Vocation as sacramental

A paragraph from a piece by Peter Berger, via Anthony Sacramone:

The Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist implies a view of creation itself being a sacrament. All of nature, the world as perceived in ordinary experience and in empirical science, is sacramental—in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, displays “outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace.” In one of my earlier ventures into unauthorized theologizing, I adumbrated this proposition by the phrase “signals of transcendence”: God, as it were, hides in the universe, but here and there we can find signs of his presence. In their understanding of the Eucharist, Lutherans used the phrase finitum capax infiniti—“the finite can contain the infinite.” The finite, perishable elements of bread and wine can, invisibly, contain the infinite, eternal presence of the risen Christ. But so can the finite, perishable reality of the empirical universe. George Forell, one of the best American interpreters of the Reformation, opined that the phrase finitum capax infiniti expressed the very core of Lutheran faith.

via Luther vs. the Proto-Pentecostals « Strange Herring.

I would just observe that the Lutheran doctrine of vocation is also sacramental in this sense.  Not a sacrament, I hasten to add, but an example of how God works through and by means of the physical world.  Vocation, according to Luther, is all about how God works through human beings (giving daily bread by means of farmers and bakers, creating and caring for new life through parents, protecting us through lawful magistrates, granting healing by means of the medical professions, teaching through teachers, expressing beauty by meaning by means of artists, proclaiming His Word and administering His sacraments by means of pastors, etc., etc.).  other gifts

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Helen K.

    I recently purchased a copy of Sasse’s “This is My Body” and hope to work my way through it. It is a revised edition and in soft cover. I’d hoped to find a hardboud as this is somewhat difficult to keep open but I don’t know if the few hardbound copies I’ve run across online are the same edition. Is anyone here familiar with this?

  • Helen K.

    I recently purchased a copy of Sasse’s “This is My Body” and hope to work my way through it. It is a revised edition and in soft cover. I’d hoped to find a hardboud as this is somewhat difficult to keep open but I don’t know if the few hardbound copies I’ve run across online are the same edition. Is anyone here familiar with this?

  • Dan Kempin

    I hate to start the day with an unnecessary criticism, but I don’t think Peter Berger understands lutheran theology here. We do not confess that the bread of the sacrament contains “the infinite, eternal presence of the risen Christ.” We confess that it contains His body. Flesh and blood. Human nature, and stuff.

    Likewise, the phrase “finitum capax infiniti,” if my memory still serves me, was a response to the reformed axiom (John Calvin, I think) that “finitum NON capax infiniti.” He asserted that the finite COULD not contain the infinite (on what basis I would let a reformed theologian explain) and therefore Christ could NOT be present in the physical sacrament.

    In other words, the lutheran statement was not a broad assertion that the infinite, in general, can be found in the finite. It was referring specificlly to the Lord’s supper. The argument goes something like this: (In response to Calvin’s statement) “Well, the Lord said that His body IS given as he gives the physical bread. Therefore, since Christ said it, I guess the finite CAN contain the infinite. So there.”

  • Dan Kempin

    I hate to start the day with an unnecessary criticism, but I don’t think Peter Berger understands lutheran theology here. We do not confess that the bread of the sacrament contains “the infinite, eternal presence of the risen Christ.” We confess that it contains His body. Flesh and blood. Human nature, and stuff.

    Likewise, the phrase “finitum capax infiniti,” if my memory still serves me, was a response to the reformed axiom (John Calvin, I think) that “finitum NON capax infiniti.” He asserted that the finite COULD not contain the infinite (on what basis I would let a reformed theologian explain) and therefore Christ could NOT be present in the physical sacrament.

    In other words, the lutheran statement was not a broad assertion that the infinite, in general, can be found in the finite. It was referring specificlly to the Lord’s supper. The argument goes something like this: (In response to Calvin’s statement) “Well, the Lord said that His body IS given as he gives the physical bread. Therefore, since Christ said it, I guess the finite CAN contain the infinite. So there.”

  • Jack

    In the event that Vocation, in and of itself is Sacramental, how does one explain what that “preacher” does in the former basketball stadium in southern Texas? Sacramental?

