Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Monahorns's avatar

I find it sad that Luther was so opposed to Zwingli's interpretation of John 6 and what that means for the subject of the Lord's supper. I understand what each is saying, but I don't understand why Luther was so vehemently opposed to a metaphorical understanding. Either Jesus was saying that His body and blood was in physical reality the bread and wine, or He was saying it as a metaphor that they in some way represent His body and blood. I for one love Zwingli's explanation that Jesus' body is sitting at the right hand of the Father and therefore can't physically exist in the Lord's supper. I fully agree.

But Luther took a middle position in between Zwingli and Rome. The bread and wine didn't become the body and blood. However, the spiritual presence of Jesus' body and blood is found in the elements, consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation. I understand why Catholics require the trans-, because grace is infused in the elements and infused in the person who eats them. It is the means of salvation. But to Luther who believed in Sola Fide, the con- really doesn't serve a critical theological purpose. But then he got so ugly about it!

Also, very interesting to hear that the Protestants used early church fathers and Augustine to argue their viewpoints in order to create their own catholic statements. Good stuff. Keep it coming, please.

https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts