The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[Matt Black]

If docetism is implied by simply ADMITTING that Christ points us to the fact that "The FLESH profits nothing" then the traditions of man in that case are condemning the Word of God itself!!

Only if Christ meant what you say He meant - which I don't buy. So, no conflict for me.

Agnus Dei, you've opened up a can of worms there! Expect the Landmarkist acolytes of J M Carroll and Broadbent to be along shortly to put us all right on that score...

 

[BobRyan]

In John 6 we find these "inconvenient details"

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "b]"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'[/b]'
53 So Jesus said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 ""As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58 ""This is the [b]bread which came down out of heaven[/b]; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever[/b].''


59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, " " This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?''


61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this[b/], said to them, ""Does this cause you to stumble?
62 ""What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
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.[/b]


Question left as an exercise for the reader: After spendng that time talking about "my flesh is food" - Christ said WHAT "profits NOTHING"!??

Note that in John 10 "I am the door" Christ does not say "literal doors profit NOTHING".

Note that in John 15 "I am the VINE" Christ does NOT say "literal vines profit NOTHING"

No disciples were leaving -- in John 10 and John 15.
But in John 6 we find the FAITHLESS disciples taking Christ too literally on the subject of eating flesh!! And the symbol of bread

And so in that ONE case Christ clarifys that his literal flesh (if eaten) "Profits NOTHING".

In Matt 16 - once again we see His faithFUL disciples taking the symbol of bread TOO lterally

 

[BobRyan]

It is easy to see how those who reject the clear points of scripture above would adopt a blinders-on eisegetical approach to the text ignoring anything that did not fit their man-made traditions.

that is easy enough to understand.

But what I WOULD like to know is - if there is even one person out there who STARTED out KNOWING and ACCEPTING the details of scripture listed above and then moved to a position of rejecting them in favor of man-made traditions? What convinced you to turn your back on scripture? Were you simply overwhelmed by the speed at which the error of rejecting those points of scripture swept into the NT church and began to appear in the statements of some of the ECFs?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rooselk]

I used to be a Baptist. I will say that there was a time when I accepted and believed the "memorial" or "representation" understanding of the Lord's Supper. But it was precisely through reading the Scripture, and taking the words to mean exactly what they say, that I changed my views. In fact it was only after being convinced that the doctrine of the Real Presence is taught in Scripture that I then looked at early church history to see what I what I could learn about what had been taught and believed in the early centuries. What I did NOT do was to find a new church and then mold my beliefs to fit the doctrince of that particular church. Rather, once I became convinced of the doctrine I then sought out a church that taught the doctrine that I had come to believe.

I reject the view held by some that John 6:52-58 is speaking of the Lord's Supper. For one, the passage teaches that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. The reason we know that the Lord cannot be talking about communion in this passage because Paul tells us in I Corinthians 11:27-29 that some who partake in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner actually bring judgment on themselves. For another, when the Lord says that "My flesh is true food" it is not the same thing as saying that "the bread is my body."

The Lord promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Yet contrary to this teaching, apparently some would have us believe that the gates of hell did indeed prevail for the first 1500 years of church history until Zwingli and others came along and gave us a "true" understanding of the Lord's Supper. Frankly, I do not find this argument any more presuasive coming from Baptists than i do when I hear similar arguments from Latter-Day Saints or Russellites (not to imply or say that Baptists are in any way akin to the latter groups).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

But what I WOULD like to know is - if there is even one person out there who STARTED out KNOWING and ACCEPTING the details of scripture listed above and then moved to a position of rejecting them in favor of man-made traditions?

That would be me Bob a former fundamentalist that learned to think for himself instead of being told what to think.

What convinced you to turn your back on scripture?

Scripture, along with Church Tradition.

Were you simply overwhelmed by the speed at which the error of rejecting those points of scripture swept into the NT church and began to appear in the statements of some of the ECFs?

The speed? Show me Bob an Apostolic Church Father who disregarded the Real Presence…Again like a broken record…Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and protect them from error. You agree with that right Bob?

