Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[The Biblicist]

Read the passage again.

Your exposition is wrong and it can easily be proven wrong by asking a series of simple questions. What is the primary problem of the context (v. 1)? How is this primary problem to be dealt with (vv. 3-5, 11-12) and removed from "among you." How is this problem illustrated and Why should this problem be removed (vv. 6-11). What is the arrongance in relationship to? (vv. 1-2, 5-11).

You would interpret this passage around a SECONDARY issue "arrogance" when that "arrogance" has to do with the PRIMARY problem - open public sinner "among you."

You would have the primary act of removal of a type of person from "among you" suddenly reversed to the removal of a secondary reaction to the primary problem rather than removal of the primary problem.

Look at the bulk of the chapter and what it deals with (vv. 1, 3-5,9-13) SINNERS that are open and known "among you" and removal of them from "among you."

You talk about looking at this chapter from pure bias, - your interpretation REVERSES the actual PRIMARY problem and PRIMARY instructions how to deal with it and instead focuses upon a SECONDARY problem that is only an improper response to the PRIMARY PROBLEM and the wrong response to the PRIMARY solution to that problem.

Your interpretation is complete nonsense!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your exposition is wrong and it can easily be proven wrong by asking a series of simple questions.

Really?

What is the primary problem of the context (v. 1)? How is this primary problem to be dealt with (vv. 3-5, 11-12) and removed from "among you." How is this problem illustrated and Why should this problem be removed (vv. 6-11). What is the arrongance in relationship to? (vv. 1-2, 5-11).

There are two problems which Paul mentions. Primarily 1)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you

secondarily 2)

And you are arrogant

We know that Mourning regards primarily the arrogant activity as an alternative activity (or should activity) over the primary problem of sexual immorality

Ought you not rather to mourn?

You would interpret this passage around a SECONDARY issue "arrogance" when that "arrogance" has to do with the PRIMARY problem - open public sinner "among you."

This isn't a question. However, both are issues with corinth.
I thought you said series of questions? Looks like just one!!! And it does nothing to unsubstantiate what I've said because as you know the text is quite clear. Paul deals with the primary problem of sexual immorality in verses 3-5.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.[a]

Paul deals with boasting in 6-8

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

You talk about looking at this chapter from pure bias, - your interpretation REVERSES the actual PRIMARY problem and PRIMARY instructions how to deal with it and instead focuses upon a SECONDARY problem that is only an improper response to the PRIMARY PROBLEM and the wrong response to the PRIMARY solution to that problem.

Your interpretation is complete nonsense!

So basically you say you can show my error by a series of questions and ask one question and then spend the rest of the post hurling accusations? BTW you read from your pure bias. Which you are very biased if this post indicates anything about you.

 

[DHK]

Totally different construction than 1 cor 11:29 where there is no comparison but total instruction! how do you eat and drink unworthily? by not 1) examining yourself and 2) with out determining it is the body of Jesus Christ.

There were many abuses by the Corinthian church, and severe consequences were meted out (1Cor.11:30). This had nothing to do whether or not the body was Christ (transubstantiation) or if it were symbolic. Context tells us that it was symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of me." Regardless, here is the important question to answer. Michael Wrenn would give no clear cut answer to it. It is a hypothetical question:

Suppose you were at Corinth, and the Lord's Supper was being held. You knew that the Lord had just struck some with serious illnesses, and had even killed others for abusing the Lord's Supper. Would you take the chance that if you could not fellowship with this church on the basis of both faith and practice, and moral living, that you would partake of the elements with them?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There were many abuses by the Corinthian church, and severe consequences were meted out (1Cor.11:30). This had nothing to do whether or not the body was Christ (transubstantiation) or if it were symbolic. Context tells us that it was symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of me." Regardless, here is the important question to answer. Michael Wrenn would give no clear cut answer to it. It is a hypothetical question:

FYI DHK the word rememberance is better translated commemoration to meaning to "Make Present". As for your question, I'm not really sure what you are asking. If I knew someone was dieing because they had taken the "elements" while being sinful. I would be sure I amended my life to be moral and if I had sinned, I would certainly confess it and repent before partaking again. Is this what you meant?

 

[DHK]

FYI DHK the word rememberance is better translated commemoration to meaning to "Make Present". As for your question, I'm not really sure what you are asking. If I knew someone was dieing because they had taken the "elements" while being sinful. I would be sure I amended my life to be moral and if I had sinned, I would certainly confess it and repent before partaking again. Is this what you meant?