    In the event that Vocation is Sacramental, wouldn’t Lutheranism then have to, at least state that the other five Sacraments of the RC Church are Sacramental?

    I understand how a surgeon’s vocation is from God, whether the surgeon believes it, but Sacramental?

  • Jack

    In the event that Vocation, in and of itself is Sacramental, how does one explain what that “preacher” does in the former basketball stadium in southern Texas? Sacramental?

    In the event that Vocation is Sacramental, wouldn’t Lutheranism then have to, at least state that the other five Sacraments of the RC Church are Sacramental?

    I understand how a surgeon’s vocation is from God, whether the surgeon believes it, but Sacramental?

  • larry

    Good clarification Dan.

    However, Luther did very much say God operates via the “larvae ” or masks of creation.

    The distinction is this in creatures, as masks, I cannot know Gods disposition toward me for I experience evil in them, yes even the alien work of God. Only in the sacraments do I have the revelation of God as mercy, forgiveness actually gifted to me, etc.

  • larry

    Good clarification Dan.

    However, Luther did very much say God operates via the “larvae ” or masks of creation.

    The distinction is this in creatures, as masks, I cannot know Gods disposition toward me for I experience evil in them, yes even the alien work of God. Only in the sacraments do I have the revelation of God as mercy, forgiveness actually gifted to me, etc.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    #2 To divide the human from the divine is to be Nestorian in our theology. Where the human is so is the divine. I think Berger gets our position more than you realize.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    #2 To divide the human from the divine is to be Nestorian in our theology. Where the human is so is the divine. I think Berger gets our position more than you realize.

  • Steve Bauer

    And we do not experience only evil through God’s masks but also his goodness. Through His masks God “daily and richly provides me with all that I need to support this body and life.” What makes the Gospel and the Sacraments the ultimate (not in the sense of being at the high end of a continuum but rather of a higher order or dimension) expression of God’s goodness and love is that they communicate that God “justifies the ungodly.”

  • Steve Bauer

    And we do not experience only evil through God’s masks but also his goodness. Through His masks God “daily and richly provides me with all that I need to support this body and life.” What makes the Gospel and the Sacraments the ultimate (not in the sense of being at the high end of a continuum but rather of a higher order or dimension) expression of God’s goodness and love is that they communicate that God “justifies the ungodly.”

  • Dan Kempin

    #5,

    Whoah! If you understand me to be dividing the human from the divine, then you understand me wrongly. Because of the unity of the two natures, it is impossible for the human nature to be present without the divine nature. And vice versa. That is rather the point.

    If Berger does understand the lutheran position, then he is using reformed language to describe it. Lutherans do not confess “the presence of the presence of God” in the sacrament. We confess the presence of the physical body of Christ in the actual bread which is eaten.

    It is reformed theology that divides the person of Christ, confessing that Christ is truly and genuinely present in the sacrament, but insisting that his human nature is not present. (Or at least not physically present, but subsumed in the divine presence. That would be eutychianism, I think.)

  • Dan Kempin

    #5,

    Whoah! If you understand me to be dividing the human from the divine, then you understand me wrongly. Because of the unity of the two natures, it is impossible for the human nature to be present without the divine nature. And vice versa. That is rather the point.

    If Berger does understand the lutheran position, then he is using reformed language to describe it. Lutherans do not confess “the presence of the presence of God” in the sacrament. We confess the presence of the physical body of Christ in the actual bread which is eaten.

    It is reformed theology that divides the person of Christ, confessing that Christ is truly and genuinely present in the sacrament, but insisting that his human nature is not present. (Or at least not physically present, but subsumed in the divine presence. That would be eutychianism, I think.)

  • Dan Kempin

    This is getting away from the point, though, which is the nature of vocation. I might suggest, Dr. Veith, that a better word than “sacramental” is “incarnational.” The work of vocation is God’s work, incarnate in the flesh and blood of his people. It is a very powerful point that you raise, that God uses the work of his people as a means, not of forgiving grace, but certainly as a means of his love, care, and providence. He is our Heavenly and Perfect Father, but he also gives us imperfect earthly fathers so that we might know his care and love in a “skin on” manner. Not only does he provide for our needs through the service of others, but he also makes us dependent on their service. There are unique bonds formed in the fellowship of work, and the pride of vocational achievement has it’s foundation in the commandment to “love your neighbor.” It all ties back to God, but it connects to our lives in an every moment kind of way that differs from the weekly fellowship of the Sabbath.

