- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2010,06:12) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,05:26) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2010,20:00) CA You ignored Hebrews 6:1-6 which I provided.
Repentance and faith toward God is not a requisite for new covenant salvation. Even your own Tertullian said this, “God must be believed on in His own dispensation.”
In the new covenant dispensation we must believe in Christ ALONE! To require repentance and faith toward God today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.” To require that the elementary teachings of Christ apply today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.”
Those apostolic teachings which agreed with Christ's elementary teachings have also passed away. What all non-preterists fail to see is that the first Christians lived in the transitional period between the passing away of the old covenant and the coming of the new covenant. When the new covenant fully came in ad70 God said, “I will remember their sins NO MORE.”
Christ paid the penalty for the sins of His people IN FULL.
thinker
Sounds like the underlying issue is the one I have deferred discussing with you for a very long time: preterism (mainly due to the time it would take to get into)FYI, many Catholics are partial preterists. In that sense, I probably am one myself.
I want to defer your interpretation of Heb. 6 since it seems wholly tied up with your understanding of preterism and covenant.
So…wanna start another thread?
O…I really want to know what date you believe the Apocalypse (Revelation) was written. That will help me know where you land on things.
Thanks
CA,First I want to ask you why you come out of the gate bashing Protestantism? Why not defend Christian Christology like WJ and I are doing here?
Second, I am willing to debate you on preterism in the “debates” forum. But be notified that I use the “Sola Scriptura” presupposition which you seem to despise. But I will allow you your epistemology if you allow me mine.
Please start a thread in the “debates” forum for you and me ALONE and then send me a pm notifying me.
In the mean time could you spend more time defening the Christian faith from the onslaughts of the Arains here?
Thanks,
thinker
It is there in the debate section. I must not have permission to “invite” or “disallow” others?I come against Protestantism because these heresies come from the root of rebellion found in the Revolt of the early 16th century.
I cannot assume your epistemology since it is fatally flawed. As much as I may appreciate the points at which we agree, I cannot avoid that you espouse dangerous heresies that cannot afford to be recognized and must be decried.
Hope that's OK with you.
nick
i would not say that the catholic church is the first fruit,there were many before them
but she was the first who spread it trough the world “the pagans believes.”and by that action maded total.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,05:36) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 17 2010,22:55) IS it sufficient to believe ONLY in Jesus christ. Why the long debate: “NO”, it is not. To believe in Jesus Christ, by necessity, is also to believe in the Father.
If one terminates at believing in Christ one is a disbeliever because Jesus did not come for himself but to reveal the father and bring us to an understanding of HIM (The father) so we may be saved through Jesus' sacrifice which was authorised by the Father.
So why have you removed yourself from his sacrifice: His precious body, blood, soul and divinity? You must eat His body and drink His blood so you may have life.But most of you JW's don't even receive your false version of Communion. You have reserved that for your mostly-non-Jewish 144,000.
Or did the numbers re-set after 1975 was a flop?
Hi CA:Are you saying that life is in partaking of the Eucharist?
Love in Christ,
Martyhi CA,
When your leaders hold up the bread they say“This is my Body”
You are surely more than flesh.
He was more than a body I am sure you agree.
Why do you then teach it is more than the body of Christ?
Why do you teach that to eat the bread you are enjoined with Christ?Why did you not read the rest of Jn 6 where it says
” The Spirit gives life. The flesh profits nothing”If you understood that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God you would perhaps understand why the words of Jesus were spirit and life, the food he spoke of, not earthly things.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,07:09) It is there in the debate section. I must not have permission to “invite” or “disallow” others? I come against Protestantism because these heresies come from the root of rebellion found in the Revolt of the early 16th century.
I cannot assume your epistemology since it is fatally flawed. As much as I may appreciate the points at which we agree, I cannot avoid that you espouse dangerous heresies that cannot afford to be recognized and must be decried.
Hope that's OK with you.
