Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?
A. Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Filed under: Death, Eucharist, Marthin Luther, The Church |
Bread From Heaven 
One could say the same thing about “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away” (Acts22:16) or “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts2:37-41) or “baptism now saves you” (1Pet3:21). Regenerative baptism certainly had every bit as much support from the Fathers of the Church -and from Luther- and has even MORE biblical support that the Eucharist, which is hardly lacking in it.
Wrong. There is only redemption in receiving the Holy Eucharist. Baptism into the Church only takes place once. You are pure until you sin. Then you must be contrite via confessions then when you receive Holy Communion will you be obedient to Christ and his continuous sacrifice for us!
So TRUE
Pam,
In connection with these forceful and apt words of Luther and granting that many Early Fathers say that the elements of the Lord’s Supper *are* (in some important sense) the body and blood of Christ, I (as a Reformational Christian) wish to pose this question:
What are the earliest words outside the Bible that, in the view of Roman Catholics, affirm that the bread ceases to be bread and the wine ceases to be wine in Holy Communion?
Regards,
Keith
Dear Keith,
The Bread and Wine continue to appear to all of our senses as mere bread and wine. But at the prayer of consecration by Priest of the Catholic or Orthodox Church the reality is that Jesus is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.
Early Church Beliefs in the Eucharist
Saint John says in the book of Revelation that we are all priests….We all have the right to offer the Eucharist…Scripture nowhere gives this right to only ordained priests…Any Christian can partake of the Eucharist anytime he chooses; with full authority of Holy Writ.
Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers by Norman Nagel
Click to access nagelnlutherpriesthoodallbelievers.pdf
David: 💯 % wrong. You are not an exegete. Only ordained priests can offer Holy Communion.
St Ignatius 110 AD
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public…”
The Apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:27)
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
The Apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:28-30)
Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without recognizing the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died.
Remember Paul never met Jesus in the flesh and he wasn’t present at the Last Supper. So you have to ask yourself, how did Paul come to know that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
Read LUKE 22
That’s deep 🙂 I liked the message Martin Luther has left us..
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
How can we avoid all of John 6 here and its conclusion?
I am sorry, but you are taking john 6 outta of context. This flesh he is referring to here is not speaking of The Lord’s Body, but rather human Flesh. Later in john, he is very dogmatic about “eating the son of man’s flesh and blood, so much so that he let some of his disciples walk away.
So the crucifixion of Our Lords flesh was of no avail? Here, start from the beginning. Notice what happened in the start of John 6; What the reply was to the rabbis re: their fathers/manna in the desert; How many times Christ told them unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood; The response. Line by line, precept by precept. There is no doubt. Also note he died once but it is a perpetual sacrifice, from the rising of the sun to it’s setting. Hence, in Revelation the lamb appears to be slain. God’s ways are not our ways. We make the mistake to apply our concept of time unto the Lord, can’t be done. Many say Jesus referred to his word… What, the Torah? No new testament yet and you would be hard pressed to find him saying the writings. Remember at the institution of the eucharist was when he used ‘new covenant’, while saying this was his body and blood.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6
Spot on
Better translation of Jn 6:63: the Spirit is making alive; the flesh isn’t benefiting any one. The words, which I have spoken to you, are both spirit and life.
In context this is a reply to “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Thus Jesus explains that it is the Spirit in HIs flesh and not merely the flesh that is live giving. Then He tells them all He spoke to them about eating My flesh and drinking My blood is both life giving and a way of life.
Martin Luther believe in the real presence. However, he believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. This means that rather than believing that the bread and wine undergo and change of substance to become Jesus, he believed that the host and the cup were both bread and Jesus, both wine and Jesus. Besides this, Zwingli believed in a symbolic presence. Of Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology, Luther said, “I’d rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli.”
And we all know how Luther felt about the pope.
Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, is an attempt to explain HOW Christ’s body and blood are present in the sacrament. Neither Luther nor the Lutheran Church have taught consubstantiation because neither Luther nor the Lutheran Church have fallen into the trap of attempting to explain HOW the Real Presence takes place. Luther and the Lutheran Church have simply taught the FACT of the Real Presence based on scripture without any attempt to explain HOW it happens. Consubstantiation is NOT a Lutheran teaching.
David, you are right about consubstantiation not being a lutheran teaching.
That’s a cop-out. The fact is Lutheran theology is clear that after the words of Our Lord are spoken at the altar at a Lutheran Service, both the bread and wine with The Presence of Jesus Christ remain. To believe or say otherwise is to refute Martin Luther’s words about this analogy himself:
“the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”. Note Luthers words.. “Yet Each Continues UNCHANGED”. This is exactly Martin Luther’s quotation of what occurs after the words from The Gospel are said.
The latest? Your right about that. Protestantism always keeps evolving. They are all afraid of explaining wha exactly they believe because they know it tears at the fabric of that befief so they just resort to “the bible says”…which is goofy because what the bible says has nothing to do with Protestant Reformers and what they actually said on record. 😉
He believed in CONSUBSTANTIATION. That is the analogy he himself taught concerning The Eucharist: “the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”.
If that doesn’t spell out CONSUBSTANTIATION, what does? lol..
Rob You need to read the book of concord and the entire Augsburg Confession before you insinuate that Luther taught consubstantiation …he DID Not, this was a doctrine circulating 100 years after Luther and it is in serious error, much like those teaching Rapture, Second coming is scriptural but rapture is NOT
Let’s get this straight. Read the Book of Concord in the Smalcald Articles (Written by Martin Luther in 1537, not hundred years later) under [6:] Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar:
“…Concerning transubstantiation, we have absolutely no regards for the subtle sophistry of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substances and that only the form and color of the bread remain, but its no longer real bread. For it is in closest agreement with Scripture to say that bread is and remains there, as St. Paul himself indicates [1 Cor.10:16; 11:28]: “The bread that we break…” and “Eat of the bread.””
