Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)
The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | May 23, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7

Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.

Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church  history.

This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.

last_supper

The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also 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.

In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?

In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.

Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.

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

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).

Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).

Origen (182–254): “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).

Augustine (354–430): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227).

How should we think about such statements?

Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.

But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?

In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:

* * * * *

1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.

Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).

In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.

A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.

Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.

* * * * *

2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.

We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.

At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.

At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.

Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.

16


TOPICS: Apologetics; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Other Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicbashing; communion; evangelicals; transubstantiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-428 next last
To: RnMomof7
Scripture is very clear that mankind is no longer made in the "image" of God..after the fall in the garden we lost the image of God

What do you believe the image of God in man is? There are passages that clearly state that we are still created in the image and likeness of God even after the fall.

Genesis 9:6
1 Cor. 11:7
James 3:9

Man is still a personal being, he still is a moral being, he still communicates with God, and he still projects the rulership of God over the earth. The passages above clearly demonstrate that the image has not been lost ... but it has certainly been corrupted. We no longer naturally desire to be holy in our fallen state, but we possess a conscience. The aspects of our personality (mind, will, emotions) are retained ... yet each of these is marred by sin. We as men have poorly ruled over the earth ... but we still rule over the animal kingdom.

We still possess the image ... but that image has been tainted ... not destroyed. When we are regenerated by the reception of the gospel, we being the transformation of that image into one that reflects God perfectly. This is why Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 3:18 & Col. 3:10 that (through progressive sanctification) the image of God in us is being restored.

201 posted on 01/29/2015 2:20:11 PM PST by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; metmom
>>Later, Paul led the movement to put aside ALL of the Jewish ritual law—even circumcision.<<

Later??? The meeting in Jerusalem was ABOUT circumcision and about what the requirement for New Testament Christians was to be.

>>So, what was determined by the Council of Jerusalem was a compromise. It was not for all time.<<

So show where it was rescinded.

>>Also: the reference to not drinking blood concerns ANIMAL sacrifices,<<

Oh please Arthur. Acts 15:29 says "to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.

Nowhere would you find a reputable linguist that would claim the blood and the idol are tied in that passage.

Even if the above were not true, which it is, you are still assigning sin to Jesus if the last supper was true flesh and blood. Jesus and the apostles were Jews born under the law and still subject to it. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to actually drink blood and in fact drink it Himself He would have been sinning.

>>St. Paul writes about receiving the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.<<

You still have Jesus sinning.

202 posted on 01/29/2015 2:33:50 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; CA Conservative
>>The prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim existed for a certain reason—that the victim’s life belonged to God.<<

Proof from scripture please.

The prohibition against eating blood was NOT just for the animals sacrificed.

203 posted on 01/29/2015 2:36:29 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
That was a good read.

Thanks for posting it.

204 posted on 01/29/2015 2:45:10 PM PST by Col Freeper (FR: A smorgasbord of Conservative Mindfood - dig in and enjoy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
1.Jesus told the Jews they had to eat his body and drink his blood to have life, and that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink.

And what part of that would any Reformed or Southern Baptist or non-denominational store front church member disagree with?  God is real, but God is a spirit.  Love is real, but you cannot ingest it bodily.  We are to live not by bread but every word from God's mouth, but no one I know of is eating pages from their Bible.  Real does not have to be corporeal to be really real.  Am I being real clear? :)


2.Furthermore many of His disciples stumbled at this teaching, were offended, and left Him. Had this teaching merely been that the Cup of Redemption and the Afikomen (the third cup in the Passover Seder and the matzah hidden as a game for the children, handed down to us today) that was meant to symbolize Him, even if the actual Seder differed, it seems strange to imagine the Jews, including some of his disciples stumbled over obvious symbolism. To the contrary, they interpreted Him literally, as the scriptures indicate, and did not have the faith to believe His words.

