The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

I believe that if you will just study these few verses below TOGETHER, you will be able to see what is meant when Jesus said for us to eat His body and drink His blood. 1Cor:2:13: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."


John 6:
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me

John 4:34: Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

(Notice that in Luke 6:47-47 just before Jesus said you must eat His body and drink His blood, He had already explained what it meant... which is to hear His sayings and to DO them)
Luke 6:
47: Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jer:15:16: Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart

Ephesians 5:
25. ...as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Deut:8:3: And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Thats the key. Eating the body of Christ, "the Bread" means eating His every WORD... the entire Word of God...
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus Himself IS the Word or God, He came to show us the Father. Jesus lived by every word of His Father and so too are we to live by every word of Christ... thus we eat His body and drink His blood.. we eat the Bread of Heaven. Not just keep everything OUTWARDLY as the Pharisees did... outwardly beautiful but "inwardly full of corruption and dead mens bones."

--------

Claudia Thompson
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

[ April 05, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

Matt Black, following up on your comments: as you say, the early Church did successfully battle many heresies, but we are supposed to believe that at the very same time it was identifying and defeating various heresies it was not only succumbing to other heresies, but doing so without ever recognizing them. The early Church never displayed the sympoms of one infected by a gradually spreading disease. It never showed signes of recognizing the disease and fighting back, even if it was eventually to lose the fight. No, the entire Church just went from truth to heresy not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but without even a peep.

As tragic_pizza says, we should expect Councils and wars, vehement denouncements and excommunications, followed by counter-denouncements and counter-excommunications, from this period. But what we actually get is nothing. We have a useful counter-example in the Reformation, where there is no lack of historical evidence of the theological and physical battles that took place at that time.

 

What does the papacy have to do with this subject? The Orthodox Church(es) have the same belief (the same "senseless mummery", you might say) while at the same time rejecting the papacy as the west understands it.

As some of us here have been asking for historical evidence of this great cataclysm of heresy, when the entire Church was forced from truth into vile error, perhaps you can point us to the evidence of the spread of this disease within the early Church. Fundamental changes on such a scale do not happen without leaving a trace of their passage (see, e.g., the great masses of evidence regarding what happened during the Reformation).

 

No different than indulgences to pay for St. Peter's Basilica.

 

No different than indulgences to pay for St. Peter's Basilica. </font>[/QUOTE]The difference is that a fellow named Luther did object, and others agreed with his objection, and we have evidence of all that followed. In the example of indulgences we have clear documentation of error confronted. In the (hypothetical) example of the rise of the Real Presence heresy, we have no such documentation of error confronted.

And I think nobody would dispute that the "Real Presence heresy" was a much more fundamental issue then indulgences, and should therefore have resulted in much greater convulsions within the Church as it spread.

BTW, unlike the "Real Presence heresy", I don't believe the Eastern Church ever had an indulgence problem, did it? So the indulgence problem was localized, unlike the "Real Presence heresy" which infected the entire Church.

 

I didn't realize this. I did a bit of searching and found this summary: "On indulgences, the issue which ignited the Lutheran explosion, the council abolished indulgence sellers and decreed that the giving of alms was never to be the necessary condition for gaining an indulgence."

Interesting...

 

Only if you had your pulse on every document in every location for all of NT time.

(Which is not "likely").

What is "more likely" is that errors that evolve leave evidence in documents - that SHOW the evolution.

The current mass can not be found at all in the NT.

The earliest recorded communion format and words spoken outside of the NT are nothing like the Mass - (and THIS as recorded by CATHOLIC historians!!). Pretty much a free-for-all.

Also CATHOLIC historians maintain that they DID NOT HAVE PRIESTS in the NT and that the leaders HAD NO sacramental POWERS (to CONFECT God for example) - but served the role of "Bible teacher".

It was only AFTER the evolution of the errors of the magical-POWERS-of-sacraments came in that the DIVISION was created between the sacred clergy (with Powers) and the profain laity. (And THIS - according to CATHOLIC historians!)

So what exactly do you think you "have working for you" here?

Having failed to make the point from history - why keep abandoning the "details" in John 6?

In fact the church was struggling to do that.

In Gal 4 we see paganism being swallowed up by the paganst-turned-Christians in Galatia to the point that Paul said "I fear lest you were converted in vain!".