    Is that what you mean?

  • Dan Kempin

    This is getting away from the point, though, which is the nature of vocation. I might suggest, Dr. Veith, that a better word than “sacramental” is “incarnational.” The work of vocation is God’s work, incarnate in the flesh and blood of his people. It is a very powerful point that you raise, that God uses the work of his people as a means, not of forgiving grace, but certainly as a means of his love, care, and providence. He is our Heavenly and Perfect Father, but he also gives us imperfect earthly fathers so that we might know his care and love in a “skin on” manner. Not only does he provide for our needs through the service of others, but he also makes us dependent on their service. There are unique bonds formed in the fellowship of work, and the pride of vocational achievement has it’s foundation in the commandment to “love your neighbor.” It all ties back to God, but it connects to our lives in an every moment kind of way that differs from the weekly fellowship of the Sabbath.

    Is that what you mean?

  • shell

    Dan Kempin @ #5,
    What do you mean that “Lutherans do not confess ‘the presence of the presence of God’ in the sacrament”?

  • shell

    Dan Kempin @ #5,
    What do you mean that “Lutherans do not confess ‘the presence of the presence of God’ in the sacrament”?

  • shell

    Sorry, my previous post should read: Dan Kempin @ #7

  • shell

    Sorry, my previous post should read: Dan Kempin @ #7

  • Dan Kempin

    Shell,

    What I mean is that lutherans confess more than merely that God is “present” in the sacrament. One can confess that God is “present” while denying that Christ gives his true body and blood, for indeed, Jesus said, “I will be with you to the end of the age.” That is not the same thing as the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

  • Dan Kempin

    Shell,

    What I mean is that lutherans confess more than merely that God is “present” in the sacrament. One can confess that God is “present” while denying that Christ gives his true body and blood, for indeed, Jesus said, “I will be with you to the end of the age.” That is not the same thing as the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

  • Dan Kempin

    Shell,

    Or if you wondered why I repeated the phrase, it is because the author said that the bread of the sacrament can “contain the . . . presence” of Christ. That seemed redundant to me, and not very precise.

  • Dan Kempin

    Shell,

    Or if you wondered why I repeated the phrase, it is because the author said that the bread of the sacrament can “contain the . . . presence” of Christ. That seemed redundant to me, and not very precise.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#7 Thank you for the clarification.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#7 Thank you for the clarification.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    The Lord is actually present in it.

    How He is present we don’t claim to know, lest we go down the road that the R. Catholics travel upon, or the enthusiasts…who both employ human reason to try and figure it out.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    The Lord is actually present in it.

    How He is present we don’t claim to know, lest we go down the road that the R. Catholics travel upon, or the enthusiasts…who both employ human reason to try and figure it out.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    By the way, in case anyone has some Baptist/Calvinist friends, this one is really good (from yesterday) in explaining why we believe in the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine:

    http://theoldadam.com/2012/10/22/the-sacrament-is-the-gospel/

    It will ruffle their feathers. But so what?

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    By the way, in case anyone has some Baptist/Calvinist friends, this one is really good (from yesterday) in explaining why we believe in the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine:

    http://theoldadam.com/2012/10/22/the-sacrament-is-the-gospel/

    It will ruffle their feathers. But so what?

  • jb

    When we understand that being in Christ is everything . . .

    Everything in life will Become “sacramental” (a mystery) . . .

  • jb

    When we understand that being in Christ is everything . . .

    Everything in life will Become “sacramental” (a mystery) . . .

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Dan @8, that’s exactly what I mean. And, as I already underscored, I am NOT saying that vocation is “a sacrament.” I’m using “sacramental” as Berger uses it, as an example of God working by means of physical things (or physical people).

    Jack, as in other vocations, we human beings often sin in and against our vocations. God calls pastors to proclaim His Word. He does not call pastors to do otherwise.

