MATH1H3@uhvax1.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) (11/29/89)
In article <Nov.23.23.14.00.1989.27545@athos.rutgers.edu>, nanovx!news@gatech.edu (Network News) writes: > In an earlier article, OFM (Our Fearless/Fair Moderator) remarked that > transubstantiation is a result of an overly literal reading of Christ's words. [deletion] > The Protestant view that the Eucharist only "represents" the Body of Christ > seems to me to be a far too interpretive stance. [deletion] As OFM remarked at the end of this posting, to divide the Christian world into a dichotomy of Catholic/Protestant and Transubstantiation/Representation is an oversimplification. Lutherans, in particular, believe in a 'real presence' of the body and blood of Christ in and with the bread and wine. They specifically reject the teaching of Zwingli that the bread and wine only represent or symbolize the body and blood. This is due to the fact that Lutheranism focusses its attention on the words of scripture, 'This is my body,... This is my blood.' We reject metaphorical/allegorical interpretations of scripture unless the scriptures interpret themselves that way. An example of such might be Jesus explaining the parable of the sower. At the same time, our senses tell us that what we eat and drink are bread and wine (although I don't eat much bread that tastes like a wafer). Since scripture does not tell us that the bread and wine are changed into body and blood, but merely 'This is ...', we believe that what we receive is both body and blood and bread and wine. As a point of history, I have been told by Dr. Richard Balge of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary that the use of allegory in interpreting scripture began with Ambrose. (Or at least he was very influential in pushing Catholic theology in that direction). Thomas Mann made an interesting comment on the issue of real presence in his novel 'Joseph und seiner Brueder'. He says that for Joseph, whose brothers stained his coat with sheeps' blood and showed this to their father Jacob, the difference between "Das ist mein Blut" (This is my blood) and "Das heist mein Blut" (This means my blood) "sehr praktisch war." (was very practical). This, by the way, referred to the main dispute between Luther and Zwingli, not Catholicism and Protestantism. > I've read, by the way, that Martin Luther disliked the Letter of James since > it refers to works and grace in terms of salvation. A fairly exact quote would be that Luther said, regarding James, "Ich will er nicht in meiner Bible haben." (I don't want him in my Bible.) However, because Luther believed strongly in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, he did in fact translate and include James in his Bible. My own interpretation of James is that when he says we are justified by works, he is using the word 'justified' in a different sense than did Paul. Paul wrote concerning our justification before God, namely that God delcares us holy and not guilty of sin because he accepts Christ as our substitute. We receive this justification by faith. Particularly in Romans, Paul goes to great length to explain that this justification is by faith apart from works. In other words, for the express purpose of discussing justification before God, who knows our hearts, we draw a distinction between faith and works. James, however, addresses hypocrates who say 'I have faith' but whose lives contradict this statement. To these people James says "Faith without works is dead,' 'Show me your faith, and I will show my faith by my works." In other words, we recognize another Christian by his works (in addition to his confession of faith). We need to see a Christian's works because we lack the ability to judge their hearts. Luther himself said that if a person did not partake of the Lord's supper for a very long time, then we should consider (under normal circumstances) that that person is not a Christian. David H. Wagner My opinions and beliefs are completely separated from my employer's lack thereof.