Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
In another forum someone asked about eating the flesh of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Here is my take on that:
It's a symbol. It signifies an inward reality and is done in rememberance of Christ.
In the gospel of John Christ called himself a vine, a door, and bread. The language is symbolic. He also spoke of regeneration as being born again. He clearly said to take that supper in rememberance of him. He did not tell anyone that that supper was a sacrament that imparted grace, nor did he ever tell anyone anything was a sacrament. The word sacrament isn't even in the bible.
All ideas other than the biblical teaching that the ordinance is symbolic is superstition and evidence of an incomplete reformation of the Church that is still in process.
I reject sacramentology. I think it doesn't fit well with the bible especially the doctrine of sola fide. Any thoughts on this?
It's a symbol. It signifies an inward reality and is done in rememberance of Christ.
In the gospel of John Christ called himself a vine, a door, and bread. The language is symbolic. He also spoke of regeneration as being born again. He clearly said to take that supper in rememberance of him. He did not tell anyone that that supper was a sacrament that imparted grace, nor did he ever tell anyone anything was a sacrament. The word sacrament isn't even in the bible.
All ideas other than the biblical teaching that the ordinance is symbolic is superstition and evidence of an incomplete reformation of the Church that is still in process.
I reject sacramentology. I think it doesn't fit well with the bible especially the doctrine of sola fide. Any thoughts on this?