The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

[Claudia_T]

I believe that if you will just study these few verses below TOGETHER, you will be able to see what is meant when Jesus said for us to eat His body and drink His blood. 1Cor:2:13: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."


John 6:
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me

John 4:34: Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

(Notice that in Luke 6:47-47 just before Jesus said you must eat His body and drink His blood, He had already explained what it meant... which is to hear His sayings and to DO them)
Luke 6:
47: Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

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

Ephesians 5:
25. ...as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Deut:8:3: And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Thats the key. Eating the body of Christ, "the Bread" means eating His every WORD... the entire Word of God...
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus Himself IS the Word or God, He came to show us the Father. Jesus lived by every word of His Father and so too are we to live by every word of Christ... thus we eat His body and drink His blood.. we eat the Bread of Heaven. Not just keep everything OUTWARDLY as the Pharisees did... outwardly beautiful but "inwardly full of corruption and dead mens bones."

--------

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

[ April 05, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

[FLMike]

Matt Black, following up on your comments: as you say, the early Church did successfully battle many heresies, but we are supposed to believe that at the very same time it was identifying and defeating various heresies it was not only succumbing to other heresies, but doing so without ever recognizing them. The early Church never displayed the sympoms of one infected by a gradually spreading disease. It never showed signes of recognizing the disease and fighting back, even if it was eventually to lose the fight. No, the entire Church just went from truth to heresy not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but without even a peep.

As tragic_pizza says, we should expect Councils and wars, vehement denouncements and excommunications, followed by counter-denouncements and counter-excommunications, from this period. But what we actually get is nothing. We have a useful counter-example in the Reformation, where there is no lack of historical evidence of the theological and physical battles that took place at that time.

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by 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."

What does the papacy have to do with this subject? The Orthodox Church(es) have the same belief (the same "senseless mummery", you might say) while at the same time rejecting the papacy as the west understands it.

As some of us here have been asking for historical evidence of this great cataclysm of heresy, when the entire Church was forced from truth into vile error, perhaps you can point us to the evidence of the spread of this disease within the early Church. Fundamental changes on such a scale do not happen without leaving a trace of their passage (see, e.g., the great masses of evidence regarding what happened during the Reformation).

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
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...

No different than indulgences to pay for St. Peter's Basilica.

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
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...

No different than indulgences to pay for St. Peter's Basilica. </font>[/QUOTE]The difference is that a fellow named Luther did object, and others agreed with his objection, and we have evidence of all that followed. In the example of indulgences we have clear documentation of error confronted. In the (hypothetical) example of the rise of the Real Presence heresy, we have no such documentation of error confronted.

And I think nobody would dispute that the "Real Presence heresy" was a much more fundamental issue then indulgences, and should therefore have resulted in much greater convulsions within the Church as it spread.

BTW, unlike the "Real Presence heresy", I don't believe the Eastern Church ever had an indulgence problem, did it? So the indulgence problem was localized, unlike the "Real Presence heresy" which infected the entire Church.

 

[Matt Black]

The scandalous commercialisation of religion represented by the sale of indulgences in the Catholic Church did not take place until the Late Middle Ages, way after the Catholic-Orthodox split of 1054. It never affected the Orthodox Church, it was rightly protested against by Luther and was rightly condemned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

That is very different from the situation here: here we have a practice and doctrine evidenced within a few years of the NT era by a disciple of one of the Apostles and subsequently by many others, that was protested by no-one (until Zwingli some 1400 years later - heck, Luther went to his deathbed still believing the the Real Presence!) and condemned by no Council.

'Nuff said, methinks

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and was rightly condemned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

I didn't realize this. I did a bit of searching and found this summary: "On indulgences, the issue which ignited the Lutheran explosion, the council abolished indulgence sellers and decreed that the giving of alms was never to be the necessary condition for gaining an indulgence."

Interesting...

 

[BobRyan]

Matt said --
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..

Only if you had your pulse on every document in every location for all of NT time.

(Which is not "likely").

What is "more likely" is that errors that evolve leave evidence in documents - that SHOW the evolution.

The current mass can not be found at all in the NT.

