Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[ralphinal]

A very nice statement, Ralph. But I doubt that the rhetoric will be put on hold. Folks can’t resist a jab and slam.

Again, thanks. You’re a good man, Ralph.

And I thank you.

This is one of my favorite topics in this Christian discussion. I would love to discuss how we see this and the way it manifests itself. Forexample, Catholics hold that Jesus is there even if no one else is. Not all Christians do. Catholics say that once consecrated, the gifts cannot be “deJesused.”

Too many of us refuse to see that for many Christians, this can be a point of unity if we start from here.

 

[hmgs1]

Yes, because that is what my denomination believes. To recap:

Catholic - real presence by Transubstantiation.

Lutheran - real presence by Consubstantiation.

Methodist - real presence by Pious Silence (we know the real presence is there, but the human mind is too limited to know exactly how, and how is not important).

Presbyterian - real presence by Pneumatic Presence (Christ sits upon the right hand of good, but the miracle of the Holy Spirit transcends time and space and allows the Christian to receive the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus at the communion table).

Evangelicals - NO real presence, memorial only, primarily based on the phrase “do this in memory of me.”

That said, I think the Methodists may be on to something, not only because they are willing to admit they aren’t sure how the thing works, but in particular because that issue isn’t the important part. I have real serious doubts the Almighty will kick a Christian downstairs to Hell should they believe in Transubstantiation when it was really Pneumatic Presence, and even greater doubts about those who think, “yes, He would.”

 

[ufamtobie]

Who can vote in a poll or how many posts does one have to have before being allowed to participate? It won’t let me vote so I’ll just say I pick the latter: the Lord’s supper is symbolic.

Windgirl,

(John 6: 55,56) For My Flesh is Real Food and my Blood Real Drink.

**Windgirl, the above bible verse, now it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that it is MORE than a Symbol, but in REALITY it is Truely the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, for Jesus Christ said SO!

Now those who choose not to believe in (John 6: 55,56) is a disobedient child of Jesus Christ!**

Ufamtobie

 

[GKC]

Yes, because that is what my denomination believes. To recap:

Catholic - real presence by Transubstantiation.

Lutheran - real presence by Consubstantiation.

Methodist - real presence by Pious Silence (we know the real presence is there, but the human mind is too limited to know exactly how, and how is not important).

Presbyterian - real presence by Pneumatic Presence (Christ sits upon the right hand of good, but the miracle of the Holy Spirit transcends time and space and allows the Christian to receive the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus at the communion table).

Evangelicals - NO real presence, memorial only, primarily based on the phrase “do this in memory of me.”

That said, I think the Methodists may be on to something, not only because they are willing to admit they aren’t sure how the thing works, but in particular because that issue isn’t the important part. I have real serious doubts the Almighty will kick a Christian downstairs to Hell should they believe in Transubstantiation when it was really Pneumatic Presence, and even greater doubts about those who think, “yes, He would.”

As C.S. Lewis noted, the command was “take, eat”, not “take, understand”.

Which was fortunate.

GKC

 

[WindGirl]

Windgirl,

(John 6: 55,56) For My Flesh is Real Food and my Blood Real Drink.

**Windgirl, the above bible verse, now it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that it is MORE than a Symbol, but in REALITY it is Truely the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, for Jesus Christ said SO!

Now those who choose not to believe in (John 6: 55,56) is a disobedient child of Jesus Christ!**

Ufamtobie

John 6 also says that those who come to Jesus and believe on Him will never hunger or thirst so coming to Him and believing on Him is the same as eating and drinking of Him. It’s a spiritual partaking. What profit it there in eathing flesh and drinking blood which goes into the digestive system. Jesus said that wouldn’t be profitable.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

ankerberg.com/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC1099W2.htm

And I’d still like to know when I might be able to vote in a poll.

 

[ufamtobie]

Yes, because that is what my denomination believes. To recap:

Catholic - real presence by Transubstantiation.

Lutheran - real presence by Consubstantiation.

Methodist - real presence by Pious Silence (we know the real presence is there, but the human mind is too limited to know exactly how, and how is not important).

Presbyterian - real presence by Pneumatic Presence (Christ sits upon the right hand of good, but the miracle of the Holy Spirit transcends time and space and allows the Christian to receive the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus at the communion table).

Evangelicals - NO real presence, memorial only, primarily based on the phrase “do this in memory of me.”

That said, I think the Methodists may be on to something, not only because they are willing to admit they aren’t sure how the thing works, but in particular because that issue isn’t the important part. I have real serious doubts the Almighty will kick a Christian downstairs to Hell should they believe in Transubstantiation when it was really Pneumatic Presence, and even greater doubts about those who think, “yes, He would.”

HMGS1,

What does the number 666 stand for?

Surely it stands for Anti- christ. Truely those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are all Ant-christ leading up to the beast himself.

My point is in (John 6: 66) From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would NOT REMAIN IN HIS COMPANY ANY LONGER…

**HMGS1, These men are considered anti- christs for they walked away and remained no longer with Jesus Christ, yes, that will be difined as an Ant-christ in Gods Book.