Luther believed that Bread and wine are truly body and blood of Christ while they continue to be bread and wine as well. The is consubstantiation con=with : With or under the substance). The substance itself does not chance as taught in transubstantiation. In “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” (1520) Luther already called transubstantiation an “illusion (German; Wahn) of St. Thomas and the pope.”
Consubstantiation does not try to explain the “how”, but that due to the scripture we have to believe our Lord when he says : “This is my body/blood”. Luther believed in the omnipresence (to be present everywhere) of God (Christ) thus in His presence throughout all that is created. The presence is there not because a priest changed the substance (transubstantiation) but because the believer who receives the sacrament has Faith that God can be present even in a substance as ordinary as bread if God pleases to be present.
Transubstantiation is only one of the big errors of Middle Ages’ catholic theology. We don’t “repeat” the sacrifice of Christ when we come together for the Lord’s Supper. That was done once and for all in Jesus Christ dying on the cross. There is also no reason in scripture why the RC Church withholds the blood from the people.
Dear Karsten,
Thanks you for the Lutheran understanding of Constubstantiation. I never said that Luther believed in Transubstantiation. I was just pointing out that even Martin Luther, the founder of the Reformation, believed in the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Unlike so many Protestants who don’t believe this at all but only think communion is symbolically Christ or something along those lines for many Evangelicals.
By what authority do you pronounce Catholic theology in error? Are you infallible?
How does Consubstantiation differ from pantheism?
Christ’s body and blood are present in the Sacrament, not “because the believer who receives the sacrament has faith that God can be present…”, but rather because Christ’s Word says they are present.
Consubstantiation actually predates any existence of Lutheranism. Consubstantiation is a doctrine of the Godhead adopted under the Arian heresy, and the consubstantiation debate was put to rest at the Council at Nicea AD 325.
The Roman-Catholic Church deliberately, purposefully, and with slander has chosen to misapply and attribute the term consubstantiation to Luther’s teachings; to make him look less Catholic. Which is why no Catholic theologian has ever been able produce a single piece of Lutheran theology that has ever once recognized consubstantiation. Lutheran theology, in keeping with the tradition of the Church, profoundly declares consubstantiation a heretical teaching, and upholds and affirms such ruling under the Council at Nicea AD 325.
It took the Roman-Catholic Council of Trent from 1545 thru 1563 (18-years) to replace the Catholic Catechism with their new Roman Catechism, which finally clarified among other things, the doctrine of transubstantiation.
[21]Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. (Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0192802903), article “Transubstantiation.” and [24]Council of Trent, Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon IIHanover College. Retrieved June 25, 2008.
In 1551, the Council of Trent officially defined[21] that “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”[24]
Transubstantiation. (2008, November 16). New World Encyclopedia, . Retrieved 14:25, August 29, 2014
Lutherans believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord). They place great stress on Jesus’ instructions to “take and eat,” and “take and drink,” holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. However, Luther explicitly rejected transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the sacramental union (not exactly the consubstantiation, as it is often claimed).(a view often called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans)
The Lutheran doctrine is called Sacramental Union. At the consecration the bread and wine become united with the body and blood of Christ so that they, in essence, become one with them, though the natural substances (bread and wine) are not obliterated in the process. Luther used the analogy of a blacksmith’s poker to explain this. When the poker is withdrawn from the fire, both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron yet each continues unchanged.
Consider also that our Lord’s divine nature did not obliterate his human nature. So in the Eucharist the earthly elements are not obliterated by their union with the divine.
The other writer is correct when he says that Consubstantiation is not the correct term for the Lutheran doctrine, and it is not used by Lutheran theologians. That word implies a dual, separate presence of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Sacramental Union affirms the perfect UNION of the sacramental elements with the body and blood of Christ.
I am no theologian, but I think the doctrine of Sacramental Union can be explained by simply replacing two words in Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures of Christ: i.e., “Jesus Christ” with “Sacrament”; and “person” with “substance”:
Chalcedon’s definition of our Lord’s two natures:
Jesus Christ is to be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The “distinction of natures” is “in no way annulled by the union.” “The characteristics of each nature” are to be considered as “preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence.” They are not to be “separated into two persons.”
Sacramental Union in the Eucharist:
The Sacrament is to be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The “distinction of natures” is “in no way annulled by the union.” “The characteristics of each nature” are to be considered as “preserved and coming together to form one substance and subsistence.” They are not to be “separated into two substances.”
Interesting David. However, we, Catholics, preserve the host with great reverence b/c it is Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Tabernacle, consume the Precious Blood, and purify the cups and purificators also with great care and reverence. How do Lutherans deal with drops of Jesus’ blood left in cups and extra pieces of ‘Hosts”?
Charter members of the Altar Guild, care for the Altar and Chancel (liturgical east end) area of the Church. The pastor and associate pastor consecrate and distribute the sacrament. At times, a member of the Board of Elders, may assist clergy in the distribution. Clergy, with the help of Elders, preserve and follow a procedure, prior to the Altar Guild storing away the Sacrament in the Chancel room behind the Altar. The Altar Guild goes to work immediately following the weekly distribution and worship service. The Altar Guild is also responsible for candles: Paschal, Altar, Unity, Advent, Baptismal, and etc… Maintaining the baptismal font is also a function of the Altar Guild.
http://www.cph.org/p-671-the-altar-guild-manual-lutheran-service-book-edition.aspx
Various government departments of health now have imposed standards for storage and testing for stale wafers or soured grape juice. Though grape juice isn’t very popular among Lutherans, some congregations will make it available if a congregational member requests it due to a substance abuse issue.
Nothing is to go to waste, in keeping with the tradition of Jesus feeding the 5,000 in the Gospel of John. Lutherans view the Lord’s Super as though it’s the Tree of Life, as depicted in Genesis 2:9, 3:22 and Revelation 2:7; where God’s Spirit is given in the form of Baptismal regeneration.
But I still have a question. What does the Altar Guild do with the left over Body and Blood of Jesus afterwards?
Good question. I suppose the answer depends in part on the duration of the Presence — whether it ends after the sacramental celebration or remains after it. The Lutheran Confessions do not address this issue, though Luther told a priest who put consecrated hosts back with the unconsecrated hosts to “go to the Zwinglians”.
