The Real Presence

[JonNC]

Welcome to CAF, achildofGod.

=achildofGod;8178004]
This is truly a good question. I have been asking this question for many years too.
Right. Short answer. Protestants, a name derived form the word protest. At some point some Christians protested against the churches decadence, double standard rules and dogmas. So the decided to split off the church, protest against it and redefine what it means to be Christian and a follower of Christ. Martin Luther etc.

You have the source of the term “protestant” correct, but not the origin. The protest was not against the Church specifically, or even its doctrines, it was against the use of government power to limit religious practice - the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529.

So they turned direction and threw out all Catholic teachings, went back to the bible and took it word for word.

This is, at the very least, an overstatement.

This is where I feel believe the protestants have fallen short of the mark. While they have decided to take every word in the bible as a literal interpretation, like the earth created in six days etc, they have picked and chosen. Because Jesus did say explicitly that “This is my body, take it and eat it.” The same with drinking His blood. But because Protestants are protesting I truly believe they have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
But having said that. The apostles when receiving the bread would have not received it as anything other than bread and wine the sharing of a meal together with Christ.
But the classic verses in the bible John 6 “I am the bread of life” shows us that this has been a controversial dispute right from the start.
Don’t forget that this doctrine of Transubstantiation only came much, much later in the Christian faith . It was introduced by Thomas Aquinas.
**There are some protestants who also believe in the real presence, and there are some who don’t I can’t explain their reasons for their choices. **What do you believe GC?

Maybe I can help you understand the position of Lutherans, who do:
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melachthon defends the doctrine of the Real Presence by citing first scripture. He then invokes the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west, and also Vulgarius and Cyril as representatives of the ECF’s.

Kind of contradicts the idea that the reformers “threw out all Catholic teachings”.

bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Dear Grasscutter

Protestants, a name derived form the word protestused to think At some point some Christians protested against the churches decadence, double standard rules and dogmas.

 

[Radical]

Also, I did not see a response to this section of the post. Keep in mind, Sermon 229 and 229A are both sermons in regards to the Eucharist.

In 229A,2 Augustine says:
“What you can see on the Lord’s table, as far as appearance of the things goes, you are also used to seeing on your own tables; they have the same aspect, but not the same value. I mean, you yourselves are the same people as you used to be; you haven’t brought us along new faces, after all. And yet you’re new; the same old people in bodily appearance, completely new ones by the grace of holiness – just as this too is new. It’s still, indeed, as you can see it, bread and wine; come the consecration, that bread will be the Body of Christ, and that wine will be the Blood of Christ. This is brought about by the name of Christ, brought about by the grace of Christ, that it should continue to look exactly like what it used to look like, and yet should not have the same value as it used to. You see, if it was eaten before, it would fill the belly; but now when it’s eaten it nourishes the spirit.”
Again, clear as day.

Another Catholic scholar (who has probably been dropped from Nicea325’s Christmas card list) by the name of William Harmless SJ wrote a book (limited preview on Google books) called Augustine and the Catechumenate. At page 315 he considers Augustine’s four sermons on the Eucharist including 229a. A little after considering exactly the part of Sermon 229a that you quoted, Harmless (on page 319) wrote: “In other words, for Augustine, the Body of Christ appeared as sort of a diptych: at once as people and as “sanctified” bread…Augustine did not conceive of real presence in strictly ritual terms. His thinking admitted no sharp fissure between the real presence of Christ in the bread and the real presence of Christ within the community.” Before that, ( on 318) after considering some bits from Tractates on John, Harmless wrote: "Augustine believed that God’s Word imbued the material, whether the waters of baptism or the bread and wine, with life-giving power."

In 229a it also reads …"this bread is a sign of unity…And you, after those fasts, after the hard labors, after the humiliation and the contrition, have now at last come, in the name of Christ, into the Lord’s cup, so to say; and there you are on the table, and there you are in the cup…"

So, if we are talking about things that are clear as day, we also see that Augustine believed that the participant was also present on the table and in the cup. He declared that the believer was on the table with no less vigor than he used in declaring that the Body of Christ was on the table. Do you suggest that (for Augustine) the participant’s presence on the table was a real bodily presence?..that the substance of the bread was transformed into the substance of the believer? If not, why would you claim that (for Augustine) Christ’s presence was a real bodily presence? It seems to me that the participant’s presence (along with the presence of his fellow believers) is achieved by way of 1) the manner in which the bread/wine symbolizes the joining together in one that exists amongst believers and 2) through the power of grace that is taken on by the elements that brings about a spiritual unity w/i the Church (aka the body of Christ). That is the change that Augustine described when he asked himself “How can the bread be his body?” in Sermon 272. There again, is a passage that you haven’t addressed and need to deal with…why does Augustine’s “how” fail to mention anything approaching a real bodily presence?

