Replies

thought protestants read the Bible. I thought they KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the Bible. Didn't you read the part where some were offended, and left, because cannibalism, or even drinking ANY blood were forbidden under all circumstances. Yet, Christ said it again. Read John 6, especially verses 52-59, and open your eyes. Matter of fact, read the whole chapter. You know, in context.

Oh, and be sure to ignore Verse 63. After all, it may put a different context on it. :)

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." JOHN6-63

He is talking about Human(flesh) thinking which is lower than spiritual(Godly) thinking. Meaning from God.

" the words(Godly Logic) that I speak unto you, they are spirit(GOD who is above human), and they are life."

It's literal.

Too much hinges there on one word “spirit,” and given that the Traditional doctrine of the Eucharist posits more than some metaphysical transformation. that context remains uncertain. Which is why Luther and Zwingli could not come to terms over the Eucharist. Even after rejecting the special priesthood, Luther thought the meaning of Scripture “clear” on this point: This “is” my body ; not “signifies “ my body. He was, after all, not a nominalist.

Furthermore, I was amazed when I first read what Calvin had to say about the matter. Not for him
the “ dryness,” of the Swiss or Scots Church. Basically h saw that as a rejection of the Incarnation, for if the Spirit can “summon” the Word into a woman, the Spirit can summon “Him” into/as bread and wine. Calvin would have Jesus virtually present in the Eucharist and, according to my observation,so would a pious Baptist— despising though he might the “materialism” of the doctrine of transubstantiation. When he/she takes communion, he/she fells closer to Christ than at other times, including, of course, the way he communes with the Lord by reading the Bible.