Hi CA,Are you against the AKJV Bible?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,07:09) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2010,06:12) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,05:26) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2010,20:00) CA You ignored Hebrews 6:1-6 which I provided.
Repentance and faith toward God is not a requisite for new covenant salvation. Even your own Tertullian said this, “God must be believed on in His own dispensation.”
In the new covenant dispensation we must believe in Christ ALONE! To require repentance and faith toward God today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.” To require that the elementary teachings of Christ apply today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.”
Those apostolic teachings which agreed with Christ's elementary teachings have also passed away. What all non-preterists fail to see is that the first Christians lived in the transitional period between the passing away of the old covenant and the coming of the new covenant. When the new covenant fully came in ad70 God said, “I will remember their sins NO MORE.”
Christ paid the penalty for the sins of His people IN FULL.
thinker
Sounds like the underlying issue is the one I have deferred discussing with you for a very long time: preterism (mainly due to the time it would take to get into)FYI, many Catholics are partial preterists. In that sense, I probably am one myself.
I want to defer your interpretation of Heb. 6 since it seems wholly tied up with your understanding of preterism and covenant.
So…wanna start another thread?
O…I really want to know what date you believe the Apocalypse (Revelation) was written. That will help me know where you land on things.
Thanks
CA,First I want to ask you why you come out of the gate bashing Protestantism? Why not defend Christian Christology like WJ and I are doing here?
Second, I am willing to debate you on preterism in the “debates” forum. But be notified that I use the “Sola Scriptura” presupposition which you seem to despise. But I will allow you your epistemology if you allow me mine.
Please start a thread in the “debates” forum for you and me ALONE and then send me a pm notifying me.
In the mean time could you spend more time defening the Christian faith from the onslaughts of the Arains here?
Thanks,
thinker
It is there in the debate section. I must not have permission to “invite” or “disallow” others?I come against Protestantism because these heresies come from the root of rebellion found in the Revolt of the early 16th century.
I cannot assume your epistemology since it is fatally flawed. As much as I may appreciate the points at which we agree, I cannot avoid that you espouse dangerous heresies that cannot afford to be recognized and must be decried.
Hope that's OK with you.
CA,I did not ask you to assume my presupposition. I was simply saying that I would argue my case from scripture alone and you must allow this. I would allow you to argue from the fathers. If you cannot allow this then you concede Preterism by default.
There is a “debates” section in another forum where two people can go one on one.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 18 2010,07:32) Hi CA,
The apostasy came first and the catholic church is the first bad fruit.
No Nick! Those who deny that Jesus is our only Master and Lord are the first bad fruit (Jude4-5). The Catholics do not deny that Jesus is our only Master and Lord.The Jewish apostates were the “whore” and the Arains are their offspring.
thinker
TT
i know you are a smart man ,but don't make me believe otherwise,you know Jesus is not our master and lord.
you know we only worship God the God of Christ ,called by him father.if you change that configuration you are 1)an apostate,2)an Antichrist.
TT, how can we built in knowledge if some keep playing the flip-flop game.I would like to know what you are really stand for,if you stand for anything??
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2010,20:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 18 2010,07:32) Hi CA,
The apostasy came first and the catholic church is the first bad fruit.
No Nick! Those who deny that Jesus is our only Master and Lord are the first bad fruit (Jude4-5). The Catholics do not deny that Jesus is our only Master and Lord.The Jewish apostates were the “whore” and the Arains are their offspring.
thinker
thinkerHave you ever considered to change your avatar? it may influence peoples thinking were your ideas come from.
Georg
Quote (942767 @ Feb. 18 2010,09:04) Hi CA: Are you saying that life is in partaking of the Eucharist?
Love in Christ,
Marty
John 6:53“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 18 2010,12:23) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,07:09) It is there in the debate section. I must not have permission to “invite” or “disallow” others? I come against Protestantism because these heresies come from the root of rebellion found in the Revolt of the early 16th century.
I cannot assume your epistemology since it is fatally flawed. As much as I may appreciate the points at which we agree, I cannot avoid that you espouse dangerous heresies that cannot afford to be recognized and must be decried.