If you do agree with the statement above, then why is it so hard for you to accept that the Apostolic Church Fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus and St. Clement of Rome, whom all were disciples of or studied under the very Apostles who look upon and handled the Son of Man, Jesus Christ and they wrote of the Real Presence.

Why should I, who am close to 2,000 years removed from the Apostolic era, write them off as heretical; because it sounds too Catholic?

-

 

[Eric B]

The burden of proof lies on you to clearly demonstrate that 2,000 years of Church Tradition is wrong and simply your interpretation isn’t going to cut it.

Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles from error and lead them in truth. With that in mind, the Apostolic Church Fathers such as Polycarp a disciple of John, Ignatius and Irenaeus, both disciples of Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome who was a student of both the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote of the Real Presence.

Are you saying that Christ was wrong and the Holy Spirit didn’t protect as promised, and the Apostles were teaching error right out of the starting gate? If not, then how do you explain what these Early Fathers of the Church wrote.
-

Everything done in that "2000 years of history" is not biblical or even moral. So apparently, God's promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail did not guarantee complete errorlessness of a visible institution, which is what is generally being advocated here.

I see Polycarp keep being mentioned, and I just read through his epistle to the Philippians, and I see no mention of any "real presence". Does he have another epistle that is being referenced? Or is he brought up because he mentions Ignatius, who mentioned the "Eucharist". (Also, where does Clement mention it?)

First of all, to throw Polycarp in there, as if he himself made such a statement, is what I mean by jumping these teaching back to the early Church. One person says this, another says that, so they all said it. So from this, you can boast about a "broken record" of fathers all afirming this doctrine, and therefore apparently getting it straight from the apostles in its present form. Sorry, but that is shoddy research.
Now, Polycarp does mention in 2:3 "the faith" being "the mother of us all". This may help shed light on a scripture like Gal.4:26. (Usually, if I'm correct, interpreted as "Heaven", because of the word "above"). So I do believe the fathers can help us understand the apostles. It's just that you have not proven that they taught your whole concept.

And all Ignatius said on it was "confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior". That still is not spelling out any later "catholic" development. Later fathers, then begin speaking of some "prayer" where the bread "becomes" the body. But now, right there, something has changed from the simple way Ignatius put it. Something was added. This appears to be a development of doctrine, and is not some fully developed "ltradition" being passed down.

"eucharist" means "good grace", (eu + charis) and the forms of it in the NT mean "giving thanks". There is a "real presence" of Christ in His body; the Church, who meets together and gives thanks. It is not focusing on the physical substance of bread and wine, though those are used to represent the body and blood. (in 3:5, it says "I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ", but is just like Christ's words in John 6, which as Rooselk pointed out, cannot be talking about physical Communion because of the discrepancy he mentioned (good point!) Also, 4:16 "breaking ONE AND THE SAME bread, which is the medicine of immortality". Anyone can eat elements, and still be condemned, so it is a metaphor of our unity IN CHRIST,s BODY. (by which we have eternal life). And even these "fathers who knew the apostles" statements allowed for that. It's a century later when people began trying to interpret both the apostles and Ignatius, and came up with this new kind of "spiritual presence" inside objects, and ultimately, from that, a transmutation among some. So your whole link to the apostles is broken, and the charge that the change could not have happened "so fast" also falls. Many scholars who are not "Zwinglians" also attest to a change in doctrine going on this period.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said -

Acts 20
28 ""Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock[/b], among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 ""[b]I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you[/b], not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise[/b], speaking perverse things, to [b]draw away the disciples after them.

1 Tim 1 - Paul points out that the error was ALREADY at work in Ephesus and that was the entire reason that Timothy was left there - to fight doctrinal error ALREADY creeping in.

And so in 2thess 2 we see Paul predicting the "apostacy" of the Christian church - the great "falling away".

Christ never claimed that the organized Christian church would "remain doctrinally pure".

bob said

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Were you simply overwhelmed by the speed at which the error of rejecting those points of scripture swept into the NT church and began to appear in the statements of some of the ECFs?

The speed? Show me Bob an Apostolic Church Father who disregarded the Real Presence…Again like a broken record…Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and protect them from error. You agree with that right Bob?