The earliest recorded communion format and words spoken outside of the NT are nothing like the Mass - (and THIS as recorded by CATHOLIC historians!!). Pretty much a free-for-all.

Also CATHOLIC historians maintain that they DID NOT HAVE PRIESTS in the NT and that the leaders HAD NO sacramental POWERS (to CONFECT God for example) - but served the role of "Bible teacher".

It was only AFTER the evolution of the errors of the magical-POWERS-of-sacraments came in that the DIVISION was created between the sacred clergy (with Powers) and the profain laity. (And THIS - according to CATHOLIC historians!)

So what exactly do you think you "have working for you" here?

Having failed to make the point from history - why keep abandoning the "details" in John 6?

Matt said
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

In fact the church was struggling to do that.

In Gal 4 we see paganism being swallowed up by the paganst-turned-Christians in Galatia to the point that Paul said "I fear lest you were converted in vain!".

In 1Timothy 1 - Paul says that the entire REASON that Timothy had to stay behind at Ephesus was JUST to keep a lid on the fires of doctrinal error that were springing up like weeds!

Your "no errors got in by the 2nd century idea" is not "verifiable" in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the
Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing;" but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth;" and then
added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"--meaning, of course, to the giving of life.

He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life."

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread
which cometh down from heaven," impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh?

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, the point is that the Church WAS successful in identifying both the Judaisers (ultimately condemned as Ebionites) and the gnostics against whom Paul wrote and warned.

You are also assuming that I wish to promote the modern Catholic view of the Mass; you are mistaken in that regard. All I'm asking here is for an acknowledgment born out of a bit of intellectual and theological integrity that both the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration were taught and practised by Christians consistently from the end of the NT onwards.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

My point is that if you look at the John 6 text "details" - the symbols are clearly taught there and ALSO in Matt 16 showing that "bread" referes to teaching and the "bread that comes down out of heavne" Deut 8 is spiritually the teaching that "man does not live by bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God" ... etc

If you look at the specifics above from Tertullian and Clement - they claim the John 6 statements were "symbolism" and "metaphore". See the above quotes.

If you looka at what even RC historians THEMSELVES say are the first recorded "words" and "process" for communion -- (outside the Bible) THEY ALSO do not say what the RCC says today.

Lacking ALL of that - where is the argument (based on intellectual and historic integrity) to say that the modern RCC view was in fact the view in John 6 or in the first century OR in the 2nd century??

What part of "Early Church" does the NT text not qualify for - or Tertullian or Clement?

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 06, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, you haven't read my post immediately above yours; I'm not saying that a modern Catholic view of communion is present in either John 6 or the ECFs, but that communion clearly wasn't merely symbolic; rather there are ECF quotes (which I have posted in the OP) supporting a 'Real Presence' interpretation of John 6 from virtually when John's body was still warm. What do you make of Ignatius' comments on the subject, for example? How much more 'historic integrity' do you need than that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

My point is that if you take the "metaphor" and "symbolism" view of John 6 that the ECF quotes I gave show -- then the entire case for "transubstantiation" is removed from today's RCC argument. They could not use John 6 at all - and without John 6, the case they make is "hollow". I doubt that any RC member would try to get the doctrine to stand apart from John 6.

Neither can it be said that other churches promoting the "Real presence IN the food" would make the case if they were forced to conclude the SAME "Symbolism" and "metaphore" conclusions as posted above for John 6.

Do you know of any that do that?

Christ said it is a "memorial" not a "continual sacrifice".

Given the John 6 position - and given the details in John 6 as noted -- there was no way for the first century NT church (and anyone following Clement) to use John 6 to support that idea of food that is "confected into God".

My argument about "historic integrity" is that the error "evolved over time" given the statements of scripture and the ECF quotes I gave about John 6. It HAD to have "come about" over time so that today we see John 6 used "Without respect to the DETAILS listed in John 6) and "without resepect to the SYMBOLISM and Metaphor views of CLement and Tertullian".

Certainly "I" never read about the RCC promoting those 'Symbolism' and 'metaphor" views - and I also do not hear that coming from other non-RC churches that believe in the "real presence IN the food".

