1 Corinthians 11:29-30

[Absalom]

To whom does Augustine belong? We can argue over him all day long. I still maintain that it is silly to say that Augustine had only a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. The passages quoted above by myself and others show that. I can quote passages like the ones sandusky has cited, and taken alone (in other words, out of context) suggest that Augustine had a merely symbolic understanding of it. But you have to reconcile those passages with the ones quoted above and others.

One thing that should be considered is that when Augustine was writing, discussions of the Eucharist were not tainted with the overtones they now have. Catholics approach those discussions with the attitude, "The Eucharist is the Body and Blood and I’m going to prove it!" and Protestants approach it with the attitude, “It’s symbolic! Jesus wouldn’t ask us to be cannibals!” Augustine would not have approached it in such a way, and thus would not feel the need that we all feel to be impeccably clear on his position.

Also, as a friend of mine pointed out to me, another thing that seems pertinent here is this idea of figurative language and Jesus’ use of it. Jesus can say, “I am x,” and then he can say “X is me.” The latter of the two, when you stop to think about it, is a strange way of using a metaphor. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the doorway,” we understand automatically that he is using a metaphor, but when he says, “This is my body,” we know that he is making a different kind of statement.

 

[sandusky]

Absalom!:

Also, as a friend of mine pointed out to me, another thing that seems pertinent here is this idea of figurative language and Jesus’ use of it. Jesus can say, “I am x,” and then he can say “X is me.” The latter of the two, when you stop to think about it, is a strange way of using a metaphor. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the doorway,” we understand automatically that he is using a metaphor, but when he says, “This is my body,” we know that he is making a different kind of statement.

There is no “strange way of using a metaphor.”

It only becomes strange when you insist that it is not what it is.

A metaphor is a figure of speech; it is a grammatical construction; it is: a IS b.

The key to the metaphor is the verb. The metaphorical construction a IS b, is normally understood by the brain to be symbolic.

In other words, a IS b, is understood to mean a REPRESENTS b. This is basic language.

As far as your friends idea that “I am X,” is different from “X is me,” is completely wrong. Both are metaphors.

Remember, the key to the metaphor is the verb, and the verb is always “to be,” or AM. This is language. AM and IS, are the same verb.

Here is the conjugation:

I AM
You ARE
He/she/it IS

AM, ARE, and IS are the same verb!

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

There is no “strange way of using a metaphor.”

It only becomes strange when you insist that it is not what it is.

A metaphor is a figure of speech; it is a grammatical construction; it is: a IS b.

The key to the metaphor is the verb. The metaphorical construction a IS b, is normally understood by the brain to be symbolic.

In other words, a IS b, is understood to mean a REPRESENTS b. This is basic language.

As far as your friends idea that “I am X,” is different from “X is me,” is completely wrong. Both are metaphors.

Remember, the key to the metaphor is the verb, and the verb is always “to be,” or AM. This is language. AM and IS, are the same verb.

Here is the conjugation:

I AM
You ARE
He/she/it IS

AM, ARE, and IS are the same verb!

That’s nice and all, however Jesus said (and He repeated Himself many times) TRULY, TRULY this is my body…etc. “Truly” He says! They knew what He was saying that’s why they all left Him (except for the 12.) He didn’t clarify Himself when they all took Him literally - that’s because that is how He meant it.

 

[Pax]

Absalom!:

Also, as a friend of mine pointed out to me, another thing that seems pertinent here is this idea of figurative language and Jesus’ use of it. Jesus can say, “I am x,” and then he can say “X is me.” The latter of the two, when you stop to think about it, is a strange way of using a metaphor. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the doorway,” we understand automatically that he is using a metaphor, but when he says, “This is my body,” we know that he is making a different kind of statement.

The Protestant argument of comparing Jesus metaphorical speech in John 10:7 “I am the door” with His Discourse on the Bread of Life[John 6] proves nothing for their case. In fact, it is self defeating. Putting John 10:7 in its larger context demonstrates why. The verses that demonstrate this are as follows:

John 10:6-9
This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.”

Check out the first verse of the passage. John explicitly tells us that Jesus is using a figure of speech. Some translations use the words parable, allegory, similitude, or illustration. Now this metaphorical speech is rather easily identified even if John didn’t directly tell us that it’s figurative. John 6 uses very graphic and literal language and in no way appears metaphorical. The disciples took Jesus literally because the language is literal. Furthermore, we are not told that they misunderstood Jesus or that they didn’t understand him as was pointed out in John 10:7.