Where is the "protect them from error" prediction? Given Paul's statement "men from among your own selves" WILL come and WILL introduce error - I think this question needs to be answered.

If you do agree with the statement above, then why is it so hard for you to accept that the Apostolic Church Fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus and St. Clement of Rome, whom all were disciples of or studied under the very Apostles who look upon and handled the Son of Man, Jesus Christ and they wrote of the Real Presence.

Why should I, who am close to 2,000 years removed from the Apostolic era, write them off as heretical; because it sounds too Catholic?

-

If their teaching contradicts scripture in some areas - then it is error. Period.

ERROR that was being fought IN the NT church DURING the life of Paul (seen in 1Tim 1 and in Titus 1) and PREDICTED to INCREASE after his departure in Acts 20 -- to the point of 2Thess 2 a massive "falling away" the great historic apostacy of the RCC where even their OWN historians admit to mixing paganism with Christianity!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I used to be a Baptist. I will say that there was a time when I accepted and believed the "memorial" or "representation" understanding of the Lord's Supper. But it was precisely through reading the Scripture, and taking the words to mean exactly what they say, that I changed my views. In fact it was only after being convinced that the doctrine of the Real Presence is taught in Scripture that I then looked at early church history to see what I what I could learn about what had been taught and believed in the early centuries.

The Bible is the record of the REAL ECFs for Christians.

The Bible gives THE historic record of the REAL "FIRST CENTURY" beliefs of Christians.

Why turn your back on it??

In John 6 Christ shows us plainly that the FaithLESS disciples think He speaks of cannibalism INSTEAD of speaking of His WORD as being the source of life.

in John 6 Christ HIMSELF states that eating "literal flesh is worthless" when it comes to gaining eternal life - RATHER He says "MY WORDS are Spirit and LIFE".

in John 6 Christ said "HE ALREADY WAS" the BREAD that CAME down from Heaven (referencing the MANNA of the OT)

In Deut 8 God tells us that the real spiritual LESSON of manna is "Man does NOT LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD" then Christ affirms that eating "FLESH is POINTLESS it is MY WORDS that have spirit and life" in John 6.

In Matt 16 Christ CONDEMNED the practice of taking the symbol of bread "too literally"!!

Are you really saying that you studied and accepted those SPECIFIC facts and THEN turned your back on scripture sir??

Be honest did you EVER look into the scripture at that detail BEFORE turning your back on it??

Please note how your response spends about 1/2 a sentence on the Bible and 99% on NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES as your REASON for making the change.

that is "instructive" for the reader sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Where is the "protect them from error" prediction? Given Paul's statement "men from among your own selves" WILL come and WILL introduce error - I think this question needs to be answered.

Bob, anybody with common sense can look at the Protestant Church today and see the many, many competing fractions; it’s basically a market place. There’s no one voice that can speak collectively. If I group a Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ and a SDA in a room and ask them to explain to me what baptism is in relation to salvation, none can give me an answer. I will walk away frustrated.

Christ promised that His Church would be infallible and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Now you and others may claim that Christ’s words where hollow and error propagated right off the bat, but if I were you I’d tread carefully in believing that the Holy Spirit failed His mission.

Infallibility means freedom from teaching error; it means that, through God's protection and guidance, the Apostles and their successors must, in their official teaching, set forth the very teaching of Christ without addition, diminution (or lessening), change, or corruption. Christ emphatically, solemnly, and repeatedly guaranteed that His Church would never fall into error-that the living authority He established to teach mankind would be gifted with freedom from error in its official teaching, so that His Church would live on through the ages unchanged and unchangeable, uncorrupted and incorruptible, unconquered and unconquerable. Thus the oldest church, which is admittedly the Catholic Church (which, at any rate, is admitted to have been in existence centuries before Protestantism), must be the true Church for the simple reason that the Church Christ founded could not change. Let us go to the Gospels and see how plainly and emphatically Christ promised that the Church He founded would never err.

He that heareth you, declared Christ to the Apostles, heareth Me (Luke 10:16). Could this be said if it were possible for them to teach error Bob? No, for in that case those who heard the Apostles would be listening not to Christ and His message of truth, but to erring men teaching false doctrines.

