In our last issue, #22, "Christ in You," we had two readers who published articles charging us with false teaching. One charged us by saying: "The phrase [which we published in issue #22] 'Where Christ's body and blood are, there He is,' seems to be reasonable, but it goes beyond what the clear Word of God says and what Paul reaffirms." HERE IS OUR BRIEF RESPONSE TO THAT CHARGE. Martin Luther, who translated the entire Bible and spent his entire life polishing the translation, writes: "Of course it is a miraculous sign that Christ's body and blood are present in the Sacrament, yet they are not visibly there. It is enough for us, however, that we perceive through the Word and faith that He is there" (Luther's Works, vol. 37, p. 337). Again Luther writes: "For I must always confess that Christ is present when His body and blood are present. His words do not lie to me, and He is not separated from His body and blood" (Luther's Works, vol. 36, p. 294). This is Luther's confession of faith, based on God's Word, and it is also our confession.

One of the two readers referred to above was me, Pastor A. J. Loeschman.  Let us be clear.  I did not bring official charges against anyone. 

First, I don't know for sure who wrote the articles using the Roman Catholic expressions about the Real Presence of Christ, instead of the Lutheran expression of about the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood.  The articles in Good News are unsigned, thus no one is able to be held accountable.  I think this is wrong.  They ought to be signed.  Why aren't they? 

Second, I don't trust those in authority to be able to judge true doctrine if it hit them in the face.  Dr. Schulz knows how that works, since his Scriptural judgments regarding Pres. Benke's sins were rejected.  Even Dr. Schulz appears to be misled about what the real issue is.  Brothers in Christ who know and believe the Word of God are going to have to solve this between us on that commonly agreed on Authority.  This is what I hope for in these "back and forth" discussions. 

Third, I would prefer these discussions take place in private, but that is not to be since Good News published their Issue on the Lord's Supper and Dr. Schulz assured me that he would watch more carefully, not wanting false doctrine to appear in the magazine.  Then Issue #22 appeared with stressed and emphasized "Christ Present" language.  Besides, with these notions being distributed widely, many of Jesus' people may be misled, too.

Fourth, as I state in my letter, I agree with Luther's statements.  But Luther is being misread because this quote is out of context.  He does not say that Jesus is present in the bread and wine. He would be teaching the Roman doctrine of Concomitance which he personally and specifically rejected in the Smalcald Articles, Article VI, second paragraph.  Luther calls this doctrine "specious learning of the sophists." Luther's repeated and definitive teachings on the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine are what we should be reading and trusting as his position, not a remark made one time.

The referenced quote from Luther's Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, (Volume 37), (edited by Robert H. Fisher whose introductions (pages xix and 6) shows that he accepted in 1961 the ecumenical position of the predecessor bodies of the ELCA which has now completely given up its Lutheran belief in the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in favor of the personal encounter with the living Christ so they can be in fellowship with those whom Luther wrote against in his Confession) is part of a section defending the simple understanding of the Words of Institution from the logic of the Sacramentarians who denied that Christ's body and blood were in the wine.  Luther is saying that the wine is not just a "sign," not of the entire Christ, but His blood is really and truly there.  In context, it is plain to see, since Luther insists two paragraphs previously, "Therefore, we must hold to the text as it reads," and later, "... the fearful thing is that men will build upon it (logic) and defy the Word of God. (Lacking the German I cannot tell if this is an accurate translation or not.  Even if it is accurate, it is clear that Luther is defending the simple truth of the Words of Institution, and not Roman doctrine.)

As to the second quote supplied to Dr. Schulz, it is interesting to note it also in context. The document was Luther's "The Adoration of the Sacrament" of 1523.  Luther is taking a moderate view to win over some who had taken the position that folks should not adore the Sacrament. He urges patience and love as he did a couple years earlier over distribution of the bread alone. We know how that came out.  He wrote: "Now to come back to the sacrament: he who does not believe that Christ�s body and blood are present does well not to worship either with his spirit or with his body. But he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning. For I must always confess that Christ is present when his body and blood are present. His words do not lie to me, and he is not separated from his body and blood. And when he lay dead in the grave, he was still Christ and worthy of his honor, even when there was no longer any blood in him."  (My emphases) (Luther, M. 1999, c1959. Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Fortress Press: Philadelphia ) 

Several things are clear from this quote.  1. Luther is clear on what is present in the bread and wine.  The body and blood of Christ.  2. "Christ is present when his body and blood are present" is speaking, not of the location of Christ, but the time or His presence.  He does not say "Christ is present where his body and blood are present," that is, in the bread and wine.  3.  The sacrificed and dead Christ is because there is no blood left in His body.  His body is even in death worthy of honor because He is and will always be the holy God/man.

