L & T describes her faith

[Anastasia13]

It didn't fit in my sig. I hope this is an ok place to post it.

I was raised ELCA Lutheran. I am currently a member of a Calvary Chapel church where I try to help with the youth group as I can not that I feel like I’m very good at doing stuff to contribute in any unique way. I am a former member of (in order found and joined) a Catholic club (some theological error in my view, but better than nothing if I'm suddenly out on my own), Campus Crusade for Christ (never went out sharing though or on their trips), and another one that was affiliated with the Local Church (think Witness Lee).

I am a Christian, Protestant, nondenominational, and not highly charismatic, I do not accept "Real Presence." What I do think is important about it is that Christ is spiritually present and that it is done in remembrance of Him. I do not accept the idea that tongues includes a gift of tongues that some get and a prayer language that all Christians baptized with the Holy Spirit have. (That is a real view of tongues I have heard of.) I hold the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal conscious suffering for the unsaved.

My church does baby dedications and then later does baptism which I think is ok. I think baby baptism, like what I had, is ok but I don't accept infant baptism and nothing more but I think that confirmation serves as an affirmation of baptism as is the Lutheran view. As for followed by confirmation, I think that that is where one can look at baptism as being about more than just the water as far as people who think only older professing believers should be baptized.

I cannot in good conscience just be a pacifist although I think that non-violent means should be attempted first as much as possible. My greatest objection to Calvinism is the concept of limited atonement. Jesus died for all, just not all accept that gift. I disagree with open view theism because it rejects too much the idea that God can and does know the future. My end times view is futurist, I’m unsure if I am pre-millennial or post-millennial partly as I forgot and haven’t gone looking it up and I am unsure of my tribulation view.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/spinningcross.gif[/img] . [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/.Smilies/cross2.gif[/img] . [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/spinningCelticCross.gif[/img]

"*insert comment for possible discussion of the above text while trying to avoid too much full on hardcore debate all at once*

Edited July 24, 2005 by Light and Truth

[Laudate_Dominum]

you have some of the coolest smiley type things. I might have to use those crosses sometime.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jul 24 2005, 04:40 AM']It didn't fit in my sig.  I hope this is an ok place to post it.

I was raised ELCA Lutheran. I am currently a member of a Calvary Chapel church where I try to help with the youth group as I can not that I feel like I’m very good at doing stuff to contribute in any unique way. I am a former member of (in order found and joined) a Catholic club (some theological error in my view, but better than nothing if I'm suddenly out on my own), Campus Crusade for Christ (never went out sharing though or on their trips), and another one that was affiliated with the Local Church (think Witness Lee).

I am a Christian, Protestant, nondenominational, and not highly charismatic, I do not accept "Real Presence." What I do think is important about it is that Christ is spiritually present and that it is done in remembrance of Him. I do not accept the idea that tongues includes a gift of tongues that some get and a prayer language that all Christians baptized with the Holy Spirit have. (That is a real view of tongues I have heard of.) I hold the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal conscious suffering for the unsaved.

My church does baby dedications and then later does baptism which I think is ok. I think baby baptism, like what I had, is ok but I don't accept infant baptism and nothing more but I think that confirmation serves as an affirmation of baptism as is the Lutheran view. As for followed by confirmation, I think that that is where one can look at baptism as being about more than just the water as far as people who think only older professing believers should be baptized.

I cannot in good conscience just be a pacifist although I think that non-violent means should be attempted first as much as possible. My greatest objection to Calvinism is the concept of limited atonement. Jesus died for all, just not all accept that gift. I disagree with open view theism because it rejects too much the idea that God can and does know the future. My end times view is futurist, I’m unsure if I am pre-millennial or post-millennial partly as I forgot and haven’t gone looking it up and I am unsure of my tribulation view.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/spinningcross.gif[/img]  .        [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/.Smilies/cross2.gif[/img]  .      [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/spinningCelticCross.gif[/img]

"*insert comment for possible discussion of the above text while trying to avoid too much full on hardcore debate all at once*
[right][snapback]656584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks for your testimony. I, for one, appreciate your candor and your honesty. Are you open to fruitful discussion and possible acceptance of those views which are more correct than your own, personal views?

Thanks for coming and I look forward to reading your posts and having great discussion with you.

