Bread Worship

[antiaging]

I would beg to differ and would suggest you read Eusebius' Church History to gain a clearer picture as to who Ignatius was. He was certainly no backslider but was appointed Bishop of Antioch by John and well as being discipled by him. And, if he was wrong and a backslider, then one would expect others, both his contemporaries and those coming later, to write against his views. With the rather paltry exception of the two guys referred to above, there is nothing of that sort; no other Patristic writings against him, no Church councils anathematising his views. On the contrary, both his contemporaries and those who came after him agree with his interpretation:


Oh, I have - hence my view.

Eusebius was not a real Christian. He openly advocated lying and deception to further the cause of the newly formed Roman Catholic church under Constantine.

Take, for example, Eusebius who was an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg].
In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity" (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

Eusebius also did not believe in the Lordship of Christ or the Trinity. When Constantine picked Eusebius to make up 50 bibles for the newly formed Roman catholic church, Eusebius used the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts which don't have 1John 5:7 (KJV) because he didn't believe in the trinity. So the main reason for the Alexandrian corrupted manuscripts being mixed into the modern bibles and the catholic bibles is because of Eusebius. He refused to use the majority text, textus receptus because of 1John 5:7.
If Eusebius said, Ignatius was all right, then that is good reason to think he was not allright. Because Eusebius was not a real Christian.
To be a real Christian requires repentance of sins like lying and belief in the Lordship of Christ. Eusebius lacked both.

That information about Eusebius can be found among these references:

References:
CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read these books:
WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O. Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401

 

[DHK]

It is sad that you wish to remain in ignorance that you would wish to divorce yourself from the insights of past Christians.

The personal attack here is unwarranted. It reminds me of the debate going on in one of the Baptist forums concerning Dave Hunt. In a debate James White accuses Hunt of being ignorant of the writings of the reformers, and thus not qualified to debate the subject of Calvinism. Hunt replies that he doesn't have enough time to read through all the voluminous works of the Reformers but a good knowledge of the Bible is enough (my paraphrase).
Hunt of course is right. One does not need to read through all of Calvin's Institutes to be able either to refute or defend the the basic tenets of Calvinism. Suppose I don't believe in Calvinism, then I should be able to refute each point with the Bible. It doesn't matter whether I have read the work or not. The same holds true with ECF.

I don't have to do a thorough study on the Koran to refute the Muslims. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study on the Book of Mormon. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study of the "Granth Sahib" to refute the Sikh. A thorough study of the Bible is good enough.
The same is true with the ECF. I was long enough in the RCC to know that transubstantiation is a heresy.

This ought to be fun, as I have never seen a memorialist tackle these verses without doing gymnastics that would make a Cirque de Sole performer wince in pain.

Since I have already both expounded and exegeted the passage in question, why should it be fun. I already did the work for you.

First your translation of koinonia is an over simplification. It also means "participation" (Friberg). This hampers your argument because it can indicate something which goes beyond mere fellowship.

Not really. Only if you really twist the word to try and make it mean something that it is not supposed to mean because you come to the Word with blinded pre-conceived ideas. Sure the word means "participation" just like fellowship. We participate in fellowship. The words are the same or similar in meaning. If we have fellowship with each other, then we also participate with each other on the basis of his shed blood.

Second, since koinonia can mean something more than getting together for coffee, donuts and a boring sermon on how to be a better person (tongue in cheek) it is a likely possibility that what is meant is that they are actually taking part in the Blood by receiving it which is made all the more likely when they are latter warned in chapter 11 about profaning Christ's blood.

Chapter 11 speaks about profaning the Lord's Table as a whole, not just the blood. You need to read the entire context. Before they celebrated the Lord's Supper they had a love feast. At that love feast they were very carnal. They associated together in their various cliques. The rich got together with the rich and the poor with the poor; each with their own social class. The result was that some were gluttonous and even drunk, while others went away hungry. Coming to the Lord's Table in a drunken state, was not the way to celebrate it. Celebrating it with all the other carnal sins that they had been committing was just as wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--God had physically judged them for it--even with death. This was a serious service and to be taken seriously.
The carnality was that which was being rebuked.

No one was "taking part in the blood." You can't get that out of that passage. It just isn't there. You are the one that has to do the mental gymnastics.