In addressing Simon, whose name He changed to Peter (which means rock), Jesus also made a solemn promise regarding the Church: I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). These words express a clear guarantee that the Church will never be allowed by its Divine Founder to teach error; that Christ will ever watch over and guide it, so that the powers of darkness and error may never prevail against or overcome it.

John's Gospel chapter 14 16-26, also contains a plain guarantee that the Church of Christ would never fall into error, for it would be blessed with the abiding presence of the Spirit of Truth. Christ made it quite clear that the Spirit of Truth would remain with the teaching body (the Apostles and their successors) not merely for a few centuries, so that the Church would afterwards fall a prey to false doctrines and remain in that state for hundreds of years until Martin Luther should appear to enlighten it, but right on till the end of time-for ever. Here are the words of Christ: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, that He may abide with you for ever. The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

From the fact that those who refuse to believe the teaching of Christ's Apostles and their successors are threatened with everlasting punishment, therefore we must infer that such teaching could never be wrong, for how could God, Who is infinitely just, condemn anyone refusing to believe a false doctrine? Our Savior imposes on men the same duty of assent to the teaching of the Church as to His own: Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature, Christ said to the Apostles-words which obviously referred also to their successors, for the Apostles, whose span of life was comparatively short and whose power of travel was necessarily limited, could not personally complete this mission. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16).

Before ascending to heaven, Jesus gave His final commission to the Apostles, which commission manifestly refers also to their lawful successors, for the Apostles could not personally teach all nations and, besides, Christ speaks of His assistance till the end of the world. Christ commanded His Apostles to go forth and teach all nations all the doctrines He had entrusted or made known to them, and at the same time He gave an emphatic assurance or guarantee that, in this ministry of teaching, He would be in their midst, assisting them and guiding them, not merely for a few centuries, but even until the end of the world.

Could there be a clearer promise that the Church would be always preserved from error in its teaching-that it would always enjoy infallibility? Study Christ's words as recorded by St. Matthew: Jesus coming spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you all days, even unto the end of the world’(28:20).

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me or is there something Ellen G. White knows that the Apostles and Early Church failed to understand?
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The Bible is the record of the REAL ECFs for Christians.

The Bible gives THE historic record of the REAL "FIRST CENTURY" beliefs of Christians.

Why turn your back on it??

But who Bob is better to interpret what the Apostles wrote, than those who walked and studied under the Apostles themselves; you perhaps, or maybe Ellen G. White or fill in the blank….?

Look at it this way Bob, let’s say the President of the US says something or even writes something for the media and general population. The media will spin it and the population will interpret and read into his speech many different ideas.

So here comes the White House press secretary to elaborate and clarify what the president said, so there’s no misunderstanding.

The same can be said of the Early Apostolic Church Fathers. I would better trust their writings explanations, since they were with the Apostles and were able to learn first hand than some Baptist preacher who has no formal education, but just felt “called”.

These guys didn’t flinch where their families were torn apart by lions, nor did they themselves waver in their beliefs when staring down a lion. They met horrible deaths so that we that are protestant maybe Orthodox in our beliefs and just b/c the Real Presence is something you didn’t agree with hardly means that you’re right and their wrong.

-

 

[Rooselk]

The Bible is the record of the REAL ECFs for Christians.

The Bible gives THE historic record of the REAL "FIRST CENTURY" beliefs of Christians.

Why turn your back on it??

I agree that the New Testament records the "real First Century" beliefs of the Church. I would also say that where the writings of the Church Fathers contradict the New Testament then we are obliged to go with Scripture.

In John 6 Christ shows us plainly that the FaithLESS disciples think He speaks of cannibalism INSTEAD of speaking of His WORD as being the source of life.

in John 6 Christ HIMSELF states that eating "literal flesh is worthless" when it comes to gaining eternal life - RATHER He says "MY WORDS are Spirit and LIFE".

in John 6 Christ said "HE ALREADY WAS" the BREAD that CAME down from Heaven (referencing the MANNA of the OT)

In Deut 8 God tells us that the real spiritual LESSON of manna is "Man does NOT LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD" then Christ affirms that eating "FLESH is POINTLESS it is MY WORDS that have spirit and life" in John 6.

