Presbyterian would like to know?

[ScottH]

Okay, as a former Presbyterian (30 years) , know that transubstantiation is the “fall-back” argument. Its usually the one we’d fall back on if cornered elsewhere. If he/she is using this one on you, chances are you had them thinking in a previous topic, so they “fell back” to this one.

You can counter that one pretty easily with the thoughts already offered. But you could take it one further- you could point them to the dichotomy of the verses. Christ says “This is my body”… AND “Do this in remembrance of me”. The truth is – as you know- He said both. So what you ALSO have in that example is a case AGAINST sola-scriptura… which many Presbyterians (such as I used to be) hold-to. In doing that, you’ve just pointed out one of the key difficiencies in the sola scriptura argument.

If you really want to talk shop with a Prebyterian, you’ll find that many of them have particular trouble with papal authority. (Presbyterians are ultra-democratic- their “sessions” are voting-bodies that are ultra “populist”. Most people on the Sessions are mere winners of what equates to a “inter-congregation popularity contest”.

(I say this lovingly- as I was once a session member…)

Assuming your friend belongs to a PCUSA church, (Presbyterian Church USA)- their ruling general assembly has fallen into a despicable state of ultra liberalism at the highest levels. Gay ordination is always on the docket. Most conservative pastors have to lie and “sneak” by ultra liberal ordination board members. The General Assembly has also become increasingly friendly with the “Jesus Seminar” and often schedules Jesus Seminar events in the PCUSA churches!!!

It got to the point where I couldn’t poke fun of Papal authority (actually- the “concept” of it, much more so than its fruits) with a straight face in light of what my own general assembly was doing at the highest level. It actually turned me into one who respects the legacy and justness of Papal authority.

Perhaps your friend could see that too. Who knows.

Do it with kindness.

 

[Yerusalyim]

henryl:

A friend of mine who is a Presbyterian would like to know. How can Christ become the bread and be holding himself at the last supper. Also if Christ is present in the Eucharist how is that different from the second coming of Christ if he is already present in the Eucharist?

They’ve all said it well, I add my two cents worth…the God who created the entire universe simply by speaking it into being…the God who parted the Red Sea (or more properly in the Hebrew, Sea of Reeds) the God who gave the Israelites Manna from heaven…the God who became manifest in the flesh…the God who saved all mankind simply by his death and resurrection…this God would have trouble turning bread and wine into his body and blood?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

henryl:

A friend of mine who is a Presbyterian would like to know. How can Christ become the bread and be holding himself at the last supper. Also if Christ is present in the Eucharist how is that different from the second coming of Christ if he is already present in the Eucharist?

1. He doesn’t - the bread becomes His Body
2. It differs in its mode. ##

 

[GeneM]

Just a quick thought that I presented somewhere else that recieved not all positive feedback, so I’m not saying this is definitly correct, but just a thought.

The transfiguration kind of helps me in understanding how Christ could at the last supper hold His own body in His own hands. His divinity was shown and not hidden before His resurrection on the mountain. To me it indicates that God is certainly outside of time and space that we cannot understand so I can easily capture in my head the bread and wine @ that meal being changed into our Lord’s glorified body.

If anyone thinks this is off track, please comment. Thanks