Different Baptists believe in different ways of administering communion (depending on how conservative they may be).
1. There is open communion--all are invited to partake.
2 Close communion--only those of like faith and practice.
3. Closed communion--members of that particular church only.

The RCC (as far as I know) believes that only Catholics should partake.
Most denominations are at least that way.

The Bible gives some instruction in examining oneself. I believe that the examination must include doctrine as well. Can I truly be in fellowship with the local church if I don't agree with their doctrine (including the church at Corinth). If some had just been killed because of abuses, would not that give cause for one to abstain if they held different doctrine or in some way could not unite with them in spiritual fellowship?

 

[The Biblicist]

Really?

The proper ATTITUDE toward the sinner is "greived" and the proper ACTION is spelled out LITERALLY in verses 3-5. The proper ACTION is then METAPHORICALLY illustrated in verses 6-8 in preparation to EAT "Christ our passover" and "the feast" with "unleavened bread" and then LITERALLY applied "if any man be called a brother be....with such a one NO NOT TO EAT" and then the proper action is reinforced by reason (v. 12) and by further command (v. 13).

So yes, really!

There are two problems which Paul mentions. Primarily 1) secondarily 2)

Can you maintain this primary problem as the primary objective of this context? No! You reverse it as will be seen.

We know that Mourning regards primarily the arrogant activity as an alternative activity (or should activity) over the primary problem of sexual immorality

What a whitewash!!! The "puffed up" is not only contrasted to "mourned" which is the proper ATTITUDE in response to this sen but with the proper ACTION in response to this sin as spelled out in the remainder of this chapter from verses 4-13.

This isn't a question. However, both are issues with corinth.

What in the world do you mean that is not "a question." It is the very point of Paul's discourse here!

The Corinthians were arrogant about a number of things but it is not the number of things or arrogance itself that is the issue here. The issue is OPEN SINNERS in their midst when preparing and observing "the feast" where "unleavened bread" or "Christ our Passover" is administered. With such a one they are commanded "NOT TO EAT" and the context is the "feast" they were observing as a church body.

For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: {is sacrificed: or, is slain}
8 Therefore let us keep the feast....if any man be called a BROTHER be...WITH SUCH A ONE NO, NOT TO EAT

It is eating together with such a "brother" as they "KEEP THE FEAST" identified as "Christ OUR passover" that they are not to eat with such a one but to REMOVE him from"AMONG YOU" first!

This removal is like preparing for the Passover so that all leaven is removed BEFORE partaking of the feast. He directly identifies them as this unleavened bread - "YE ARE unleavened" and this disciplinary action that removes this person from the fellowship of this assembly makes THEM a "NEW lump"!

I thought you said series of questions? Looks like just one!!!

Your exposition is wrong and it can easily be proven wrong by asking a series of simple questions.

What is the primary problem of the context (v. 1)?

How is this primary problem to be dealt with (vv. 3-5, 11-12) and removed from "among you."

How is this problem illustrated and Why should this problem be removed (vv. 6-11).

What is the arrongance in relationship to? (vv. 1-2, 5-11).


If you cannot recognize or acknowledge the above are a series of simple questions rather than merely "one question" then there is no hope of communication between us and you are not seriously interested in truth but merely defending RCC dogma at any cost, even the cost of being completely oxymoronic in your responses.

And it does nothing to unsubstantiate what I've said because as you know the text is quite clear. Paul deals with the primary problem of sexual immorality in verses 3-5. Paul deals with boasting in 6-8

What a whitewash! Paul identifies the primary problem in verse 1. He contrasts their response to this problem with the proper response in verses 2-13. Their response should not be arrogance or boasting but mourning and church discipline.

The reason for discipline is given in verses 6-11 in direct relationship with the preparation and observance of the Lord's Supper.

The defense for his command is given in verses 12-13.

You have to be blind to fail to see that it is REMOVAL OF THE SINNER that is commanded in verses 2-6 in LITERAL TERMS and the reason for the removal of the sinners is given in METAPHORICAL terms in verses 6-8 and then in LITERAL terms in verses 9-11 and then a defense for the flat command to do so in verses 12-13.

