Martin Luther on the Real Presence (and Sola Scriptura) [Ecumenical]

Black Cordelias ^ | July 26, 2008

[NYer]

Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?

A. Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[NYer]

He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.

[big'ol_freeper]

Here come the lame excuses.

[shineon]

The church is the real body of Jesus Christ. He is the head of the church and we are the body.

[shineon]

You can say that an arbitrary piece of bread blessed by a minister is the body of Christ. I will stick with the church.

[shineon]

I don’t see Martin Luther mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.

[Radl]

I’ll stick with what Jesus said.

[shineon]

That sounds like a good plan.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

That’s exactly what ML said.

[NYer]

You can say that an arbitrary piece of bread blessed by a minister is the body of Christ. I will stick with the church.

It is not I but Jesus who says this.

"I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
John 6:35

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[verga]

Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative

Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa

Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou

Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn

Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is My body.”
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

Mar 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou tsbto thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon

[Always Right]

Martin Luther was a Catholic, so it is not surprising that he kept a lot of their views even though he broke from them.

[Mr. Lucky]

Worthy of a Lutheran ping?

[ThomasThomas]

"He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.

11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Like the Bereans we need to check what we hear from church leadership is true. If we except something is true just because the guy has a title we are still accountable to God for being wrong. The one infallible source is the Bible.

[asksimon]

" If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!"
William Tyndale to an accusing priest.
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
Paul to Timothy

Sorry Mr. Luther, but you can't cross a chasm in two small jumps, some things take a great leap. Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church not break from it. But the truth of the Gospel captivated man's minds, and not even Luther could stem the tide.

[shineon]

Ok then we are all good.

[shineon]

ah but there is none good, no not one.

And Jesus said to the rich man. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.

[shineon]

Jesus was referring to himself of-course and hoping that the rich young ruler was recognizing him to be God manifest in the flesh.

[shineon]

or that the rich young ruler would soon recognize him that way.

[marajade]

Martin Luther didn’t break from them. They excommunicated him.

[the invisib1e hand]

He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.

Perhaps he should have kept his trap shut.

[shineon]

and in my own comments. Not as a lifeless piece of bread. Although I do see your point that as the communion is partaken of so to speak. There is something very spiritual happening there.

Glory to God!

[armydoc]

It is not I but Jesus who says this. "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. John 6:35 John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

Do you believe Jesus is actual, physical bread?

[lightman]

Worthy of a Lutheran ping?

Most definitely! Thanks to Mr. Lucky for the ping.

Lutheran Ping!

[Mr. Lucky]

Perhaps the author shouldn’t have made up a statement and attributed it to Luther.

[Elsiejay]

Luther retained that which he found to be correctly drawn from the holy scriptures, and rejected that which was not. He set out to reform a church that he found to have gone astray, not to start a new denomination of Christians.

[Mr. Lucky]

God can appear in whatever form He wishes, don’t you think?

[Arrowhead1952]

Thanks for the ping.

[RichardMoore]

The Bible cannot be the source since it comes from the teaching of the church and not the other way around.

[RichardMoore]

Nowhere does the Gospel say that it is only a symbol! “This is My Body!” When Jesus said that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood thousands walked away and He did not call them back to explain.The Church taught the truth of the Real Presence before the cannon was set and after for 1500 years and it still does.

[RichardMoore]

Yes, because He said so!

[Iscool]

He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.

I would question whether or not these are actually Marty's words..

Marty was pretty adamant about getting the words of God into the hands of every milkmaid and farmhand in their own language that they might see for themselves what God said...

AND, I don't know that Marty had such a condescending attitude toward working folks...

Even so, Martin was still Catholic, albeit reformed, so naturally his understanding of the scripture would have been skewed...

[Iscool]

"I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. John 6:35

And you should know for a fact that Jesus was not being literal...Because you have hungered and thirsted after you've been to Mass..

[xone]

He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.

I think this blurb by ML is taken out of context, by you, to try and indicate that ML didn't teach or believe that the Bible, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit provided all guidance neeeded for understanding God and His plan for Salvation. Here he takes to task those who purposefully try to change the plain wording of the Scripture. LCMS teaches the Real Presence as well, but one that relies on the Word of God, not a priestly act.

[the invisib1e hand]

Luther retained that which he found to be correctly drawn from the holy scriptures, and rejected that which was not. ...

So, you're saying, he basically assumed the authority of a pope, without being vetted, elected, or held in check-and-balance?

And the result is, of course, an ever-increasing number of ever more confused and mislead "denominations."

You know what happens to a number when its denominator continues to get bigger? It goes to zero.

[AnalogReigns]

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.' (Matt. 26:26-27)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

"This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. (Mark 14:22-24)

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

Beware of casually dismissing the real presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. As you can see above all synoptic gospels have the same event, with the same wording--and NEVER is the word "symbolizes" in there... Usually when Jesus used symbolic language or parables to the crowds he would explain the meaning of the symbols or parable later to his disciples. Never was this--the central,pivotal feast of Jesus with His disciples--refereed to as mere symbolic language or explained in any way other than just what Jesus said.

This is what is unique about Luther--unlike with any other Church in the West, Luther didn't try to rationally explain Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist--he just accepted it and taught it, mystery and all--AS STATED IN SCRIPTURE.

Even the Apostle Paul, when he spoke of the Communion, never dared call is mere symbol or parable, but rather:

"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?" (I Cor. 10:16)

And when Paul gave instructions as to the proper administration of the Lord's Supper:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: 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." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (I Cor. 11:23-29)

The Word of the Lord!

[AnalogReigns]

There is no more, and perhaps LESS diversity of belief among those Protestants who make God's Holy Word the final arbiter of truth, as there is in the Roman Church, which makes Tradition and the Papacy the final arbiters of truth. The exact proximate cause of multitudes of denominations is political FREEDOM OF RELIGION which of course before the Reformation--and even for hundreds of years afterward, the Church of Rome had no use for.

Even today in majority Roman Catholic countries freedom of religion is not as great as it is in the USA--as the Roman Church is granted (very) favorable treatment when compared to "sects."

Whenever I hear a Romanist bemoaning the many Protestant denominations, I think what the alternative is? That I fear is, as it was, the Inquisition.

[the invisib1e hand]

I guess I stopped agreeing with you after your screenname.

Oh, and the correct word isn't "bemoans." Trust me, it's not my problem (anymore).

And I'm very thankful for that.

[NYer]

I think this blurb by ML is taken out of context, by you, to try and indicate that ML didn't teach or believe that the Bible, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit provided all guidance neeeded for understanding God and His plan for Salvation.

If you saw the movie Passion of the Christ , you no doubt recall the scene where the whipped and flagellated Jesus stands before Pilot who poses this question: "What is truth?". As one who reads Scripture, you will readily identify with that question that plagues everyone who walks the face of the earth.

So, what is truth? Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible?  No.  The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament.  However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.  Therefore, there can only be one Truth.  So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)?  For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible?  Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. 

If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation?  If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes."  But would that really happen?  History has shown that the answer is "No."

Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful).  The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture.  In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.cf

LCMS teaches the Real Presence as well, but one that relies on the Word of God, not a priestly act.

Jesus said it, so it must be true. Does the LCMS teach transubstantiation?

[MacombBob]

Jesus said it, so it must be true. Does the LCMS teach transubstantiation?

No. As stated in the LCMS FAQ:

Q. How does the Lord's Supper in the Lutheran church differ from that in the Roman Catholic and Baptist denominations?

A. At the risk of oversimplication, let me say briefly the following. Roman Catholics share with Lutherans a belief in the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the elements of the Sacrament. However, disagreements have existed historically on whether or how the mystery of Christ's presence can be explained. Catholics explain the Real Presence through their doctrine of transubstantiation.

Lutherans reject such an attempt to explain the Real Presence and insist that we must adhere to the simple words of Christ and be content to believe them as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension or explanation.

[shineon]

Ok thanks for your interpretation, I certainly respect it and don’t think that it takes anything away from the holy experience of communion. Thanks for sharing the scripture with me.

There is certainly something wonderful that goes on inside the soul when we eat and drink in rememberence of Jesus.

[asksimon]

Sorry Richard,
I do take communion. Once a year when I preside over passover with my family as Christ did with his disciples. And occasionally with other believers in the gospel Jesus Christ.
I know I’m coming at it from a different angle. Not having a Catholic background. I was taught growing up that Christ died once for sins, and for Him to be bodily present in the communion would mean He suffered repeatedly.
Now he reigns victoriously at the right hand of the Father waiting until his foes are made His footstool.
The physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems an odd way of looking at it, and does sort of take Christianity away from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and place it in the hands of a select few.
Like I say, I haven’t a Catholic background, and am more familiar with the Scriptures then with Traditions or Creeds.

[MEGoody]

Well, of course Martin Luther wasn’t perfect in his understanding. He’d be the first to admit that.

[NYer]

Hey ... good to see you are still around in the forum!

[redgolum]

Late post.

The Real Presence of the Body and Blood in Holy Communion is a core part of the Lutheran tradition. And, like in so many other churches, one that is constantly under attack.

[wagglebee]

And, like in so many other churches, one that is constantly under attack.

I have been noticing more and more lately that Lutherans and Catholics are attacked for a great many shared beliefs.

[redgolum]

Well, it makes sense.

The biggest American Lutheran Synod is falling apart (the ELCA) and many Roman Catholic dioceses are acting as if they are separate denominations (plenty of examples).

Those of us who simply want to hold true to Christ are mocked as backward and even evil. Many from our own communions view us as such. As Catholics, you have more numbers to support you, but also more against you, internally.

[lightman]

I have been noticing more and more lately that Lutherans and Catholics are attacked for a great many shared beliefs.

Aye.

Try adovcating the reqular use private Confession.

[redgolum]

Wish that was more available, but it is hard to find a pastor who will do that on a regular basis.