As for "The real presence" in Worship - All Christians believe in it. (Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in My name there I AM in your midst).

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

AS for the matter of Baptism --

Notice that the "details here" would only allow for believers Baptism in the first century - until enough error had evolved over time to get to anything else.

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"



pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

&lt;&gt;

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

&lt;&gt;

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

&lt;&gt;
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

&lt;&gt;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).

"baptism is the means devised by Jesus to apply to each individual soul, the atonement which he made on the cross for original sin. (for all sin?). Jesus will
not force his gift upon us, the gift of supernatural life for which he paid. He holds the gift out to us hopefully, but each of us must freely accept
it. We make that acceptance by receiving (willingly) the sacrament of baptism" pg302

"whether it is the passive acceptance of the infant or the explicit acceptance of the adult - when the sacrament is administered the spiritual vacuum
which we call original sin - disappears as God becomes present in the soul" pg 302

"by baptism we are rescued from the spiritual death into which we were plunged by the sin of Adam. In baptism God united our soul to himself.
God's love-- the Holy Spirit -- poured into our soul to fill the spiritual vacuum that was the result of the original sin. As result of this intimate union with god,
our soul was elevated to a new kind of life, a supernatural life, a sharing in god's own life.

From then on it becomes our duty to preserve this divine life.(we call it 'sanctifying grace') within us; not only to preserve it, but to
deepen and intensify it. Pg 62

after baptism the only way we can be separated from God is our own deliberate rejection of God. That happens when in full consciousness
of what we are doing, deliberately and of our free choice we refuse God our obedience in a serious matter. Pg 62 - 63

 

[BobRyan]

In the FE quote above - we see that you must CHOOSE to accept the gift for Baptism to have meaning.

In the Didache it is clear that the method is not only immersion - it is immersion in flowing water (a river or stream) and ONLY if that is not possible can you resort to pouring water.

But most devastatingly - the CD details a HISTORY for baptism where it EVOLVES to what the RCC practices today - FROM a very strict system for believers that EVEN the NT does not specify.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

You still haven't engaged with the Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus etc quotes on the Real Presence - all you've done is thrown (later) quotes back from Clement and Tertullian (BTW - was that Tertullian before or after his conversion to Montanism?)

Thanks for copying in the quotes on baptism. I agree that the &delta;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&chi;&eta; merely sets out the mode of baptism, not its effect; that's why I refrained from quoting it in the OP as it assists neither one way or the other. I'm not that interested in the Catholic Digest quotes as what we're talking about here is the situation in the 2nd century AD or thereabouts, not a much later Catholic view on that

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Clement, Ignatius and Justin Martyr are all 2nd century authors. I don't see your point.

The fact that both Clement and Tertullian still admit to and agree with the "inconvenient details" of John 6 would seem to state "historically" that the errors promoted today by the RCC regarding John 6 were not universally accepted during the 2nd century.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

I think the two gentlemen concerned would disagree with your analysis:

Clement of Alexandria


"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Tertullian


"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that it is not "I" who "claim" that Clement meant to say that in John 6 Christ is simply using "symbols and metaphors" it is CLEMENT that says it.

This means that you have inferred too much from the quote of Clement you are using - as this one "explicitly" addresses the point.

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the
Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

Turtullian makes the same case that I made - which is that the entire focus of the John 6 discussion was "what avails to eternal life" and Turtullian agrees that in that regard the literal flesh "is Worthless".

Turtullian ALSO makes the same case that I made about the "WORD became FLESH" as the symbol for bread and the connection to THE WORD as the real source of life - not literal bread and not biting Christ during the John 6 preaching!

He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing;" but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth;" and then
added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"--meaning, of course, to the giving of life.

He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life."

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread
which cometh down from heaven," impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh?

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

Here again we see "inconvenient details" being highlighted by these ECF sources.

Many of the SAME "inconvenient details' that were already so obvious in the John 6 text - and were enumerated earlier in triplicate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ literally poured out His blood on the cross - as Clement notes. But Clement also affirms that this did NOT happen in John 6 and in John 6 Christ uses symbols and metaphors - He is NOT holding out an invitation for his listeners to bite him.

In Christ,

Bob