Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin
Christian Post ^ | 4/27/11 | Eryn Sun

Posted on 04/28/2011 5:55:29 AM PDT by ZGuy

Being gay is a gift from God, asserts one church in Ohio.

That’s the message that Central United Methodist Church is spreading throughout their community via a digital billboard, launched on Monday.

This “simple statement,” the church announced, is “intended to be a gift to those who have experienced hurt and discrimination because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.”

“The Church seeks nothing less than the healing of the world, and Central UMC wants to offer words and acts of healing to those hurt and marginalized,” the website states.

Jeff Buchanan, the director of Exodus Church Equipping & Student Ministries, agrees that the Church must display love and compassion for those in the LGBT community. But he opposes the message that CUMC is sending through their “Being Gay is a Gift from God” campaign.

“Why would God bestow this ‘gift’ only to condemn it throughout the Bible? This would seemingly contradict His character as a God who is loving and just.”

The Toledo church’s controversial billboard ad is directly connected to a long month-long sermon series by its new pastor, Bill Barnard. The church is hoping that the ad will move the public towards tolerance, reported ABC 13, and not perpetuate anti-gay attitudes and behaviors, which were harming the LGBT community.

The purposes of their recently launched campaign are threefold: to offer welcome to all persons who are gay; to challenge the larger Church to fully accept persons who are gay into the life of the Church; and to call on all people to bring all the gifts of who they are to God.

“By welcoming and living in community with faithful Christians who happen to be gay, we have come to understand that being gay is part of who God made them to be,” CUMC proclaims on their site. “And by gay Christians bringing all that they are to God, the body of Christ has been strengthened.”

“In fact, we would experience the body of Christ as incomplete without LGBT persons.”

Barnard told ABC, “We really believe that being gay is a gift from God, and it’s not anything that anyone has to apologize for or be ashamed about. So that’s how [the campaign] came to be.”

Believing sexuality to be a “good gift from God” – or as they declared yet another way in God’s infinite diversity – CUMC defines sin as denying who God created them to be.

“The overwhelming scientific evidence is that people are born with their sexual orientation, that it is not a choice,” the church contends. “Fully accepting one’s sexual orientation and identity is key to leading a normal and healthy life.

“Forcing people to act against their God-given sexual orientation will lead to disordered lives. Allowing people to act in accordance with their God-given sexual orientation leads to reconciliation.”

While deeming the marginalization of LGBT persons as “unjustified” – mentioning that Jesus did not speak directly regarding homosexuality – the Toledo church recognizes that the Church today continues to be divided over interpretation of Scripture related to homosexuality.

Just two months ago, 33 retired United Methodist bishops urged the denomination to remove its ban on homosexual clergy, prolonging the undying debate within the church body.

CUMC hopes to unify believers by focusing more on “things that [they] agree on, such as kindness, justice, and humility,” instead of contributing to hate and discrimination, which they believe leads not to reconciliation, but to self-destructive practices within the LGBT community.

“Holding people responsible for matters in which they have no control is irrational and immoral,” the church declares. “We believe that both those within and without the Church are hungry for dialogue about homosexuality that reflects compassion and humility rather than intolerance and strife.”

Buchanan contends that CUMC’s message “tells people that the only option they have is a gay identity.”

But “people need to understand that thousands of men and women have found there is another way and have found freedom from homosexuality through the power of Christ,” he says.

Even if there was conclusive evidence supporting the theory that people were “born this way,” Buchanan stresses that Christians were called to be “born again.”

“While we may not choose our desires, we do have the ability and responsibility to choose whether or not we act on those desires. Our goal should be living a life that is congruent with Scripture,” he says.

“Genesis describes the fall of man and the permanent effects that sin has on us spiritually, mentally, and physically. Just because something may be inherent does not mean it was intended.”

Despite the outcry of many from the Christian community against CUMC’s campaign, Barnard continues to proclaim that homosexuality is a “gift” and has people come and remain just “as they are.”

Working to accept persons who are gay into the full life of the Church, CUMC is a founding member of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which is the United Methodist movement for gay equality in the denomination.

Two of the volunteer staff members at their church, including the music director and lead team chair, live with their partners and have served the church for over seven years.