The last part about belly and spirit suggests that something happens to the bread and wine for it to have spiritual benefits for us. Before the consecration, it is just bread and wine and has no spiritual benefits for us, it would just fill our stomachs. After the consecration, all of a sudden it has spiritual benefits. Why? Because the consecration does something to the bread and wine.

this does describe Augustine’s view

It turns it into the Body and Blood of Christ

and Augustine could agree with this too, except he wouldn’t mean it as you do. Augustine provided the answer to how it was the body of Christ and his answer doesn’t resemble yours…

If nothing happens to it, then how could it have any benefits for our souls?

No one that I know would say that Augustine believed that nothing happened to the elements upon their consecration…but many would say that the something that did happen (in Augustine’s view) was something other than a creation of a real bodily presence

God Bless you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8182177]So, if we are talking about things that are clear as day, we also see that Augustine believed that the participant was also present on the table and in the cup. He declared that the believer was on the table with no less vigor than he used in declaring that the Body of Christ was on the table.

Do you suggest that (for Augustine) the participant’s presence on the table was a real bodily presence?..that the substance of the bread was transformed into the substance of the believer? If not, why would you claim that (for Augustine) Christ’s presence was a real bodily presence? It seems to me that the participant’s presence (along with the presence of his fellow believers) is achieved by way of 1) the manner in which the bread/wine symbolizes the joining together in one that exists amongst believers and 2) through the power of grace that is taken on by the elements that brings about a spiritual unity w/i the Church (aka the body of Christ). That is the change that Augustine described when he asked himself “How can the bread be his body?” in Sermon 272. There again, is a passage that you haven’t addressed and need to deal with…why does Augustine’s “how” fail to mention anything approaching a real bodily presence?

Please, you are distorting the writings of a Catholic Saint such as Augustine, then you misinterpret another Catholics (amazement) interpretation of Augustine’s insights into the Eucharist who never leaves the Church’s faith in the True presence. But supports other teachings of St.Augustine of the unity of the faithful who partake of the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist. In St.Augustine’s day this teaching of his was phenomenal.

Your author is complimenting Augustines insights as to referencing the True presence of Jesus are found both in the Eucharist and those who partake of His body, blood soul and divinity.

How you assess that your author or Augustine is introducing something in contradiction to the True presence of Jesus believed by all the faithful since apostolic times as “something other?” deals with your forced interpertation of words on a page that is never revealed by the author nor Augustine. Your position never interprets correctly St.Augustines view, nor the author giving commentary to St.Augustines faith in the True presence of Jesus in His Eucharist.

St.Augustine introduces Sermon No. 229 with Sermon No.227 to clarify St. Augstines faith in the Eucharist as he teaches the Church.

“That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” Now this is straight from the horses mouth.

St.Augustine continues his teaching on the Eucharist in terms so that the simple minded can relate to this great mystery of Jesus body and blood truly present in the “consecrated bread and wine”. He continues to give an example;

… “Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us HIS BODY AND THE BLOOD which He poured out for the remission of sins. **If you have recieved worthily, you are what you have recieved **, for the Apostle says; “The bread is one; we though many, are one body” (1Cor.10:17). Thus he explained the Sacrament of the Lord’s table”;

Then Augustine continues to teach how the Church lives in unity as one in Christ after receiving Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist; This is not a new way or different way of viewing the Eucharist as you wrongly implied, Augustine moves on from the Eucharist True presence and teaches unity in the body of Christ because of the Eucharist “True body and blood presence”.

Augustine continues; “The bread is one; we though many, are one body. So, by bread you are instructed as to how you ought to cherish unity. Was that bread made of one grain of wheat? Were there not, rather, many grains? However, before they became bread, these grains were separate; they were joined together in water afer a certain amount of crushing.”

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

Radical, you wrongly interpret St.Augustine’s writings because you believe Augustine references the Eucharist as Just bread leaving the wrong impression that Augustine is teaching something other than what the Catholic Church teaches, when all Augustine is doing elevating the faithfuls faith in the True presence of Jesus body and blood and relating them to live them out in community and unity as One body in Christ.

