The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by FLMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
And the question is - just HOW did that error evolve over time??

Yes, that is my question. How did the entire Church move from truth to falsehood, without a trace of evidence that such a move ever took place, and without any recorded opposition or dissent? </font>[/QUOTE]Good question, FLMike. It should be interesting reading some of the answers.

(Although I do predict that a certain poster, if he responds, will say something about a slow, gradual, almost imperceptible change--like the "gossip" game we played as kids or a frog in a slowly increasingly heated pot of water...)

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by FLMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
the "answer is".... ONE.

OK, now I comprehend. You believe that the flesh of Christ is worthless. Perhaps I couldn't understand before because I found the answer so startling coming from a Christian. But you have cleared things up for me perfectly. </font>[/QUOTE]FL, that's a little bit of a misdirection. Bob doesn't think the flesh of Christ is worthless. His theological beliefs do not include transubstantiation.

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FLMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
the "answer is".... ONE.

OK, now I comprehend. You believe that the flesh of Christ is worthless. Perhaps I couldn't understand before because I found the answer so startling coming from a Christian. But you have cleared things up for me perfectly. </font>[/QUOTE]FL, that's a little bit of a misdirection. Bob doesn't think the flesh of Christ is worthless. His theological beliefs do not include transubstantiation. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not intend to misdirect. I understand that he doesn't believe in transustantiation, but in support of his belief he quotes John 6:63, that the flesh is of no avail. I asked him if he understood that to mean (1) the flesh of Christ is worthless, or (2) the flesh of Christ is not worthless. He answered "ONE". I was very surprised at the answer (I certainly expected him to answer "TWO"). Perhaps he'd like to change it?

 

[tragic_pizza]

It's kind of like asking, "do you still beat your wife?"

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
It's kind of like asking, "do you still beat your wife?"

Well, I guess I just don't understand why people use John 6:63 to argue against the Real Presence. I invite somebody to expain the line of reasoning such that it doesn't end up arguing that Christ's flesh is of no avail.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I can't help you, because that's not what I think.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said that LITERAL flesh profits NOTHING - MY WORDS are spirit AND ARE LIFE.

That seems to offend some RC posters here - but I still think Christ was right. They "wish" He had said "the FLESH OF OTHERs is useless but MY FLESS is tasty and good for eternal life".

No such point was made in his OWN summation of the SYMBOLS used.

IN fact in Matt 16:11 the disciples are chastised for taking the symbol of bread "too literally".

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
FL, that's a little bit of a misdirection. Bob doesn't think the flesh of Christ is worthless. His theological beliefs do not include transubstantiation.

When given the choice between believing Christ (option 1) or believing the RCC that biting Christ in John 6 was the very thing Christ was asking -- I picked "ONE".

FL finds that to be "surprising.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Got it. (Though I am suprised that though you speak in complete multi-word sentences to me -- you need a one word sentence to understand the answer).

1. Biting literal flesh - is pointless for gaining eternal life - rather the WORDS OF CHRIST ARE 63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE spirit and ARE Life.

2. Actually Biting Christ during the John 6 disucssion was the only way to have eternal life. His literal FLESH when bitten would literally produce eternal life right then and there -- no symbolism is being used. He came down from heaven as literal bread and then when literally bitten his flesh literally produces eternal life.

And the "answer is".... ONE.

Amazing that when you QUOTE vs 63 - the WORDS of Christ as "the answer" -- FL is "surprised" to find that we "Agree with Christ" and not the RCC.

I guess that is to be expected.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him . John 6:53-56

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.

It is not enough even that we believe on Christ for the forgiveness of sin; we must by faith be constantly receiving spiritual strength and nourishment from Him through His word. . . . "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63. Jesus accepted His Father's law, wrought out its principles in His life, manifested its spirit, and showed its beneficent power in the heart. . . . The followers of Christ must be partakers of His experience. They must receive and assimilate the Word of God so that it shall become the motive power of life and action. By the power of Christ they must be changed into His likeness, and reflect the divine attributes.

It is by receiving the life for us poured out on Calvary's cross that we can live the life of holiness. And this life we receive by receiving His word, by doing those things which He has commanded. Thus we become one with Him.

Jer:15:16: Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart.

