They deny that we are imputed grace, as hold to infusion instead, in order to make your sacramental system work!
-
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!
How to Know You are in a Heterodox Cult
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
I totally deny that the wine and bread become body of Christ, am I partaking communion in a damning fashion?
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Have you even bothered reading 1 Cor 10?
---> "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."
You seem to think God is not present in the Eucharist. Again, if the Eucharist is not the actual body and blood of Christ, then Christ instituted an empty ritual and it would be the first time in all of salvation history where the figure / type / shadow of something would have surpassed the reality of it.
The NC was put into place on that Cross, and ratified by the resurrection!
Rome denies imputation of Grace, and that IS Pauline Justification!
Jesus said " do this in memory of me", and not "in order to receive additional effectual Grace lacking in the Cross"
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Please read the Scriptures. Jesus is explicit the New Covenant was instituted in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday...
Matthew 26:26-28 ---> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"
Mark 14:22-24 ---> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'"
Luke 22:19-22 ---> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"
Here is Paul quoting Jesus in 1 Cor 11;23-25 ---> "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'”
Christianity 101 stuff here...
Walpole
Well-Known Member
What is the "THIS" in his command?
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Protestant scholar E. P. Sanders and more recently vicar and scholar N.T. Wright destroyed that argument. (See Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism and Wright's The New Perspective on Paul.)
Speaking on how justification in Judaism was always viewed as an actual transformation and not simply a forensic imputation, Sanders writes, "...'Justification' no longer designates the recognition of the righteousness which man has established himself in obedience to the Torah, nor simply the imputation of a foreign righteousness, that is the righteousness of Christ. Rather, justification means for Paul that the sinner allows himself to be grasped and created anew by the grace of God. Justification finds its fullest expression in the relationship between God and the justified one, in whose obedience the new relationship expresses itself, though this obedience would be impossible without the prior action of God's grace. Thus, the reality of justification is a reality of relationship." (Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patters of Religion, pg. 536)
Here is Wright commenting on Sanders' work...
"In particular, he [Sanders] has shown with sufficient weight of evidence that for the first century Jew, Israel's covenant relationship with God was basic, basic to the Jew's sense of national identity and to his understanding of his religion. So far as we can tell now, for first century Judaism everything was an elaboration of the fundamental axiom that the one God had chosen Israel to be his peculiar people, to enjoy a special relationship under his rule. The law had been give as an expression of this covenant, to regulate and maintain the relationship established by the covenant. So, too, righteousness must been seen in terms of this relationship, as referring to conduct appropriate to this relationship, conduct in accord with the law. That is to say, obedience to the law in Judaism was never thought of as a means of entering the covenant, of attaining that special relationship with God; it was more a matter of maintaining the covenantal relationship with God." (Wright, The New Perspective on Paul, pg. 102)
The Christian understanding of justification, like the Jewish one, is about relationship with God. The concept of forensic justification is foreign to both Judaism and Christianity. It was an invention of Protestantism. The Protestant concept of justification was a "theological novum", as Protestant scholar Alister McGrath admitted. That there exists both an old law and a new one of Christ's (love), demonstrates that God has always required something of man. It's a very good thing to see Protestant scholars such as the men I quoted finally starting to recognize the error of their own progenitors.
Last edited:
Wright is dead wrong on this issue, as he denies Pauline Justification of the Reformation!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
He started a movement whereby Protestants are finally recognizing the errors of their theology.
---> hode hesteka; allo ou dunamai
Last edited:
No, rather he is falling back into the Whore of Babylon church!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Feel free to offer a refutation to his assertion.
My apologies--i edited it--meant 1 Cor. 11.
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Even worse for your tradition of denying the Eucharist...
1 Cor 11:23-29 ---> "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."
God is Emmanuel, not Hester Panim.
Last edited:
The bread is symbolic of his physical body, and the wine symbolic of his shed bread!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Are you Phil Johnson? Did you write that?
I am interested in your refutation, not links!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
How exactly can you have communion with a symbol?
I don;t, I have it with the risen Christ by His Holy Spirit, not thru mere bread and wine!