Verses 6-8 comes directly from the PREPARATION for Jewish observance of the Lord's Supper but applied to "Christ OUR passover" so that we "KEEP THE FEAST" with "unleavened bread."

The imagery is clear! If you don't remove the leaven you cannot eat the Feast! The application follows which is equally clear "IF SUCH A BROTHER BE...with such a one NO, NOT EAT"

Thus the application has nothing to do with removing ARROGANCE as that is simply condemned and rebuked as the improper response TOWARD THAT PERSON CALLED A BROTHER. The proper response is then literally spelled out (vv. 3-5) metaphorically spelled out (vv. 6-8) and then the metaphor is literally applied (vv. 9-13).


As I predicted you properly listed the priority and then reversed it. The truth is that both removal of the sinner and repentance of arrogance were both necessary to observe the Supper and both are "leaven" but only the sinner can be "purged out" by the act of the body and it is the body being called upon to "purge out" the leaven.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The proper ATTITUDE toward the sinner is "greived" and the proper ACTION is spelled out LITERALLY in verses 3-5.

Didn't I say

We know that Mourning regards primarily the arrogant activity as an alternative activity (or should activity) over the primary problem of sexual immorality

?

The proper ACTION is then METAPHORICALLY illustrated in verses 6-8

that is a jump not warnted by the context of the passage. the statement "your boasting is not good" is not made in seclusion of "do you not know a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" You treated it like it is we see that the "metaphore" is applied to the boasting in verse 6-8. Paul deals with the primary issue when he says "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord"

and concludes with 9-13 to include every bad influence not just the sexually immoral man.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Different Baptists believe in different ways of administering communion (depending on how conservative they may be).
1. There is open communion--all are invited to partake.
2 Close communion--only those of like faith and practice.
3. Closed communion--members of that particular church only.

The RCC (as far as I know) believes that only Catholics should partake.
Most denominations are at least that way.

The Bible gives some instruction in examining oneself. I believe that the examination must include doctrine as well. Can I truly be in fellowship with the local church if I don't agree with their doctrine (including the church at Corinth). If some had just been killed because of abuses, would not that give cause for one to abstain if they held different doctrine or in some way could not unite with them in spiritual fellowship?

I would agree with that.

 

[The Biblicist]

The only LITERAL command to remove something from the congregation is the sinful person named or a "brother" with similar publicly known sins. This command takes up verses 3-5 and 9-13 in LITERAL terms.

Verses 6-8 is clothed in METAPHORICAL terms. The feast is to be observed "WITH" sincerity and truth but leaven is to be "purged out"!

The leaven that is to be purged out has reference to the "lump" that is defined as a PLURAL "YE ARE unleavened." It is the plural "YE" that is commanded to purge this leaven out before they can "KEEP THE FEAST" which is "Christ OUR Passover."

The LITERAL application of this metaphorical language is spelled out in verses 8-11.
They are not "TO EAT" with such a "BROTHER" who is similarly publicly known to "be" a sinner according to the various descriptions given in verses 9-11.

Hence, it is the removal of this kind of person from the "lump" that makes that "lump" a "NEW LUMP" which "ye are."

Also, in addition to removing a PERSON from the assembly before they can "EAT" of the "Feast" or "Christ OUR passover" is that it must be kept with the right attitude "sincerity and truth."

This preserves both the primary and secondary problems within the symbolism of preparation for the Lord's Supper.

The proper ATTITUDE toward the sinner is "greived" and the proper ACTION is spelled out LITERALLY in verses 3-5. The proper ACTION is then METAPHORICALLY illustrated in verses 6-8 in preparation to EAT "Christ our passover" and "the feast" with "unleavened bread" and then LITERALLY applied "if any man be called a brother be....with such a one NO NOT TO EAT" and then the proper action is reinforced by reason (v. 12) and by further command (v. 13).

So yes, really!




Can you maintain this primary problem as the primary objective of this context? No! You reverse it as will be seen.




What a whitewash!!! The "puffed up" is not only contrasted to "mourned" which is the proper ATTITUDE in response to this sen but with the proper ACTION in response to this sin as spelled out in the remainder of this chapter from verses 4-13.




What in the world do you mean that is not "a question." It is the very point of Paul's discourse here!

The Corinthians were arrogant about a number of things but it is not the number of things or arrogance itself that is the issue here. The issue is OPEN SINNERS in their midst when preparing and observing "the feast" where "unleavened bread" or "Christ our Passover" is administered. With such a one they are commanded "NOT TO EAT" and the context is the "feast" they were observing as a church body.