That means to make the word of God a part of you, and thoroughly be "digested" by you. You either partake of the body and blood of Jesus by becoming one with Him and His will, or else you are by default a partaker of Satan's will and ways -the way of the world. You cant have it both ways.

You cant continue on in idolatry, fornication, lusting after evil things and still be a partaker of Christ.

I Corinthians 10:
1: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2: And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3: And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4: And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5: But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6: Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7: Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8: Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9: Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10: Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11: Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12: Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

1Cor:10:17: For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Cor:10:21: 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.

Besides all that, a wafer taken at communion doesnt have any "magical" powers to transform you. The Holy Spirit transforms you, if you allow it to happen. Just like so-called "Holy Water" doesnt make you "holy".
All the ceremony in the world isnt going to work a change in you.
--------------

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
When given the choice between believing Christ (option 1) or believing the RCC that biting Christ in John 6 was the very thing Christ was asking -- I picked "ONE".

FL finds that to be "surprising.

Well, what I find surprising in this post is that you have altered the options I presented. I did not ask (1) if Christ's flesh is worthless or (2) if biting Christ was what Christ was asking in John 6. What I did ask was whether the statement that the flesh avails nothing applies to Christ's flesh.

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said
Got it. (Though I am suprised that though you speak in complete multi-word sentences to me -- you need a one word sentence to understand the answer).

1. Biting literal flesh - is pointless for gaining eternal life - rather the WORDS OF CHRIST ARE 63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE spirit and ARE Life.

2. Actually Biting Christ during the John 6 disucssion was the only way to have eternal life. His literal FLESH when bitten would literally produce eternal life right then and there -- no symbolism is being used. He came down from heaven as literal bread and then when literally bitten his flesh literally produces eternal life.

And the "answer is".... ONE.

Amazing that when you QUOTE vs 63 - the WORDS of Christ as "the answer" -- FL is "surprised" to find that we "Agree with Christ" and not the RCC.

I guess that is to be expected.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Clearly, Bob, I'm going to have to work harder at extracting your meaning from your posts. I had no idea that I was surprised that you "Agree with Christ". I thought I was surprised that you said the flesh of Christ was worthless. But now my head is just spinning on finding that I was really surprised that you agree with Christ, so perhaps I'll take a little breather.

 

[DHK]

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.

If that is what salvation is, as defined in your first statement, and that is what all Catholics believe, including the pope, then be assured he is not in heaven. The way to Heaven is through Christ, not through the mass, nor its communion elements.
DHK

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.

If that is what salvation is, as defined in your first statement, and that is what all Catholics believe, including the pope, then be assured he is not in heaven. The way to Heaven is through Christ, not through the mass, nor its communion elements.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Would you please point out specifically where the fatal belief is in the statement you quoted? I read it with the most open mind I could conjure up, and I could not find anything in it that would condemn a person to eternal fire.

 

[Claudia_T]

...as far as the actual taking of the communion bread and wine goes...

"The Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

Christ was standing at the point of transition between two economies and their two great festivals. He, the spotless Lamb of God, was about to present Himself as a sin offering, that He would thus bring to an end the system of types and ceremonies that for four thousand years had pointed to His death. As He ate the Passover with His disciples, He instituted in its place the service that was to be the memorial of His great sacrifice. The national festival of the Jews was to pass away forever. The service which Christ established was to be observed by His followers in all lands and through all ages.

The Passover was ordained as a commemoration of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. God had directed that, year by year, as the children should ask the meaning of this ordinance, the history should be repeated. Thus the wonderful deliverance was to be kept fresh in the minds of all. The ordinance of the Lord's Supper was given to commemorate the great deliverance wrought out as the result of the death of Christ. Till He shall come the second time in power and glory, this ordinance is to be celebrated. It is the means by which His great work for us is to be kept fresh in our minds.

 

[DHK]

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour,
This one statement in and of itself is heresy.
A personal relationship with Jesus Christ does not come through eating the flesh and blood of Christ--whether literally: as Bob Ryan contends you are doing, whether through transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or simply through remembering the Lord's death in celebrating the Lord's Supper. The elements of the Lord's Table do not in any way establish a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That is heresy.
That wafer that you eat, that juice or wine that you may drink--both of them have no mystical or supernatural power to save you or give you a personal relationship with Christ. We are not superstitious. We do not deal with the paranormal.

