The Reformed tradition is the only consistent Christian theology.

>>17823066 (OP)
forming new denominations is the only consistent tradition

denominations = not Christianity
Christianity = Christianity

>>17823066 (OP)
Despite being atheist/agnostic there are some metaphoric truths found in the bible, however I do regard its historical and supernatural aspects as fictional, the cringeworthyness of evangelists & fundamentalists are enough to show me that the bible should not be taken as literally true, the only time I go to church is to meet people to make new friends

All gods are mythologies
All holy books are fictional

>>17823176
>an atheist trying to read and understand a Sacred Scripture
give up already. you'll not be able to understand

>>17823066 (OP)
Consistently shit that is.

>>17823184
do you have to be trans to understand and refute transgenderism?

>>17823197
No, you have to be Christian.

>>17823066 (OP)
The reformed’s tortured exegesis over the words of institution isn’t consistent with the Bible or the church fathers.

>>17823285
It's not tortured, it's consistent and contextual. Jesus said "I am the door", do you take from that that He was a door?
Jesus said "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins". Where did that happen? How? He's obviously talking about the cross, which is being represented by the elements of bread and wine standing for His body and blood (i.e. "poured out", which is obviously a reference to the act of pouring wine into a cup, which He was doing in that moment, but metonymically refers to His blood shed on the cross, "for many for forgiveness of sins").

>>17823184
Atheists are the only people who understand scripture.

>>17823396
Atheist interpretation is in the same category as Gnostic and Mormon interpretation of being hilariously untenable and absurd

>>17823402
Christianity is literally not true and contradictory and absurd so I don't see how throwing stones in a glass house helps your case. Atheists are the only people intelligent enough with the proper metaphysics to understand

>>17823066 (OP)
Reformed are not Christian. Enjoy hell where you will be burning for all eternity.

>>17823408

>>17823408
Some of the greatest minds in history were Christian. Some more devout in others, but they surely were more intelligent and knowledgeable about their faith than a random anonymous poster on 4channel dot com

>>17823184

>>17823176
>>17823510
Imagine how much higher quality /his/ would be if these people went back to r/atheism

>>17823306
>Jesus said "I am the door", do you take from that that He was a door?
Yes. Christ literally is a figurative door because he is the only way by which men enter into the church through faith in him. The figure of speech isn’t in the word is. The figure is in the predicate.
>Where did that happen?
At the last supper.
>How
Jesus is God and rose from the dead. His word can do what he says. The bread and the wine can forgive sins.
>He's obviously talking about the cross,
No, he’s talking about the bread and wine. Which is in front of him and what he tells them to eat and drink.

You’re making an assumption that since Christ used figurative language elsewhere then it has to be figurative in the words of institution too.
Three things have to be said in defense of the literal reading of the words of institution. First, it is an article of faith with very serious consequences if it is eaten and drank unworthily as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29. Because it’s an article of faith, it has to be explained clearly. The words of institution are the seat of doctrine which is the place in scripture where Christ tells us plainly what we are supposed to believe about the sacrament. Since there are dire consequences if you eat and drink unworthily then we have to take the words of Christ plainly. Second he gives his supper to the church as a testament. Paul speaks about this in Galatians 3:15. This means a last will and testament once it’s executed it must be done by the letter. You’re not allowed to use figurative or symbolic language in your last testament but you have to stick to the actual meaning of the words. The third thing is when Jesus is saying he is the door and the vine, he is not saying he symbolizes the vine or door. The key to understanding those passages the figure isn’t the word am or is. The metaphor or figure is in the predicate. The word that comes after the object of the word is. Christ literally is the true spiritual vine.

>>17823604
>literally is a figurative door
>literally
>figurative
Pick one lmao

>>17823604
>Christ literally is a figurative door
That's a contradiction in terms.
>The figure of speech isn’t in the word is. The figure is in the predicate.
Right, so when He says "this is my body", the figure isn't the word is, it's body
>At the last supper.
The blood of the covenant was poured out for the forgiveness of sins at the last supper?
>The bread and the wine can forgive sins.
I gather you're a Romanist and believe the sacrament is a propitiatory sacrifice?
>No, he’s talking about the bread and wine.
If you let Him speak in the context of the book, He is talking about the cross. Do you seriously think this is the author's intent? Is this how the original audience would interpret it? If there's no insertion of an external tradition, is that how this would be interpreted?
>Since there are dire consequences if you eat and drink unworthily then we have to take the words of Christ plainly.
This argument does not follow, for consequences are attached to unworthy partaking of the sacrament, not to misinterpretation of the words of institution. Even if it did, the plain meaning of the text is figurative, and an emotional appeal to fear will not change the meaning of the text. Notably this is not Paul's interpretation of the words, as he (writing under the inspiration of the Spirit) calls the elements bread and wine, and says it proclaims the Lord's death.
>Paul speaks about this in Galatians 3:15
There is nothing about the Lord's supper in Galatians 3
>You’re not allowed to use figurative or symbolic language in your last testament
It's interesting you think you can tell Jesus what He's allowed to do, but the last supper is not "the last testament" of Jesus nor does scripture ever say it is. The new testament is in His blood which was spilled on the cross of Calvary.

>>17823678
>If there's no insertion of an external tradition, is that how this would be interpreted?
NTA, but the answer is no: it's very clear that the bread and wine were meant to signify the upcoming crucifixion, where Jesus would be killed on the cross and His blood would literally be shed. In direct anticipation of that, He directs our focus to both His body (signified by the bread in the supper) and His blood (signified by the wine).

In Luke 22:19 He says to do these things in remembrance of Him, and that is the only command or imperative statement we take from this passage.

I would also note that Peter, over in the book of 1 Peter chapter 3, also called baptism a "figure" (Gr. ἀντίτυπον). Since it represents what saves us, which is the resurrection of Christ. In water baptism, a person is submerged in water and then brought back above the surface, signifying the burial and resurrection of Christ. Paul in Colossians 2:12 connects these actions directly together. Meanwhile the Lord's supper also signifies the death of Christ. It makes perfect sense.

So the answer then is simply no. You really would have to have some kind of manmade false tradition to say otherwise, at the end of the day.

>>17823066 (OP)
Great! Too bad it's not Biblical.

>>17823678
>That's a contradiction in terms.
It isn’t. Is Christ not the only door to enter the church?
>I gather you're a Romanist and believe the sacrament is a propitiatory sacrifice?
No. The Lord’s Supper forgives sins because the plain reading of the text says they do.
>If you let Him speak in the context of the book
There is nothing about the context of the words of Institution which leads us to interpret them figuratively. The only thing that leads one to read it in such a way is the belief that sinful human reason has to always be able to comprehend the things that God gives to us.
>He is talking about the cross.
This interpretation makes the Lord’s supper a meager proclamation of the gospel. It is much more than that as well. To do this in remembrance of me means to remember Christ’s sacrifice and to receive the benefits of that sacrifice which are offered therein in the Lord’s Supper. So Lutherans confess in the Book of Concord.
>For to remember Christ is not the idle celebration of a show [not something that is accomplished only by some gestures and actions], or one instituted for the sake of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses is celebrated in tragedies, but it is to remember the benefits of Christ and receive them by faith so as to be quickened by them.