A Protestant Interpretation of John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter ecstasyofavila
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tgGodsway said:
To Steve b
I’ve been educating myself to this in-house debate over the Eucharist. There are at least 5 different interpretations to the same passages found throughout the centuries. I thought there were only two. I was wrong. (1) There is the Roman Catholic view (2) The Orthodox view (3) The Lutheran view (4) The Reformed and Presbyterian view (5) And Non-Reformed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
The 39 articles, AFAIK, are not taken in Anglicanism like, say, the Augsburg Confession is in Lutheran. In the APA, I have been taught the real presence, else I would of be a member.

I have heard Anglicans happily speak of Transubstaniation.
Click to expand...
So you are saying…it is a pick and choose as you want sytem of beliefs?

How is this any better than the Lutheran church you left?
 
JonNC said:
Which is:

“The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth a body united with divinity, not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into the Lord’s body and blood. Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.”
Click to expand...
I didn’t find that quote from St. John of Damascus (Damascene).

Do you by chance have the actual reference?
 
Anyone who participates in the Lord’s supper unworthily, such as in the case of the Corinthians who drank the cup of the Lord while at the same time drank of the cup of demons, their conscience not stopping them, places themselves in danger of death.

Paul said, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful, all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” If Paul can drink from a defiled cup and his conscience not bother him, he’s free to do so! But it wouldn’t strengthen anyone who sees him do it.

You may be reading it as if it is literally Christ who was violated in the Eucharist bread. Christ was violated! but not literally. This was not a sin of the flesh, it was a sin of the spirit and the conscience.
 
tgGodsway said:
Anyone who participates in the Lord’s supper unworthily, such as in the case of the Corinthians who drank the cup of the Lord while at the same time drank of the cup of demons, their conscience not stopping them, places themselves in danger of death.

Paul said, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful, all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” If Paul can drink from a defiled cup and his conscience not bother him, he’s free to do so! But it wouldn’t strengthen anyone who sees him do it.

You may be reading it as if it is literally Christ who was violated in the Eucharist bread. Christ was violated! but not literally. This was not a sin of the flesh, it was a sin of the spirit and the conscience.
Click to expand...
Your vocabulary is wrong. Sins of the flesh refer to sexual sins.
 
tgGodsway said:
Steve b.

I DID listen to the link you provided Steve b …. By Dr. Scott Hahn.

Honestly, it sounded like double talk at first but as I paid close attention I could see what he was trying to suggest. But the cross WAS an execution for the Jews. They in no way saw Him as their Passover Lamb.

Reason being, they did not believe in Him, nor understood John the Baptist’ words about Him. Secondly for them a Passover lamb was a literal lamb, yet John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, figuratively. He knew something the other Jews didn’t know. A change was about to happen. God was no longer speak naturally. He’s going to begin to speak spiritually. And unless you became spiritual you would be left out.

Again, knowing the figurative language of the New Testament, Jesus was not born as livestock. Nor did he turn into a Lamb through a special miracle by a priest.

He died as a man. But the imagery of the O.T. lamb pointed to a spiritual message only found in the New Testament. The offering of Christ as a Lamb was to be done in the way that an innocent male lambs die. Their blood was applied in the holy of holies.

I do not see any evidence that the eye witnesses standing at the Cross understood that He was the Passover lamb. This is something they could only understand later when the Holy Spirit enlightened them to it.

Mary saw him as her son, the disciples saw him as their Messiah, his brothers and sisters saw Him as their first-born brother. No one at that time was saying he was the Lamb of God with the exception of John the Baptist who had already died.

Mr. Scott Hahn also said, … if the Eucharist is just a meal, then Calvary was an execution. … but if the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the New Covenant, then and only then is Calvary more than an execution it is the consummation of the sacrifice of the new covenant Lamb.

YES BUT ONLY IF THE LORD’S TABLE IS THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. The Eucharist was a meal!.. but it was a meal to be offered as a memorial of His death, when they celebrated it. To go beyond this, is to impose on the author’s intent.
.
Click to expand...
As Aquinas said

To one who has faith no explanation is necessary, but to one who has no faith no explanation is sufficient.

You’ve been given the answer multiple times.

BTW have you been baptized?
 
pablope said:
To Steve b

How do you determine which is an Apostolic Church and which is not?

Can you name an apostolic church, if you think the RCC and any of Orthodox Church are not apostolic?
Click to expand...
tgGodsway was having trouble with the following information he was given

Re: the Catholic Church, as in Acts 9:31 the ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς , as in the church throughout all , or the Church according to the whole, from the Greek study bible

The origen of the Catholic Church came from Jesus and His apostles + a complete union with Peter (no division from Peter) .

I shoed him THAT is what Jesus said He is building for our salvation on Peter, and those in union with him, as does the consequence for those outside This Church, of which, (division from) there is no salvation.

That answer I showed him, is right out of Scripture + Tradition, + the constant teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top