E
ErrorCMDR
Guest
Why do Protestants and Fundamentalists who may think the entire Bible is literal not apply the same logic to these verses?
God Bless
EC
God Bless
EC
- Status
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
C
CWBetts
Guest
I could be fecetious and say “because it would put them in agreement with the Catholic Church” but in all seriousness, I got nothing. I used to be a Protestant, and I have no clue. Maybe they get hung up on the word “rememberence” who knows? 
E
ErrorCMDR
Guest
I have been to countless Pentecostal Churches, Assembly of God, Baptist, Non-denominational churches and once to a Lutheran and all but the Lutheran Church always taught that it was a symbol. Kind of sad but as far as I know they all DO get thrown off by the “in remembrance of me”
Hope to get some non-Catholics in here to I would like to hear there reasoning.
God Bless
EC
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians (to an extent I believe) and Methodist all believe in the Real Presence to some degree. I believe I am correct in this?
As well as, you are right, Lutherans. The reason I said most is because these are the larger denominations with the most Non-Catholic Christians in them.
But you are right you asked for non-Catholic answers
God bless
I have heard some Lutherans say that John 6 is not proof of the real presence, and is instead more like the figurative “I am the door” type language that Christ often used.
To find the scriptural support of the real presence, go to Mat. 26, Mark 14, etc. In there His words are undeniably literal.
Those who would not see the Last Supper accounts as literal proof of the real presence will not be convinced by John 6.
My own opinion is the John 6 language is so similar to the Supper events as to make it more than just coincidence.
Jon
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
You are correct. The OP should have said “Some Protestants…”
C
CWBetts
Guest
I’m not sure about Methodists. My psrentd sre United Methodists and thay say its only a symbol
B
BrianH
Guest
C
CWBetts
Guest
I was just going by what my mom said
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
This is interesting, because the ones I’ve talked to and in some “Methodist” books that my friend obtained from the the MC he attends talked only of it being a spiritual presence… not in such an actual presence.
Do you kow if this is a recent development? It sounds more in line with the Lutheran view (perhaps JonNC could distinguish the differences)… Anyhow it seems like a positive statement… of course I didn’t read the whole document so maybe it would become clearer if I had
SD
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
This could be said of a lot of Catholics I know as well. Sadly there are many who will deny the Real Presence even when confronted with what the Church clearly teaches.
God bless
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
Sorry if I wasn’t clear… my friend is a Methodist and I asked him if they had any info there on this subject… he picked them up for me from the back of the Methodist Church he attends.
Although I understand your point
SD
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Nope the misunderstanding was on my end. I did not catch that the statements you talked about came from the books and not your Methodist friend.Sorry if I wasn’t clear… my friend is a Methodist and I asked him if they had any info there on this subject… he picked them up for me from the back of the Methodist Church he attends.
Although I understand your point
SD
Apologies.
God bless
H
Henning
Guest
Yea, that’s where I was. If Jesus is not a door with hinges (I am the door) nor a plant (I am the vine) then why would he be a loaf of bread (I am the bread of life).
I probably can’t be too much help, but to say that, with all due respect to our Methodists brothers and sisters, I personally would characterize the statement as somewhat vague (I’m questioning the statement, not their beliefs). At least when compared to the Lutheran confessional statement that “the body and blood are truly and substantially present…”This is interesting, because the ones I’ve talked to and in some “Methodist” books that my friend obtained from the the MC he attends talked only of it being a spiritual presence… not in such an actual presence.
Do you kow if this is a recent development? It sounds more in line with the Lutheran view (perhaps JonNC could distinguish the differences)… Anyhow it seems like a positive statement… of course I didn’t read the whole document so maybe it would become clearer if I had
SD
Regardless, if a Methodist comes on here and says the the Methodist Church believes in the real, true, and substantial presence (as opposed to spiritual or symbolic), I would take his/her word for it.
Jon
H
hays1122
Guest
John 6:47" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. "
As a protestant born and raised I can say that I took these words literaly. In the Baptist church I attended the preacher read the words and we were to take them literally. I don’t remember our preacher saying,this is symbolic. Maybe people talking amongst themselves might say this but it wasn’t what I would call “our church teaching”.
I have always taken the Lord’s supper with this in mind. Maybe I was thinking Catholic and everyone else was thinking differently.
All I know is this is what I have always believed. His word says this is his flesh and his blood.
If I do attend a church where the preacher says,“This is just symbolic”. I don’t have to go along with what he says in my own mind.
The Lord lives with in me. He tells me what to believe.
Maybe I’ve been a Catholic all along and didn’t know it.
As a protestant born and raised I can say that I took these words literaly. In the Baptist church I attended the preacher read the words and we were to take them literally. I don’t remember our preacher saying,this is symbolic. Maybe people talking amongst themselves might say this but it wasn’t what I would call “our church teaching”.
I have always taken the Lord’s supper with this in mind. Maybe I was thinking Catholic and everyone else was thinking differently.
All I know is this is what I have always believed. His word says this is his flesh and his blood.
If I do attend a church where the preacher says,“This is just symbolic”. I don’t have to go along with what he says in my own mind.
The Lord lives with in me. He tells me what to believe.
Maybe I’ve been a Catholic all along and didn’t know it.
While that may be true of John 6, it is not true of the accounts of the Last Supper. As you point out, Christ often uses figurative language, which starts, “I am the…”. Not so in the Last Supper. Here he says ,“this is my body…”, while holding the bread in His hands.
The direction is different. He never held a door in His hand and said ,“this is me”. But He does do this with the bread and wine.
Clearly, He meant this literally.
John 6 may not be literal like the Last Supper accounts, but I think one could argue it points to it. But as I said earlier, if one is not convinced of the real presence by the literal language of the Last Supper, then John 6 probably won’t convince.
Jon
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
Thanks Jon… yeah I guess we have to go with what they say they believe… hopefully more will come to understand it.
SD
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The RC interpretation is not the only possible one, nor even - as it stands - the most probable. Since many Christians on all sides of the issue are ignorant of their ignorance in this matter, they are able to carry on their disagreements:
And we are here as on a darkling plainSwept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
From - “Dover Beach” (Matthew Arnold, 1867)
- Status