The reader who has access to Luther's Works should read them and see how often Luther refers to "the presence of the body and blood" of Christ.  Do a computer search to see what Luther's real focus is in expressing the Real Presence.  Five to 55 references on "Christ present" to "body and blood."  The ratio is even greater in the Confessions: seven to 148.  How can one base and defend doctrine that relies on several passages that are not meant to define the Biblical doctrine?   Luther trusted the Words of Institution spoken by our Lord to give him true doctrine.   Lutherans do, too.

Why is this "new" doctrine being promoted now among "confessionals?"  See Pieper Vol. III, p. 355-357

Dr. Schulz has not contacted me in anyway since his first letter in early 2004.  My letter to him is below, written after the publishing of the October, 2005 letter enclosed with Issue #23.

I repeat my challenge to any pastor, theologian or layman to write a serious Bible and Confessions based paper defending the idea that Jesus taught, Paul reiterated and Luther propagated the The Real Presence of Christ Himself in the elements we receive in the Lord's Supper. If this can be demonstrated, I will forthwith confess my error and accept that position as Scriptural truth.  Until then, I will continue my one man crusade against the inroads of what I believe to be error.

Church - 936/399-5563                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Pastor's Home - 936/399-4001
www2.txcyber.com/~wd5iqr/beth/beth.html                                                                                                                                                                                                 Email - wd5iqr@txcyber.com

                                                                                                                                                                                                            December 5, 2005

Dear. Dr. Schulz,

Since I have written critically of a number of articles by some of your writers with regard to their expressions of the Real Presence, I thought I ought to also write commending the authors of the last issue of Good News on Suffering.

This was excellent and will be of great comfort to Christians who suffer and use in spreading the Good News of the Savior suffering for the sins of the world.

Please pass along my congratulations to those responsible for this last issue.

However, I see in your letter that someone has misled you to totally misunderstand my concerns with the expressions about the Real Presence that I wrote you about previously. You had previously said in response to my first letter that you would be more mindful of this. This breach of faith is the only reason that I posted my concerns. I am sorry that you did not contact me so that we could get together on this, since I think you and I agree. I don't know about the author of the articles.

I agree heartily with Luther that His body and blood are not present if Christ Himself is not present. The Supper would not be the Lord's Supper if He were not present with His Word in the divinely ordained use and action. Only He can bring about the Real Presence of His body and blood: no man, priest or pope at a congregational celebration.

The question is, "Is Jesus Himself present in the bread and wine along with His body and blood?" The Roman doctrine of concomitance and several expressions in the "Christ in You" issue says "Yes." The Confessions, Luther and Pieper and other faithful Lutherans say, "No." Our doctrine is clear even in the Small Catechism: we receive four elements: earthly substances of bread and wine and heavenly substances of Christ's body and blood. There is no fifth or sixth element of Jesus Himself in what we eat and drink with our mouths. With our faith-mouths (John 6), yes; but not as we orally eat and drink.

I know that a number of supposedly "confessional" Lutherans in important places hold and defend the Roman doctrine of concomitance. Apparently one of them is on your staff of writers. It appears from a number of his terms and emphases that he has engaged this subject before, perhaps with me.

There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates this solidly Lutheran doctrine, if one is not misled by reason and logic used by men who wish to go beyond our dogma. I would be happy to share this evidence with you in the interest of a proper expression of the Real Presence of Christ's true, substantial and essential body and blood in the bread and wine of His Sacrament. In fact, it is available on the Concordtx.org webpage under the Lord's Supper section.

I pray that we can agree on this matter. Be assured that I agree with Luther's position as you have stated it, but that is not the real matter of disagreement with the Lutheran Concomitantists.

Blessings as you prepare to celebrate and bring the good tiding of great joy to all.

Pastor Al Loeschman