Posted on 01/26/2024 1:20:49 PM PST by Cronos
...Chapter 3. Christ was possessed of a body after His resurrection For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.
...Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.
...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
(Excerpt) Read more at newadvent.org ...
Odd this is the interitation I have
CHAPTER VI—UNBELIEVERS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SHALL BE CONDEMNED.
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Let not[high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is a faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
It does not read the same as your’s and is quite different from what your’s proposes.
Oh, nevermind you skipped to VII i see it now
I still think is a stretch to accept it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ.
As our Lord said do this in remembrance, not do this to continue receiving my power after the resurrection.
Biblically it is not really supported as a doctrinal issue. Church fathers are indeed to be highly regarded but not infallible.
How is that circle squared?
There is much more to “do this in remembrance” than “do this while remembering me. There has been a *lot* of wrangling in the Church over this very thing, and believe that is because Supper is what Christ declares it to be when He institutes it. No keener, sharper place for the evil one to attack than both the words and substance of Christ, using this to cause division, and causing many to lose the comfort in knowing that this is precisely how Christ ordained to abide intimately in our,midst, cleasing us from sin with this sacred food of His very body and blood.
Given the care our Lord has taken to ensure his word is endured and when doctrine is repeated and supported often in many scriptures it is quite odd to make a doctrinal issue of the Lords supper when it is not equally support through the many scriptures.
God has repeated and made clear that which offers salvation, no where biblically can one justify Holy Communion as a required ritual to maintain salvation.
Christ made it clear how one obtains salvation, by faith and faith alone in Christ. My challenge always is, show biblically how Holy Communion is a salvation requirement. If so, then one needs to explain how anyone prior to the Holy Supper could have been saved, relaying on faith answers the question, adding the Holy Communion negates faith.
Church fathers are indeed to be highly regarded but not infallible.
An important value of the Fathers is that they give insight to what the early Christian believed. St. Justin Martyr is another witness to the early Christians belief in the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus.
There is no doctrine Christ made clear that some idiot can't twist it in the exact opposite direction. This exact doctrine is proof of it.
"Clarity" comes not from individuals approaching the text of Scripture, but from teachings that have been passed down unbroken from Christ through the Apostles to now. Doctrine that has been taught always, everywhere, and by all.
i.e. the Real Presence.
It would be going too far to say The Lord’s Supper is a salvation requirement. The atoning work of Christ Jesus is all that can win it for all mortal flesh. The Supper is the means whereby He comforts and sustains those who abide in Him by faith.
Ignatius here goes so far as to teach that it is contrary to faith to deny the bodily presence. In my parish we do not associate with those who deny it, nor do we offer it to them. In thisxwe are of one mind. At the same time, we would never say that those who differ in this teaching have thereby rendered themselves as unbelievers.
There have always been attempts to spiritualize what God has established concretely, beginning with the physical creation itself. Given what we now know through the natural science of quantum physics, it is not a stretch at all to believe His bodily presence is inextricably joined to the Supper where it is administered according to His institution thereof, namely by the called and ordained pastors of His Church as they serve the Christians under their care.
-Cordially
That our Lord said it is enough support. He does not need that of others. However, Paul, too, does support the Real Presence.
En contraire:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:51-58)Christ made it clear how one obtains salvation, by faith and faith alone in Christ.
To have faith in Jesus Christ is to accept all that he taught—including the above statement—and not just his saving work on the cross.
Gnosticism was a real problem in the early Church. It was so much so that people were denying that Christ had a real body of flesh and that He only was spiritual Being. It was right and good, very good, for the early Church fathers to oppose this un-Scriptural teaching. However, when I read the Scripture, including the words of Christ in John 6 and all other passages in harmony with this chapter, I still cannot see how we should run to the other extreme and believe we are literally eating the flesh of Jesus. Jesus clearly spoke in parables and used analogy, and by using this verbiage, He was demonstrating with hyperbole that we must be so possessed of His body and blood that it is tantamount to consuming it. Literally consuming this body and blood after He gave it up in a once-and-for-all sacrifice is a non-sequitor.
Now, I offer these words with what I believe to be truth. If I am in error, I sincerely pray for God’s revealing word to my heart that I may repent. Amen.
“And Not just His Saving Work
On The CROSS!?”
.
That leaves a Mark!
.
And How do You classifie ‘Dismas’
The Good Theif???
Reading through Acts the past couple weeks and not one example of Paul or Peter telling anyone they needed to participate in the Lord's Supper for salvation.
The issue for the Roman Catholic is the contradicting positions of the ECFs on many of the issues near and dear to Roman Catholic theology.
You need to post the entire passage from John 6 on this issue for clarity....if not you’re doing a disservice to the passage.
I think we should interpret Scripture by using Scripture. It does not dictate that Eucahrist is necessary for salvation but never does it say by “faith and faith alone” in the original Greek.
if you are thinking of Romans well all scholars acknowledge that Luther added “alone” when translating into German in the sixteenth century, —but alone is not in the original Greek text.
The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Again using scripture this does not mean you earn justificatin by works. blast away
No...he wasn't the only one who rendered the passage in that manner.
However, when Romans is read in context, along with the other writings of the NT, one quickly comes to the conclusion that we are saved through only faith in Christ.
If one reads Paul and James in context one will find the two are not in conflict as the Christian life does demand fruit, or works, if you will, to be produced. It's the evidence of one's faith...however, those good works will not save you.
Recall many of his followers abandoned him when he doubled down. If he meant it symbolically he would have cleared up the misunderstanding.
One has to believe to be saved. But “Believe” is a pregnant word. There are many things that constitute the belief. It more than a state of mind. After all, Satan “believes” as well.
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.