Here is St. Augustine again On Christian Doctrine, Bk. 3 Chap. 16 “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” Christ says, “And drink His blood, you have non life in you” (Jn 6:54).

Then St.Augustine goes on from here to explain that this act appears to be violent, and then calms his audience by placing his interpretation of the eating of flesh and drinking of blood is an act of the participant “figuratively” enjoining and sharing in the actual sufferings of our Lord. Augustine is not referencing a symbolic Eucharist in anyway here, but is referencing the act of Eating flesh and drinking blood enjoins and shares in the suffering’s of Christ figuratively speaking. He never relates this “figurative” to the Eucharist only the act of eating and drinking flesh and blood to the suffering of Jesus Christ.

Here is St.Augustine concluding; "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.

St.Augustine teaches the faithful in this manner, when he deals with heretics he does so in another form of apologies.

For example here St. Augustine addressing Faustus the Manicheaean, 21:20 " Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament". Augustine relates the True sacrifice of Jesus as “this sacrifice” , “is commemorated in the sacrament” the same way Catholics practice this teaching today before St.Augustine, during Augustine and after St.Augustine.

Do not confuse St.Augustine’s Catholic faith in the True presence of Jesus in His Eucharist, with St.Augustine’s teachings relating to community, or Christ being present both sacra mentally in the Eucharist and or in the mystical body of believers who as St.Augustine teaches and bible teaches is “The body of Christ”.

You know the old saying it takes one (a Catholic) to know one (a Catholic). If you ain’t Catholic then you got no business trying to interpret one, less you hold true to what a Catholic believes and teaches, when you interpret a Catholic Saint.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is St.Ambrose the Catholic Saint who knew St.Augustine personally and whom St.Augustine loved to hear his teachings and who baptised St.Augustine. Listen to how St.Augustine uses the same language St.Ambrose references the Eucharist as sacrament, and consecration etc…He also references the biblical text when the people of God in the desert litterally ate and drank; The bread from heaven and water from the Rock was truly “Spiritual food” relating these to God’s being which is “Spirit” to the Eucharist which was never symbolic in old covenant, because they ate and drank real food which appeared before their eyes by God, and is never symbolic in the New Covenant of Jesus true body and blood in His Eucharist.

St.Ambrose on the Eucharist; One Mysteries, 9:50 “Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and power of blessing is greater than that of naature, beasue by blessing nature itself is changed.”

St.Ambrose continues 9:58 " In that sacrament (of the Eucharist) is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ,it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type; “Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink (1Cor. 10:3,4) for the Body of God is a spiritual body.”

 

[Radical]

Radical, First of all, thank you for your response.

thanks to you for taking the time to produce reasoned posts

Second of all, I am going to be a leader at a Retreat from Friday to Sunday so I won’t be able to respond to your post.

well it will give me a chance to catch up…I hope that you are/were blessed at the retreat. I will be gone for about a week starting Tuesday, so the field will be yours.

Now, is there anything that suggests or hints at the fact that Augustine believed that the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ? Yes there is. It is something that I have quoted before and Radical gave (in my opinion…with all due respect) a half-hearted response to it (for a lack of better terms)…Augustine could not have been any more clear.

Radical, for the sake of the argument, let’s say that Augustine did believe in Transubstantiation, can you please tell us how he would describe it in words without using the word Transubstantiation? Better yet, let’s say YOU believed in it. Can you please describe it in words for us without using the word Transubstantiation?

