I receive the sacrifice by trusting in the finished work of Christ, who became our sole mediator to God. I participate by abiding in Christ (John15:9, Colossians 3:16), putting to death my old self and letting my new self (Ephesians 4:22-24) be transformed by God's Word. I am to love God and love my neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40) and build up the body of Christ through faith and knowledge of the Son of God, speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:11-16), which means to lay down my life for my brothers in Christ (John 15:13).

I likely would not agree with your non-denominational buddy, so again, I appeal to the greater audience that not all evangelical protestants are the same.

As an example, I hold our weekly Lord's Table as the highlight of my week. I just don't believe it is actually his flesh and blood that I am partaking in. It is a sacrament and a vital means of grace.

That's all well and good, but that's completely unrelated to anything in the Torah or scriptures as far as how sacrifices were received.

You quote John 15:9 "abide in my love". Christ Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me".

Colossians 3:16 - Letting the message of Christ dwell among you - is not the same as Christ Himself; Christ is not His message.

St Paul says you participate in the Body in the bread of the Eucharist. Why do you need to make all of these metaphorical allusions, and proof-text instead of just reading the words on the page?

"The Father gives you the true bread from heaven"
"The bread of God is He who comes down from heaven"
"I am the bread of life"
"I have come down from heaven"
"I am the bread of life"
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven"
"The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh"
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you"
"My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink"
"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me"
"He took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
"He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

I mean we're obviously going to disagree on this. My aim is not to change anyone's mind but simply defend the idea that my weekly partaking of the bread and wine is done as a means of grace and is in no way some flippant afterthought. It truly is the peak of my week.

Why is it obvious that we disagree on this? That's what I don't understand.

Other than "yeah this is what I was taught when I was a kid" what possible defense is there for it? These are questions of historical fact. The church for centuries said - people who don't believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of God are not Christians.

At what point do you say - what is going on here? How is this defensible?

Zobel said:

---

Other than "yeah this is what I was taught when I was a kid" what possible defense is there for it?

---

Again, this has time and time again been the perceived viewpoint towards those who don't see it as you do:
"Those protestants were given this watered down lifeless and distorted Christian message as kids and we have no depth because of it today. The orthodox are basically pure in every single way. We have never strayed one iota from the path that leads to life."

The Eucharist was not some unanimous, without a shadow of a doubt kind of doctrine, even throughout church history.

Close. It's more like:

I was given this watered down, lifeless and distorted Christian message as a kid, and as a result I had no depth. The Orthodox Church is pure in every single way, and the faith proclaimed by the Church is the fullness of truth, the path that leads to life.

And yes, the Eucharist was unanimous, without a shadow of a doubt doctrine. I think you are objectively wrong here, like from a purely historical, non-theological perspective. The people who did not believe that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of the Lord were not considered Christians. It was a litmus test.

Ok, but the question stands. Other than that, what actual defense is there?

Defense of the idea that the bread and wine is still just bread and wine? Scripture alone.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I likely would not agree with your non-denominational buddy, so again, I appeal to the greater audience that not all evangelical protestants are the same.

As an example, I hold our weekly Lord's Table as the highlight of my week. I just don't believe it is actually his flesh and blood that I am partaking in. It is a sacrament and a vital means of grace.

---

I assume that you're Presbyterian based upon calling it the Lord's Table but also identifying with low church Protestantism. (You reject nondenom, lutherans are like crossfitters you would've mentioned it by now, and you're clearly not a high church or low church anglican based upon these discussions.)

Like Zobel is saying, your view is out of line with scripture and church tradition.

And funny enough, the highlight of your week is the surviving bit of high church liturgics under John Calvin and John Knox that they didn't cut. And it was still cut back significantly.

Ask yourself, what about the Lord's Table does make it your highlight? Its clearly the closeness to God through the ritual of the communion you are partaking in that makes it your highlight. Everything else can be found in other areas of church. But the actual part of communion that makes it sacrosanct- the priestly belief and reverence around it being the actual blood and body of Christ in some heavenly capacity - you don't believe in.

Zobel said:

---

Scripture literally says it is His body and blood. Christ Himself literally says that, too.

There's that word "just" again.

---

Scripture also tells us that Jesus is a door and a vine, which he literally is not.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Scripture literally says it is His body and blood. Christ Himself literally says that, too.

