Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[Yeshua1]

It can be seen that you are clearly reaching. Same tripe "Just because the church teaches this is what they believe they don't really don't believe it." Did the Jews get released from Egypt every Year during Passover or did they make present the day they were released from Egypt?

the bible states that Jesus said the communion was to be taken as a reminder/memorial of what he did on the Cross...

he accomplished it, and rose from the dead, and now in heaven...

RCC reinacts the sacrifice literally every mass, how is that a mere memorial of what was past tense already done?

And what is supposssed to transact when a catholic partakes of the mass?

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL misapplying scripture again. He was talking about a ghost when his disciples feared that he was one. The description of a ghost is that it isn't flesh and bones. But it exist non the less. Whereas flesh and bone cannot live without the spirit. Typical again of misapplication of scripture. God always operates with the incarnation principle which your theology leaves out because to you its just an intellectual exercise.

You missed the point. A "spirit" by nature is not something material in nature although both are equally real. A metaphor does not claim one thing is LITERALLY another thing but only REPRESENTATIVE of another thing. When Jesus says "I am" a "door" or "vine" or "light" he is saying I REPRESENT particular characteristics found in a door not that I am a literal wooden door. Likewise, when he says "I am the manna" he is saying I REPRESENT characteristics found in "manna" not that I am literally manna. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is spelled out both previous to these words and after this words that his speaking METAPHORICALLY not literally and metaphorically to eat and drink is simply to partake of him by faith in His words - the words of the gospel - John 6:35; 68-69 - couldn't be more simplier and more clearly spelled out both before and after.

There is no unity among you save you all hate the Catholic Church. But that should be no basis of unity. Unity should be about love, or charity.

Another exaggeration. Baptists are in general agreement on a great number of things. However, their differences are due to another great principle of unity and that is individual liberty of conscience.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You missed the point. A "spirit" by nature is not something material in nature although both are equally real.

Yes and the material has its sourse from the spirit. Because it is the spirit that gives life.

A metaphor does not claim one thing is LITERALLY another thing but only REPRESENTATIVE of another thing.

Jesus wasn't speaking Metaphorically when he told his disciples he wasn't a ghost nor was he speaking Metaphorically when he said you must eat him. The Spirit is the truth and is made real in the material world.

When Jesus says "I am" a "door" or "vine" or "light" he is saying I REPRESENT particular characteristics found in a door not that I am a literal wooden door.

Which is different when he says "you must eat my flesh" and then says "verily, you must gnaw on my flesh". Jesus Never said "I am a door" and "truelly you must turn my door handle". Big difference. And he certainly doesn't re-itterate it time and again. ie "you must eat my flesh", "unless you eat my flesh", "Truelly, you need to gnaw on my flesh", "this is my body", etc...

Likewise, when he says "I am the manna" he is saying I REPRESENT characteristics found in "manna" not that I am literally manna.

What Jesus is actually saying is

but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven

I am the true manna and the manna they ate in the desert represents me. It is clear there is not being a metaphore being used.

Another exaggeration. Baptists are in general agreement on a great number of things. However, their differences are due to another great principle of unity and that is individual liberty of conscience.

Not an exageration at all. every body is generally in agreement about a great many things. There is still no unity among the baptist and certainly not among the entire planet.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes and the material has its sourse from the spirit.

Every Sunday school child know that God made man's body from CLAY not spirit and that the body goes back to dust not spirit. Spirit has nothing to do with the substance of the body or vice versa. The spirit does not have the body as its source and neither does the body have the spirit as its source. They are both equally real but unrelated in regard to source or substance.

So is the Passover observance and remission of sins as Hebrews 10:1-4 denies any literal remission of sins occurred. Again, if the passover is paralell to the Supper than the same hold true of the Lord's Supper - never obtains literal remission of sins. In "shadow" or FIGURE only never literally.

Because it is the spirit that gives life.

No, without the spirit there is no life but the spirit is not what gives life. God alone gives life and it is by His Spirit not by our spirit - Jn. 3:6.

Jesus wasn't speaking Metaphorically when he told his disciples he wasn't a ghost

Never said he was speaking metaphorically. That was not my point in using that illustration. My point was to prove that spiritual substance is NO MORE REAL than material substance and cannot be confused with each other as they are distinct in nature and source. Metaphors do not make one noun the other noun except by some REPRESENTATIVE LIKENESS. So metaphors do not confuse two distinct things with each other.

nor was he speaking Metaphorically when he said you must eat him.

