The Real Presence in 1 Corinthians

This is a clip from a longer video on Holy Communion: • On The Lord's Supper (...

[@logicaredux5205]

We really do have a different Christology from the Reformed.

[@solafidedeum]

2 Corinthians 2:14 "But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere."🙏.. Let God’s Peace and Grace be with you (To The Reader). Praise God always. Amen..🙏🙌

[@williampeters9838]

Thanks for the video. I sometimes wonder how much different our culture would look if churches in America didn’t capitulate to the influence of rationalism. One of my favorite poems is ‘An Anatomy of the World’ by John Donne which laments the wave of rationalism he saw coming following Galileo’s discoveries. Our minds have been so conditioned to think in this way that it is no wonder why so many don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in communion or baptismal regeneration. Thankfully a lot of people don’t follow out their logic to the extent of complete disbelief in God, but it is still troubling.

[@jmh7977]

This 100% ^

[@harrygarris6921]

Mentally it’s so hard to break away from it. We have overwhelming amounts of sound evidence that clearly show a simple material mechanistic reality cannot be “all that exists”. But I still have a hard time accepting that truth.

[@evan7391]

​@@harrygarris6921I also have this same struggle.

[@lukeyznaga7627]

excellent comment, wiliam. the truth is, that God and his spirit and the Truths we need to grow in faith and practice orthopraxy, it requires faith and IS SUPERNATURAL. Rationalism doesn't realize that god can do miracles and do spiritual blessings that transcend human laws.

[@geoffrobinson]

@@harrygarris6921 The Real Presence folks make arguments that make no sense whatsoever. They're making statements about bodies, but anytime I press that side there's no conception of what they're actually positively affirming.

[@aericabison23]

I have to say, as a memorialist, this argument seems pretty convincing. I’ll have to check the passage in 1 Corinthians again to make sure what you said is correct or at least plausible. Good video 👌

[@donatist59]

This was the main issue that got me questioning Mormonism and pushed me toward the Episcopal Church.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@@donatist59 Congratulations on getting out of Mormonism! I truly hope everything is okay for you, I've heard it can be very tough leaving the Mormon Church because you lose family and friends and are ostracized from Mormon circles. Hopefully not the case for you. Glad you settled on the Episcopal Church too! That is my second denomination choice

[@donatist59]

@KoiDotJpeg Thanks! It wasn't the decisive thing, but I did go on a website where you pick the theological stances you agree with and it picks a church for you. It pegged me as 100% Lutheran and also 100% Episcopalian. 😆

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

@@donatist59what website is that?

[@donatist59]

@gumbyshrimp2606 I tried to answer but KZbin deleted the link. 😔

[@krizilloo2538]

My church hands out what look like single-serve creamers - peel back for the wafer on top, peel again for the juice below. I can’t seem to be able to take this seriously.

[@toddvoss52]

Your instincts are spot on .

[@litigioussociety4249]

How it's served shouldn't matter, as much as the words of institution, and how it's blessed and distributed. If it's done completely in vain, then that's definitely dishonoring.

[@samichjpg]

juice itself bothers me greatly, Christ instituted wine

[@j.sethfrazer]

@@samichjpg, I have the same struggles there. More often than not, the reasons why churches use Welch’s grape juice are thoroughly legalistic. So it’s like, imagine the Lord of all creation prescribing something for your sins and you take issue with it because it doesn’t match your moral compass. Utterly ridiculous.

[@ntlearning]

@@samichjpgfrom the Methodists during prohibition of alcohol.

[@anewmaninchrist]

This was an excellent exposition of Biblical truth. Thank you, brother. May the peace of our Lord be with you always.

[@theleastartic]

And that podcast series was key in Our God leading me to this truth about the Supper - tysm, Dr. Cooper!

[@Artgardener]

Great teaching!

[@j.sethfrazer]

Scripture interprets Scripture. Almost every time one chooses to defend the Words of Institution, the other side retorts with “Is Jesus literally a door?” or “Is Jesus literally a vine?” Why? Because more often than not, deniers of the real presence have simply been programmed to make absolutely sloppy arguments, hence their appeals to completely unrelated texts. Go to St. Paul’s interpretation and end the debate.

[@toddvoss52]

Yes your explanation of Calvin is spot on. His type of causation is called occasionalist. The Lord’s supper is the special occasion where those with true faith can ascend with their souls to heaven and truly receive the body and blood . The unworthy receive nothing but bread and wine. So the cause is faith and it only comes into play at this special occasion.

