Catholicity key to Church Unity

But we are saved (become that spiritually "risen" "new man") upon receiving Christ. Originally, this was intimately connected with water baptism, as in NT evangelism as soon as one accepted Christ, they were baptized on the spot. That was the "symbol" of "dying" with him, and "rising again". Now, of course, nobody just baptizes anyone right away, but instead gives them membership classes, etc. first. As I discuss on Altar Calls, Baptism, and Conversion, the altar call has become sort of what baptism was. This may not have been a scriptural change, but even the RCC does not follow the original practice in this. So you cannot say that Baptism is what saves or marks the death of the old man, and rise of the new. It was a symbol, that did basically mark that event, but is now separated from initial conversion.
Also, Christ did not "die" and "rise" in baptism; He died and rose in His actual death and resurrection. He was baptized to set the practice for us ("to fulfill all righteousness"), but only to us, is it a commemoration of His death and resurrection.

The act of coming together as a BODY —Christ's body, is what makes it sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Not some doctrine that bread and wine actually BECOMES literally and physically, the body and blood.

Notice in one place you say there are no "outward signs", but then you acknowledge that that is what they are. That is all I am saying. "Outward signs of spiritual realities!

No, that is not "two baptisms". You seem to be assuming that our view of repentance being what marks salvation corresponds to John's baptism "of repentance". But no, we believe like you that now it is different in that we are now given the Holy Spirit as you said. John's baptism was but a forerunner, and the two "baptisms" are in effect joined into one.
Regarding how "baptism doth now save" (1 Pet.3:21); it's baptism "by one spirit into one body" (becoming a Christian or member of Christ's body)(1 Cor. 12:13) that saves, and water baptism was the outward symbol of the person's conscience being cleared when he receives forgiveness for his sins, which are symbolically "buried" in the water, and than the "new man" rises out of it, as in a resurrection. As I said, the physical act originally accompanied the spiritual act, but now are separated by Church initiation. So the physical water baptism is not a "second baptism", but rather a part of the one baptism, though it may be delayed in time.

 

Bob: St. Paul explains it best how we share in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice to the Father. “ Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?”

In the Eucharist Christ makes present for all time His one sacrifice on the cross. Jesus Christ is the High Priest and the Lamb of God, both the Priest and the victim.

Here are some explanations from the Catechism.



1329 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.143
The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,144 above all at the Last Supper.145 It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection,146 and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies;147 by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.148
The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.
1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.151


143 Cf. 1 Cor 11:20; Rev 19:9.
144 Cf. Mt 14:19; 15:36; Mk 8:6, 19.
145 Cf. Mt 26:26; 1 Cor 11:24.
146 Cf. Lk 24:13-35.
147 Cf. Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7,11.
148 Cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17.
149 Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34.
150 Heb 13:15; cf. 1 Pet 25; Ps 116:13, 17; Mal 1:11.
151 Cf. 1 Cor 1016-17.

 

Jude,

Jesus is also called a rock, a stumbling stone, Romans 9:33. He calls Himself the door of the sheep, John 10:7. He calls Himself the chief cornerstone, Matthew 21:42-44. Does this mean He literally became a rock, a door, or a cornerstone. When Jesus was alive is when He stated that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, John 6:56. Do you really think He was telling His followers to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? That He describe the bread as His body and the wine as His blood, does not in any teach that they become literally Him. Especially, when a priestly system that is antibiblical prays over the host to make it magically happen.

Kathryn,

Certainly, 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 was written by Paul to correct faulty practices in the church of following certain individuals. THis would hold true for not only individuals but also religious institutions. When I was saved and the genuine baptism occurred for me, not water baptism, but the baptism Jesus gives by the Spirit and fire I was not brought into any religious system, I was identified with Christ. Paul in 1 Cor. clearly states his primary calling was to share the gospel not perform water baptism. Water baptism has never and will never save anybody. Again, if someone is lost when they enter the baptismal waters they will leave the waters wet and lost. If there has been no genuine baptism in the Spirit then there is no salvation and water baptism is meaningless.

Bro Tony

 

Ray:

You are wrong. This is only what you want to believe. This is not what they said:


"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread." Luke 24:35


Luke 24:30
When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

The breaking of the bread is the one bread of the Eucharist. They didn’t recognize him in their dinner or in the word of God. This is a dilemma for those who want to minimize the importance of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is how we are to know Jesus Christ. This seems to be a very ignored passage by Protestants along with :

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

 

"take, do this in rememberance of me". That's what "memorial" means.
It does not say "recreate the literal, physical event" over and over again.

 

Eric:

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Jesus Christ is the High Priest and the Lamb of God. This is how we share in the blood of Christ and share in the body of Christ according to St. Paul. Jesus Christ also showed this is how we are to know Him.