That is simple not true! Jesus makes it very clear that eating and drinking are to be interpreting as "coming" and "believing" in him rather than LITERALLY eating or drinking anything - Jn. 6:35. He makes this repeatedly clear, so clear that even Peter understood the spiritual application - Jn. 6:68-69.

The Spirit is the truth and is made real in the material world.

More Greek philosophical stupidity on display. The Spirit of God is eternally immaterial in substance and whatever truth he makes real has nothing to do with change of His own substance.

The Holy Spirit quickens material substances and He equally uses the WORD of God to quicken lost sinners producing faith in Christ - that is the meaning of John 6:63 and this is made crystal clear by his own explanation in John 6:64-65 so clear that even you should be able to understand it. It is so clear that Peter understood and confessed the "words of life" in John 6:67-69 and his confession HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LORD'S SUPPER but with life through faith in the Person of Jesus Christ as presented in the gospel as the object of faith.

Which is different when he says "you must eat my flesh" and then says "verily, you must gnaw on my flesh". Jesus Never said "I am a door" and "truelly you must turn my door handle". Big difference. And he certainly doesn't re-itterate it time and again. ie "you must eat my flesh", "unless you eat my flesh", "Truelly, you need to gnaw on my flesh", "this is my body", etc...

The metaphor is EATING and DRINKING but the metaphor is not TURNING A DOOR HANDLE as that is not the metaphoric characteristic being used concerning a "door."

the manna they ate in the desert represents me. It is clear there is not being a metaphore being used.

:laugh:This is so rich! Don't you understand that when you say "represents me" you are admitting it is a metaphor! Apparently you have no idea what the difference between a metaphor and a simile is? Look it up!


Not an exageration at all. every body is generally in agreement about a great many things. There is still no unity among the baptist and certainly not among the entire planet.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Every Sunday school child know that God made man's body from CLAY not spirit and that the body goes back to dust not spirit.

And every Sunday school child knows the body didn't have life until God breathed into it a spirit. The sprit is the substance of all the universe. The laws of Physics are based on spiritual laws that are incorporated into the material. God is a spirit and all things exist in him, by him and are maintained by him. The Apostles knew this.

for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d]

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[f] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

So is the Passover observance and remission of sins as Hebrews 10:1-4 denies any literal remission of sins occurred. Again, if the passover is paralell to the Supper than the same hold true of the Lord's Supper - never obtains literal remission of sins. In "shadow" or FIGURE only never literally

If the Passover is a foreshadowing of Jesus just as the Law is then in as much as Jesus satisfied the law Jesus fulfilled the passover in the actual remission of sins in the Lords Supper. He made it a reality. Just like a painting is a representation the person it represents is real. The passover represents the Eucharist the Eucharist is real.

No, without the spirit there is no life but the spirit is not what gives life. God alone gives life and it is by His Spirit not by our spirit - Jn. 3:6.

And God is a Spirit so the spirit gives life. and our bodies would be no more that molded dust had not God given us a spirit. And thus the spirit gives life.

Never said he was speaking metaphorically

. You did.

That was not my point in using that illustration. My point was to prove that spiritual substance is NO MORE REAL than material substance

It absolutely is the material accidents are but a reflection of the material.

That is simple not true!

It absolutely is!!!

Jesus makes it very clear that eating and drinking are to be interpreting as "coming" and "believing" in him rather than LITERALLY eating or drinking anything - Jn. 6:35

Nope two different subjects. the Logical progression: What is the Work God desires to believe in him he sent. How do we believe that he sent you because he sent Moses and Moses Gave us manna. No God gave you manna and I am the true manna. And therefore you must eat my flesh. No way we can't do that. Really, if you don't eat my flesh you have no life and as a matter of fact you must chew on my flesh. Subject one 1) faith is the work of God and 2) Jesus is the real manna which you must eat. Very clear.

More Greek philosophical stupidity on display

You don't know the first thing about Greek philosophy. Much less attempt to comment on it.