[@1994ZBO]

That definition of occasionalism isn’t quite right, here is a more accurate definition: “In the words of the most famous occasionalist of the Western philosophical tradition, Nicolas Malebranche, “there is only one true cause because there is only one true God; … the nature or power of each thing is nothing but the will of God; … all natural causes are not true causes but only occasional causes” (OCM II, 312 / Search 448) A full-blown occasionalist, like Malebranche, then, might be described as one who subscribes to the following two tenets: (1) the positive thesis that God is the only genuine cause; (2) the negative thesis that no creaturely cause is a genuine cause but at most an occasional cause.” The only broadly Reformed writer that we can say was an occasionalist in the sense that he denied secondary causation was Jonathan Edwards. Neither Calvin nor the majority of the Reformed tradition deny secondary causes, as is attested by the Westminster standards and other such texts: Chapter III. Of God’s Eternal Decree I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, (Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Hbr 6:17; Rom 9:15; Rom 9:18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (Jam 1:13; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, (Act 2:23; Mat 17:12; Act 4:27-28; Jhn 19:11; Pro 16:33).

[@1994ZBO]

Though we might say that Calvin was a voluntarist rather than an intellectualist, but then so was Luther as influenced by medieval nominalism.

[@richardfrerks8712]

They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.. 🍷 🍞 Revelation something verse something

[@localnwah7044]

Yes! Thank you for doing this as well as covering the words of institution at the last supper. The real presence is a topic I’ve been rly looking into lately and I praise God for resources like yours which have been so handy!! If you could, is it also possible to cover John 6? Would be much appreciated!! ❤️❤️

[@maxonmendel5757]

I think he just went over the john 6 discourse like a few weeks ago

[@nucreation4484]

Pastor Cooper, I have a question. When people at another church take communion, is it also the body and blood of Christ or is that only the Lutheran communion?

[@Dilley_G45]

Look up "real presence" at Wikipedia and you'll see

[@fujikokun]

If they use bread and wine, and consecrate it with the Word, yes.

[@joseortegabeede8233]

Based (on the Word of God)

[@GGus629]

Is it okay to say that whether a church believes in presence this way or not it is always present in this way when the Eucharist is taken? Since it is objective?

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

Would it be accused to say that, from an Aristotlian perspective, the Eucharist possess the teleological cause of the body and blood of christ, but not the material (i.e. grain, yeast, salt and fermented grapes), formal (what we perceive with the senses), or efficient (the baker and wine maker) cause? Since, in the ancient world, a thing's nature is primarily defined by its telos, it follows that we should use the language of Real Presence, even if we do not believe that we are consuming muscle/skin tissue and plasma/hemoglobin?

[@koonhanong2267]

Hi Dr Cooper, thanks for the insightful explanation. Question: Is there a difference in the benefits received by the faithful (vs unbeliever) in the Lutheran vs the Reformed view? I understand your point about the objectivity of the sacrament, but if "faith are the hands that receive it", then it seems that there is no difference in the benefits received in both the Lutheran and the Reformed views, as the benefits conferred are conditional upon the faith of the communicant. Whether or not the "soul ascends to heaven" or the "faith receives that which is true", both are conditional upon faith.

[@molodoychilovek1949]

What do Lutherans do with the left over bread and wine after church is over?

[@joseortegabeede8233]

the pastor pours water and consecrate wine with the crumbs together and consumes it all

[@molodoychilovek1949]

Do you need apostolic succession to confect the supper??

[@donatist59]

Yes.

[@LutheranIdentity-uj8yk]

"But it's icky though!"

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

To make a steel man argument for Zwingli. In Leviticus, God says that a living thing's blood is it's life, and the ancient Israelite were forbidden from consuming the blood of animals. Therefore to participate in the blood of Christ is to participate in the life of Christ, unlike any other prior sacrifice.