For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: {is sacrificed: or, is slain}
8 Therefore let us keep the feast....if any man be called a BROTHER be...WITH SUCH A ONE NO, NOT TO EAT

It is eating together with such a "brother" as they "KEEP THE FEAST" identified as "Christ OUR passover" that they are not to eat with such a one but to REMOVE him from"AMONG YOU" first!

This removal is like preparing for the Passover so that all leaven is removed BEFORE partaking of the feast. He directly identifies them as this unleavened bread - "YE ARE unleavened" and this disciplinary action that removes this person from the fellowship of this assembly makes THEM a "NEW lump"!




Your exposition is wrong and it can easily be proven wrong by asking a series of simple questions.

What is the primary problem of the context (v. 1)?

How is this primary problem to be dealt with (vv. 3-5, 11-12) and removed from "among you."

How is this problem illustrated and Why should this problem be removed (vv. 6-11).

What is the arrongance in relationship to? (vv. 1-2, 5-11).


If you cannot recognize or acknowledge the above are a series of simple questions rather than merely "one question" then there is no hope of communication between us and you are not seriously interested in truth but merely defending RCC dogma at any cost, even the cost of being completely oxymoronic in your responses.




What a whitewash! Paul identifies the primary problem in verse 1. He contrasts their response to this problem with the proper response in verses 2-13. Their response should not be arrogance or boasting but mourning and church discipline.

The reason for discipline is given in verses 6-11 in direct relationship with the preparation and observance of the Lord's Supper.

The defense for his command is given in verses 12-13.

You have to be blind to fail to see that it is REMOVAL OF THE SINNER that is commanded in verses 2-6 in LITERAL TERMS and the reason for the removal of the sinners is given in METAPHORICAL terms in verses 6-8 and then in LITERAL terms in verses 9-11 and then a defense for the flat command to do so in verses 12-13.

Verses 6-8 comes directly from the PREPARATION for Jewish observance of the Lord's Supper but applied to "Christ OUR passover" so that we "KEEP THE FEAST" with "unleavened bread."

The imagery is clear! If you don't remove the leaven you cannot eat the Feast! The application follows which is equally clear "IF SUCH A BROTHER BE...with such a one NO, NOT EAT"

Thus the application has nothing to do with removing ARROGANCE as that is simply condemned and rebuked as the improper response TOWARD THAT PERSON CALLED A BROTHER. The proper response is then literally spelled out (vv. 3-5) metaphorically spelled out (vv. 6-8) and then the metaphor is literally applied (vv. 9-13).


As I predicted you properly listed the priority and then reversed it. The truth is that both removal of the sinner and repentance of arrogance were both necessary to observe the Supper and both are "leaven" but only the sinner can be "purged out" by the act of the body and it is the body being called upon to "purge out" the leaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

that is a jump not warnted by the context of the passage. the statement "your boasting is not good" is not made in seclusion of "do you not know a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" You treated it like it is we see that the "metaphore" is applied to the boasting in verse 6-8. Paul deals with the primary issue when he says "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord"

What you are failing to see is the REASON given for such a action in verses 3-5. That reason is spelled out first METAPHORICALLY in verses 6-8 an then that metaphor is LITERALLY APPLIED in verses 8-13.

The metaphorical reason is the commonly known preparation for observance of the Passover. ALL leaven (leavened persons, leavened attitudes) must be removed before they could "KEEP THE FEAST."

However, Paul makes it clear that he is not talking about the Jewish Passover but the Christian Lord's Supper when he says "Christ OUR passover" and "let US keep the feast with unleavened bread" and "no, not to eat".

The point is that the Lord's Supper cannot be properly observed with KNOWN SINNERS (fornicator, etc. vv. 9-11)) or KNOWN SIN (fornication, arrogance, etc. vv. 2,6a) in its membership. These are KNOWN sinners and sin.

The literal application of this metaphor is spelled out in verses 8b-11 to include the proper attitude (sincerety and truth) and proper subjects (if any man be called a BROTHER BE.... with such a one NO, NOT TO EAT."