John would realize, just as we realize, that the passages in the Discourse do not appear to be metaphorical. The apostle would not tell us that the more obvious metaphor of John 10:7 is a metaphor while neglecting to tell us that something that seems literal (John 6) is actually metaphorical. This would simply destroy the perspicuity of scripture and make exegesis impossible. Moreover, the topic in the Discourse is simply too important to leave any confusion.

The facts indicate that there is no confusion or doubt. Jesus spoke literally and graphically and the disciples understood exactly what He meant. Jesus did not correct them and tell them that they misunderstood. The apostle, John, does not indicate that the disciples misunderstood. Moreover, the apostle doesn’t say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in this very important part of scripture while pointing out that he was doing so elsewhere.

Couple all of this with Jesus words at the Last Supper “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood.” Then factor in Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11 and you have an air tight case for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

You have made a number of statements but you are not giving us an exegetical refutation of our position.

You are correct. I was not attempting to refute, but rather to exegete, explain.

Pax:

You might also consider the fact that at the marriage feast of Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. Then just before the Discourse on the bread of Life, Jesus feeds the five thousand and further demonstrates what he can do with food. This is almost immediately followed by Jesus walking on the water. With this miracle Jesus demonstates what he can do with his body. Jesus was leading the disciples and preparing them for the great gift of the Eucharist. Moreover, in the Discourse Jesus compares his promised miracle of the Eucharist to the miracle of the manna in the desert and then to his ascension[see John 6:62]. It is clear that what he is promising is a miracle of greater proportions than either the manna or the ascension. The miracle is the Eucharist.

You have mentioned five miracles in your post above, and I have listed them below:

1. Miracle of the water to wine
2. Miracle of feeding the 5,000
3. Miracle of walking on water
4. Miracle of the Manna
5. Miracle of the Eucharist

Miracle # 1 is the water to wine. This is true transubstantiation, witnessed by His mother and the apostles.

Miracle #2 is the feeding of the 5,000, witnessed by the 5,000 and the apostles.

Miracle #3 is the walking on water, witnessed by the apostles who watching from the boat

Miracle #4 the Miracle of the Manna, witnessed by the Israel in the desert

Miracle #5 the Miracle of the Eucharist, witnessed by no one, because, we are told, it cannot be seen.

There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner.

 

[sandusky]

Millardo:

Bingo! Sandusky, you’re losing ground very fast

Yes, Millardo, I feel it slipping out from under me.
Millardo:

Now, as for John 6 itself, the Protestant argument claims that it hinges on Jesus’ words: it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is no avail. If that’s the Protestant’s defense, it’s a very poor one:

This statement tells me that you have not read my posts carefully on this thread, therefore I will direct you to the posts in which this is not even mentioned, Post # 23, and where I do explain my understanding of the it, Post # 42.

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

You are correct. I was not attempting to refute, but rather to exegete, explain.

You have mentioned five miracles in your post above, and I have listed them below:

1. Miracle of the water to wine
2. Miracle of feeding the 5,000
3. Miracle of walking on water
4. Miracle of the Manna
5. Miracle of the Eucharist

Miracle # 1 is the water to wine. This is true transubstantiation, witnessed by His mother and the apostles.

Miracle #2 is the feeding of the 5,000, witnessed by the 5,000 and the apostles.

Miracle #3 is the walking on water, witnessed by the apostles who watching from the boat

Miracle #4 the Miracle of the Manna, witnessed by the Israel in the desert

Miracle #5 the Miracle of the Eucharist, witnessed by no one, because, we are told, it cannot be seen.

There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner.

First off, you are incorrect about “true transubstansiation” (in regards to the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana - water/wine)…but here I want to address another issue; so you are saying that for us to have faith in something that we need to see it?!? That’s a misunderstanding of faith as well.

 

[edmondhall]

There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner.

Jesus speaking to Thomas after the resurrection: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (John 20:31)

Have you abandoned the attempt to show the Church Fathers endorsed and taught the Protestant understanding that the Eucharist is merely and only a symbol?

 

[kaycee]

sandusky:

Miracle #5 the Miracle of the Eucharist, witnessed by no one, because, we are told, it cannot be seen.

There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner.