[@donhaddix3770]

The Lord’s Supper: A Remembrance of Jesus “This do in remembrance of me.” - Luke xxii. 19. “THIS do”- that is, take bread, give thanks, break it, and eat it- take the cup, filled with the fruit of the vine, give thanks, and drink ye all of it. “This do.” Take care that you do just what Jesus did; no more, and no less. This act was done at a table where they had been eating the Passover. This act was performed at a common meal, and was not a sacrifice, nor a celebration, nor a function, nor anything more than a significant eating of bread and drinking of wine after a devout fashion. This do, then. As often as ye break the bread, and as often as ye drink of the cup, remember the Lord Jesus. It is this that we are to do, and not something else which may be supposed to grow out of it. He does not say, “Do something else in remembrance of me- something which you may choose to do, retaining this act as the backbone of it; but this do.” This which has just been done: this in all its simplicity, solemnity, and intent. Alas, how sadly have men forgotten this! The plain supper has not been a grand enough display. To break bread, and to drink wine, have not seemed to them to be sufficiently solemn, or sufficiently gorgeous, and so they have added all kinds of rites and institutions. That which was only a table, they have made into an altar, and that which was a supper and nothing more, they have changed into a celebration. They do not this, but they do something else which they have devised and elaborated. Imagine Paul or Peter attending mass, and observing the various genuflexions- the movings to and fro, the liftings up, and the stoopings down, and all the various operations of the Roman priesthood too many to describe! Paul would pluck Peter by the sleeve, and say, “Our Master did nothing like this when he took bread and gave thanks and brake it.” Peter would reply, “Very different this from the guest-chamber at Jerusalem!” And Paul would add, “Ay, indeed, my brother, very different this from the time when the first believers met together, and brake bread, and drank of the cup in common, in remembrance of their Lord.” Whatever other communities may do, be it ours, my brethren, to stand fast by “This do in remembrance of me.” “This” simply “this,” and nothing more, and nothing less; bread, not a wafer; fruit of the vine, not the concoction of chemistry inflamed with fiery spirit. We use this fruit of the vine in a cup, and that cup not reserved, but partaken of by all. We have before us bread, and that not worshipped, as at the elevation of the host; but broken and eaten. The Lord and his disciples sat at a table and ate: it was a feast, and not a sacrifice; they reclined, and did not kneel. So would we do, because he has said, “This do,” and not something else. Then, beloved friends, we shall have to be very watchful upon another point, namely, that if we do this, we do it for the purpose for which he gave it, namely, in remembrance of him. Jesus never said, “This do, that ye may offer an unbloody sacrifice.” Where in Holy Scripture is there a syllable like it, either from our Lord’s own lips, or from those of the apostles? He never said, “Do this as the perpetual repetition of my death.” To my mind the very thought is blasphemy, for our Lord claims to have finished his work, and having died unto sin once, death hath no more dominion over him. The Jewish sacrifices, by reason of their insufficiency, were often repeated, but “this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” They blaspheme the sacrifice of Christ who imagine that any man, call him priest or not, can continue, repeat, or complete that sacrifice for sin. It is finished, and our Lord has gone into his glory. Sin is put away by his bearing it in his own body on the tree. This do ye in remembrance of Christ, but not as continuing his sacrifice, which is for ever perfect.

[@TrustInJesusChrist-John3.16]

Amen

[@richardfrerks8712]

Pastor Cooper.. Why isn't John 6 53-58 ever used to support the Lutheran Supper Doctrine.. Jesus point blank "Saith" Whosoever eateth my body and drinketh my blood hath eternal.. I will raise him up on the last day.. ? Something like that?

[@richardfrerks8712]

Pastor Roseborough just answered my question in a Q&A Bible study that popped up..

[@CloroxBleach-cq7tj]

​@@richardfrerks8712 wanna share with us?? 🤔🤔

[@samichjpg]

I'm using it in a paper I'm writing about the sacraments

[@richardfrerks8712]

@@CloroxBleach-cq7tj Kongsvinger Lutheran YT.. Latest Q&A..

[@CloroxBleach-cq7tj]

@@richardfrerks8712 cheers mate 🫡

[@jeremybullen655]

8:45 "human nature" does not necessarily follow from "body"

[@glennharrell1944]

So we need to partake of the Lord's supper so that we may partake of it the second time (on each occasion) worthily? See: Why Christ died once for our sins and we remember this one sacrifice at the table.

[@markoh6641]

playing Zwingli's advocate for a bit: couldn't one argue that sharing in the blood is simply referencing the sharing in the new covenant?

