Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[Rightlydivide]

Maybe you’re missing my point here. I cannot believe that Christ, who visited with sinners, who took time to explain parables, prayed for those who persecuted Him, died for everyone, forgave Peter’s denial of Him and proved to Thomas He was the risen Christ so he would have no more doubts, let His disciples walk away from Him (get rid of to use your words) without explaining the symbolism you hold too.

They did not believe. They did not believe that he came down from heaven. They were not true believers. I think that perhaps we hold to different ideas about God’s way of doing things. Maybe not. Let me explain before you get offended Prodigal. I believe that the only way to get to heaven is through Christ. I do not believe that anyone but a Christian, not a Muslim, not a Buddhist, not an atheist, not a Hindu will inherit eternal life but will burn in a literal hell. I do not believe in Purgatory. I do not believe in second chances or anything of the sort.
I believe that is what the Bible teaches. Since I believe that, I believe that at least 70 percent of the world does not profess Christ as their savior and are going to hell. Sure God decides but the God I worship says that only through Christ is that possible. So you seem worked up that a few hundred people did not believe. I have news. 4 billion people in this world do not believe. I am a fundamentalist Prodigal. I either believe it is all true or forget it. I do not question how he does things. I figure that is up to Him.
If someone is a biblical literalist and a fundamentalist, you have to accept the larger scope of things. Christ knew they did not believe. On the other hand, I think he explained himself quite well and they choose not to believe or where never serious to begin with.

Thats my perspective and how I see it. Disagree but that is my perspective. Narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life. God have mercy on me a sinner.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They did not believe. They did not believe that he came down from heaven. They were not true believers. I think that perhaps we hold to different ideas about God’s way of doing things. Maybe not. Let me explain before you get offended Prodigal. I believe that the only way to get to heaven is through Christ. I do not believe that anyone but a Christian, not a Muslim, not a Buddhist, not an atheist, not a Hindu will inherit eternal life but will burn in a literal hell. I do not believe in Purgatory. I do not believe in second chances or anything of the sort.
I believe that is what the Bible teaches. Since I believe that, I believe that at least 70 percent of the world does not profess Christ as their savior and are going to hell. Sure God decides but the God I worship says that only through Christ is that possible. So you seem worked up that a few hundred people did not believe. I have news. 4 billion people in this world do not believe. I am a fundamentalist Prodigal. I either believe it is all true or forget it. I do not question how he does things. I figure that is up to Him.
If someone is a biblical literalist and a fundamentalist, you have to accept the larger scope of things. Christ knew they did not believe. On the other hand, I think he explained himself quite well and they choose not to believe or where never serious to begin with.

Thats my perspective and how I see it. Disagree but that is my perspective. Narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life. God have mercy on me a sinner.

I understand what you’re saying, but still I disagree.

Thomas did not believe, until he felt the Lord’s wounds, that Christ afforded Him that opportunity. The prodigal son received a second chance. In this life, we have many chances.

To think Christ was only ‘getting rid of some’ is to say Christ said it all to run them off.

Because the author tell us Christ knew in advance who believed and who didn’t does not negate the teaching. It affirms that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and He knows all things, even before they happen.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Rightlydivide,

I realize you are discussing issues with many people on this Thread; and I commend you for doing so–especially in light of how little response this Thread has received from Protestants—and epecially Baptists, to whom the question was posed.

(2,013 views of this Thread–still hopeful Baptists will participate.)

However, the number of unanswered questions, from my responses to you, is accumulating. So, I’ll wait for you to answer my questions, before I answer any new questions from you. This is in keeping with Forum Etiquette.

I will highlight my **questions **in blue.

When Christ said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55); is this literal?

The statement before answers it

I realize you do not interpret this literally; but to which statement are you referring?

So you are saying we fulfill the requirement to "eat the flesh of Christ "by “believing in him,” and “if the Eucharist does it, then it does it. Case closed.”

Please clarify: Do you mean we fulfill the requirements by both believing in Christ and the Eucharist?

The case may be closed for you; but I still am not convinced by your argument.

I agree that that one must believe in the Son to inherit eternal life. I also believe that believing in Christ is the beginning point in understanding and experiencing the mysteries of the Gospel.

Basically, your believes were stated as follows:
(1) Feeding on Christ’s flesh is believing in him.
(1) If the Eucharist does it,** then it does it. ** Case closed.