Excellent point. All biblical miracles were undeniable in human terms.

 

[Absalom]

sandusky:

There is no “strange way of using a metaphor.”

It only becomes strange when you insist that it is not what it is.

A metaphor is a figure of speech; it is a grammatical construction; it is: a IS b.

The key to the metaphor is the verb. The metaphorical construction a IS b, is normally understood by the brain to be symbolic.

In other words, a IS b, is understood to mean a REPRESENTS b. This is basic language.

As far as your friends idea that “I am X,” is different from “X is me,” is completely wrong. Both are metaphors.

Remember, the key to the metaphor is the verb, and the verb is always “to be,” or AM. This is language. AM and IS, are the same verb.

Here is the conjugation:

I AM
You ARE
He/she/it IS

AM, ARE, and IS are the same verb!

I am so very grateful for your explanation of what a metaphor is, and also for your enlightening discussion of the “to be” verb. However, I might have not made myself clear enough. Since I am perfectly aware of all of the forms of “to be” (although I am infinitely more clear on the matter thanks to your top-notch explanation), it should become obvious that my point was not that “am” and “is” are two different verbs.

When a person uses a metaphor in which they compare themselves to another object, it is more common for him/her to say that he/she is x. It is less common for someone to say x is me.

But thanks for the tip!

 

[michaelgazin]

The problem with the 1 Cor. 11 passage from a symbolic point of view is back to the use of discernment. If the bread that Paul speaks of is merely a symbol, then how do we determine which bread is plain bread to eat (without the fear of having to discern Jesus), and which bread is to be viewed symbollically? Does bread become a symbol simply whenever the believer says it is (with the ability to bring sickness to those lacking proper discernment), or is it when someone else says it is?

So, which bread can I eat without worrying about becoming sick? Now, if the bread only becomes a symbol, with physical effects for abuse, whenever I declare it is (through remembering the Last Supper), it becomes completely illogical to warn of discernment. A person does not declare, “this bread here is a symbol of our Lord,” and then proceed to lack discernment regarding that personal declaration. If the bread becomes a symbol when the believer says so, discernment automatically follows. If the believer lacks discernment, then can that particular bread rightly be deemed a symbol, if the believer itself is the one who determines when the bread is a symbol and when it is just an ingredient in sandwich making?

That seems to create quite some logical inconsistency.

I have a loaf of Mrs. Baird’s bread on the counter right now (Texas Toast). Must I discern that it is a symbol of Jesus’ sacrifice when I eat the pb&j sandwich? What if I intentially take a slice of bread out with the intention of recalling the Last Supper and Christ’s sacrifice? Then must I discern that it is a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ? This is where the inconsistency lies. If my intention was to recall Christ’s sacrifice, then my discernment automatically follows, as it was my choice to partake of this communion at this time, and if my discernment was lacking, I would not eat it with the intention of recalling Christ’s sacrifice.

Or is it only when the congregation declares a particular supply of bread to be understood as a symbol of Christ? If I eat of bread that someone else declared to be understood as a symbol, without discerning the symbolism, *then *do I eat and drink judgement opon myself?

 

[Pax]

kaycee:

Excellent point. All biblical miracles were undeniable in human terms.

This is simply not true. Let’s look at baptismal regeneration.

ACTS 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

JOHN 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

ROMANS 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

GALATIANS 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 PETER 3:21

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Please note that the washing of regeneration in baptism and the grace given by God are not visible, but they are clearly supernatural and therefore miraculous.

The forgiveness of our sins and our justification are not visible to the human senses, but they are miraculous nonetheless.

When the Holy Spirit comes upon someone by the “laying on of hands” there is no visible miracle, yet this is a miraculous event.

When we are given the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity there is no visible event yet these are supernatural and miraculous.

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

You are correct. I was not attempting to refute, but rather to exegete, explain.

You have mentioned five miracles in your post above, and I have listed them below:

1. Miracle of the water to wine
2. Miracle of feeding the 5,000
3. Miracle of walking on water
4. Miracle of the Manna
5. Miracle of the Eucharist

Miracle # 1 is the water to wine. This is true transubstantiation, witnessed by His mother and the apostles.

Miracle #2 is the feeding of the 5,000, witnessed by the 5,000 and the apostles.