[Brother Adam]

Hi L & T,

Thank you for sharing. I was also raised ELCA Lutheran and got very involved with the denomination at a young age. I then also joined the fundamentalist faith and was Baptist for several years. I was rebaptized and the whole bit. I ended up becoming Catholic after giving these guys the benefit of the doubt and at least being willing to listen to what they had to say and how they look at the Bible and the Christian faith. (not to mention I did a ton of Bible study, reading, and prayer on my own too).

Glad to have ya' here!

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:06 AM']Thanks for your testimony.  I, for one, appreciate your candor and your honesty.  Are you open to fruitful discussion and possible acceptance of those views which are more correct than your own, personal views?

Thanks for coming and I look forward to reading your posts and having great discussion with you.
[right][snapback]656660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I doubt I'll change many of my views much, but we can discuss them. That would be fun.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 24 2005, 08:42 AM']Hi L & T,

Thank you for sharing. I was also raised ELCA Lutheran and got very involved with the denomination at a young age. I then also joined the fundamentalist faith and was Baptist for several years. I was rebaptized and the whole bit. I ended up becoming Catholic after giving these guys the benefit of the doubt and at least being willing to listen to what they had to say and how they look at the Bible and the Christian faith. (not to mention I did a ton of Bible study, reading, and prayer on my own too).

Glad to have ya' here!
[right][snapback]656755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've wished at times that I could be baptist. They seem like some of the most clearly passionate about their faith at times. I just have trouble getting past the who my baptism as an infant and then confirmation meant nothing bit. I seriously seriously thought about becoming Catholic for few minutes about a year and a half ago when I was in the Catholic Newman club and lived away from home. It's the whole Protestant bit in me.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Light and Truth

[zabbazooey]

L & T -- thanks for sharing. Good to have you here at Phatmass!!

[Brother Adam]

[quote]I doubt I'll change many of my views much, but we can discuss them. That would be fun.[/quote]

I'd like to volunteer to be the first to ask a question then. I find it easiest always to stay on one topic or discussions get really confusing really fast.

You said:

[quote]I do not accept "Real Presence. What I do think is important about it is that Christ is spiritually present and that it is done in remembrance of Him.[/quote]

Why do you not accept the "Real Presence"? You share the same interpretation of the Bible as John Calvin who believed in a 'spiritual presence' of Jesus at communion while the communicant received communion. How did you come the conclusion that you believed in the spiritual presence, and what stands in the way of your being able to accept the Real Presence? I'd like to hear your thoughts first, and then perhaps I can share why decided to accept the Real Presence.

[dUSt]

I have one question for you.

[i][b]IF[/b] God left us an authority here on earth that could guide us without error in our interpretation of the Bible, would you want to know about it?[/i]

Sometimes we must conform ourselves to the truth rather than conforming the truth to ourselves.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:11 PM']I'd like to volunteer to be the first to ask a question then. I find it easiest always to stay on one topic or discussions get really confusing really fast.

You said:
Why do you not accept the "Real Presence"? You share the same interpretation of the Bible as John Calvin who believed in a 'spiritual presence' of Jesus at communion while the communicant received communion. How did you come the conclusion that you believed in the spiritual presence, and what stands in the way of your being able to accept the Real Presence? I'd like to hear your thoughts first, and then perhaps I can share why decided to accept the Real Presence. 
[right][snapback]657129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My thoughts, my apoligies for the delay and also if I got a bit carried away in writing this in length.

I do not see any reason why I need to believe in Real Presence. Flesh dies and needs to be resurrected; spirit is forever. The last supper was before Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Before that, in as much as I have seen in the Bible, He acted in accordance with the physical limitations of life here for us. (I am assuming that the forty days of fasting did not also mean forty days without water.) This seems contradictory to the idea that He would be whole yet people would be eating His flesh. His body would have suddenly exceeded usual limitations of life in the unresurrected body. While He did perform miracles, no where else have I seen that the tangible state of His body has not been the same as others before the crucifixion and resurrection. I don't mean to sound like I reject that He could have done a miracle and transformed that bread and wine, only that I reject that He did. I've heard it said that Jesus understands what we go through because He has lived as us. If His actions did not take into account the physical limitations of flesh, then He would not have experienced life as we did. I know of no place where that would have suddenly changed.