So, I will agree with you that both the leaven of KNOWN SINNER and KNOWN ATTITUDE of sin must be purged before they can "keep the feast" identified as "Christ OUR Passover" with such an ATTITUDE and PERSON "no not to eat."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, I will agree with you that both the leaven of KNOWN SINNER and KNOWN ATTITUDE of sin must be purged before they can "keep the feast" identified as "Christ OUR Passover" with such an ATTITUDE and PERSON "no not to eat."

This is the key point. So we see that 1 cor 5 has nothing to do with the eucharist nor does its representation have to do with communion but with the attitudes and behaviors of misbehaved christians. This comparison of yeast is the primary example of how sin is problematic to the believer and to the church. This is in no way related to Chapter 11 where there is no comparisons to a "unified" body but direction on being properly disposed to taking the Eucharist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Different Baptists believe in different ways of administering communion (depending on how conservative they may be).
1. There is open communion--all are invited to partake.
2 Close communion--only those of like faith and practice.
3. Closed communion--members of that particular church only.

The RCC (as far as I know) believes that only Catholics should partake.
Most denominations are at least that way.

The Bible gives some instruction in examining oneself. I believe that the examination must include doctrine as well. Can I truly be in fellowship with the local church if I don't agree with their doctrine (including the church at Corinth). If some had just been killed because of abuses, would not that give cause for one to abstain if they held different doctrine or in some way could not unite with them in spiritual fellowship?

Just a note. When I finally was convinced and understood the Eucharist contained the real presense of Jesus Christ. The first thing I did was stop partaking in communion my old Baptist church. My wife was so embarrased that I let the plate pass me by and not take the bread or the plastic juice cup when they were passed around. It caused me a real problem and I told her in conscience I couldn't do it lest I was making light of the issue. When she told my pastor about the issue he tried to find a compromise indicating that we believe the same thing that Jesus was truelly present just not so in the elements. It was tough. I had come to love these people but I couldn't go against conscience. I still miss them though I do stay in touch with some of them. However, all that to say that yes I believe we should look at beliefs.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just a note. When I finally was convinced and understood the Eucharist contained the real presense of Jesus Christ. The first thing I did was stop partaking in communion my old Baptist church. My wife was so embarrased that I let the plate pass me by and not take the bread or the plastic juice cup when they were passed around. It caused me a real problem and I told her in conscience I couldn't do it lest I was making light of the issue. When she told my pastor about the issue he tried to find a compromise indicating that we believe the same thing that Jesus was truelly present just not so in the elements. It was tough. I had come to love these people but I couldn't go against conscience. I still miss them though I do stay in touch with some of them. However, all that to say that yes I believe we should look at beliefs.

IF a person refused to take ANY of the catholic sacraments, believing that in Christ God fully and completely justified in... Knowing full were RCC teachi9ng on them...

per Rome, is he saved, a Christian, assured of heaven?

 

[DHK]

Just a note. When I finally was convinced and understood the Eucharist contained the real presense of Jesus Christ. The first thing I did was stop partaking in communion my old Baptist church. My wife was so embarrased that I let the plate pass me by and not take the bread or the plastic juice cup when they were passed around. It caused me a real problem and I told her in conscience I couldn't do it lest I was making light of the issue. When she told my pastor about the issue he tried to find a compromise indicating that we believe the same thing that Jesus was truelly present just not so in the elements. It was tough. I had come to love these people but I couldn't go against conscience. I still miss them though I do stay in touch with some of them. However, all that to say that yes I believe we should look at beliefs.

Shortly after I got saved I was invited to attend a Protestant church (I think CMA). The RCC is a church of fear. When the elements were passed I could not partake. My conscience would not allow it, out of fear of the RCC. Fear of condemnation, fear of committing a mortal sin. Living within the bounds of the RCC is not living a life of love for Christ, but a life of fear--fear of Purgatory, and how long would one have to spend in Purgatory, fear that if I should die would a priest get there in time to administer the last rites, fear of not keeping all that the RCC commanded me to do. It is a religion of fear. Why do you think it is so easy for a priest to become a sexual predator? He holds a position of authority like many others. But unlike many others his position carries an ungodly and unhealthy religious fear.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is the key point. So we see that 1 cor 5 has nothing to do with the eucharist nor does its representation have to do with communion but with the attitudes and behaviors of misbehaved christians. This comparison of yeast is the primary example of how sin is problematic to the believer and to the church. This is in no way related to Chapter 11 where there is no comparisons to a "unified" body but direction on being properly disposed to taking the Eucharist.