The metaphor is EATING and DRINKING but the metaphor is not TURNING A DOOR HANDLE as that is not the metaphoric characteristic being used concerning a "door

When Jesus said "verily you must chew on my flesh" is a specific action with regard to bread thus a specific action with regard to a door is turning the handle. Which Jesus never said you must turn the handle but does say you must chew my flesh.

:laugh:This is so rich!

I'm glad you think so.

Don't you understand that when you say "represents me" you are admitting it is a metaphor!

again an obvious misquote of mine a partial quote out of context. I actually said

I am the true manna and the manna they ate in the desert represents me.

the manna in the desert represents Jesus. Jesus isn't a type or representation of that manna which is what you were suggesting.

Apparently you have no idea what the difference between a metaphor and a simile is? Look it up!

Apparantly you can't keep the context of a passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

QU

And every Sunday school child knows the body didn't have life until God breathed into it a spirit. The sprit is the substance of all the universe. The laws of Physics are based on spiritual laws that are incorporated into the material. God is a spirit and all things exist in him, by him and are maintained by him. The Apostles knew this.

Covered those bases but you simply chose to ignore what I said. Material substance does not have its source with immaterial substance. Not even creation has its source with immaterial substance or do you deny God created all things out of nothing OR do you believe in pantheism?

If the Passover is a foreshadowing of Jesus just as the Law is then in as much as Jesus satisfied the law Jesus fulfilled the passover in the actual remission of sins in the Lords Supper. He made it a reality. Just like a painting is a representation the person it represents is real. The passover represents the Eucharist the Eucharist is real.

My oh my! Scriptures explicitly state that substance which cast the "shadow" was not the Lord's supper but Christ Himself.

Your deceived Babylonian mind can't prove your position by the Passover because the scriptures deny literal remission of sins was obtained in partaking it as the Old Testament means to obtain literal remission of sins was by faith in him - Acts 10:43.

Now, you reduce Acts 10:43 to a sublevel Babylonian doctrine of making another "figure" do what the previous figure could not do - it could not literally save, remit sins or justify. Ordinances of God whether they are found previous to the cross or after the cross have no LITERAL saving value but only a consistent "shadow" with the consistant substance casting the shadow - Jesus Christ whether they look forward or look back to the cross as Hebrews 4:2 makes clear it is the same faith in the gospel that obtains literal salvation.

And God is a Spirit so the spirit gives life. and our bodies would be no more that molded dust had not God given us a spirit. And thus the spirit gives life.

False doctrine alert! The human spirit gives no life to anything but God gives life to both spirit and body. God alone gives life to both the spirit (spiritual life) and to the body (Physical life). Again your teaching pantheism.

Nope two different subjects.

What a joke! You are taking passages prior to verse 35 and using them to argue for a literal eating and drinking the the flesh and blood of Christ AFTER verse 35.

John 6:35 spells it out in such simple terms a child could see that he is defining drinking and eating as METAPHORS of coming and believing in him. John 6:63-65 spell it out clearly that the subject is BELIEIVING or not BELIEVING in him. John 6:67-69 spell it out clearly the "WORDS OF LIFE" consist of believing in who he is as presented in the gospel.

Your blinded Romanistic Babylonian mind could not see a flashing neon sign if placed on the bridge of your nose.

No God gave you manna and I am the true manna. And therefore you must eat my flesh

John 6:35-40 is the conclusion to that illustration and demands the words eating and drinking are mere metaphor of coming or believing in Christ. So simple, so clear, so expressly spelled out that even Peter didn't misunderstand it. Notice Peter didn't say, "Lord, when do we get to knaw on your bones":laugh:

You don't know the first thing about Greek philosophy. Much less attempt to comment on it.

Oh, so now you are omniscient like God! How do you know I have not had philosophy in college? How do you know I have not studied outside of college? Oh, you know because you are now almighty God.

I'm glad you think so.
again an obvious misquote of mine a partial quote out of context. I actually said the manna in the desert represents Jesus. Jesus isn't a type or representation of that manna which is what you were suggesting.Apparantly you can't keep the context of a passage.

No quote taken out of context at all because my intent was precisely how you used it. That is what a metaphor is - a representation.

 

[DHK]

Out of the two of us, I'm the Catholic. I know what my beliefs are.