There's that word "just" again.

---

Scripture also tells us that Jesus is a door and a vine, which he literally is not.

---

You realize you're making Zobel's points here, don't you? In the spiritual world the infinite God is actually those things as well. Christ is the door to heaven that we get access through. He is the vine by which grafts us into the tree of life.

You're basically saying, "Christ being the door and vine have spiritual significance and Christ is present in those things spiritually the way he says he is, but he is not spiritually present in the way he says he is regarding communion."

But He is not literally a physical door I can knock on or a Vine as I see in the jungle.

I am not downplaying the spiritual significance of these things, including the bread and wine, just because I do not think it is actually his flesh and blood I am consuming. It all has great spiritual significance, and I will even appeal that many "modern protestants" as Zobel called them do downplay it.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

This is an easy heresy to spot. Why would you even believe this? That God isn't present in the very thing he said he would be present in?

---

I do believe God is present, through his Holy Spirit. It is the Lord's table, of course He is there.

Again, what does literal mean here? I know this sounds like a dumb question but it is not tongue in cheek.

Are we invoking strict materialism? Because that is not compatible with Christianity.

Second, Christ uses a very different way of saying "I am the vine" or "I am the door" than when He says I am the bread - my flesh is true food - this bread is my body.

The word for "true" means literal truth, like a testable truth. It means if His flesh is not "literal" food the sentence is false.

We should at least acknowledge that if Jesus says the bread is His body, it really is His body in some sense, right? The question should be at a minimum "in what way is it His body" not whether nor not it is.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I likely would not agree with your non-denominational buddy, so again, I appeal to the greater audience that not all evangelical protestants are the same.

As an example, I hold our weekly Lord's Table as the highlight of my week. I just don't believe it is actually his flesh and blood that I am partaking in. It is a sacrament and a vital means of grace.

---

I assume that you're Presbyterian based upon calling it the Lord's Table but also identifying with low church Protestantism. (You reject nondenom, lutherans are like crossfitters you would've mentioned it by now, and you're clearly not a high church or low church anglican based upon these discussions.)

Like Zobel is saying, your view is out of line with scripture and church tradition.

And funny enough, the highlight of your week is the surviving bit of high church liturgics under John Calvin and John Knox that they didn't cut. And it was still cut back significantly.

Ask yourself, what about the Lord's Table does make it your highlight? Its clearly the closeness to God through the ritual of the communion you are partaking in that makes it your highlight. Everything else can be found in other areas of church. But the actual part of communion that makes it sacrosanct- the priestly belief and reverence around it being the actual blood and body of Christ in some heavenly capacity - you don't believe in.

---

Presbyterians believe in real presence last time I checked.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

But He is not literally a physical door I can knock on or a Vine as I see in the jungle.

I am not downplaying the spiritual significance of these things, including the bread and wine, just because I do not think it is actually his flesh and blood I am consuming. It all has great spiritual significance, and I will even appeal that many "modern protestants" as Zobel called them do downplay it.

---

But again, you have no tradition to lean on with your understanding here. You have this weird half corruption then. Where you reject the high liturgical view of communion that prexisted your denomination for 1600 years, but you also reject the flat secular view that is just bread and wine.

Its not Christs blood and body, you are sure of it. But you're also sure its still something holy and the presence of God related, but certainly not the inherited tradition of every church that came before you.

You also believe that most of the other ways you interact with the church are mostly flat and secular as well. Thats why you have just the 'sacrament' of communion and marriage.

Why reject the fullness here? Eastern Orthodoxy says its a holy mystery, its treated as the crown jewel sacramentally of the church, we have stories of Saints seeing heavenly angels participate in putting Christ in the cup.

Your church tradition believes in some limited version of the holy mystery where you can't explain it but you can explain what it isn't. Its treated as the crown jewel but only comparatively because all sacraments have been reduced, and no revelation as to what even is communion then.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I likely would not agree with your non-denominational buddy, so again, I appeal to the greater audience that not all evangelical protestants are the same.

As an example, I hold our weekly Lord's Table as the highlight of my week. I just don't believe it is actually his flesh and blood that I am partaking in. It is a sacrament and a vital means of grace.

