The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

[Doubting Thomas]

Keep in mind that to the fathers, "symbol" meant "a sign that conveys what it signifies". This is why in certain writings of Augustine, Tertullian, et al, that the sacraments (baptism, chrismation, Eucharist) are sometimes called "symbols"; but in other writings of the same individuals it is clear that they believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence. In other words, these were not regarded as what we would consider mere symbols. This joining together of sign and that which it signifies is evident in the word "symbol" itself.

It wasn't until much later that men began trying to divide the physical sign from the spiritual reality it signified and conveyed. However, this division hearkens back to ancient gnosticism in which matter was basically regarded as being worthless in any spiritual sense. (Which is why the gnostics couldn't fathom the Logos actually taking on physical human form for our salvation.)

 

[BobRyan]

Isn't it fascinating that just when the RCC claims you are too stupid or impaired to read the clear text of John 6 and "see the details" so you will need Clement or Tertullian to "explain it" to you --- then when THEY too use language that refutes the RCC just as John 6 does -- well then you need "someone else" to explain Clement and Tertullian!!

And finally you need the RCC today just to tell you what to think!

Having swept aside the direct role of the Holy Spirit in John 6, and then swept aside the direct role of the Bible in 2 Tim 3:15-16 - they then go on to insert the RCC itself in place of all of them.

Practice that WOULD have failed you in Mark 7 where Christ claims that the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - had ALREADY fallen into this error - the SAME error that the RCC fell into centuries ago.

It is "obvious" that the "meaning of SYMBOL and Metaphor" are the OPPOSITE to "LITERAL" and we see that in Matt 16 where Christ rebukes the FaithFUL disciples for taking him TOO LITERALLY!!

6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

DT - having argued against such use of metaphor and symbol in your previous post - how will you "rationalize it back" to fit in with the OBVIOUS use of metaphor AND symbol in the first century by the NT authors??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Well, folks, that's the interpretation of Bob Ryan! Thanks, but I'll stick with the ECFs on this one. Bob, you've got to try and get the Catholic Church out of your head; both DT and I have made it clear that we're not Catholics and not posting from a Catholic POV; the Catholic Church is no more relevant to this thread than are the Lutherans, Orthodox or Anglicans (all of whom also claim the ECFs as part of their ecclesial and doctrinal heritage and adhere by and large to the OP doctrines), yet you never mention those; why the obsession with Catholicism?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Isn't it fascinating that just when the RCC claims you are too stupid or impaired to read the clear text of John 6 and "see the details" so you will need Clement or Tertullian to "explain it" to you --- then when THEY too use language that refutes the RCC just as John 6 does -- well then you need "someone else" to explain Clement and Tertullian!!

Did I already post that?

hmm.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by 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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh wait!! I already posted that too?

(Or is that just my "interpretation of the ECFs"???).

Better get someone like the RCC to interpret the ECFs for me so I wont see the "inconvenient details" in those two ECF posts "either".

Hadn't thought of using that approach before....

But now I think I finally see the way to "Avoid the convenient details" in John 6 that the RCC does not like AND to avoid the "inconvenient details" in the ECF posts listed here that the "RCC does not like"...

And EVEN to find a way to ignore the "Details" of how Matt 16 refutes the attempts to bend the text of John 6 and Clement "back on itself".

Wow! If I ignore all that light and simply say "whatever the RCC believes MUST be true no matter what the facts" .. it finally WORKS!!

Finally a system that WORKS! Just listen to one group and ignore everybody else and all details in scripture and in the ECF guys you don't like!!

(Oh but wait - the Mormons already DO that!!)

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, and we already responded to it!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Yes that was very compelling too.

It was "ignore the fact that they SAY it is methaphor in John 6"

It was "ignore the DETAILS of John 6 regarding the literal flesh being worthless for eating and obtaining eternal life -- even thouth the numbered list of details given for John 6 were so obvious and blatant and easy to see IN the text and even AGREED to by ECF sources like Clement and Tertullian".

It was "those ECF sources did not really MEAN metaphor when they SAY metaphor speaking of John 6 and EATING Christ's flesh"

It was "ignore the metaphor used for teaching as it is SEEN IN the Gospels - Matt 16".

It was "scripture in John 6 is too complicated - get Clement to tell me what to think... oh wait CLEMENT is too inconvenient on John 6 and eating Christ's flesh literally... get ME to tell you what to think when reading Clement"

It was "ignore what the ECF sources say on John 6 and eating Christ's body WHEN it is devastating to the RCC positions".

It was - well ... kinda close to what you get from the Mormons "single source of authority believe whatever I say today" kind of logic.