    As for the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism, I’m not sure what you are getting at. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are, as defined as tangible manifestations of the Gospel instituted by Christ. The others don’t fit those criteria. Are they “sacramental”? Well, Roman Catholicism certainly affirms God’s work through matter. Actually, though, in the Lord’s Supper, Roman Catholic theology teaches that the material bread and wine are NOT present in the Sacrament but are only “accidents,” an illusory appearance of something that has been substantially changed. The bread and wine, in that view, are NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. So I believe Lutheran sacramental theology is MORE sacramental than that of Roman Catholics, despite their having more sacraments than Lutherans do.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Dan @8, that’s exactly what I mean. And, as I already underscored, I am NOT saying that vocation is “a sacrament.” I’m using “sacramental” as Berger uses it, as an example of God working by means of physical things (or physical people).

    Jack, as in other vocations, we human beings often sin in and against our vocations. God calls pastors to proclaim His Word. He does not call pastors to do otherwise.

    As for the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism, I’m not sure what you are getting at. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are, as defined as tangible manifestations of the Gospel instituted by Christ. The others don’t fit those criteria. Are they “sacramental”? Well, Roman Catholicism certainly affirms God’s work through matter. Actually, though, in the Lord’s Supper, Roman Catholic theology teaches that the material bread and wine are NOT present in the Sacrament but are only “accidents,” an illusory appearance of something that has been substantially changed. The bread and wine, in that view, are NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. So I believe Lutheran sacramental theology is MORE sacramental than that of Roman Catholics, despite their having more sacraments than Lutherans do.

  • jb

    Gene -

    Please permit my humble observation about matters . . .

    Life itself is “sacramental.” It is most unfortunate that we have been limited by the Latin term, rather legalistic aa it were, and not that of the Greek – mysterion – (μυστήριον) -

    It is a major fault of the Church, by whatever name it might claim (sad to say it is many times more than 1 or 10 or 1,ooo), that we cannot we cannot even agree, in this, the week of our (us Lutherans ) – that we don’t get it. Our biggest celebration, and we we (most) do not get it. Sad.

    Luther “got it” and was sacramental beyond any present Lutheran belief. He got it that the whole matter is μυστήριον – sacramental – a mystery, which we moderns hate without reservation.

    This Sunday’s Series B Epistle Text nails it: “propitiation by His blood.” (Ephesians 3:19-28). That should end the matter. Unfortunately, those who do not get the Gospel, do not get the text.

    I, like Luther, get it, and will preach it, because my life, and the life of my flock, depend upon my doing so.

    I shall leave matters at that. One either “gets” Jesus . . .

    Or not. There is no “in-between.” Period.

    jb

  • jb

    Gene -

    Please permit my humble observation about matters . . .

    Life itself is “sacramental.” It is most unfortunate that we have been limited by the Latin term, rather legalistic aa it were, and not that of the Greek – mysterion – (μυστήριον) -

    It is a major fault of the Church, by whatever name it might claim (sad to say it is many times more than 1 or 10 or 1,ooo), that we cannot we cannot even agree, in this, the week of our (us Lutherans ) – that we don’t get it. Our biggest celebration, and we we (most) do not get it. Sad.

    Luther “got it” and was sacramental beyond any present Lutheran belief. He got it that the whole matter is μυστήριον – sacramental – a mystery, which we moderns hate without reservation.

    This Sunday’s Series B Epistle Text nails it: “propitiation by His blood.” (Ephesians 3:19-28). That should end the matter. Unfortunately, those who do not get the Gospel, do not get the text.

    I, like Luther, get it, and will preach it, because my life, and the life of my flock, depend upon my doing so.

    I shall leave matters at that. One either “gets” Jesus . . .

    Or not. There is no “in-between.” Period.

    jb

  • larry

    The side issue but important: The Lutheran confession on the sacrament is not that he is “present” but that his body and blood are present. To confess only a “presence” (real or otherwise) is the enthusiast (reformed, et. al.) position even if it goes under a “Lutheran moniker”.

