XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper

You may also like...

100 Responses

  1. “The Wicked” – So, pretty much just ODM’s and CC pastors 🙂

    Seriously though, at my church the prerequisite is baptism, though there is no examination or anything to hinder anyone from sneaking through.

  2. Patrick Kyle says:

    I do not understand the Scriptural grounds on which we can confidently say that the unbelievers do not receive the body and blood of Christ. Why then are they judged in the eating and drinking if they only receive bread and wine?

  3. I agree with Patrick Kyle.

  4. Papias says:

    Certainly, unbelievers can take the elements of communion, but if they do they do it in unbelief. They take bread and wine without any regard for the meaning. To them, its just a snack. Perhaps they are doing it in church with the thought that they should take elements because everyone else is doing it, but they would be mistaken.

    But who can tell if a person is an unbeliever, unless you have a closed communion, which I disagree with.

    Believers taking communion unworthily is what Paul is talking about in Corinthians – not unbelivers.

  5. Xenia says:

    You will not be surprised to hear that my Church has rules for who should and should not receive the Holy Mysteries (as we call communion.)

    1. Must be a baptized Orthodox Christian.
    2. Must have been to confession within the past few days, preferably the Saturday night before at the vigil service.
    3. Must fast from all food and drink from the midnight before. (This means no morning coffee!)

    Confession prior to receiving helps sort out the issue of wickedness. If you’ve done something wicked, you have the opportunity to confess it to the Lord beyond a simple “Sorry, Lord!” before partaking.

    This probably sounds pretty legalistic to many of you but it has really been beneficial to me.

  6. Babylon's Dread says:

    This discussion is just going to trouble me and make me run for my life.

  7. Papias says:

    Kinda waiting for Dread to let us know why he is feeling troubled over this thread. 🙂

  8. I think it’s the old English – Babs is from Mississippi, they barely speak American English. 😉

  9. Patrick says:

    I think the Apostle Paul kind of refutes this, ” Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 11:27

    It seems pretty clear to me, but that verse also led me to further embrace Lutheranism, so…

  10. Alex says:

    It’s a coin toss. The bible seems to support a broad range of Positions on this subject. All Groups can pretty much claim the same Scripture and say it means what they say it means with regards to this issue.

  11. Alex,
    I know you will dance around, but can you show me the verse that denies, “this is my body and this is my blood?”

    Not one of your “other” supposed contradictions – but this one in particular.

    It seems to me that the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor missed a grand opportunity to deny this reality – when he was talking about partaking in the body and the blood, he could have added “as we know, Jesus did not mean his “real” body and blood”

    I have heard pastor say that – does yours?

  12. Alex says:

    MLD the bible also explicitly says that “no one has seen God at any time” and then it says a bunch of folks have seen God and Jesus says, “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father” etc.

    The Qualifications don’t mean what they say for today.

    Women covering their heads? That was cultural, not for today.

    Jesus of the OT as YHWH/Jehovah who killed all His enemies with the sword and ordered the deaths of women and children and drowned women and children and told Samuel to hack Agag to pieces with a sword and the Jesus of Revelation who cuts HIs enemies to pieces with a sword until the blood is bridle high…vs. the Gahndi Jesus of the New Testament who says “forgive” and “love” and “forgive w/o precondition” and to “turn the other cheek” etc.

    There’s so much much more.

    I’d say that just b/c the bible seems to say “this is my body, this is my blood” that it is anthropomorphic or metaphor or allegory, just like when Genesis says God (as Jesus, you said it’s Jesus in the Garden) “walked” before He had human legs, and just as it said a “snake” “talked” to Eve, etc, I would assert that it might be literal and it might be metaphor and it might be that someone made it up. Who knows for sure.

  13. Was that a Samba or just a bad break dance?

  14. Alex says:

    …I can tell you with all certainty, that here on this planet, the juice and cracker doesn’t literally turn into flesh and blood. Some folks have tested that out and shown that to be true.

    Now if it somehow turns to “literal” flesh and blood in another dimension, then maybe, but you’d have to open the door to that dimension and show me. Right now, I think if it’s true, it’s probably a metaphor that holds some sort of spiritual importance and is more to “remember” Jesus as the text also says.

  15. Alex says:

    But, MLD, if you believe you are “literally” drinking the plasma and homoglobin etc from Jesus’s human veins and dining on His literal human fat, muscle, and soft tissue, then have at it. I think it’s metaphorical and reverse-anthropomorphic and imparts some sort of spiritual truth as an act of remembrance and a time of reflection on personal sin and then the payment on the Cross for that sin.

    But, knock yourself out.

    I take Communion, and I simply ask God (if He’s real) to have mercy on me a sinner and I appeal to Jesus as the payment for the terms of the Eternal Contract, so as to avoid (hopefully) God’s blood justice Wrath where you say he’ll burn me forever and ever with no end in hell.

  16. Alex says:

    MLD, you state that the Sacraments is some sort of “literal” miracle.

    If so, why don’t they turn into literal blood and flesh when we ingest them?

    When Jesus “turned the water into wine”…was it “literal” wine? Or did folks drink the water and Jesus then told them it was really wine they just drank, even though it tasted and looked just like water?

  17. Alex says:

    Literal Miracle Assumed: Jesus turns water into wine. The water literally turns into win in this dimension, folks drink it, it tastes like wine and it has the effects of wine when they ingest it.

    Metaphor: Jesus says the wine and bread is His flesh and blood. The disciples eat it, it doesn’t literally turn into blood and flesh. It is symbolic.

    Can’t have it both ways…well, you can, but it’s inconsistent and makes no sense.

    Now the ‘act’ may have spiritual significance in “obedience” to observing Jesus through a metaphorical exercise in remembrance, but to call it a literal miracle, when none is verified like what we assume with Jesus really healing folks and really turning water in literal wine etc is probably not true.

  18. Bob says:


    I neither agree nor dis-agree with you, but I ask YOU the question, “why do you keep at it?”

    You need to let it go and I would say you need to find something you believe in beyond making your parents grovel and ask for forgiveness. My guess is they won’t and CC won’t, so if this stuff brings passion to your blood I would say you’re wasting a lot of effort.

    I want to live life and yes Jesus leads me to life every day. Corny, but it works and gets me through all this junk, including this stuff on communion.

    Oh and faith is only as good as the object in which you place it on and if you don’t believe God is the creator of all and “real.” then maybe you don’t have faith in God at all.

    Many people put their faith in enjoying themselves, raising a family, chasing skirts, buying toys, their jobs, Budha, Krishna, so pick something which works for you.

    Believing in this way, “I take Communion, and I simply ask God (if He’s real) to have mercy on me a sinner and I appeal to Jesus as the payment for the terms of the Eternal Contract, so as to avoid (hopefully) God’s blood justice…” is pointless.