And as I said - that has already been tried.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I posted this on another thread because it shows "evolution over time" of Catholic doctrine.

Since it pertains to this...

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is a facinating article on the evolution of the error of infant Baptism over time - published in Catholic Digest.

(And since the Words of Peter in 1Peter 3 don't seem to get much attention here ... as they define the REAL essence of Baptism)

Here is a look at CD --

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"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;

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

[Christlifter]

Um...I'm dumb, but I'd say that the symbols are real to those to who are really born again. A saved person would want to be baptised because they WANT to obey Jesus Christ. They also would want to take communion because so they can remember what Jesus Christ has done for them, and it matters, and sin is wrong to do and hold on too. I'd say that even though the water baptism and communiion are symbolic and can't save you, they are proofs of being saved, as a truly regenrated, born-again person, becuase of what God has done, and continues to do in their heart, those things really mean something to them.

 

[BobRyan]

"symbols are real". So in the case of Matt 16 where they supposed to beware of the leaven (bread) of the Pharisees. Are the "symbols and metaphors real"??

Are you sure about the meaning of "symbol" and "metaphor"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Ignatius of Antioch


"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Just as the New Testamant uses metaphors; so can these still be metaphors. the fact that he states that "his blood is love incorruptible" would go along with what Claudia said: We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated".

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70)

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, "Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross." Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (c. A.D. 140)

"I have heard, sir," said I, "from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is." (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2)

They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive. (ibid 9:16:2-4)

JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)

Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

As I have always said; the baptism "by one Spirit into one body" (the spiritual immersion into Christ) was marked by the water ceremony. But later Church separated it making it mark entry into the Church organization. Today, in many churches, baptism has been replaced by an altar call. This was not authorized by scripture; it was the same Church that pushed for the sacramental meaning ot it that somewhere along the line made this separation in the first place, with baptism following long initiation processes!
But it must be the spiritual baptism that does the saving; not a physical act that anyone can do, without actually having received Christ. Just look at Simon the sorcerer!

After this period; we are 100 years after the last apostles already (and John wa exiled till his death. So basically, all of the apostles were gone from the Church picture mid-century); and then the writings become more explicitly sacramental.

#4. The FaithLESS disciples took Christ literally and walked away saying that they would have to bite him if that were true.

#5. The FaithFUL disciples did not try to bite Christ in John 6. It does not appear to even occur to them to try to drink His blood or to bite him in that entire chapter.

Bob is FUNNY!

(That is, if you're not the one debating him!) But his points there are certainly good! (Though I would say "flesh profits nothing" is not talking about Eucharist; but the principle does remotely apply to it in that some physical element in itself will not save if the person hasn't spiritually been baptized in Christ, as I said).

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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you have never disproven this. As we can already see; it would not be much of a jump from the scriptural metaphors, to Ignatius and some of Martyr's statememts, to saying that the elements do in fact do the saving in themselves. All one has to do is misunderstand a metaphor for literal language; and there you have it. We see that right from the beginning, the Jews Christ spoke to misunderstood and took it literally. And NT warning shows there would be similar "carnal" people coming into the Church who would make the same mistake. (hence; those Jews then become "right, all along"!) So once the apostles were out of the scene; who would "protest"?
There are many errors that crept in that had no outcry. You all here are disclaiming the modern Catholic Mass; but I don't remember hearing any large protest or "Councils and wars, vehement denouncements and excommunications, followed by counter-denouncements and counter-excommunications", etc. over that (and many other things); except by/with the Protestants. It crept in gradually, and unnoticed; just like I said.

And then the Church may have quashed any protest and writings that did arise. Historians have noted the lack of writings between the apostles and earliest fathers in what they call "the lost century"; from which "an entirely different Church from the days of Peter and Paul" emerged.
Even if Ignatius did hold your view, that would actually be your "protest" or "denouncement". So it was there; but then if the writers holding the teachings you believe are the ones doing the protests; then you just attribute that to them "combatting heresy" rather than them being the ones unknowingly bringing it in, against the earlier truth. (And it IS possible for people to both combat and uknowingly promite false doctrine. The JW's and any other cult do it when they "preach Christ" against atheism, for instance.)

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.

DHK; I hope by now you have realized that she means this in the symbolic (spiritual) sense (our view); not the literal Catholic sense. (See, Catholists; how easy it is to get it confused!)