HMGS1, now why did these men leave?**

They Left because they could not believe in “Transubstantiation” For they said among themselves how can this man gives us HIS FLESH TO EAT and Drink His BLOOD. These men left Jesus Christ and became ANTI-cHRISTS

Not by Consubstantiation, not by real presence by Pious Silence, not by real presence by Pneumatic Presence, or the phrase "do this in memory of me. Any of the above in this paragraph, these men would of accepted and never would of left Jesus Christ.

**Again, However these men knew EXACTLY that Jesus Christ meant and that is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, therefore they left Jesus and became Anti-christs, **

The word Transubstantiation perhaps was not a word back then, BUT! The definition of it was.

Back then there was not a word for Airplane, you get my point.

HMGS1, now is this a coincidence that we find this in (JOHN 6:66)** or a GOD- INCIDENCE?

How the Holy Spirit Works as in (John 6:66) the Holy Spirit show us all that those who do not believe in the Body and Blood of Christ 'transubstantiation" are considered to be 666 in (John 6:66) this is not a coinicidence but a GOD INCIDENCE:thumbsup:

IF any one is considered as an anti-christ then that person will go to hell**
**
We all must believe in Tansubstantiation With God all things are possible.**

Ufamtobie

 

[ufamtobie]

John 6 also says that those who come to Jesus and believe on Him will never hunger or thirst so coming to Him and believing on Him is the same as eating and drinking of Him. It’s a spiritual partaking. What profit it there in eathing flesh and drinking blood which goes into the digestive system. Jesus said that wouldn’t be profitable.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

 

[BrianH]

HMGS1,

What does the number 666 stand for?

Surely it stands for Anti- christ. Truely those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are all Ant-christ leading up to the beast himself.

My point is in (John 6: 66) From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would NOT REMAIN IN HIS COMPANY ANY LONGER…

**HMGS1, These men are considered anti- christs for they walked away and remained no longer with Jesus Christ, yes, that will be difined as an Ant-christ in Gods Book.

HMGS1, now why did these men leave?**

They Left because they could not believe in “Transubstantiation” For they said among themselves how can this man gives us HIS FLESH TO EAT and Drink His BLOOD. These men left Jesus Christ and became ANTI-cHRISTS

Not by Consubstantiation, not by real presence by Pious Silence, not by real presence by Pneumatic Presence, or the phrase "do this in memory of me. Any of the above in this paragraph, these men would of accepted and never would of left Jesus Christ.

**Again, However these men knew EXACTLY that Jesus Christ meant and that is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, therefore they left Jesus and became Anti-christs, **

The word Transubstantiation perhaps was not a word back then, BUT! The definition of it was.

Back then there was not a word for Airplane, you get my point.

HMGS1, now is this a coincidence that we find this in (JOHN 6:66)**** or a GOD- INCIDENCE?

How the Holy Spirit Works as in (John 6:66) the Holy Spirit show us all that those who do not believe in the Body and Blood of Christ 'transubstantiation" are considered to be 666 in (John 6:66) this is not a coinicidence but a GOD INCIDENCE:thumbsup:
IF any one is considered as an anti-christ then that person will go to hell
**
We all must believe in Tansubstantiation With God all things are possible.**

Ufamtobie

I am glad your church does not teach that everyone who does not believe in transubstantiation goes to hell…your private interpretation aside…

 

[look3467]

I am a Protestant who believes that Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine every Sunday at my Anglican church. Do you believe this or do you feel that it is truly a symbolistic example of the Lord’s Supper?

I believe it is a symbolic gesture on our part in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What happened at the Lords Supper was the 12 disciples represented by the broken pieces of bread, by as many as shall receive, of the body (Symbolically) meaning of Jesus message of the revelation of the Fathers love. (Receive)

That by drinking of the blood (Symbolically) was to partake of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our own. (Partake)

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Walk)

So, we have receiving of God’s grace, partaking of God’s grace and finally, walking in the newness of life in God’s grace.

In “remembrance of me” do this: Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Communion, is having an intimate relationship with God, anytime, anywhere and without the flesh’s interference.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[JonNC]

Lutheran - real presence by Consubstantiation.

"

Depends upon what you mean by consubstantiation, and Lutherans have never used the term.

Jon

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I believe it is a symbolic gesture on our part in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What happened at the Lords Supper was the 12 disciples represented by the broken pieces of bread, by as many as shall receive, of the body (Symbolically) meaning of Jesus message of the revelation of the Fathers love. (Receive)

That by drinking of the blood (Symbolically) was to partake of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our own. (Partake)

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Walk)

So, we have receiving of God’s grace, partaking of God’s grace and finally, walking in the newness of life in God’s grace.

In “remembrance of me” do this: Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Communion, is having an intimate relationship with God, anytime, anywhere and without the flesh’s interference.

