NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your view on Communion?

Are you in favor of transubstantiation: the substance of the bread and wine are changed to Jesus' body and blood

Or are you a in favor of consubstantiation: I must confess, I do not understand how this is different from transubstantiation Edit: read post #12; s/he explains this view and the other views well, though obviuosly biased toward this view, which is fine because we are all biased in favor of what we believe. I still don't understand how it is different from transubstantiation.

Or this view the name of which I cannot remember: the essence of the bread and wine is changed to the body and blood of Christ

Or are you Zwinglian: the sacrament is a memorial only

Can you fill in the holes in the explanation?
And which view do you agree with and why?

I fall somewhere between the essence of the elements changing and Zwinglian.

Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me."

However, I still can't help thinking that there is more than just symbol when He said "This is my body," and "This is my blood." I don't really know why.

You are aware of course that not all Christian sects take communion arent you?

I fall somewhere between the essence of the elements changing and Zwinglian.

Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me."

However, I still can't help thinking that there is more than just symbol when He said "This is my body," and "This is my blood." I don't really know why.

Probably Zwingli.

One might ask, why, when he knew he was about to die, he chose this to tell his closest companions.

I believe that he knew we were stupid, and wouldn't remember the stuff he taught.

So, he reminds us that when hungry, we never forget to eat. And when we're thirsty, we never forget to drink. But when we are spiritually empty, we're too fucking stupid to remember to get some nourishment there. So this is a reminder for us.

You are aware of course that not all Christian sects take communion arent you?

Which sect is that? That's one of the marks of the true Church: true preaching of the Gospel and the right adminstering of the Sacraments!

Can you fill in my holes?
Hee hee:p

Hee hee:p

Pervert! :p

Which sect is that? That's one of the marks of the true Church: true preaching of the Gospel and the right adminstering of the Sacraments!

Only for the Catholics I think...

I consider it a memorial more than anything else but to be honest it's not something I've been too bothered with.

To be honest i think i am more Zwinglian, becasue the cathloc church really creeps me out with the whole it's really him now u must eat and drink it all. It's kinda weird. Of course they get to drink whine, while i grew up thinking that Jesus was made of crutons and grape juice, (stupid baptists).

I tend to agree that Catholicism somewhat misses the whole point of the communion. The Last Supper was not a time in which Jesus deposited his blood and body into his followers through the means of wine and bread. Rather it was a gathering, in which he anchored (NLP term) the substance of wine and bread into the psyche of his followers to associate something they take every day with him. In other words, "take these in REMEMBERANCE of me". Jesus wanted his followers to think of him whenever they ate or drank, NOT to fill their heads with some magical mumbojumbo

Probably Zwingli.

One might ask, why, when he knew he was about to die, he chose this to tell his closest companions.

I believe that he knew we were stupid, and wouldn't remember the stuff he taught.

So, he reminds us that when hungry, we never forget to eat. And when we're thirsty, we never forget to drink. But when we are spiritually empty, we're too fucking stupid to remember to get some nourishment there. So this is a reminder for us.

I see your point, although I don't think Jesus would be quite so rough with the language.

As a Lutheran, the understanding of the Eucharistic meal we hold from the Scriptural sources is often wrongly called Consubstantiation. WE prefer something like recognising the “Real Presence” of Christ in the meal.
Just a run-down of the poll options.

Transubstantiation is held by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Christians, many Anglican groups, etc. Basically, it is by far the most popular understanding of Communion among Christianity with Catholics making up over 1 billion of the perhaps 2 billion people claiming to be Christians world-wide and Orthodox Christians making up maybe 300-350 million, with Anglicans coming in at somewhere between 100-200 million. It is based on an understanding of Neo Platonism that was very much encoded by Thomas Aquinas after finishing his studies at the University of Paris.
Basically, it calls upon the notion of ideal forms in which there are multiple levels of reality, and so when God chooses to inhabit the bread and wine, he in effect, replaces, or “transforms” the substance of the bread and wine into the literal flesh and blood of Christ while leaving the FORM intact. So, in form it looks to us as bread and wine, but in substance, or the more complete and higher reality, it IS blood and flesh.