I have already agreed that it is my belief that John 6 does not the Lord's Supper. However, neither does John 6 contradict the doctrine of the Real Presence.

In Matt 16 Christ CONDEMNED the practice of taking the symbol of bread "too literally"!!

How you can get that out of Matthew 16, much less make the leap that it somehow applies to what takes place at communion, is beyond me.

Are you really saying that you studied and accepted those SPECIFIC facts and THEN turned your back on scripture sir??

Be honest did you EVER look into the scripture at that detail BEFORE turning your back on it??

Sorry, but you are making a strawman argument. For one you claim without any evidence whatsoever that I have turned my back on Scripture. To the contrary, the argument we make in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence is in fact a Scriptural defense. Even if we could give a thousand quotes from a hundred different Church Fathers defending the doctrine it would amount to nothing if we could not likewise make the same case from the authorative writings found in the New Testament. When the Lord says "this is my body" and "this is my blood" we take Him at his Word, as we also do the Apostle Paul when he quotes these same words in his letter to the Corinthians. In other words, it is not those of us who take the word of the Lord and Paul literally that must resort to pulling Scripture out of context in order to defend the doctrine. Frankly, I prefer to leave it to politicians and others to engage in esoteric discussions regarding the meaning of the word "is".

Please note how your response spends about 1/2 a sentence on the Bible and 99% on NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES as your REASON for making the change.

that is "instructive" for the reader sir.

As I said above, my belief in Real Presence rests upon Scripture alone. The writings of the Church Fathers are only instructive in that they give evidence as to how the early church understood this doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In Matt 16 Christ CONDEMNED the practice of taking the symbol of bread "too literally"!!

Rooselk
How you can get that out of Matthew 16, much less make the leap that it somehow applies to what takes place at communion, is beyond me.

Not sure how you managed to get lost in this point - here it is again!

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
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.

Here we see Christ refer to the SAME example of feeding the people as in John 6 where the people came to Christ seeking literal food AFTER the feeding of the 5000. Christ rebukes the disciples mistake here of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally as did the “faithLESS” disciples of John 6.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Are you really saying that you studied and accepted those SPECIFIC facts and THEN turned your back on scripture sir??

Be honest did you EVER look into the scripture at that detail BEFORE turning your back on it??

Sorry, but you are making a strawman argument. For one you claim without any evidence whatsoever that I have turned my back on Scripture.

To the contrary, the argument we make in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence is in fact a Scriptural defense. Even if we could give a thousand quotes from a hundred different Church Fathers defending the doctrine it would amount to nothing if we could not likewise make the same case from the authorative writings found in the New Testament. When the Lord says "this is my body" and "this is my blood"...

With all due respect you are dodging the question.

I specifically asked if you DID look at these points regarding John 6 and Matt 16 -- FULLY accept them as stated and then TURN to the view you have today.

You simply respond that your view today is NOT based on looking at these texts but at OTHERS and at ECFs.

But you need to answer the actual question since it is based on your OWN claim that at one time you DID hold to this Bible consistent view of these texts. I am simply asking if AT THAT TIME you had looked at these specific points and agreed to them -- or is it "more accurate" to say that you DID NOT actually look this close into the subject at that time!!??

In christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In John 6 Christ shows us plainly that the FaithLESS disciples think He speaks of cannibalism INSTEAD of speaking of His WORD as being the source of life.

in John 6 Christ HIMSELF states that eating "literal flesh is worthless" when it comes to gaining eternal life - RATHER He says "MY WORDS are Spirit and LIFE".

in John 6 Christ said "HE ALREADY WAS" the BREAD that CAME down from Heaven (referencing the MANNA of the OT)

In Deut 8 God tells us that the real spiritual LESSON of manna is "Man does NOT LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD" then Christ affirms that eating "FLESH is POINTLESS it is MY WORDS that have spirit and life" in John 6.

Rooselk
I have already agreed that it is my belief that John 6 does not the Lord's Supper. However, neither does John 6 contradict the doctrine of the Real Presence.