The early Lutheran liturgies circumvented the problem by directing the celebrant to consecrate only enough elements as would be used for communion that day and if there were any remaining he should consume them after the congregation was dismissed.
I have been in several Lutheran churches where there is a tabernacle for keeping the consecrated hosts, though it is not located on the altar as in Catholic churches but usually on a side wall in the chancel. At the church I attend unused consecrated hosts are kept in a ciborium in a locked cupboard in the sacristy.
Reservation of hosts is one thing, but today some congregations use real bread. No, I’m not talking about Wonder bread, but bread baked specifically for the Eucharist. Reserving this would present problems, for after a few days it would either begin to become moldy, or dry out. I think ELCA has issued guidelines for this but I don’t know what they are. How is this handled in Catholic congregations that use “real” bread?
Bread that is made at the parish must all be consumed immediately after mass.
There is one major problem with this. Because what is the ‘glue’ that held together the divine and human natures of Christ? It was a common subject. So, saying that the in the sacrament, the bread and body of Christ, and the wine and blood of Christ, are united in a ‘chalcedonian’ manner, you would have to say that they have the same subject. That means that you would either have to affirm ‘impanation’ (comparable to the incarnation, carne meaning ‘flesh,’ panis meaning ‘bread’) – that Christ takes upon himself the nature of bread and wine at the consecration – which would mean that we must confess that Christ is now (or at least as long as the sacrament exists) truly God, truly man, truly (many different types of) bread, and truly (many different types of) wine, or you would have to say that there is something or someone outside Christ who is, at least as long as the sacrament exists, the subject of Christ’s body and blood.
I hope you reject both of these.
St. John Damascus:
Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.
Yes, I guess I was a little off in comparing sacramental union to the hypostatic union, but as I said I am no theologian. That aside, it seems to me that Lutheran eucharistic doctrine is similar to Orthodox belief. Both traditions reject transsubstantiation while both affirm that the eucharistic elements are united sacramentally with the body and blood of Christ.
Here are a few paragraphs from the Lutheran/Orthodox international ecumenical dialogue, this from the 2006 statement “The Holy Eucharist in the Life of the Church”:
4. Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. In order to approach that mystery, Orthodox and Lutherans have drawn on their respective theological traditions and developed different insights on what takes place.
a. Lutherans speak about Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist and describe Christ’s body and blood as being “in, with and under” the bread and wine (Formula of Concord, SD 7). By this they mean that the bread and the wine really become the body and blood of Christ, through the Words of Institution and the action of the Holy Spirit. Drawing on patristic sources, Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the elements christologically: “Just as in Christ two distinct, unaltered natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper two essences, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the action of the sacrament, as it was instituted” (SD 7). Lutherans, however, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar).
b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the deified humanity of Christ, but a union with it: “The bread of communion isn’t an ordinary bread, but united with divinity” (John of Damascus). This union amounts to a communication of the deifying properties of the humanity of Christ and of the deifying grace of his divinity to the eucharistic gifts: The bread and the wine are no longer understood with respect to their natural properties but with respect to Christ’s deified human body in which they have been assumed through the action of the Holy Spirit. As in Christology the two natures are united hypostatically, so in the Eucharist Christ’s exalted human body and the “antitypes” (St. Basil, Anaphora) of bread and wine are united sacramentally through the act of the Holy Spirit.
c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.
The full text of the eucharistic statement can be found at: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2006-Lutheran_Orthodox_Dialogue-EN.pdf
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/
Consubstantiation doesn’t exist in Lutheran theology.
Crypto-Calvinist believed in consubstantiation apart from “Luther’s Followers”.
Lutheran theology teaches “sacramental union”, which means the “true” flesh of Christ Jesus and the “true” blood of Christ Jesus are as real as the elements themselves. Most Lutheran theological works use the term “true presence” rather than “real presence”, basically to slightly distinguish it apart from transubstantiation.
False. Martin spoke often of Transubstantiation.
That depends on the timing of his writings.
As a Doctor of Catholicism and Catholic seminarian, Dr. Martin Luther strictly taught Catholic doctrine until he returned to Germany from his pilgrimage to Rome. Returning from his pilgrimage is where you really see him beginning to qualify many doctrines against long held scriptural beliefs and principles. At the time of Saxony’s Electors chartering the Evangelical Church of Deuchland, Dr. Martin Luther’s apologetics rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation, while proclaiming “sacramental union” as the official doctrine that Lutheranism holds to today.
Actually, I believe the latest Lutheran teaching is “If you believe it’s Christ, then it is. If you believe it is just a symbol, then that’s what it is.” Interesting how everything gets changed over time except in the Catholic church when it comes to important things like sacraments. Kevin you are right that transubstantiation is an attempt to explain the mystery of Christ in the Eucharist. It simply means that although to our senses the bread is bread and the wine is wine, it really is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is just applying a name to a truth. The Catholic church does this in a lot of the teachings of the Church. As far as what Luther thought of the Eucharist, even if he did believe the same as Catholics, is only important in that maybe that is why everyone should be Catholic? Especially now, since a lot of the stuff that Luther wasn’t willing to wait for (changes in the Catholic church) being changed are not good arguments any longer.
The first sentence you posted is NOT Orthodox Lutheran doctrine but most likely some unknown atheist trying to smear the Christian Religion which unfortunately is happening more and more each day on line and in the real world
Your first sencence is not Lutheran doctrine. Here’s what the Lutheran catechism says:
292. Do all communicants receive the body and blood in the Sacrament, whether or not they believe?
Answer: Yes, because the Sacrament depends on Christ’s word, not on our faith.
Regarding the Real Presence:
287. What does Christ give us in this sacrament?
Answer: In this sacrament Christ gives us His own true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.
