Confession for Baptist’s and Protestants in general

[Ben1445]

Rationalising Jesus words is not the same as believing Jesus words. Rationalising is the opposite of believing, the opposite of Faith.

Faith is the key, Faith goes beyond human reasoning.

Jesus flesh is real food and His blood is real drink.

Believe it because Jesus said it.



“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. “

The naturally minded people who thought Jesus was being literal left after He said they had to eat Him. The spiritual minded understood it to be a spiritual teaching and didn’t accept physical cannibalism as a form of worship.
The Catholic Church made it doctrine at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. Of course they will say God was doing it all along. And it didn’t happen overnight. So yes there are going to be some people who taught it before the Catholic Church made it their doctrine.
It is merely an example of humanity who discerns naturally making a mistake about what Jesus was teaching.
Since Jesus said the words He spoke were spiritual words, He was telling his disciples that he did not mean they physically ate him. It meant that spiritually, they took Him into themselves.
To make it a physical thing is to teach the opposite of Christ.

 

[Ben1445]

You must face Jesus words head on and believe, not scurry off in human rationalisations.

“ My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”

Yes Lord, I believe.

It isn’t rationalizing. It is what Jesus taught.

Yes It is real spiritual food and drink. Which is not present in the Lord’s table. We are taught to do it to remember Him, not receive Him.

 

[Walter]

The naturally minded people who thought Jesus was being literal left after He said they had to eat Him. The spiritual minded understood it to be a spiritual teaching and didn’t accept physical cannibalism as a form of worship.
The Catholic Church made it doctrine at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. Of course they will say God was doing it all along. And it didn’t happen overnight. So yes there are going to be some people who taught it before the Catholic Church made it their doctrine.
It is merely an example of humanity who discerns naturally making a mistake about what Jesus was teaching.
Since Jesus said the words He spoke were spiritual words, He was telling his disciples that he did not mean they physically ate him. It meant that spiritually, they took Him into themselves.
To make it a physical thing is to teach the opposite of Christ.

At other times when Jesus used metaphors to describe Himself, ie: 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', He was using metaphorical language. However, when He said 'This is my body', 'this is my blood', it's not in metaphorical language. Yes, we do it in remembrance of Him, but it is much more than just a memorial service.

Notice in John 6 when so many disciples departed because they couldn't accept that He was insisting they must eat His body and drink His blood He didn't say: 'Oh no, come back, I was only talking symbolically.' No corrections. In fact: 'Verily, Verily'.

 

[Ben1445]

At other times when Jesus used metaphors to describe Himself, ie: 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', He was using metaphorical language. However, when He 'This is my body', 'this is my blood', it's not in metaphorical language. Yes, we do it in remembrance of Him, but it is much more than just a memorial service.

Notice in John 6 when so many disciples departed because they couldn't accept that He was insisting they must eat His body and drink His blood He didn't say: 'Oh no, come back, I was only talking symbolically.' No corrections. In fact: 'Verily, Verily'.

Read it again. It tells you exactly why He let them go and why He said it the way he did.
Are you saying that He did not mean that it was a spiritual teaching when He said it was?
It is clear in Jesus’ ministry that He was not presenting Himself to be accepted by the Jews in the way they wanted to accept Him. They did not believe in Him. They were only interested in, ironically, physical food.

 

[Walter]

Read it again. It tells you exactly why He let them go and why He said it the way he did.
Are you saying that He did not mean that it was a spiritual teaching when He said it was?
It is clear in Jesus’ ministry that He was not presenting Himself to be accepted by the Jews in the way they wanted to accept Him. They did not believe in Him. They were only interested in, ironically, physical food.

Ben, if I'm had more time I would give my own response, however, here is the Catholic Answers response:

• Jesus' Words:
  Jesus' statement in John 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail," is seen by Catholics as clarifying the need for spiritual understanding to grasp the mystery of the Eucharist, not as a denial of its physical reality.
  
  
• Early Church Fathers:
  Early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Origen affirmed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, supporting the Catholic interpretation.
  
  
• Confirmation at the Last Supper:
  Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "This is my body... this is my blood," are seen as further confirmation of the literal interpretation of his instructions in John 6.