[@fernandoperez8587]

The blood of the covenant is literally blood and not a symbol of a covenant. Like in And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” Exodus 24:8

[@markoh6641]

@@fernandoperez8587 I do not dispute that. However, for the sake of the argument: *If* Paul's mentioning of the body would be just a symbolic reference to the church (as Zwingli argued) I don't see why the mentioning of Christ's blood in the same passage could not just be an equally symbolic reference to the new covenant rather than implying a physical real presence. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@markoh6641 because blood means blood. How is the cup of blessing the blood of the new covenant without the actual blood of the new covenant?

[@markoh6641]

@@fernandoperez8587 because the passage doesn't state that explicitly. it doesn't equate the cup with the blood. It says drinking from the cup is participation in the blood. but it doesn't say in what respect exactly. And if you go down the line of Zwinglis Argument (which is not my own position) than I don't see how the passage excludes the possibility of a symbolic reference.

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@markoh6641 A fellowship, a participation, a sharing in the blood necessitates that there is blood to share with one another. Why insist on another understanding? Is it because of the Old and New Testament prohibition on consuming blood? Leviticus 17:10-12 says the reason one can not consume blood is because life is in the blood making atonement and it is reserved for the God on the altar. It was to be reverenced, valued and esteemed. In the New Testament the prohibition was extend to the blood of animals (Acts 15:19-29), however now at the Lord's Supper we do reverence, valued, esteem, and adore the blood of Christ.

[@KevinDay]

The very thing the Corinthians were claiming was that they didn't believe in the gods of the pagans. Yet Paul says eating the sacrifices (knowing they were sacrificed, not ignorantly) is a participation in the table of demons. Unvelievers who take the bread and wine must also be participating even though they don't believe they are.

[@sallyjane8274]

How is that so when he says we can eat food sacrificed to idols as long as it doesn't make our brother stumble?

[@KevinDay]

@@sallyjane8274 1 Corinthians 10:25-28 (ESV): 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience- He starts talking about the eucharist to make people take the issue more seriously. He's saying there is some truth to what they were saying -- you're not going to accidentally worship a fake god, so you don't have to avoid everything sold in the meat market *just in case* you might accidentally eat something sacrificed to a pagan god. But that's not an excuse to go to a temple where you know what they're doing and wilfully participate.

[@mysticmouse7261]

The statement of institution cannot possibly intend that the bread is a metaphor for Christ's body simply for grammatical reasons. In any metaphor of the form A is B, B, the object is always the metaphor. So if This is my body is metaphorical then Christ is claiming his body is symbolic of a piece of bread which is the opposite of what the reform want it to say. Not to mention that it would be ridiculous. I am the vine would have to mean that Jesus is symbolic of a vine.😅

[@bK2pa]

So Christ is the literal vine?

[@mysticmouse7261]

If you' re illiterate

[@donatist59]

If Christ can be both fully God and fully Man, then the eucharist can be both fully Christ and fully bread. I don't think this is complicated.

[@TrustInJesusChrist-John3.16]

That all sounds good but John 6:53-58 destroys your argument...as it would mean that Jesus says here that only those who receive a valid eucharistic bread & wine (his literal body and blood) have eternal life (bad luck thief on the cross (?), Baptists, Methodists etc😔)...which doesnt seem right at all. To eat his Body and drink his Blood must mean to accept his sacrifice personally on a spiritual level. (I do however believe the Lords Supper can be a means of his presence in a special way, but only if we are already indwelt with the Holy Spirit so that we perceive his presence and the reality of and significance of his sacrifice in it. )

[@nicholasstephens1349]

This is a pretty clear example of where the reformers did everything they could to NOT be catholic. Scripture and tradition supported one another for literally 1500 years before the reformation on this topic. interpreting Paul any other way on this topic requires willful neglect of the truth or promotion of an agenda. I think we all know it was the latter with the so-called reformers.

[@geoffrobinson]

It's more than symbolic but given the contrast in 1 Corinthians with sacrifice to idols and demons, you can say something like "sacramentally present" (whatever that means) but I don't see physically present. But, again, no idea what Real Presence folks positively argue for.

[@fujikokun]

The literal sacrifice of the animal is being eaten in the worship of demons…

[@lukeyznaga7627]

Its all very nice to talk about what paul said and meant in Corinthians, but it is VERY CLEAR what Jesus our God/lord was talking about in gospel of John when he broke bread and did the Lord's Supper. IF you don't like it, argue with Him, not Paul. Good luck.

[@matthewj0429]

Do Calvinist partake of the Lord's Supper unworthely?