    You can’t buy fire insurance from God.

  19. Alex says:

    That would be a cool trick.

    I could say I just did a “literal miracle” about anything and then show no proof of it here in this existence.

    I could say that I just miracled my computer into a pile of cash. Then I could take my computer to the local band and tell them, “this is really a pile of cash, even though it still looks like a computer. Please deposit one million dollars into my account”.

    If you assume the miracles of Jesus are literal manifestations in this dimension, then you would expect the physical miracles of Jesus to be manifested in the same way.

    Jesus clearly used metaphor or the wine and bread would have turned into His blood and flesh when they ingested it.

    The only other explanation is that literal miracles ceased after a period of time and the disciples were tasting flesh and blood as they ingested the sacraments.

    If it is some sort of spiritual miracle that has no literal manifestation in this dimension, then that is exactly what is being argued by those who say it’s metaphorical.

  20. Alex says:

    Bob asked, ““why do you keep at it?””

    Because it might be that God exists and it might be that Jesus is the only payment for the Eternal Contract. I have always believed that to be true in some form (though my doubt ebbs and flows in one direction or the other).

    If it is true, the Sacraments are time to remember Jesus’s work on the Cross and a time of self-reflection and it seems to be one of the requirements owed to an angry God to get the free-pass out of eternal torment forever and forever.

    I have never tasted blood when I’ve partaken. I don’t know what human flesh tastes like, so I can’t comment on that part.

  21. “If so, why don’t they turn into literal blood and flesh when we ingest them?”

    We do consume the literal body and blood – how and if it turns into them is a mystery I cannot answer. What I can’t answer, I confess as revealed truth in the Bible. It’s as far as a Lutheran can go.

    But you didn’t show the contradiction in the verse – you just waved you hand and pretended it went away.

  22. Alex says:

    Bob said, “You can’t buy fire insurance from God.”

    Can you flesh this out for me. I’ve heard that before, but there seems to be a check-list of “must haves” or you’re not in.

    Bob, why do you believe you are saved? Tell me, how can I be sure I’m saved, too?

  23. Alex says:

    MLD appeals to “mystery” right on cue. Yes, lots of “mystery” to fill in the gaps when needed, yet no mystery when someone asks questions, then it’s 100% certain.

  24. Patrick says:

    Just for the sake of argument, if the body and blood are “symbolic” only, why would the Holy Spirit through Paul say that people are guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ and not guilty concerning a symbol of the body and blood of Christ.

    While this is only one verse, it upholds our Lord’s words of institution thus Paul begins this section of 1 Corinthians 11 speeding about that very night on which it was instituted.

    I would appreciate if we could just deal with the text I quoted and not needlessly attack one another.

  25. Alex says:

    MLD, the verse is explicit, agreed. It says you drink Jesus’s literal flesh and blood.

    Other verses say Jesus turned water into wine.

  26. Alex says:

    Was it “mystery” wine? Or literal wine?

  27. Alex says:

    Patrick said, “Just for the sake of argument, if the body and blood are “symbolic” only, why would the Holy Spirit through Paul say that people are guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ and not guilty concerning a symbol of the body and blood of Christ.”

    I would say it’s a mystery. 🙂

  28. Alex says:

    Symbolism seems to be supported by the fact the stuff doesn’t miracle into blood and flesh whereas, consistently throughout the rest of Scripture, it is assumed that “miracles” that pertain to actual substances and things here on earth in this dimension “literally” change form or are healed etc etc.

    Or, it could open the door that other “miracles” were not literal, but in the spiritual realm.

  29. Patrick says:

    Ugh. I meant “speaking” not “speeding”

  30. Alex says:

    It would call into question Jesus’s “literal” resurrection in the literal flesh. It would call into question the water literally turning into wine, lepers literally being healed of their leprosy etc etc.

  31. Alex says:

    Put on the armor of God Patrick. Take up the Sword of truth. Pick up the Cross and follow Jesus.

    When Jesus said to “pick up the Cross”…do you have a literal Cross you pick up Patrick? I don’t. Maybe I should make one.

  32. Alex says:

    Patrick said, “why would the Holy Spirit through Paul say that people are guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ”

    B/c the metaphor is implied as the proof of metaphor is self-evident in that Jesus did not perform a literal miracle when the disciples ate and drank the bread and wine or they would have spit out the flesh and blood.

  33. Patrick says:


    Do you have Scripture that says it isn’t the body and blood of Christ? The burden of proof falls on the one making the opposite statement of what is clearly spoken.

    As to the literal miracles etc., we don’t have a word that says those things didn’t literally happen so we should believe that they did.

    It is clear that there are multiple genres and literary styles used in Scripture. So the interpretation of one passage may be literal while another may be hyperbolic or metaphoric.

    A child reading St. Paul’s words could see that he is saying it is the body and blood of Christ. The how of it is not my concern, believing his words is and I cannot do that apart from the Holy Spirit.

  34. “Was it “mystery” wine? Or literal wine?”

    No, it was literal wine – the mystery is how it happened – the same with the body & blood.

    See, this isn’t hard at all.

  35. Bob says:


    You’ll probably go on and on about this and I think you are ignoring my suggestion about finding something you can have faith in.

    You said, “Bob, why do you believe you are saved? Tell me, how can I be sure I’m saved, too?”

    Here’s what I found scripture says:

    Paul argued it in Romans 1.

    The author of Hebrews said this:

    “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible”.

    The understanding of Abraham’s faith is it was like a child who puts his or her entire trust in their parent for their life. Abraham received God’s righteousness and not his own because of his faith in God’s provision for life.

    It all comes down to the repeated topic through scripture, there is just one God who created all and is over all. He is the object of my faith.

    Now this Jesus stuff:

    Many people believe in God, and that is good, but what defines Christian faith from all others is faith that God planned, sent, and rose from the dead Jesus (you know what His name means in Hebrew) and this Jesus is Messiah, God’s anointed one.

    Now how does one get this faith? Ya got to believe the story, from creation to resurrection as it is spelled out in scriptures.

    Does one need to know the details of creation, the essence of God, Jesus or even the “mystery” of communion? Nope, just a full fledged trust God has it under control and will provide life like a good parent does.

    Do you have to believe in hell, as you so often express doubt over? In my opinion no, because it is about life and signing a contact to avoid hell but not living a life with God is pointless.

    You asked am I saved? I trust in God and the finished work of Jesus the Messiah (Christ for Greek scholars) and that means life to me.

    If you don’t care for a life walk with the God of creation and Jesus the Messiah go somewhere else.