Miracle #3 is the walking on water, witnessed by the apostles who watching from the boat

Miracle #4 the Miracle of the Manna, witnessed by the Israel in the desert

Miracle #5 the Miracle of the Eucharist, witnessed by no one, because, we are told, it cannot be seen.

There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner.

Please read my previous post and also consider the many other times in scripture when God dealt with his people in ways that disprove your point. How about the woman that came to Jesus and anointed him with perfumed oil. Jesus tells her that her sins are forgiven and he says that her faith has saved her. This is huge and the Jews took great umbrage with the Lord when He told them that he had the power to forgive sins. In the example of the woman there was no outward sign of a miracle, yet a miracle was performed.

Try studying “sanctification” in scripture. We are sanctified by the blood of Jesus[Hebrews 10:29] yet there is no visible sign of a miracle. In 1 Cor 2 Paul talks about discernment and the gifts of the Spirit. Christians do not see a miraculous sign when these gifts are typically given to them.

It simply isn’t logical or biblical to say that the true presence must be a “visible” miracle in order to be true. That is what faith is all about. We believe that which we cannot perceive with our senses. Try not limiting God and simply accept His holy and profound promises as He has given them to us.

 

[Pax]

If you have the doubters mind and require Eucharistic miracles then you can have that too. There are numerous miracles associated with the Eucharist that have been independently verified. Do some research on this if you feel the need for a miracle to substantiate the truth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

(Objection: The Eucharist is only a symbol.)

11:29 *For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. *

11:30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

You cannot bring judgement upon yourself from eating a symbol.

Why not, though ? The thing symbolised is what is “disrespected” - so judgement comes on those who act in so irreverent a manner. It’s a perfectly coherent position, I think. It may be mistaken - that doesn’t make it incoherent.​

The Ark of the Covenant was disrespectfully handled by Uzzah (2 Sam. 6) - so he died. That he died, does not make the Ark more than a symbol of the Presence of God. For the effects of the Presence of God, see the behaviour of the priests in 1 Kings 8: they “could not stand to minister, because of the Glory of the Lord.” Those effects are not recorded of the coming of the Ark to Jerusalem. Ergo, the Ark brought to Jerusalem was a symbol of God’s Presence - yet it killed nonetheless; or rather, it became an instrument of God’'s displeasure, without itself being more than an object of gold, wood, etc.

Therefore, God can do through things which are symbols - rather than the realities symbolised - what He can do through those realities symbolised; He can make them instruments of blessing or displeasure, according as they are (or are not) discerned to be instruments of His Presence to bless or to execute His wrath. Which is why discernment is needed: although the bread and wine are bread and wine, yet they are blessed to God’s service according to His Will. As a result, they symbolise the Lord’s Presence, so they must be reverently dealt with, and not treated as though they were being used for common purposes. To suppose that they are common bread and wine is to forget that they are set apart for this holy service of the worship of God; it is to fail to discern the Lord’s Body which they symbolise, and to fail to discern that the people who eat them are the Lord’s Body, His Church.The disorders for which St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians, may be an example - the main example ? - of failing to discern Christ’s Body. Either way, serious sin is committed.

If this is a possible interpretation, it may explain why the usual Catholic argument from this passage in 1 Cor. 11 is not always convincing. And why the Eucharistic docrine of some Christians is “dynamic” rather than “essentialist”.

That is one possible counter-interpretation: as he is talking about the Church in this letter and these chapters, to interpret “body” as “Church” is certainly attractive. IMO the question is whether “body-as-Church” is to replace, or is to go along side, “body-as-Substantial-Presence-of Christ”.

I’m just thinking aloud, so as to anticipate possible objections to the RC POV. ##

This context is talking about the bread and wine being Jesus’ body and blood. Webster’s Dictionary defines discern as, “to percieive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect.” (The other sense we possess is our Faith.) Partaking of the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Christ is a very serious offense against God. Some Bible translations state that you bring “condemnation” (judgement) upon yourself.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

The Protestant argument of comparing Jesus metaphorical speech in John 10:7 “I am the door” with His Discourse on the Bread of Life[John 6] proves nothing for their case. In fact, it is self defeating. Putting John 10:7 in its larger context demonstrates why. The verses that demonstrate this are as follows:

John 10:6-9
This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.”

