Do Pentecostals believe in transubstantial eucharist

Posted by Henry Volk in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

56 Comments

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    hahaha here you go #PENTECOSTALS 🙂 a symbol OR transubstancia – one MORE MAJOR difference between classical Pentecostals and Chrismaticostals Charles Page Karen Lucas Terry Wiles

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Ricky Grimsley

    Its a blasphemous doctrine. Moses was denied the promise land for hitting the “rock” again. His body was only broken one timeHebrews 10:10-12 KJVS
    [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . [11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; also it is forbidden to drink blood. Actually drinking blood would violate God’s law.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    yet we His Body are broken and resurrected every day says the ap. Paul – Ego eimi corpus mia 🙂

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Ricky Grimsley

    Still a metaphor since we are also his bride, his brothers, his children, temple, and on and on.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    I have to kindly agree. Pentecostal theology and its practitioners the Pentecostal peoples are hardly fans of the transubstantial actually as early Reformers may be even the direct historic opponents of this Catholic doctrine. They receive the symbols – the BODY was once broken and once resurrected in history. Its a done deal. No 2nd attempts or repetition needed! David Lewayne Porter

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Ricky Grimsley

    Wow we agree!!!! If i wasnt convinced of “pre-wrath” rapture i would say Jesus was coming today. Lol

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    I think there’s plenty of wrath going on around us already

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Tony Conger

    Eucharist is a silly doctrine that in itself teaches the necessity for repeated application of salvation

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    Transubstantiation is not the same thing as the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, it is a doctrine that seeks to explain HOW Christ is present in the Supper using Aristotelean metaphysics—or by flipping Aristotelean metaphysics on its head. That being said, no prominent Christian figure until Zwingli denied the True Presence of Christ in the Supper. There were arguments about HOW Christ was present (whether there was a change in the substance of the elements or not, whether Christ was present spiritually, etc.) however no one debated WHETHER Christ was present.

    Partaking of the Eucharist does not crucify Christ again, nor is it a reapplication of salvation. Rather, it is a means, a vehicle, whereby we commune with Christ and partake of the benefits of his once and for all sacrifice.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Tony Conger

    Sounds like you’re simply describing communion

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    If you don’t take the symbolic view, yes. Many of the older Pentecostals didn’t deny the True Presence. However, as the movement drifted further from its Methodist roots and closer to evangelicalism, Pentecostals began to see it is a merely an empty symbol. However, I honestly believe views are changing.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    Pentecostals have a rich latent sacramentology that often manifests itself outside of the historic views of the Church. For instance, take the use of prayer cloths. Pentecostals believe that anointing the cloth with oil and praying over it will then make it a divine point of contact. Yet, the same logic should apply to the sacraments. God does miraculous stuff with not so miraculous physical stuff.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Ricky Grimsley

    So how is christ more with us at the eucharist that normally when two or three are gathered in his name or when he inhabits the praise of his people?

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    I have to disagree in this sacramental direction for the obvious reason cited before with Henry Volk and @CrossTheology from Belgium. Pentecostals in general and globally do NOT practice unconscionable sacrament participation i.e. infant baptism, Lord’s Supper to children, conversion without conviction and cognitive understanding. The sacramental theology in general may it be both Catholic and Reformed does NOT require conscious participation i.e. the participant does not have to make a conscious decision.

    Pentecostals have attained the more evangelical approach toward any church participation demanding a personal decision. I love reading abut the so called by some “Pentecostal sacraments”but they are just not there within the scope of purely Pentecostal praxis.

    Of course we can draw parallels with other confessions and faiths but its hardly the same. Like the example with anointed clothe – the power is in the prayer and participation under conviction not in the oil, not in the clothe not even in the hands of the presbyters who are no healers by themselves but it is the healing administered by the very power of the presence of God – ref. William DeArteaga Brody Pope Such clothe is then quickly discarded and not sacramentally kept and preserved to be administered again and again in other sick, possessed or dead cases and bodies. Same with the Picture Bible for children – yes we have them within Pentecostalism but they hardly carry the weight of orthodox icons or catholic statue reliquary…

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Terry Wiles

    While not specifically directed at sacramental verses ordinance belief this book is valuable for understanding the difference in the liturgical and Pentecostal view of prayer.

