The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

Keep in mind that to the fathers, "symbol" meant "a sign that conveys what it signifies". This is why in certain writings of Augustine, Tertullian, et al, that the sacraments (baptism, chrismation, Eucharist) are sometimes called "symbols"; but in other writings of the same individuals it is clear that they believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence. In other words, these were not regarded as what we would consider mere symbols. This joining together of sign and that which it signifies is evident in the word "symbol" itself.

It wasn't until much later that men began trying to divide the physical sign from the spiritual reality it signified and conveyed. However, this division hearkens back to ancient gnosticism in which matter was basically regarded as being worthless in any spiritual sense. (Which is why the gnostics couldn't fathom the Logos actually taking on physical human form for our salvation.)

 

Isn't it fascinating that just when the RCC claims you are too stupid or impaired to read the clear text of John 6 and "see the details" so you will need Clement or Tertullian to "explain it" to you --- then when THEY too use language that refutes the RCC just as John 6 does -- well then you need "someone else" to explain Clement and Tertullian!!

And finally you need the RCC today just to tell you what to think!

Having swept aside the direct role of the Holy Spirit in John 6, and then swept aside the direct role of the Bible in 2 Tim 3:15-16 - they then go on to insert the RCC itself in place of all of them.

Practice that WOULD have failed you in Mark 7 where Christ claims that the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - had ALREADY fallen into this error - the SAME error that the RCC fell into centuries ago.

It is "obvious" that the "meaning of SYMBOL and Metaphor" are the OPPOSITE to "LITERAL" and we see that in Matt 16 where Christ rebukes the FaithFUL disciples for taking him TOO LITERALLY!!

DT - having argued against such use of metaphor and symbol in your previous post - how will you "rationalize it back" to fit in with the OBVIOUS use of metaphor AND symbol in the first century by the NT authors??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did I already post that?

hmm.

 

Turtullian makes the same case that I made - which is that the entire focus of the John 6 discussion was "what avails to eternal life" and Turtullian agrees that in that regard the literal flesh "is Worthless".

Turtullian ALSO makes the same case that I made about the "WORD became FLESH" as the symbol for bread and the connection to THE WORD as the real source of life - not literal bread and not biting Christ during the John 6 preaching!

Here again we see "inconvenient details" being highlighted by these ECF sources.

Many of the SAME "inconvenient details' that were already so obvious in the John 6 text - and were enumerated earlier in triplicate.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh wait!! I already posted that too?

(Or is that just my "interpretation of the ECFs"???).

Better get someone like the RCC to interpret the ECFs for me so I wont see the "inconvenient details" in those two ECF posts "either".

Hadn't thought of using that approach before....

But now I think I finally see the way to "Avoid the convenient details" in John 6 that the RCC does not like AND to avoid the "inconvenient details" in the ECF posts listed here that the "RCC does not like"...

And EVEN to find a way to ignore the "Details" of how Matt 16 refutes the attempts to bend the text of John 6 and Clement "back on itself".

Wow! If I ignore all that light and simply say "whatever the RCC believes MUST be true no matter what the facts" .. it finally WORKS!!

Finally a system that WORKS! Just listen to one group and ignore everybody else and all details in scripture and in the ECF guys you don't like!!

(Oh but wait - the Mormons already DO that!!)

 

Yes that was very compelling too.

It was "ignore the fact that they SAY it is methaphor in John 6"

It was "ignore the DETAILS of John 6 regarding the literal flesh being worthless for eating and obtaining eternal life -- even thouth the numbered list of details given for John 6 were so obvious and blatant and easy to see IN the text and even AGREED to by ECF sources like Clement and Tertullian".

It was "those ECF sources did not really MEAN metaphor when they SAY metaphor speaking of John 6 and EATING Christ's flesh"

It was "ignore the metaphor used for teaching as it is SEEN IN the Gospels - Matt 16".

It was "scripture in John 6 is too complicated - get Clement to tell me what to think... oh wait CLEMENT is too inconvenient on John 6 and eating Christ's flesh literally... get ME to tell you what to think when reading Clement"

It was "ignore what the ECF sources say on John 6 and eating Christ's body WHEN it is devastating to the RCC positions".

It was - well ... kinda close to what you get from the Mormons "single source of authority believe whatever I say today" kind of logic.

And as I said - that has already been tried.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I posted this on another thread because it shows "evolution over time" of Catholic doctrine.

Since it pertains to this...

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Um...I'm dumb, but I'd say that the symbols are real to those to who are really born again. A saved person would want to be baptised because they WANT to obey Jesus Christ. They also would want to take communion because so they can remember what Jesus Christ has done for them, and it matters, and sin is wrong to do and hold on too. I'd say that even though the water baptism and communiion are symbolic and can't save you, they are proofs of being saved, as a truly regenrated, born-again person, becuase of what God has done, and continues to do in their heart, those things really mean something to them.

 

"symbols are real". So in the case of Matt 16 where they supposed to beware of the leaven (bread) of the Pharisees. Are the "symbols and metaphors real"??

Are you sure about the meaning of "symbol" and "metaphor"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just as the New Testamant uses metaphors; so can these still be metaphors. the fact that he states that "his blood is love incorruptible" would go along with what Claudia said: We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated".

As I have always said; the baptism "by one Spirit into one body" (the spiritual immersion into Christ) was marked by the water ceremony. But later Church separated it making it mark entry into the Church organization. Today, in many churches, baptism has been replaced by an altar call. This was not authorized by scripture; it was the same Church that pushed for the sacramental meaning ot it that somewhere along the line made this separation in the first place, with baptism following long initiation processes!
But it must be the spiritual baptism that does the saving; not a physical act that anyone can do, without actually having received Christ. Just look at Simon the sorcerer!

After this period; we are 100 years after the last apostles already (and John wa exiled till his death. So basically, all of the apostles were gone from the Church picture mid-century); and then the writings become more explicitly sacramental.

Bob is FUNNY! (That is, if you're not the one debating him!) But his points there are certainly good! (Though I would say "flesh profits nothing" is not talking about Eucharist; but the principle does remotely apply to it in that some physical element in itself will not save if the person hasn't spiritually been baptized in Christ, as I said).

And you have never disproven this. As we can already see; it would not be much of a jump from the scriptural metaphors, to Ignatius and some of Martyr's statememts, to saying that the elements do in fact do the saving in themselves. All one has to do is misunderstand a metaphor for literal language; and there you have it. We see that right from the beginning, the Jews Christ spoke to misunderstood and took it literally. And NT warning shows there would be similar "carnal" people coming into the Church who would make the same mistake. (hence; those Jews then become "right, all along"!) So once the apostles were out of the scene; who would "protest"?
There are many errors that crept in that had no outcry. You all here are disclaiming the modern Catholic Mass; but I don't remember hearing any large protest or "Councils and wars, vehement denouncements and excommunications, followed by counter-denouncements and counter-excommunications", etc. over that (and many other things); except by/with the Protestants. It crept in gradually, and unnoticed; just like I said.

And then the Church may have quashed any protest and writings that did arise. Historians have noted the lack of writings between the apostles and earliest fathers in what they call "the lost century"; from which "an entirely different Church from the days of Peter and Paul" emerged.
Even if Ignatius did hold your view, that would actually be your "protest" or "denouncement". So it was there; but then if the writers holding the teachings you believe are the ones doing the protests; then you just attribute that to them "combatting heresy" rather than them being the ones unknowingly bringing it in, against the earlier truth. (And it IS possible for people to both combat and uknowingly promite false doctrine. The JW's and any other cult do it when they "preach Christ" against atheism, for instance.)

DHK; I hope by now you have realized that she means this in the symbolic (spiritual) sense (our view); not the literal Catholic sense. (See, Catholists; how easy it is to get it confused!)

The "joining together" was as I said: the water ceremony accompanied (marked) the spirit baptism and thus salvation. Also; as they fellowshipped together (which included eating together) they were partaking of Christ's body and blood (by which they are "washed").
They CAN be separated; as it is possible to partake the ceremonies, and NOT be baptized into Christ'partaking His body. the question is; is everyone who is not baptized or never had a communion (for whatever reason: not able to, like thief on Cross type situation accepted Christ but did not complete initiation, catchisms, etc) necessarily outside of Christ? I would say NO.

The gnostics repudiation if flesh is what made them so mystical in the first place; so then even the physical things they did use had to be "transformed" into spirit things! (Remember; it is your position that says that those elements are no longer the physical things they were made as, but are now "spiritual" things.

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4. The FaithLESS disciples took Christ literally and walked away saying that they would have to bite him if that were true.

#5. The FaithFUL disciples did not try to bite Christ in John 6. It does not appear to even occur to them to try to drink His blood or to bite him in that entire chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well you are certainly right that John 6 is definitely NOT a passover nor a communion service NOR does Christ say in John 6 "Some day IN THE FUTURE at some FUTURE passover-turned-communion will my flesh THEN be food".