In 1Timothy 1 - Paul says that the entire REASON that Timothy had to stay behind at Ephesus was JUST to keep a lid on the fires of doctrinal error that were springing up like weeds!

Your "no errors got in by the 2nd century idea" is not "verifiable" in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My point is that if you look at the John 6 text "details" - the symbols are clearly taught there and ALSO in Matt 16 showing that "bread" referes to teaching and the "bread that comes down out of heavne" Deut 8 is spiritually the teaching that "man does not live by bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God" ... etc

If you look at the specifics above from Tertullian and Clement - they claim the John 6 statements were "symbolism" and "metaphore". See the above quotes.

If you looka at what even RC historians THEMSELVES say are the first recorded "words" and "process" for communion -- (outside the Bible) THEY ALSO do not say what the RCC says today.

Lacking ALL of that - where is the argument (based on intellectual and historic integrity) to say that the modern RCC view was in fact the view in John 6 or in the first century OR in the 2nd century??

What part of "Early Church" does the NT text not qualify for - or Tertullian or Clement?

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 06, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

My point is that if you take the "metaphor" and "symbolism" view of John 6 that the ECF quotes I gave show -- then the entire case for "transubstantiation" is removed from today's RCC argument. They could not use John 6 at all - and without John 6, the case they make is "hollow". I doubt that any RC member would try to get the doctrine to stand apart from John 6.

Neither can it be said that other churches promoting the "Real presence IN the food" would make the case if they were forced to conclude the SAME "Symbolism" and "metaphore" conclusions as posted above for John 6.

Do you know of any that do that?

Christ said it is a "memorial" not a "continual sacrifice".

Given the John 6 position - and given the details in John 6 as noted -- there was no way for the first century NT church (and anyone following Clement) to use John 6 to support that idea of food that is "confected into God".

My argument about "historic integrity" is that the error "evolved over time" given the statements of scripture and the ECF quotes I gave about John 6. It HAD to have "come about" over time so that today we see John 6 used "Without respect to the DETAILS listed in John 6) and "without resepect to the SYMBOLISM and Metaphor views of CLement and Tertullian".

Certainly "I" never read about the RCC promoting those 'Symbolism' and 'metaphor" views - and I also do not hear that coming from other non-RC churches that believe in the "real presence IN the food".

As for "The real presence" in Worship - All Christians believe in it. (Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in My name there I AM in your midst).

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS for the matter of Baptism --

Notice that the "details here" would only allow for believers Baptism in the first century - until enough error had evolved over time to get to anything else.

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

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

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

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

FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).

 

In the FE quote above - we see that you must CHOOSE to accept the gift for Baptism to have meaning.

In the Didache it is clear that the method is not only immersion - it is immersion in flowing water (a river or stream) and ONLY if that is not possible can you resort to pouring water.

But most devastatingly - the CD details a HISTORY for baptism where it EVOLVES to what the RCC practices today - FROM a very strict system for believers that EVEN the NT does not specify.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Clement, Ignatius and Justin Martyr are all 2nd century authors. I don't see your point.

The fact that both Clement and Tertullian still admit to and agree with the "inconvenient details" of John 6 would seem to state "historically" that the errors promoted today by the RCC regarding John 6 were not universally accepted during the 2nd century.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that it is not "I" who "claim" that Clement meant to say that in John 6 Christ is simply using "symbols and metaphors" it is CLEMENT that says it.

This means that you have inferred too much from the quote of Clement you are using - as this one "explicitly" addresses the point.

Turtullian makes the same case that I made - which is that the entire focus of the John 6 discussion was "what avails to eternal life" and Turtullian agrees that in that regard the literal flesh "is Worthless".

Turtullian ALSO makes the same case that I made about the "WORD became FLESH" as the symbol for bread and the connection to THE WORD as the real source of life - not literal bread and not biting Christ during the John 6 preaching!

Here again we see "inconvenient details" being highlighted by these ECF sources.

Many of the SAME "inconvenient details' that were already so obvious in the John 6 text - and were enumerated earlier in triplicate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ literally poured out His blood on the cross - as Clement notes. But Clement also affirms that this did NOT happen in John 6 and in John 6 Christ uses symbols and metaphors - He is NOT holding out an invitation for his listeners to bite him.

In Christ,

Bob