Keep in mind that to the fathers, "symbol" meant "a sign that conveys what it signifies". This is why in certain writings of Augustine, Tertullian, et al, that the sacraments (baptism, chrismation, Eucharist) are sometimes called "symbols"; but in other writings of the same individuals it is clear that they believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence. In other words, these were not regarded as what we would consider mere symbols. This joining together of sign and that which it signifies is evident in the word "symbol" itself.

It wasn't until much later that men began trying to divide the physical sign from the spiritual reality it signified and conveyed. However, this division hearkens back to ancient gnosticism in which matter was basically regarded as being worthless in any spiritual sense. (Which is why the gnostics couldn't fathom the Logos actually taking on physical human form for our salvation.)

The "joining together" was as I said: the water ceremony accompanied (marked) the spirit baptism and thus salvation. Also; as they fellowshipped together (which included eating together) they were partaking of Christ's body and blood (by which they are "washed").
They CAN be separated; as it is possible to partake the ceremonies, and NOT be baptized into Christ'partaking His body. the question is; is everyone who is not baptized or never had a communion (for whatever reason: not able to, like thief on Cross type situation accepted Christ but did not complete initiation, catchisms, etc) necessarily outside of Christ? I would say NO.

The gnostics repudiation if flesh is what made them so mystical in the first place; so then even the physical things they did use had to be "transformed" into spirit things! (Remember; it is your position that says that those elements are no longer the physical things they were made as, but are now "spiritual" things.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4. The FaithLESS disciples took Christ literally and walked away saying that they would have to bite him if that were true.

#5. The FaithFUL disciples did not try to bite Christ in John 6. It does not appear to even occur to them to try to drink His blood or to bite him in that entire chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT said --

Bob is FUNNY (That is, if you're not the one debating him!) But his points there are certainly good! (Though I would say "flesh profits nothing" is not talking about Eucharist; but the principle does remotely apply to it in that some physical element in itself will not save if the person hasn't spiritually been baptized in Christ, as I said).

Well you are certainly right that John 6 is definitely NOT a passover nor a communion service NOR does Christ say in John 6 "Some day IN THE FUTURE at some FUTURE passover-turned-communion will my flesh THEN be food".

HE claims that the BREAD has ALREADY come down from heaven and ALREADY they must EAT of that bread -- ALREADY He says they must TRULY eat -- not in some "future day" when the right things have finally happened.

This means there is no way to "defer" John 6 until the Cross. Christ said it was veriy true RIGHT THEN!

So you have two choices. Either agree with Clement and Tertullian that this is metaphor and symbol - speaking of Christ who IS the "WORD become flesh" and the TEACHING WORD is "what really gives life but biting flesh is pointless" -- OR you must watch for people slipping up to Christ and taking a big bite in John 6 so they can THEN have that life that could ONLY be had in that very Catholic way.

The evidence is clear.

Not only do the details of John 6 argue against that modern RC interpretation for John 6 SO ALSO do the church fathers who address John 6.

The point is devastating for TWO reasons.

#1. It means that they can not use John 6 for their argument for the Eucharist.

#2. It means that the John 6 and its "metaphors and symbols" is STILL the CONTEXT for the words spoken at the last supper and the correct John 6 CONTEXT TURNS those words to the right meaning - far from what the RCC would have at this point.

And that is a huge problem for the case they have buitl so far.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Which gets to your case DT. You appear to have the right view of John 6 so this begs the question - how then can you divorce the meaning, sybmols and metaphor in John 6 with Christ use of those same terms at the last Supper?

Why wouldn't the last supper be a continuation and amplification of the same points made in John 6?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Eric, what is this 'lost century' you are talking about?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Living4Him]

Well let's take a look at some Historical Baptist Catechisms that sound "catholic"

www.reformedreader.org

A Baptist Catechism
(Adapted by John Piper)

Question 95: What are the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

Answer: The outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

Scripture: Romans 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41, 42.


Question 98: How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effective means of salvation?

Answer: Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effective means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in those who by faith receive them.

Scripture: 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 3:6, 7; 12:13.

Question 99: How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?

Answer: Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

Scripture: Acts 22:16; Matthew 26:26-28; 28:19; Romans 6:4.

Question 100: What is Baptism?

Answer: Baptism is a holy ordinance, in which immersion in the water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our being joined to Christ and our sharing the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.

Scripture: Matthew 28:19; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27.

Question 107: What is the Lord's Supper?

Answer: The Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance of the church. By eating bread and drinking the cup according to Christ's appointment we show forth his death. Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ's body and blood, not physically, but spiritually in that by faith they are nourished with the benefits he purchased, and grow in grace.

Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 10:16.

Question 108: What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?