[@TESkywalker]

As a Presbyterian, I sure hope not! I suppose my question would be: "Do Lutherans partake of the Lord's supper unworthily?" Of course, I am joking here. Correct theology generally is not a requirement for salvation. Since the sacraments are a means of grace (i.e. salvation), correct sacramentology is not required to partake in the sacraments in a salvific/worthy manner.

[@matthewj0429]

@@TESkywalker I think a lot of Lutherans would disagree. There is a reason they do not let us partake in the Lord's Supper at their churches

[@Dilley_G45]

The local Presby church has open communion. When they came around with the tray of shot glasses with juice I told them no thanks I'm not Presbyterian, they said it doesn't matter....that went back and forth a few times....they really wanted me to join 😅

[@matthewj0429]

@@Dilley_G45 did you partake?

[@Dilley_G45]

@@matthewj0429 I thought I made it clear I refused. I told them I don't share their belief about communion

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

Jordan, growing up in a Church of Christ and later (reformed) Baptist Church, I’ve taken communion seriously and believe the Lutheran argument of the real presence over a spiritual or symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper. Knowing this, is it detrimental for me to continue to take communion at a baptist church? If it really is Jesus’ body and blood present, am I not missing out if what I receive at Baptist communion is just bread and grape juice. Basically after 20+ years of being Christian, I have only ever received just bread and grape juice and never truly have partaken in the Lord’s Supper.

[@MichaelVFlowers]

The koinonia in v. 16 needs to be understood in the same sense as the related term koinonos in v. 20. In the latter verse Paul isn't suggesting that anyone eats and drinks demons. I think the point that he is making is that in the eucharist, then, is that we have fellowship with the incarnate Christ who died for our sins. But the NT authors do not limit this fellowship to the act of partaking of the eucharist (e.g. 1 John 1:3, 6, 7, etc.). Even Paul speaks of "fellowship with Christ" in 1 Cor 1:9 and in this verse he is scarcely thinking about really eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. Of course this fellowship with Christ is "real". But that doesn't mean Christ's real flesh and blood are really eaten and drunk. "This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that food and to drink that drink: to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding in him. Consequently, he that does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, doubtless neither eats his flesh [spiritually] nor drinks his blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8)." - Augustine, Comm. on John 26.18 (NPNF1s 7.173) The words in brackets were inserted by later scribes who wanted to make Augustine affirm the scholastic teaching about the manducatio infidelium. He never believed in that idea though. Augustine was a good Calvinist in this respect.

[@fernandoperez8587]

Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 1 Corinthians 10:18 Like the Israelites under the Old Covenant we in the New Covenant eat the sacrifice to communion and fellowship with God. Only the sacrifice is Christ Himself and His own blood and body. In eating His blood and body we communion with Him. Christ Himself is our Passover lamb, which was literally eaten each Passover. They ate their Passover lamb and we do too. The demones were never the sacrifice themselves, but eating a sacrifice offer to them is communion/fellowship with them.

[@MichaelVFlowers]

@@fernandoperez8587 With typologies you can do some kind of one-to-one comparison like this. The sacrifices of the OT were sometimes eaten because humans eat animals. Humans don't eat other humans. I really don't think that was the point that the NT writers were driving at when they identified to Christ as the fulfillment of the Passover lamb. My objection to Jordan's argument was that if the phrase "fellowship with the body and blood" implies that we literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood then we would have to infer that pagans too eat and drink demons when they have fellowship with demons during their sacrificial meals.

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@MichaelVFlowers I don't think any one says koinonia means eating, but a followship or a sharing in. This is a literal translation: The cup of the blessing that we bless-is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? The bread that we break-is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ? LSV Fellowship of the blood or body is a sharing of the blood and blood. If the blood or body isn't true present and given to the Christian in the Lord's Supper then is it really a fellowship/ sharing in the blood and body of Christ?

[@MichaelVFlowers]

@@fernandoperez8587 The whole question about "real presence" centers on the notion that Jesus' flesh and blood are really eaten and drunk. That's how I understood Jordan's argument: when Paul speaks of us having fellowship with the body and blood of Christ during the eucharist that means that we really and truly eat his body and blood. So are you saying that this isn't something that we can infer from Paul's statement? If so then I agree with you.

