groups sometimes have problems with catechesis, but as I have understood it, consubstantation has also been taught by Lutherans during historical times, I mean, not just some random fellow in our times but by priests during 17th century or something like that. Though, I don’t have any proof at the moment so you can just ignore this.

Consubstantiation was a charge made against us by the Calvinists. The term, and its meaning, are not part of any Lutheran confession that I know of. Luther certainly rejected the term. In fact, the problem we have with it is that it uses the same metaphysical/philosophical construct as Transubstantiation.

Nothing to apologize for

Thanks, though it was an oversite on my part.

Well, so if I confess to the Arian or the Mormon or why not the Gnostic-Valentinian view on Jesus, am I still saved through faith in Christ alone? We who are Catholics hold views which isn’t part of Lutheran doctrine, so don’t we have a faith which is wrong according to you? You have already said that you don’t agree about our views on the Pope for example.
So if our faith is wrong, but you say that we are only saved through faith, the why are we not damned and why will we not go to Hell? Sure, you just said that you don’t think ‘‘it speaks to disputes about doctrine’’ and that you can not judge who is saved and who is not, so this questioning might be unnecessary.

Well, of course we believe there are errors in Catholic teaching, just as you do ours. But your question pertains to that which we have no way of knowing - how does the mercy of God view or doctinal differences, and what are His consequences for our errors. The LCMS states that doctrinal errors have within them dangers, but we can’t know who is or isn’t saved.

But Luther taught that God chose who is going to believe in the first place right? If that is the case, why would he make someone believe in Christ and his Church but in the wrong way?

First, God may know who will or won’t believe, but Lutherans do not believe in the Calvinist TULIP. We reject unconditional election. The idea that He makes one believe incorrectly would be not only a denial of free will, but counter to what we know about grace.

By the way, I saw now that according to wikipedia (which I know isn’t the most trustworthy source there is) that Luther said that Erasmus of Rotterdam was not a Christian because he didin’t agree whith him. The last thing was more something like trivia I suppose.

Perhaps he did. I certainly wouldn’t. That is up to God and His mercy.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Yes ,you make my point. It is figurative in an earthly sense , but literal in spiritual sense . That is what figurative speech is .Taking an earthly thing ,reality , to show a spiritual thing or reality.

How is what I said figurative?

Hence, I take an earthly thing of eating (teeth and mouth) to show the spiritual ingesting of His word ,in faith .Peter replied nothing about eating with mouth ,but he did with the inner man of faith .He said ,“Your words are eternal life (not your flesh eating).You are the Son of God.” Augustine laid this out beautifully. He said leave your" teeth and bellies behind" ,and Peter “savored the Lord in his mouth by believing”,and his declaration of faith…So as you say with the explanations of other figurative speech (shepherd,alpha omega) , I use with the eating his flesh, figuratively to show a spiritual reality -that we are to spiritually “eat” every word out of His mouth,by faith.

Not quite. Because the disciples understood that He didn’t mean it figuratively.

In John 6, the figurative meaning of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood is to attack someone particularly with calumny.

So if you read it figuratively, you make Jesus sound stupid.

Essentially a figurative reading would translate this way: Jesus said: if you attack me and heap calumnies on me you will have eternal life.

 

[david_ruiz]

Please elucidate on just why they took it literally in John 6.

In John 6, the figurative meaning of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood is to attack someone particularly with calumny.Essentially a figurative reading would translate this way: Jesus said: if you attack me and heap calumnies on me you will have eternal life.

 

[mwok]

speaking of manna, didn’t the Jews literally eat the literal manna even though they believed it was from heaven?

This thread makes me understand why some groups don’t believe anything happens to them after they are baptized, they don’t see, feel or sense a physical change. That interests me.

 

[benedictus2]

Please elucidate on just why they took it literally in John 6.

Didn’t you read the part where they left saying who can accept this hard teaching?

That is very interesting ,and maybe true ,if you were hanging out at the local tavern. That is the beauty of figurative speech .It can take on many meanings ,and generally can be guided by a context. Let’s see. Jesus was at least considered a rabbi ,maybe even one to sit on the Davidic throne.He was becoming popular as such. He was just speaking of manna ,and heavenly bread. You would think the context of the teachers speech would be ,well, not base or profane ,but indeed spiritual. I think that would pretty much rule out your "colloquial"context . …Thank- you though ,that was interesting , and at least on the right track of figurative speech

You obviously don’t know what the figurative meaning in Jewish context is. For the Jews the figurative meaning of eating someone’s flesh is exactly what I said above. We are talking here about how Jews understood John 6 remember? If they had understood it figuratively, then that is what they would have understood - that Jesus is saying that if you do me harm by calumny then you will go to heaven. Heck, if that is what it is then maybe you can start the calumny to ensure that you get eternal life. After all you insist on a figurative reading.

 

[benedictus2]

I do not think this is quite the same as RP .RP is figurative or literally spiritualy discerned .The bread and wine remain .Everything with the Incarnation was earthly literal ,nothing figurative about it .Mary did not remain unchanged to the senses. She literally changed, no spiritual discernment needed, just human eyes. The “how” is spiritually discerned, that is the Holy Spirit conceived her. You can’t see that , just like you can’t see me eat His flesh spiritually. You can see the effects ,a bloated stomach and eventual baby ,and a changed life,bearing spiritual fruit.

And the same Spirit is capable of transforming the substance while leaving the accidents changed.

 

[benedictus2]

And the same Spirit is capable of transforming the substance while leaving the accidents changed.

My error. The last bit should read “leaving the accidents unchanged”

 

[Andromedus]

Well, of course we believe there are errors in Catholic teaching, just as you do ours. But your question pertains to that which we have no way of knowing - how does the mercy of God view or doctinal differences, and what are His consequences for our errors. The LCMS states that doctrinal errors have within them dangers, but we can’t know who is or isn’t saved.