"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread." Luke 24:35

Not ordinary bread or crackers. It is how we share in His sacrifice according to St. Paul. For God all things are possible.

 

Women's suffrate has no historical warrant in the first 100 or so years of the US.

It is called Appeal to Tradition and it can't be used as an argument. The argument itself must stand, not the fact that 'that is the way it was always done'.

I show you a picture of my wife and I say "this is my wife". What am I really saying? That the photo is actually my wife? She somehow transformed into a polaroid or something?

Thanks,
jason

 

Pulling verses that have the words "bread" and "body of christ" do not prove your point. You will need to actually show why those verses point to your conclusion. In other words, how are the verses you quoted even relevant? I read them and see nothing that states it is the actual body and blood of Christ.

Thanks,
jason

 

Jason:

Read all the verses in context. I can't do it for you.

"This is My Body, This is My Blood." Jesus Christ can not be more direct and clear. St. Paul explains that this is how we share in the blood of Christ. This is how we share in the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

You can't share in something that is not real.

John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Can you explain how the disciples recognized Jesus Christ in the breaking of the bread?

[ April 07, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

The text answers your question: Luke 24:31 1 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.

They recognized him because their eyes were opened. This recalls the comment of Christ to Peter that Flesh and blood has not revealed it to you but my Father who is in heaven. God is the one who reveals things by opening their eyes. It has nothing to do with the bread being his literal body.

While Catholics are fond of their position, they have never told us why no one in John 6 actually took Christ's words literally. They, standing right there hearing them, understood them to be figurative.

The disciples who understood very little until it was all over with did not question Christ on that night of the last supper. They saw perfectly well that it was not his actual flesh and blood because it was bread and wine. In fact, after Christ supposedly turns it into his actual blood, he still calls it "fruit fo the vine," so it is apparent that not even Christ thought it was his actual blood.

Everytime you see anything said about this in Scripture, it uses the term remembrance. It never speaks of it as literal. To do so would make no sense at all. Our union with Christ is a spiritual union, not a union gained by some mystical changing of the elements.

 

Pastor Larry:

Four verses below in Luke 24:35 it says He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread. Funny how you guys can’t “see” it. The disciples understood.

"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread ." Luke 24:35

 

Kathryn,

Every Christian has to determine where the emphasis is coming out of I Peter 3:21-22.

Here is the verse, 'The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrecton of Jesus Christ. Who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.'

In verse twenty Noah is saved from the water because of his obedience in building the ark and because he reverenced Almighty God. The contrast of the water in baptism is that we are saved through the water of baptism, which is not the removal of the grim of dirt from our fleshly bodies, but more importantly because of our faith in Jesus, here called, 'the answer of a good conscience toward God.' Because we believe in the resurrection , ascension and glorification of the Lord in Heaven on His throne, we are assured through His grace the sure hope of everlasting life. All good and evil angels and all worldly authorities are under His permissive will.

Noah had faith in the Lord long before he started to erect that flat boat called the ark. His obedience in the face of persecution, paid off when the destructive waters killed all of the lost souls. The water of baptism is not to frighten us but is to be welcomed, because we believe the Gospel, whether you believe baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament.

To my knowledge and remembrance Noah was not baptized or any of his family, but they did have supreme allegiance toward the Lord God Almighty, Who saved them physically from the deadly water and from the fiery punishment of the wicked.

The Greek scholar Dr. A.T. Robertson says, 'Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience.' {Hebrews 9:13}

Hebrews 9:12-14 says, 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth (only) to the purifying of the flesh; {the body} how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, {He shall} purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.'

Ray is saying, 'All of the ceremonial cleansing of water on the bodies and hands of the priests only affected the body not their soul and spirits. This was a reminder to them, the laity Israelites and to us that we, as Christians, need to present ourselves pure before God especially when we go to Divine worship. The water represents the 'blood of Christ which cleanses us from all sins.' [I John 1:9]

As I view this portion of Scripture, I believe the inner washing of the heart/soul comes first, and then the cleansing of baptismal water follows, as a picture of what His 'eternal redemption for us' [Hebrews 9:12] has accomplished.

The word, 'save' in I Peter 3:21 in the Greek is the word, (sozei) and is in the 'present active indicative tense' meaning that at some defining time in the past and on into the endless present and future, Jesus is going to save us. This is why John 3:16 calls His life given to us everlasting life. Also, I John 5:13 . . .

We are saved forever and not just until we commit a venial or mortal sin. Believe me, the Lord takes care of His own people and will not allow them to continue in sinning. If they will not obey His Word, the Bible, which is His guidance for us, then He intervenes with discipline/punishment/chastisement. {Hebrews chapter 12} We keep our endless life with Him now and above in Heaven, but He will deal with careless Christians when He decides to do so.