292 – Maybe I failed to get my point across. I understood that some Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation but still take the sacrament and Lutheran doctrine is ok with that. Which it appears by your words it is whether or not they believe it is the true Body and Blood. Should any Christian church be taking it when they do not believe in the Eucharist? I guess what I am stating is that is – hopefully more clearly – that among local (at least) – because it was the Deacon of our local Catholic Church who had taught that this is the thinking (at the time) of (some) Lutheran among us. @lutheran – I don’t think this is dogging on Christianity – we are just having a discussion. Clearing things up in a polite manner.
To all – God Bless
No, Lutherans in general and doctrinally, won’t participate in a different confession of faith such as transubstantiation. As guests to a Latin Mass, Lutherans will only participate so far as approaching the Altar, making the sign of St. Andrew’s cross, and accepting a blessing from the priest.
Likewise, Lutherans welcome any Roman-Catholic to our Altar, who makes the sign of St. Andrew’s cross, to receive a blessing. However, Lutherans won’t allow those who aren’t catechized under the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530 and the 1580 Book of Concord any participation in the distribution of Holy Communion. Lutheran children, likewise, will make the sign of St. Andrew’s cross when approaching the communion rail.
Arminian theologians under the former James Arminian and his Remonstrant adherents in the UK and US, via various forms of Wesleyanism and Methodists, ambushed Roman-Catholic and Lutheran congregations throughout the 1950’s. Confessional Lutheran seminaries and congregations purged and flushed them out of our seminaries and Churches. They were successful in assimilating congregations of the majority: Brethren, Wesleyan, Methodist, Episcopal, and etc… into what is now known as the UMC. They’re often blamed for the outcome of Vatican II, within Roman-Catholicism, and are liable for the Seminex Walkout (Seminary in Exile) within Confessional Lutheranism. The Seminex congregational members, who are typically associated with Scandinavian Arminianism, managed to divide Confessional Lutheranism in half and started their own religion now known as the ELCA. Unlike the close-communion of Confessional Lutherans, the ELCA has an open-communion policy, they ordain homosexuals, and they marry homosexuals as well. Today, the Arminians are converting Roman-Catholics, these Roman-Catholics marry and have children, then these ordained Arminian Roman-Catholics rejoin the Roman-Catholic Church to change it from within. It’s quite possible that Arminian seminaries are ordaining the Roman-Catholic priesthood at a faster pace than the Roman-Catholic seminaries are, in Western Europe and the US. Confessional Lutherans are anticipating another merger, likely between: United Church of Christ (Prussian Union-German Evangelical Synod), ELCA, United Methodist Church (UMC), Presbyterian, and Anglican. Most adherents to the Remonstrance and Arminianism, nowadays, prefer to be known as Charismatics; whose goal it is to implement their Charismatic Church Growth Movement and Prosperity Gospel wherever they infest.
As for the Sacraments, Lutherans remain headstrong in our conviction that the elements of water, bread, and wine remain present throughout baptism and communion. We continue to proclaim sacramental unity between the elements and the “true presence” of God upon these elements once invoked by the Word of God spoken onto them. Lutherans don’t accept the transition (changing from one form to another) of a substantiation (convert into substance); where the 1st substance no longer exits due to it transitioning into a different substance.
Some Lutherans have to move with their jobs and careers in our transient society today, and at times a Confessional Lutheran congregation isn’t practically nearby. Some Confessional Lutherans will typically prefer a Roman-Catholic, Reformed Presbyterian, or Dutch Reformed congregation to that of an ELCA. So, we do sometimes lose congregational members due to the job market. At least they see the value of remaining as faithful to God as possible by whatever means are available through our brothers and sisters in Christ.
catholicsview: I think I see your point now. Yes, there are probably some (Catholics included) who go to communion without fully believing what their church teaches. But it’s not the job of the pastor/priest to judge the faith of every communicant who comes to recieve — that would be an impossible task anyway. In any case think the grace received depends on the disposition of the person receiving the sacrament.
A few quotes from the Lutheran catechism:
299. Why is it important to receive the Sacrament worthily?
It is very important because St. Paul clearly teaches: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before He eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself’ (1 Cor. 11:27-29).
301. When do we receive the Sacrament worthily?
We receive it worthily when we have faith in Christ and His words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
303. How are we to examine ourselves before receiving the Sacrament?
We are to examine ourselves to see whether
A. we are sorry for our sins;
B. we believe in our Savior Jesus Christ and in His words in the Sacrament;
C. we plan, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to change our sinful lives.
304. May those who are weak in faith come to the Lord’s Table?
Yes, for Christ instituted the Sacrament for the very purpose of strengthening and increasing our faith.
305. Who must not be given the Sacrament?
The Sacrament must not be given to the following:
A. Those who are openly ungodly and unrepentant…
B. Those who are unforgiving, refusing to be reconciled…
C. Those of a different confession of faith…
[This is from the LCMS catechism. They are more strict about refusing communion to people from other denominations. ELCA admits all baptized Christians who believe in Real Presence]
D. Those who are unable to examine themselves, such as infants, people who have not received proper instruction, or the unconscious.
Sorry, Catholicview, you are wrong believing there is no change Roman doctrine concerning sacraments. The Roman Church changed a lot about the sacraments and itnroduce new ones. Around the year 1000 they started to withhold the wine from believers AGAINST Christ’s explicit words: «Drink from it, all of you;” (Mt 26:27) or according to Luke: Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, «Take this and divide it among yourselves;
They also introduced celibacy for priests around that time, because the priests’ wives became a strong influence “undermining” the mind-control of the hierarchy. To increase their power they just forced many good people (priests and their partners) into “out of Wedlock” relationships and they still reap the consequences because the priesthood became a magnet for pedophiles and homosexuals. Even the first pope (Peter) was married (Jesus healed his mother in law). Then the Roman church made the priesthood a elective sacrament.
The Roman Church changed this about the sacrament for one reason: Save MONEY on the wine. But hey, you cannot serve two masters at the same time, God and the mammon. So the Roman Church made its choice and became rich and powerful in THIS world (That was what Satan promised to Christ in the third temptation, only, he was able to resist). This could have been the end of the Christian church if it was a human institution, but Christ promised to protect it and in his good time he called reformers to bring the church back on track. We should praise God for his wisdom daily and thank him for Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Huss, Bucer, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Drevermann (former Roman Catholic Priest and Professor in Paderborn, excommunicated) and the many true believers who listen to God’s Word more than to human tradition and selfelected “authorities”.