    This is the point Sasse clarifies, the issue was not real presence and “how that happens” but the actual body and blood of Christ, not just a real presence (that’s where the Nestorian heresy inserts). This is why Lutheran’s ubiquitously adopted the language like “very, real and true” body and blood and not just “real presence” (which the Calvinist can agree with). How THAT happens, the very, real and true body and blood presence we do not know and then to pursue explaining that is to go down the road of Rome.

    Luther writes, “If I say, ‘The carpenter Jesus was crucified by the Jews and the same Jesus is the true God,’ Nestorius would agree that this is true. But if I say, ‘God was crucified by the Jews, ‘he says, ‘No! For crucifixion and death are idomata or attributes not of divine but of human nature.” Luther recognized that Nestorius taught in principle nothing other than what Zwingli taught-namely, “that the divinity of Christ could not suffer”.

    Ngien writes, “He (Luther) rejects theologia gloriae because it fails to define the nature of God in terms of His act of self-identification with the crucified Christ. It subjugates the cross to a preconceived metaphysical idea of divine apathy. If God is denied suffering, then, the cross cannot be a revelation of God. Jesus, the God-man, the crucified One, gives to the predicate “God” its substantial content, revealing the true identity of God. The meaning of the word “God” is provided, not by philosophy, but by its reference to the person of Jesus Christ so that Christian theology must necessarily think about God in connection with the crucified Christ. Christian faith must speak of no other God than the incarnate God-the human God or the crucified God. Passibility is required by Luther’s theologia crucis, for God was fully and actively present in the historical Christ who was crucified. The hidden God IS the crucified God: the eternal God, who hides in the mortal and suffering form of human existence, is, for Luther, the subject of Christ’s suffering and even death but in such a way that these assertions can be explained only according to the communicatio idiomatum.” (end quote)

    This is why the Lord’s Supper is not just a “real presence” of even Christ (Nestorius/Zwingli/Calvin/some Lutherans) but the very, real and true body and blood of Christ. Where one nature is so is the other and in no other way do we reference God “really present” and know Him.

    Which takes us back to God in masks versus a sacrament: While it is true that I can know God’s goodness in good things, it is equally true that evil occurs and His alien work in the same masks. Theologies of glory only reference God, when things go well, “it is His mercy and goodness” but when times are evil, and no other reference is, then “I must be doing something wrong”. Hence Luther’s point quoted by Ngien above. It is ONLY by the sacraments that I know that in ALL things, experienced as good or evil that “all things work together for me” to my good and meant as good by God. For not all my life is “good times and things” sometimes cancer is going to kill a loved one, sometimes I won’t be able to pay “my bills”, sometimes all sorts of tragedy pile up one behind another without a seeming end in site. Only then can I know even these alien works of God are his ultimate good and mercy via the sacraments and that “all things work together for good…” (Rom. 8:28), both the good times and the bad/evil.

  • larry

    The side issue but important: The Lutheran confession on the sacrament is not that he is “present” but that his body and blood are present. To confess only a “presence” (real or otherwise) is the enthusiast (reformed, et. al.) position even if it goes under a “Lutheran moniker”.

    This is the point Sasse clarifies, the issue was not real presence and “how that happens” but the actual body and blood of Christ, not just a real presence (that’s where the Nestorian heresy inserts). This is why Lutheran’s ubiquitously adopted the language like “very, real and true” body and blood and not just “real presence” (which the Calvinist can agree with). How THAT happens, the very, real and true body and blood presence we do not know and then to pursue explaining that is to go down the road of Rome.

    Luther writes, “If I say, ‘The carpenter Jesus was crucified by the Jews and the same Jesus is the true God,’ Nestorius would agree that this is true. But if I say, ‘God was crucified by the Jews, ‘he says, ‘No! For crucifixion and death are idomata or attributes not of divine but of human nature.” Luther recognized that Nestorius taught in principle nothing other than what Zwingli taught-namely, “that the divinity of Christ could not suffer”.