 

[Ben1445]

Ben, if I'm had more time I would give my own response, however, here is the Catholic Answers response:

• Jesus' Words:
  Jesus' statement in John 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail," is seen by Catholics as clarifying the need for spiritual understanding to grasp the mystery of the Eucharist, not as a denial of its physical reality.

Which is exactly why the Catholic teaching is wrong. They are putting physical application on a spiritual teaching.
And not all Catholics believe this either. I have been yelled at by a Catholic passerby who overheard me saying to someone inquiring, that transubstantiation was a Catholic teaching and Baptists didn’t believe that they were literally eating Jesus. When they heard me they let me know on no uncertain terms that they were Catholic and didn’t believe that, and neither did their Catholic Church. I have not called their church to check.

• 
  
• Early Church Fathers:
  Early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Origen affirmed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, supporting the Catholic interpretation.

I have read the quotes but I have not read all of the material not quoted.
Even the Bible says there is no God. Ps. 53

What else is important about what they said may very well be what is never quoted.

• 
  
• Confirmation at the Last Supper:
  Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "This is my body... this is my blood," are seen as further confirmation of the literal interpretation of his instructions in John 6.

If it was spiritual in John 6, why would He change His mind and start a new physical teaching?

 

[Walter]

Which is exactly why the Catholic teaching is wrong. They are putting physical application on a spiritual teaching.
And not all Catholics believe this either. I have been yelled at by a Catholic passerby who overheard me saying to someone inquiring, that transubstantiation was a Catholic teaching and Baptists didn’t believe that they were literally eating Jesus. When they heard me they let me know on no uncertain terms that they were Catholic and didn’t believe that, and neither did their Catholic Church. I have not called their church to check.

I have read the quotes but I have not read all of the material not quoted.
Even the Bible says there is no God. Ps. 53

What else is important about what they said may very well be what is never quoted.

If it was spiritual in John 6, why would He change His mind and start a new physical teaching?

Just as there's Catholics who either don't understand what the Church teaches about the Eucharisti or lack the faith to believe it, there's plenty of Baptists who don't have a clue what Baptists believe. I had a friend who was a member of a local Baptist church who told me although he kept using drugs and got in legal trouble because of it, he knew he was saved because he was baptized when he was a teenager. I posted on here when I first became a member of the BB that I had a situation in my Baptist church because my neighbor who was a youth leader practiced Wicca with my cousin.

Not sure we want to use this sort of argument. I know what The Catholic Church teaches in regards to the Eucharist and I know what Baptists churches teach in regards to baptism and practicing Wicca. Too often what is commonly taught is not what is practiced or believed.

 

[Ben1445]

Just as there's Catholics who either don't understand what the Church teaches about the Eucharisti or lack the faith to believe it, there's plenty of Baptists who don't have a clue what Baptists believe. I had a friend who was a member of a local Baptist church who told me although he kept using drugs and got in legal trouble because of it, he knew he was saved because he was baptized when he was a teenager. I posted on here when I first became a member of the BB that I had a situation in my Baptist church because my neighbor who was a youth leader practiced Wicca with my cousin.

Not sure we want to use this sort of argument. I know what The Catholic Church teaches in regards to the Eucharist and I know what Baptists churches teach in regards to baptism and practicing Wicca. Too often what is commonly taught is not what is practiced or believed.

I didn’t intend for that to be an argument. It was merely anecdotal. I certainly don’t base my interpretation of Scripture based on the way it is interpreted and used by the people who claim to follow it. This is exactly the reason I don’t accept the Catholic teachings on this subject. I don’t accept any statement no matter how many counsels or “church fathers” have decided it to be. It remains their opinion and interpretation of Scripture whether it is correct or not.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

heathenish fatalism and determinism

Calvin and Augustine’s roots in Gnosticism

There is no Gnosticism, or heathenish fatalism, in The Eternal Doctrines of Grace
which saturate The BIBLE AND ARE TAUGHT IN ALMOST EVERY CHAPTER.