Indeed, the Roman church changed doctrine again and again, that is what councils where held for. There is a hole that the new pope will actually pick up on that tradition and reform some of the worst heresies within the Roman Church.
@ David
Thanks for the correction from the Lutheran Catechism. That is identical to Catholic belief. We also believe that the amount of Grace received is dependent upon the individuals disposition.
@Pastor Karsten
I have responded here–> Common Protestant Misunderstandings.
You don’t know as much about Scripture as you think. Guess who were in the Upper Room with Christ? The Twelve. Christ’s words were “explicitly” directly only to the those present with him. There’s no biblical mandate or clear theological reason to give both species of bread and wine to every disciples on all occasions. The doctrine of concomitance (the whole Christ is sacramentally present in either species) has always been the unity of faith for the early Church, Apostolic Fathers, and reiterated dogmatically in the ecumenical councils of Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican II. It is the heretics, schismatics and apostates who openly defy Christ and his Church by preaching a different gospel and spreading errors.
Celibacy is only a discipline of the Western or Latin branch of Catholicism. It is perfectly acceptable to the Latin Rite that those not of the Latin Rite in the Church have married clergy. In fact, there is even a pastoral accommodation for married Latin-Rite priests when married Protestant ministers converted but who also discerned a calling to continue to serve as a part of the ministerial priesthood in the Church. If you only believe in the bible (for Protestants since that’s all you got), you should at least try to understand the higher things like when Paul said: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (1 Cor 7:27-34). Paul concluded that: “He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). Do you have a quarrel with God?
If Protestants are truly bible-only believers, then I suggest that you make at least a good effort in believing what you purport to believe. Believe in the “whole” bible and not just conveniently isolated bits and parts to suit one’s mundane private agenda or lifestyle. In this techno age, there is no excuse to repeat old fables and lies without checking your sources. Slandering Christ’s Church is grave sin against Truth and the Holy Spirit ultimately. And we all know what’s the Unforgivable Sin is …
What the Eucharist was, is now, and forever shall be will always be the same. How it is consecrated (the words) may change over time, that is not what the point was. Bread, wine, those words are only used to describe what our senses can interpret. I don’t think by using those words did it create confusion. More confusing would be to tell a catechist that the bread and wine is gone when they can still clearly taste it as part of their senses. Transubstantiation is hard enough to explain to anyone primarily because our senses argue with it. God Bless.
catholicsview: “Especially now, since a lot of the stuff that Luther wasn’t willing to wait for (changes in the Catholic church) being changed are not good arguments any longer.”
Actually, Luther and Karlstadt, were patiently waiting; Pope Leo X is the one who got anxious to crush any and all debate, rather than working with Catholic theologians and professors running the monasteries and seminaries; Leo excommunicated them in 1521.
Martin Luther held a Doctorate in Catholicism: The Sentences; while Karlstadt held three Doctorates in Catholicism: The Sentences, Hebrew, and Canon Law. Philipp Schwarzerd Melanchthon holds a Masters in classical Greek, otherwise known as Koine, the native tongue of the Septuagint. All three we held in high esteem and were very well regarded as preeminent authorities within the Order of Saint Augustine of Hippo.
Pope Leo X simply used the Catholic Reformation to his advantage as a political distraction, by calling it a Protestant Reformation, which technically began seven months before Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses.
Pope Leo X’s bull issued, 16 March 1517, Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges issued a violation of the Catholic Church by suppressing canon law: the Haec Sancta: Decree of the Council of Constance, 1415; the Papal Privilege Document by Pope Honorius III on September 1.1221; and Pope Innocent III’s papal bull “Sacrosancta Romana ecclesia” issued on February 19, 1199. The Sacrosancta Conciliarism is a long held tradition of the Catholic Church fathers who honorably served under their Council of Bishops. Pope Leo X’s abolition of conciliarism reversed the role of the papacy to serve its Council; but rather to now have the Council serve the Papacy. Pope Leo X’s act of “protest” against well established Catholic tradition is what sparked unrest among the ranks of Catholic clergy, and Martin Luther’s 95 Theses are reactive, not proactive. The painful truth is that the Roman-Catholic Church is the instigator, initiator, and source of Protestantism who spawned an endless cycle of denominational remnants of loose catholicism. If Luther hadn’t been excommunicated, he likely would have been able to stop much of the bleeding of the Catholic Church from being such a loss to the heresies of individual interpretation that we see today.
All Catholics should recognize the error in this question at first glance.
Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?
Catholics know Christ’s body and blood are not in the bread and wine. After valid consecration there is no wine or bread present, to say otherwise is a false doctrine and heresy. This question should be reworded so not to harm some less schooled or weak in faith Catholic. For clarity it should read;
Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist?
In response to Joseph Bellington, wow my friend, You need to go back and search scripture, epsecially 1 Cor 11: 27-29 where Paul speaks of the real Presence of the Eucharist, and those who eat it in sin make a judgment upon themselves…if its not his body they why would we be symbolically eating a judgment upon ourselves. Also John Ch. 6….Classic…Jesus says at least 3 times…this is my “BODY”..he does not say…Um this is a symbol of my body …..also his Disciples leave him after this happens….he dosnt stop them. He also says to his Twelve “will you leave me too”? Never does he retort and say..ok now that they are gone I was only being symbolic. read up my friend and learn the scriptures, dont try to re-invent the wheel. The early Church Fathers already figured this out for us, we are no where near as smart as them and no where near as holy. So lets try to learn from them instead of twist thier words to suit our modern day egos and agendas. By leading others astray you will be liable. God Bless
So Paul was a heretic, since he said after consecration: “As often as you eat of this bread and drink form this wine you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In actual fact, the RC is theheretic, since theychanged important doctrines in the first 13 hundred years of the church, mainly after the Constantin. It was when Christiaity became state religion and many unbelievers joined the church, sought power and changed the doctrines. Thank God for Luther and the Reformation
Dear Pastor Karsten,
Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Faith is not one of dichotomies, either this OR that but it is a faith of Both/And. So Paul was speaking of two facets of the Eucharist. It is not either the Real Presence of Jesus Christ OR a proclamation of His death…It is Both!.