by all means, thanks for the opportunity to show the difference…Here it is as I would describe it:
. Christ told us to eat his flesh for our salvation. We know that cannibalism is wrong, so eating his flesh can’t be done in that fashion. We know that it must be more than just a figure of speech and that we must actually and truly eat his flesh in some way. This eating is done in a way that is unlike anything else that we know. The bread must change into Christ’s flesh, not in a material sense b/c we still see only bread. As such, it is not exactly like the miracles Jesus preformed (like healing the leper), b/c in those instances one could see the change that was brought about. The bread must change into Christ’s flesh, not in a spiritual sense only b/c that would not result in one actually and truly eating Christ’s flesh. That would only result in only a “spiritual eating”. As such, it is not like the change that occured in us when we became a new creation in Christ for that was a change in only our spiritual natures (as opposed to our physical natures and we have no outher natures of which I am aware). Therefore, the bread changes in a realm that is neither physical nor merely spiritual. The bread changes in a realm that is otherwise unknown to us and a change in that realm allows Christ’s body (from toenails to scalpel hair) to be really bodily present in each and every piece of bread and truly eaten (upon the eating of the piece of bread) w/o ever being sensed by the believer. Upon the consecration then, the bread is changed in that wondrous realm to allow us to eat Christ’s flesh for our eternal life.
Please note that this is how I would describe it…though I really haven’t touched that much on the idea of transubstantiation with my description. Augustine, was a neo-Platonist and so the realms of existence that he envisioned may not coincide exactly with the two known realms that I list above (material and spiritual)…that being said, I see no indication in Augustine of the existence of this “Eucharistc realm” where the material realm is not affected, but one can still be said to be actually (and not figuratively) eating flesh. You will also note that there are some things in my description that contradict what Augustine actually said. You may not like my use of “Eucharistic realm”, but given the damage that we see done to the ordinary meanings of words by Catholic descriptions, I don’t think that term should be objectionable. You might also note that I have repeatedly asked for a description of the “how” from believers in a RBP (in simple language) and have not gotten much in the way of a response. I’d appreciate it if you would give it a go…

Radical, you can quote other passages where Augustine seems to suggest that the Eucharist is not the physical Body and Blood of Christ but all of those verses can be reconciled with the ones I showed you.

that, of course cuts both ways. There isn’t a passage that you can point to that can’t be reconciled with a “non-real bodily presence view”. Are you aware that this debate is also being conducted in scholarly circles? In Papal Sin G. Wills points out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Also, if you’re going to do that, it is no different than when Jehova Witnesses, Muslims, and other groups who don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ downplay verses that talk about Christ’s Divinity and exalt the verses that talk about Christ’s humanity. In reality, Christ is both man and God. There is no contradiction there.

well, I suppose that if you are going to compare me to those groups, then I should compare you to the Mormons who have added their innovations to God’s revelation…or should I just point out that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones.

Same way with the Eucharist. When you think that Augustine is talking about a spiritual presence or a symbolic presence, simply think of it this way: We do not believe that we are physically eating Christ’s body parts. Like we are not eating a finger of Christ in one church and in another church they’re eating his ribcage. No. We believe we are SACRAMENTALLY eating the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVNITY of Christ. This is a mystery.

what could one do that could be properly called soul eating?..or divinity eating? It would seem that these are very fuzzy concepts…and I don’t recall Augustine ever describing eating something other than Christ’s flesh (which he described as a figure of speech) and the sacramental bread

God bless you

 

[CopticChristian]

In describing the Kingdom of God, did Jesus ever use parables?

Yes *, of course, He did.

S*o, not eveything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally.

Was the Last Supper an exception?

So, when Jesus said " this is my flesh " in reference to the table bread that day - did He mean only that literal piece of bread, on that table, at that point in history?

Probably, not *.

S*o, at the least of it, there is a margin of ambiguity, with respect to Real Presence, would you not allow?



**So, in the Gospel of John 6, Jesus feeds everyone, tells them they have to eat his flesh and then they say, hey that was a good story, he was just telling us a parable, he really meant read the word…wait a minute did you see everyone leaving? Maybe they have somewhere to go…**read what happened.
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Now was this because it was a parable, he really did not mean that, or because maybe he really meant it?

 

[Radical]

You know the old saying it takes one (a Catholic) to know one (a Catholic). If you ain’t Catholic then you got no business trying to interpret one, less you hold true to what a Catholic believes and teaches, when you interpret a Catholic Saint.

this sure isn’t a recipe for an honest understanding of Augustine…it is a recipe for a predetermined result…you aren’t asking, “What did Augustine mean by this?” instead you are asking, “How can I interpret this passage from Augustine so that it complies with Catholic teaching?” It gets you what you want and nothing more.

Here is St.Ambrose the Catholic Saint who knew St.Augustine personally and whom St.Augustine loved to hear his teachings and who baptised St.Augustine.

You know, the scholars that I cite have no problem in saying that Ambrose held to a RBP…they are not opposed to the idea that an ECF could believe in a full blown real somatic presence. They will not, however, follow your practise and assume that each and every ECF believed in a RBP. They allow the evidence (of Augustine’s words) to speak for itself.

And yet NO WHERE does Augustine ONCE state the RP is heretical or false. Where are those famous sentences from Augustine Radical? Where are the rebukes by countless other ECF’s claiming the belief in the RP is bogus and insane?

