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.
Luther seemed to have a short temper about a lot of things. I still have not read his screed on the Jews, but I bet its hilarious.
Regarding the use of the early church fathers, it seems everyone can find their orthodoxy in statements made by them. Maybe this fact should settle us all down a bit about our theological differences, and we should show much more charity towards each other's beliefs and traditions (and try to forgive and forget the past wars and atrocities committed against each other in Jesus' name).
It is interesting to note, however, that the real presence in the Eucharist was shared tradition until the 1500s. Hard to imagine the Holy Spirit would let us err for so long on something so crucial (in John 6 Jesus is willing to lose many followers stressing this point).
Yes, on the use of the church fathers. I think there is value in understanding their teachings, but we can all find a favorite quote for our cause.
The answer for me, as you say: find more charity toward each other's beliefs and traditions. Outside of a few non-negotiables, there is room for different understandings.
On many of the items that have caused division, I can state one one thing with reasonable certainty: St. Peter isn't going to be standing at the gate with a 100-question multiple choice test on all matters theological, with a score of 90 or above needed to pass.
If there is such a test, I will guess that "all of the above" will, more often than not, be the right answer.
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/
Luther seemed to have a short temper about a lot of things. I still have not read his screed on the Jews, but I bet its hilarious.
Regarding the use of the early church fathers, it seems everyone can find their orthodoxy in statements made by them. Maybe this fact should settle us all down a bit about our theological differences, and we should show much more charity towards each other's beliefs and traditions (and try to forgive and forget the past wars and atrocities committed against each other in Jesus' name).
It is interesting to note, however, that the real presence in the Eucharist was shared tradition until the 1500s. Hard to imagine the Holy Spirit would let us err for so long on something so crucial (in John 6 Jesus is willing to lose many followers stressing this point).
Yes, on the use of the church fathers. I think there is value in understanding their teachings, but we can all find a favorite quote for our cause.
The answer for me, as you say: find more charity toward each other's beliefs and traditions. Outside of a few non-negotiables, there is room for different understandings.
On many of the items that have caused division, I can state one one thing with reasonable certainty: St. Peter isn't going to be standing at the gate with a 100-question multiple choice test on all matters theological, with a score of 90 or above needed to pass.
If there is such a test, I will guess that "all of the above" will, more often than not, be the right answer.