Sola Scriptura and the Eucharist

[Dasher]

I am a Catholic who recently attended a Protestant service (First Evangelical Free Church) with a friend on their communion Sunday.
The service was very nice and the pastor preached straight from the Bible. In fact, my friend attends the First Evangelical Free church because they use the Bible and the Bible alone. And they are literalists–what the Bible says goes! As I was watching the communion service I was taken by the fact that the pastor was very careful to state that the bread and wine (grape juice) was NOT the true body of Christ, but just a symbol! I have always known that Protestants do not belive in the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. But it does not make sense to me. Matthew 26:26-27 reads, "And as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY (caps are mine). Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you. FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD of the the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” If Sola Scriptura is so very important to many Protestants, why is this CRITICAL passage not taken literally?
God created the Heavens and the earth in 7 days because the Bible reads so!!! But the bread and wine is not truly the body and blood of Christ even though Christ himself states it so clearly? This leaves me puzzled!

 

[Malachi4U]

Dasher:

…If Sola Scriptura is so very important to many Protestants, why is this CRITICAL passage not taken literally?

Miss-self-interpretation! They also pick and choose what they want to believe - or not.

God created the Heavens and the earth in 7 days because the Bible reads so!!! But the bread and wine is not truly the body and blood of Christ even though Christ himself states it so clearly?

After the priest blesses it, it is no longer wine and bread - it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

This leaves me puzzled!

Join the crowd!

Protestants are schismatics and as such they believe in Burger King religion. (Have it your way. Who cares what Jesus wants to them.). They invent a belief and then read Scripture to prove it. Their communion IS just bread and grape juice too since they have NO apostolic line in their clergy. They’re right on that one point in thier apostate worship service anyway.

If they are Sola Scriptura then where is that in Scripture? Where does Jesus tell us to read or even write a Bible? Which books? Who has authority to produce, edit and write it?

Sola Scriptura = :whacky:

 

[On_my_way]

Protestants relie on Sola Scriptura, but contradict there own belief. They say they follow scripture to the fullest degree, but when they view the Eucharist it is symbolic to them. Not once did Jesus say it is symbolic. Protestants want what they want to believe not want Jesus tells them. They say they take it literally (the Bible) but when it comes to the Real Presence it is symbolic. I just don’t think they understand what literally mean.

In St. Ignatius of Antiochs’ Letter to the Romans he states, “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I DESIRE THE BREAD OF GOD, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS OF THE SEED OF DAVID ; AND FOR DRINK I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, WHICH IS LOVE INCORRUPTIBLE.”

Sounds pretty much to me that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood. No symbolism there.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

You know, Jack Chick, in his tracts, boldens “do this in rememberance of me” (in an attempt to disprove the Real Presence), however “this is my body” appears just a few words earlier and is in normal font. Just one of the many contraditions with the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

Some non catholics are really Bible Based or Sola Scriptura. They tend to teach in those things that are with their teachings. Some of these people eventhough they had seen some truth still they will not let this truth come out because it will be contradicting to their teachings.

Example of this is the Iglesia ni Kristo. Eventhough they have seen passages that denotes the divinity of Jesus christ like in the book of Isaiah where Isaiah prophecised that the MIGHTY GOD will be born and in John “And the Word was GOD… And He dwelt amongst us” Still they cannot accept this truth because this will be contradicting to the former teachings and i think they don’t want to show to their people that they have commited some mistakes in their teachings.

 

[puzzleannie]

! As I was watching the communion service I was taken by the fact that the pastor was very careful to state that the bread and wine (grape juice) was NOT the true body of Christ, but just a symbol! I have always known that Protestants do not belive in the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. But it does not make sense to me. !

the evangelical preacher was stating the truth. since his denomination, in common with many whose roots are in the original reformed churches, deny the sacrificial priesthood they must also deny the real presence in the Eucharist. He is quite right: no priest = no Eucharist. That sola scriptura theology denies Catholic sacraments and practices which are firmly rooted in the bible is definitely a good departure for apologetics discussion, but he preacher was right in his statement, the ceremony you witnessed was symbolic only.

 

[mari319]

It’s really very simple if you can look at it from the Protestant point of view. (Before anyone jumps at me, I’m not saying it’s the right point of view.) From the Protestant point of view, the bread and wine at the table with Christ was transformed into His body and blood. However, Christ alone had the power to transform it. They don’t see their pastors as having received that power from Christ nor as having the power to ask Christ to transform the bread and wine (or grape juice) into His body and blood. Therefore, it’s a “re-enactment” and there is no miracle of transubstantiation. Personally, I think they’re missing out.

 

[Atreyu]

mari most Protestants I have come across really think that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said “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.” They think that eating the flesh of the Son of Man is a metaphor for believing in Jesus. To me that doesn’t make any sense, but I think that a lot of Protestants believe in it!

 

[Shibboleth]

Dasher:

"Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY (caps are mine). Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you. FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD of the the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” If Sola Scriptura is so very important to many Protestants, why is this CRITICAL passage not taken literally?

Fundamentalist is not a synonym of Sola Scriptura.

No one takes all of scripture literally. I don’t think anyone believes that we should actually hate our Mother and Father in a strick litteral sense but Jesus states it as clearly as he states, “THIS IS MY BODY.”

Luke 14
26"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Many Protestants believe in the real presence. Actually the symbolic aspect has less difficulties with Sola Scripture than consubstantiation.