Nicea, You can wait forever and you probably won’t get anything because St. Augustine never wrote any rebukes in regards to the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist.

well, as long as we are in the business of making unrealistic demands for statements by ECFs, perhaps you and Nicea325 could produce a quote from within Augustine’s many, many words that expressly declares that he believed exactly the same as Ambrose did regarding a RBP or that all the ECFs believed exactly the same thing regarding the Eucharist. Now you might want to ask why you should expect to find such a quote, but I have been waiting for such an explanation from Nicea325 from when he first demanded that I produce a quote with a certain content…I am not sure of the usefulness of Nicea325’s game, but he sure seems to enjoy playing it.

He was a firm believer in the RBP. In my opinion, Augustine’s beliefs in the RBP is more explicit than the Bible is on the teaching of the Trinity.

they are only explicit if one makes assumptions such as:

a) when Augustine speaks of a change in the elements, the change that he is thinking about is the same one that the Catholic Church today envisions.

b) when Augustine speaks of a the bread being the body of Christ, he means exactly the same thing as when the CC today says that the bread is the body of Christ

As with Gabriel of 12’s approach, those assumptions only lead to a predetermined finding

 

[david_ruiz]

**So, in the Gospel of John 6, Jesus feeds everyone, tells them they have to eat his flesh and then they say, hey that was a good story, he was just telling us a parable, he really meant read the word…wait a minute did you see everyone leaving? Maybe they have somewhere to go…**read what happened.
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Now was this because it was a parable, he really did not mean that, or because maybe he really meant it?

Remember those who left ,who had a literal interpretation .They had no faith to begin with ,and I wouldn’t trust their interpretation with a ten foot pole.The apostles on the other hand, had faith and may or may not have a figurative interpretation. Scripture is silent on the “eating” but loud and clear on the main thing - Jesus’s words were eternal life (bread) and He was the Messiah. Jesus was content with that .He did not push the apostles any further on the matter in John 6 .

 

[CopticChristian]

Remember those who left ,who had a literal interpretation .They had no faith to begin with ,and I wouldn’t trust their interpretation with a ten foot pole.The apostles on the other hand, had faith and may or may not have a figurative interpretation. Scripture is silent on the “eating” but loud and clear on the main thing - Jesus’s words were eternal life (bread) and He was the Messiah. Jesus was content with that .He did not push the apostles any further on the matter in John 6 .

Were you there?

 

[david_ruiz]

.

J

ustin (Martyr) (Rome, 100-165), First Apology, Ch. 61
They (those to be baptized) then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated

 

[david_ruiz]

Were you there?

No ,but according to Justin Martyr ,early church father ,I believe , was baptized, and am “illuminated”-which means and or leads to understanding .

 

[CopticChristian]

No ,but according to Justin Martyr ,early church father ,I believe , was baptized, and am “illuminated”-which means and or leads to understanding .

You make things so difficult for yourself by adhering to what you believe to be a handbook for Christianity causing you to question what you read.

I am reminded of the movie “A few Good Men”. Tom Cruise asks questions like do you get to eat while here soldier, yes sir, 3 squares, and do you know where the mess hall is, well yes right down the hall there. Now can you show me in the manual where it says the mess hall is? Not there and so on.

I was taught and believe that Baptism is regnerative. My father and mother taught me. I am teaching my children. I can imagine that my parents were taught by their parents and so on and so on.

My mother never opened a cookbook and I learned to cook from my mother. I rarely open a cookbook but I know how to cook. You are aware that cookbooks were not available prior to the printing press invention and when people were illiterate they had to depend on what someone told them and what they learned from someone else.

Look all you want to, try to justify your disbelief, Lord help not my belief, help my unbelief. Give it up. If you want definite proof then all we have is what we have and if that is not good enough for you then so be it. Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestants hold to Baptismal regeneration. The Presbyterians USA have signed a joint declaration on Baptism.

Many will be with the belief of Baptismal Regeneration. You are not. You aren’t going to convince anyone that is Catholic that it is not. Protestant are divided into Pedobaptists and CredoBaptists. CredoBaptists commenced 500 years ago with the Baptists, Anabaptists so what is new. It would appear that Calvinists since Spurgeon have given up on Baptism and so have you.

If you do not believe bless you. We Believe.

 

[Pitcharan]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

“Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament” is a rare grace that should be sought earnestly. Unbelief is not confined to protestants and fundamentalists. How many of us catholics can honestly claim that we have experienced “the Real Presence”?