As a Lutheran, I believe in the Real Presence. This is sometimes called, misleadingly, Consubstantiation. This is very close to the mainline Christian belief that has been held since the 1st Century and talked about in both Christian and non-Christian texts that are extra-Biblical, as well as having Biblical support. The Lutherans add another 70 million to the number of those who agree that Christ is bodily present in the wine and bread, we just disagree with how it happens. We believe that both the blood and wine Co-exist in the same place at the same time. So, if God has the power to locate Himself in a Carpenter from Nazareth, not taking away anything from the man, being “true God and true man” in the hypostatic union, then we would argue that it could easily be done in Communion, and that is what Christ is talking about, “This IS my body, This IS my blood.” I will provide a small excerpt written by Luther in about 1531 to explain the very, very basic understanding from the Scripture.

All of the above believe in a Sacramental view, that is, there is forgiveness of sin through the ritual meal coming from above.

As for the Zwinglian view, which is accepted by Calvinists, Ana-Baptists of all varieties, meaning most Evangelicals, it simply neuters God by explaining it as a symbol of remembrance, merely something we do for God out of obedience.

Well, there you are. FYI, I am studying towards my Doctorate in theology. I read this Forum a lot but usually anything that has to do with Christianity is just attacks without any real thought, so I lurk instead of responding.

Well, off to class again.

WWJD
Amen.



Luther's Small Catechism

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.
But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

Only for the Catholics I think...


No, Protestants have that as a Sacrament too (I have no idea whether Gnostics or Mormons or Amish do, however, but probably)

Gnostocs and Mormons are not members of the Christian faith, at least as understood by posing the question. The Amish are an ana-baptist puritanical group and thus, Protestant.

WWJD
Amen.

As for the Zwinglian view, which is accepted by Calvinists, Ana-Baptists of all varieties, meaning most Evangelicals, it simply neuters God by explaining it as a symbol of remembrance, merely something we do for God out of obedience.

I fail to see how it "neuters" God to obey him by doing something symbolic. Christ said "Do this in Remembrance of Me" right after he said "This is my body... This is my blood..."


For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Paul's last sentence implies to me that it is in fact intended to be symbolic. Jesus most oft-used teaching tactic was, in fact, metaphor. Symbolism was found throughout His teachings, so it isn't far-fetched to believe that He spoke symbolically that night, too.

To "neuter" God, one must be saying not only that Jesus statement was symbolic but that God is not capable of making it fact. No Christian tradition that does not hold to transubstantiation or consubstatiation claims that, at least to my knowledge.

I'm not being argumentative, I just think it is a bit disrespectful to use inflammatory language when explaining to those with less expertise on a given situation.

FWIW, it is not only ultra-conservative Christian traditions that view The Lord's Supper as a symbolic act of remembrance. Two very liberal Christian denominations also fall into that category, the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

I fail to see how it "neuters" God to obey him by doing something symbolic. Christ said "Do this in Remembrance of Me" right after he said "This is my body... This is my blood..."



Paul's last sentence implies to me that it is in fact intended to be symbolic. Jesus most oft-used teaching tactic was, in fact, metaphor. Symbolism was found throughout His teachings, so it isn't far-fetched to believe that He spoke symbolically that night, too.

To "neuter" God, one must be saying not only that Jesus statement was symbolic but that God is not capable of making it fact. No Christian tradition that does not hold to transubstantiation or consubstatiation claims that, at least to my knowledge.

I'm not being argumentative, I just think it is a bit disrespectful to use inflammatory language when explaining to those with less expertise on a given situation.

FWIW, it is not only ultra-conservative Christian traditions that view The Lord's Supper as a symbolic act of remembrance. Two very liberal Christian denominations also fall into that category, the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).




Well, I was not meaning to be inflammatory, though I guess the use of the word neuter could be taken as such by the layperson. I wouldn't read any publications by say, The Society of Biblical Literature or anything though, you will go into a rage!

I used the word neuter to encapsulate an understanding of the Eucharistic meal that denied any salvific nature to it. This is not to be understood in an emasculating way or inflammatory in the least. Rather, it just a descriptor of a theological position, agree or disagree.

As for the comments about Conservatism, I do not recall making a correlation, or drawing causation between conservative moral and ethical, or even political values and a certain theological position. I was looking upon Evangelicalism as a theological position, not a societal one.