Thirdly, your argument of fellowship only does not make sense because more than Christ's body is mentioned. Not once, does Paul ever use Christ blood as an image of the church, he does how ever use Christ's body as an image of the church. Therefore, the addition, of the blood in this case must mean that he is referring to something greater than fellowship.

1. You don't know what a church is, or have the proper definition of a church.
2. Your application of the blood and the church is wrong.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Prove your assertion. It is a verse which speaks of the Lord's Table. The cup that is partaken of represents the blood of Christ. That which is in the cup (the wine) is symbolic of the blood, as Christ said it was. It is a picture and that is all. We all partake of it. And the bread; we all partake of it. It also is a picture of the body of Christ. I agree: participation is a better word. We partake of the elements of the Lord's Table as they symbolize the blood and body of Christ, even as Christ Himself said that they did.

 

[D28guy]

mrtumnus,

Regarding your quote about the flesh, your interpretation that this discounts the Eucharist points back to Jesus -- the flesh of Jesus profiting nothing. How can this be when he offered his flesh for the salvation of the world?"

1st of all, the issue at hand...in the scriptures we were speaking of...was not whether His sacrifice for us was beneficial (at the time it had not taken place yet), but rather whether or not his followers were going to have to eat Jesus to have eternal life. He made clear that the answer is NO. He told them "The flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives life"

"How can this be when he offered his flesh for the salvation of the world?"

The most important thing about the crucifiction was that our sins were placed upon him, and He took the death penalty that we deserve upon Himself....

"4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Praise God forever more for His great work on our behalf!

And to think that we can access this great salvation through faith alone...

"for it is by grace that you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

And we can be made alive and empowered for service by faith alone as well...

"For I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me, and the life that I live, I live by faith, in the son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me"

GLORY TO GOD! \o/

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

The only "correction" Christ gave was the caveat that the words He was speaking were "spirit" (ie spiritual) and not of carnal understanding. That's what He meant by juxtiposing "spirit" and "flesh" in this verse (which is indeed the case through out most of the NT). In other words, "spirit" doesn't mean "metaphor" nor does "flesh" equal "physicality" in this verse. Obviously, Christ didn't mean that HIS physical "flesh" profited nothing since He had just said that He was about to give it for the life of the world...which of course He literally did on the cross."

Christ wasnt speaking to that in the passage in question. He told them they would have to eat Him to have everlasting life. The response was "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" and "This is a hard saying! Who can understand it?"

The issue wasnt whether He was going to die for our sins or not, but whether Christ expected them to literally EAT Him.

He said...

"Does this offend you?"

Of course it did. And He then explained....

"It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are Spirit, and they are life"

And later, He cleard it up even more...

"...the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot recieve, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him, but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you"

And even later Paul clears it up even more...

"It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me."

Not by eating Jesus, for "the flesh profits nothing", but through the indwelling Holy Spirit...by faith of course.

Praise the Lord!

I said...

"It might sometimes be interesting to read church history, and what the early believers taught and believed. But it ie 100% irrelavent regarding doctrinal conclusions and scriptural learning. Totally irrelavent."

And you said...

"I don't see how it's "irrelevant" given the fact that they were a lot closer in time to the apostles than us,...

Doesnt matter. The scriptures teach that even at the very beginning of the church evil decievers were already infiltrating the body.

"...and that they also were the ones who came to a common agreement as to the exact contents of the scriptural Canon in the first place."

As DHK has shown many times, the early church knew which books were the scriptures and which ones that werent long before the ECF's came along. And regarding "coming to agreement", the Catholic Church as one example has non-inspired false books in "her" canon even 1700 years after the RCC came to be.

"It's not a matter of "anything that came along decades later" being "absolutely true". It's a matter of a consensus of early Christian belief and practice regarding a specific issue..."

We are not to be concerned with whether its a consensus or not. History has shown that many times the "consensus" was nothing but a "consensus" of error".

"...giving one pause before automatically assuming the absolute truth of his particular modern day scriptural interpretation on the same issue."

Our scriptural admonition is to "test all things"...by the scriptures of course...and "hold fast to that which is good"

"All scripture is given by inspiritation of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

God bless,

Mike

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Hebrews 10:1-18

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Then said[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But this man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; [/FONT][FONT=&quot] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Hebrews 10:1-18).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Now, as we come to Hebrews 10:1-18, the scene before us is the great impotency of the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices to do anything about the sin problem. Therefore (10:1) it was also impotent to “make the comers thereunto perfect” regardless of how often the came.

