Mixing
Why do literalist Protestants reject transubstantiation?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur. I know that many Protestants do not believe this. For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising. However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God. One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation. But I think that is not true.
So my questions are:
- Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation? Do most of them? Do any of them?
- For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?
protestantism communion words-of-jesus transubstantiation
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur. I know that many Protestants do not believe this. For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising. However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God. One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation. But I think that is not true.
So my questions are:
- Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation? Do most of them? Do any of them?
- For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?
protestantism communion words-of-jesus transubstantiation
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur. I know that many Protestants do not believe this. For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising. However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God. One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation. But I think that is not true.
So my questions are:
- Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation? Do most of them? Do any of them?
- For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?
protestantism communion words-of-jesus transubstantiation
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur. I know that many Protestants do not believe this. For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising. However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God. One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation. But I think that is not true.
So my questions are:
- Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation? Do most of them? Do any of them?
- For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?
protestantism communion words-of-jesus transubstantiation
protestantism communion words-of-jesus transubstantiation
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
edited 12 hours ago
Nathaniel♦
30.2k883201
30.2k883201
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
asked 12 hours ago
Tharpa
1362
1362
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tharpa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.
One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.
Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.
Literalism
When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like? What ghost can one conjour to represent truth? Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally? Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:7
So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.
Sacrificial
With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:12
There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.
So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
John 6:51-59, which contains one of the most compelling words that convince people of transubstantiation, is seen by literalist Protestants and similar non-denominationalists as not supporting transubstantiation, not because of a lack of literalist interpretation, but because of contraindicating statements for a literal understanding of Christ's flesh and blood in the context:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:57 KJV
Notice that there is an analogous statement there. It is absurd to suggest that Christ eats the Father; thus, you would not expect the believer's literal, physical eating of Christ to take part in any sort of spiritual life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63 KJV
If what Christ is saying is "spirit," and "the flesh profiteth nothing," in immediate response to the statement of Christ's disciples in John 6:60, then eating Christ's actual flesh and blood is not profitable without the salvation of the soul by the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, a similar statement is provided later in John 7,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 KJV
Clearly, no one has bellies actually flowing out rivers of any water; this is figurative. But the format is very similar to the statement following the oft-cited transubstantiation text of John 6. This reading does not undermine the general rule of literal interpretation, as John is also a historical narrative of the gospel. There are clear marks of comparisons in both of these passages; one in the form of a simile, and one in the form of a parenthetical statement.
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.
One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.
Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.
Literalism
When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like? What ghost can one conjour to represent truth? Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally? Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:7
So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.
Sacrificial
With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:12
There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.
So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.
One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.
Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.
Literalism
When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like? What ghost can one conjour to represent truth? Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally? Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:7
So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.
Sacrificial
With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:12
There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.
So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.
One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.
Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.
Literalism
When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like? What ghost can one conjour to represent truth? Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally? Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:7
So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.
Sacrificial
With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:12
There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.
So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.
One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.
Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.
Literalism
When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like? What ghost can one conjour to represent truth? Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally? Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:7
So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.
Sacrificial
With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:12
There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.
So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
answered 8 hours ago
SLM
3,5661215
3,5661215
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
John 6:51-59, which contains one of the most compelling words that convince people of transubstantiation, is seen by literalist Protestants and similar non-denominationalists as not supporting transubstantiation, not because of a lack of literalist interpretation, but because of contraindicating statements for a literal understanding of Christ's flesh and blood in the context:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:57 KJV
Notice that there is an analogous statement there. It is absurd to suggest that Christ eats the Father; thus, you would not expect the believer's literal, physical eating of Christ to take part in any sort of spiritual life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63 KJV
If what Christ is saying is "spirit," and "the flesh profiteth nothing," in immediate response to the statement of Christ's disciples in John 6:60, then eating Christ's actual flesh and blood is not profitable without the salvation of the soul by the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, a similar statement is provided later in John 7,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 KJV
Clearly, no one has bellies actually flowing out rivers of any water; this is figurative. But the format is very similar to the statement following the oft-cited transubstantiation text of John 6. This reading does not undermine the general rule of literal interpretation, as John is also a historical narrative of the gospel. There are clear marks of comparisons in both of these passages; one in the form of a simile, and one in the form of a parenthetical statement.