Hope that's OK with you.
Hi CA,Are you against the AKJV Bible?
Only against the places where it translates erroneously. Actually the KJV was translated with all the books (not just 66). But as much as I like the literal nature of the translation, I cannot overlook blatant translational errors such as the one in John 3:16 in the KJV.Hi CA,
The flesh profits nothing.[Jn6]
The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking[Rom14.17]
Do you really believe that eating bread and wine changes you into Jesus and saves your soul?Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2010,20:14) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,07:09) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2010,06:12) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,05:26) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2010,20:00) CA You ignored Hebrews 6:1-6 which I provided.
Repentance and faith toward God is not a requisite for new covenant salvation. Even your own Tertullian said this, “God must be believed on in His own dispensation.”
In the new covenant dispensation we must believe in Christ ALONE! To require repentance and faith toward God today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.” To require that the elementary teachings of Christ apply today is to “crucify the Son of God afresh.”
Those apostolic teachings which agreed with Christ's elementary teachings have also passed away. What all non-preterists fail to see is that the first Christians lived in the transitional period between the passing away of the old covenant and the coming of the new covenant. When the new covenant fully came in ad70 God said, “I will remember their sins NO MORE.”
Christ paid the penalty for the sins of His people IN FULL.
thinker
Sounds like the underlying issue is the one I have deferred discussing with you for a very long time: preterism (mainly due to the time it would take to get into)FYI, many Catholics are partial preterists. In that sense, I probably am one myself.
I want to defer your interpretation of Heb. 6 since it seems wholly tied up with your understanding of preterism and covenant.
So…wanna start another thread?
O…I really want to know what date you believe the Apocalypse (Revelation) was written. That will help me know where you land on things.
Thanks
CA,First I want to ask you why you come out of the gate bashing Protestantism? Why not defend Christian Christology like WJ and I are doing here?
Second, I am willing to debate you on preterism in the “debates” forum. But be notified that I use the “Sola Scriptura” presupposition which you seem to despise. But I will allow you your epistemology if you allow me mine.
Please start a thread in the “debates” forum for you and me ALONE and then send me a pm notifying me.
In the mean time could you spend more time defening the Christian faith from the onslaughts of the Arains here?
Thanks,
thinker
It is there in the debate section. I must not have permission to “invite” or “disallow” others?I come against Protestantism because these heresies come from the root of rebellion found in the Revolt of the early 16th century.
I cannot assume your epistemology since it is fatally flawed. As much as I may appreciate the points at which we agree, I cannot avoid that you espouse dangerous heresies that cannot afford to be recognized and must be decried.
Hope that's OK with you.
CA,I did not ask you to assume my presupposition. I was simply saying that I would argue my case from scripture alone and you must allow this. I would allow you to argue from the fathers. If you cannot allow this then you concede Preterism by default.
There is a “debates” section in another forum where two people can go one on one.
thinker
Maybe you can provide me a link to this “debate” location? Sorry about my ignorance.I really would like to go one on one with you on the topic Sola Scriptura. That seems to be the logical place to start since this is a foundational variance we have.
BTW, preterism as such means different things to different people. You seem to have a whole covenantal theology tied up with your view of preterism.
You didn't answer my question about when you think Revelation was penned.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 19 2010,08:57) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 18 2010,09:04) Hi CA: Are you saying that life is in partaking of the Eucharist?
Love in Christ,
Marty
John 6:53“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Hi CA:The disciples did not understand what he was saying when he was speaking of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood”, and some even walked away and did not follow him any more because of this statement, and you are also misunderstanding what he meant by this. He explained to those disciples that remained with him by saying:
John 6
Quote 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And regarding the Eucharist he said the following:
1 CO 11
Quote 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.And so, by partaking of the Eucharist, we are doing this in remembrance of him and proclaiming his death until he comes for the church.
We should do this as part of the body of Christ. He asked us to do this, but eternal life is not in literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist.
