The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

Matt, I'd cautiously offer that, to one degree or another, both are correct. That is, I think a conservative interpretation of Scripture lends itself to a more sacramental view of the Eucharist and of baptism, but probably not going as far in interpretation and explanation as the episcopal-polity churches you've mentioned. Say, for example, the Reformed/Presbyterian position.

 

Lets start with exegesis for John 6. Take a close look at the details in the chapter.

#1. John 6 is not a communion service.

#2. John 6 does not say "some day in some future communion service My body will one day turn into real food".

#3. John 6 uses symbols "bread coming down from heaven". There were not actually watching bread fall from heaven nor were they watching Christ come down out of the sky.

#4. The FaithLESS disciples took Christ literally and walked away saying that they would have to bite him if that were true.

#5. The FaithFUL disciples did not try to bite Christ in John 6. It does not appear to even occur to them to try to drink His blood or to bite him in that entire chapter.

#6. In each emphasis by Christ on the point that His flesh ALREADY IS food and his blood ALREADY IS drink - He points out that the goal of someone eating and drinking it is to GAIN eternal life.

#7. Christ does NOT say "Someday in the future there will come a time when you will then need to get eternal life by eating my flesh - but not today". Rather in John 6 it is ALREADY the way of eternal life and if you are ALREADY not partaking then you don't HAVE eternal life - right then and there.

#8. Christ summarizes His OWN argument in the chapter by stating "literal flesh is worthless".

#9. The "lesson" the spiritual lesson for bread that comes down out of heaven (being emphasized in John 6) was already spelled out for Israel. The audience already knew what it was. Deut 8:3

#10. The USE of bread as the symbol for teaching is clearly spelled out in the gospels and the disciples were rebuked for taking it "too literally". Matt 16:11.


This John 6 chapter becomes the background and context for what you see happening at the FUTURE communion/Passover service because the teaching of John 6 was "already fact" at the time of John 6 - BEFORE the last supper.

True enough. But as you point out - the John 6 chapter IS the context for that truth.

The RCC takes this as a continual sacrifice that is in fact "OFFERRED" each Mass. But in Heb 10 we find that Christ's sacrifice was "OFFERRED ONCE FOR ALL" and puts a stop to all sacrifices.

OF course our Catholic friends are correct to say that their version is a real SACRIFICE and is REALLY OFFERRED each time they do it - no matter what Heb 10 says to the contrary. They have in fact "another" idea going there.

In the Faith Explained they spell out the "Significance" of the implication of their error if in fact they are as wrong as Heb 10 would make it appear.

eucharist is “idolatry” according to the RCC.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

I am inclined to agree with them on the seriousness of the error - should the Bible turn out to be correct and the RCC wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Normally" - Next would come a long detailed post looking at John 6 verse by verse.

But a few reference texts may do instead --

So what IS the symbol of BREAD about in John 6??

So you know what that means? Nobody was taking a bite out of Christ's arm that day!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am in complete agreement with Paul in his letter to Timothy and with Paul in Acts 20 where he makes it clear that error was already making its way into the church and that upon his departure it would come in "from among your own selves".

So I have no doubt at all that errors of the type were creeping in during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I think some of those early sources show that point in true living color.

Notice that in the case of John 6 - Christ is FIRST trying to disabuse the faithLESS disciples of their incessant concern for "literal bread" as they came seeking it right after the feeding of the 5000. They then jump onto "another" error and LEAVE. The fact that he does not disabuse them of that also after they left - is not too surprising.

There are a number of cases where the faithLESS are married to some negative view - and leave in the gospels - where Christ has not disabused them of all error before they leave.

In any case - Paul was 100% correct regarding his statement predicting error coming IN to the church "upon his departure".

As noted - Jesus rebuked the faithFUL disciples when they took the symbol "too literally" in Matt 16:11.

In John 6 you do not see them do that. In fact what you see is that Christ's statement about "literal flesh being worthless" is taken up by Peter who says "YOU have the WORDS of life".

Recall the 10 points. One of them is that the ENTIRE discussion was about "how to get ETERNAL life".