If you wish to comment further (no pressure); it seems that you accept John 6:35-59 only to the point of the requirement “to believe,” when so much more is revealed as necessary for eternal life. If we are only to believe on Christ, why did Christ continue to give all these other requirements in John 6:35-59?

One must believe in the Son (You agree with this requirement)

What about these?
One must be drawn to Christ by the Father
Christ is the Bread of Life, the living bread that came down from heaven
Christ’s flesh is true food and His blood is true drink
Whoever feeds on Christ, will live because of Him
One must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, or one has no life in him
Those who eat His flesh and drink His blood have eternal life–and Christ will raise them up at the last day

It seems that equating “eating the flesh of Christ with believing on Him,” is combining requirements that Christ clearly separates as different things. Any further comments.?

. . . . .Eating his flesh would accomplish nothing, he says so. The spirit of his words do which is belief in him.

Please cite the Scripture, in which Christ said eating His flesh would accomplish nothing.

Christ actually said the opposite:
John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, **"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. **

No Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about. He words are spirit and life.

Please cite the Scripture that says, “Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about.”

I do not believe that taking the Eucharist leads to eternal life but something does.

Do you believe the Eucharist does not, in any way, contribute to the requirements that lead to eternal life? Please provide support for your answer.

. . . . .But seriously and back to the topic. These are Christ’s last words; once again they sum everything up.

Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

John 6:62-63 does not shock me in the least. I just do not agree with your correlation to consuming the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

What does John 6:62-63 sum up, exactly?

Actually, Prodigal Son1 answered, very well, the issues you raised re John 6:62-63.

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

The Lord certainly is not saying His flesh profiteth nothing. He is talking about man’s perceptions. . . . .

In order to understand the Protestant point, you have to understand the implications of a literal understanding of the Catholic view.

I disagree. While, it is important for me, personally, to understand Catholic beliefs (& other Christian religions & denominations); I do not believe Protestant beliefs are contingent upon understanding the Catholic view–at least not at this point in history.

Await your answers/comments.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[benidict]

Actually, Anna only very recently started becoming “open” to it - up until perhaps the last month or so, she has been a staunch Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously, too. She has only now come to the end of her arguments, and found them lacking. When she first came, she was as strong a Protestant as you are - perhaps even stronger.

maybe she was as strong a protestant, but anna has alot more class!:tiphat: barr none. lol! peace

 

[Anna_Scott]

maybe she was a strong a protestant, but anna has alot more class!:tiphat: barr none. lol! peace

benidict,

Ah. . .flattery: the guilty pleasure.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, Anna only very recently started becoming “open” to it - up until perhaps the last month or so, she has been a staunch Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously, too. She has only now come to the end of her arguments, and found them lacking. When she first came, she was as strong a Protestant as you are - perhaps even stronger.

jmcrae,

I meant to ask: would you mind telling the folks at BaptistBoard.com about the “Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously” part. They did ban me for being a “Catholic Proselytizing.”

Anna

 

[benidict]

benidict,

Ah. . .flattery: the guilty pleasure.

Anna

but of course dont want to derail your thread tho. so here goes. i downloaded quotes from no less than 29 early writers of the Church that support the real presence. you can find these quotes for yourself at therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html. these are in addition to the biblical references which are in there too. also rightly divide i dont understand how we can use the “bible only” on this, when protestants cannot even agree what the bible says concerning the Eucharist.especially, when so many deny the Eucharist. without the early writers and fathers of the Church, who were far closer the apostles than us. how else could we have a clear concise view, without these writings? peace

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand what you’re saying, but still I disagree.

Thomas did not believe, until he felt the Lord’s wounds, that Christ afforded Him that opportunity. The prodigal son received a second chance. In this life, we have many chances.

To think Christ was only ‘getting rid of some’ is to say Christ said it all to run them off.

Because the author tell us Christ knew in advance who believed and who didn’t does not negate the teaching. It affirms that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and He knows all things, even before they happen.

You explained your view. I explained mine.
God bless. I enjoyed it. John 6 is a wonderful chapter to study indepth.
Take care

 

[benidict]

You explained your view. I explained mine.
God bless. I enjoyed it. John 6 is a wonderful chapter to study indepth.
Take care

thats the crux of the matter rightlydivide. we are explaining the Churches view for the past 2000 years. where you are only explaining YOUR view. one person versus 2000 years of Church history… hmmm:shrug: all that evidence in the Churches corner, and then only you and your own interpretation. honestly if someone unbiased were on a jury, whose side do you think they would take? peace

 

[Rightlydivide]

John 6:62-63 does not shock me in the least

 

[Rightlydivide]

thats the crux of the matter rightlydivide. we are explaining the Churches view for the past 2000 years. where you are only explaining YOUR view. one person versus 2000 years of Church history… hmmm:shrug: all that evidence in the Churches corner, and then only you and your own interpretation. honestly if someone unbiased were on a jury, whose side do you think they would take? peace

I was unbiased benedict! I did not know Matthew from Paul when I first read this book less than 10 years ago. I do find it interesting that when this book became available for people to actually read for themselves; my view took off. Thats not evidence either way of course. Thanks for all your responses.