    Sorry if I rambled and please don’t barrage me with your weird stuff, just make a decision and live it.

  36. Alex says:

    MLD, except the water was transformed into literal wine when Jesus stated such, yet in your example, Jesus told the disciples it was blood and flesh, but it didn’t transform, which indicates metaphor instead of literal miracle.

  37. Alex says:

    Bob said, “Ya got to believe the story, from creation to resurrection as it is spelled out in scriptures.”

    So, if one disbelieves any part of the story from ‘creation to resurrection’ as it is “spelled out in scriptures’…they’re hell fodder?

    OK. Now there’s a ton of stuff from ‘creation to resurrection” in there. Lots of issues. Can you tell me the “100% correct” belief I need to have on each and every issue in there so I can avoid hell?

    The bible states in the OT that Moses saw God, Jacob saw God, Adam and Eve saw God. Yet, John in the Gospel says no one has seen God at any time. Jesus says all who have seen Him have seen the Father also.

    What scripture am I to believe on that issue?

  38. Alex says:

    …and if have a wrong belief on that issue, am I hell fodder?

  39. Alex says:

    What if I just believe that God probably exists and that if He does, then Jesus is the Messiah and I beg God for mercy in case it’s true…but I don’t know about all the rest of the stuff. Am I hell fodder?

  40. Alex – OK, you win. Look your unbelief has now closed down 3 straight threads. I don’t want to be a party to this one.

    Go live your life.

  41. Alex says:

    Bob, you said in one breath it’s “faith” and then you said someone had to “believe all the stuff spelled out in scripture from creation to resurrection” which means one has to have a check-list of “correct understanding” of a ton of issues.

    Which is it? Do I need a correct understanding of all the issues or faith in God/Jesus? Both?

  42. Crowned1 says:

    I can’t speak for everyone but when I partake in the Lord’s supper I am consuming saltines & grape juice. I have even helped break apart the saltines and poor the grape juice before…so I can vouch for its authenticity.

    I have also consumed saltines & grape juice in the comforts of my own home. They taste exactly the same and have the safe nutritional value in either location.

    It is not Jesus’ literal flesh and blood. Just as Jesus did not carve Himself up in the upper room and distribute flesh and blood to the Apostles.

    However, when I do partake of the Lord’s supper, I have single mindset focus on remembering the sacrifice of my King. Not because the other days of the year I “forget” His sacrifice…but because communion is a special time to ‘only think about’ His love for us.

  43. Michael says:

    As a Calvinist, we believe that the body and blood are spiritually present in the elements.
    I believe it is a sacrament, a means of grace.
    To be any less wouldn’t make people sick or die from taking it wrongly.

  44. Crowned1 says:

    Michael @ 43

    I am curious…what do Calvinists believe that “spiritually present body & blood” do? Do they have a physical manifestation or is it linked to the soul?

  45. Bob says:


    There ya go the questions about burning in hell and what scripture you have to believe in.

    Let me put it this way, Abraham believed and there wasn’t a scripture in sight yet.

    What do you believe?

    My answer is go somewhere else and place your belief there or just have patience and spend a life learning the scriptures and walking with God. Trust Him with life and not worry about hell.

    Oh and if your entire life is spent trying not to go to hell, well that’s just sad.

    The men you wrote about who “saw” God also walked with Him. Go figure that out. The Jewish term many call “laws or rules,” Halakha means “the way of walking.”

    Find a teacher and walk with Him.

  46. Alex says:

    Bob said, ‘What do you believe?”

    I think God probably exists, and if He does, then Jesus is probably Messiah and I beg God for mercy.

    I don’t know about much of the rest for certain. I know there are a ton of differing opinions on the stuff you said I need to believe from “creation to resurrection”

  47. Alex says:

    Michael said, “To be any less wouldn’t make people sick or die from taking it wrongly.”

    Do you really believe people get sick and die today from taking the sacraments improperly? Who does one take them improperly?

  48. Alex says:

    How, not who.

    I think if people get sick from taking them, it’s b/c they pass the tray around and everyone touches the small crackers and sneezes in the juice.

  49. Michael says:


    There isn’t one answer to that…different traditions are nuanced in their understanding.
    I believe we are spiritually fed by Christ as we feed on Him spiritually.
    I don’t go much farther into the mystery than that…I simply obey and feed my congregation from The Table every week.

  50. Alex says:

    Bob said, “My answer is go somewhere else and place your belief there”

    You go somewhere else, I was here first 😉

  51. Alex says:

    Well, I must be taking it “properly” b/c I haven’t died and haven’t gotten really sick, though I’ve gotten a cold or two.

  52. Alex says:

    …unless getting sick and dying is spiritual and not literal?

  53. Bob says:


    I don’t mean here! (I get your humor, thanks!)

    Alex I hope you get my post. I won’t play along with your scripture chasing and faith questions.

    You sir are a man with a family and children. Lead them by making a decision where you are going and whom you are following.

    Then enjoy the life.

    Michael is more than gracious on letting people rant and rave.
    Thank you sir!

  54. Alex says:

    Bob, I hope the same for you.

  55. Alex says:

    …and I love life. It’s really fun much of the time. Sometimes it sucks, but most of the time it’s great. I have a great life thanks to hard work and perseverance and a great wife and kids.

  56. mrtundraman says:

    “MLD appeals to “mystery” right on cue. Yes, lots of “mystery” to fill in the gaps when needed, yet no mystery when someone asks questions, then it’s 100% certain.”

    Great point, Alex. I am a sacramentalist, but if the memorialist folks were to appeal to mystery we’ll call shenanigans. The point should be fleshed out by us sacramentalists without an appeal to mystery.

  57. Michael says:

    The Lord’s Supper is founded on the sacrificial death of Jesus for others, and the attitude that led him obediently to that death should pervade the Supper for Christians ever after. The way the Corinthians conducted their supper, however, gave witness to a culture of selfishness and status-mongering (Hays 1997: 200). To conduct their supper in this way and to have the temerity to call it the Lord’s Supper can lead only to their condemnation.