Grieved over the misinterpretation of Scripture and false teaching that is being promoted by CUMC and many other churches like them, Buchanan encourages churches to deliver the message of Christ with love and grace, but also with accuracy and uncompromised truth.

“We must always remember that authentic love is built upon a foundation of grace and truth.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: armyofsodom; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; pinkpanthers; religiousfaggots; religiousleft; sodomrising; umc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-429 next last
To: daniel1212
Simple repetition?

I'm talking about fundamental differences (the reason why Dr. Eck;s OrthodoPresyterian C says that your beliefs are a damnable heresy):

  1. Pentecostals believe that the present Pentecostal movement, which features the speaking in tongues, is in fulfillment of Bible promise. They maintain that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and during the first century did not exhaust the miraculous visible manifestations of the Spirit.
    The OPC says this wrong and "the result of faulty misreading of scripture"

  2. Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues always accompanies the baptism with the Holy Spirit. All persons have this tongues experience as evidence of baptism. The OPC says this is heresy and faulty reading (that's a euphemism of what they actually say)

  3. Pentecostal churches do not believe in the security of the believer (once saved, always saved). Pentecostals do believe that Salvation can be lost -- the opposing OPC on the contrary believes it's members are a Brahmin elite who are predestined by karma and think your position is utterly wrong and biblically false

  4. Pentecostals have a daily necessity of commitment -- the OPC thinks this is heretically false and "the gospel of satan"

  5. Now this one, I'm a bit unsure of -- can you confirm if this is correct? Pentecostals believe that Christ's death does not save you from eternal destruction, but restores the relationship to that before the fall at Eden -- is this correct?

These are core, fundamental differences in believing the nature of Christianity.

401 posted on 05/05/2011 8:11:55 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Dr. Eckleburg
Daniel: A fringe group neither represents all of Calvinism

Do you mean the OPC, Dr. Eck's group is a fringe group in your opinion?

402 posted on 05/05/2011 8:13:57 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Daniel: A fringe group neither represents all of Calvinism

besides I never said that that group represents all of Calvinism. I see many good Presbyterians from the Cumberland Presbyterians etc.

I specifically asked you about this group which differs with you on core doctrines and why you as a Pentecostal would not acknowledge these are severe fundamental difference on core beliefs.

403 posted on 05/05/2011 8:16:13 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; daniel1212
"Nor are these different beliefs a real problem for me in upholding of the supremacy of Scripture, over undue allegiance to a man or office, which was a problem in the early church as well, but not bringing souls to be convicted and converted as i prior described, and maintaining a poor and contrite heart, yet rejoicing in Him (my failures), is."

In other words, my enemy's enemy is my friend. That puts daniel1212 in bed with Communism, radical Islam, militant homosexuality, Environmentalism, atheism, and his OPC bed bugs.

404 posted on 05/05/2011 8:26:36 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
As said, Calvinism and Pentecostalism are sometimes actually both to varying degrees, and your overriding tendency is to treat them as monolithic (as regards uniformity). Pentecostalism overall holds to many common essentials, but typically allow for some limited degree of disagreements within themselves and among themselves. Roman Catholics, while also holding to core essentials, also have more room for interpretation than most realize.

You can see the Assemblies of God statement on judgment here, and general beliefs here, and the Church of God in Christ statements of faith here (these being the largest Pentecostal demons) and those of Calvary Chapel here Some hold to eternal security, such as Calvary Chapel (comparatively Pentecostal “light”) I know of no Pentecostal groups who simply believe that Christ's death restores the relationship to that before the fall at Eden but does not save them from eternal damnation, which would be inconsistent with their general denial of OSAS. Those who deny eternal torment and or place a 3rd (or more) spiritual place typically look to a material authority which is effectually superior to the Scriptures, and thus also can often claim a greater, in terms of scope if not quality, unity.

405 posted on 05/05/2011 9:00:29 AM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
Again -- ascribing motive and pretending to "read" minds -- the post says "your overriding tendency"
406 posted on 05/05/2011 9:03:23 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; Cronos

Thanks. I saw little reason to argue them anew, thus my references were meant to promote a cessation of such.