I think the 10 points are irrefutable and taken together they argue for one conclusion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is the literal flesh of Christ worthless?

 

If you are speaking of it in terms of "lunch" as in an afternoon 'snack' - then "yes" chewing on Christ would get you nothing. It would also have ended the Gospel story in John 6 -- before the Cross.

Christ is the one that summarized the point about "FLESH" -- and He does not say "of course the flesh of OTHERS is worthless only MINE can be taken as part of lunch and then get you eternal life".

Instead of doing that - He addresses the LITERAL view of flesh in its ENTIRETY saying "FLESH is worthless".

A more devastating case against the RC view could not have been made.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm not sure I understand your reply. Either the literal flesh of Christ is worthless or it isn't. Which is your position?

 

Of course if the faithLESS had STAYED to hear Christ's summary statement that literal "FLESH IS worthless" they could have been disabused of their error and seen that there was no need to take knife and fork to Christ - because He was not talking about that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I said --

As Christ said --

Please let me know what part of those statements is confusing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I find the entirely of your reply confusing. Perhaps the fault lies with me. In that case, would you mind just choosing one of the following as a statement of your position?

1) The flesh of Christ is worthless.
2) The flesh of Christ is not worthless.

I'm sure I would understand your answer if you simply said "One" or "Two". Thanks!

 

Matt (and others),

I'd like to toss something into the pot that I don't see discussed in relation to the Eucharist. The claim among symbolic-only Christians is that the Eucharist was understood by early Christianity to be symbolic, but then at some point the entire Church was converted over to the Real Presence understanding, where it remained until some Christians in the West reasserted the symbolic-only understanding during the Reformation (and even moreso afterwards).

What I think is overlooked in this theory is that there is no history to back up such an assertion, that the entire Church (not just the Roman Catholics, but also the Orthodox) was somehow changed in one of its most fundamental beliefs. Considering the reaction against the Real Presence expressed by symbolic-only Christians over the last 500 years, what would have been the reaction if the entire symbolic-believing Church had been forced (by whom, BTW?) to adopt the contrary Real Presence belief. One does not turn the entire Church upon its head over such a fundamental item of belief without repercussions, and without any historical evidence of such a change. Where did the change start? How did it spread? What did the opposition do as it spread? How did a local heresy (in the view of the symbolic-onlys) manage to infect the entire Church, and to infect it without any evidence of such a change? How is it possible that the entire Christian world believed "A" at one point, and believed the conflicting (and "heretical") "B" at another point, and we have no historical documentation of such a change?

 

One would expect that a "heresy" would grow over a few hundred years, and that a Council would have been called to address it. Whatever conclusion the Council then reached would be disputed, with bloodshed (we Christians are, after all, a bloodthirsty lot when we are "wronged"), for a couple of decades.

Nicea and the Arian heresy is a good example.

That being said, I can't recall any council over the nature of the Eucharist. Kind of speaks for itself...

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Please let me know what part of those statements is confusing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Got it. (Though I am suprised that though you speak in complete multi-word sentences to me -- you need a one word sentence to understand the answer).

1. Biting literal flesh - is pointless for gaining eternal life - rather 63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE spirit and ARE Life.

2. Actually Biting Christ during the John 6 disucssion was the only way to have eternal life. His literal FLESH when bitten would literally produce eternal life right then and there -- no symbolism is being used. He came down from heaven as literal bread and then when literally bitten his flesh literally produces eternal life.

And the "answer is".... ONE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually as Christ said - "as often as you

So "instead" of a memorial - eventually this became an actual SACRIFICE - OFFERRED each time that it is SACRIFICED with a priest having the magical-saramental POWERS to (as the RCC says) CONFECT GOD!

And the question is - just HOW did that error evolve over time??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am inclined to agree with them on the seriousness of the error - should the Bible turn out to be correct and the RCC wrong.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

OK, now I comprehend. You believe that the flesh of Christ is worthless. Perhaps I couldn't understand before because I found the answer so startling coming from a Christian. But you have cleared things up for me perfectly.

 

Yes, that is my question. How did the entire Church move from truth to falsehood, without a trace of evidence that such a move ever took place, and without any recorded opposition or dissent?