From the Catachism

That lessens your authority, not increases it. It means you look at what the Scripture says through the biased eyed of the RCC, instead of what the Bible actually teaches, which we call sola scriptura, or more accurately put: that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It doesn't matter what the Catechism teaches; it matters what the inspired Word of God teaches. If you remain ignorant of the teachings of God's Word you will forever remain ignorant of God's teachings on some of the most important subjects in the world. If you only look at the Scriptures through the blinded eyes of the RCC you will never come to an understanding of what they really mean.

1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. (ASV)

 

[33ad]

Jesus continual presence in the eucharist
Hebrews 7:25
King James Version (KJV)
25*Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

 

[DHK]

Jesus continual presence in the eucharist
Hebrews 7:25
King James Version (KJV)
25*Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

a non sequitor.
There is nothing there about the elements of the Lord's Supper.
There isn't even the word "eucharist" mentioned in the Bible.
Your stated premise is a joke.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I could have posted the following on any of several threads in this section since I believe it would fit there, but I decided to post it in the thread I started:

I have studied church history and theology for almost four decades; this, along with writing, has been my passion. I have also made in-depth study of the many different denominations -- their teachings, polity, and practices. I have been a member in several denominations and worshiped in many more.

I have a very analytical and logical mind -- too much so, my wife says. I am always seeking truth and what things mean.

I say that to say this: I am not Roman Catholic because I can find no evidence in scripture or the earliest churches for their "system" -- beliefs, polity, ministry. I do find that the Eastern orthodox views of God, man, sin, and salvation are based in scripture and the early churches -- but not their sacramentalism, polity, or ministry structure. I do also find that the Anabaptists share very similar views of God, man, sin, and salvation with the EOC, but they do not hold to the EOC errors -- rather, the Anabaptists hold scriptural views of polity, ministry, ordinances.

In short, I see nothing remotely similar between the Gospel and practice of Jesus the carpenter, and the hierarchical, elaborate, authoritarian, pomp-and-circumstance character of the RCC, it being an amalgamation of "some" Christian teaching with superstition and paganism. The RCC is not the early church; it is an addition to and corruption of the early church and its teachings.

I say this not to offend anyone, but to emphasize that this is the conclusion of my many years of intense study and seeking. To be fair, I will also say that I don't see any relation to Jesus and the early church of fundamentalist Calvinism or dispensationalism -- even the Baptist variety. But at least the Baptist variety is correct about polity, ministry, and the ordinances.

In short, there is no way that the RCC can be reconciled and harmonized with the New Testament or the earliest churches without adding to, misinterpreting, or ignoring the meaning of the NT in many areas.

Do I think RC's are Christians? Yes, certainly, if they have faith in Jesus and accept Him as their Savior. Do I think they are "orthodox"? Yes, inasmuch as they accept the Apostles Creed and the orthodox teachings of the faith. But they have obviously strayed very far away from the NT church.

 

[BillySunday1935]

That lessens your authority, not increases it. It means you look at what the Scripture says through the biased eyed of the RCC...
snip...

Well...that's the seminal issue isn't it? Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not, we all view scripture through biased lenses. To deny that fact is astoundingly ignorant at best.

Billy

 

[The Biblicist]

Well...that's the seminal issue isn't it? Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not, we all view scripture through biased lenses. To deny that fact is astoundingly ignorant at best.

Billy

That is simply not true! If that were true then there is no such thing as objective truth. If that were true then there is no such thing as exegesis versus eisgesis but only eisgesis.

You are no doubt correct about the vast majority of professed Christendom but you are right in the all inclusive "we all."

You have to PROVE your assertion is universal without exception not merely assert it is universal without exception.

 

[DHK]

Well...that's the seminal issue isn't it? Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not, we all view scripture through biased lenses. To deny that fact is astoundingly ignorant at best.

Billy

Don't call me ignorant. I absolutely disagree with your statement.
Here is one of the best examples one can have.

What is the meaning of John 3:3? "Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

The Catholic has no choice but to go to the Catechism and look up "new Birth" and find out that it means baptism. new birth = baptism, an absolute heresy.

An evangelical, one who is actually born again, will go to the Bible, not the Catechism and find out what the passage means by studying the context, other Scriptures. They may end up in John 1:12,13 eventually where verse 12 is very explicit:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--In short the new birth has nothing to do with baptism but everything to do with our salvation--receiving Christ, believing on his name, becoming the children of God.