If that is what you believe then I won’t argue about it, I always think it is a bit silly when people says things like ‘‘this is what you people believe in’’, like they can decide what others believe or not. I remember a thing like that from another forum ‘‘You Catholics worship Mary!’’ ‘‘No we don’t’’ ‘‘Yes you do! You just don’t know it!’’. It was actually someone arguing like that, but the Internet can be a place with weird people sometimes.

First, God may know who will or won’t believe, but Lutherans do not believe in the Calvinist TULIP. We reject unconditional election. The idea that He makes one believe incorrectly would be not only a denial of free will, but counter to what we know about grace.

But Martin Luther didin’t think that humans had a free will because of the Fall, or at least it wasn’t so free anymore. Thats why he wrote ‘‘On the Bondage of the Will’’, and that is the reason he taught that humans are saved through faith alone. So I think you are wrong now, Luther did teach predestination, perhaps not the same version as the one the Calvinists teach, but still predestination.

Perhaps he did. I certainly wouldn’t. That is up to God and His mercy.

I would say that it seems like Luther was a bit more judgemental than you, if ‘‘judgemental’’ is the right word. And I definitely agree with the last thing you say.

By the way, I guess that with LCMS you mean ‘‘Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’’ and not ‘‘Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore’’?

hmm and I suppose that I will have to apologize since this is a bit off-topic.

 

[JonNC]

=Andromedus;8375887]If that is what you believe then I won’t argue about it, I always think it is a bit silly when people says things like ‘‘this is what you people believe in’’, like they can decide what others believe or not. I remember a thing like that from another forum ‘‘You Catholics worship Mary!’’ ‘‘No we don’t’’ ‘‘Yes you do! You just don’t know it!’’. It was actually someone arguing like that, but the Internet can be a place with weird people sometimes.

Frustrating indeed, that.

But Martin Luther didin’t think that humans had a free will because of the Fall, or at least it wasn’t so free anymore. Thats why he wrote ‘‘On the Bondage of the Will’’, and that is the reason he taught that humans are saved through faith alone. So I think you are wrong now, Luther did teach predestination, perhaps not the same version as the one the Calvinists teach, but still predestination.

What Lutherans believe is that God’s desire is that all be saved, a predestination for salvation, not the double predestination of Calvinism. We also believe that the regenerate have free will, but only in regards to rejecting grace.

I would say that it seems like Luther was a bit more judgemental than you, if ‘‘judgemental’’ is the right word. And I definitely agree with the last thing you say.

I’m thankful that not everything I say or think is written down.

By the way, I guess that with LCMS you mean ‘‘Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’’ and not ‘‘Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore’’?

lol, you are correct in your guess here.

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Didn’t you read the part where they left saying who can accept this hard teaching?

I am sorry ,I thought you said the apostles ,who remained ,took it literally. It is inferred that “many” disciples murmured and said it was a hard saying ,and left -“many” .Then he turned to the “12”. There is no indication that the 12 murmured or said it was a hard saying.

You obviously don’t know what the figurative meaning in Jewish context is. For the Jews the figurative meaning of eating someone’s flesh is exactly what I said above. We are talking here about how Jews understood John 6 remember? If they had understood it figuratively, then that is what they would have understood - that Jesus is saying that if you do me harm by calumny then you will go to heaven. Heck, if that is what it is then maybe you can start the calumny to ensure that you get eternal life. After all you insist on a figurative reading.

I imagine in any culture it is not good to say" eat my flesh".That doesn’t limit the possibilities of it’s figurative use , unless you want to limit God’s use of speech .Shall I say, as CC does on RP, that God can do it and does do it( RP) ,that God can speak figuratively here,and does ?(you know ,because He can , He did ). It is just as possible for it to be figurative,even with your good point, as to say He was speaking of RP, that would take another 1200 years to finally define as transubstantiation…Again ,the intention was twofold :elucidate Himself to the believers ,and to "blind " the unbelievers. "Eat my flesh " was perfect language ,accomplishing both.The unbelievers left ,from following Jesus in the flesh ) ,and the believers beautifully confessed, “you have the words of eternal life ,and art the Son of God”. RP is not in this context.

 

[david_ruiz]

speaking of manna, didn’t the Jews literally eat the literal manna even though they believed it was from heaven?

 

[cooterhein]

Firstly, again this is an assumption. You keep saying this as if it was fact.It is a fact. Seriously, are you just refusing to interact with this Seder thing? I’m giving you truthful statements about the Seder. They are easily verifiable, and if you take the time to find out anything about the topic, you’ll quickly see that they’re undeniable. These things aren’t up for debate. There is no opposing viewpoint, although I guess there are still difficult people.

Secondly, why would it be impossible for God to make the bread and wine into His Body and Blood if He so choose? Just because it is not ex-nihilo?

 

[stthomas]

mwok;8375170:

Communion is for unity in remembrance and thanksgiving .It is not meant as a booster shot to one’s spiritual life, unless one likes being dependent on the rite ,the priests, and the Church.Indeed we all need boosting a refilling ,of the Holy Spirit by His word ,and prayer ,and fellowship ,for we are all priests. Live by every word out of the mouth of Jesus -this is our food, as milk or meat, not the elements of remembrance.

Is this another Protestant doctrine that tries to explain the Real Presence? The problem that I see here is that David has given himself the authority to interpret Holy Scriptures and decided that he knows what Jesus really meant. So should we throw out 1500 years of Eucharistic celebration? I think not, Jesus did not establish a symbolic new covenant on Holy Thursday with grape juice and crackers. I would like to point out the last sentence of this quote: “Live by every word out of the mouth of Jesus”. I agree, but why dont you accept and believe what He says?