The only basis for a relationship/fellowship with God is on the foundation of sinless perfection and the Law could not provide that. All the Law could do was to give a promise from God of the future true/actual redemption that would come to them in Messiah. The basis for this redemption and forgiveness lay in the reality of Messiah’s actual sacrifice. Therefore, the impotency of the Old Covenant lay in the impotency of their typical sacrifices (10:1). The Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were only shadows. They could not and did not embody the perfection that was to come in the sacrifice of Messiah.

Moral perfection could come only on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. The perfect sacrifice would be once for all;never needing repetition and would “by grace through faith” effectually make the person perfect before God (Hebrews 10:10). Hebrews 10:14-18 essentially says there are no more shadows. This is the potency of the reality of the New Covenant in Christ’s Blood.

If the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were not able to make the “comer perfect” “would they not cease to be offered” (Hebrews 10:2)? The very notion of a perfect sacrifice was that only one sacrifice (once for all) would be required. This one, once for all sacrifice would completely “purged” believers of the condemnation (judgment) of sin. Here is the only purgatory (purging place of sin) in the Bible:

“For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins” (Hebrews 10:2).

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).

When the concept of the once for all nature of the sacrifice of Christ is missed, lost, or denied the reality of the New Covenant is missed, lost, and denied and it is reduced to the empty shell of Apostate Judaism. The very fact that the sacrifices were repeated over and over was only a reminder (remembrance) every year after year of their own inadequacy and incompleteness (Hebrews 10:3).

It was not only “impossible. . . with those sacrifices [of the Mosaic Covenant] which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect;” those sacrifices was never intended to do so (Hebrews 10:4). If that reality was even a possibility, why (“wherefore”) would be the necessity of Messiah’s coming to die (Hebrews 10:5)?

“6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:6-8).

It is almost as if apostate Israel had lost the truth of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 about the purpose of the coming of the suffering Saviour.

The very fact that Christ came and died on the Cross (v 9) is substantiation that the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were powerless to provide complete propitiation of God and perfect forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 10:5-9). If God could save or forgive on the basis of animal sacrifices, don’t you think He would have done that? The perfect sacrifice required a “body” prepared by God himself; sinless and perfect in itself. Nothing less would do.

“1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:1-3).

This perfect sacrifice not only needed to be perfect in Himself He had to do the will of God perfectly (Hebrews 10:7). Hebrews10:10 actually ends with the word “once: (for all is italicized). “Sanctified” in Hebrews 10:10 is in the perfect tense in the Greek. This is a very important fact to understanding the meaning of this verse and Hebrews chapter ten. The perfect tense in the Greek describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, and never needing to be repeated (this is the reason the translators added the clarify words “for all”).

The “cry of the cross, “it is finished” is a perfect example of the perfect tense. It emphasizes the fact that the propitiation of God has been accomplished completely once and for all time. Contradistinctively, this emphasizes just how blasphemous the continual offering (as a sacrifice for sin) the misrepresentation of the Lord’s Supper is. It is a complete denial of that positional sanctification that is the possession of every born again believer.

“Sanctified” means the believer is positionally set apart and made holy, righteous and perfect before God. That is the potency of the New Covenant. That is the “power” in the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. One sacrifice (Hebrews 10:12)
2. One offering (Hebrews 10:14)
3. No more offering for sin (Hebrews 10:18)

Underline these verses; highlight them; memorize them. They are three very important verses if you want to persuade those calling themselves Christians, but who deny the finished sacrifice of Christ by their participation in the sacraments of sacramentalism. There is (v 18) “no more offering for sin.” If you believe there is, you miss the whole point of the gospel and the very foundation of New Covenant truth. Sadder than missing the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, you are denying the work of Christ and your own salvation. False beliefs also manifest unbelief.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Warning!!!

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”(Hebrews 10:26-31).

After reading the text, read Hebrews 10:9-10 again.

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Before we study Hebrews 10:26-31, it is absolutely essential that we remember the context of the epistle to the Hebrews as a whole to understand the context of Hebrews chapter ten. The simple rule is, “Any text out of context is pretext” (a pretext is a false reasoning used to hide the real one).