    In a nutshell:
    Liturgical is institutional/sacerdotal. The priest is recipient of supernatural grace and extends that grace through impartation. The dominant emphasis is upon what is objectively done to and for the believer through the clergy. (This is also an emphasis of some current latter rain type ministries and is often copied by evangelists and/or apostolic succession groups.) The institution holds access to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly role.

    Pentecostal is proclamational/congregational. No particular man or woman is essential to this process. The focus is on an immediate spiritual connection with Christ (vertical concept) rather than a historic Episcopal (apostolic) succession where the gifts and powers rest in the institution or the individual. Each believer/priest enjoys access to the prophetic, priestly [equal access to the throne and all grace gifts through prayer by every believer], and kingly [we are joint heirs of Christ and submit ourselves to one another and to the written word.]

    https://www.amazon.com/Theological-functional-dimensions-ordination-Assemblies/dp/0882438212

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    I would have to disagree. To say that liturgical = sacerdotal is a false equivocation. Sacerdotalism confuses the distinction between power and authority. Therefore, the RCC says that the priest has the “power” to confect the sacrament, because of his ordination. This we rightfully reject.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    Liturgy and the sacraments existed long before the Roman Catholic Church

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Terry Wiles Henry Volk The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed, but most authorities propose a fourth-century

    The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, for example, has been traced to the fourth century

    The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Also, “Sub tuum praesidium” was recorded as a part of Coptic liturgy around 250 AD

    True, Didaché contains some rules how to celebrate Eucharist but as per the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present, 2 elements of the service in the earliest time soon disappeared.

    One was the Love-feast (agape) that came just before the Eucharist;

    the other was the spiritual exercises, in which people were moved by the Holy Ghost to prophesy, speak in divers tongues, heal the sick by prayer, and so on.

    Now, try put that last one in a liturgical form for me pls 🙂

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Henry Volk

    The Montanists managed to do it.

  • Reply November 17, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Tony Conger I dont think the Montanists had transubstantial preachers like you imagine it but as per OP some Catholics today claim that transubstantiation does not take away the symbolism of the elements 🙂

  • Reply November 18, 2016

    Louise Cummings

    I don’t think you get it. When He said is any sick among you. Let them call for the elders of the church. Anointing them with oil. The prayer of faith shall save the sick and The Lord shall raise them up. It’s all through obedience. Anointing with cloths Paul anointed aprons. Sent them out. He was following the leading of The Spirit. On The Lords Supper. He told us to do this in Remembrance of Him. He Said as oft as you do this do it in remembrance of Him. For you do show The Lords Death until He Comes. Some things we do is because He said to. Some of the ways He told us to do certain things. Is Simply because of Obedience to Him.

  • Reply November 18, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Terry Wiles Many theologians would argue that an order of service is hardly a liturgy 🙂 How do you see it as one as there’s hardly any repetition

  • Reply November 18, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Henry Volk What do you mean by “historic Western Mass”? How do you see parallel with 1 Cor. 11 (perhaps the only close to liturgical NT text) ?