To be more accurate.

John 6 IS not a case of celebrating the PASSOVER - the Lord's Supper
John 6 IS NOT arguing that Christ is "literally bread" or should be bit!
John 6 forms the CONTEXT for the PASSOVER the Lord's Supper so that the symbols used THEN could not be disconnected from the fact that they had ALREADY BEEN USED in John 6!! If one is not supposed to bite Christ in John 6 THEN they are STILL not to bite Him at the PASSOVER service - the Lord's Super.

The fact that the PASSOVER had ALREADY been celebrated for CENTURIES is PROOF that these SYMBOLS had to have BEEN SYMBOLS for many hundreds of years!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

[/i]

John 6 IS not a case of celebrating the PASSOVER - the Lord's Supper
John 6 IS NOT arguing that Christ is "literally bread" or should be bit!
John 6 forms the CONTEXT for the PASSOVER the Lord's Supper so that the symbols used THEN could not be disconnected from the fact that they had ALREADY BEEN USED in John 6!! If one is not supposed to bite Christ in John 6 THEN they are STILL not to bite Him at the PASSOVER service - the Lord's Super.

The fact that the PASSOVER had ALREADY been celebrated for CENTURIES is PROOF that these SYMBOLS had to have BEEN SYMBOLS for many hundreds of years!!

In Christ,

Bob

Correct!

Lord Supper was instituted for the Remembrance of Him after the Cross.

 

[Eric B]

Christ promised that His Church would be infallible and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Now you and others may claim that Christ’s words where hollow and error propagated right off the bat, but if I were you I’d tread carefully in believing that the Holy Spirit failed His mission.

"Infallible" is not used in Christ's statement. Now, you've added yet something else, an interpretation of "the gates of Hell will not prevail", right alongside the statement itself. Then, from that, you claim the other side is making Christ's words "hollow", and saying the Holy Spirit failed. But that would only be if your interpretation is true, which you have not proven.

Infallibility means freedom from teaching error; it means that, through God's protection and guidance, the Apostles and their successors must,

Now, you've added "infallibility" and "successors". That promise says nothing about later leaders, centuries after them, being "infallible". You are just infusing more interpretation into it. "the Gates of Hell (hades, the grave) will not prevail (overpower) it". A person can still today hear the Gospel, receive Christ, and fellowship somewhere, so this is fulfilled. It says nothing about some particular organization or group of leaders being "infallible". If you want to argue that, they you should be able to produce 12 apostles today. So right away, that was one thing that changed.

in their official teaching, set forth the very teaching of Christ without addition, diminution (or lessening), change, or corruption. Christ emphatically, solemnly, and repeatedly guaranteed that His Church would never fall into error-that the living authority He established to teach mankind would be gifted with freedom from error in its official teaching, so that His Church would live on through the ages unchanged and unchangeable, uncorrupted and incorruptible, unconquered and unconquerable. Thus the oldest church, which is admittedly the Catholic Church (which, at any rate, is admitted to have been in existence centuries before Protestantism), must be the true Church for the simple reason that the Church Christ founded could not change. Let us go to the Gospels and see how plainly and emphatically Christ promised that the Church He founded would never err.

So then, a state Church with the leaders as kings, who persecuted heretics (using the state power, often) was what Christ taught. You have to include all of that stuff. Where was the Church-state union in the NT? Where was the worldly power?

He that heareth you, declared Christ to the Apostles, heareth Me (Luke 10:16). Could this be said if it were possible for them to teach error Bob? No, for in that case those who heard the Apostles would be listening not to Christ and His message of truth, but to erring men teaching false doctrines.

The Apostles are not in question. It was those after them, who were not promised infallibility. Some faithfully passed on the faith, and others began putting thir own spin on it, and others taught ourtright error. It is not a matter of choosing the most popular ones, or the "majority that agreed on something", and the powerful institution that arose from their teaching.

In addressing Simon, whose name He changed to Peter (which means rock), Jesus also made a solemn promise regarding the Church: I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). These words express a clear guarantee that the Church will never be allowed by its Divine Founder to teach error; that Christ will ever watch over and guide it, so that the powers of darkness and error may never prevail against or overcome it.