Check out the first verse of the passage. John explicitly tells us that Jesus is using a figure of speech. Some translations use the words parable, allegory, similitude, or illustration. Now this metaphorical speech is rather easily identified even if John didn’t directly tell us that it’s figurative. John 6 uses very graphic and literal language and in no way appears metaphorical. The disciples took Jesus literally because the language is literal. Furthermore, we are not told that they misunderstood Jesus or that they didn’t understand him as was pointed out in John 10:7.

John would realize, just as we realize, that the passages in the Discourse do not appear to be metaphorical. The apostle would not tell us that the more obvious metaphor of John 10:7 is a metaphor while neglecting to tell us that something that seems literal (John 6) is actually metaphorical. This would simply destroy the perspicuity of scripture and make exegesis impossible. Moreover, the topic in the Discourse is simply too important to leave any confusion.

The facts indicate that there is no confusion or doubt. Jesus spoke literally and graphically and the disciples understood exactly what He meant. Jesus did not correct them and tell them that they misunderstood. The apostle, John, does not indicate that the disciples misunderstood. Moreover, the apostle doesn’t say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in this very important part of scripture while pointing out that he was doing so elsewhere.

Couple all of this with Jesus words at the Last Supper “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood.” Then factor in Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11 and you have an air tight case for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

What Pax is doing above is revealing a faulty hermeneutic.

It is Pax’s contention, that because John, in John 10:6-9, has told us that the Lord’s hearers did not understand him, in spite of the fact that He was clearly using figurative language, we must apply that same hermeneutic to John 6. One wonders if Pax believes that it should also be applied to other areas of figurative speech; why is it that Pax says that we should only apply it to John 6? What is so special to Pax about John 6?

I’ll leave the reader to ponder that.

Pax further explains, why, in his hermeneutic, we must understand John 6 as literal. He says it is because in John 6, Jesus uses *“very graphic and literal language,” * and that to Pax, the passage is, *“in no way metaphorical,” * and that the disciples *“took Jesus literally because the language is literal,” * and that the hearers understood Jesus as speaking literally because John didn’t point out that they misunderstood, “as was pointed out in John 10:7.”

That then, is Pax’s Hermeneutic.

Do the words, Stacking the Deck mean anything to you, Pax?

After reading Pax’s Hermeneutic closely, I must admit, that if I were to adopt it as my own, I would be Forced to believe in the RCC Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Pax ignores the fact that a melody of unbelief and misunderstanding is heard throughout this discourse, John 6:26-65. As I have a longer explanation elsewhere on this thread, I’ll condense it now.

The first note is struck in v26, when Jesus says, ”…you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” In that verse, the Greek word translated saw, is orao. In the context of the verse it means to perceive with the mind, or, to understand. What Jesus is saying then, is that they are not coming to Him because they understood the signs—the fact that He fed 5,000 of them by multiplying loaves and fishes—but because they were filled. In other words, they are seeking Him in a state of misunderstanding, namely, that He is not here to nourish them physically, but spiritually.

(cont)

 

[sandusky]

(cont from post #76

In v35, Jesus tells them that they must come to Him in order not to hunger, and they must believe in Him in order not to thirst. Coming and believing also indicates understanding what He is saying.

In v36 He tells them flat out that they do not believe, neither do they understand. It is clear that they have continued not to believe, and to misunderstand up to v43, because in vv 44-45, Jesus tells them why they don’t believe, and why they don’t understand. It is because they are not of God.

In v47, He again states the necessity of belief, one of the marks of which is understanding.

That they continue not to believe, and not to understand Christ’s discourse up to v65, is clearly stated in v64, when Jesus says, ”there are some of you who don’t believe me.” His apostles believe, and understand, except for Judas, as indicated by the fact that they do not leave Him, as the others do. This is how John tells us that those who left, left in the state of mind that they started with in v26: misunderstanding.

The Lord then explains that the those who left did so because it has not been granted by the Father for them to believe, nor to understand, as the two go hand in hand.

That is my understanding of the passage.

However, Pax says that my understanding is incorrect, and when his hermeneutic is applied, it is easy to understand why he says that.

From v53 to v 56, Pax’s Hermeneutic “stacks the deck.” Pax demands that at v53, we must abandon the melody of unbelief and misunderstanding that we have been listening to, until we reach v56. This, Pax tells us, is because John has not told us that there is any misunderstanding, as he told us in John 10:6-9.