Answer: It is required of those who would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves--of their knowledge, that they discern the Lord's body; their faith, that they feed upon him; and their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Scripture: 1 Corinthians 5:8; 11:27-31; 2 Corinthians 13:5.

 

[Living4Him]

THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CATECHISM 1742

CHAPTER XXX

Q. 194. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ.
Scr. "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. — 1 Corinthians 11:24

Q. 195. What are the benefits of the Lord’s Supper to believers?
A. They are confirmed in their faith, they are spiritually fed, they are reminded of the debt they owe unto Christ, and they are rededicated to His service and worship.
Scr. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" — 1 Corinthians 10:16 See also John 6:53-57

Q. 196. What are the elements used in the Lord’s Supper?
A. Bread and wine.
Scr."Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying Drink ye all of it;" — Matthew 26:26, 27, 29 See also 1 Corinthians 11:23

Q. 197. What do the elements of bread and wine signify?
A. They signify the body and blood of Christ.
Scr. "Take, eat: this is My body,... This cup is the new testament in My blood:" — 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25

Q. 198. Who should partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Those who can spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified.
Scr. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." — 1 Corinthians 11:27

Q. 199. Can ungodly persons partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Not lawfully, for they are unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot feed upon Him spiritually.
Scr. "For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." — 1 Corinthians 11:29

A CATECHISM FOR GIRLS AND BOYS, 1798

This part of the Catechism is for those in 1st - 5th grade
129.Q. What is Baptism?
A. The dipping of believers into water, as a sign of their union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (In 3:23; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 35-38; Col 2:12).

130.Q. What is the purpose of baptism?
A. Baptism testifies to believers that God has cleansed them from their sins through Jesus Christ (Acts 22:16; Col 2:11-14).

This part is for those older than fifth grade

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).

Q. How do baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).

Q. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, burial, and resurrection; of his being ingrafted into him (Rom. 6:3, 4, 5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27); of remission of sins (Mk. 1:4; Acts 2:38, and 22:16); and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Q. What is the Lord's supper?
A. The Lords supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace (Mt. 26:26, 27, 28; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16).

Q. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's supper?
A. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body (1 Cor. 11:28, 29), of their faith to feed upon him (2 Cor. 13:5), of their repentance (1 Cor. 11:31), love (1 Cor. 10:16, 17), and new obedience (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), lest coming unworthily they eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:28, 29).

 

[BobRyan]

Living4Him -- is it your position that non-Catholic churches do not see the symbols and metaphors of the Lord's supper to be a means of feeding on Christ as Christ points out in John 6 -- upon His Word which spells out the Gospel - telling of the atoning substitutionary sacrifice made for us?

"OR" are you trying to claim that the Baptists of the 1700's thought of their pastors as "CONFECTING CHRIST"???

Which is it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

Bob,

What I am pointing out is that the early Baptist teachings imply more to Baptism and the Lord's Supper than what is taught now.

We can see a shift in Baptist thinking over the years.

For all the years that I was Baptist:
1. I had never heard of a Baptist Catechism.
2. Baptism was nothing more than an outward sign of obedience to Christ.
3. The Lord's Supper was an outward rememberance of Christ's Death.

This documents show that they believed more in the Real Presence and that the effects of Baptism was more than "just getting wet."

 

[BobRyan]

As already noted - we ALL believe in the REAL PRESENCE in terms of Christ's Words "Wherever two or three are gathered in My Name there I AM in your midst".

But if you mean that they teach the "REAL PRESENCE" as in the BREAD-IS-GOD (but no rational for how it was CONFECTED to be God perhaps) then I did not find it in your quotes. Please point that out.

Notice that the RCC itself claims that this is idolatry if the person is actually worshipping the BREAD as though the BREAD were God - which WOULD be the case if the RCC "confection" was not "working". Do you see that in the Baptist statement - that the BREAD BECAME GOD??

Do you see the Baptists arguing for MORE of the Presence of Christ than "Where two or three are gathered"??

Do you see them arguing for "A REAL flesh sacrifice being confected -- again" as the RCC claims?

(I am not Baptist and I have had no problem on this board - complaining about some Baptist doctrine that I did not agree with 100% so this is no loss for me if you can show actual Catholic thought for them here... I just don't see it!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

Bob,

In the posts on page 5 and on this page, they both speak of feeding on the body of the Christ crucified and that it is spiritual food.

The RCC doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

No where does the Church teach that it is the priest who Confect the bread to be Christ. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the creates the Real Presence.

God is all powerful. To deny that He can make the Real Presence a reality is to deny that one believes with God nothing is impossible.

The fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded.

Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same.

By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.