You have asserted heresy and changing of doctrines but offer no example. What doctrine did the Catholic Church change…ever?
May I remind you that slander is a sin.
LOve your enemy , you might even have to die for them for you to get into hevean
Philipp Melanchthon was a co-author of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530, with Luther, and the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire over Saxony. This document created the Evangelical Church of Germany and the charter was legally recognized by Emperor Charles V.
Philipp Melanchthon schism from Luther’s teachings in 1540, and negotiated with Calvin to bring Calvini’s Reformed Church and Luther’s Evangelical Church congregations together. They compromised between one another, and Philipp Melanchthon co-authored with John Calvin the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540. It’s here that we see consubstantiation attributed to Philipp Melanchthon’s followers in the Evangelical Church, which became known as Crypto-Calvinist or Phillippist. (UCC) United Church of Christ (formerly, Prussian Union – German Evangelical Synod) and the Dutch Reformed are semi-confessional to this version of the text, in that they have additional Reformed Confessions in acceptance as well.
Philipp Melanchthon again co-authored the Re-Altered Augsburg Confession of 1542, which was co-signed by the Roman Catholic Church to begin incorporating Crypto-Calvinist (Phillippist) back into the Roman-Catholic Church. A partial truce was understood between the two theologies, as the Phillippist gave-up some ground on works righteousness to Roman-Catholics, while Roman-Catholics entertained a greater role in imputed faith. The (ELCA) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is confessional to this document.
Doctor Martin Luther died in 1546 as the Synodical leader of the Evangelical Church of Germany. “Luther’s Followers” in 1580 established a new charter within the Saxon government, creating the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany. This congregation was built on the doctrines established under the Formula of Concord and the original text of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530. The (SELK), (SELC), (ELS), (WELS), and (LCMS) are currently confessional to the 1530 text. These Lutherans define the Sacraments of water in Baptism and bread & wine in Holy Communion to be in “sacramental union” with the “true” presence of God in with and under the elements.
Now, just think of how many Catholics, Lutherans and Protestants, what they call it, taking first communion. And they call that “Holy Eucharist,” which means, a Latin word, “Holy Ghost.” What is god? “That little piece of bread.” That little piece of bread, round, made like the sun-god that they worship, laying on the altar where the mice and roaches pack around, overnight. That’s not God. I’ll tell you that now. “First communion, confirmed to the church.” Nonsense.
Instead of making the single bread from wheat, the catholic organization replaced pieces of a round unleavened wafer.
But that’s what they did. It took away the Spirit and give them a pieces of a thin, round unleavened wafer. some pieces of unleavened wafer that some priest made, or some nun made. That’s what they did. THAT’S EXACTLY UNBIBLICAL. Go, ask now. looking back in history, and see if it isn’t right.
Don’t the bible say, FOR WE BEING MANY ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY: FOR WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD.
1 CORINTHIANS-10:17
The Catholic unleavened Host and wafers used for the communion is called PAGANISM or PAGAN WORSHIP.
Now, if Baal is a round god. Now, catch this word by word, and you’ll get the rest ending of this message. That God was a round god, a sun god. They had great big brass plates that would reflect the sun and look like fire. And then the bread that Jeremiah said here that they. The women would bake these cakes unto Baal, that it was made round like the sun. Well, then it was laid upon the altar, the pagan altar for the communion, and made round like the sun or like the moon, because it was the sun god or the moon god.
INSTEAD OF A BROKEN PARCEL LIKE THE BODY OF CHRIST, THEY WOULD MAKE IT ROUND LIKE THE SUN OR LIKE THE MOON.
Now, the Roman priest. Then they adopted this by taking and making the communion. The first thing come up was making the communion. INSTEAD OF A BROKEN PARCEL LIKE THE BODY OF CHRIST, THEY WOULD MAKE IT ROUND WAFER’S LIKE THE SUN OR LIKE THE MOON. And to this day, it’s still round. Sure. It’s still a round wafer and not a broken piece of His body. It’s round and smooth. Roman priests today lay this round wafer on the altar and call it the literal body of Christ.
Now, there’s a great stand-back between some of the high Episcopalians and so forth and the Catholic church, is upon that subject, WHETHER IT IS THE LITERAL BODY OR IT REPRESENTS THE BODY. The Roman Catholic says it is the literal body, because that was the literal body of Baal the sun god that reflected himself on that piece of brass and made it round. No Christian table has round bread on it.
How that this little round wafer is the literal body of christ?
Now, the Catholic church, Lutherans and Protestants believes that. Did you ever notice, in passing a church, they cross themselves, tip their hats, and so forth? It isn’t the church, it’s that wafer in there, “that body that the priest has turned from a wafer to the literal body of Christ,” where the rats and mice could pack it away. Why, you don’t, can’t think of civil thinking and think that a piece of bread would be a body of the Lord Jesus! It cannot be.
THE REAL COMMUNION IS THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING BACK.
Commune is “to talk to, commune with, something that you can speak to and it’ll speak back to you.” That’s communing. A wafer cannot speak back. So, really, the real communion is the Holy Spirit speaking back. When you ask Him, then He speaks back, that is correct communion. This is a memorial, to take of his crucifixion and His resurrection, and not a communion. We call it that, but it isn’t.
This is the true meaning of Lord’s supper?
See, Christ. God is a Spirit. Christ means “the anointed one, a man anointed with God,” which made Him the Christ. Now, Christ said, “I am Food and Drink.” Not a wafer, not a wafer that we take here. That isn’t Christ. The wine that we drink at the altar, is not Christ. It represents Him, in a figurative way. But Christ is the Holy Spirit, the anointing that’s upon the Church, that is the Meat and the Drink. , I do believe that communion (what we call “communion,” now) is “the Lord’s supper.”