Nevertheless, thank you for using Scripture in your counterargument; your exigent commentary is to be commended. Though no one wins an intelligent debate through polemics.

I would point someone who sees no salvific nature in the Love Feast to the words of Christ:

This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins.


WWJD
Amen.

Transubstantiation.

Umm...I don't partake in communion..too ritualistic.

Umm...I don't partake in communion..too ritualistic.
I like that element of it.

I like that element of it.


I do agree, aside from teh spiritual and supernatural component, the bodily and physical ritual is partially the appeal for me as well.

WWJD
Amen.

I do agree, aside from teh spiritual and supernatural component, the bodily and physical ritual is partially the appeal for me as well.

WWJD
Amen.
Indeed. I think the ritual element helps the mind focus on the process, and it also lends the faith a further aspect of mysticism.

Indeed. I think the ritual element helps the mind focus on the process, and it also lends the faith a further aspect of mysticism.



Absolutely. And knowing the draw that sort of things has for His creation I do believe that He created it thus.


WWJD
Amen.

Indeed. I think the ritual element helps the mind focus on the process, and it also lends the faith a further aspect of mysticism.


I don't know. I just feel by doing something over and over, the same way everyweek, the same time, at the same place, is not what Christ intended for us to do. That makes us no better than the "righteouss" of his day.

I don't know. I just feel by doing something over and over, the same way everyweek, the same time, at the same place, is not what Christ intended for us to do. That makes us no better than the "righteouss" of his day.
It's a matter of personal preference really. I partake in it because I feel that it helps me draw closer to the Lord. Understandably, not everyone feels that way.

i think it cant possibly matter one way or the other.

jesus didnt come to set up a new religion with new petty rules. he came to instruct us in a new relationship with god.

i think it cant possibly matter one way or the other.

jesus didnt come to set up a new religion with new petty rules. he came to instruct us in a new relationship with god.
Very true indeed. Communion is symbolism ultimately, and no one symbol is that much more valid than any other within the religion.

I wonder if I could ask you to frame your argument. You see, the death of any theological argument is the two phrases, “I feel” and “I think.”
I would posit that your argument is flawed in one major way. Assume that God Himself commanded you to do a perfectly good and righteous thing. And, He commanded you to do it at the same time every week. Would then following His command somehow lessen the action? I think not.

I am not, however, saying that God commanded us to have Communion at a certain time or place. Christ is simply not temporally located. However, the Scriptures teach us that we are to “Do this as often as you come together.” If believers come together to stand in awe and worship before their God once every week, and then choose at that time to celebrate the Eucharist, they should do so. At that time, it is up to each believer to examine him/herself carefully to ensure that they are partaking of Sacrament worthily. If that believer believes that they re not, they must not partake, and have that choice. If they, in their lives, are living in unrepentant sin, they must not partake and the faith community is to step in to ensure that this does not take place.

I would counsel you that if you are “bored” with the Love Feast or simply starting to see it as an empty ritual the fault does not lie with the meal itself, but rather it is you that needs to take time to ask yourself: For what purpose am I partaking? Am I coming to this meal with reverence awe befitting a time of actual Communion with my most Holy God? Should I prepare myself more stringently? Etc.


WWJD
Amen.

The ideal of Christianity is founded on grace.

"By grace are you saved, by faith, so that none may boast"

If we must eat the communion to attain salvation, then how have we become any different than any other religion? If the communion is salvation, then what did Jesus die for? Jesus simply becomes an extention to the Mosaic-covenant, the idea that rituals and sacrafices will lead to Heaven.

Rather, we are saved by grace, not through our works, wether good deeds or rituals. When Jesus died, his blood covered all sins for everyone, past present and future, so that God can look upon us, for he cannot look upon sin. We must accept this grace once, and only once, and we are purified, removed from the wages of our sin forever.

"For I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it"

Jesus was the final sacrafice, the second Adam to pay the price for the sin of the first. Since the wages of sin is death, something must die for our sins. Under the old law, this was a lamb or bird. However, under the covenant made by Jesus, the sacrafice forever is Jesus, and he is our salvation.

Therefore, if we are to believe that the sacrament of communion is our salvation, then we are still following the old law, and Jesus' actual death was nothing more than an execution after he passed salvation at the Last Supper.