There was an argument in the crowd, a dispute among themselves.  They didn't know what to make of what he was saying.  That doesn't prove He was teaching Eucharistic realism in the sense of Aristotelian substances.  It does prove, I would suggest, that they weren't listening very carefully to what he said before He got to the hard part:
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(John 6:34-35)
In which coming to him is in parallel with believing in him, and carries the same meaning, a classic Hebraic couplet, the meaning of which clarifies the entire passage, that the way we consume this Bread of Life, the means by which He comes to satisfy our hunger and our thirst, is by us believing on Him.  This was a disappointing answer to those whom He had just fed by the miracles of the loaves and the fishes.  They were so into their own bellies that they were spiritually deaf to his very straightforward teaching here.  Of course His body and blood are real, as they had to be to be given in sacrifice for us.  But they become the all-satisfying food of eternal life to us who believe, simply because we believe in Him.  Just as He said.

But even after lighting up the field so they could easily avoid the pitfall of raw materialism, what do they do but show their blindness and fall in anyway. They were blind because they did not believe, and they did not believe because the Father had not drawn them.  

As to His core disciples, they did believe.  Peter makes it clear;
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 6:67-69)
And what is Peter focused on?  Does he say, "Yes, Lord, I'm willing to eat your physical body and blood?"  No. He looks right past that, because he has understood: it's about belief in Jesus.  He gets it.


3.Tradition testifies against it. We see about two millennia of holy communion unlike the Passover Seder, and unlike the bread and grape juice shared in Evangelical assemblies. Indeed, it is telling that the founding fathers of the Reformation famously split over whether Messiah was present in the elements or it was only a memorial. Notwithstanding the argument that there should be a common tradition to accompany an unbroken chain of the holy catholic apostolic church, none of the churches, denominations, sects, or faith groups have historically used the Passover Seder as the Lord's Supper. Whilst some can try to recreate or reform the Christian faith yet again, this time in a rabbinic Jewish context, and celebrate the Passover and Lord's Supper at the same time, and only once per year, it does not maintain continuity with almost two millennia of Christianity. It is a restoration attempt, without an Apostle, much less twelve genuine Jewish Apostles who lived, learned, and ate with Jesus. There should be a historic visible tradition of the Lord's Supper over the millennia, and there is.

The point of this thread is that there is a body of early tradition that supports a non-Aristotelian understanding of the elements of the Lord's Supper.  One could look to a platonic sense of archetype to type to understand how realistic and anti-realistic language could sometimes occur side by side, without resort to Aristotle's view on substances. I would further argue that multiple strands of understanding survived well into the medieval period, as evidenced by the debate between Ratramnus and Radbertus over the nature of the Eucharistic presence.  So presenting that there has always been a monolithic Trent-like view of the Eucharist from day one is an ahistorical argument.  It has rhetorical pizazz but falters on facts.

However, having said that, divine truth is not determined by majority vote.  One of my favorite lines of Scripture is this, let God be true, and every man a liar.  It doesn't matter if the number of the faithful is only eight when the ark is boarded.  It doesn't matter that when Jesus comes on the scene he finds at first only a few faithful, and almost none among the leadership.  It doesn't matter that a major world-wide religion professes to honor Jesus if it denies the truths Jesus taught in the Gospels.  I refer of course to Islam.  None of that matters to the project Jesus is carrying out, the building of His Ecclesia.  As long as there has been at least one person alive somewhere who carried forward the torch of the true Gospel (though I am sure it was never that few), whether within or without man-made institutional boundaries, then the Ecclesia has survived, and has no need to be restored, only to become more well known, which necessarily means error must be refuted.


4.I understand someone saying that he does not have the faith to literally believe Jesus' teaching, just as so many did not have the faith to believe in the First Century as recorded by John. The proper response at that point is not to argue against the teaching, as some of them did, but to say, "Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief." Become as a little child with respect to faith, so to speak.

But this begs the question. We do believe what Jesus is literally teaching.  "Literal" means "according to the letter," and according to the letter of what he taught in the Bread of Life metaphor, we can have eternal life, our deepest spiritual hungers and thirsts met, if we come to Him in faith, if we believe in Him. Converting this passage into artificial support for a much later developed theory of Aristotelian substance swapping is hardly being faithful to the strict "letter" of the text.