407 posted on 05/05/2011 9:05:32 AM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Stop making this personal and stop trying to read minds. I said so very clearly on my post why xxx's OrthodoPresyterian C says that your beliefs -- I was only referring to two groups: yours and the poster's

At no stage did I say this was "monolithic" -- stop wrongly reading minds.

I specifically asked you to confirm certain points and pointed out all of the 5 points in opposition to the OPC specifically.

408 posted on 05/05/2011 9:05:49 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

He is expressing his own mind - how he judges your arguments - he is not reading yours


409 posted on 05/05/2011 9:10:56 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

This is ascribing motive, the post 405 says “your overriding tendency is to treat them as monolithic” —> and besides attempting to ascribe motive, it is being personal. Instead of focussing on the issue, the post is ascribing motive


410 posted on 05/05/2011 9:21:57 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
No, he is criticizing your argument, i.e. expressing his own mind.

For instance, if I said "that's a strawman argument" or "you're arguing against something that doesn't exist" or "you're treating my denomination as if it were a cult" - none would be attributing motive or mind reading. They would be expressing my own mind, judging your posts not you.

But if I said "you are just saying that to make me mad" or "you're making a strawman argument to change the subject because you have no real defense for that" or "you believe my denomination is a cult" - any would be attributing motive and/or mind reading.

411 posted on 05/05/2011 9:33:50 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Jesus said “Go and sin no more.” I didn’t say it.


412 posted on 05/05/2011 10:22:18 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
....your overriding tendency is to treat them as monolithic (as regards uniformity)

There's an explanation for that - since Catholics expect it of themselves (even though very few try to pull it off), they think everyone else must think the same way:

"....If a Catholic rejects even one tenet of Church teaching then they are as a result declaring that the Church is not a holy institution and more importantly the Church’s belief in truth is wrong....Catholicism has a monopoly on the truth, it is not good enough to only believe in some of the Church’s teachings, we have to and are logically required to believe in all of the Church’s teachings."
-- from the thread What Is The Catholic Truth?

Within Catholicism, the definition of "outermost circle of Christianity" is the two-pronged "apostolic succession/papal submission" and "valid Eucharist" (transubstantiation). All other doctrinal issues, while not ignored, are secondary considerations. In this mindset, if you're a "real" Christian you must be Catholic. And if you're not Catholic, you're at best a member of an "ecclesial community" (Protestants), of a "defective church" (Orthodox), or not a Christian at all. Thus, the mindset of Catholicism towards the corporate exercise of Christianity is exclusivist by design. You're either (already) Catholic, or you're well outside the safety zone.

Now using that mindset, when Catholics look upon Protestant denominations, they believe that all denominations must similarly be fully exclusivist towards all other denominations. They think that Protestants exclude all denominations/members not their own from the full body of Christ, because that's how it Catholics themselves approach others. While some "Protestant" congregations and denominations (using those terms loosely) may act that way towards outsiders, the majority do not (and the creedal ones IMO less so).

I find it amusing that it was Calvinists and Presbyterians who came up with the "Five Fundamentals" (where the perjorative "fundamentalist" comes from) as an ecumenical tool to find common ground with Christians of all persuasions (including Catholics and Orthodox). I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity. Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.
-- Alex Murphy, September 17, 2010


413 posted on 05/05/2011 11:30:11 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The problem is that your group has a leftist, anti-Christian doctrine and being part of the MSM, just seeks to attack Christians

But don't worry, we Christians don't care about sad little pathetic communist groups -- we'll keep on believing in God and let the godless groups such as your own go on being a godless group.

We'll still pray for non-Christian groups such as yours

414 posted on 05/05/2011 12:37:29 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

And thanks for bringing up the fact of the Eucharist — it’s amazing that many Christians reject it. I mean it’s ok that non-Christian groups such as yours reject it, after all, I don’t expect a group that rejects the fundamentals of Christianity to accept Christ’s word either...


415 posted on 05/05/2011 12:43:32 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The core issue is the lack of belief in Jesus Christ's words in John 6
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[b] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[c] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

416 posted on 05/05/2011 12:44:42 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

417 posted on 05/05/2011 12:45:02 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).
418 posted on 05/05/2011 12:45:40 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
419 posted on 05/05/2011 12:46:12 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain 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" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "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"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
420 posted on 05/05/2011 12:46:37 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-429 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson