Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« In Light of Today's Automotive News . . . | Main | Congratulations to the Class of 2009 »

Who Said That?

"As we’re about to do that, let us remember what we are doing. We not only celebrate that death and that promise of return, but we’re feeding by eating God, which is what we’re doing here, by eating the body and blood of our God, we are feeding the God within us. For as we take those elements, the Spirit also feeds within us, and is reinvigorated as he, or she, or it is by our faith.”

Please leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.  Answer to follow next week.

Reader Comments (17)

Phyllis Tickle. Heard her on the 'Fighting for the Faith' podcast waxing eloquently about the Holy Spirit's female attributes.
May 31, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterleemiles
Phylis Tickle speaking at Mars Hill Church in G.R.
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commenter"lee n. field"
Phylis Tickle
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMichael
Phylis Tickle. She is also currently advocating for the end of "Sola Scriptura". She wants the final authority for Christian faith and life to be local communities.
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPaul C. Quillman
If it weren't for that "or she" part, I'd be tempted to say Martin Luther, who apparently would "rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli" :)

But I'll guess that it's something out of "The Shack."
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCoyle
Tickle and unlike most times I experience that word I am not laughing.
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLightwalker
Phylis Tickle
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterdsanger
Phylis Tickle
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterTimothy
>Puking sound<
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSteven Carr

Luther took on the Pope, remember?

For Luther, it wasn't a choice between wine or blood. The Scriptures taught him that he received both at the supper. Luther received four things at the supper; Christ's body, blood, bread and wine. It's right there, right out of the Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 says, "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Jesus didn't say that it symbolized or represented his body and his blood. He said that it was His body and blood. It was (is) a miracle, the disciples never questioned it. Christ's body and blood are under, in and with the elements of the bread and the wine.

1 Corinthians 10:16 says this, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in (Greek: a sharing in) the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in (Greek: a sharing in) the body of Christ?"

Luther believed this teaching about the real presence of Jesus' true body and true blood in the Holy supper even though he couldn't explain it. God revealed this truth to Luther in the Scriptures!

The true body and blood of His Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, strengthened and kept him in the true faith unto life everlasting, and he went in peace, sins forgiven!
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd Cadle
Well the comments seem to be unanimous, but just to mix it up I'm going to suggest another heretic whose theology we love to hate; Katharine Jefferts-Schori.
June 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMatthew Neal

Maybe I've been going to Catholic University so long I'm starting to see "papists" everywhere, but my point was that if it weren't for the "or she" bit about the Holy Spirit, this would match very well with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Which, as you quite rightly point out, Luther tried to hedge his bets on, maintaining that although it wasn't a sacrifice, the communion actually was flesh and blood. Personally, I think his years of teaching Aristotle and engaging the scholastics left their mark in this one area...
June 2, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCoyle

The Roman Catholics receive only two things, body and blood in their doctrine of transubstantiation.

Lutherans, as I pointed out in the above referenced post, receive four things; body, blood, bread and wine. A lot of modern day Christians only receive two things; bread and wine.

Please read the Scriptures verses that I cited. The question is not what Zwingli, Luther, or the Catholic church teaches. It is what do the Scriptures teach.

Luther and Lutherans interpret their doctrine of the Lord's supper precisely the way the Scriptures teach. You make the mistake that many folks do in trying to uphold their particular systems of theology, and that is imparting the reader's meaning into the text (eisegesis), rather than to read the author's meaning from the text (exegesis).

Your problem is not with Luther, but with how Christ himself said to interpret the Lords supper. (It is, what it is!)
June 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd Cadle

Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert in interpreting Scripture, much less of 1 Corinthians. But, off the top of my head, it seems that the difference between the Reformed and Lutheran approaches isn't over who's reading it literally, but over which part of the verses you cited are emphasized. Luther wanted to emphasize the first part, "this is my body", while the Reformed writers wanted to emphasize the second part "in rememberance." Of course, the Reformed go on to point out that Jesus isn't physically on earth, because he's physically in heaven pleading for his people. So "this is my body" (when either Paul or Jesus say it) ought to be read the same way we read "I am the vine", not that Jesus was a literal vine, but that spiritual language is being used. (For the second verse you cite, the disagreement would be over what "participation" means, again whether physical or spiritual.)

