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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 421-428 next last
To: roamer_1

According to Christian belief, the Old Law ended the moment Jesus died. The Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments are forever, but the Mosaic ritual law ceased to operate when that which it prefigured had come to pass.


241 posted on 01/30/2015 12:21:31 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

In other words, although Jesus made abundantly clear throughout his public life that FAITH is decisive in our relationship with God, he stupidly confused the issue—which was ALREADY perfectly clear—by introducing a lot of GRAPHIC language about “gnawing,” “chewing,” and “munching” on his flesh, and drinking his blood.

Oh, yes. “Gnawing,” “chewing,” and “munching” on flesh are such obvious metaphors that ANYBODY would think of as a way of talking about “believing.”

Yeah. When I read the weather report in the morning, I always “munch” on it, “chew” on it, and “gnaw” on it.

Yeah. “This is my body, which is given up for you...This is the chalice of my blood...” Right. ANYBODY would interpret those words to mean, “believe.”


242 posted on 01/30/2015 12:32:28 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
You have the time frame completely wrong. Heb. 8:13 is referring to the time of the PROPHET (who has just been quoted at length), not the time of the author of Hebrews.,/i>

No, the Prophet is not quoted there - that is indeed commentary by the author. The prophet in question is Jeremiah in 31:31. Note the context of the chapter. And note that the time Jeremiah proclaims includes Torah written on the inward parts of all men (that certainly is *not*, even to this day)- and certainly not thrown away as being old.

It was GONE when the veil in the temple was torn open.

Not ONE jot or tittle until all is fulfilled. Not only Torah, but the Prophets.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Torah is not completely fulfilled. The Prophets are not completely fulfilled. Heaven and earth are still here.

243 posted on 01/30/2015 1:44:26 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
According to Christian belief, the Old Law ended the moment Jesus died. The Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments are forever, but the Mosaic ritual law ceased to operate when that which it prefigured had come to pass.

That is not what the Bible says. And Torah is indivisible - not added to, nor taken from.

244 posted on 01/30/2015 1:50:14 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Before the crucifixion was still OT where eating blood was still a sin.

Additionally, the HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to reiterate the command against eating blood in the NT AFTER the day of Pentecost, well into the church age.

No matter how you try to spin it, *Don’t eat blood* means *Don’t eat blood*.

But I don’t expect Catholics to actually OBEY the clear direct commands of Jesus in the matter. They don’t with other issues, but instead rationalize their disobedience away.


245 posted on 01/30/2015 4:03:23 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Right. And Jesus replied to John the Baptist: “Baaaah! Baaaah!”


246 posted on 01/30/2015 4:51:19 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
According to Christian belief, the Old Law ended the moment Jesus died.

Why is it that we cannot seem to realize that the Jews were GOD's chosen [people????

The laws, ANY of them, were given to THEM!!

Why do GENTILES get their panties in a wad about LAW???


Galatians 3:21
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could give us life, then certainly righteousness would come!


247 posted on 01/30/2015 4:55:34 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Receptionism is a term I never heard used in Reformed circles, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Baptist or otherwise. I did discover the term is more commonly used among Anglicans, and they are, or at least were at their inception, Catholics sans pope. I can make no association of the term with Calvin. That doesn't mean there is no such association. Only that I've never heard of it.

I found it explained here:
Five Views of the Eucharist



Roman Catholic

The Eucharist (Greek: 'thanksgiving') is a Sacrament, and like all Sacraments, it conveys grace to all who receive it worthily. The Eucharist also makes present Christ's sacrifice on the Cross in an unbloody manner, for that reason it is sometimes known as the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. Through it, forgiveness of sin may be obtained.

On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood of Christ. This change is known as Transubstantiation and Christ's presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.

The Eucharist (Greek: 'thanksgiving') is a Sacrament, and like all Sacraments, it conveys grace to all who receive it worthily. The Eucharist also makes present Christ's sacrifice on the Cross in an unbloody manner, for that reason it is sometimes known as the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. Through it, forgiveness of sin may be obtained. On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood of Christ. This change is known as Transubstantiation and Christ's presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.

From the Council of Trent (1545-1563):

"...By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Orthodox

The Orthodox church accepts the Eucharist as a Sacrament (though it uses the term 'Mystery' instead of 'Sacrament') and also accepts the doctrines of the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. However, it does not make any attempt to explain how the change occurs, preferring to regard it as a divine mystery.

The Eucharistic service is commonly known as the Divine Liturgy.

Lutheran

In Lutheranism, there is a Sacramental Union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. In other words, Christ's body and blood are present "in, with and under " the forms of bread and wine. This is sometimes known as Consubstantiation (although Luther himself did not use this term).
Luther explained his view by using an analogy of an iron rod placed into a fire: both are united in the red-hot iron, yet both are also distinct.

Lutheranism rejects the view of the Eucharist as "making present" Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

Reformed and Presbyterian

The Reformed and Presbyterian view derives from the teachings of John Calvin: Christ is not present literally in the elements, but he is spiritually present.

Those who receive the elements with faith can receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament, a view sometimes known as Receptionism.

Calvin explained his view of the Eucharist in his Institutes:

"The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."

Other Groups

Many other groups (e.g. the Baptists) refer to the Eucharist as the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion and deny any form of physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Rather, the Lord's supper is a remembrance of Christ's suffering and a reminder of his power to overcome sin and death. This view derives from the teachings of the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli and is commonly known as Memorialism.

The Anglican and Methodist Churches have a wide variety of views on this subject.


248 posted on 01/30/2015 6:10:15 AM PST by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | 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.

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.