That is not to say I do not take communion, I enjoy the ritual as a cherished tradition and a remembrance of what Jesus gave up. However, I do not believe that my salvation lies in mere bread and wine.

(I apologize for not having the references for those verses... I remember learning them but cannot remember the references.)

The ideal of Christianity is founded on grace.

"By grace are you saved, by faith, so that none may boast"

If we must eat the communion to attain salvation, then how have we become any different than any other religion? If the communion is salvation, then what did Jesus die for? Jesus simply becomes an extention to the Mosaic-covenant, the idea that rituals and sacrafices will lead to Heaven.

Rather, we are saved by grace, not through our works, wether good deeds or rituals. When Jesus died, his blood covered all sins for everyone, past present and future, so that God can look upon us, for he cannot look upon sin. We must accept this grace once, and only once, and we are purified, removed from the wages of our sin forever.

"For I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it"

Jesus was the final sacrafice, the second Adam to pay the price for the sin of the first. Since the wages of sin is death, something must die for our sins. Under the old law, this was a lamb or bird. However, under the covenant made by Jesus, the sacrafice forever is Jesus, and he is our salvation.

Therefore, if we are to believe that the sacrament of communion is our salvation, then we are still following the old law, and Jesus' actual death was nothing more than an execution after he passed salvation at the Last Supper.

That is not to say I do not take communion, I enjoy the ritual as a cherished tradition and a remembrance of what Jesus gave up. However, I do not believe that my salvation lies in mere bread and wine.

(I apologize for not having the references for those verses... I remember learning them but cannot remember the references.)


I think you misunderstand. I never have said that you must take Communion to be saved. It does not reference that anywhere in Scripture. Nevertheless, there does seem to be significant references to a SALVIFIC NATURE in the Sacrament of the Altar. When Christ Himself speaks of “forgiveness of sins,” coming through the Sacrament, we have a choice as human beings. We can accept His words as our Saviour who would not mislead us, or we can ignore them. For me, it is impossible to ignore Scripture.

Therefore, though “we are saved by grace and not by works,” meaning that there is nothing that we, as fallen sinners are capable of doing to earn our salvation, Christ offers Himself to us through His chosen Sacraments. He offers us a visible and physical means to buoy our fragile faith, offering Himself to us in all our times of need. It is beautiful in its simplicity. We, as humans often need something to hold onto in this harsh world, and God, in His infinite mercy, wisdom, and compassion, provides that through his Sacraments. The main thing to understand is that the Sacrament is not something that we do for God. This is not crass obedience setting up the Messiah as a new Lawgiver; rather, He is the final messenger of the Gospel, proclaiming Justification through the free gift of faith until His Advent during the Parousia.

Now, the fact that He allows Himself to be bodily located in bread and wine, promising “forgiveness of sins,” should not even hint that this is some Pharisetical law with which we are to earn anything. If anything, it is precisely because it is such a magnificent gift of grace alone that we should approach with only the greatest reverence. If, however this Sacrament is being turned into a means of EARNING salvation, the fault would lie with the believer again, as his/her dark heart perverts what is to be a means of grace.

WWJD
Amen.

*snip*
As for the Zwinglian view, which is accepted by Calvinists, Ana-Baptists of all varieties, meaning most Evangelicals, it simply neuters God by explaining it as a symbol of remembrance, merely something we do for God out of obedience.
*snip*


Well, I disagree with you a bit there, and this was a tradition I was raised with (not a follower anymore, but...)

It is not a neutering of God. Transubstantiation is the belief that the substance of the bread and wine are literally changed into the blood and body of Christ. Calvanists believe that the bread and wine are NOT actually transformed at all, but that they are the REPRESENTATION of the blood and body, and as such are more to the point of what Jesus was speaking about when he said "do this in remembrance of me", that is, he was not suggesting the ingestion of human flesh, but rather he was speaking of the spirit, and allowing his presence to enter one's life. The idea is that the physical body of Jesus was not the important part, but rather his holy spirit, his blessing, his beliefs, his ideals... things that one actually CAN get from a glass of grape juice and a stale chunk of Wonder Bread, as opposed to actual cannibalism, or, in the case of consubstantiation, symbolic cannibalism.

This is, of course, one of the major points of contention that caused the Protestant Reformation.