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
John 6:51-59, which contains one of the most compelling words that convince people of transubstantiation, is seen by literalist Protestants and similar non-denominationalists as not supporting transubstantiation, not because of a lack of literalist interpretation, but because of contraindicating statements for a literal understanding of Christ's flesh and blood in the context:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:57 KJV
Notice that there is an analogous statement there. It is absurd to suggest that Christ eats the Father; thus, you would not expect the believer's literal, physical eating of Christ to take part in any sort of spiritual life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63 KJV
If what Christ is saying is "spirit," and "the flesh profiteth nothing," in immediate response to the statement of Christ's disciples in John 6:60, then eating Christ's actual flesh and blood is not profitable without the salvation of the soul by the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, a similar statement is provided later in John 7,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 KJV
Clearly, no one has bellies actually flowing out rivers of any water; this is figurative. But the format is very similar to the statement following the oft-cited transubstantiation text of John 6. This reading does not undermine the general rule of literal interpretation, as John is also a historical narrative of the gospel. There are clear marks of comparisons in both of these passages; one in the form of a simile, and one in the form of a parenthetical statement.
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
John 6:51-59, which contains one of the most compelling words that convince people of transubstantiation, is seen by literalist Protestants and similar non-denominationalists as not supporting transubstantiation, not because of a lack of literalist interpretation, but because of contraindicating statements for a literal understanding of Christ's flesh and blood in the context:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:57 KJV
Notice that there is an analogous statement there. It is absurd to suggest that Christ eats the Father; thus, you would not expect the believer's literal, physical eating of Christ to take part in any sort of spiritual life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63 KJV
If what Christ is saying is "spirit," and "the flesh profiteth nothing," in immediate response to the statement of Christ's disciples in John 6:60, then eating Christ's actual flesh and blood is not profitable without the salvation of the soul by the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, a similar statement is provided later in John 7,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 KJV
Clearly, no one has bellies actually flowing out rivers of any water; this is figurative. But the format is very similar to the statement following the oft-cited transubstantiation text of John 6. This reading does not undermine the general rule of literal interpretation, as John is also a historical narrative of the gospel. There are clear marks of comparisons in both of these passages; one in the form of a simile, and one in the form of a parenthetical statement.
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
John 6:51-59, which contains one of the most compelling words that convince people of transubstantiation, is seen by literalist Protestants and similar non-denominationalists as not supporting transubstantiation, not because of a lack of literalist interpretation, but because of contraindicating statements for a literal understanding of Christ's flesh and blood in the context:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:57 KJV
Notice that there is an analogous statement there. It is absurd to suggest that Christ eats the Father; thus, you would not expect the believer's literal, physical eating of Christ to take part in any sort of spiritual life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63 KJV
If what Christ is saying is "spirit," and "the flesh profiteth nothing," in immediate response to the statement of Christ's disciples in John 6:60, then eating Christ's actual flesh and blood is not profitable without the salvation of the soul by the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, a similar statement is provided later in John 7,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 KJV
Clearly, no one has bellies actually flowing out rivers of any water; this is figurative. But the format is very similar to the statement following the oft-cited transubstantiation text of John 6. This reading does not undermine the general rule of literal interpretation, as John is also a historical narrative of the gospel. There are clear marks of comparisons in both of these passages; one in the form of a simile, and one in the form of a parenthetical statement.
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
answered 18 mins ago
mineben256
184
184
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Tharpa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tharpa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tharpa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tharpa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f66565%2fwhy-do-literalist-protestants-reject-transubstantiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Closely related: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
– Nathaniel♦
12 hours ago