    11:27–29 Paul returns to the Corinthian problem at the Lord’s Supper with an oblique warning about those who eat the loaf and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. The adverb ἀναξίως (anaxiōs, unworthily) refers to doing something that does not square with the character or nature of something (cf. Eph. 4:1; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12). To eat the Lord’s Supper in a manner that violates its purpose to proclaim the Lord’s death makes one “liable” (ἔνοχος, enochos) for the death of the Lord. “Liable” is a judicial term (cf. Mark 14:64; 2 Macc. 13:6), which means that the Corinthians are answerable to God, the final judge, for this abuse. They become “responsible for his body and his blood” (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 119–20)—that is, they are chargeable for his death. Paul’s logic is this: The Lord’s Supper proclaims the Lord’s death. Those whose behavior at the Lord’s Supper does not conform to what that death entails effectively shift sides. They leave the Lord’s side and align themselves with the rulers of this present age who crucified the Lord (1 Cor. 2:8; cf. Heb. 6:5). This explains how they make themselves so vulnerable to God’s judgment.
    Paul’s use of paronomasia with words related to judgment is striking and gets lost in translation: κρίμα (krima, 11:29, 34), διακρίνων (diakrinōn, 11:29), διεκρίνομεν (diekrinomen, 11:31), ἐκρινόμεθα (ekrinometha, 11:31), κρινόμενοι (krinomenoi, 11:32), κατακριθῶμεν (katakrithōmen, 11:32). The repetition of these words serves to underscore the judgment theme (see Moule 1956). As Surburg (2000: 212) notes, “Eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood has implications which no other eating and drinking ever does.” They cannot treat this meal as a pleasant gathering of in-group friends (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 115). It is fraught with spiritual peril if they treat the meal or those gathered for it in a cavalier manner. They will incur God’s judgment.
    The divisions in Corinth that Paul mentions in 11:19 reveal a deeper, far more serious divide. The divide is between those who incarnate the cross of Christ with their self-sacrifice and those who put Christ to death again with their self-centered feasting. He insinuates that the Corinthians violate the spirit of the meal, which remembers Christ’s self-sacrifice, by eating it unworthily. Although no one is worthy of the Lord’s Supper, one can eat it worthily. Paul gives three key tests to decide whether one is eating worthily.
    The first test appears in 11:28. All are to examine themselves. All must remember that Christ’s atoning death was necessary because of our sinfulness. Moule (1956: 470) contends that participation in the Lord’s Supper entails anticipation of the Lord’s judgment. Consequently, the Supper is to be eaten in an atmosphere of self-examination. They are to test (δοκιμαζέτω, dokimazetō) their genuineness before God does. Those who may imagine themselves to be the dignitaries and want to make sure that others recognize their higher status should check their pride at the door. They must examine themselves at this meal in light of Christ’s sacrifice for all. The cross offers a different standard for who can claim to be notable. The genuine Christian recognizes that there are no class divisions at the Lord’s table. No one is distinguished at this table except One, but all are honored together as his distinguished guests as the body of Christ. All are blameworthy before God, and yet all are forgiven because the sins of all have been transferred to One.
    Through the negative example of the disciples, the Markan account of the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:17–21) reveals a model of what Paul intends. Before the meal, Jesus announces that one of his disciples will betray him. Each one asks in turn, “It is not I, is it?” Egocentricity, however, oozes from this question. Each focuses on himself and wants only reassurance that he is in the clear. Jesus gives his life for others and laments the miserable fate awaiting the betrayer. The disciples’ response shows that they are concerned only about themselves. Self-examination requires focusing on more than just oneself.
    A second key test is implied in 1 Cor. 11:22, and it concerns how one relates to brothers and sisters in Christ. If one partakes of the Lord’s Supper with indifference to them, it is no longer the Lord’s Supper. To eat the Lord’s Supper worthily, one must recognize that all Christians, rich and poor, are joined together in Christ, share equally in his blessings, and should be treated worthily.
    The third test requires “discerning the body” (11:29). Those who do not discern the body place themselves in dire jeopardy by “eating and drinking condemnation on themselves.” Paul’s meaning is unclear because the verb διακρίνειν (diakrinein) has a wide variety of usages in the NT. It basically means “to differentiate by separating” (BDAG 231) and then “to estimate or judge correctly.” It could refer to distinguishing the holy from the unholy or having the right estimate of Christ’s body. But it can also mean “to recognize” (BDAG 231 lists 11:29 under this meaning). Its use in 11:29 may be a conditional participle equivalent to a conditional clause, “if they fail to discern the body” (Burton 1898: 169; Wallace 1996: 633), or a causal clause, “by not discerning the body.”
    The question is, What is it that the Corinthians do not discern?

    1. A venerable view going back to Justin and Augustine and reflected in some modern commentators (Godet 1887: 167; Weiss 1910: 291; Lietzmann 1949: 59; Héring 1962: 120) thinks that it refers to distinguishing the sacramental presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements from the ordinary bread on the table. But this view takes us wide of the mark of Paul’s concern. He accuses the Corinthians of despising and humiliating their impoverished brothers and sisters at their supper, not profaning the elements.
    2. Another view that has gained ascendancy assumes that Paul refers to the Corinthians’ failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ or Christ’s presence among his people. Referring to the “body” and omitting any reference to the “blood” are taken as clues that he does not have in view the sacramental elements but the church as Christ’s body. The Corinthians would catch this play on words from his assertion in 10:16–17 that sharing in the body of Christ by partaking of the bread means that “we, who are many, are one body” (cf. 12:26–27). The “body” to be discerned, then, is not just the piece of bread on the table but the body at the table (Keck 1982: 63–64). What they were doing accentuated the social and economic differences between the “haves” and the “have-nots” and showed a flagrant disregard for the body. Mistreating fellow members in this way at the Lord’s Supper becomes an offense against Christ. As attractive as this view is, it is difficult to make it fit the basic meaning of the verb διακρίνειν, “to judge rightly.”
    3. Another view asserts that “body” is shorthand for both the body and the blood and refers to the corporeal stuff that one eats and drinks. The meaning of “body” in 11:27, rather than in 10:16–17, should govern its interpretation here. The elements represent the crucified Lord and make this meal holy and different from any other meal. Discerning the body means recognizing this uniqueness and that the elements represent Christ’s death for them (Wolff 1996: 279). A proper understanding of what these elements represent should change the Corinthians’ attitude and behavior toward others. It reminds them of their dependence on Christ and their own interdependence and should cause them to share their own provisions with others at the meal who have little or nothing. Paul is arguing that when they recognize fully the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, remembered in reenacting the Last Supper, they will act compassionately toward their brothers and sisters in Christ. Passakos (1997: 210) claims that the Lord’s Supper becomes “the starting line for the transformation of the relationships and structures in the community.”