Eternal life is coming to God with a repentant heart by faith in what he has done for us in the person of His Son and His Christ, and when we have been reconciled to Him, He is the Father of our spirit, and we become like Him as we learn to apply His Word in our daily living. It is through God's Word given to us through the person of His Only Begotten Son and His Christ that we have eternal life.
Quote John 3:5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Quote 1 John 5 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Quote 1 John 5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 18 2010,05:36) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 17 2010,22:55) IS it sufficient to believe ONLY in Jesus christ. Why the long debate: “NO”, it is not. To believe in Jesus Christ, by necessity, is also to believe in the Father.
If one terminates at believing in Christ one is a disbeliever because Jesus did not come for himself but to reveal the father and bring us to an understanding of HIM (The father) so we may be saved through Jesus' sacrifice which was authorised by the Father.
So why have you removed yourself from his sacrifice: His precious body, blood, soul and divinity? You must eat His body and drink His blood so you may have life.But most of you JW's don't even receive your false version of Communion. You have reserved that for your mostly-non-Jewish 144,000.
Or did the numbers re-set after 1975 was a flop?
CAIs that what Jesus did with the apostles? did he cut a chunk out of his thigh and every body took a bite out of it? and then they all drank his blood?
Are you familiar with this scripture?Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Jesus died for us once and for all, your so called mass sacrifice is the abomination spoken of in Daniel, and so is the requirement to go to confession to a man.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Do you see how the Catholic church keeps you captive?
Georg
Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 20 2010,15:18) Is that what Jesus did with the apostles? did he cut a chunk out of his thigh and every body took a bite out of it? and then they all drank his blood?
Are you familiar with this scripture?Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Jesus died for us once and for all, your so called mass sacrifice is the abomination spoken of in Daniel, and so is the requirement to go to confession to a man.
“Once For All”By Mark Brumley
The letter to the Hebrews is often said to disprove the sacrificial nature of the Mass. For example, Hebrews 7:26-27 says, “For it was fitting that we should have a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself.”
Notice Jesus offered his sacrifice “once for all.” It's this “once for all”.aspect of Christ's sacrifice, mentioned repeatedly in Hebrews, which supposedly refutes the sacrifice of the Mass.
“After all,” ask opponents of the Mass, “if Christ has offered the perfect sacrifice for sins before God, why do we need another sacrifice in the Mass to receive the forgiveness of sins?”
If Catholics believed the Mass were a sacrifice in the sense implied by this question, there would be something to the objection. But this isn't how the Catholic Church sees the sacrifice of the Mass.
The Mass has always been held to be a relative sacrifice–relative to the sacrifice of the Cross, not independent of it. The Council of Trent says the Mass is the means “whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit” (Session 22, chapter 1).
Trent continues by saying, “And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory….For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different” (Session 22, chapter 2).
Frank Sheed summarizes Catholic teaching on the point in Theology and Sanity:
“There is no new slaying of Christ in the Mass….Yet that it is the Christ who was slain upon Calvary is shown sacramentally by the separate consecration of bread to become His body and wine to become His blood. The essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering to the Father of Himself, who was slain for us upon Calvary. The Mass is Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father.”
Hebrews teaches the atoning death of Christ was effective for the remission of sins and hence needed to be offer only once. But this speaks of what theologians call the “objective redemption.” It doesn't mean that, since Jesus died for everyone, everyone will get to heaven. (That's universalism.) The merits or the fruits of Christ's death need to be applied to the individual.
When Catholic theologians talk about the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, they mean, among other things, that the objective redemption which Christ's sacrifice on the Cross merited is subjectively applied to the individual through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Christ's sacrifice objectively merited redemption on the Cross. The same sacrifice of Christ, now offered sacramentally, not physically, is applied to the individual in the Eucharist.
Far from substituting for the Cross or to make up for something that's lacking in Christ's sacrifice, the Mass is a means by which we receive the benefits of the Atonement.