A personal realtionship with Jesus Christ can only be established via the new birth. Jesus said: You must be born again. He said:
"Except a man is born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Being born again has nothing to do with the mass or the Lord's Table, or baptism.

Jesus said: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto you, you must be born again!

We are all born of the flesh. That is how we got into this world. But not all of us are born again, that is born a second time--born of the Spirit. That is man's problem. He was born into the wrong family. Jesus said to the most religious people of his day:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When you are born of the flesh you are also born into the wrong spiritual family. You by nature are born into the devil's family. Your father is the devil. You do not have God as your father. Therefore you must be born again. You must be born into God's family. You must be in God's family in order to have a relationship with God.

In another thread someone made the comment that "John Paul II was a very 'good' person." I was going to reply but decided not to. The fact is he wasn't. Neither am I, neither are you. No one is.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

No man is good. We are born into the wrong family. We need to be born again. The first step in being born again is realizing that you are not good. You are bad, a guilty sinner before God, and thus in need of a Saviour. Christ died, not only for the sins of the world collectively, but for your sins personally. Now look what he says:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

A personal relationship comes from receiving Christ as Saviour. To "as many as received him" to them he gave the right "to become the children of God," even to them that believed on his name. Salvation comes through believing on the name of Christ--that is through faith and faith alone. That is how one is made a child of God; it is how one is born into God's family and develops a relationship with Christ.

Look at the next verse:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
This verse teaches that just because you were born into a "Christian" family doesn't mean that you are a Christian. It is not "of the blood." Just because you were born into a "Christian" religion, does not make you a Christian. It is not of the "flesh." It is not reformation--of the will. It is regeneration--being born of God.
You must trust Christ as your Saviour, and be born into his family. Then and only then can you establish a personal relationship with him. It has nothing to do with the elements of the mass or Lord's Table or with baptism.
DHK

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour,
This one statement in and of itself is heresy.
A personal relationship with Jesus Christ does not come through eating the flesh and blood of Christ...

Well, first of all, I didn't read those words as being exclusive, but as ongoing; that is, as part of the continuing reception of Jesus as Savior.

But beyond that, is this a condemning belief? How so? On second thought, don't answer here, I think I'd like to start another thread on the subject.

 

[Claudia_T]

The Scriptural ordinance of the Lord's Supper had been supplanted by the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass. Papal priests pretended, by their senseless mummery, to convert the simple bread and wine into the actual "body and blood of Christ."--Cardinal Wiseman, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, Proved From Scripture, lecture 8, sec. 3, par. 26. With blasphemous presumption, they openly claimed the power of creating God, the Creator of all things. Christians were required, on pain of death, to avow their faith in this horrible, Heaven-insulting heresy. Multitudes who refused were given to the flames.

-----------

Claudia Thompson
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
That being said, I can't recall any council over the nature of the Eucharist. Kind of speaks for itself...

If you include Catholic councils after the Great Schism, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Trent (1545) both officially addressed Transubstantiation.

Wikipedia : Historical Roots of Catholic Eucharistic Theology

 

[Matt Black]

FL Mike, you made a very good point at the end of page 1 - if the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration were errors that 'crept' in over time, one would expect to see (a) an initial confining of the error to a specific geographical location and then gradually spreading and (b) a record of some kind of opposition to it from other Christians. Now, if you look at the ECF quotes in the OP, you will note that they coome from all over the place: Ignatius at Antioch, Justin in Rome, Irenaeus at Lyon etc. Secondly, at least as far as the Rael Presence goes, that 'error' is there pretty much from the beginning, from within 10 years of the death of the man who wrote John 6 and propogated by an important disciple of his. It is true, as Bob Ryan said, that Paul and other NT writers warned of the danger of false teaching creeping in right from the start of the Church's life and actually the Church was remarkably vigilant at identifying heresies as they reared their ugly heads - docetism and the other myriad forms of gnosticism were stamped on, Marcionism and Montanism tackled effectively - and all in the period of the ECFs quoted; it therefore seems extremely odd, if the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration are errors, that the Church let these two slip through the net with absolutely no opposition being registered...

Yours in Christ

Matt