Having said all of that, I think you've nailed a major difference between the two sides of Protestantism- the question of whether the Lord's Supper is physically the body and blood of Christ, or symbolically/spiritually the body and blood of Christ. And you're right to point out that the Scriptures ultimately have to be the source of our answer to the question. The problem is one of how we read the Scriptures, do we read it through the filter of covenant theology, in which case the Lord's Supper is the sign of the covenant? Or do we read it through the filter of law/Gospel (and I'm not convinced the two are totally incompatible), in which case the Lord's Supper is a sign of all aspects of the Gospel, including Christ's physical presence on earth.

Though I think you've missed one important point, a lot of us Baptists don't even receive "bread and wine"- we receive grape juice and oyster crackers :)
June 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCoyle

Here is a quote from Lutheran theologian Edward W.A. Koehler on the Reformed and Lutheran views of the supper:

On the Reformed, "Because of the rationalistic consideration that the condition of a body is such, that it must occupy one particular place and have its proper form and dimension, they hold that it is impossible for the body of Christ, which ascended into heaven, to be essentially present in the Sacrament. For this reason they take the words of institution in a figurative sense, stating that the bread and wine merely signify or represent the absent body and blood of Christ."

"However, none of these words; "This is My body," may be taken in a figurative sense. "This" can refer to nothing else than to the bread which Christ gave to His disciples. The word "is" can never be taken in a figurative sense to mean "represent" or "signify." "Is" always remains "is," and nothing else. When Christ says that He "is" the vine (John 15:5), the figure of speech is not in the word "is," but in the word "vine." Christ really "is" to His Christians what the vine is to the branches; from Him they receive nourishment and strength. Nor may the word "body" be taken in a figurative sense, because it is definitely stated which body is meant, namely, "which is given for you." There is nothing in the words of institution that compels us to depart from the literal and native meaning."

Is this only a Biblical and Lutheran teaching, or does it go back in church history? The Book of Concord, in the Formula, Epitome - Affirmative statements, #7. says, "He who eats this bread eats Christ's body, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church -- Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo 1, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine -- unanimously testify."

What about the two natures of Christ? The Apended to many editions of the Book of Concord has a listing of various quotations from Scripture and early chuch fathers demonstrating that the Lutheran doctrine concerning Christ's two natures is the same as that of the early church.

You can find a translation of this document, The Catalog of Testimonies, included in the Readers Edition of the Book of Concord.

Here are some (not all) of the highlights in the Book of Concord, Affirmative Statements, about the person of Christ:

1. The divine and human natures in Christ are personally united. So there are not two Christs, one the Son of God and the other the Son of Man. (Luke 1:35; Romans 9:5).

2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor is one changed into the other. Each keeps its own essential properties, which can never become the properties of the other nature.

4. The properties of the human nature are to be a bodily creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and physically limited, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like. These never become properties of the divine nature.

5. The two natures are united personally (i.e., in one person). Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not the kind of joining together and connection that prevents either nature from having anything in common with the other personally (i.e., because of the personal union). The ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.

12. The human nature in the person of Christ is not denied or annihilated. Nor is either nature changed into the other. Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person. Next to the Holy Trinity, this is the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends, as the apostle testifies in 1 Timothy 3:16.

According to our Book of Concord, Christian Visitation Articles 1592, these are some of the doctrines that we feel are false:

l. The expression "God is man" and "man is God" is figurative.

lll. It is impossible for God, with all His omnipotence, to cause the natural body of Christ to be at the same time in more than one place.

v. Christ, according to His human nature, rules absently, just as the King of Spain rules the new islands.