The great theological problem detailed in the epistle to the Hebrews continues into present Church history. It answers the question; Can a person continue as an Old Covenant practitioner and be a New Covenant believer?This is the problem of the majority of Reformed Theology. They transpose the sacerdotalism and sacrifices of the Old Covenant upon the New Covenant, distorting it and perverting it. They take the sacerdotalism (God working only through a Priesthood) and transpose that concept into a New Covenant priesthood of clergymen. They take the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals and transpose them into sacraments.

As we will see from the warning in Hebrews 10:26-31, the answer to the question, Can a person continue as an Old Covenant practitioner and be a New Covenant believer is no, absolutely and irrefutably, no! To remain as Old Covenant practitioner in the New Covenant is a complete denial of the very basis of New Covenant faith, i.e., the finished work of Christ. According to Hebrews 10:26, the ultimate contradiction of the Old Covenant practices against the New Covenant faith is what do we do about sins committed “willfully after” we have trusted in Christ.

What did the Old Covenant believer do about cleansing or forgiveness of sin after salvation? They would offer another sacrifice for sin. The great contradiction of the Theology (vs. 26) between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that, in the New Covenant, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Why, because “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9)

According to Hebrews 10:26, Old Covenant practices contradict the received “knowledge of the truth” of the New Covenant. That is what Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18 have confirmed. These verses purport a complete contradiction against the Old Covenant practices or any transposition of those practices into the New Covenant. These verses detail what the words “knowledge of the truth” refer to. It is the “knowledge of the truth” of the New Covenant of a finished, “once for all,” never needing repetition or perpetuation (especially vs. 18). There are no more sacrifices in the New Covenant because none are needed.

So what is the warning of Hebrews 10:26-31? The warning is that you cannot be an Old Covenant practitioner and at the same time be a New Covenant believer. To be an Old Covenant practitioner is a denial of the essential truths of the New Covenant and the Gospel of a “finished” work of redemption through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To offer another sacrifice for the forgiveness sins (vs.26) is out of the question, revealing a complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the Gospel and of the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ and what that sacrifice accomplished (I John 2:2).

Therefore, to use the Lord’s Supper as the perpetual sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness of sins is an Old Covenant practitioner’s adaptation (corruption) of a New Covenant ordinance, denying the essential truths of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18). The person that believes in this corrupted way cannot look forward to forgiveness of sin, but rather the opposite (Hebrews 10:27). People that believe in this corrupted way are not really believers at all. God views them as “adversaries” (enemies of the cross). Who else is the “adversary” of God and of true believers? (See I Peter 5:8).

According to this text, the kind of corruption of the gospel warned about in Hebrews 10:26-31 is one where God views Old Covenant practitioners in the New Covenant as the comrades of Satan. Yes, God goes so far as to call them Antichrist (II John 1:7-11) in that they have perverted and corrupted the “doctrine of Christ.” (See (II John 1:7-11.)

II John 1:9 is an emphatic truth and an emphatic warning. We had better heed it carefully. The “doctrine of Christ” is everything the book of Hebrews discusses. Hebrews is a New Covenant Christology (“doctrine of Christ”). Hebrews teaches us more about Christ than any other book of the Bible. The epistle of Romans tells us what Christ did. Hebrews tells what He did and tells us who He is.

According to Hebrews 10:27, what does an Old Covenant practitioner living under the New Covenant have to look forward to? That person can expect the judgment of God and His indignation (punitive zeal).

“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5).

The warning of Hebrews 10:28 is that those that believe this way will die without mercy. We really cannot understand the concept of dying “without mercy.” Let me give an example of the indignation of God.

“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10).

What is this great sin of the Old Covenant practitioner living under the New Covenant that Hebrews 10:29 refers to? It is the denial of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. It is the denial of His absolute, once for all, propitiatory sacrifice. The word “propitiation” means that God’s judgment (the death sentence upon all humankind) has been satisfied through the “once for all” substitionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. What are Old Covenant practitioners living under the New Covenant actually doing when they attempt to offer another sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins? They “Trod under foot the Son of God” and equate (counts) the blood of the (new) covenant (the blood of Christ ; 10:19) of equal value to the common Old Covenant animal sacrifices.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] The result of this corruption of the Gospel though perverted practice is an insult (“done despite”) against the spirit of grace in salvation. When the Old Covenant practitioner reduces the sacrifice of Christ to the same level as Old Covenant animal sacrifices (needing constant repetition and perpetual offering), he insults the very grace of God that seeks to save him. This is a serious matter as defined by Hebrews 10:30-31. God will not stand for such an insult against His son, His sacrifice, and His gift of grace (salvation).