John's Gospel chapter 14 16-26, also contains a plain guarantee that the Church of Christ would never fall into error, for it would be blessed with the abiding presence of the Spirit of Truth. Christ made it quite clear that the Spirit of Truth would remain with the teaching body (the Apostles and their successors)

Again, this "teaching body" is not mentioned there. You are projecting a heirarchical institution back into the apostles, who really had nothing to do with it. There was only one Body, and that was all of the Church; those who held offices such as apostle or bishop, and everyone else. But what we see in the later church is two bodies; "clergy" and "laity". Again, right here, we have a change. None of this s not promised to some "organized" institution, (which was often full of darkness and error) but to anyone who receives Christ and follows His word. And just because we have people doing that and breaking off into hundreds of groups soesn't mean that is wrong; it means that people do not always follow the Spirit fully, and add their own baggage to the faith. the Spirit was promised, and would not fail; but that never said that men would always follow Him truthfully or fully. There are two sides to that.

not merely for a few centuries, so that the Church would afterwards fall a prey to false doctrines and remain in that state for hundreds of years until Martin Luther should appear to enlighten it, but right on till the end of time-for ever. Here are the words of Christ: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, that He may abide with you for ever. The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

According to you, it was not a "few" centuries, but rather "several"; where the Church was a pure whole, but then, apparently, the Spirit stopped guiding, and the East-West-Spilt occurred, and then further schism. Anyway you look at it, organized Christianity is a total mess; but then "organized Christianity" was not what Christ was talking about there, anyway.

From the fact that those who refuse to believe the teaching of Christ's Apostles and their successors are threatened with everlasting punishment, therefore we must infer that such teaching could never be wrong, for how could God, Who is infinitely just, condemn anyone refusing to believe a false doctrine? Our Savior imposes on men the same duty of assent to the teaching of the Church as to His own: Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature, Christ said to the Apostles-words which obviously referred also to their successors, for the Apostles, whose span of life was comparatively short and whose power of travel was necessarily limited, could not personally complete this mission. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16).

Before ascending to heaven, Jesus gave His final commission to the Apostles, which commission manifestly refers also to their lawful successors, for the Apostles could not personally teach all nations and, besides, Christ speaks of His assistance till the end of the world. Christ commanded His Apostles to go forth and teach all nations all the doctrines He had entrusted or made known to them, and at the same time He gave an emphatic assurance or guarantee that, in this ministry of teaching, He would be in their midst, assisting them and guiding them, not merely for a few centuries, but even until the end of the world.

Sorry, but this attempt to justify the later conquering institutional Christianity as fulfilling this does not fly. Rom.10:18 and Col.1:6, 23 says that the "spreading of the word to every creature in allthe world" was done. It wasn't talking about the globe (though we of course continue to prach around the globe), so you can' use that to prove the later heirarchical institution was what Christ established and gve this mission to.

Could there be a clearer promise that the Church would be always preserved from error in its teaching-that it would always enjoy infallibility? Study Christ's words as recorded by St. Matthew: Jesus coming spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you all days, even unto the end of the world’(28:20).

In all, we see you've added so many assumptions and interpretations to the texts. IT is obviously a retrospective attempt to prove your organization is what Christ established, but it fails to match up on every count.

 

[Rooselk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Are you really saying that you studied and accepted those SPECIFIC facts and THEN turned your back on scripture sir??

Be honest did you EVER look into the scripture at that detail BEFORE turning your back on it??




With all due respect you are dodging the question.

I specifically asked if you DID look at these points regarding John 6 and Matt 16 -- FULLY accept them as stated and then TURN to the view you have today.

You simply respond that your view today is NOT based on looking at these texts but at OTHERS and at ECFs.

But you need to answer the actual question since it is based on your OWN claim that at one time you DID hold to this Bible consistent view of these texts. I am simply asking if AT THAT TIME you had looked at these specific points and agreed to them -- or is it "more accurate" to say that you DID NOT actually look this close into the subject at that time!!??