APOSTLE PAUL’S commentary about COMMUNION: That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread, and brake it and give it to the disciples, and said, “TAKE AND EAT, THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.”
Apostle Paul said, “I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, ‘That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread, and brake it and give it to the disciples, and said, “TAKE AND EAT, THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.” For as often as you take this bread, you show forth His death till He comes.'”
Now, “After the same manner also,” 25th verse: After the same manner also he took the cup, and when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me. Remember now! For as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do shew forth the Lord’s death till he comes. (How long? “Until He comes!” See?
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
But it isn’t the lord jesus’ body! It’s only in commemoration of his body.
That has been misrepresented down through the years!
Now, we take, what we call communion, is the bread and the wine. Now, that has been so misrepresented till it’s not even good to speak of it. Oh, how that has been misrepresented down through the years! That is really not communion, that is just keeping a commandment. See? Now, the reason we call it communion, is because it come from the Catholic association of being the “Holy Eucharist, which is literally the body of the Lord Jesus.” But it isn’t the Lord Jesus’ body! It’s only in commemoration of His body.
Dear Joshua,
The priest does not change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. The power of God does that through His priest. If you read John 6 you will see that you and Protestants are not the first to be incredulous about bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. The Jews also were appalled. This was not an idea dreamed up by the Catholic Church. It was God’s idea and only He can make it happen. Jesus tells His disciples over and over and over that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life. You can try to interpret what He said away…but that is what He said.
Yes, it is an idea dreamed up by the Catholic Church. It’s a catholic doctrine. And god never did organize any church in the bible. But after the death of last apostle, the Roman catholic church was the first organised denominational church in the world. Which later adapted all the wrong creeds and doctrines from the nicaea council.
I accept with what the lord Jesus said and what the scriptures say. But I will never accept which comes out of the bible.
You said, it was God’s idea and only He can make it happen. But it’s unscriptural. See? Whatever you say must come out only from the bible.
And don’t try to interpret the word of god. However the churches cannot agree the themself on the interpretation of it. But god does his own interpretating of his own. He gives himself the interpretation of it.
Now, the word of god clearly states that, FOR WE BEING MANY ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY: FOR WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD.
1 CORINTHIANS-10:17
DOES THE WORD OF GOD TELLS US TO PARTAKE WITH PIECES OF A ROUND UNLEAVENED WAFER?
Instead of making and partaking with that single bread from wheat, the catholic organization replaced the host and Pieces of a round unleavened wafer’s? Which is absolutely unscriptural. Anything that comes out of the bible is of the devil.
Please read 1Corinthians 11:25&26:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. How long? “Until He comes!” See
But it isn’t the lord jesus’ body! It’s only in commemoration of his body.
That has been misrepresented down through the years!
Now, the reason we call it communion, is because it come from the Catholic association of being the “Holy Eucharist, which is literally the body of the Lord Jesus.” But it isn’t the body of Lord Jesus. It’s only in commemoration of His body.
And I don’t care how many priests or preachers, or whoever blesses that, it’s still bread and wine. There is no priest as they tell us, that God is obliged to listen to the priest when he turns the communion into the literal body of the Lord Jesus, then the believer takes that, and that is communion. That is wrong.
Now, Jesus said here, as I read, “My body is meat and drink; My Blood, body and Blood is meat and drink.” Now, we want to think of Jesus and associate Him, what He was.
What is His body? What is the body of Christ? It’s the body of believers that’s associated with Him in the Holy Spirit, not an idol, not a piece of bread, but a Spirit that’s in the heart of the believer, and they are associated together, that when man and God can talk to each other, sons and daughters of God.
Mortal man, through the shedding of the Blood bought remission of sin, and this man and this woman, boy or girl that has fellowship with Christ is communing with Him, the body. Communing one with another, the body of Christ, the mythical, spiritual body of Christ, not associated with any kind of an idol, or a bread or a wine, but in a spiritual form.
Now, Christ said, “I am Food and Drink,” not a wafer, not a wafer that we take here. That isn’t Christ. The wine that we drink at the altar is not Christ. It represents Him in a figurative way. But Christ is the Holy Spirit, the Anointing that’s upon the Church; that is the Meat and the Drink. And if any man hungers, let him come to Christ. If any man is thirsty, let him come to Christ; He quenches the thirst. He is the Satisfier of all of our thirst and hunger.
Now, our bodies need food and drink each day to survive, our physical body. If we don’t take food each day and drink, then our body weakens. There’s something in us that we must have food. So if your physical body needs food each day and drink each day to survive, your spiritual body needs spiritual Food and communion with the Lord each day to survive.
But communion, it’s called the Lord’s supper. Now, a lot of people, they want to take it in the morning. It didn’t say in the Bible it was His breakfast. And how these people today, how they can still say “Lord’s supper,” and they cut out supper, and omitted it, and called it dinner, nonsense: It’s supper.
Actually Jesus said, “You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church.” So Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
That’s just a catholic doctrine.
Now the church never was organized, and it never did begin in rome. It began in Jerusalem, on the day of pentecost, and not in nicaea, rome. And, jesus never organized nothing.
The only thing he did, was call. You never, you’re organized to christ: You are born into the kingdom of god.
And i’ve learned my lesson of listening to people who don’t know what they’re talking about. I listen to one person, that’s almighty god. If the church is your ultimate, you don’t give a hoot what anybody says from the bible. That’s your ultimate. Oh, God help this to sink in.
The catholic church says, It was peter they had a rock there, and it still lays under vatican city. They said that was in Jerusalem, or in the Palestine. And they said that was the rock.
The protestant church says, it was peter who they built the church upon. If that’s so, it backslid a few days later. That wasn’t it.
The church was built upon the divine inspiration of god. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (spiritual revelation of the word of god) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..
Many people think that Jesus Christ was an organizer of church, was a great Man with a great mind, and organized churches, knowed how to put them together.