    11:30–32 “because of this” (διὰ τοῦτο, dia touto) marks a shift in argument as Paul applies the general truths of 11:27–29 specifically to the situation at Corinth (Surburg 2000: 204). The sick (ἀσθενεῖς, astheneis, literally, “weak”), ill (ἄρρωστοι, arrōstoi), and dying (κοιμῶνται, koimōntai, literally, “asleep”) have been taken by one recent scholar as metaphors for those who are “weak in faith,” “spiritually ill,” and “spiritually asleep” (Schneider 1996). This view might appeal to those who do not like to think that sickness can be directly caused by sin or that the Lord’s Supper might have numinous properties—mishandling it can lead to death. But Paul has in mind real sickness and real death (see Robertson and Plummer 1914: 253), and his words should be taken at face value (Oster 1995: 285). Real suffering in the flesh, not a decay of the spirit, is the divine warning bell that should awaken the Corinthians to the dangers of their practices. Paul probably has heard of these deaths from the same ones who told him of their divisions, and he connects these events to their improper handling of the sacred Lord’s Supper and to God’s judgment (cf. 10:4–5). The view of Ignatius (Eph. 20:2) that the Lord’s Supper is “the medicine of immortality” can be reversed. When misused, it can become a mortal toxin (Lietzmann 1949: 59; cf. the image in 2 Cor. 2:14–16). Its power for wholeness can become a power of destruction (Dunn 1995: 78).
    Paul does not identify who or how many have become sick or have died. The word ἱκανοί (hikanoi) here is often translated as “a number” (NASB) or “some” (NRSV), but it can mean “enough” (cf. 2 Cor. 2:6) in the sense of “quite enough.” This translation conveys Paul’s concern about the situation that he wants to remedy. For his argument to have force as a threat, one would assume that the readers could readily identify those who were sick or have died as guilty of despising and humiliating their brothers and sisters at the Lord’s Supper.

    Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (550–553). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

  58. Michael says:

    There are of course many occasions in ordinary life when doing something makes a powerful statement. A handshake at the end of a business deal. The ‘black power’ salute given by some athletes at the Olympic Games when racial tension was at its height. A president getting out of his formal car and mingling freely with the crowds. We talk these days of actions which ‘send symbolic messages’, and we have come to learn that those messages are often the ones which really count, the ones which tell you what’s really going on, underneath whatever words may or may not be spoken. And at the heart of this passage is Paul’s explanation of the symbolic message that is sent when Christians meet together to eat the bread and drink the cup in obedience to Jesus’ command.
    This is, of course, the earliest written record of what happened on the night Jesus was ‘handed over’ to his death. The gospels were written up later, but they, like Paul, looked back to very early’ traditions’ (verse 23) which the church told and retold as the foundation of their common life. The story of Jesus’ last meal with his followers is simple, but Paul wants to draw a particular lesson from it, which comes in verse 26. When you do this—eating the bread, drinking the cup—you are announcing Jesus’ death to the world. Paul doesn’t mean that the central Christian meal, the eucharist or Lord’s supper, is a good opportunity for preaching about Jesus’ death; that may or may not be the case. He means that when you enact the meal you announce Jesus’ death. Doing it says it.
    Often when Paul states a principle which he’s then going to apply in a particular direction, the principle itself sends off echoes into all kinds of other areas of Christian thinking and living as well, and that is certainly so here. As the following verses make clear, he sees the eucharist not simply as an occasion for Christian devotion and fellowship, but a powerful statement to the world at large, and perhaps particularly to the ‘rulers and authorities’ who put Jesus on the cross, not realizing that this would bring about their own downfall (see 2:7–8; 15:23–28). It is the announcement of Jesus’ death; and through Jesus’ death the powers are defeated, and people who were enslaved to them are rescued. No wonder the interpretation and practice of the eucharist has been so controversial in church history. It’s an action which speaks louder than words. Some have used it as a weapon of power to boost their own prestige. Others have appeared afraid of it, and have downgraded or sidelined it.
    But what Paul is doing is going to the heart of it, to explain why the Corinthians’ shameful practice of allowing the rich/poor divide in society to spill over into church life is totally out of line. He has already said that their divisive meals cannot actually be ‘the meal which relates to the Lord’ (verse 20). Now he explains, reminding them of the traditional story of the Last Supper, that when the meal is celebrated the Lord himself is there, not simply absent, away in the past, or longed for at his coming in the future, but present through this ‘memorial’. The eucharist is the moment at which the past event comes forward to live again in the present, and the future moment of the Lord’s return comes backwards in time to challenge us in the present. That’s the point of verses 27–32. Misbehaving in relation to this meal is misbehaving in relation to the Lord himself.
    This enables Paul to set up a kind of court scene to explain not only why the Corinthians’ way of sharing their common meal is scandalous but how to interpret strange events in the community, including some Christians falling sick and others dying. We may find this strange, but Paul believed passionately that all of life was interlocking, and that individual and social behaviour, belief and practice could and did have results in other areas of human experience, including health.
    This is how the court scene works. There will be a future judgment at which those who refuse the gospel (Paul here calls them ‘the world’ in a negative sense, verse 32b) will be condemned. Part of the strange privilege of being a member of God’s people is to have one’s judgment in advance, as it were, so as not to be judged on the last day. So (verse 32a) when the Lord judges us in the present time the result is discipline: things happen to us which are to be understood as both punishments and warnings. And because the eucharist is a moment in Christian living when the future comes to meet us in the present, this judgment and discipline is brought into focus there, giving us a choice. Either examine and ‘judge’ yourselves, making sure your behaviour is appropriate at this meal, or face the scrutiny and judgment of the Lord himself (verses 27–31).
    In the middle of this passage (verse 29) Paul explains that the way to incur judgment is to eat and drink without ‘discerning the body’. He has already spoken of the church as a single body (10:17), which he is about to explain at length as ‘the Messiah’s body’ (12:12–31). But in chapter 10 this was closely linked to the ‘sharing in the Messiah’s body’ which takes place through the bread of the eucharist. In the present passage, the ‘body’ of the Lord has been spoken of in reference to the bread itself (verses 24, 26, 27). Somehow, for Paul, the two come together, and that’s the point: doing it says it. If, when you break the bread, all share it in the same way, that declares powerfully that you are all one body. If you divide the room, and the guests, into different groups, that powerfully makes the opposite point. The ‘body’ which is to be recognized is both the presence of the Lord in the eucharistic elements and the unity of the church that shares the bread. The two belong together.
    Paul’s closing command therefore goes back to verses 17–18, where the discussion began. When you come together, you should treat all alike as equal guests. (Some translations say ‘wait for each other’, as though the problem was to do with people starting a meal before everyone had arrived, but the word can mean ‘receive or welcome as a guest’, and that makes more sense of the problem Paul has described.) If someone wants a larger meal than can be shared with everyone else, they should eat it at home, not in front of the other Christians who may not be able to afford it. Otherwise the solemn moment when past and future come together in the present may bring judgment, not blessing.
    Paul finishes by saying he will set the other things straight when he arrives. This is tantalizing for us; we wish we could listen in on some of his other instructions as well! But it is also a challenge. Paul has left some things unsaid, but we can be sure he would deal with each problem in the same way, and on the same basis, that he has used for the things he has written about so far. We need to think through other areas of church life and practice, as well as the ones he has dealt with here, with the same shrewd clarity and on the same theological principles.

    Wright, T. (2004). Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (148–152). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

  59. Crowned1,
    Let me see if I got this straight about your view of communion.
    1.) You have a memory problem and cannot remember the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
    2.) You need a memory aid.
    3.) You find that if you eat saltines and drink grape juice that your memory gets better.

    Do I have that right?

  60. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    It’s bread and wine for us physically but I agree with the below

    “we believe that the body and blood are spiritually present in the elements.”

  61. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Hey MLD, What’s wrong with your Dodgers?

  62. SolRod – it’s almost wrist slicing time.

  63. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    reminds me of the 1992 Mets, all that money spent but can’t win for losing. still a long season tho

  64. Crowned1 says:

    Michael @ 49

    Thank you very much for your answer. The Lord has lead me to believe that mysteries are best left mysterious. Though as I work out my own salvation in fear and trembling, I realize that God reaches out to different people in different ways.

    God bless.

  65. Crowned1 says:

    MLD @ 59

    Umm…I never forget Christ’s sacrifice…I thought I made that clear. I’ll re-paste from 42:

    “However, when I do partake of the Lord’s supper, I have single mindset focus on remembering the sacrifice of my King. Not because the other days of the year I “forget” His sacrifice…but because communion is a special time to ‘only think about’ His love for us.”

    Nowhere did I suggest a memory problem. I did suggest a time of reflection though. God bless.

  66. Kathy says:

    Crowned1: don’t let MLD bully you. Your last comment has merit.

    BUT the Lutheran’s belief have merit too.

    Each camp has their go-to verses to support their view.

    I think I’ll follow your cue and leave mysteries mysterious.

    And as Alex says, either way, I’m drinking the juice and eating the crackers. 😀

  67. Crowned1 says:


    P.S. My Anaheim Angels aren’t doing much better *sigh*

  68. Andrew says:

    “As a Calvinist, we believe that the body and blood are spiritually present in the elements.
    I believe it is a sacrament, a means of grace.
    To be any less wouldn’t make people sick or die from taking it wrongly.”

    Luther was accused by some to be guilty of Monophysitism. How could Jesus’ human body be in multiple places at once in the elements. (ubiquitous controversy)

    Calvin was accused by some to be guilty of Nestorianism. How can one separate Christ’s human nature from Christ’s divine nature.

    For me I kind of believe Christ is physically and Spiritually somehow in or around the elements. It does appear Christs glorified body had some interesting qualities such as being able to walk through walls. So I guess I am a bit closer to the Lutheran understanding but not far from the Calvinistic understanding.

  69. Reuben says:

    Speaking of baseball, oh look! Rockies own the NL West, just mopped the floor with the Mets 11-3, and where are the Dodgers? The almighty spend your way into heaven Dodgers?

    Yeah, definitely time for MLD to go stick his head in the sand.

  70. Reuben says:

    Thanks for the commentary, Michael. That was helpful!

  71. Reuben says:

    In fact, the way I see it, the Colorado Rockies are 3rd in all of MLB.

  72. brian says:

    I felt the need to really search myself this evening so I decided to watch several Paul Washer videos on You Tube. I have come to some conclusions.
    1. I am starting to like Paul Washer.
    2. I cant stand Paul Washer.
    3. I admire he stuck with his wife who is sick, knowing so many in my experience that had not, and that speaks louder and more clearer concerning God then any of what he said.
    4. Even though I think his preaching style and theme is a shtick, I think he really believes it so I do admire that consistency.
    5. There is no way I am saved.
    6. There is pretty much no way anyone else is saved either.
    7. He should take a child development class and a biology class just for some basics.
    8. It is good for children to want to touch the shinny watch at times, and it is good for children to say no at times and not trust adults based only on authority claims alone. I dont need to go into why that is true given what we often speak of here do I?
    9. If a person, who has served God their entire adult life, walked with God, read the bible, served, showed continued sanctification and so on suffered a stroke, developed dementia, had an onset of a mental illness, was involved in a traffic accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury, Developed Alzheimer’s, Developed a Brian clot, aneurysm, was assaulted by being shoved down a flight of stairs, was in a car accident, was Accidentally poisoned, suffered oxygen loss, contracted a virus, developed cancer, etc. After said event the person starts to become violent, cusses and blasphemes, is aggressive and suffers thought of sexual desire towards others they are not married to and continues in that sin repentantly is it true that they were or are no longer a Christian?

    10. The bible is very very very clear that Christians will not continue in sin, they will not continue to blaspheme, swear, be violent, have a temper and so on. I have personally seen this four times in my life, three were the person developed dementia or Alzheimer’s in their older years the other one person suffered some type of neurological event. The second question what if a person does not possess the cognitive ability to “understand” the Gospel and continues to sin sexually IE self stimulation (sorry for being insensitive), engage in sexual relations outside of marriage steal, swear, and do other things I cant post. Where they suffered a traumatic event in early childhood or adolescence. The list above has some of the situations that effected some clients I worked with in the past. It is not an exhaustive list. I think stroke was not one of the events for the younger folks I worked with but I knew several people in convalescent hospitals I was apart with and would be told the person changed a great deal after the stroke I.E. became violent, angry, cussed etc. Are any of these people in these situations saved?

    If “we” (that is the collective we of the groups listed above), then why do people call it Good News?

    Thanks sorry about the length.

  73. brian says:

    I hope I did not kill another another thread.

  74. Paul A. Lytton says:


    I personally love to listen to Paul Washer, he pulls no punches. I think that no one really can live up to being worthy of Salvation and that is the main point he tries to make. He is extremely outspoken about living a continued daily life with nothing but being close to Jesus 24/7. Hardly anyone but a monk can do that. That is why I want to hear him go to the extreme of the pendulum. People in general look for the easy way out and want to hear that they are good. But no one is good. We are all dirt. The best we can do is to realize it and know that Jesus is the only human to live and die without one sin; not a single one.

    Everyone falls way short of their best intention to be good. If a person goes to church for two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday they have listened to the message of the word for approximately 3 hours in a week. For the rest of their week they spend 165 hours not focused on Christ. How much can that feed them? Especially if what they hear during 3 of 168 hours per week is geared to making them feel good about themselves.

    I think that there is too much emphasis toward self esteem and not enough towards self examination accompanied with praise to the one that is worthy. Christ deserves to be praised by me whether He accepts me into Heaven or not.