In christ,

Bob

I will answer again as plainly as I can: I do not believe that John 6 is discussing the Lord's Supper and therefore it should not be used as a proof text to teach the doctrine of the Real Presence. On the other hand, neither does the text contradict that doctrine in any way. And I further say that Matthew 16 has nothing whatsoever to do with the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Rather than rely on esoteric interpretations I instead stand on the clear teaching of Scripture and take the following passages literally, trusting that they mean exactly what they say:

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.

- Matthew 26: 26-28

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.

- Mark 14: 22-24

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.

- Luke 22: 19-20

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

- 1 Corinthians 10:16

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 of profaning 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.

- 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29

In making your case you continue to put forth arguments that have no direct bearing on those passages on which the doctrine of the Real Presence is based. Sorry, but I am not going to take your bait.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rooselk:

".... the doctrine of the Real Presence."

Jesus' 'presence' is 'real' .... AS BY FAITH PARTAKING of His blood and body.

This is how I have phrased my confession.

It is IDOLATRY in any other way to partake in the Lord's Supper. Any other way it is to "CRUCIFY ANEW", the Saviour at every mass. Cursed is it; an abomination for which every partaker in it shall receive the eternal punishment of hell.

 

[Yokobo]

I couldn't help but...

The communion service is a "symbol" of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ, Just as in John 10 "I am the DOOR" just as in John 15 "I am the VINE" -- Christ is not a plant nor even a piece of wood.

In Matt 16 Christ warns the disciples NOT to take things too literally when symbols are being used ESPECIALLY when the symbol is BREAD.

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[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that [b]I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] 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.

In John 6 Christ said he WAS the BREAD that came down out of heaven.

Again - these are all symbols.

And in the case of Christ as bread - it is Christ as "The Word" that became flesh and dwelt among us - for as God teaches the lesson of manna is "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

In Christ,

Bob

I couldn't help but note your quoting John 6 symbolic reference. But, unlike Matt. 16, you really don't go into any explanation of the "symbology" of John 6. I would like to state my opposing opinion of this passage. In Matthew 16 Jesus is stating that the disciples should be aware of what the Pharisees are feeding them by way of religious ideology. But this does not seem to be the case in John 6. In fact, the Jews specifically question the doctrine of "eating the very flesh of Christ". Note that in Matthew 16 the disciples are taking the "bread" reference literally and Jesus corrects them, explaining it to be a symbolic thing. This is obvious in the wording of verse 12. This is not so in John 6. Upon the questioning of eating the flesh in the very literal sense, Jesus DOES NOT correct them and explain the symbolic nature, but, instead reinforces the literalness of what he said by repeating it four times. Afterward, it does not state that the Jews understood the symbology, but that IN FACT many left and never followed Jesus again. This only reiterates the absolute extremity of what Jesus was trying to convey to His followers. I think that you have used an obviously symbolic reference to downplay a literal reference that you have not explained. Not everything Jesus said was symbolic. Not everything He said was literal. But we need to be able to understand the difference. Sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes it's not. I, for one, do not believe that the communion service is symbolic. What's so hard to believe that so many would just up and walk away from Christ? Wouldn't it be harder to continue in a faith that required the literalness of the communion rather than the symbology??

 

[Yokobo]

Wow!

Rooselk:

".... the doctrine of the Real Presence."

Jesus' 'presence' is 'real' .... AS BY FAITH PARTAKING of His blood and body.

This is how I have phrased my confession.

It is IDOLATRY in any other way to partake in the Lord's Supper. Any other way it is to "CRUCIFY ANEW", the Saviour at every mass. Cursed is it; an abomination for which every partaker in it shall receive the eternal punishment of hell.

You must be the most devout and sinless person to ever grace the world with your presence since the Christ Himself left His very footprints in the dust of Jerusalem. To stand firm on such a stalwart stance of "all Catholics shall burn in the eternal flames of Hell itself" is one that I fear I will never have the cajones to take myself. Call it good, old-fashioned humility, call it following the Bible's command to "judge not lest you be judged", call it whatever you like. Just be careful when you presume to assume the responsibilities that God Himself vested to no man.