What an absolute joke of a conclusion! 1 Corinthians 5 is inherently connected with the proper and improper observance of the Lord's supper and what defiles its observance and how to remove that defilement.

The language is clear that the Lord's Supper is in view "Let US keep the feast" and "Christ OUR passover" and it is equally clear that church discipline is in view as a PREPARATORY act by the Church necessary to avoid the complete perversion of the Supper. The command to "purge out" primarily refers to PERSONS who are called a "BROTHER" but are characterized publicly by a number of sins that prohibits the congregation from observing the Lord's Supper or to "EAT" with such a one at the Lord's table.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just a note. When I finally was convinced and understood the Eucharist contained the real presense of Jesus Christ. The first thing I did was stop partaking in communion my old Baptist church. My wife was so embarrased that I let the plate pass me by and not take the bread or the plastic juice cup when they were passed around. It caused me a real problem and I told her in conscience I couldn't do it lest I was making light of the issue. When she told my pastor about the issue he tried to find a compromise indicating that we believe the same thing that Jesus was truelly present just not so in the elements. It was tough. I had come to love these people but I couldn't go against conscience. I still miss them though I do stay in touch with some of them. However, all that to say that yes I believe we should look at beliefs.

Well, I admire the fact that you stood by your principles irregardless of them being erroneous. You are a person of principle and conviction and that is good.

However, your convictions have no objective basis in scripture but are in complete disregard of the clear condemnation of sacramentalism by scripture (Acts 15; Rom. 4).

 

[The Biblicist]

What an absolute joke of a conclusion! 1 Corinthians 5 is inherently connected with the proper and improper observance of the Lord's supper and what defiles its observance and how to remove that defilement.

The language is clear that the Lord's Supper is in view "Let US keep the feast" and "Christ OUR passover" and it is equally clear that church discipline is in view as a PREPARATORY act by the Church necessary to avoid the complete perversion of the Supper. The command to "purge out" primarily refers to PERSONS who are called a "BROTHER" but are characterized publicly by a number of sins that prohibits the congregation from observing the Lord's Supper or to "EAT" with such a one at the Lord's table.

1 Corinthian 5:6-11 not only condemns the Catholic Mass but the concept of open and close communion.

Any Jew reading 1 Cor. 5:6-11 would immediately understand Paul's words as a reference to the jewish preparation to eat the passover. It was a well known custom of the Jews prior to the passover to go through their homes and remove all leaven.

Secondly, it would be immediately recognized that Paul's words did not apply to the JEWISH passover but to the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper because Paul tells the Corinthians to "keep the feast" and the Lord's Supper is the only "feast" that can be identified as "Christ OUR passover" where they would use "unleavened bread" and "eat" with a "brother".

Thirdly, they would immediately recognize that it would be impossible to take the langauge literally as it is literally impossible to "purge out" leaven once introduced into a literal "lump" to make it a "new lump" because once leaven has literally been introduced it permeates the "lump".

Fourthly, Paul's direct application to the church body at Corinth "ye are unleavened" rather than "we are" indentifies the "lump" or "unleavend bread" as representative of that local church body just as later Paul directly says "YE ARE the body of Christ and members in particular" (1 Cor. 12:27).

Fifthly, the nature of the metaphorical church body that is being represented in the Lord's Supper is the local visible church body administering the supper because only the local visible church body administering the supper can exercise discipline so as to remove a leavened "brother" (vv. 3-5; 9-13) from the "WHOLE lump" so that it becomes a "NEW lump" as disciplinary removal of a "brother" literally changes the membership of a local church body. He is not speaking of a "PARTIAL lump" but the "WHOLE lump" becoming a "NEW lump" by the act of church discipline. Church discipline cannot remove a "brother" from the universal invisible church nor from another local visible church other than the one administering the supper.

What many fail to understand is that the "one bread" used in the Lord's Supper is representative of the sanctificational unity of the church body administering and partaking of the Supper rather than some universal visible or invisible metaphorical church body. Publicly known sinners and sin, whether it is publicly known arrogance, or schism and false doctrine in the midst of the observing body (1 Cor. 11:18-19) invalidates any observance of the Supper thus making "This is not the Lord's Supper."

The Cup symbolizes the redemptive blood of Christ but the "one bread" symbolizes the practical sanctification of the metaphorical body actually observing the Supper.

