I can assure you that they do. Though not as a wafer with wine.no Protestant calls Matthew 18:20 an allusion to Christ's presence in worship services.
New word for me, skubalon. Fitting, for the most part, though she used to get things right occasionally.I was trying to save you the time. It is a "@God's Truth" thread, she saw to that, and that means that it was set on fire! It is so full of her skubalon that nobody would ever think to read through it,
The problem you have is that you’ve (including all Catholics??) defined a new concept that doesn’t appear anywhere else in the way you use it: “the Real Presence”, and you only apply that to the wine and wafers. Jesus wasn’t so specific, nor was He introducing a unique concept. “Lo I am with you always…”. “I will never leave you nor forsake you…”. “Behold I stand at the door and knock…and will come in and sup with him.” You can pretend it was some liturgy Christ was introducing in Matt 18:20, but you have no evidence.I've seen every argument. @csuguy makes the most creative and powerful argument against the Real Presence that's ever been put in print, and it was literally swiftly dispatched, not only in the thread, but in real time, you can tell with the dates of the posts that it didn't require a lot of thought for @brewmama to respond.
Do you simply reject every aspect of God's use of symbols and types?His shed blood being payment for sin requires a liturgical framework in order to be valid, and not just some random death that was after the fact proclaimed to be fulfillment of prophecy.
So the death of Christ wasn't a thought in God's mind before Jesus spoke of the New Covenant at the last supper? Is that what you're trying to say? That the crucifixion is valid because of the Eucharist?This framework is the New Covenant, not the Old, which of course didn't have any part of it concerned with a man being the offering. It was always an animal, not a man. And it didn't have any part talking about the priest Himself being the offering either, but in the N.C. the Lord Jesus is the everlasting high priest.
Yeah, well this website is already about 98% a waste of my time as it is. I'm not going to go read an entire thread so that you don't have to go through the trouble of making an argument yourself.Transubstantiation and especially the distinction between transubstantiation and the Real Presence (which is actually the topic here) was dealt with in the range of posts I advised that you peruse to get yourself caught up to speed on what we're actually trying to talk about in this thread Clete.
" For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."As real as Matthew 18:20
Because you examined yourself and your conduct convinces you; no moral or ethical 'red flags'.or
2 Cor 13:5 Jesus Christ is in me
Then if Matthew 18:20 is interpreted that way, then it meant Mass all along (all through history), and Mass is where 'breaking bread' occurred, Communion, where Christ when instituting the Eucharist said His words "this is My body . . ."I can assure you that they do. Though not as a wafer with wine.
I didn't suggest Matthew 18:20 'introduced liturgy'. What I did was interpret the relatively ambiguous Matthew 18:20 in the light of the unambiguous historical account of the earliest Church, combined with the comparably unambiguous account in the Scripture of the Last Supper.New word for me, skubalon. Fitting, for the most part, though she used to get things right occasionally.
The problem you have is that you’ve (including all Catholics??) defined a new concept that doesn’t appear anywhere else in the way you use it: “the Real Presence”, and you only apply that to the wine and wafers. Jesus wasn’t so specific, nor was He introducing a unique concept. “Lo I am with you always…”. “I will never leave you nor forsake you…”. “Behold I stand at the door and knock…and will come in and sup with him.” You can pretend it was some liturgy Christ was introducing in Matt 18:20, but you have no evidence.
CORRECT.That some groups emerging from a movement entertains something that is wrong does not invalidate the origin of the movement, the principles of the movement or the movement as a whole.
There are tons of Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence, like @annabenedetti here. The fact of the matter is that the earliest Church uniformly believed in the Real Presence, and that Calvinist Protestants taught against it.That would be a weird form of a genetic fallacy. Nor does the abuse of a principle prove the invalidity of the principle itself, as the medieval expression goes: abusus non tollit usum
Here are some facts for you: The Lutheran World Federation, The Anglican Communion and The World Methodist Council make up a body of about 240 million believers, who are also protestants and who do not in any way deny the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. That shows that there is no necessary relationship between being protestant and denying the real presence.
He's just begging the question; just declaring. I can do that too, and I don't need a PhD to do it either. Why listen to someone who's just assuming that his claim is true? He needed to do the same thing that needs to be done to my OP, if it's to be corrected.This subject was even addressed by Dr. Leighton Flowers on his show Soteriology 101 in a video a few months ago.
Long story short, anyone who believes in transsubstantiation, et al, are, like the people Jesus was talking to in this chapter, completely missing the point of what Christ was teaching, and it's because they miss the point that they came up with such odd ideas.
Is there some Protestant doctrine that isn't probable opinion? I mean there's no Protestant authority on doctrine, or on anything that the Bible may mean. Every Protestant doctrine has to be 'probable opinion,' because you can't validly appeal to any other authority, because there is no valid universal authority to appeal to, in Protestantism. "Scripture Alone."This thread looks to me like an example of the doctrine of probable opinion.