 

Protestants (and I am still officially one) have a bad habit of creating false dichotomies regarding Biblical truths. One of the prime examples of this is the reinterpretation of the sacraments--splitting in time the sign apart from the reality signified. For example, the Protestant believes that baptism and the Lord's supper are mere symbols which take place (with varying frequency depending on the denomination) after one "receives" Christ. However, the historical churches continue to take Christ at His word and teach that one receives Jesus by grace through faith in the waters of baptism and in the partaking of the Lord's Supper. Both these sacraments were ordained by God as means of receiving grace--indeed, of receiving HIM--and were not considered optional add-ons until the 16th century.

In other words, the typical Protestant (Lutherans and Anglicans would be among the exceptions) disconnects chronologically the sign from the spiritual reality signified, while historic Christianity (and the Bible) acknowledges that the spiritual reality takes place simultaneously with the sign. By God's grace we truly do die, are buried, and are resurrected with Christ in baptism, and we do partake in the one sacrifice of Christ at the Eucharist. The inward reality corresponds in time with the outward sign.

 

Sorry Ray. I believe in freewill. God does allow man to continue to sin. Christians can choose to reject God. Christians must persevere to the end. As far as baptism Jesus in the New Testament gave us one baptism, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". This is where we are born of water and the spirit into the New Covenant of His blood. We die with Him and rise with Him and are made a child of God. Repentance and believing is not good enough. Which is why John's baptism was not sufficient. The baptism Jesus gives is the baptism that gives the Holy Spirit and gives us a new life in Christ.

 

Kathryn,

That was not at dispute. But you missed the point. The text does not say what you think is should. The text only says that the breaking of the bread was when their eyes were opened. It says absolutely nothing about what the bread was, or what it's role was in opening their eyes. You are adding all of that in without biblical or theological merit. Plus, you still have all the other problems.

DT,

There is no such thing as a sacrament. Spiritual grace is not conveyed by material means. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are taught in Scripture as symbols. They are never said to convey actual grace. They are not considered optional add ons. But they do not contribute to spiritual grace.

There is not one verse in Scripture that teaches that teh spiritual reality takes place simultaneously with the sign.

We desparately need a return to the authority of Jesus Christ in his word rather than this continual pursuit of the doctrines of men.

 

As I showed before, when baptism occured at the moment of the person's conversion at the evangelistic rally (or whenever someone led him to Christ), you could see it that way. Now it has been separated in time from actual conversion by all churches, due to circumstances such as all the different denominations and sect, and each evangelist wanting to steer the peron to his particular group. Not by scriptural authority, granted, but unless the RCC (or Church of Christ, or anyone else teaching this) is going to start just baptizing people into Christ on the spot, you cannot take their name and address, send them away, set up membership classes, and then have them baptized at a ceremony who knows how much time (possibly weeks or months) afterward, and say they were not actually saved until that ceremony. They receive Christ, but then die before the ceremony, and are lost, because the ceremony is necessary for salvation. That would contradict "salvation by grace through faith, not of works" any way you look at it.

And that we "receive" him through communion as well, which is not a one time event marking conversion, but an ongoing ceremony? Then nobody is finally saved, but we constantly convert to Christ ("receive" Him) over and over again, but it is never enough. This too becomes strictly a works-salvation. Who can be saved, then? This is one reason RC's have no assurance, and say it is "presumptuous" to think one is saved. But what kind of "gospel" (good news) of "grace" is that? We might as well still be under the Law. Only difference is, we have jettisoned many Hebrew practices for gentile ones.

[ April 07, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Ray:

Ray: Please read the text carefully. It does not say only that the breaking of the bread was when their eyes were opened. A coincidence in time. It says:

"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread ." Luke 24:35

You can't get away from it. He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread . I am adding nothing.

 

Doubting Thomas,

You said, 'However, the historical churches continue to take Christ at His word and
teach that one receives Jesus by grace through faith in the waters of
baptism and in the partaking of the Lord's Supper. Both these sacraments
were ordained by God as means of receiving grace--indeed, of receiving
HIM--and were not considered optional add-ons until the 16th century.'

Probably Lutherans and Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration but a very high percentage of Protestants and other non-Catholics like Baptists, do not believe your statement above as being true.

Grace is what He does for us and in us by way of regeneration and justification. We are not saved by baptism or by kneeling at the table of the Lord. This is part of the Christian life which follows the sinners transformation by Jesus Christ. You paragraph above is merely Catholic propaganda and repeated tripe.

 

Ok...I'll be the first to say it:

So what? Is there some point you are trying to convey?

 

All that was saying was that the breaking of bread was when they recognized Him. They were talking to Him, and didn't know it until the mael when He disappeared. This says nothing about the bread and wine BEING Him. (If so, then you have His body twice at the same time!)