(and to be completely honest, I think it is all so much hooey, but with a dad who is a minister, I know quite a bit of the theology myself)

Probably Zwingli.

One might ask, why, when he knew he was about to die, he chose this to tell his closest companions.

I believe that he knew we were stupid, and wouldn't remember the stuff he taught.

So, he reminds us that when hungry, we never forget to eat. And when we're thirsty, we never forget to drink. But when we are spiritually empty, we're too fucking stupid to remember to get some nourishment there. So this is a reminder for us.
Definitely.

Consubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood after they are ingested by the person. Transubstantiation is where they are transformed when they are blessed.

I, personally, regard it as a symbolic (and deeply so) act; I do not believe that there is a physical change in the bread and wine (incidentally, my denomination takes grape juice, a legacy of our past pro-Prohibition stance), but rather that communion is a time to become closer to God by remembering his sacrifice for us.

Zwingli. I'm a Calvinist (Reformed Church of New Zealand)

As far as my bible goes (NIV) Jesus mentions nothing about the Testament being in the wine. He said "Take, eat/drink, remember and believe..."
There is nothing at all mystical about this. It is not a way to be saved. If there was any physical element in it, that we had to come to the table to partake in the supper, to receive the rite, then there would be an onus on us, and introduces works to this gift of God's; there would be no salvation by grace through faith if we had a choice in it. Jesus instituted this sacrament as a way for us to remember his sacrifice for us on the cross, where his blood and his body given up, and his spirit abandoned by God (i.e. Hell), so that we wouldn't have to suffer the punishment. For a student of theology (quintonian guy), the figurative aspect of Jesus' teaching should be obvious. He did not mean for us to actually eat Him (oooh icky): what sort of emotional mysticism does that bring to a faith of reason and clarity? (Our God is a God of order)

I will answer the above in three ways. First, I will direct you to passages in the NIV translation of the Holy Scriptures that describe a bodily presence and a mystical and supernatural activity in the Holy Supper, second, I will direct you to the dictionary definition of mystical, so that you may see that it does truly apply, especially to your denomination, and third, I will quote excerpts from your own confessional documents, the Heidelberg Catechism.

1. Matthew 26:26-28
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
2. Mystical:
1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God.

3. 76. What is it to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?
It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the suffering and death of Christ, >and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life<; but moreover also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that although He is in heaven, and we on the earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are governed for ever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.



As for the definitions of each of the poll options, see my first post.

WWJD
Amen.

Zwingli. I'm a Calvinist (Reformed Church of New Zealand)

As far as my bible goes (NIV) Jesus mentions nothing about the Testament being in the wine. He said "Take, eat/drink, remember and believe..."



Of course thats the english translation, what do those words mean when taken back to the greek that they were written in or the aramaic that was spoken?
I believe that communion is about remembering, the elements dont save, Jesus was pretty clear that only faith saves. But we are called to remember what he did, remember his love for us expressed in his death and to take the time to evaluate how we live in the essence of that love.
I'm just sad when a church doesnt take communion seriously and it either just doesnt have it or lets its slide when possible. And thats not right.

Of course thats the english translation, what do those words mean when taken back to the greek that they were written in or the aramaic that was spoken?
I believe that communion is about remembering, the elements dont save, Jesus was pretty clear that only faith saves. But we are called to remember what he did, remember his love for us expressed in his death and to take the time to evaluate how we live in the essence of that love.
I'm just sad when a church doesnt take communion seriously and it either just doesnt have it or lets its slide when possible. And thats not right.

Though I don’t have a Greek font:
Matthey 26:26-28
26 Esthistown de autown labown ho Iasous arton kai eulogaysas eklasen kai dous tois mathaytais eipen, “labete fagete; touto estin to soma mou.”
27 Kai labown potayriov kai eucharistaysas edowkev autois legown, “piete ex autou pantes,
28 touto gar estiv to aima mou tays diathaykays to peri pollown ekxunnomenon eis afesin hamartiown.”

If there are those out there that can read Greek, I realise that I am not using the proper transliteration, but I am trying to type it how it sounds for the layperson to read.

I assure you, the translation in the NIV is quite accurate, though you may want to look into the NRSV for a more scholarly translation. I prefer to read the original.


WWJD
Amen.

