There's one thing I don't understand about Fundamentalists. They all claim to be Biblical literalist, like they believe in young earth creationism, they interpret prophecy literally, they believe the Bible teaches science, they hold the Bible to he 100% infallible in every matter even those outside of faith & morals. Yet for some reason they suddenly become rationalists when it comes to things like the Eucharist, which they believe to only be a symbol for Jesus's body and blood despite him clearly saying otherwise in John 6:55. They also, for example, reject the notion that baptism is necessary for salvation even though the Bible on numerous occasions say it is like in 1 Peter 3:21 and Mark 16:16. I don't get it, why do they hate the sacraments so much? What is the reason for it?
There's one thing I don't understand about Fundamentalists. They all claim to be Biblical literalist...
Stupid question from a protestant who only learned the real presence was something anyone believed through this board because their church uses grape juice:
Obviously God has the power to make the Eucharist the real flesh and blood of Christ. But is it supposed to taste like flesh and blood, or still like bread and wine?
because they don't have the proper context of interpretation, and don't even have a full bible.
I would love to see you get in to a theological debate with Robert jeffress. You'd shut up pretty quick.
Strawman and leading question
"Literalist" is a term usually aimed at putting Christians in a negative light, as if to say "he actually believes the Bible is true". Nobody claims the Bible is free from metaphor and allegory. We "fundamentalists" use the historical-grammatical method in hermeneutics.
We're not "rationalists" as if to say we deny the supernatural, our doctrine of inerrancy doesn't allow for internal contradictions and the only consistent position is sola fide.
Do you actually think all evangelicals (that's a huge majority of trained theologians) are just deceivers? That's the way you're framing it. I don't think that about baby baptizers, I just think they're wrong.
By talking about giving his flesh, he is talking about the coming sacrifice of his life.
The communion was to commemorate this sacrifice:
When he was first talking about giving his flesh, they didn't even know or believe he was going to die soon. They had always heard of the messiah as a conqueror. So of course people were confused. It was not uncommon for the Pharisees and even the disciples to misunderstand him. He often spoke in parables. We observe the communion 'in remembrance' of him.
Nobody interprets Bible prophecy completely literally. For example, when Revelation talks about the moon turning into blood, everyone realizes this is absurd in a literal sense and instead interpret it as, for example, some sort of eclipse or supernatural event that turns the moon red. In the same manner, people recognize that Jesus transforming into a literal loaf of bread is absurd. People recognize that the idea that what looks like a wafer according to every method of observation known to man is secretly literal human flesh is absurd.
This does not address the issue of transubstantiation. Catholics would say the same, and in fact, at every mass they do.
And we would say the same things Catholics do about it being the body and blood of Christ. We do so every time. We just don't interpret this literally as you do.
Is it really any more absurd than Jesus resurrecting from the dead, walking on water, curing blindness with saliva, or healing a paralytic with his words? Jesus turned water into wine, so why not wine into blood?
Yes, it really is more absurd than all of those. Name a NT miracle besides the alleged transubstantiation that isn't accompanied by the obvious recognition of the witnesses.
Bible says don't get circumcised