|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 25, 2004 14:27:40 GMT -5
LJ-I'm a little confused from your last post How do you believe salvation is distributed through the eucharist? Does one get more saved after doing it alot??
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 25, 2004 16:52:02 GMT -5
Marysia, I am curious as to why you added to my response of "absolutely" to your question "Do you believe in the Trinity?" I am not a fan of Michael Moore.
Christian. i didn't not mean to tag onto your "absolutely!" my enter didn't enter - sorry. however since you believe in and understand the Trinity then you can understand why the Rcc will use the term Mother of God -- Jesus IS God. However unless you actually study and learn in context you will not understand that Mary isn't God's mom
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 25, 2004 17:16:46 GMT -5
LJ-I'm a little confused from your last post How do you believe salvation is distributed through the eucharist? Does one get more saved after doing it alot?? For a brief primer, let me explain that the LCMS teaches that we receive grace through three different "channels;" Through Baptism, Holy Communion, and by hearing the Word. If you would like scriptural support for all of these, let me know, but since our discussion is about communion, I'll focus on that. Jesus tells us in John 6, 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
JN 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
JN 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."Jesus has connected partaking of the bread/his flesh with having eternal life --receiving grace. As we learn in Isaiah 6, when we are touched by something holy we are made holy. At the Last Supper, Jesus connects the wine --His blood-- with the blood of the Covenant which promises to save us. You ask if taking communion more often results in getting "more saved." Obviously, one is either saved or he isn't. You can't be "more saved" any more than you can be "more pregnant." Whether you meant to or not, you have jumped with both feet into a debate that has raged from at least the early 16th century. Luther taught that, since we continue to sin, we should continue to connect with that which makes us holy. That doesn't mean that we go out from under the cover of grace every time we sin (remember Singer? That's what he believes happens) but that we need to stay connected to God and His holiness through the gifts He provides. By Jesus's example, we are baptized only once, but we commune regularly. Also, we stay connected to God and His holiness through the Word. Does this help? Like I said in another thread, it more likely leads to more questions. Fire away! Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 25, 2004 19:21:13 GMT -5
Oh course I got more questions ^_^
So what is grace then? I have come to believe that the grace of the bible is the free gift of the Christ's sacrifice. From my perspective it doesn't make much sense to recieve more grace at different times because, like you said, you are either saved or not. You can't have more or less grace or more or less of Christ's sacrifice. Does that help you understand from where I am coming from?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 25, 2004 21:35:55 GMT -5
Pietro, If Christ was really present in the bread and the wine of the Eucharist, you would know about it! You would see it, you would smell it, you would taste it, and you would be able to feel the texture of His flesh in your mouth. Ulrich Zwingli was an intelligent man by the sound of it. Christian. Luke 22:19-20 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.Your insistance that in order for Jesus to be capable of performing such a miracle, you must be able to see, feel smell or taste for it to be true. Something similar happened to Our Lord to. See if this pkmtyolpage rings any bells for you? As I've previously explained to you, with the gift of transubstantiation, there is no physical change to the bread and wine. But when Our Lord blessed it and said the words, that is what they were. Also, if He were speaking metaphorically, why did He not use items from the pkmtyolpover seder meal which would have also been present at the Last Supper (the blood for the door, or lamb). Wouldn't those items would have served better as metaphorical images?