HE claims that the BREAD has ALREADY come down from heaven and ALREADY they must EAT of that bread -- ALREADY He says they must TRULY eat -- not in some "future day" when the right things have finally happened.

This means there is no way to "defer" John 6 until the Cross. Christ said it was veriy true RIGHT THEN!

So you have two choices. Either agree with Clement and Tertullian that this is metaphor and symbol - speaking of Christ who IS the "WORD become flesh" and the TEACHING WORD is "what really gives life but biting flesh is pointless" -- OR you must watch for people slipping up to Christ and taking a big bite in John 6 so they can THEN have that life that could ONLY be had in that very Catholic way.

The evidence is clear.

Not only do the details of John 6 argue against that modern RC interpretation for John 6 SO ALSO do the church fathers who address John 6.

The point is devastating for TWO reasons.

#1. It means that they can not use John 6 for their argument for the Eucharist.

#2. It means that the John 6 and its "metaphors and symbols" is STILL the CONTEXT for the words spoken at the last supper and the correct John 6 CONTEXT TURNS those words to the right meaning - far from what the RCC would have at this point.

And that is a huge problem for the case they have buitl so far.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Which gets to your case DT. You appear to have the right view of John 6 so this begs the question - how then can you divorce the meaning, sybmols and metaphor in John 6 with Christ use of those same terms at the last Supper?

Why wouldn't the last supper be a continuation and amplification of the same points made in John 6?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well let's take a look at some Historical Baptist Catechisms that sound "catholic"

www.reformedreader.org

A Baptist Catechism
(Adapted by John Piper)

 

THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CATECHISM 1742

A CATECHISM FOR GIRLS AND BOYS, 1798

This part is for those older than fifth grade

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).

Q. How do baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).

Q. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, burial, and resurrection; of his being ingrafted into him (Rom. 6:3, 4, 5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27); of remission of sins (Mk. 1:4; Acts 2:38, and 22:16); and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Q. What is the Lord's supper?
A. The Lords supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace (Mt. 26:26, 27, 28; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16).

Q. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's supper?
A. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body (1 Cor. 11:28, 29), of their faith to feed upon him (2 Cor. 13:5), of their repentance (1 Cor. 11:31), love (1 Cor. 10:16, 17), and new obedience (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), lest coming unworthily they eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:28, 29).

 

Living4Him -- is it your position that non-Catholic churches do not see the symbols and metaphors of the Lord's supper to be a means of feeding on Christ as Christ points out in John 6 -- upon His Word which spells out the Gospel - telling of the atoning substitutionary sacrifice made for us?

"OR" are you trying to claim that the Baptists of the 1700's thought of their pastors as "CONFECTING CHRIST"???

Which is it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

What I am pointing out is that the early Baptist teachings imply more to Baptism and the Lord's Supper than what is taught now.

We can see a shift in Baptist thinking over the years.

For all the years that I was Baptist:
1. I had never heard of a Baptist Catechism.
2. Baptism was nothing more than an outward sign of obedience to Christ.
3. The Lord's Supper was an outward rememberance of Christ's Death.

This documents show that they believed more in the Real Presence and that the effects of Baptism was more than "just getting wet."

 

As already noted - we ALL believe in the REAL PRESENCE in terms of Christ's Words "Wherever two or three are gathered in My Name there I AM in your midst".

But if you mean that they teach the "REAL PRESENCE" as in the BREAD-IS-GOD (but no rational for how it was CONFECTED to be God perhaps) then I did not find it in your quotes. Please point that out.

Notice that the RCC itself claims that this is idolatry if the person is actually worshipping the BREAD as though the BREAD were God - which WOULD be the case if the RCC "confection" was not "working". Do you see that in the Baptist statement - that the BREAD BECAME GOD??

Do you see the Baptists arguing for MORE of the Presence of Christ than "Where two or three are gathered"??

Do you see them arguing for "A REAL flesh sacrifice being confected -- again" as the RCC claims?

(I am not Baptist and I have had no problem on this board - complaining about some Baptist doctrine that I did not agree with 100% so this is no loss for me if you can show actual Catholic thought for them here... I just don't see it!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

In the posts on page 5 and on this page, they both speak of feeding on the body of the Christ crucified and that it is spiritual food.

The RCC doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

No where does the Church teach that it is the priest who Confect the bread to be Christ. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the creates the Real Presence.

God is all powerful. To deny that He can make the Real Presence a reality is to deny that one believes with God nothing is impossible.

The fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded.

Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same.

By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.