• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you remember?

T

thessalonian

New Member
John Gillmore wrote:

"All Lutherans subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions which reject consubstantiation.

There are so-called Lutherans who do not subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions just as there are so-called Roman Catholics who do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope."

Huh? Luther espoused consubstantiation from what I can see from just about every website that talks about it online. So was Luther not really a lutheran (i.e. "so-called"). Is one who teaches incorrectly about the Lord's Supper not really a Christian? Is true Lutheranism, whichever brand is true based on what kind of a Lutheran you are talking to, wholy true? Are your true Lutherans really un-lutherans? Kind of like un-cola. I never new this thread would be so much fun.
 
J

John Gilmore

New Member
Originally posted by thessalonian:
John Gillmore wrote:

"All Lutherans subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions which reject consubstantiation.

There are so-called Lutherans who do not subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions just as there are so-called Roman Catholics who do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope."

Huh? Luther espoused consubstantiation from what I can see from just about every website that talks about it online. So was Luther not really a lutheran (i.e. "so-called"). Is one who teaches incorrectly about the Lord's Supper not really a Christian? Is true Lutheranism, whichever brand is true based on what kind of a Lutheran you are talking to, wholy true? Are your true Lutherans really un-lutherans? Kind of like un-cola. I never new this thread would be so much fun.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Could you please provide a link to a document where Luther espouses consubstantiation?

Are there not any un-Catholics? Seems like the internet is litered with people calling themselves Catholics but denying all sorts of Papal teachings. Some of these people even claim the guy in the vatican is not the real Pope! Are all these people your Catholic brothers?
 
T

thessalonian

New Member
"That's interesting. Could you please provide a link to a document where Luther espouses consubstantiation?"

I know where this is headed. That's okay. My question is answered.

Blessings
 
T

thessalonian

New Member
Funny how this is getting so little attention. Common guys defend your defense. Is rememberence a nostalgic look at the past or is it a remberence of what Christ is currently doing for us. Actually I would say it is all of the above and then some.

Blessings
 
K

Kiffin

New Member
Hi thessalonian,

I am not Anglican and maybe Dale could better explain this than me
but the Book of Common Prayer from what I have read holds to the Spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion and therefore the Anglican view is essemtially the same as that of Calvin since it is by Faith one eats the body and blood of Christ in communion. The confessions of early Anglican separatists such as Presbyterianism and Baptists (Westminister, 1689 London) both show a Anglican influence on the understanding of the Eucharist. My understanding is that the later Oxford Movement(aka the Anglo-Catholic movement) view of Communion was at best the Lutheran view and not that of the Roman Catholics. Edward Pusey the most notable of the Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England stated ."That the sacramental bread and wine remain in their very natural substances; and yet that under these poor outward forms ,His creatures of bread and wine,the faithful verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ."

The Zwinglian view is very popular now though in many ways the view of the total absence is more a view some believe developed in the 1800's when the Lord's Supper began to be de emphasized.

You asked,

One other question for you Mr. Kiffin. Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.". Even some of his own disciples turned and went to their former way of life. i.e. they rejected him. So are those who do not believe in the "correct" view, whatever that is (as it is certainly called in to question in Protestantism in general) among the saved since they materially do what the disciples of John 6:66 did?
Click to expand...
John 6 can only be understood to refer to the Eucharist in a secondary sense. I have no problem however using that text to refer to Holy Communion. Any one who walks away from Christ show their profession to be a vain one is what I get from John 6:66 not any theological disertation on the Eucharist. God Bless
 
T

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jesus said, "Are you still lacking in understanding also?
"Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Tuor,

Why do you not understand. It is not food for our bodies. I am not sure how you can keep getting it wrong. The verse you quote is not about the Eucharist but about speach and what defiles us. It is about what defiles us. How could the Eucharist which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ defile us. When Protestants keep coming up with such silliness it makes me wonder how there are not 100,000 denominations. This is the first time I have seen this verse used against the Eucharist. I can search through 800 years of Church Fathers and not find it used in this manner. So Tuor has a new revelation that this is how this verse should be used I guess. Sad. You keep refusing to believe what Jesus over and over makes VERY PLAIN.

Blessings
 
E

Eladar

New Member
The verse you quote is not about the Eucharist but about speach and what defiles us.
Click to expand...
The verse is about the effect that literal food has on salvation, absolutely none. As Jesus said, it is simply eliminated. The heart is what matters.
 
M

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The verse you quote is not about the Eucharist but about speach and what defiles us.
Click to expand...
The verse is about the effect that literal food has on salvation, absolutely none. As Jesus said, it is simply eliminated. The heart is what matters. </font>[/QUOTE]But the literal heart is eliminated also.

The Eucharist is unlike any other food in the world, just as Christ is unlike any other man in the world. Therefore, it is largely fruitless to compare the Eucharist to any other food, just as it is largely fruitless to compare Christ to any other man.
 
M

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
What I meant by heart is what Jesus meant by heart. It is the place where seeds are sown.
Click to expand...
And what I mean by food and drink is what Jesus meant by food and drink in John 6.
 
M

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
If you did, then you'd know he was talking about the gospel message, not literal food.
Click to expand...
Another one of those infallible private interpretations?
laugh.gif
 
T

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
If you did, then you'd know he was talking about the gospel message, not literal food.
Click to expand...
Actually Tuor I recognize he is talking about both. Why do you protestants insist on dichotomizing everything. 1 interprutation per verse is what the Protestant radio guy says in town here. Let's limit God and keep things simple so our simple minds can grasp it all in one reading.

Sad.
 
E

Eladar

New Member
Actually Tuor I recognize he is talking about both.
Click to expand...
You don't recognize anything. You believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe. In essence, you simply recognize that the CC speaks for God.

As far as John 6 goes, if one simply reads the scripture, one will not come to the CC position on the scripture.
 
T

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually Tuor I recognize he is talking about both.
Click to expand...
You don't recognize anything. You believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe. In essence, you simply recognize that the CC speaks for God.

As far as John 6 goes, if one simply reads the scripture, one will not come to the CC position on the scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]You judge me Tuor. How do you know what goes on inside me except by your bias against me. As for John 6, I know many non-catholics who have come to the Catholic view (my wife and mother-in-law to name to) so I think your are speaking from your own bias and lack of enlightenment. Of course with regard to any truth we have to recieve it from above. "blessed are you Simon Bar-jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.". Same is true of the Eucharist. You will not get it until God gives you it (the grace to get it).

Blessings
 
M

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually Tuor I recognize he is talking about both.
Click to expand...
You don't recognize anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, neat power you have! OK, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. What number is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top