    I hear and read far too many discussions about different opinions of what particular parts of the Bible mean. The entire Bible is about mankind being un-lawful and Christ being lawful. Of course, no one can be like Jesus but what is wrong with us all making an attempt to be as much like Him as we can be? How much better of a world would we live in if everyone was doing that? Besides, I do not care what other people do wrong; I do not want to be like them anyway. Why focus on them when I can focus on Christ?

  75. brian says:

    Paul thank you so much I mean that. I listen to Paul Washer because he makes me angry, he is so sure, confident and it really ticks me off. But he also convicts me of my complacency in my personal life. My issue is the black and white absolutes, given the group of people I have been honored to be involved in, that just cant work. Actually it has no ability what so ever to operate in any cohesive world view, it just cant knowing, what we know about the universe we inhabit. But that is another post. Paul do you want to know what I find more holy and God filled, you answered me, a moment in time blessed by eternity to reach out to a soul (me). I call that holy ground.

    I know this is not your point and I dont do gotcha type posts or at least try not to. I do care about what others think and do, they set policy based on doctrine and it has an effect. An example, global climate change, it is happening, that is a fact, period. We have observational data from several disciplines it is evident in the increase intensity of storms, change in weather patterns and in the melting of the northern glaciers, global temperature maps and so on. In some faith circles these events are denied. I grant what caused the global climate change may not have been caused by our actions alone but it is quite clear we, as a species, played a part. That may sound silly but it is a clear vetting point most conservative evangelical political groups disagree with climate change because it goes against the status Que in their community.

    I know that sounds a bit silly but we live in a world where policy has an effect on people, sometimes very large groups of people. Let me try to wrap this up, Mr. Washer’s world view does not have the ability to deal with mental illness, actual science, physical events that cause people to change such as a brain injury. We do not live in that black and white world, we never have. I dont know how to say it but having been in the grey for so long it is the best I can do. Thank you so much I mean that.

  76. brian says:

    “Why focus on them when I can focus on Christ?”

    I agree, I do focus on the “them” way to much, I think I have been hurt, or have actually been hurt but scripture says love keeps no account of a wrong suffered. Imagine actually being able to do that, I know I have tried but I let that root of bitterness take hold. No I feed the root with a passion. I was wrong in that and I see the error, no massive huge error of my ways. I wanted justice but was not willing to give love. I lacked grace, I wanted to be angry so I looked for every tidbit of evidence that would support my cause. I hold that to no one, but I would be a liar if I said I did not do that. I did, most of it was not totally thought out but it was what I was doing. Just read what I wrote. I offer no illusions about me, I am a desperate sinner wanting to cling to the saving grace of Jesus. Offered for some perspective.

  77. brian says:

    PS I focus on the them also because they have been hurt and wounded and it was wrong and I want them healed.

  78. brian says:

    PSS I think it is time my “voice” fades, I will read daily but I am hoping to not post. This is not an emotional or rhetorical device. I just do not know what I believe, but much of what I post are meme’s. I still believe in God, actually more so then when I first started posting here. But I need to take a huge step back. I cant say how much I love you people even though I do not know you. I have been a pain in the backside. But I do not want to damage another person’s faith and I think that is what I do at times with my rhetoric. Nothing is wrong, I have had a great deal of peace over the last few days about this. Other then the prayer threads I will not be posting but I will be reading. I love the prayer threads and I hope to post there. I think that is the one connection I have. I lost that in all the white noise so I look to get that back.God be with you all. Thanks Michael and others for your kindness. Honesty demands I may post at Alex’s board under my rather hollow pseudonym a few times. I feel tied to Alex for some strange reason, well maybe its because I think I would like to have his strength. Take care all. God be with you.

  79. Paul A. Lytton says:


    In your #76 you stated, “I am a desperate sinner wanting to cling to the saving grace of Jesus”. Amen to that. That is the best we can do. In order to even attempt to obtain the grace of Jesus the very first step is to understand that we are desperate sinners in Father God’s perspective. Jesus, and Him only, has fulfilled the requirement of the Father. Jesus has been given the right to decide who is written in the book of life and it is my understanding that those who accept their payment of sin to be accomplished by Him are those that will be written in that book. I am not referring to those who just say it, but those who truly believe and live it. The true “Good News” is that anyone, be they so called normal or be they brain damaged, can accomplish understanding Christ has done what we cannot and deserves to be praised. It is the so called intelligent people that have a hard time admitting that they are doing wrong; and that in and of itself will be their own damnation. The less we think of ourselves and the more we praise the Messiah the more likely we are to live in His Kingdom. Of course this is only my own opinion but it is the God that I understand.

  80. Alex says:

    Patrick said, “Do you have Scripture that says it isn’t the body and blood of Christ? The burden of proof falls on the one making the opposite statement of what is clearly spoken.

    As to the literal miracles etc., we don’t have a word that says those things didn’t literally happen so we should believe that they did.”

    You answered your own question above.

    Again, the metaphor is self-evident as the bread and wine didn’t literally turn into flesh and blood when the disciples ate and drank it…otherwise, i’m sure the text would have described their disgust and some sort of vomiting etc, unless the disciples enjoyed the taste and became cannibals.

    Metaphor is implied in Scripture wherever a literal transformation in this dimension doesn’t occur.

    Literal Miracle is present when the stuff actually miracles into something else: Water to wine, dead body to alive body, leprosy to no leprosy, sun stops then starts up again, ear gets cut off ear gets put back on, woman has issue of blood woman has no more issue of blood, blind man sees, the loaves of bread and fish literally multiply to feed 5,000, etc etc.

    None of the literal miracles are assumed to be “spiritual” only and not manifested in this realm.

    Metaphor is “pick up your Cross”…we don’t pick up a cross, eat my flesh and drink my blood is symbolic of the act of remembrance of Jesus death and “literal” resurrection, put on the armor of God is not literal armor in this realm, it is spiritual.

    1 Corinthians 10:16 gives us a huge clue:

    Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

    The word for “participation” in Greek is koinónia which means “spiritual fellowship”

    It’s not literal flesh and blood folks, it’s a metaphor. The act has “spiritual” significance much like “putting on the armor of God” and “breaking down strongholds” etc have spiritual significance in the spiritual realm, but not literally manifested here in this realm as blood and flesh.

    Sacramentalists seem to believe it’s a “means of grace” and is “saving” a person, which may be true in some sense as the act does tend to cause one to remember Jesus and does tend to draw one into a time of reflection on the important issue of the death and resurrection of Christ. But, the Sacramentalists oversell the act when they claim in one breath that it is a literal miracle and that the wine is the blood and the cracker is the flesh. It may be so in the metaphorical sense, but the self-evident truth that it didn’t transform when Jesus spoke it to the disciples is all the proof a Memorialist needs to refute the literal transformation.