Now granted there are verses that say not to eat the blood of animals because the life is in the blood and we get life through Christ so that could be one argument in favor of actually taking in the physical body and blood of Christ (c.f. John 6:53) and the response that there are verses indicating that drinking blood being bad (e.g. Acts 15:29) falls short in that it may easily be understood to mean things other than all blood including out Lord’s. Still, to take a little bit more of a closer look at this, there are other references to having life inside. The young rich man who wants to have eternal life was not told to eat or drink anything. He is told that if he wants to enter life, he should obey the Lord’s commandments, but after saying how he has done that, he was told to sell and give away what he had which I understand to have to do with the loving Christ more than things which can be harder with a lot of things. John 17:3 tells us “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Further, John 20:31 makes reference to having life in Jesus name by believing that He is the Christ, the Son of God. Other verses also make reference to life without any indication of eating or drinking, therefore, life doesn’t seem to be an issue with literal eating and drinking or at least, as with ritual it is not a requirement for life.

Jesus seems to make the spiritual analogy with bread earlier on in his ministry where in John 6 He describes himself as the bread of life. He also makes the comparison of Him and manna. We are shown how both He and manna in the Old Testament are both gifts of God’s provision to satisfy a need. In verse 58 He points out that those who ate manna still died but whoever feeds on “this bread” shall live forever. The physical feeds the flesh which still grows old and dies and the spiritual feeds the spirit. In a spiritual sense taking Him in nourishes us in a spiritual way where that is part of us will live forever. Again, that was before the crucifixion and He still died a physical death. What He was saying there is not entirely unlike where at the well with the Samaritan woman Jesus spoke of giving water after which drinking, none shall thirst again. He asked the woman about physical water that satisfies physical thirst, but He told her about how to satisfy her spiritual thirst.

Now the Bible has various verses about blood and the spiritual and eternal impact of it, such as Ephesians 1:7 and John 1:7. If it is the blood that was shed and not the blood that was drunk that makes that difference, then the fact that the Eucharist is based on the Last Supper should disqualify any actually present blood at it would be of little value because at the last supper it was pre-crucifixion blood and if this was so powerful itself, then it raises the question then of why Jesus would need to be crucified. If the two worked together, this would leaves other questions. As something based on pre-crucifixion reality, what does the presence of perishable flesh matter? (Hebrews 9:16-18) In the scenes of the last supper, there are both the blood if the new covenant and the cup of the new covenant in Jesus’ blood. The cup represents the blood and the blood refers to the blood spilled at the crucifixion. By His blood being shed and his life being poured out, we are saved. Hebrews 9 explains how unlike with Old Testament sacrifices for sin, Christ’s blood was shed once and for all. (Hebrews 9:26-28) If Christ’s blood was shed once for and all, then why then would His blood be there again and again at the Eucharist as though it was poured out anew in physical form? The blood in the Last Supper was symbolic of the blood that Jesus was to shed.

When we celebrate it, it is for our own remembrance (Luke 22:19) and it is a proclamation through out actions of the truth that Jesus came and died for us (1 Cor 11:26). An unworthy manner is one not acknowledging this truth or faithful to it (1 Cor 11:29). Jesus is spiritually present but His presence is not limited to the bread and wine. It’s usually done in a group with people gathered in His name and I think that His spirit us especially present with us when we are doing something pleasing to Him.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

[dUSt]

After reading your entire reasoning, I have come to a very simple question.

[b]Why then did Christ even bother to take on a physical form at all?[/b]

Wouldn't it make sense that the bread is actually His physical body just like Jesus, when he came down to earth, was a physical body? This unites all of us, because we, being the unified Body of Christ, have the opportunity to partake in His physical presence just as those who lived during His life on earth did.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 3 2005, 11:11 AM']
[b]Why then did Christ even bother to take on a physical form at all?[/b]

[/quote]

Dust,

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your question, but are you intending it to specifically address the Real Presence?

[Nicole8223]

[quote]Before that, in as much as I have seen in the Bible, He acted in accordance with the physical limitations of life here for us. (I am assuming that the forty days of fasting did not also mean forty days without water.) This seems contradictory to the idea that He would be whole yet people would be eating His flesh. His body would have suddenly exceeded usual limitations of life in the unresurrected body. While He did perform miracles, no where else have I seen that the tangible state of His body has not been the same as others before the crucifixion and resurrection. [/quote]

"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There [b]he was transfigured before them. [/b]His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus."
Matthew 17:1-3



Christ passes physical limitations here. He is "transfigured." The word means: To alter the outward appearance of; transform. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Just my thoughts...