Though, I do agree that most people do not take Communion seriously enough.

WWJD
Amen.

Though, I do agree that most people do not take Communion seriously enough.

WWJD
Amen.



I am just the champ. If it is not in the RPing Forums, I kill threads like few others before me. Perhaps this why I still have such a low post count and yet I started way before many of the most prolific posters. Ah well.

It was fun to have some intelligent discourse while it lasted.

WWJD
Amen.

Though I don’t have a Greek font:
Matthey 26:26-28
26 Esthistown de autown labown ho Iasous arton kai eulogaysas eklasen kai dous tois mathaytais eipen, “labete fagete; touto estin to soma mou.”
27 Kai labown potayriov kai eucharistaysas edowkev autois legown, “piete ex autou pantes,
28 touto gar estiv to aima mou tays diathaykays to peri pollown ekxunnomenon eis afesin hamartiown.”

If there are those out there that can read Greek, I realise that I am not using the proper transliteration, but I am trying to type it how it sounds for the layperson to read.

I assure you, the translation in the NIV is quite accurate, though you may want to look into the NRSV for a more scholarly translation. I prefer to read the original.


WWJD
Amen.


umm.. I dont read greek anything... but I have been taught how to study up on such stuff, unfortunately at this moment my study materials are buried somewhere in my parents house as I'm in post college transition. I just like to ask questions, call it my training, call it being a pain in the pick-a-part, But if the NIV is accurate let it be right, if not make like Mr. Peterson and write your own "accurate modern" version.

I wonder how long before the "OMtehG TEH CRIZTIANS SUx00rx!!!1111!!!111!oneelevendy!1111!1!!1" post...

I wonder how long before the "OMtehG TEH CRIZTIANS SUx00rx!!!1111!!!111!oneelevendy!1111!1!!1" post...


Actually, I was commenting that if you look at my start date and my post count, you will see that I am a lurker from way back. Mostly, I read General when I eat lunch or have some free time during my day to tune out. With the major anti-theist and especially anti-Christian posting that goes on here, it is very rare that I get any intelligent discourse. I was very happy to get people who were actually talking.


WWJD
Amen.

Actually, I was commenting that if you look at my start date and my post count, you will see that I am a lurker from way back. Mostly, I read General when I eat lunch or have some free time during my day to tune out. With the major anti-theist and especially anti-Christian posting that goes on here, it is very rare that I get any intelligent discourse. I was very happy to get people who were actually talking.


WWJD
Amen.

Oh. Sorry, I must have missed that. It is a rare thing.

Zwinglian, FTW! :)

It's a matter of personal preference really. I partake in it because I feel that it helps me draw closer to the Lord. Understandably, not everyone feels that way.


In addition, communing with my fellow congregants draws me closer to them, to a feeling of community well-being and spirituality.

I believe in transubstantiation because of a powerful experience of love and forgiveness I had with the Eucharist. This experience happened prior to partaking, so I couldn't really go the consubstantiation route.

Well, read some of the posts, if you would like, we have been discussing the differences between the various views of Communion. Firstly, my view is that the poll options are flawed, and I posted more exact descriptions. Then, my use of the word neuter seemed to really upset people with Zwinglian points of view. Now, it seems to have died off. Based upon the posts here, how do defend a Zwinglian position?

WWJD
Amen.

I must quickly respond to the above, as it wasn’t there when I made my initial post. First, I don’t believe in consubstantiation. That is a term that is more properly attributed to Reformed Calvinists, with the true Zwinglian position adopted by Anabaptists.
It is just improper use of the terminology.

That being said, perhaps I should address the understanding that the position that is being called consubstantiation, but should be called the Real Presence happens only upon eating and with transubstantiation it happens differently.
Both Transubstantiation and the Real Presence claim the exact same thing in what the Sacrament is, and in what its purpose is, as well as its institution by Christ and it eschatological underpinning. That being said, the difference lies not in what is happening, but how.

