Communion, is Christ truly present?

"Unfortunately, scripture does'nt detail explicitly how each and every baptism was performed." So we will blame our confusion on God, and come up with a man-made sacrament.

So now we have two or three baptisms--converts, infants and baptism in the Holy Ghost.

The scripture says: "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism".

Now what?

God is not the author of confusion.

The answer to the definition of "baptism" somehow meaning washing is this: "without the shedding of BLOOD, there is no remission of SIN."

Water does not equal blood in any typology.

Another minor point of order: Christ is a title, not a name. Jesus is the name.

Is Jesus' blood present in the communion?
No. It is sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven, and Jesus ever lives to make intercession--by virtue of His blood which was shed once for all.

He said, "It is finished". Why do we want to crucify Him daily?

Selah,

Bro. James

B

 

Scripture needs no interpretation--the interpretation/commandments of men cause confusion.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I see a description of what Baptism does, but I do not see anything that claims that it is merely a symbolic gesture. Rm 6 clearly states that in baptism we are joined, not we symbolicly re-inact.

 

Everything man does is symbolic--only God can forgive sin. Only God can save. All the glory goes to God. Man is depraved by nature--all of his righteousness is as filthy rags.

The rituals we perform and submit to are man-made--and therefore the works of men. They have no redeeming qualities of any sort.

That is what the grace of God is all about--He saved us, even while we were yet sinners.

In other words, we could eat and drink Christ every day and get baptized daily too, yet still go to hell.

Praise God for His grace, mercy and long suffering with all of us who think they are being saved by the acts of "pious" men.

There is only one redeemer and one intercessor: Jesus, not Jesus' Mother, or any other of the First Man, Adam.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

BobRyan:

You are right: there is no magic in the water or the bread and wine. Magic is based on an illusion created by the magician and accepted by the observer.

What our Lord promised in John 6 and in the narratives of the Last Supper and what the apostles taught and practiced is based on God's promise and is made real by the Holy Spirit. What our Lord said in John 6 is that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life thereby, that He is the Bread of Life, and that the bread he gives for the life of the world is His flesh. And Paul clearly says that those who eat and drink the sacrament unworthily are guily of profaning Christ's Body and Blood. There is no magic in any of that - - - - only God's promise. And what God promises, He does.

I don't get a knot in my knickers over how God does that. But I believe that what God says, He does.

Bro. James - - - - Where do you get the notion that everything man does is symbolic? Is that a Scriptural teaching? From the early church Fathers? And I wonder what rituals you are referring to. . . . . . A ritual is nothing more than the 'way we do something'. There is no magic or man-made power in a ritual. God's promise and the Holy Spirit's work, however, can use us and 'the way we do things' (the rituals, in your view) to accomplish His purposes. Isn't that the Scriptural teaching?

Alexander

 

As Peter (Pope Peter to some) said -- it is NOT the action of the water - but the PERSON's "appeal to God for a clean conscience" that saves. HE does NOT say "it is the Spirit moving upon an unthinking infant at the moment that the magic phrase or holy water touches the skin".

Yet that is the view that some have of the magical moment as OPPOSED to the PERSON who is to be baptized having made a PERSONAL appeal to God for a clean conscience. (Repentance and forgiveness).

It has been turned into -- "anything BUT that"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is true. In John 6 Christ states that HE IS ALREADY bread and that the bread ALREADY came down to earth and that they must ALREADY be eating that bread to live!

He does not put off obedience to some future point saying "I am NOT YET the bread of life but one day I WILL BE and THEN when THAT happens be sure to remember to eat Me".

HE does not put off the obedience saying "Some day in the future my blood will be available for drinking. Now you have eternal life WITHOUT doing that - but some day in the future you WILL have to drink my blood if you want eternal life".

Instead He says it is ALREADY true!

And He is right - because as HE points out "His WORDS ARE ALREADY Spirit and are LIFE" and as HE points out "Munching on literal flesh for eternal life is worthless"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just as Paul makes the case to the Corinthians saying that they are spiritually the body of Christ and Christ should not be joined to a prostitute. But is it CHRIST HIMSELF that has being immoral with that Prostitute -- really??!!

Paul makes the case again with demons and compares this to the Lord's table showing that it is JUST AS TRUE of Demons as of Christ!!

The symbols, service and worship applied to demons is the same as what we do for Christ so that "you are sharers in demons" as you are sharers in Christ when you partake of HIS emblems - symbols.

Symbols that "SHOW the Lord's death until He comes".

They do not "re-inact" or re-crucify or "continually sacrifice" Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

Your implication that they should have ate Jesus right their in John 6 if they believed his words is ridiculous, for the jews the sacrificial lamb was to be eaten after it is offered for sacrifice not before and in the upper room he offered himself up to the disciples and he gave us a way to participate in this sacrifice forever.

I suppose if someone like you were in Egypt before the passover you would have told the Jews to eat the lamb before the sacrifice, I am glad they didn't listen .