[Brother Adam]

L&T,

Thank you for your honest response. Instead of breaking down your quite in depth thread point by point, perhaps I can offer why we do believe, and why the Church teaches the reality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

1. The first reason is typological. The Last Supper was a celebration of the Passover. As I'm sure you know, the passover was celebrated yearly and was the real sacrifice of a lamb for the redemption of the Israelite people from captivity. Jesus comes to us as the Lamb of God who frees us from sin in a sacrifice that was once and for all and for all time. The sacrifice celebrated on the Passover was a real sacrifice.

1.a. The Greek word 'Phago" is used 9 times in John's discourse. Remember that Greek is extremely precise and John could have choosen any number of other words which may have indicated an allagorical sense. "Phago" gives the impression of chewing or physically consuming. He even uses "trago" in the same essance which means to gnaw, chew, or crunch.

1.b. In John 6:55 Jesus uses the word "sarx". Sarx means "flesh" where as if this passage was to be taken merely as a parable or allagory John would have used the word for body "soma". Every time sarx is used in scripture, it refers to the literal flesh.

2. While the verse after the discourse refering to 'the flesh profits nothing' is often used as a proof that Jesus wasn't being literal, this is being misunderstood. If the flesh truly did not profit anything, than there would be no reason for his crucifixion. When we go down this road we end up like the gnostics who claim Jesus was never incarnate into the world.

3. John 6:63 does not refer back to the Bread of Life discourse, but rather to verse 60 at the Jews unbelief. No matter what signs they are given, they will continue to disbelieve. Even Christ rising to heaven is not enough, rather Jesus points out that the Holy Spirit moves people to belief.

4. The multiplication of the loaves and fish serve as a type of the Eucharist. It answers the question to how could Christ's own flesh and blood be made available to all for all time.

5. The word "rememberance" in Greek is the word anamnesis. John had a choice of nine different words to use in this passage and he specifically choose, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit this word, which is used only in the Bible to signify a real sacrifice, not only a 'calling to mind'. This would not make sense in a covenant relationship to merely 'call to mind' and doesn't work with the Greek. Coupling this with the passages (chronologically written first) we know that a participation in the Eucharist is a participation in the actual body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16) and those who participate unworthly drink to their own condemnation ( 1 Cor 11:23-29), very strong words if it is merely allagorical.

6. In fact had Jesus merely been refering to eating his body and blood symbolically it would have been an assault (1 Cor 2:14-3:4). To Jews if one is to 'symbolically' eat of the flesh of another it would be to 'insult and mock that person'. Was Jesus telling the Jews in his discourse to mock and insult Him?

"Not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but... as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh in noursished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus" - Justin Martyr writing in 150AD!

The Christians have always professed the Real Presence of Christ, from Christ Himself in John 6 on, to St. Paul, to the Early Christians through today. The symbolic Lord's Supper was an invention of Zwingli 1600 years removed from Christ!

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 3 2005, 09:11 AM']After reading your entire reasoning, I have come to a very simple question.

[b]Why then did Christ even bother to take on a physical form at all?[/b][right][snapback]669832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
He was the only one who could be a perfect and sinless sacrifice for us so that we could be reconciled to God.

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 3 2005, 09:11 AM']Wouldn't it make sense that the bread is actually His physical body just like Jesus, when he came down to earth, was a physical body? This unites all of us, because we, being the unified Body of Christ, have the opportunity to partake in His physical presence just as those who lived during His life on earth did.
[right][snapback]669832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Excluding of course those who lived during His life on earth but might have died before the Eucharist became common.

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='Aug 3 2005, 10:43 AM']Christ passes physical limitations here.  He is "transfigured."  The word means:  To alter the outward appearance of; transform. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Just my thoughts...
[right][snapback]669947[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is still visual rather than tangible form that changed if I'm making any sense.

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 3 2005, 11:20 AM']L&T,

Thank you for your honest response. Instead of breaking down your quite in depth thread point by point, perhaps I can offer why we do believe, and why the Church teaches the reality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. [right][snapback]669977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Certainly. I'll read it this afternoon.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Light and Truth