Peace,

SR
205 posted on 01/29/2015 2:49:10 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
(Warn her about that crotchety ol’ Elsie; too!) Lol
206 posted on 01/29/2015 3:19:00 PM PST by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

:)


207 posted on 01/29/2015 3:22:35 PM PST by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
And what part of that would any Reformed or Southern Baptist or non-denominational store front church member disagree with? God is real, but God is a spirit. Love is real, but you cannot ingest it bodily. We are to live not by bread but every word from God's mouth, but no one I know of is eating pages from their Bible. Real does not have to be corporeal to be really real. Am I being real clear? :)
    I assume you reject the Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Do you believe
  1. those who receive the elements with faith can receive the actual body and blood of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament (Calvin: Receptionism), or
  2. there is no form of any physical or spiritual presence of Jesus in the bread and wine; it is just a remembrance (Zwingli: Memorialism)

208 posted on 01/29/2015 3:24:00 PM PST by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Perhaps nothing.

Perhaps?

What does the CATECHISM say?

209 posted on 01/29/2015 3:24:45 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
...as he says in John, Chapter Six.

In John, Chapter Six; some fellows asked a VERY direct question.

I would HOPE that Jesus' answer was complete in it's simplicity.


 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


210 posted on 01/29/2015 3:27:20 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
You must distinguish between the moral law and ritual law.

To WHOM were these various laws given?

Does one have to follow the speed limits established in Jerusalem while driving in Denver?

211 posted on 01/29/2015 3:30:04 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Jesus is NOT the Passover lamb. Jesus is prefigured by the Passover lamb.

BEHOLD!

The Lamb of GOD!

212 posted on 01/29/2015 3:30:45 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
I hope you are aware that the New Covenant differs from the Old Covenant.

I do not think Rome knows the difference Arthur..

When Jesus sacrificed himself, he gave his life as a gift to US. Jesus commanded us to drink his blood precisely as a sign that he gave his life for us.

Arthur I know you really believe that you have the power and authority to put the Savior into a piece of Bread where He is then held captive.. and locked in a golden box to "keep Him safe"

The foolishness and pride involved in that doctrine is actually sad

Arthur did the apostles eat the actual flesh of Christ?? Remember He was wearing it..so did He lie to them?

213 posted on 01/29/2015 4:02:51 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
The council of Jerusalem instructed Christians to abstain from the flesh and blood of ANIMALS that had been sacrificed.

And Jesus was that Lamb..

Are you saying that they had to abstain from the blood of animals..but human blood was ok?

214 posted on 01/29/2015 4:06:07 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Worshiping the Eucharist is idolatry if it is a fraud.
If it is not a fraud, then worshiping it is pleasing to God.
The fact that it is worshiped is not proof that it is a fraud.

Ya know Arthur, the pagans believed their idols were really gods too.. What you "believe" is irrelevant ..it is what God knows that is ... and no where does he tell us to kneel before a piece of bread no matter what we think it is.

215 posted on 01/29/2015 4:09:57 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Springfield Reformer

No, true

216 posted on 01/29/2015 4:11:43 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I was beginning to think that no one else had noticed that SETH was made in Adam's image; in HIS likeness: Genesis 5:3

All one has to do is look around them ..it is clear as day :)

217 posted on 01/29/2015 4:14:56 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Bingo


218 posted on 01/29/2015 4:16:14 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
John 6:28-29 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

I do not think that is in the Catholic John 6

219 posted on 01/29/2015 4:19:02 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Iscool
False. In the Mass, JESUS offers himself to the Father. Jesus is the priest and victim.

He already did that Arthur ..on Calvary. He does not need to do it over and over ..

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him

The OLD covenant has been replaced by the NEW covenant.

I would be interested in what difference a Roman sees in the Old and the New Covenants

220 posted on 01/29/2015 4:27:41 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-428 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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