I agree we must walk in the Spirit and believe the LORD Jesus Christ. The natural man does not understand the things revealed by the Spirit of the LORD; it appears as foolishness, such as arguing that Catholics, assuming the Catholic teaching is true, when receiving the Eucharist are violating the Torah, or Jesus violated the Torah in giving the teaching. Those points are akin to what the natural Jews in the text argued, and stumbled over.

When I read this I cannot help but think of a rotund pastor (not you) edifying his pious flock by preaching to them the error of the Jews grasping for bread, and then the emaciated figures of starving Jews and Gentiles enters my mind. Then I remember Jesus gave them "real food" and James tells us If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
, James, catholic chapter two, Protestant verses fifteen and sixteen, as authorized by King James.

As for the religious among us in the States, is there an epidemic sun of gluttony ? How often do we hear homilies or sermons about gluttony and obesity ? How often do we restrain ourselves by fasting ?

Firm Faith, Fat Body? Study Finds High Rate of Obesity among Religious

249 posted on 01/30/2015 6:46:44 AM 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
>>The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper.<<

Huh boy!!! The law was NOT fulfilled until the perfect sacrifice had been completed. There was no new covenant until Christ died on that cross. The "blood of the new covenant could NOT have been real blood because Jesus blood was spilled on the ground. There is no blood in the risen body. God is the life in the risen body. Blood was the life in the corrupt body. After the resurrection Christ said "flesh and bone" but not blood.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

There was no blood as we see when Jesus told Thomas to put his fingers in the holes in His hands and his hand into His side.

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

No blood flowing from those wounds. It had all been spilled on the ground as was required for any sacrifice as well as any animal slaughtered for food.

It still would have been a sin to eat the blood.

250 posted on 01/30/2015 6:49:03 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
"sin of gluttony" not sun of gluttony though it is poetic
251 posted on 01/30/2015 6:50:46 AM PST by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; RnMomof7
>>Do you think the Council of Jerusalem would be okay with that?<<

The counsel of Jerusalem reinforced the prohibition against eating ANY blood.

252 posted on 01/30/2015 6:51:20 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper. The passing away of the Old Covenant was COMPLETED when Jesus says so on the Cross.

The Mosaic Law was not fulfilled until the Lamb was sacrificed and His Blood was spilled - on the Cross. As Jesus said, it would not pass away until "every jot and tittle" was fulfilled. So at the Last Supper, the Law was still in effect. No matter what word games you try to play, the words of Jesus make this clear.

No matter how hard you try to twist things, you cannot change the fact that at the time of the Last Supper, the Mosaic Law was still in effect, and the consuming of blood was a sin. So for your interpretation to be correct, Jesus would have been telling His disciples to commit a sin - which would have negated His ability to be a sinless sacrifice for OUR sins.

253 posted on 01/30/2015 6:55:43 AM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; boatbums
and he did eat the scroll" so Catholics literally eat the paper the words are written on right?
254 posted on 01/30/2015 6:57:17 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Why is it that we cannot seem to realize that the Jews were GOD's chosen [people???? The laws, ANY of them, were given to THEM!! Why do GENTILES get their panties in a wad about LAW???

Ahh, but we are grafted unto Israel - and everyone knows there is only one law in Israel. From the least to the greatest, Torah.

If you love me, keep my commandments.

255 posted on 01/30/2015 7:31:40 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Jesus said: “Take this and drink. This is the chalice of my blood.”

It’s right there in the gospels.

According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.

Of course, perhaps the gospel writers were lying.

So, you have left yourself exactly two choices:

A) Jesus was a sinner;

B) The gospel accounts are lies.


256 posted on 01/30/2015 7:56:52 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: metmom

According to you, drinking blood was a sin.

Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”

Fine. Let us suppose that Jesus wasn’t telling the apostles to drink his ACTUAL blood.

That means that Jesus was telling the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED drinking his blood. Right?

That would mean Jesus would be okay with committing adultery SYMBOLICALLY, or committing murder SYMBOLICALLY, or worshiping idols SYMBOLICALLY.

Show me an example elsewhere in the gospels where Jesus instructs the apostles to SIN SYMBOLICALLY.


257 posted on 01/30/2015 8:06:32 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

According to you, at the time of the Last Supper, drinking blood was still a sin.

Therefore, Jesus could not have given his REAL blood to drink, because that would be a sin.

So, when Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood in the new covenant...”—He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.

Tell me where in the gospel Jesus said it was okay to commit adultery SYMBOLICALLY. Show me where in the gospel Jesus said it’s okay to worship idols SYMBOLICALLY. Show me where Jesus said it was okay to lie SYMBOLICALLY.


258 posted on 01/30/2015 8:13:10 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
So, you have left yourself exactly two choices:

A) Jesus was a sinner;

B) The gospel accounts are lies.

No, those are the choices you have left yourself. (And by the way, rewording the Scripture to make it appear to support your position doesn't work.) The commonly accepted and Scripturally sound choice is the one most here are propounding - that the cup and the bread represent the blood and flesh of Christ, just as the unleavened bread represented the haste with with they Jews departed Egypt, and the bitter herbs that were used to cook the Passover Lamb represented the bitterness of the life the Jews led in Egypt. It is only when you try to make it the literal blood and flesh that you run into problems.

Understand that I am not trying to persuade you - you are to deeply indoctrinated into this man-made dogma for me to change your mind. I am merely responding to you so that others that read the thread will see the flaws in your reasoning, and will see that every time you are challenged to support your position with Scripture, you cannot. In that way, I hope to prevent others from falling into the same error as you.

259 posted on 01/30/2015 8:25:46 AM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
If you love me, keep my commandments.

Spoken to WHOM?

260 posted on 01/30/2015 8:35:56 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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