 

[Ben1445]

There is no Gnosticism, or heathenish fatalism, in The Eternal Doctrines of Grace
which saturate The BIBLE AND ARE TAUGHT IN ALMOST EVERY CHAPTER.

Changing the name from Calvinism to Doctrines of Grace doesn't remove the gnostic background.

 

[Cathode]

I didn’t intend for that to be an argument. It was merely anecdotal. I certainly don’t base my interpretation of Scripture based on the way it is interpreted and used by the people who claim to follow it. This is exactly the reason I don’t accept the Catholic teachings on this subject. I don’t accept any statement no matter how many counsels or “church fathers” have decided it to be. It remains their opinion and interpretation of Scripture whether it is correct or not.

All heresies are expressions of self will as the Fathers teach, and nothing facilitates heresy better than private interpretation of Scripture as brought about by Luther’s “ Bible alone “ heresy.
It gave license for each man to be the sole arbiter of Scriptures meaning, to have their own subjective interpretations and doctrines therefrom.

That’s why Luther lamented the explosion of interpretations that conflicted with his. Luther thought that people would arrive at his interpretation of Scripture on reading it, instead thousands of conflicting interpretations, doctrines followed, and the new phenomenon of denominations started cascading, to the point that even Luther is alien to them.

The Councils aren’t just opinion, these are the heads of all the Churches gathered to settle interpretation and doctrine and is guided by The Holy Spirit.
You ignore them at your peril.
The Bible itself was determined at Catholic Councils.

Every book in Protestant bibles was determined in Catholic Councils guided by The Holy Spirit. The Bible didn’t come from Protestantism or Baptist’s, it is entirely the offspring and progeny of The Catholic Church.

 

[Cathode]

It isn’t rationalizing. It is what Jesus taught.

Yes It is real spiritual food and drink. Which is not present in the Lord’s table. We are taught to do it to remember Him, not receive Him.

Mealy mouthed rationalisation.

“Not receive Him”, then it is not Communion, you have missed the entire point.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

This is the point, true Communion on eating Jesus Flesh and drinking His Blood.

You don’t believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink. It’s a direct denial of Jesus own words.

 

[Cathode]

The naturally minded people who thought Jesus was being literal left after He said they had to eat Him. The spiritual minded understood it to be a spiritual teaching and didn’t accept physical cannibalism as a form of worship.
The Catholic Church made it doctrine at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. Of course they will say God was doing it all along. And it didn’t happen overnight. So yes there are going to be some people who taught it before the Catholic Church made it their doctrine.
It is merely an example of humanity who discerns naturally making a mistake about what Jesus was teaching.
Since Jesus said the words He spoke were spiritual words, He was telling his disciples that he did not mean they physically ate him. It meant that spiritually, they took Him into themselves.
To make it a physical thing is to teach the opposite of Christ.

No, when it comes down to it, it’s those who believe Jesus words in faith and those who don’t.

“ My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink “ not symbolic food and symbolic drink.

Read Ignatius. Credentials: Direct Disciple of John the Apostle author of John 6. Bishop of Antioch, Martyr in the pagan arena of Rome.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

I know. It’s all garbage to you, you are the sole arbiter of Scriptures meaning, no one can tell you anything.
If the direct words of Christ can’t convince a man out of his self willed obstinacy, nothing will.

The core doctrine of Protestantism is self will.

 

[Walter]

No, when it comes down to it, it’s those who believe Jesus words in faith and those who don’t.

“ My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink “ not symbolic food and symbolic drink.

Read Ignatius. Credentials: Direct Disciple of John the Apostle author of John 6. Bishop of Antioch, Martyr in the pagan arena of Rome.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

I know. It’s all garbage to you, you are the sole arbiter of Scriptures meaning, no one can tell you anything.
If the direct words of Christ can’t convince a man out of his self willed obstinacy, nothing will.

The core doctrine of Protestantism is self will.

The fact that there's not a single writer in the early centuries of the Church that supports their Baptist beliefs regarding confession, baptism, the Eucharist, etc doesn't matter to them one bit. You would think if the teachings by the Early Church writers on these subjects were controversial, there would be someone objecting.