As I have stated before, Transubstantiation is based upon Neo-Platonist ideals as posited by Thomas Aquinas, whereas the Real Presence is the understanding of the same process, but eschewing Greek philosophy in favour of Scriptural teaching. Martin Luther posited this during his Reformation in the 16th Century. That is the only difference.
Now, with the understanding of Transubstantiation as taking on the ideal form, if you were to bless the bread and wine and then leave it, it would still be body and blood, you may even take it home and use it in your personal devotion as a physical devotionary. Now, as a Lutheran, we probably wouldn’t take the Sacrament home with me, instead preferring to say, read and study the Scripture or pray as my devotion. This being said, the bread and wine are blood and flesh at the exact same time, not just when it is taken internally. Though, upon receiving the Sacrament, that is the time in which the promise centered in the Eucharistic meal takes hold, but the mysticality of the experience may begin long before that moment.

WWJD
Amen.

No, Protestants have that as a Sacrament too (I have no idea whether Gnostics or Mormons or Amish do, however, but probably)


The Gnostics do not hold communion. Gnostics are more concerned with the teachings of Jesus, especially the secret teachings Jesus gave his most trusted disiples. Most of the gnostic gospels do not contain miracles, or even the crucifixition. Gnostics believe God lives in each of us, and speaks to us, and thus GNostics do not concern themselves with a gatherings where one guy stands ona pulpit and holds moral authority over us.

No, Protestants have that as a Sacrament too (I have no idea whether Gnostics or Mormons or Amish do, however, but probably)

I think s/he was speaking to Calvin's claim that the mark of the true Church is the preaching of the true Gospel and the right administering of the Sacraments. I think s/he was sayingonly the RC's believe that. Obviously not, because Calvin ("founder" of Calvinism) said it. Or I may have misunderstood the intention of the comment.

My response was to her/his statement in parenthisis. He/she did not know what the Gnostics did. I can not speak for certain about mormons though since I have very little contact with them. Not to many in Virginia, but my guess is that the Mormans do and the Amish do not.

Umm...I don't partake in communion..too ritualistic.

Well, first, and I don't mean to sound like an over-righteous religion policeman, but Jesus commanded us to partake of Communion.

And second, what is a ritual? From a Christian standpoint, it's an outward sign of an inward reality. So depending on what your problem with rituals is and what you mean by "too ritualistic," that might help to think about it from that viewpoint.

My response was to her/his statement in parenthisis. He/she did not know what the Gnostics did. I can not speak for certain about mormons though since I have very little contact with them. Not to many in Virginia, but my guess is that the Mormans do and the Amish do not.

I'm sorry, but I was resonding to Klitvilia. S/he responded to a statement on page one and I was saying what I thought the original posters intention was. Sorry I confused you. But thank you for clarifying the Gnostic stand on COmmunion.

Lol it is ok, I jsut got done responding to her and you appeared underneath my post with the same quote. ;) Very easy mistake to make, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. Might I ask what Christian Denomination do you belong to?

Zwingli. I'm a Calvinist (Reformed Church of New Zealand)

Horray for Calvinists!!! :p :)

Does it matter how you understand this Sacrament?
The important thing is the attempt to OBEY it.

Lol it is ok, I jsut got done responding to her and you appeared underneath my post with the same quote. ;) Very easy mistake to make, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. Might I ask what Christian Denomination do you belong to?

Denomination or tradition?

Denomination: Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA). But really, it's bordering on not being Christian at all. I can't wait for the split that's almost assuredly coming.

Tradition: I'm Reformed/Calvinist with charismatic leanings. Also I believe that a presbyterian church government is what reflects the early Church most accurately.

Does it matter how you understand this Sacrament?
The important thing is the attempt to OBEY it.

I think it is important how you understand your religious ideology and sacraments. If you know how you believe in the act then it helps one to identify with the act, thus giving it meaning. SImply obeying without any self reflection of why you are doing something becomes a hallow and meaniless tradition.

Denomination or tradition?

Denomination: Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA). But really, it's bordering on not being Christian at all. I can't wait for the split that's almost assuredly coming.

Tradition: I'm Reformed/Calvinist with charismatic leanings. Also I believe that a presbyterian church government is what reflects the early Church most accurately.

I see, thank you for your speedy response. Understanding this will help me understand your point of view on this topic greatly. Might I ask what early church is reflected the most. Is it the Orthodoxy, Marcians, Arians, or Gnostics? THere were so many early churches that had so many different metaphysical ideas.