Granted this is what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass, and granted it doesn't mean Jesus is killed again by the priest, people still ask, “Doesn't Hebrews 7-11 contradict even a sacramental sacrifice when it says Christ offered one sacrifice?”
No. Remember, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross, only presented in a different manner. The.aspect of redemption which involved his death is finished, but Christ lives forever to offer, by his very presence in the Mass, his work on the Cross for our sins to the Father in heaven. In no way does this diminish Calvary.
Read Hebrews 9:11-12: “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands…he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.”
What does this means? In the Old Testament, atonement for the sins of the people was obtained once a year on the Day of Atonement when the high priest entered the holy of holies to offer sacrifices. Hebrews contrasts this with Christ who, as victim and high priest, offered the perfect sacrifice, once for all, on the Cross and who presented himself, as both victim and priest, in the true tabernacle, which is heaven itself, the dwelling place of God (Heb. 8:2-3; 9:11-12, 24).
Christ IS “always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). What is the basis of this intercession? The sacrifice of the Cross (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:14), which is forever present before God in the heavenly tabernacle because he who was both offered as victim and who offered the sacrifice as priest “appears before God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24).
Christ's perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. As Frank Sheed puts it, “The Mass is the breaking through to earth of the offering of Himself that Christ makes continuously in heaven simply by His presence there.”
Some people will still object that the Mass is actually the reverse of the Cross. On the Cross Christ offered himself for us: We didn't offer anything. In the Mass, on the other hand, we do the offering.
In a sense, this is true. We weren't physically or personally at Calvary. Still, there's a sense in which we were present–present in our high priest, Jesus, who offered the sacrifice of himself for us.
In the Old Testament the high priest, in offering sacrifice for Israel, represented the people before God. In other words, the people offered their sacrifice through the high priest. Christ was our high priest, as well as our sacrifice, on Calvary. We offered the perfect sacrifice (Christ) for sins to the Father through him.
Similarly, in the Mass Christ offers himself to the Father on our behalf, and we, his people, join ourselves sacramentally to his offering. The Mass is a way of approaching God through Christ's sacrifice, which is made present sacramentally because Christ himself is present.
Nothing in this diminishes Calvary or implies we can approach God other than through the Cross. Rather than taking away from the Cross, the Mass emphasizes it.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 20 2010,06:24) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 19 2010,09:37) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 19 2010,08:57) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 18 2010,09:04) Hi CA: Are you saying that life is in partaking of the Eucharist?
Love in Christ,
Marty
John 6:53“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Hi CA:The disciples did not understand what he was saying when he was speaking of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood”, and some even walked away and did not follow him any more because of this statement, and you are also misunderstanding what he meant by this. He explained to those disciples that remained with him by saying:
John 6
Quote 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And regarding the Eucharist he said the following:
1 CO 11
Quote 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.And so, by partaking of the Eucharist, we are doing this in remembrance of him and proclaiming his death until he comes for the church.
We should do this as part of the body of Christ. He asked us to do this, but eternal life is not in literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist.
Eternal life is coming to God with a repentant heart by faith in what he has done for us in the person of His Son and His Christ, and when we have been reconciled to Him, He is the Father of our spirit, and we become like Him as we learn to apply His Word in our daily living. It is through God's Word given to us through the person of His Only Begotten Son and His Christ that we have eternal life.
Quote John 3:5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Quote 1 John 5 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Quote 1 John 5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, wher
e any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20
).Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Hi CA:It is what Jesus did in his flesh body that matters in that he obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross, and it also what we do as his disciples in his body in obedience to the Word of God that matters. We should partake of the Eucharist, but no, I will have to disagree with the Catholic church on this subject.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Feb. 24 2010,13:45) Hi CA: It is what Jesus did in his flesh body that matters in that he obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross, and it also what we do as his disciples in his body in obedience to the Word of God that matters. We should partake of the Eucharist, but no, I will have to disagree with the Catholic church on this subject.
Love in Christ,
Marty
So you throw your lot in with Christ rejecting Jews and refuse to eat the passover lamb…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
