Sunday, August 06, 2006

I'm not Luther (either)

Well I am glad I got high points on most alternatives, since I feel the disputed questions are the wrong one's to ask anyway. I feel 100% comfortable with "symbol" language as well as transsubstation language. Maybe that was what Luther meant too, he didn't want to limit the ways we can enter the mystery. For more on my understanding on the Eucharist, see my recent posts on the subject: Communion and Community, The Eucharist as an Exercise for the Next World, The Body of Christ, The Eucharist and Salvation.

You scored as Luther. You are Martin Luther.
You'll stick with the words of Scripture, and defend
this with earthy expressions. You believe in an
orthodox Christology. You believe that the
bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ,
but aren't too sure about where he goes after
the meal, and so you don't accept reservation
of the Blessed Sacrament or Eucharistic devotions.











Eucharistic theology
created with

1 comment:

One of Freedom said...

I ended up with Calvin? I too am comfortable with both languages, in fact I would insist on both the language of symbol and the language of transubstantiation. Then again I really have little clue what Calvin believed about the Eucharist - guess I have some digging to do.