If you deny and reject the complete satisfaction of God’s judgment of sin, self, and Satan in Jesus Christ by denying the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, you literally fall into the hands of judgment and the vengeance of the living God. It is one thing to lose your soul, as horrible a thought as that is, it is also a serious problem to be cast into eternal hell (God forbid that is your case and destiny), but the greatest horror in the Bible is to “fall into the hands of the living God.”

“He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him” (John 3:36).

What is our responsibility when faced with Old Covenant practitioners who deny the finished, once for all sacrifice of Christ with their false practices? We need to love them enough to warn them just as Paul does in the book of Hebrews. We need to love them enough to tell them of the consequences of their false beliefs and practices. We need to love them enough to be straightforward with them about the truth of the New Covenant faith and the truth of the Gospel. We need to love them enough to encourage them to abandon Old Covenant, Christ denying practices and come to resting/saving faith in the once and for all finished work of Jesus Christ.

 

[mrtumnus]

No, they deny or disbelieve the Sacrifice by Jesus at the Cross when they perform the Mass.

IN the Mass they all the time ask God to forgive their sins without mentioning that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they declare that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross, it doesn't make sense that they repeatedly request God to forgive the sins.

There is a Huge, Huge difference between Catholic Mass and the Gospel Message.

The Transubstantiaton goes together with such misunderstanding, disbelieving that the Blood was to be offered to God, instead of human drinking.

Christians aren't supposed to repeatedly request God to forgive their sins?

I take it you're not a proponent of praying the Lord's prayer on a regular basis either?

 

[Chemnitz]

The personal attack here is unwarranted. It reminds me of the debate going on in one of the Baptist forums concerning Dave Hunt. In a debate James White accuses Hunt of being ignorant of the writings of the reformers, and thus not qualified to debate the subject of Calvinism. Hunt replies that he doesn't have enough time to read through all the voluminous works of the Reformers but a good knowledge of the Bible is enough (my paraphrase).
Hunt of course is right. One does not need to read through all of Calvin's Institutes to be able either to refute or defend the the basic tenets of Calvinism. Suppose I don't believe in Calvinism, then I should be able to refute each point with the Bible. It doesn't matter whether I have read the work or not. The same holds true with ECF.

I don't have to do a thorough study on the Koran to refute the Muslims. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study on the Book of Mormon. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study of the "Granth Sahib" to refute the Sikh. A thorough study of the Bible is good enough.
The same is true with the ECF. I was long enough in the RCC to know that transubstantiation is a heresy.

A litttle sensitive aren't we? It was not meant to be an attack. I do find it funny that you try to refute something when you don't even know what it is. How do you ever hope to actually be able to address the issue in the way the other side will understand if you do not take the time to understand them? These men are very influential in forming the world views of people today, even if a good number of our contemporaries do not realize their influence. If you do not recognize this you are not going to be able address issues very well.

Since I have already both expounded and exegeted the passage in question, why should it be fun. I already did the work for you.

Not really. Only if you really twist the word to try and make it mean something that it is not supposed to mean because you come to the Word with blinded pre-conceived ideas. Sure the word means "participation" just like fellowship. We participate in fellowship. The words are the same or similar in meaning. If we have fellowship with each other, then we also participate with each other on the basis of his shed blood.

I do not have to twist the word. To participate in, means to take part in and or/have a part in or share in (Merriam-Webster). If they are sharing in Christ's blood they are doing more than having "fellowship" they are sharing in it. This made all the more clear by the fact that they are pointed to a physical element. In referencing the cup he is reminding the people of Christ's promise in the institution that this is his blood given for the forgiveness of their sins. On top of that this all occurs within a discourse of eating and drinking this adds into the idea of taking part in by emphasizing that which they are eating and drinking, the body and blood of Christ. If this were a question of fellowship there would be no need for this reference, however, it is there which means there is more than fellowship taking place.