I think it would be great to explore how to receive this grace rather than wonder why some lack it. I confess that I am yet to experience “the Real Presence” but still craving for this grace. I believe in it and have also known the power of such grace demonstrated in the lives of tall humans like Moses, Mother Teresa and Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

Pitcharan

 

[CopticChristian]

“Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament” is a rare grace that should be sought earnestly. Unbelief is not confined to protestants and fundamentalists. How many of us catholics can honestly claim that we have experienced “the Real Presence”?

I think it would be great to explore how to receive this grace rather than wonder why some lack it. I confess that I am yet to experience “the Real Presence” but still craving for this grace. I believe in it and have also known the power of such grace demonstrated in the lives of tall humans like Moses, Mother Teresa and Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

Pitcharan

I fear that some interested Protestant may believe that you are providing some formula to receive grace. We believe in the true presence until we believe in the true presence and acknowledge that we were given the grace to believe. We constantly seek God’s Will asking for the grace to align our Will with Him. If it is God’s perogative to give you whatever grace you need for whatever it is you need you will get it, in the meantime “do whatever he tells you”.

 

[pkrjenkins]

Here is why I believe most Protestant Evangelicals don’t believe in the Real Presence. They are taught from day one that it is symbolic, and few of them question this, or even know there is another way to believe regarding communion. Also, many of them do not observe communion on a weekly basis. Some do it once a month, some once a quarter, some every 6 months. Where I live (in the Bible Belt) if you want to attend a church that has communion every Sunday, your choices are limited.

When I begain to read church history I discovered that communion was observed every Sunday in the early church, and the Baptist church I attended only observed it every 6 months (another reason I left the Baptist church). So I think the reason many Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence is simply lack of education and ignorance of history.

 

[hn160]

Here is why I believe most Protestant Evangelicals don’t believe in the Real Presence. They are taught from day one that it is symbolic, and few of them question this, or even know there is another way to believe regarding communion. Also, many of them do not observe communion on a weekly basis. Some do it once a month, some once a quarter, some every 6 months. Where I live (in the Bible Belt) if you want to attend a church that has communion every Sunday, your choices are limited.

When I begain to read church history I discovered that communion was observed every Sunday in the early church, and the Baptist church I attended only observed it every 6 months (another reason I left the Baptist church). So I think the reason many Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence is simply lack of education and ignorance of history.

The reason why Evangelicals don’t believe that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the bread and wine is because they have either Zwinglian or Calvinist roots. They are told that Christ’s Body is confined to Heaven and his Spiritual Presence is only on earth ( Calvinist ), or it is symbolic ( Zwingli ).
This was Luther’s argument Zwingli at Marburg. Luther said that he would rather drink wine with the pope than with Zwingli. Zwingli was of a different spirit.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=CopticChristian;8189233][You make things so difficult for yourself by adhering to what you believe to be a handbook for Christianity causing you to question what you read.

Do you not adhere to what you believe ? Aren’t you questioning what you read,certainly discerning according to your “light”. I am no different.Of course you do ,as you go on to say.]

Now can you show me in the manual where it says the mess hall is? Not there and so on.

I We are usually criticized for adhering to biblical authority only .That is o.k. Yes ,experience in Him is something else, and it will be Judged by His every Word ,right ? You have your handbook, your tradition also , and your experience.All will be judged by the Word ,nothing else…

My mother never opened a cookbook and I learned to cook from my mother. I rarely open a cookbook but I know how to cook ]You are aware that cookbooks were not available prior to the printing press invention and when people were illiterate they had to depend on what someone told them and what they learned from someone else.

Yes ,and generally speaking when it is put to print ,it fully reflects the oral recipe. Why would you leave anything out ?

Look all you want to, try to justify your disbelief,

That is right .Seek and ye shall find .His Word ,that of others and history are full of treasures…

If you want dfinite proof

I hope I do not seek definiive "proof’’ but rather may I and all of us aprehend Him in all His truth .

Protestant are divided into Pedobaptists and CredoBaptists. CredoBaptists commenced 500 years ago with the Baptists, Anabaptists so what is new. It would appear that Calvinists since Spurgeon have given up on Baptism and so have you.

History is fsacinating ,but I believe differing views have existed way before 1500.
[/quote]

 

[david_ruiz]

That is your “manual” .What is your experience ? Were you regenerated at baptism ?