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 26, 2004 5:28:18 GMT -5
Luke 22:19-20 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.Your insistance that in order for Jesus to be capable of performing such a miracle, you must be able to see, feel smell or taste for it to be true. Something similar happened to Our Lord to. See if this pkmtyolpage rings any bells for you? As I've previously explained to you, with the gift of transubstantiation, there is no physical change to the bread and wine. But when Our Lord blessed it and said the words, that is what they were. Also, if He were speaking metaphorically, why did He not use items from the pkmtyolpover seder meal which would have also been present at the Last Supper (the blood for the door, or lamb). Wouldn't those items would have served better as metaphorical images? I'm sorry, but you're still not making sense. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 26, 2004 5:29:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you're still not making sense. Christian. What is that you do not understand? I'll try to explain it better for you. Perhaps if you go to www.dictionary.com and look at the definition of transubstantiation it will clarify the meaning a little better for you.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 26, 2004 6:41:41 GMT -5
What is that you do not understand? I'll try to explain it better for you. Perhaps if you go to www.dictionary.com and look at the definition of transubstantiation it will clarify the meaning a little better for you. I know what the word "transubstantiation" means. It's the teaching which doesn't make sense! Christian.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 26, 2004 9:31:54 GMT -5
I'll take a shot: Christ is present in the Eucharist, but how? the medieval Fathers reasoned that the presence of Christ meant that a change in the reality of the bread takes place, which lead them to concieve "transubstantiation" as the best description of the transformation of the substance. It is here that Aquinas appealed to the Aristotelian constructs of "accident and substance" to give the closest explanation as to what occurs at consecration. The accidents of physical appearance remain the same but the substance changes. Think of substance as the truth of what a thing is and accidents as how it appears. So water is a substance which appears under the accidents of steam, liquid, and ice. These are the accidents of water. The substance of bread normally has the accidents of a dry solid. But the accidents look like wheat, rye, be light or dark,a wide variety of appearances and still be bread. At consecration it is not the accidents that change but the substance, the truth of what a thing is. The Holy Spirit brings about this change. It is not visible. It is a matter of faith. Regardless of what it looks like, it is the body of Christ in substance but not accidents. I still do not understand this concept. The bread and wine stay the same in all physical aspects, but by faith you believe that the Holy Spirit changes them into the body and blood of Christ? How is this not a definition of a symbolic change? I am not saying that symbolism is not important or at all powerful. Some symbols are extremely powerful. But what is the difference between having faith that the bread and blood is changed, even though it is not physically changed, and having it be a very important symbol of Christ's death and resurrection. Whenever I take the communion (Eucharist, Lord's supper, etc), it is with awe and extreme reverence as I know what Christ went through for me. What is the difference here?
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 26, 2004 9:59:12 GMT -5
I still do not understand this concept. The bread and wine stay the same in all physical aspects, but by faith you believe that the Holy Spirit changes them into the body and blood of Christ? How is this not a definition of a symbolic change? I am not saying that symbolism is not important or at all powerful. Some symbols are extremely powerful. But what is the difference between having faith that the bread and blood is changed, even though it is not physically changed, and having it be a very important symbol of Christ's death and resurrection. Whenever I take the communion (Eucharist, Lord's supper, etc), it is with awe and extreme reverence as I know what Christ went through for me. What is the difference here? That is not an easy question to answer. All I can say is that when we receive we believe it is really the body and blood regardless of what it may appear to be. Not symbolic, but the real thing. Contrast this with something like holy water. It is probably to Catholics what communion is to non catholics. That is, a powerful symbol. But it is not Christ. Eucharist is Christ. Words fail otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 26, 2004 10:40:37 GMT -5
That is not an easy question to answer. All I can say is that when we receive we believe it is really the body and blood regardless of what it may appear to be. Not symbolic, but the real thing. Contrast this with something like holy water. It is probably to Catholics what communion is to non catholics. That is, a powerful symbol. But it is not Christ. Eucharist is Christ. Words fail otherwise. Pietro, I really don't see how the bread and the wine of the Eucharist can change into the flesh and blood of Christ and yet stay the same. That's a contradiction. Christ doesn't contradict Himself. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Aug 26, 2004 10:45:52 GMT -5
What is that you do not understand? I'll try to explain it better for you. Perhaps if you go to www.dictionary.com and look at the definition of transubstantiation it will clarify the meaning a little better for you. Don't bother, RS. AO likes to play the "I don't understand it, therefore I am showing it to be false" game. He thinks that incredulity is adequate to prove something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 26, 2004 11:11:19 GMT -5
Don't bother, RS. AO likes to play the "I don't understand it, therefore I am showing it to be false" game. He thinks that incredulity is adequate to prove something wrong. heathen, Do you believe in transubstantiation? Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 26, 2004 11:40:58 GMT -5
Pietro, I really don't see how the bread and the wine of the Eucharist can change into the flesh and blood of Christ and yet stay the same. That's a contradiction. Christ doesn't contradict Himself. Christian. If it is too difficult a teaching for you, go your own way. Just don't pkmtyolp judgement on us.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 26, 2004 11:47:48 GMT -5
If it is too difficult a teaching for you, go your own way. Just don't pkmtyolp judgement on us. I'm not pkmtyolping judgement on you. I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying. I'm using my God-given intellect. Christian.
|
|