Chapter 11 speaks about profaning the Lord's Table as a whole, not just the blood. You need to read the entire context. Before they celebrated the Lord's Supper they had a love feast. At that love feast they were very carnal. They associated together in their various cliques. The rich got together with the rich and the poor with the poor; each with their own social class. The result was that some were gluttonous and even drunk, while others went away hungry. Coming to the Lord's Table in a drunken state, was not the way to celebrate it. Celebrating it with all the other carnal sins that they had been committing was just as wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--God had physically judged them for it--even with death. This was a serious service and to be taken seriously.
The carnality was that which was being rebuked.

No one was "taking part in the blood." You can't get that out of that passage. It just isn't there. You are the one that has to do the mental gymnastics.

While the people were engaged in bad fellowship practices, these practices were merely a symptom as Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit correctly surmises. If this were a case of fellowship abuses then it would have been more logical for Paul to engage the problem as he did with the issue of gifts but he doesn't. Instead, he reminds them that they which they are receiving is Christ's body and blood, hence the warning against profaning it. Note that it is the profaning Christ's body and blood that is the reason why so many were falling a ill and asleep.

1. You don't know what a church is, or have the proper definition of a church.
2. Your application of the blood and the church is wrong.

What an unsubstantiated assertion. The church is the body of Christ, the gathering of the saints in his image. It is never described as Christ's blood.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Prove your assertion. It is a verse which speaks of the Lord's Table. The cup that is partaken of represents the blood of Christ. That which is in the cup (the wine) is symbolic of the blood, as Christ said it was. It is a picture and that is all. We all partake of it. And the bread; we all partake of it. It also is a picture of the body of Christ. I agree: participation is a better word. We partake of the elements of the Lord's Table as they symbolize the blood and body of Christ, even as Christ Himself said that they did.

The single largest problem with your statement is that Christ himself calls the cup his blood. He does not say this represents his blood. He states that it is. To claim that Christ means symbolic is to put words in his mouth and make dangerous assertions. As the gospels indicate Jesus generally prefaced statements that he meant metaforically. He does not do this in the Words of Institution. Paul referencing the cup is bringing the people back to these words, reminding them of Christ's promise.

 

[cowboymatt]

Unless you are arguing that Jesus' actual blood was in the cup (which would be slightly insane), then Jesus is speaking metaphorically. The wine was not actually, physically his blood, thus he had to be speaking figuratively.

Now we can all disagree if Jesus meant that his blood was in some non-physical way present in the wine. But that's a different issue.

 

[Chemnitz]

Unless you are arguing that Jesus' actual blood was in the cup (which would be slightly insane), then Jesus is speaking metaphorically. The wine was not actually, physically his blood, thus he had to be speaking figuratively.

Now we can all disagree if Jesus meant that his blood was in some non-physical way present in the wine. But that's a different issue.

Actually that is exactly what I am arguing and it is not insane. Jesus is God after all, he is quite capable of making his blood present along with the wine.

 

[cowboymatt]

I'm not saying that perhaps in some spiritual or other non-physical sense that Jesus' body and blood are present. What I am saying is that the language that Jesus uses is metaphorical unless someone argues that his actual physical body and blood were consumed (which, of course, is ridiculous since both are no-no's for Jews: canibalism and blood consumption).

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

I'm not saying that perhaps in some spiritual or other non-physical sense that Jesus' body and blood are present. What I am saying is that the language that Jesus uses is metaphorical unless someone argues that his actual physical body and blood were consumed (which, of course, is ridiculous since both are no-no's for Jews: canibalism and blood consumption).

You are correct Brother Matt!

It is also commanded against in the NT (Acts 15: 20 & 29).

Would Christ give one command and then contradict it in another verse?

ØThe Law of Contradiction

Since God is immutable, He must be consistent in the revelation of Himself and in the revelation of truth. Any conclusive concept or idea that is contradictory to another concept or idea must be rejected as in error or a misinterpretation because God is consistent in truth (I John 2:21, II Timothy 2:13 and Titus 1:2). Since all truth interrelates, all systematizing of truth must be congruous (in harmony).

Both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation must be wrong because they are incongrous with so many other statements in Scripture.

 

[cowboymatt]

I wouldn't say that consubstantiation is against Scripture. One could argue for a non-physical presence in the elements. I don't; but I think its possible.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

I wouldn't say that consubstantiation is against Scripture. One could argue for a non-physical presence in the elements. I don't; but I think its possible.

