M
mcq72
Guest
So Lutherans only have a symbol, and you even question about receiving eucharist even from Orthodox?
Last edited:
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
LOL! The writer of that page gives the quote that I quoted in my first paragraph that Catholic apologist use. The very next chapter starts out
Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him.
When we receive the Holy Spirit we are figuratively receiving His Flesh. When we abide in the Holy Spirit we are figuratively abiding in His Flesh.
Which is why 1 John 4:13 says By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
That’s why I posted the link.
Now to the link
Point being, it is pointed out that, (paraphrasing in my own words) the words like [figuratively, and symbol, etc] aren’t alone, in the way Clement ends his thoughts. Clement believes the sacrament aren’t just symbols. While he might not be saying things perfectly, his writings in context show, he isn’t undoing the true meaning of a sacrament(s) by merely stopping at (metaphor symbol etc) and not explaining himself in the way the Church teaches on the reality of the sacraments. .
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
not sacramental … needs a valid priesthood
M
mcq72
Guest
Precisely, excluding other brethren from breaking of the one loaf of bread of unity…ironic
A
ArchStanton
Guest
unity has a price… belief
S
steve-b
Guest
I’ve posted this example numerous times.ArchStanton:
Precisely, excluding other brethren from breaking of the one loaf of bread of unity…ironic
When Paul was in this exchange with Bp Titus
Who is Paul talking about? Are they pagans? Nope! THEY are baptized people IN THE CHURCH.
HERE
Titus 3:10-11 “As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”
IOW,
a man who is factious, a heretic, …THEY are by definition, according to Paul, people who are already in the faith. They are in the Church.
HOWEVER
When/If THEY refuse to be corrected by a proper authoritative source, and instead continues in their error, THEN what happens to THEM, and whose fault, is THAT?
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
The same Clement of Alexandria says this:
“The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of the Children , circa 202 AD).
What you have right here – is RCC teaching of today. That the Eucharist transmits sanctifying grace into our souls. Something very much opposed of in non-Catholic Churches and reformed theology.
So again, I do not think any of these ECF’s actually went to their graves believing in some symbolic ordinance. I can show you quotes from Augustine that appear to contradict each other on various issues if you aren’t familiar with his entire body of work and the chronological order of it.
“The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of the Children , circa 202 AD).
What you have right here – is RCC teaching of today. That the Eucharist transmits sanctifying grace into our souls. Something very much opposed of in non-Catholic Churches and reformed theology.
So again, I do not think any of these ECF’s actually went to their graves believing in some symbolic ordinance. I can show you quotes from Augustine that appear to contradict each other on various issues if you aren’t familiar with his entire body of work and the chronological order of it.
L
lanman87
Guest
What is lacking in that statement (and the others for that matter) is any thought of Transubstantiation that has taught by the Catholic church since the middle ages. He even says it is “Watered Wine” that nourishes our faith. Someone who believes in transubstantiation would never say it is the wine that strengthens our faith as it (according to Catholics) is no longer wine and no longer bread.
Also, this is what I posted when Steve asked me my definition of the Eucharist
“The Lord’s Supper is a time of thanksgiving and memorial of what Christ has done for us on the cross, is a public proclamation of Christ death and resurrection, It is a way to spiritually connect with Christ and what He has done for us and it helps reaffirm our relationship with Christ and grow us spiritually as our faith is strengthened.”
Growing us Spiritually and Strengthening our faith is just another way of saying that the Lord’s Supper has a role in our sanctification. Reformed theology calls the Lord’s Supper a means of grace.
From Ligonier ministries…
In His grace and in His wisdom, God has provided ways by which we can regularly have our faith in His promises fortified. Historically, we have referred to these ways of strengthening our faith as the ordinary means of grace. Prayer, the preaching of the Word, and the sacraments are not elaborate or fancy methods of giving us what we need to confirm our trust in Christ. To an outside observer, they do not seem special at all. After all, they make use of rather common things such as human speech, bread, wine, and water. But by faith and the work of the Spirit, these common elements are used to do an uncommon work — the confirmation of our trust in Jesus and the strengthening of our wills to flee from sin and rest in Christ alone.
Preaching is not a powerless human explanation of the biblical text, for the Spirit accompanies it so that God’s Word achieves its purposes (Isa. 55:10–11). Prayer is more than empty words; it establishes communion between us and the Creator, thereby empowering us for belief and faithful, effective service (James 5:16b–18). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not mere memorials that we do simply because Jesus tells us to do them; rather, we participate mysteriously in Christ Himself when by faith we take part in these ordinances (1 Cor. 10:16).
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I think they held more meaning to the Eucharist that many Evangelicals today. At the same time, I don’t think they held to transubstantiation as taught by the Catholic church. I think many of the ECF viewed the Eucharist as a Spiritual act that symbolically is eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, which represents how Christ spiritually feeds and nourishes us by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as it feeds our hearts/souls/spirits.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
What are your thoughts about early writings like this, from a disciple of an apostle?
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ , flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes ( Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [ A.D. 110 ]).
M
mcq72
Guest
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Hebrews 13:8
saying ‘AMEN’ to the Eucharist is saying YES, I believe the Eucharist IS the body of Christ!
L
lanman87
Guest
First, it is not unusual to same something metaphorically that sounds literal. Especially when dealing with symbols and representations. If I hold up a map and say, “This is Georgia” then it sounds like the map is really Georgia but it is a really a representation of Georgia. Well, the bread and the cup are representations of the broken body and blood of Christ. Differences in language and cultural nuances between the 2nd Century Roman Empire and later centuries blur the distinctions, but if they considered the Bread and Cup to be true representations then it makes sense that they would call it the flesh/body wine/blood.
Second, Ignatius’s letters are full of metaphors and you have to read what he writes with that in mind.
Third, Calling the Eucharist the flesh of Christ is a direct response to Gnostics who held that Christ did not actually come in the flesh. He was writing against those who held that Christ was not incarnate. The reason they didn’t confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ was because they didn’t believe that Christ actually came in the flesh. He wasn’t speaking against holding a spiritual/symbolic view of “How the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ” but was speaking against the view that Christ never came in the flesh.
Fourth, even Christians who hold a symbolic/spiritual view of the Lord’s Supper will call the bread the Body of Christ and the cup the Blood of Christ (see point one) . Even Baptist (who hold a memorial view) call the Bread the body of Christ in their Lord’s Supper services. So saying the the Eucharist is the flesh (body) of Christ is not a support for Transubstantiation and is common language among all (well most) Christians.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
So “do” I, just differently.
S
steve-b
Guest
And the consequence? please show the referencesteve-b:
Same as for false teaching?
S
steve-b
Guest
Scripture and Tradition, teachsteve-b:
So Lutherans only have a symbol, and you even question about receoving eucharist even from Orthodox?
- People in heresy or schism, are in a major defective position. Scripture condemns that position.
- there are those who don’t have valid sacraments because they have no valid ordinations. Ergo no benefit from a sacrmental life
S
steve-b
Guest
Actually moving through the NT and beyond , ☞, time has clarified the price even more.ArchStanton:
Time has inflated the price?
Nothing new here.(OT)
M
mcq72
Guest
Perhaps on future events but otherwise, the price is clearer to us than apostolic times?
Was the price of OT Law, clearer to Scribes and Pharisees than Moses?
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus ( First Apology 66 [ A.D. 151 ]).
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus ( First Apology 66 [ A.D. 151 ]).
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Would Our Lord want it done ‘differently’?
- Status