 

Bob,

Interesting how you add words to Scripture. Do you do that to make it fit your pre-conceived notions?

I've never seen a translation of John 6 with the word 'already' in the text. Where did you get that?

And this word 'symbol' that you keep using as the basis of your Eucharistic theology. Where do you find that in Scripture? I haven't seen any translation that uses the word 'symbol' in any of the accounts of the Last Supper. Did you add that to fit your pre-conceived theology of what you want (or need) the Eucharist to be?

Please deal with Paul's statement that those who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of desecrating Christ's Body and Blood. I suggest that one cannot desecrate our Lord's Body and Blood if the bread and wine are symbols only.

I'm not sure what you're trying to saying in your long quotes from Paul and accompanying comments. It seems to me that you are proving my point, not refuting it. Paul wants the Corinthian Christians to understand that eating meat in a temple that had previously been sacrificed to an idol is tantomount to joining oneself to demons. In the same manner, one shares Christ's body in the Sacrament. Simple, clear, straigt-forward teaching. Why must you overlay it with a late, Reformation-era theological interpretation that is foreign to both the teaching of Scripture and the universal practice and teaching of the church from apostolic times?

Alexander

 

Were that to be true, there would be no disagreements between Christians.

 

Satan came to Eve and "convinced her" that she misinterpreted God's Word. He convinced her that his view was "better".

In the Gospels we see that the Jewish religious authority (the TRUE authority of the ONE TRUE church pre cross) CONVINCED the people that THEIR interpretation of the Bible was right - and the Carpenter's views were wrong.

In the dark ages - the RCC authorities convinced RC followers to raise up armies and fight against each other - serving rival popes, each army comforted with promises of eternal life by each Pope if they died in papal.

When has it "ever been safe" to put your spiritual ear "on hold" and ignore the "Holy Spirit of truth" as HE speaks to EACH person and leads EACH one into truth?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Er...but He doesn't.

Otherwise <sigh> all Christians would interpret Scripture the same.

They don't.

Which suggests that the HS must have some other MO...

 

Back to Eve in the garden of Eden and that "free will" thing again - eh?

 

Notice that in Acts 17 - The apostles THEMSELVES are to be "judged" by the WORD and by those that are NOT even Christians!!

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

If even the NON-Christian is equipped by God to validate that the Word of God is supporting or rejecting the Word of an Apostle - how much more The Christian.

But free will overtakes them all.

As I said - when was it ever safe to place it in the hands of another sinful human instead of the Holy Spirit?

Which papal army would you have joined? How could you "know for certain" you were killing the right catholics once you aligned with one of the Popes?

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all I agree that this is not a problem unique to Catholics. Everybody faces the same thing. We all have our own "magesterium" telling us "we are right and everybody else is wrong".

There is nothing new there.

WE also "all" have our own sinful nature telling us to "look for the easy road - the most convenient set of rules".

Nothing new there either.

But God is not "bound" by either of those problems. He steps in and says "Nevertheless - I WILL send My Holy Spirit to convict THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment AND HE WILL lead you into all truth". John 16.

So if I am A Jew listening to my Sabbath school teacher and priest telling me that the Carpenter from Nazareth is all wrong -- I certainly have 'an excuse' for turning away from Him - but God is not bound by that situation. He sends His Holy Spirit TO ME anyway.

And when I hear Paul speaking in Acts 17 - I can STILL "Study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"

In my previous post I showed the problem of just "believing whatever you are told by your own magesterium" using the RCC historically as the example since those that appeal to the Magesterium to settle doctrinal questions sometimes "pick that one".

But the argument that you have made - would indicate that 'no Jews SHOUlD" have ignored their own magesterium and chosen the Carpenter because all "Should" have been equally confused on whether to listen to the Holy Spirit or their own Priests - right?

In Christ,

Bob

 

True - but look at the Church in Rev 12. She is a pure woman - the saints of God and she gives birth to the Messiah and then is persecuted for 1260 years.

The pure church BEFORE the cross are the saints the true followers of God (we see a few of them in Heb 11). The fact that God protects and guides the church did not mean that the "official magesterium" of that church would not fail. They did fail.

Anyone clinging to the external structures of the church instead of individually following God -- would be in a for a rude awakening.

That is also true and has been through all of time. Any decision you make would likely be greeted by "somebody" you know as the wrong one. In the end it is still an issue of the "Reliability of scripture" and of God in making it known to you.

My argument is that IF non-Christians are "approved" for "Studying the scriptures to SEE IF those things told to them by the Apostle Paul" were true - how much MORE you and I?! How much MORE should Christians trust in the reliability of God's Word and of God's Spirit of Truth?!

Does that mean that when we do that - the result will be that all of our friends, family and church leaders will agree with whatever truth we find? It has never meant that before - I don't see how it could start meaning that now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But the approach outlined above Bob gives rise to a pluriformity of epistemologies.