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@MichaelVFlowers Sorry if I'm not being clear. I hope we're not speaking pass each other. My understanding is that real presence is biblical, because in verses sixteen through eighteen Paul affirms that the blood and body are truly present. He says that the cup of blessing is "a fellowship/sharing in of the blood of Christ" and that the bread is "a fellowship/sharing in of the body of Christ." It is quite clear. The Church creates a fellowship in what they all together eat (the wine & bread) and receive (body & blood). Paul also points out the parallel between Christian eating of Christ sacrifice and ancient Israel eating the sacrifices (that also united them creating a "fellowship of the altar") and that of pagans. Israel and pagans ate the sacrifices in worship and now Christians also eat a sacrifice in worship also. What is the sacrifice we eat? Are we not like the Jews who ate the Passover lamb offered yearly and now eat of a better Passover lamb offered to God once for all for us? And Moses takes the blood and sprinkles [it] on the people, and says, “Behold, the blood of the covenant which YHWH has made with you, concerning all these things.” Exodus 24:8 And having taken the cup and having given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the covenant, being poured out for many, for forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:27-28 I think like Moses, Christ applies the blood to folks He is making a covenant with, but through a cup of wine instead of a direct sprinkling of blood.

[@CanadianAnglican]

Who’s getting drunk and stealing communion?

[@maxonmendel5757]

gosh i heckin' h*te Zwingli.

[@norala-gx9ld]

Luther and Erasmus apparently thought he got his just deserts in the end

[@maxonmendel5757]

@@norala-gx9ld i bet he's enjoying his seat next to Judas at the bottom of the pit.

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@maxonmendel5757 I don't know about that as I don't think it's our place, but I can say even if it wasn't for Zwingli this idea would have come from somewhere else. While the Reformation was a necessary thing, it did produce some very bad things. Such as self-interpretation of Scripture.

[@johnsteindel5273]

The participation/sharing in the body is obviously spiritual and symbolic in nature. We don't literally become a 'body', we figuratively function as a body. So participating in the body and blood of Christ is also figurative. At least it clearly could be figurative because the other part of the text is figurative.

[@angeliquemichael228]

When Jesus said “This is my body..” he literally referring to his body. When he ate the Passover, don’t you think when he said “Do this in remembrance of me” he was referring to the supper and not supping on his literal blood and body? How is it one sacrifice for all if you keep sacrificing him every service? A participation in the body -fellowship- there IS something more going on! We don’t struggle about being grafted in to an olive tree-no one questions if we’re literal trees. Transmutation is not a make or break idea, unless you believe you MUST consume it for salvation. Remembrance is not reoccurrence or salvation. Our salvation comes from the blood of Christ-his sacrifice and atonement required by the law. Sharing in the blood of Christ means recognizing his death. Where does the word “sacrament” come from? Rituals from men. Jesus’s gospel is so crystal clear to me. The rituals and philosophies of men-not so much.

[@redschannel6527]

1. We don't sacrifice him every service, that's a catholic thing 2. "Do this in remembrance of me" Do what in remembrance of him? The act that they just did! The act of eating his body and drinking his blood. 3. A participation in the body *could* mean a participation in the fellowship, but look at the words directly after, "participation in the blood of Christ." NO WHERE else is the church ever referred to as the "blood." And even if it were so, why say the exact same thing, for the exact same intention, in two totally different ways? Ways which seem to point to a literal, real presence. 4. Saying that something saves, doesn't mean that only that one thing saves. Baptism saves, but it is not the only thing that saves. Holy communion saves, but it is not the only thing that saves. Hearing the word of God saves, but it is not the only thing that saves. These all work to get saved by Jesus through his death and resurrection.

[@angeliquemichael228]

@@redschannel6527 John 6 mentions partaking in the body and blood. The bread and juice/wine do not become his literal body and blood. You partake in his offering by living in the Spirit Romans 12. You are saved bc of that blood. Every Passover, was blood smeared on doorposts? No, but the sacrifice was continued in remembrance of the spirit of death passing over. You get your tradition from the Catholic teachings. The Bible has no requirement for transmutation. What is required is hearing/reading the Word, believing, repenting, and walking in faith to grow in God’s grace until we’re called home. 🤟🏾

[@angeliquemichael228]

@@redschannel6527 NOTHING saves but JESUS’S work on the cross. Adding to his work is not the gospel. It is another. Jesus’s gospel is the ONLY thing that saves. This division is exactly why skeptics and non-believers scoff at Christ. We are to be one as the Son and Father are one. When you write things like”saying something saves, doesn’t mean that only one thing saves” tells me you don’t understand the gospel as much as you understand the doctrine of men.

