-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Church of Rome Hold the The True Gospel?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
And what’s your meaning of water baptism? Let me ask another of these doctrinal conundrums, do you believe in Origiinal Sin... if so how do you get clean of Origional Sin?
Outward sign of the already inward working of the Holy Spirit, so we are baptized after we have been saved.
Original Sin means that all of us were born into the likeness of Adam, into sin natures, and once saved, that Sin paid for by Cross of Christ.
BTW, it came up on this thread that hat ”the flesh profits nothing” and the poster concluded that Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist is a bad interpretation because of His statement, however, He (Jesus) uses a similar phrase again in John 8:15 where he says:
“You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.” (John 8:15, NKJV)
Other Bibles translate this “according to the flesh”, or “by human standards”, or “by appearances” or “with your human mind“. When Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” He is referring to human understanding apart from divine revelation. Those, like the poster on this thread, who reject Christ's Real Presence in The Lord's Supper for this reason are judging the Eucharist by human standards ('Looks like bread, feels like bread, tastes like bread — must be bread').
This statement of Jesus affirms what he has said about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood and tells us it is a great Mystery — spirit and life. With these words Jesus castigates those who reject His teaching about the Real Presence along with the unbelieving Jews for judging spiritual things with earthly minds — by the flesh — and failing to understand the deep mysteries of God in the Lord's Supper
And by the way, this “symbol only“ mentality about Scripture and this passage in particular is only as old as the Protestant Reformation (er, I mean Rebellion). From the beginning of the Church Christians have understood that Jesus was speaking of His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist — after all as several other posters have said 'Jesus did not say, “This represents my body.“ he said “This is My Body!“
Other Christian bodies (other than Catholic) reject the 'symbol only' view of Holy Communion. I was with a friend yesterday at a Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod parish in which the preacher (a deacon) was preaching on John 6. He mentioned Lutherans are often mistakenly accused of holding to the heresy of 'consubstantiation' when what they actually believe in is Real Presence. I remember I was taught at my Baptist university Anglicans, Presbyterians, Orthodox, and other denominations also reject the 'symbol only' position of some evangelicals. They would not use the word 'transubstantiation' but would describe it as a type of Real Presence, but I believe most Christians would not feel as Yeshua1 and some other posters on this thread that The Lord's Supper is nothing more than a mere memorial that is done now and again because Jesus commanded us to do it. Remember when Jesus appeared in the Upper Room after His resurrection? Do you remember WHEN they recognized Him? Luke 24:30 'While He was reclining at the table with them, He took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus — and He disappeared from their sight.
Off the subject, but of interest to some here, the Waldensians (who Baptist secessionists often 'hitch their wagons to) strongly believed in The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist' and they often celebrated The Eucharist with priests Present day Waldensian's only hold to two sacraments, Baptism & The Lord's Supper, however, in the beginning the Waldensians in France & Spain looked much more Catholic than they did evangelical.
“You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.” (John 8:15, NKJV)
Other Bibles translate this “according to the flesh”, or “by human standards”, or “by appearances” or “with your human mind“. When Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” He is referring to human understanding apart from divine revelation. Those, like the poster on this thread, who reject Christ's Real Presence in The Lord's Supper for this reason are judging the Eucharist by human standards ('Looks like bread, feels like bread, tastes like bread — must be bread').
This statement of Jesus affirms what he has said about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood and tells us it is a great Mystery — spirit and life. With these words Jesus castigates those who reject His teaching about the Real Presence along with the unbelieving Jews for judging spiritual things with earthly minds — by the flesh — and failing to understand the deep mysteries of God in the Lord's Supper
And by the way, this “symbol only“ mentality about Scripture and this passage in particular is only as old as the Protestant Reformation (er, I mean Rebellion). From the beginning of the Church Christians have understood that Jesus was speaking of His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist — after all as several other posters have said 'Jesus did not say, “This represents my body.“ he said “This is My Body!“
Other Christian bodies (other than Catholic) reject the 'symbol only' view of Holy Communion. I was with a friend yesterday at a Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod parish in which the preacher (a deacon) was preaching on John 6. He mentioned Lutherans are often mistakenly accused of holding to the heresy of 'consubstantiation' when what they actually believe in is Real Presence. I remember I was taught at my Baptist university Anglicans, Presbyterians, Orthodox, and other denominations also reject the 'symbol only' position of some evangelicals. They would not use the word 'transubstantiation' but would describe it as a type of Real Presence, but I believe most Christians would not feel as Yeshua1 and some other posters on this thread that The Lord's Supper is nothing more than a mere memorial that is done now and again because Jesus commanded us to do it. Remember when Jesus appeared in the Upper Room after His resurrection? Do you remember WHEN they recognized Him? Luke 24:30 'While He was reclining at the table with them, He took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus — and He disappeared from their sight.
Off the subject, but of interest to some here, the Waldensians (who Baptist secessionists often 'hitch their wagons to) strongly believed in The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist' and they often celebrated The Eucharist with priests Present day Waldensian's only hold to two sacraments, Baptism & The Lord's Supper, however, in the beginning the Waldensians in France & Spain looked much more Catholic than they did evangelical.
Again I ask, “how are you saved / cleansed from original sin?
By the precious blood of Jesus shed for atonement of my sins!
BTW, do you know what a Mikva is?
So you need a physical shedding of blood... IE a blood sacrifice, not a dunking in a river?
So if the real forgiveness of original sin is blood atonement then why is John the Baptist shouting in the Wilderness and bringing crowds of people to the Jordan river, baptizing them for the forgiveness of sins?
Last edited:
I and you needed the death of jesus in our stead!
Spirit doesn't mean FAKE or SYMBOLIC or 2nd class.
He said he was a door and a plant. NO one left over that. Why would they? he was only being symbolic.
But when he was questioned how can you give us your flesh to eat, all he did is repeat himself.
What exactly would Jesus have to say to mean it really is his body?
55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
He called himself a door, you don't need PROOF of symbolism. Everyone gets it.
BUT to prove you actually have to eat his flesh.
62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Jesus Christ PROVES "the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
If I grab and egg and say this is me and say this rock is a elephant then crush the egg with a rock. I'm pretty certain the symbolism is a elephant crushing me. I don't have to prove it to you, you just get it.
But if I wanted to convince you I AM that egg, really. I WOULD have to do some miracle like fly into heaven to actually prove it to you.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Jesus even states does this cause you to stumble? In other words to clear up any confusion and prove what he says, he says he will use the ascension to heaven to prove it.
Fake - no.
Symbolic - yes.
2nd class - no.
Example of symbolic:
Douay-Rheims
John 7
38 He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
People left because they thought that He was asking people to drink human blood, which was not true in spite of what Catholicism says.
What are babbling about?
Another exaqmple, 1 peter 3:21
You are argueing with the phenomenon known as Fundamentalism my friend. They refuse to listen to what the Gospel really says because they have this love affair with literal words. I don’t know how to else to describe it. The human need for clarity & certitude leads fundamentalists to use sacred writings in a mechanical, closed-ended and authoritarian manner. This invariably leaves them trapped in their own cultural moment in history, and they often totally miss the real message along with the deepest challanges and consolations of scripture.
Perfect example... and again it involves bread... see Mark 8:14-16 and Mark 8:17-19. Sometimes the very apt expression, “Duh” is appropriate!
They knew that God had command no blood,nor eating huamn flesh, so why would jesus ask them to do something hr stated already was wrong?
I think the correct wording would be that we ar the ones whohold the true Gospel of Christ, and not the false one held by Rome!
You asked me what I needed to get saved, and the death of jesus in my stead was that answer!
- Status