One "could argue for" just about anything (and in these forums, they often do), but Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, is nonsensical and out of harmony with New Covenant truths.

 

[Chemnitz]

I'm not saying that perhaps in some spiritual or other non-physical sense that Jesus' body and blood are present. What I am saying is that the language that Jesus uses is metaphorical unless someone argues that his actual physical body and blood were consumed (which, of course, is ridiculous since both are no-no's for Jews: canibalism and blood consumption).

I am saying His body and blood are physically present and the rules for cannabilism and blood consumption do not apply. Why? Because cannabilism and blood consumption were a way pagans sought to better or renew themselves apart from God. Where as God gave his body and blood for the express purpose of our renewal.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

I am saying His body and blood are physically present and the rules for cannabilism and blood consumption do not apply. Why? Because cannabilism and blood consumption were a way pagans sought to better or renew themselves apart from God. Where as God gave his body and blood for the express purpose of our renewal.

At least you are a TRUE Lutheran, for Luther always believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation and sacramentalism/sacerdotalism (the conference of grace through the sacraments as administered through the hands of ordained clergymen).

 

[cowboymatt]

I just don't see it, especially since in every instance that I have taken Communion the elements have remained bread and wine (or juice). Jesus' language clearly (to me at least) is metaphorical and the reaction (or lack thereof) by the disciples supports this (surely, as Jews, they would have protested or at least been shocked enough to ask for an explanation).

Paul seems to understand Jesus language metaphorically (and perhaps Luke's language was influenced by Paul?), though 1 Cor 11.27 seems to say the opposite (could it be that Paul amped up his rhetoric here to make sure the the believers in Corinth were taking worship seriously?). And "sinning against the body and blood" doesn't have to be understood unmetaphorically.

I know that I'm not going to convince you, and I likely will stick with my tradition as well, but I do appreciate the give and take here!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DR. L.T. Ketchem: The Law of Contradiction

Since God is immutable, He must be consistent in the revelation of Himself and in the revelation of truth. Any conclusive concept or idea that is contradictory to another concept or idea must be rejected as in error or a misinterpretation because God is consistent in truth (I John 2:21, II Timothy 2:13 and Titus 1:2). Since all truth interrelates, all systematizing of truth must be congruous (in harmony).

HP: Now here is a paragraph loaded with truth that we should all write permanently upon our minds and utilize in the development of our theology and philosophy, and worth pinning to our study walls.:thumbs:

My position is that truth originates from God regardless of the source. God grants to man truth via nature, truth via consciousness and truth via Scripture, Our duty as theologians is to harmonize truth from every possible avenue God grants to us, and see if in fact we err as theologians or as philosophers. Either one or both are always a possibility to be examined carefully and prayerfully.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Realted to Dr Ketchems statement another quote comes to mind. I believe it was Algernon Sydney that stated something along this line. “True fortitude of knowledge consists in not allowing the things we do not understand to confuse the things we with certainty know.”

I would see this as related in the following manner. We all have questions in many areas of our theology. Just the same, God grants to us some truth , some self evident principles of justice and reason, that to reject or forsake them would be to cavil at understanding any semblance of truth. Rather than to simply throw out what we do know of certainty because some question interrelated arises, I try to work from the solid truth to the more difficult truth, allowing those basic rock solid intuitive principles to be used as a guide in the attempt to understand the darker and more complex issues.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Realted to Dr Ketchems statement another quote comes to mind. I believe it was Algernon Sydney that stated something along this line. “True fortitude of knowledge consists in not allowing the things we do not understand to confuse the things we with certainty know.”

I would see this as related in the following manner. We all have questions in many areas of our theology. Just the same, God grants to us some truth so self evident principles of justice and reason that to reject or forsake them would be to cavil at understanding any semblance of truth. Rather than to simply throw out what we do know of certainty because some question interrelated arises, I try to work from the solid truth to the more difficult truth, allowing those basic rock solid intuitive principles to be used as a guide in the attempt to understand the darker and more complex issues.

Brother,

What you are describing is known as the Inductive Methodology that builds a Systematic Theology from harmonious exegetical and dogmatic statements from Scripture. The more concrete the number and clarity of Scripture statements, the larger the weight of evidence and the more dogmatic the conclusive statement can be.