    The fact from the text is that the disciples didn’t taste flesh and blood, it was not a literal miracle like all the rest of the literal manifestations of miracles we assume Jesus performed in this realm.

  81. “Literal Miracle” – Just the use of this term shows how whacky your thinking is.

    So, are there Miracles that are not “Literal”?? I mean are there Miracle that really did not happen … but we call them Miracles?

    Can you describe a NON Literal Miracle?

  82. What you do is make up new terms as if they are scholarly and then use them as your defense against truth.

    Literal Miracle is the most LOL idiotic thing I have ever heard of.
    “And then Jesus approached the crowds and performed many non literal miracles.”

  83. Alex says:

    Another consideration: if Sacramentalism is “necessary” for salvation, then the Gospel changes. No one pre-Jesus took the sacraments, they are assumed to be saved due to faith. The thief on the cross did not take the sacraments. Moses didn’t take the sacraments, none of the OT prophets took the sacraments, etc etc. yet they are assumed to be in heaven (“in heaven” is another discussion, where is heaven? Literally? Is it out in the known Universe somewhere or is it spiritual?)

    If taking the sacraments is “necessary” for salvation, then something changed from OT to NT in terms of what “saves” a person. If it’s Faith plus something else, then the Sacramentalist position is really a position that asserts that Jesus added some check-list items to salvation in the NT, whereas before it wasn’t required for salvation….just faith.

  84. Alex says:

    MLD: Literal Miracle = manifested in the physical universe

    vs. metaphor to imply a spiritual miracle “take down the strongholds of the devil!” etc that are manifested in the spiritual realm (it is assumed).

    vs. metaphor to imply a spiritual miracle like “pluck out your eye!” where Jesus didn’t want you to literally take a fork in this physical realm and gouge out your eyeball, He was imparting a spiritual truth.

  85. Alex says:

    The fact remains, at no time ever has the bread and wine been changed to literal blood and flesh in this physical universe whereas it is assumed that when Jesus spoke literal miracles that were manifested in this realm, the stuff changed: water to wine, blind to see, leprosy to no leprosy, fish and loaves multiplied, Jesus walked on water, etc.

    The fact remains that while the sacraments may have spiritual significance they don’t change to blood and flesh in this physical universe and are metaphor that has spiritual significance.

    If the taking of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation, then it is Faith plus an act of faith that is required, and you added stuff to the Gospel that doesn’t seem required by others pre-Sacraments….

    …unless the Faith by those pre-Sacraments was ‘demonstrated’ through other actions. Then you may have an argument.

    Then it would be Faith plus Works (Faith demonstrated through acts that validate the faith).

  86. Alex says:

    MLD, do you seriously not see a distinction between literal miracles defined as manifestations of supernatural phenomena that violates natural physical law of this universe vs. some spiritual miracle that doesn’t manifest physically in this universe?

    Gnostics believe that all the miracles are metaphor and spiritual in nature and didn’t literally occur in this physical dimension.

  87. Alex says:

    Again, it’s self-evident that Sacraments are a gnosis-type miracle vs. a literal physical transformation of cracker and juice to flesh and blood in this physical universe, or you’d taste blood and flesh.

  88. Now you are doing what you always do – you pay absolutely no attention to what you have been told in the past and you keep ‘hollerin’ your position. So, listen closely..

    The Lutheran position is that of Real Presence – that the body and blood are really present in the communion. Because we are honest enough to say we do not know who it happens, we use the term “in, with and under” the elements the body and blood are present. When you consume the bread and the wine, you are consuming the real body and blood that are present. This is the first thing that you ignore.

    We had a discussion here the other day where I clearly stated why Lutheran do not believe in Transubstantiation the literal changing the bread and wine into body and blood so that there is no bread and wine remaining – and then I also explained why Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation either (even though people like to label our position as such) – when the bread and wine become body and blood but still have the properties of the bread and wine.

    Lutherans do not believe that the bread and wine change into anything – but that the real body and blood are present in them.

    Now make your case applied to my actual position.

  89. “If the taking of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation…”

    Another point that is not my position – you keep arguing against made up positions.

  90. “or you’d taste blood and flesh.”

    If I believed the transformation position, then I could also say that part of the “miracle” (literal or fake) was that Jesus made the flesh and blood ‘tasty’

    So, there, you have even lost that position.

  91. “Gnostics believe that all the miracles are metaphor and spiritual in nature and didn’t literally occur in this physical dimension.”

    Since I do not believe in ANY non literal miracles – that would make you closer to the gnostic position than me – and we know that gnosticism is a heresy and those who hold gnostic positions such as non literal miracle (you) would be…

  92. “The fact remains, at no time ever has the bread and wine been changed to literal blood and flesh in this physical universe ”

    Well, I am certainly glad to see that you have regained your absolutist “I know everything” attitude. Can you tell me how you know this statement to be true and not just an assumption on your part just because you yourself (the ego center of the universe) have not seen or experienced it?

    But it is good to have the know it all Alex back replacing doubting Alex.

  93. Alex says:

    I still doubt MLD, and you are one of the biggest reasons. If the faith is real, and you are the ambassador, then wow, it’s a confused and illogical faith indeed.

  94. Alex,
    When I was mentally weak, I too used to project my inadequacies on others.

    Have a good day – go live your life.

  95. Alex says:

    Whatevs MLD.

    I’m living my life, in the literal sense, and pointing out the inconsistency, convolution and contradiction in the illogic and “mystery” you present.

    Again, as I first asserted on here many years ago now: Child-like Faith is about all we got and the faith is illogical and unreasonable (despite Rolph’s claim to the contrary).

    None of you have disprove that original thesis, quite the contrary, you’ve enforced it in spades.

  96. Alex says:

    And accusing me of “mental weakness” is like accusing you of being young and good looking.

  97. It’s funny, you don’t blame Bob G for your lack of faith, but you blame me. LOL 😉

  98. Andrew says:


    I don’t go to a Lutheran church but to me it makes the most sense but for various other reasons I go to an independent church. They don’t really have the same belief regarding the sacraments but even though they don’t does that stop these sacraments from being what they really are? I mean could the physical presence of Christ be in the communion in the presbyterian or CC or Anglican church communion or does it have to be in a Lutheran church?

  99. Andrew,
    Presbyterian and Anglican are very close to Lutheran – somehow they do believe that the real body and the real blood are present in some fashion. We may vary some.

    For CC and SBC types, it’s more of a Dean Martin Roast for Jesus. We throw a dinner in Jesus’ memory and follow up with a grape juice toast to the hymn “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.” 😉

  100. For CC and SBC types, it’s more of a Dean Martin Roast for Jesus. We throw a dinner in Jesus’ memory and follow up with a grape juice toast to the hymn “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.