Peace>>>AJ

Given that John had probably participated in hundreds of communion services before he wrote the gospel, I think this is hard to interpret away:

John 6

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[hmgs1]

Ufamtobie,

Many very knowledgeable people see Revelation as written specifically for the 1st Century with the Beast (666 or 616 in some early texts) representing the Emperor Nero. You might be surprised who some of these knowledgeable people actually are. During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI remarked: “The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century.”

Regardless, if this is truly the dogma of the RCC and its God, I want no part of either.

 

[Robbinson]

Ufamtobie,

Many very knowledgeable people see Revelation as written specifically for the 1st Century with the Beast (666 or 616 in some early texts) representing the Emperor Nero. You might be surprised who some of these knowledgeable people actually are. During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI remarked: “The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century.”

Regardless, if this is truly the dogma of the RCC and its God, I want no part of either.

Hi Bill:

I’m not a big believer in numerology - though I’ll admit (as I noted in my post earlier in this thread) I was struck when I realized that John 6:66 is the verse where Jesus disciples leave him over the in ability or unwillingness to accept his teaching in the real presence (literal body and blood) of the Eucharist.

The 666 allusion here is not a formal teaching, however, of the Church.

The real presence of the Eucharist is a formal teaching of the Church - it appears clear in John 6:30-70 (Jesus emphasizing he means it literally and allowing his disciples to leave over the issue); Paul speaks of it as “literal” in Corinthians (twice - as noted above) and the earliest Church fathers believed it. In fact, this was a very common (almost uniform) belief among Christians up to the time of the Reformation (and Luther believed, to a large degree in the real presence as well).

Anyway - ultimately, I believe in stressing what we, as Christians, have in common more than what divides us and I think these fellowship opportunities amongs Christians are invaluable So, please don’t be put off by the thread.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[SIA]

That is correct. They do not consider themselves Protestant. Perhaps SIA is not fully aware of Anglican hisory.

Jean

Thanks, but I am well aware of it. I was more so focusing on what we are in the minds of Roman Catholic which would be Protestant. I do consider myself fully a member of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

 

[Robbinson]

Thanks, but I am well aware of it. I was more so focusing on what we are in the minds of Roman Catholic which would be Protestant. I do consider myself fully a member of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I never had any doubt SIA - I always enjoy your posts which are uniformly thoughtful and respectful - even though we disagree with which church is “the one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.

I do think that the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Anglican Church (as distinguished from the American episcopalian Church) is very close in doctrine and liturgy to the Catholic Church - the principal distinction being papal authority (keys to the kingdom, etc).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Radical]

Given that John had probably participated in hundreds of communion services before he wrote the gospel, I think this is hard to interpret away:

John 6

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

There is no need to “interpret away” those verses. John records figurative words for Jesus again and again in the gospel. Understanding John 6 in a figurative manner is consistent with how many of Christ’s other sayings are understood…and of course, a figurative understanding is nothing new. After all, it was Augustine who declared:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

 

[SIA]

This is becoming great conversation.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There is no need to “interpret away” those verses. John records figurative words for Jesus again and again in the gospel. Understanding John 6 in a figurative manner is consistent with how many of Christ’s other sayings are understood…and of course, a figurative understanding is nothing new. After all, it was Augustine who declared:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Jesus instructed his followers to partake of his body and blood.

When Jesus spoke figuratively, no one was shocked or confused because he clarified his point for them.

Why did so many followers leave after his statements in John 6?

When Jesus described himself as a door or a light, no one declared it to be a “hard teaching”.

Paul, and the entire early Church documented the understanding that Jesus is indeed with us in body and spirit in the Eucharist.

Why deny it?

 

[Radical]

Hello SIA

I am a Protestant who believes that Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine every Sunday at my Anglican church. Do you believe this or do you feel that it is truly a symbolistic example of the Lord’s Supper?

I believe it is a symbol of the Lord’s sacrifice for us (as opposed to a symbol of the Lord’s Supper).

 

[Robbinson]

There is no need to “interpret away” those verses. John records figurative words for Jesus again and again in the gospel. Understanding John 6 in a figurative manner is consistent with how many of Christ’s other sayings are understood…and of course, a figurative understanding is nothing new. After all, it was Augustine who declared:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

The difference here, however, is context. When questioned by the disciples can we really eat his flesh, Jesus emphasizes the literal meaing of the words (truly, truly). Also, significantly, in other passages, when Jesus disciples mistake his statements as literal, when he means them to be metephorical, he corrects them (e.g., when Jesus warned them to “beware the leven of the pharasies” and they mistook him to be speaking of “bread” - he corrected them and explained it as a metephor). In this case, not only did Jesus reitrate he meant it literally, he allowed his diciples to leave him when they could not believe it - then turned to the apostles and asked if they would also leave - and they did not because they said Jesus had the words of “eternal life” (those words of “eternal life” were several verses earlier when Jesus said unless you eat his body and drink his blood, you have no “eternal life”). This is not figurative/metephorical speech. As noted in earlier replies the literal nature of this doctrine is reiterated by Paul in Corinthians.

Blessings,

Brian