I heard a priest speaking not long ago, said, Jesus Christ organized the first Roman church, and He ought to know how to do it.
We’re just borned a Christian by the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we are Christians by birth. That makes us new creatures. In our old nature we could never be Christians. That’s the reason today we have so many calling themselves Christians, and living any kind of a life. They’ve never experienced that borned again, that something that changes you, that takes the life out, like pulling the blood out of a man that’s got a certain type of blood, and putting another type in him. It’s pulling the old life out of the man, and injecting the Life of Christ in the believer. Then he becomes a new creation. He’s a new creature.
Now, the only way that we’ll ever know and could make all peoples be satisfied. If I’d ask the Pentecostals, What do you think He should be? they’d have Him a Pentecostal. I I’d ask a United Brethren what He should Why, He was a United Brethren. If I’d ask the Methodists, Why He was a Methodist, the Baptists, and so forth.
But now, there’s only one way to satisfy that, and do it Scripturally. Now, we want to always in this platform be exactly with the Scripture. If it isn’t, you’re duty bound to come and correct me.
Brothers and sisters please wake up to what is happening. We should all become increasingly alarmed. It is not my intent to offend the individual by these words, but rather to warn everyone who claims faith in Christ to stay with the Word of god. Amen.
TO ME, GOD’S WORD IS THE ULTIMATE. WHATEVER THAT WORD SAYS, THEN THAT’S RIGHT.
I do not believe that kosher bread should be substituted for a cracker. I believe that it should be a holy unleavened bread, the type of the unleavened bread that was made in Egypt.
And I believe that the Blood should not be grape juice, but it should be wine. Grape juice sours and spoils as it gets old. But wine gets better and stronger as it gets old; it never loses its strength. And the Blood of Christ doesn’t sour and spoil; as it gets older, it gets stronger and better as the days goes by to the believer. And it is a literal wine and bread. Communion bread should be made by people who’s dedicated themselves and consecrated themselves to God.
IT MUST BE “OPEN COMMUNION”
It is not a closed communion. It is absolutely for every Christian believer.
You don’t take the Lord’s supper by a tradition. You take it because it’s the love of God in your heart, in keeping the commandments of God. See? That’s what you take it for. So if you don’t take it in sincerity, just it’s a tradition, “Well, our church observes communion once every Sunday, or once every month, or twice a year,” and you go up, say, “Well, it’s my time,” and then take the communion, why, it’s a stink to God. See? That’s just a tradition.
Even like anything else, you’ve got to be sincere. God wants the depths of your heart. You remember, the very God that brought you here on earth is the One you’re serving. See? You’re doing this because He said so, because it’s His order.
Then we want to come up with deepness and sincerity, knowing that by God’s grace that we have been saved. And we love Him and we feel His Presence, and we see It change our lives. Our whole being is changed. We’re different people. We don’t live like we used to; we don’t think like we used to.
We must take the communion. Not the communion; you commune as you eat with one another. Just commune with God. The communion is not the bread, not the wine; the communion is talking back and forth with God. This is a symbol that we take, that we believe in His death, broken body, His burial and resurrection; we believe in the Presence of the Holy Spirit.
And we believe that He has give us Eternal Life; and we cannot die; we have passed from death unto Life. And someday when we separate from one another here, we’ll rise again in the resurrection with each other, joined together with Christ Jesus as a Body. Amen.
The bread used by the Catholic Church is flour and water only. Unleavened. We only use grape wine also. Closed communion is to protect non Catholics since we know that St. Paul said, in
I Corinthians
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the BODY eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Now, our eternal destination is not altogether determined by what we see and what we hear, but it’s determined on what discernment we have of what we see and what we hear.
Paul was not disputing with them for taking the communion. Their act was right, but their discernment was wrong. For taking the Lord’s Supper is the commandment of the Lord, but to take it unworthily, not discerning the Lord’s Body, is where the wrong lays.
“These little parcels that is kosher bread made without lard, seasoning, and so forth, which represents the body of the Lord is not round; it’s broke in all pieces. It’s because that it means His broken body that was broke for us. And may God grant His blessings to everyone that eats it. Now, it is not the body; it only represents the body. I have no power, no one else does, to make it anything but bread. God alone. And that’s what He told us, to eat this bread and drink this cup of wine.
“If feetwashing wasn’t in the Bible, I wouldn’t preach it. But the Bible said, “Happy are ye if you know these things and do them.” And I’ve told the gospel Truth. Amen.
[…] but this has been taught consistently by all Christians up until the Protestant Revolution- even Martin Luther himself, the founder of the Revolution, emphasized that Christ was truly present …, saying that is was so clear from Scripture and the writings of the saints that it could not be […]
[…] and Christ is the Eucharist. It is clear as day in Sacred Scripture. Even the demon possessed Luther understood this as well as the Church […]
[…] “Martin Luther on the Real Presence.” Bread From Heaven. 13 May 2011. Accessed 14 February 2017. https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/ […]
You are not citing it in context. Luther did not believe in transubstantiation. That is a major difference between Protestantsvand Catholics. Luther believed in eight different aspects of the Lords Supper which is reflective of the ceremony and which is to be done in remembrance of What Jesus did on the cross, burial and resurrection of our Lord. Luther argues in your cited text that when the Lord’s Supper is done Jesus is correctly represented and this “thanksgiving” is wonderful. However, unlike the Catholics, Jesus doesn’t come down into the cookie or the wine and this transubstantiation is a crucifixion of Christ over and again.
[…] And Martin Luther said the following about the Eucharist (taken from Bread From Heaven : https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/) Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever […]
Interesting discussion and one I believe God smiles over when we are truly seeking HIM and the Truth. If we want to “tickle our ears” and promote our own agenda that place us on the throne rather than loving HIS WORD and TRUTH then we are truly deceived and will be given a major delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11). I believe that Jesus was not mincing words when HE said, “Take and eat my body and drink my blood.” (Confirmed in ALL 4 Gospels Accounts). Man can think and explain this away all day, in the end all that will matter is did we follow Jesus’ command to eat and drink in HIS memory until HE comes again.