Luther says this on the doctrine of Zwingli, regarding the two natures: "If Zwingli's alloeosis stands, then Christ will have to be two persons; one a divine and the other a human person, since Zwingli applies all the texts concerning the passion only to the human nature and completely excludes them from the divine nature. But if the works are divided and separated, the person will also have to be separated, since all the doing and suffering are not ascribed to natures but persons. It is the person who does and suffers everything, the one thing according to this nature and the other thing according to the other nature, all of which scholars know perfectly well. Therefore we regard our Lord Christ as God and man in one person, neither confusing the natures nor dividing the person."

I submit these truths to my Reformed friends, as "Iron sharpens Iron."

June 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd Cadle

Wow! Very thorough! Thanks for the summary of Lutheran doctrine on communion! I certainly have neither the time nor the ability to respond to all of your points (I've got to leave that to professional theologians). But, it seems that the whole discussion hinges around your first quote:
"However, none of these words... There is nothing in the words of institution that compels us to depart from the literal and native meaning."

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of what "is" is :), but it seems that the question isn't whether the single words are individually figurative, but whether the whole statement is. And as I understand it, Reformed writers take the conversation in John 6 as a way to understand communion (though again, I don't claim to be an expert in this area). Basically, Jesus says "you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood" (paraphrasing John 6:53), everyone says "gross!" (paraphrasing John 6:60, 66); and Jesus replies "I don't mean really my body, I'm speaking spiritually in terms of faith and belief" (paraphrasing John 6:63). So if this is an interpretation of the Lord's Supper (and it really does seem to be), then it would seem that Jesus himself denies the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And that's actually something I'd like to hear your opinion on, what is the practical difference between con- and trans-substantiation? You said earlier that Catholics only receive blood and flesh, while Lutherans recieve bread, wine, blood, and flesh, but that sounds a bit to me like saying "when Catholics are baptized, the physical water only washes away original sin, but when Lutherans are baptized, the water washes all sin away." (And I know Lutherans don't that believe about baptism, but the principle seems similar.) Please let me know if I'm hearing this wrong, because I do want to understand the correct Lutheran doctrine and I don't think Lutherans actually believe that the false doctrine of transsubstantiation is fixed merely by adding bread and wine to it. Or do they?

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments, I hope I'm not doing any injustices to Lutheran theology!

June 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCoyle

Thanks for the nice words!

I'll take a try at answering your questions as quickly as I can:

First, in looking at John 6; Go to and type in John 6, in the Q & A section. It would take me way too long to explain it. I know that you'll have an eye opener when you read it. (The context of John 6 requires a lot of details as to the background of this situation. At that point, it will be much easier for you to make a determination that the context has nothing to do with communion, as communion had not yet -- at that point in time -- been established yet.)

Second, the term "consubstantiation" is used by non-Lutherans in an attempt to explain the Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper. Lutherans do not use the term "consubstantiation." Lutheran theologian Edward W. A. Koehler has this to say on "consubstantiation." "The Lutheran Church does not teach "consubstantiation," which means that bread and body form one substance, or that the body is present, like the bread, in a natural manner; nor does it teach "impanation," which means that the body of Christ is locally inclosed in the bread. The purpose of the words "in, with, and under the bread" is not to explain the papistical transubstantiation. The body and blood of Christ are really, but supernaturally, present in the sacrament, and all communicants receive them orally, with their mouths, together with the bread and the wine."

Check out this quote from the great Lutheran theologian C.F.W. Walther on this subject: "The presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper must not be based on the glorification of the body of Christ. The glorification endows the body only with spiritual, not with divine attributes. We believe that Christ's body is present in the sacrament and received 1) because of the promise of Christ, 2) because Christ's body is the body of the Son of God.... It is a mistake to say: Christ can now give us his body in the Lord's supper because it is glorified. This unsound argument contains the admission that Christ before his glorification could not give his body, a concession that would cancel the first celebration of the supper."

Third, in "transubstantiation" the Catholic teaching is that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper change into Christ's body and blood so that only the appearance of the bread and the wine remains. The bread and the wine are no longer present.

Hal Lindsey should be spending his time on the study of these issues, rather than wearing his white robe while standing on a roof, waiting for the rapture to come!
June 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd Cadle

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.