You would also think the words of Ignatius, who sat at John's feet, would mean more to them than the words of Zwingli.

 

[Ben1445]

No, when it comes down to it, it’s those who believe Jesus words in faith and those who don’t.

“ My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink “ not symbolic food and symbolic drink.

Read Ignatius. Credentials: Direct Disciple of John the Apostle author of John 6. Bishop of Antioch, Martyr in the pagan arena of Rome.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

I know. It’s all garbage to you, you are the sole arbiter of Scriptures meaning, no one can tell you anything.
If the direct words of Christ can’t convince a man out of his self willed obstinacy, nothing will.

The core doctrine of Protestantism is self will.

The direct words of Jesus saying it is a spiritual teaching is what convinced me.

 

[Ben1445]

The fact that there's not a single writer in the early centuries of the Church that supports their Baptist beliefs regarding confession, baptism, the Eucharist, etc doesn't matter to them one bit. You would think if the teachings by the Early Church writers on these subjects were controversial, there would be someone objecting.

You would also think the words of Ignatius, who sat at John's feet, would mean more to them than the words of Zwingli.

Considering that Paul in his epistles and the Lord in Revelation are condemning the first century churches false doctrines, I don’t think that the argument of earliest beliefs holds for anything.

 

[Cathode]

The direct words of Jesus saying it is a spiritual teaching is what convinced me.

Jesus words were in reference to people’s lack of Faith.

Only spiritual Faith gives life, the flesh/ human reason profits nothing.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. “

That’s why people rightly understood Jesus speaking literally and then left Him, not believing.

Jesus even questions the disciples asking if they were going to leave Him as well.

Then Peter speaks out and makes a supernatural act of faith in Jesus words.

“ To whom shall we go, you have the words of everlasting life “

So it’s down to those who believe Jesus words in faith, and those who are stuck in human reason and don’t believe.

Peter didn’t understand, but He believed Jesus. This is Faith.

 

[Ben1445]

Jesus words were in reference to people’s lack of Faith.

Agreed

Only spiritual Faith gives life, the flesh/ human reason profits nothing.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. “

That’s why people rightly understood Jesus speaking literally and then left Him, not believing.

As it says, “he cannot understand them” emphasis above is mine.
They didn’t understand Him and that is why they left. They didn’t understood That Jesus is life and food for the spirit. They did think he meant his physical flesh. Jesus told them that they were too concerned with their stomachs and was not telling them to physically eat.

Jesus even questions the disciples asking if they were going to leave Him as well.

Then Peter speaks out and makes a supernatural act of faith in Jesus words.

“ To whom shall we go, you have the words of everlasting life “

These words are to be understood as spiritual food and it is clear from Jesus words that His physical body is not consumed at a physical Lord’s Supper.
Jesus said so in remembrance of me. It is entirely memorial and not a physical eating, transubstantiation.

 

[Cathode]

Agreed


As it says, “he cannot understand them” emphasis above is mine.
They didn’t understand Him and that is why they left. They didn’t understood That Jesus is life and food for the spirit. They did think he meant his physical flesh. Jesus told them that they were too concerned with their stomachs and was not telling them to physically eat.

These words are to be understood as spiritual food and it is clear from Jesus words that His physical body is not consumed at a physical Lord’s Supper.
Jesus said so in remembrance of me. It is entirely memorial and not a physical eating, transubstantiation.

All of Christianity for the first 1500 years interpreted Jesus words to mean eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood, in the Holy Eucharist.

The disciples had to believe this in faith until it was finally revealed at the Last Supper how this would be done.

Jesus gave His Body to eat and Blood to drink at the Last Supper.

 

[Cathode]

These words are to be understood as spiritual food and it is clear from Jesus words that His physical body is not consumed at a physical Lord’s Supper.
Jesus said so in remembrance of me. It is entirely memorial and not a physical eating, transubstantiation.

The Eucharist is spiritual food, but it is physical as well.

Jesus Soul and Divinity resides in His Flesh and Blood, by receiving His Flesh and Blood we receive His life giving Divinity in our flesh and blood unto resurrection.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. “

“ So he who eats me, will live because of me. “

Only Jesus is Life.