I don't have to go to a Catechism. I don't see through any organization's eyes. I study the Bible through the Bible. It alone is my authority.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Don't call me ignorant. I absolutely disagree with your statement.
Here is one of the best examples one can have.

What is the meaning of John 3:3? "Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

The Catholic has no choice but to go to the Catechism and look up "new Birth" and find out that it means baptism. new birth = baptism, an absolute heresy.

An evangelical, one who is actually born again, will go to the Bible, not the Catechism and find out what the passage means by studying the context, other Scriptures. They may end up in John 1:12,13 eventually where verse 12 is very explicit:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--In short the new birth has nothing to do with baptism but everything to do with our salvation--receiving Christ, believing on his name, becoming the children of God.

I don't have to go to a Catechism. I don't see through any organization's eyes. I study the Bible through the Bible. It alone is my authority.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to have tradition, reason, and experience as secondary authorities -- but if these do not agree with and line up with scripture, they cannot be accepted as truthful. The original Quakers said that the Spirit was primary because it was the Spirit Who inspired and produced the scriptures, reason, tradition, and experience. Of course the orthodox Quakers came to realize the danger of this position and said that if any claimed spiritual revelation did not line up with scripture, it should be considered false.

The reason I reject the Roman Catholic system is because I find that the scriptures and early churches refute it.

 

[Bro. James]

"Secondary authorities" have led to a multitude of errors. Man is depraved, totally. He cannot choose the right path because his free will is enslaved to his depraved nature. God shows man the right path and keeps him on it--all through The Holy Spirit bearing witness to The Word. This is why Sola Scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine.

Everything else is: Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men--totally in vain. Not many believe God. How many believed God in the time of Noah? Noah preached for 120 years. Eight souls found grace.

False gospels are everywhere.

Now what?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the bible states that Jesus said the communion was to be taken as a reminder/memorial of what he did on the Cross...

he accomplished it, and rose from the dead, and now in heaven...

RCC reinacts the sacrifice literally every mass, how is that a mere memorial of what was past tense already done?

And what is supposssed to transact when a catholic partakes of the mass?

What is the Greek word used for rememberance? Anamnesis. Which occures 8 tmes in the NT which means to make present. To make a past reality present rather than just rememberance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reason I reject the Roman Catholic system is because I find that the scriptures and early churches refute it.

Michael, I wonder how the early churches refute Catholicism from your perspective.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is the Greek word used for rememberance? Anamnesis. Which occures 8 tmes in the NT which means to make present. To make a past reality present rather than just rememberance.

Of course "remembrance" makes present in the mind what occurred in the past. That is the whole idea of a type as well. A type perpetuates the truth it was designed to convey in form.

However, the Babylonian idea that rites actually convey a reality is foreign to the scriptures as Paul proves in Romans 4:7-12.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"Secondary authorities" have led to a multitude of errors. Man is depraved, totally. He cannot choose the right path because his free will is enslaved to his depraved nature. God shows man the right path and keeps him on it--all through The Holy Spirit bearing witness to The Word. This is why Sola Scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine.

Everything else is: Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men--totally in vain. Not many believe God. How many believed God in the time of Noah? Noah preached for 120 years. Eight souls found grace.

False gospels are everywhere.

Now what?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. For one thing, anyone who says they don't use reason in interpreting scripture is either being dishonest or ignorant. In fact, I maintain it's a sin not to use your mind. When I was briefly in the Charismatic movement, I questioned things; they would often tell me not to let my mind get in the way. That's one sign of a cult.

The KJV didn't drop down out of heaven intact in the first century. Yes, the apostles were alive, but not everyone had contact with the apostles. And yet people heard the Gospel and were added to the kingdom.

The most accurate and reasonable position, and the one true to history is that the Bible is the final authority.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course "remembrance" makes present in the mind what occurred in the past. That is the whole idea of a type as well. A type perpetuates the truth it was designed to convey in form.

However, the Babylonian idea that rites actually convey a reality is foreign to the scriptures as Paul proves in Romans 4:7-12.

That is not what Paul is saying in Romans 4! Man you really like misapplying scripture! Paul is saying that the man who believes in Jesus and is being justified by him is blessed because his sins are forgiven. It has nothing to do with babylonian rites or that the greek term is to make present the reality of a past event.