---

I assume that you're Presbyterian based upon calling it the Lord's Table but also identifying with low church Protestantism. (You reject nondenom, lutherans are like crossfitters you would've mentioned it by now, and you're clearly not a high church or low church anglican based upon these discussions.)

Like Zobel is saying, your view is out of line with scripture and church tradition.

And funny enough, the highlight of your week is the surviving bit of high church liturgics under John Calvin and John Knox that they didn't cut. And it was still cut back significantly.

Ask yourself, what about the Lord's Table does make it your highlight? Its clearly the closeness to God through the ritual of the communion you are partaking in that makes it your highlight. Everything else can be found in other areas of church. But the actual part of communion that makes it sacrosanct- the priestly belief and reverence around it being the actual blood and body of Christ in some heavenly capacity - you don't believe in.

---

Presbyterians believe in real presence last time I checked.

---

Well 10andBounce is even further down the evangelical and secular slide then. Because he certainly doesn't.

By the way, you ever figure out how to use google like Zobel showed you?

No. I follow the steps in his link but it still show no results.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

This is an easy heresy to spot. Why would you even believe this? That God isn't present in the very thing he said he would be present in?

---

I do believe God is present, through his Holy Spirit. It is the Lord's table, of course He is there.

---

Okay so you have this idea that Christ is not present but the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh, what makes it special that part of the trinity is present but Jesus explicitly isn't? Where is that even in the bible or your tradition? Especially when Christ is saying he is explicitly there. You now have two hurdles to jump over.

I would make the claim that Holy Spirit cannot merely be present at communion because the entire history of God's relationship to the altar going back to the OT.

The Holy Spirit being made available to heal, regenerate, and guide all man from within, makes the Holy Spirit common within the church at every liturgics or gathering. Or even common within just the meeting of Christians outside of church, or just on your own as you still have the Holy Spirit within you. But suddenly the presence of Holy Spirit at this one psuedo-sacrament is what makes it a sacrament.

Your view that the Holy Spirit is what makes the Lords Table the holiest of sacraments destroys the whole point of Christ as the Messiah. How is he the final sacrifice that ends the sacrifices for our sins if he isn't even a part of it? Christ bridges man to God through his incarnation and resurrection. That is no longer there if Christ isn't a part of Communion.

He has to be there.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

No. I follow the steps in his link but it still show no results.

---

Bud, it might just be your ad blocker, but its just a troll page. It types the search into google for you at the top but its the old style google search bar. You still have to click on search or I'm feeling lucky.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I likely would not agree with your non-denominational buddy, so again, I appeal to the greater audience that not all evangelical protestants are the same.

As an example, I hold our weekly Lord's Table as the highlight of my week. I just don't believe it is actually his flesh and blood that I am partaking in. It is a sacrament and a vital means of grace.

---

I assume that you're Presbyterian based upon calling it the Lord's Table but also identifying with low church Protestantism. (You reject nondenom, lutherans are like crossfitters you would've mentioned it by now, and you're clearly not a high church or low church anglican based upon these discussions.)

Like Zobel is saying, your view is out of line with scripture and church tradition.

And funny enough, the highlight of your week is the surviving bit of high church liturgics under John Calvin and John Knox that they didn't cut. And it was still cut back significantly.

Ask yourself, what about the Lord's Table does make it your highlight? Its clearly the closeness to God through the ritual of the communion you are partaking in that makes it your highlight. Everything else can be found in other areas of church. But the actual part of communion that makes it sacrosanct- the priestly belief and reverence around it being the actual blood and body of Christ in some heavenly capacity - you don't believe in.

---

Presbyterians believe in real presence last time I checked.

---

I agree, the debate is how our Lord is present, not if he is. Again I would appeal that many evangelicals would wrongly insist it is ONLY a mere memorial.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

No. I follow the steps in his link but it still show no results.

---

Bud, it might just be your ad blocker, but its just a troll page. It types the search into google for you at the top but its the old style google search bar. You still have to click on search or I'm feeling lucky.

---

Actually it makes me type in the search. That's step 2 of the tutorial.

"Give us this day our daily bread."

Any first century Jew that heard Jesus say to pray this way would have immediately thought of the manna (supernatural bread from heaven) given by God to His people, daily for 40 years. Now Jesus is saying that we have a new manna, the bread that gives eternal life (John 6), offered daily by his church for the last 2000 years....