Lutherans and Consubstantiation?

[JonNC]

I frequent another Christian parenting board, and it’s actually nice to have Lutherans there “on my side” when the Baptists and fundamentalists start in with the bashing comments like “Jesus isn’t in a “wafer””, and “Baptizing babies just makes them wet, and they’ll have to be baptized again later after they “get saved””. They’re trying to bash Catholics, and it’s nice when the Lutheran’s speak up in defense of the Sacraments

In Christ,

Ellen

That’s good to hear, Ellen.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is a great thread…

…really.

You just like to hear us western Christians squabble over our various interpretations of what probably should be left a mystery, don’t you?

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

You just like to hear us western Christians squabble over our various interpretations of what probably should be left a mystery, don’t you?

Jon

I think they just want us to wear fuzzy hats and beards when we quote our confessional statements

 

[gcnuss]

I guess there is some force that says that this question, like so many others, needs to be rehashed every now and then.

In addition to what has been said above, the following is a quote from Luther’s Smalcald Articles:

Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ…

It couldn’t be stated more clearly — “bread and wine…are the true body and blood.” There is no “in, with, and under,” no attempt to explain how it happens. There is the simple statement that in the Sacrament the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. That is what we believe.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I have heard that the preferred term for the Lutheran teaching is “impanation”.

 

[East_Anglican]

Well,

1. They don’t call them priests.

Yes they call them ministers. The semantics are the same and you are being pedantic here.

1. They were being, at least, “confessionally inconsistent” if not downright dishonest.

No they were not.

1. Personal testimonies like these are irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter what these imaginary “priests” said.

Oh so you’re off on the apostolic succesion thing. Personel testimonies like these are irrelevant? An Athiest could say that about personael testimonies too.

what Lutherans believe is not a secret needing witness corroboration, it’s all in the documents…

Correct.

 

[Hesychios]

I think they just want us to wear fuzzy hats and beards when we quote our confessional statements

I like fuzzy beards.

As for the hats, I prefer the fedora

 

[JonNC]

I guess there is some force that says that this question, like so many others, needs to be rehashed every now and then.

In addition to what has been said above, the following is a quote from Luther’s Smalcald Articles:

It couldn’t be stated more clearly — “bread and wine…are the true body and blood.” There is no “in, with, and under,” no attempt to explain how it happens. There is the simple statement that in the Sacrament the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. That is what we believe.

Pastor,
I absolutely agree with this statement. Problem is, Dr. Luther uses “in, with and under” in other places:

Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, **in and under the bread and wine **which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

Is that any less an attempt to explain how it happens than Transubstantiation? And if I reject Transub in the way Luther did,

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.

why should I not also reject “sacramental union” on the same grounds - sophistical subtlety?

bpbasilphx wrote: I have heard that the preferred term for the Lutheran teaching is “impanation”.

Everything I’ve read, the term and idea impanation is rejected.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

I absolutely agree with this statement. Problem is, Dr. Luther uses “in, with and under” in other places:

Jon,

I suppose we can take some measure of assurance in that Luther’s Smalcald Articles were written some eight years after his catechisms. Perhaps - and only perhaps - this shows a refinement of Luther’s understanding of the Real Presence.

Also, the catechisms, especially the Small Catechism, were written for people who probably wouldn’t have been expected to understand the sophisticated idea that what they received was not what it looked like. “In, with, and under” would have made it easier to understand that what appeared to their senses as bread and wine was giving them the body and blood of Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I suppose we can take some measure of assurance in that Luther’s Smalcald Articles were written some eight years after his catechisms. Perhaps - and only perhaps - this shows a refinement of Luther’s understanding of the Real Presence.

Also, the catechisms, especially the Small Catechism, were written for people who probably wouldn’t have been expected to understand the sophisticated idea that what they received was not what it looked like. “In, with, and under” would have made it easier to understand that what appeared to their senses as bread and wine was giving them the body and blood of Christ.

Good thought. Thanks