    Ngien writes, “He (Luther) rejects theologia gloriae because it fails to define the nature of God in terms of His act of self-identification with the crucified Christ. It subjugates the cross to a preconceived metaphysical idea of divine apathy. If God is denied suffering, then, the cross cannot be a revelation of God. Jesus, the God-man, the crucified One, gives to the predicate “God” its substantial content, revealing the true identity of God. The meaning of the word “God” is provided, not by philosophy, but by its reference to the person of Jesus Christ so that Christian theology must necessarily think about God in connection with the crucified Christ. Christian faith must speak of no other God than the incarnate God-the human God or the crucified God. Passibility is required by Luther’s theologia crucis, for God was fully and actively present in the historical Christ who was crucified. The hidden God IS the crucified God: the eternal God, who hides in the mortal and suffering form of human existence, is, for Luther, the subject of Christ’s suffering and even death but in such a way that these assertions can be explained only according to the communicatio idiomatum.” (end quote)

    This is why the Lord’s Supper is not just a “real presence” of even Christ (Nestorius/Zwingli/Calvin/some Lutherans) but the very, real and true body and blood of Christ. Where one nature is so is the other and in no other way do we reference God “really present” and know Him.

    Which takes us back to God in masks versus a sacrament: While it is true that I can know God’s goodness in good things, it is equally true that evil occurs and His alien work in the same masks. Theologies of glory only reference God, when things go well, “it is His mercy and goodness” but when times are evil, and no other reference is, then “I must be doing something wrong”. Hence Luther’s point quoted by Ngien above. It is ONLY by the sacraments that I know that in ALL things, experienced as good or evil that “all things work together for me” to my good and meant as good by God. For not all my life is “good times and things” sometimes cancer is going to kill a loved one, sometimes I won’t be able to pay “my bills”, sometimes all sorts of tragedy pile up one behind another without a seeming end in site. Only then can I know even these alien works of God are his ultimate good and mercy via the sacraments and that “all things work together for good…” (Rom. 8:28), both the good times and the bad/evil.

  • larry

    I meant to add that Luther and Lutherans DO say HOW He is present, this was clear at Marburg, His very, real and true body and blood. What we don’t do in contradistinction from Rome is explain HOW that very, real and true body and blood of Christ can be present everywhere. Hence the communicatio idiomatum. That was the lynch pin and why Luther said this sacrament is the Gospel.

    We do bow at the bread and wine because it is the body and blood of Christ in particular, not just a “real presence” of Christ otherwise (Nestorius), because we are worshipping God in fact body and blood present in very truth and reality and thus yield worship to it.

    Offering worship to a sign in Reformed and particularly Baptist doctrine on the LS would be idolatry. If that’s all there was present that would be true. And that is the crux of the issue.

    Put another way to make the point very real: If you have taken the bread and wine at a Lutheran service, you have in fact touched the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the same born of the virgin, the same that walked with John, the same that was a carpender, the same that sweat blood, the same that spat and mixed up mud and with His hands put it on the blind man, the same crucified and nailed to the cross, the same buried, the same risen, the same in heaven this very moment – with your own very flesh. Thus, if asked, “Have you touched the actual body and blood of this Jesus Christ you say is ressurrected” the answer is emphatically, “Yes I have!”.

  • larry

    I meant to add that Luther and Lutherans DO say HOW He is present, this was clear at Marburg, His very, real and true body and blood. What we don’t do in contradistinction from Rome is explain HOW that very, real and true body and blood of Christ can be present everywhere. Hence the communicatio idiomatum. That was the lynch pin and why Luther said this sacrament is the Gospel.

    We do bow at the bread and wine because it is the body and blood of Christ in particular, not just a “real presence” of Christ otherwise (Nestorius), because we are worshipping God in fact body and blood present in very truth and reality and thus yield worship to it.

    Offering worship to a sign in Reformed and particularly Baptist doctrine on the LS would be idolatry. If that’s all there was present that would be true. And that is the crux of the issue.

    Put another way to make the point very real: If you have taken the bread and wine at a Lutheran service, you have in fact touched the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the same born of the virgin, the same that walked with John, the same that was a carpender, the same that sweat blood, the same that spat and mixed up mud and with His hands put it on the blind man, the same crucified and nailed to the cross, the same buried, the same risen, the same in heaven this very moment – with your own very flesh. Thus, if asked, “Have you touched the actual body and blood of this Jesus Christ you say is ressurrected” the answer is emphatically, “Yes I have!”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X