  • Reply November 18, 2016

    Timothy Carter

    IMPORTANCE OF CHRIST BLOOD
    In the Old Testament we find that God is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14; Dt 12:23). Very clear, Do not eat blood because it contained the animal’s life. However, we must have Christ life, actually, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).
    Jesus’ commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6. I am not saying that this is literal, but, Jesus would NOT be advocating something against God’s law by commanding us to eat blood (Gen 9:4, Acts 15:28-29).
    Jesus cannot contradict Himself. Jesus Cannot contradict the Bible. We see several locations where God gives a new command in the New Testament that seems to be contradictory to the Old Testament. God is not contradicting the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. Therefore, God gives us a new direction in the New Testament.
    Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), this command is a new direction. The earlier command (Lv 11:1-8) that certain foods be regarded as unclean is fulfilled.
    The Old Testament eating regulations, has been fulfilled by Christ, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).
    Acts 15:20, 29 is a pastoral provision by James to keep Jews from being scandalized. by the conduct of Gentile Christians. Paul does the same thing, Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).
    For us to truly understand the effects of Christ blood, we should look at all the references to Jesus’ blood in the New Testament to see what the Bible says that the blood actually does.
    I. Jesus’ blood givens New Covenant
    Mark 14:24;. Luke 22:20; Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Romans 3:23-25; Hebrews 9:12
    In Jesus’ words of institution for the Lord’s Supper in Matthew, Mark, and Luke as well as quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians, he says that his blood is the basis for a new covenant.
    II. Jesus’ blood cleanser us
    Heb 9:14, :22 13:10-12; 1 John 1:7; Rev7:14
    III. Jesus’s blood set us free from sin
    Eph 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev 1:5-6; Rev 5:9
    IV. Jesus’ blood provider of life
    John 6:53-56; 1 Corinthians 10:16
    V. Jesus’ blood justifies us
    Rom 5:8-10; Rev 12:10-11; Rev 1:5-6
    Regardless, which view is correct, we should never forget the power of the blood.

  • Reply November 18, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Timothy Carter As per the discussion it may be proper to begin with if the symbol of Christ’s blood is wine or juice. All the rest seems too liturgical Terry Wiles or historically western Henry Volk Who knows what Charles Page prefers

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Stan Wayne

    No

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Terry Wiles

    Are these serious? Waiting on the first “yes.”
    🙂

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Brody Pope

    Ha! No.

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Paul Hughes

    Um, no, the Lord’s Supper, as it is properly called, was designed by Christ to be a memorial to his substitutionary death on the Cross, and to demonstrate that the Cross is the antitype (fulfillment) of the symbolism of the Passover. The Lord’s Supper is an obvious reflection and reworking of the Seder.

    It was during debates with Gnostics and other Docetists and Dualists, who denied that Christ came in the flesh, claiming that he only “seemed” to have died on the Cross, that the Apologists started emphasizing that the bread and wine represented a greater reality, which evolved into the view called Sacramental Realism, especially as Christianity became mixed with Neoplatonism and Theurgy.

    https://biblequestion.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/pagan-origins-of-sacramental-realism/

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Paul Hughes

    As for the use of the term Eucharist, the first mention of the word that I am aware of was in the Didache, also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, in which is described the church ceremony, which does not in this case include taking the Lord’s Supper.

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Robert Borders

    I did experience far more of the tangible presence Christ and witnessed many healings during sacramental masses with Charismatic Catholics than in traditional Pentecostal meetings.

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Daniel J Hesse

    Part of Sacramental Theology.

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Stan Wayne

    By the way “Eucharist” refers to speaking in tongues in the NT- not communion:

    1 Cor.14:17σὺ μὲν γὰρ καλῶς εὐχαριστεῖς, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἕτερος οὐκ οἰκοδομεῖται

  • Reply March 14, 2017

    Paul Hughes

    Well, EUCHARISTO means “give thanks,” or literally “good grace,” but indeed it is in the context of speaking in tongues in 1 Cor 14:17. “Thanksgiving” is the content of the tongues, Paul says, though it does not edify other people unless interpreted.

    • Reply March 14, 2017

      Stan Wayne

      Thou givest thanks well (when thou speakest in tongues) – Good Eucharist = tongues

    • Reply March 14, 2017

      Paul Hughes

      Mk 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks (EUCHARISTESAS), he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

    • Reply March 14, 2017

      Stan Wayne

      That was likely good Eucharist too but it was the prayer not the wine

    • Reply March 16, 2017

      Varnel Watson

      What wine? Where do you see in the verse the word wine Stan Wayne Why automatically assume the cup means wine?