Pax’s Hermeneutic continues to stack the deck, by further demanding that we are to understand the Lord’s words in vv53-56, as literal. The reason for this, Pax tells us, is because Jesus uses “very graphic and literal language,” and because the language is “in no way metaphorical.” Pax, however, offers no explanation as to why the language is in no way metaphorical. I suppose the reason is just because Pax says so.

At the end of all of this, Pax’s theology states, that although we must eat the Lord’s literal flesh, we can only do that by eating bread, which not literal flesh, but which is a figure of speech the Lord uses concerning His person in vv35, 41, 50, 51.

To say that Pax’s Hermeneutic is confusing is charitable. But, because we are interested in truth, the truth is that Pax’s Hermeneutic is so biased, and so prejudiced toward his position, that I wonder how it is that he can set it forth without being embarrassed.

And yet, Pax’s calls it, an airtight case.

But using a hermeneutic that ignores the grammar, and figures of speech clearly contained in a text, thereby stacking the deck in favor of one’s position, is anything but airtight. It is simply arriving at a previously held belief by stacking the deck.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

This is simply not true. Let’s look at baptismal regeneration.

ACTS 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

JOHN 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

ROMANS 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

GALATIANS 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 PETER 3:21

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Please note that the washing of regeneration in baptism and the grace given by God are not visible, but they are clearly supernatural and therefore miraculous.

The forgiveness of our sins and our justification are not visible to the human senses, but they are miraculous nonetheless.

When the Holy Spirit comes upon someone by the “laying on of hands” there is no visible miracle, yet this is a miraculous event.

When we are given the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity there is no visible event yet these are supernatural and miraculous.

No visible sign in regeneration? Don’t be silly! I am not as I was before I believed, and I have seen the same change in others after they believe. That is an outward manifestation of the miracle.

It sounds as though you have not experienced that transformation? If not, I would wonder why if I were you.

And baptism is not required for regeneration, but after one has repented, and believed.

 

[sandusky]

Absalom!:

I am so very grateful for your explanation of what a metaphor is, and also for your enlightening discussion of the “to be” verb. However, I might have not made myself clear enough. Since I am perfectly aware of all of the forms of “to be” (although I am infinitely more clear on the matter thanks to your top-notch explanation), it should become obvious that my point was not that “am” and “is” are two different verbs.

When a person uses a metaphor in which they compare themselves to another object, it is more common for him/her to say that he/she is x. It is less common for someone to say x is me.

But thanks for the tip!

Forgive me if my post sounded condescending, I thought that you did not understand that am and is are the same verb, which is very common these days, but you have shown me that I was wrong.

And a metaphor, no matter how it is phrased, is still a metaphor. And I believe that the H.S. knows what a metaphor is also, and that He uses them where He does for a reason. I believe that had He a literal understanding in mind, He would have had the writer record it that way.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Please read my previous post and also consider the many other times in scripture when God dealt with his people in ways that disprove your point. How about the woman that came to Jesus and anointed him with perfumed oil. Jesus tells her that her sins are forgiven and he says that her faith has saved her. This is huge and the Jews took great umbrage with the Lord when He told them that he had the power to forgive sins. In the example of the woman there was no outward sign of a miracle, yet a miracle was performed.

How do you know that? You are assuming that there was no change in her life, but you cannot know that for sure, because you have not known her personally.

Pax:

Try studying “sanctification” in scripture. We are sanctified by the blood of Jesus[Hebrews 10:29] yet there is no visible sign of a miracle. In 1 Cor 2 Paul talks about discernment and the gifts of the Spirit. Christians do not see a miraculous sign when these gifts are typically given to them.

The outward sign of sanctification is change. The outward sign of reception of the gifts of the Spirit is their use within the Body, and the manifestation of change should be seen in the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22ff)…

Pax:

It simply isn’t logical or biblical to say that the true presence must be a “visible” miracle in order to be true. That is what faith is all about. We believe that which we cannot perceive with our senses. Try not limiting God and simply accept His holy and profound promises as He has given them to us.

I have never tried to limit God, because I cannot.

In all humility, Pax, you misunderstand some things here that you should know. You make too many assumptions about what is happening in the texts, and they color your understanding.

Doing that does not help your understanding it only bolsters your position. You need to be willing to abandon your position, if you find it not to be the truth. My position is less important to me than understanding the truth, and I will abandon my position if I find it not to be in line with the truth.

Maybe you were tired when you posted today, or maybe you were having a bad day. If so, ignore what I’ve said.