I think it is important how you understand your religious ideology and sacraments. If you know how you believe in the act then it helps one to identify with the act, thus giving it meaning. SImply obeying without any self reflection of why you are doing something becomes a hallow and meaniless tradition.


*shrugs*
Let's say I have met a goodly number of devout believers who lack the intellectual capacity to even understand that 2+2=4. So never mind self-reflection.

Understanding is irrelevant. Belief is everything.

I think it is important how you understand your religious ideology and sacraments. If you know how you believe in the act then it helps one to identify with the act, thus giving it meaning. SImply obeying without any self reflection of why you are doing something becomes a hallow and meaniless tradition.

I agree.

*shrugs*
Let's say I have met a goodly number of devout believers who lack the intellectual capacity to even understand that 2+2=4. So never mind self-reflection.

Understanding is irrelevant. Belief is everything.

I guess we have different paradigms then. :) Although many people either choose to, or might have little interest in understanding or lack their of, it does not change the importance that I stated earlier. Although Belief is also of paramount importance

I see, thank you for your speedy response. Understanding this will help me understand your point of view on this topic greatly. Might I ask what early church is reflected the most. Is it the Orthodoxy, Marcians, Arians, or Gnostics? THere were so many early churches that had so many different metaphysical ideas.

THE early Church. In Acts when it talks about the election/selection of elders and of deacons and such. It wasn't until later, though not much later that the heretics (persons proclaiming Christianity while denying or twisting truths necessary for salvation) came about.

Are you Gnostic? If not, why the name?

THE early Church. In Acts when it talks about the election/selection of elders and of deacons and such. It wasn't until later, though not much later that the heretics (persons proclaiming Christianity while denying or twisting truths necessary for salvation) came about.

Are you Gnostic? If not, why the name?

I believe in many of the Gnostic texts, as well as the teachings of their gospels, but I do not believe in the AEons or the Fallen Sophia. If you wish to understand my beliefs it is roughly the Catholic Metaphysical View with A belief in The Gnostic Gospels and a focus on the Orthodox Gospels. THat is where my name came from. Most Christians that i talk to do claim that this view is still heretical. I guess things do not change that much in the last 1900-1800 years. :(

I believe in many of the Gnostic texts, as well as the teachings of their gospels, but I do not believe in the AEons or the Fallen Sophia. If you wish to understand my beliefs it is roughly the Catholic Metaphysical View with A belief in The Gnostic Gospels and a focus on the Orthodox Gospels. THat is where my name came from.

That's an interesting twist in theological persuasion. I haven't read any of the Gnostic texts.

I need to go: I need to write "Thank you's" for my graduation party and my grandfather is coming to take me to help him fix his blueberry cages. Feel free to TG me if you have questions, comments, or burning debates gorwing in your mind. That's for anyone, but especially you.

Actually, I'm a calvinist, but I applied for zwinglian.

That's an interesting twist in theological persuasion. I haven't read any of the Gnostic texts.

I need to go: I need to write "Thank you's" for my graduation party and my grandfather is coming to take me to help him fix his blueberry cages. Feel free to TG me if you have questions, comments, or burning debates gorwing in your mind. That's for anyone, but especially you.

Thank you. I appreicate this conversation, especailly the lack of flame wars and your very cordial style. I would offer you the same invitaiton TG me anytime.

Most Christians that i talk to do claim that this view is still heretical. I guess things do not change that much in the last 1900-1800 years. :(

Uh, sorry to disappoint you (or to confirm your suspicions) but I believe your view is heretical as I understand it. Perhaps if I explored it a little more, my mind would change, but as of now the fact that you're putting more trust in the Gnostic texts than is due to a mere human writing earns you the title Heretic. Sorry. :( :( :(

Okay now I'm really leaving before I offend anyone else.

Uh, sorry to disappoint you (or to confirm your suspicions) but I believe your view is heretical as I understand it. Perhaps if I explored it a little more, my mind would change, but as of now the fact that you're putting more trust in the Gnostic texts than is due to a mere human writing earns you the title Heretic. Sorry. :( :( :(

Okay now I'm really leaving before I offend anyone else.

lol it is ok. I am not offended many people have stated that, I am used to it. I just appreciate your cordial behavor. I mean from the year 180 ad with Bishop Iranius of Lyon, when this view was declared heretical most people still believe it is. I understand this.