PUBLICLY known sinners and sin invalidates the Lord's Supper and thus proper preparation by the congregation must be implemented to deal with publicly known sinners and sin or else the supper is invalidated (1 Cor. 5; 10:20-21; 11:15-22). However, PRIVATELY known sin does not invalidate the Supper for the rest of the congregation but only for those individual members who fail to properly discern that partaking of the Supper demands their personal sanctification.

The observing church deals with publicly known sinners but God deals with PRIVATE sinners and their sins (1 Cor. 11:27-31).

Any observance of the Supper that allows participants that are not members of that "one bread" or one body observing the Supper, or are in doctrinal schism with the observing body or publicly known sinners invalidates the Supper in God's eyes as "THIS is not the Lord's Supper."

The fact that church discipline makes the "WHOLE lump" a "NEW lump" denies the "one bread" symbolizes any kind of metaphorical church body other than the actual church body administering the supper. Therefore, the limitation of obsevers is restricted within the boundaries of the metaphorical "one bread." Since the "whole lump" is metaphorically representative of the actual administrating "body" then it is restrictive to the membership of the "body" metaphorically being represented. Observance cannot exceed the limitation of the metaphor and so if "YE ARE unleavened" rather than "WE ARE" then the only qualified observers are those members of that body which can be made a "new lump" by the act of church discipline.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

IF a person refused to take ANY of the catholic sacraments, believing that in Christ God fully and completely justified in... Knowing full were RCC teachi9ng on them...

per Rome, is he saved, a Christian, assured of heaven?

It really depends on what you mean. There are many Catholics who know rules but not really the teaching or have a faith of their own. Let me ask you the same question but applicable to you. If a person who is born again refused to pray and to read scriptures knowing full well they should were they ever saved to begin with? When you boil it down that is what you are really saying. The answer of course is a born again chrisitian would want to pray and read scriptures so that they could draw closer to Jesus in their lives. In the same token a Catholic who understands Catholic teaching and has a converted heart to Jesus would want to partake in the sacraments. IF they understood that the sacraments brought them closer to Jesus and they still refused you have to ask yourself. Do they really have faith to begin with? And if not then can they truelly be saved? The answer is evident.

Now there are many Catholics like DHK once was who are motivated by rules missing the heart of the teaching and never developed that personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And again, really didn't understand Catholic teaching. If they become converted to Jesus ie "born again" through protestant influence and seek after Jesus in the faith that they have then They will be saved as long as they keep in Jesus though they've gone against the Church. However, we view this as ignorance but not invincible ignorance which only comes when one has a clear faith and understanding of what is taught and believed. This one is stubbornly choosing themselves above what God has offered.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Shortly after I got saved I was invited to attend a Protestant church (I think CMA). The RCC is a church of fear. When the elements were passed I could not partake. My conscience would not allow it, out of fear of the RCC. Fear of condemnation, fear of committing a mortal sin. Living within the bounds of the RCC is not living a life of love for Christ, but a life of fear--fear of Purgatory, and how long would one have to spend in Purgatory, fear that if I should die would a priest get there in time to administer the last rites, fear of not keeping all that the RCC commanded me to do. It is a religion of fear. Why do you think it is so easy for a priest to become a sexual predator? He holds a position of authority like many others. But unlike many others his position carries an ungodly and unhealthy religious fear.

You were not properly catechized in Catholic teaching. I don't fear anything. Especially not purgatory. I don't fear commiting mortal sin because I know what that is and if I do I have recource to confess and be forgiven. I am thus assured of my salvation. Yet as can be seen in all the churches not just catholic sexual preditors are found in all denominations. all with relative ease. What causes this is sin and sinners. Not the denomination.

 

[The Biblicist]

You were not properly catechized in Catholic teaching. I don't fear anything. Especially not purgatory. I don't fear commiting mortal sin because I know what that is and if I do I have recource to confess and be forgiven. I am thus assured of my salvation. Yet as can be seen in all the churches not just catholic sexual preditors are found in all denominations. all with relative ease. What causes this is sin and sinners. Not the denomination.

Both DHK and I perfectly understand what Rome teaches about salvation and the Catholic meaning of sacraments and willfully and knowingly repudiate it, confessing it be false and demonic in origin. I received RCC sprinkling and last rights as a child.

That being said, then how would you as a Roman Catholic categorize us?