    • Reply March 16, 2017

      Stan Wayne

      Troy you are on another subject

    • Reply March 17, 2017

      Paul Hughes

      Cup is a metaphor for its contents. They didn’t actually drink the cup, did they?

  • Reply March 16, 2017

    Varnel Watson

    Paul Hughes I think it was Tony Conger who claimed eucharistic disbelief

  • Reply March 17, 2017

    Joseph Kidwell

    I believe that the reformer Zwingli had it right when he taught that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are symbols. The power of this Ordinance lies not in some ‘mystical’ change of the elements or even a spiritual presence of the Lord that is only there when this Ordinance is observed as Luther taught, but in one;s personal faith in the reality that these symbols represent.

  • Reply March 17, 2017

    Joseph Kidwell

    When Jesus said,”This is My body”, it is the same as one pointing to a map and saying that “This is Detroit” or me showing someone a picture of my daughter and saying, “This is Aliye”. He was not speaking literally as is clear because His body was present with them when He made this statement.

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    That’s probably negative Henry John E. Ricky Grimsley

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    John E. Ruffle

    Don’t know but I do.

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    Ricky Grimsley

    I would say no. Most of us are not vampires and cannibals.

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      John E. Ruffle

      You are so out of line in that blasphemous comment. I’d say repent, but you probably posted it in ignorance.

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Ricky Grimsley

      John E. Ruffle the drinking of blood is forbidden in the Bible. By any measure the eating of human flesh is cannibalism and we associate the drinking of blood with vampirism. Transubstantiation is the blasphemy because it breaks the lord over again.

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Anthony McCabe

      Ricky Grimsley ~
      A’men to that Brother! You’re absolutely right in what you say BUT the Catholics have “unfortunately” and “unknowingly” been a little misguided into this corrupted concept of the Bread and Wine.
      Shalom and blessings to you

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    I believe the Orthodox perform this Confirmation ceremony with anointing at the baptism of infants. Catholics generally Confirm around the age of 11-13 but this hardly equates to HSB http://probible.net/2-corinthians-121/

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    Anthony McCabe

    Troy Day ~
    That’s actually more and mainly a Catholic thing really as the Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

    What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

    The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more”; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself (“The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent,” John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

    It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was actually teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Saviour, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

    Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, that concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins “ONCE” for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins “ONCE” and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…” Christ’s once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

    Communion “though symbolic” has also been known (when taken in Faith) as a Very Power and Spiritual affect over, on and for the Fullness, Health and Healing of ones body, heart, mind and soul.

    Shalom and blessings to you

  • Reply March 21, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    Pretty sure Orthodox perform Confirmation ceremony with anointing at the baptism of infants.

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Anthony McCabe

      Troy Day ~

      Maybe BUT I’m not really into “Religion” as such because I believe We should enter into a RELATIONSHIP with the Heavenly Father and NOT via ANY Religious Organizations, who are just full of Man-made Rules and Regulations. Christ (Yeshua) did NOT say; believe in me through the guidance of many different nominations, He just mentioned through Himself, in Faith and Belief. “Plus” didn’t Yeshua (Christ) have His own problems with the “Religious Folk” of His time??.

      Religious Organizations causes arguments, racism, prejudice, division, hate and even murder .. Kinda the total “Opposite” of being “Christ-like” or Godly, wouldn’t you say?, it actually sounds more Antichrist-like to me?!

      Shalom and blessings to you

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      Sure. Good point. But the question here asked by Henry Volk is Do Pentecostals believe in transubstantial eucharist?

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Anthony McCabe

      Troy Day ~

      Yeah, I know, it’s just that you mention another Organization (Religion) which caused me to babbler on about Religious Mumbo-Jumbo lol and NO I don’t think Pentecostals do as I explained earlier, that I think it’s mainly Catholicism who practice/believe that the bread and wine turn to Real flesh and blood though I may of heard that some Orthodox are starting to lean towards the same cultish beliefs.

      Shalom and blessings

    • Reply March 21, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      You are right Comes down to organized religion

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.