[@redschannel6527]

@@angeliquemichael228 Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is *baptized* will be *saved*; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is *born of water and of the Spirit*, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be *baptized* every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins*; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were *baptized*, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Romans 6:3-4 “Or don’t you know that all of us who were *baptized into Christ Jesus* were *baptized into his death*? We were therefore buried with him *through baptism* into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too *may live a new life*.” 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were *washed*, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the *washing of regeneration* and renewal in the Holy Spirit…” 1 Peter 3:21 "*Baptism*, which corresponds to this, now *saves* you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" Yes, nothing saves except Jesus' work, and that work is bestowed upon you in baptism.

[@redschannel6527]

@@angeliquemichael228 I agree with you that the bread and wine are not turned into the body and blood by transmutation/transubstantiation. But the bible clearly teaches that it both is his body and is bread, is his blood and is wine (1 Corinthians 10:16). How does that happen? I haven't the slightest idea. It's a miracle! How are the blind made to see? How are multitudes fed by so little? I don't know, and yet I believe! Furthermore, you can't be serious when you read this and say that communion is not Jesus' literal body: John 6:51 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is *my flesh*.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us *his flesh to eat*?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you *eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood*, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever *feeds on my flesh* and *drinks my blood* has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For *my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink*. 56 Whoever *feeds on my flesh* and *drinks my blood* abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever *feeds on me*, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever *feeds on this bread* will live forever.”

[@jamespong6588]

Funny how Sola Scriptura refutes protestantism

[@jerseyjim9092]

Flip a coin. Heads its memorial, tails its Eucharist.

[@Punkt_Materialny]

Eucharystic Miracles is the Issue that needs profound, thought-over, thourough and convincing statement from the Lutherans in particular because You believe in the True literal Presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. For me it is hard to believe that Eucharystic Miracles are not from God or unbiblical. And These Phenomena are the best documented Miracles in the world and moreover they are permanent. I wish so much I was wrong. Please prove that I am wrong. I want so much to be Lutheran but this issue has been nagging me for years and doesn't allow me to be Lutheran. I see two possibilities: 1) Eucharystic Miracles are not from God but from satan. This seems not probable because They confirm Jesus physical Presence in the Lord's Supper and are permanent. 2) Eucharystic Miracles are from God. Then it look like God supports only Catholic Mass and Transsubstantation because Eucharystic Miracles don't occur outside Roman Catholic Church. I want very much above argument to be debunked. Please help. God Bless You.

[@larrybedouin2921]

So a Priest, a mere mortal and corruptible man can recreate our Creator?! Good grief! Have you no fear of the living God?

[@donatist59]

A priest to whom God has given that authority has that authority. Doesn't he?

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

”But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.“ ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭9‬ ‭

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@gumbyshrimp2606 Know ye not that *ye are the temple of God* and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, *which temple ye are* {1 Corinthians 3:16-17} What? know ye not that *your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost* which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? {1 Corinthians 6:19} And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for *ye are the temple of the living God* as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. {2 Corinthians 6:16} In whom ye also are builded together for *an habitation of God through the Spirit* {Ephesians 2:22} Ye also, as lively stones, are built up *a spiritual house* an holy priesthood, to offer up *spiritual sacrifices* acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {1 Peter 2:5} They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. {1 John 2:19}

[@darrenplies9034]

Death from cringe

[@samichjpg]

?

[@darrenplies9034]

@@samichjpg The body of Christ/Church and the Lord smiting people in the body of Christ, is not contingent on Eucharist/the Lord’s supper distinctives, nor does it make one spiritually superior to anybody else in the one body of Christ.

[@samichjpg]

@@darrenplies9034 I don't totally understand where you're coming from on this man

[@darrenplies9034]

@@samichjpg ? Let me see if I can rephrase. Does a real presence view make one spiritually superior, in any form, to someone that doesn’t hold a real presence view, in the one body of Christ. Yes or no. ?

[@samichjpg]

@@darrenplies9034 I tend against language like superior in such a context, but I do recognize real presence is the unanimous position of the early church and the position presented by scripture, is the doctrine itself is superior