 

[Anna_Scott]

but of course dont want to derail your thread tho. so here goes. i downloaded quotes from no less than 29 early writers of the Church that support the real presence. you can find these quotes for yourself at therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html. these are in addition to the biblical references which are in there too. also rightly divide i dont understand how we can use the “bible only” on this, when protestants cannot even agree what the bible says concerning the Eucharist.especially, when so many deny the Eucharist. without the early writers and fathers of the Church, who were far closer the apostles than us. how else could we have a clear concise view, without these writings? peace

Benidict,

I appreciate the resources–will check it out. No worries about derailing the topic–Resources are welcome.
Anna

 

[benidict]

I was unbiased benedict! I did not know Matthew from Paul when I first read this book less than 10 years ago. I do find it interesting that when this book became available for people to actually read for themselves; my view took off. Thats not evidence either way of course. Thanks for all your responses.

you are most welcome. liked yours too. but actually, there were other translations in the vernacular, and people were able to read it for themselves long before the reformers ever came about. it didnt change the readers view at that time. and no that view did not take off. even the reformers believed in some form of the real presence. the figurative view came later, or was an invention by the anabaptist. will research it and get back to you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

you are most welcome. liked yours too. but actually, there were other translations in the vernacular, and people were able to read it for themselves long before the reformers ever came about. it didnt change the readers view at that time. and no that view did not take off. even the reformers believed in some form of the real presence. the figurative view came later, or was an invention by the anabaptist. will research it and get back to you.

There were some groups before the Anabaptists and a few individuals. Do that research but be wary of your sources. If you have access to a research engine from a college to read thesis or dissertations it is much better. The internet is full of mistakes.

 

[benidict]

There were some groups before the Anabaptists and a few individuals. Do that research but be wary of your sources. If you have access to a research engine from a college to read thesis or dissertations it is much better. The internet is full of mistakes.

understand the internet is full of mistakes. but so is my protestant bookstore. dont forget, i used to be a fundamentalist like yourself. i used to believe very much along your lines. and it was not the internet that led me to the Catholic Church, believe it or not, im 40 years old and only starte using this medium less than a year ago. and just in the past 4 months got my first email account and entered my first forum experience. so no i do not base my research off the internet. also you say your view took off, but if i research any number of protestant denominations, i will find as many “views” as there are groups. thats not too promising.peace.

 

[Anna_Scott]

FYI:

From the Catholic catechism:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread…” “He took the cup filled with wine…” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,[152] fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.[153]

This is true, but we also know that God calls all men to himself which puts the ball in our court.

He knows, but he let’s us choose:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness** leads to justification and life for all**. Rom. 5:18

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
Titus 2:11,12

CHESTERTONRULES,

I appreciate your comments and the quotes from Scripture and Catechism.

Anna

 

[Rightlydivide]

understand the internet is full of mistakes. but so is my protestant bookstore. dont forget, i used to be a fundamentalist like yourself. i used to believe very much along your lines. and it was not the internet that led me to the Catholic Church, believe it or not, im 40 years old and only starte using this medium less than a year ago. and just in the past 4 months got my first email account and entered my first forum experience. so no i do not base my research off the internet. also you say your view took off, but if i research any number of protestant denominations, i will find as many “views” as there are groups. thats not too promising.peace.

That you will. That is why I do not believe in denominations. The Bible does not support them. But understand, you can start back with the Montanists and go through the Oriental Orthodox to the Paulicians to the Waldensians and all of the groups inbetween. This division did not just start. Its been around a long long time. I am not personally bothered that groups do not agree with me as it relates to truth. Certainly Catholicism does not let the abundance of groups bother them so why should it bother me?

 

[benidict]

That you will. That is why I do not believe in denominations. The Bible does not support them. But understand, you can start back with the Montanists and go through the Oriental Orthodox to the Paulicians to the Waldensians and all of the groups inbetween. This division did not just start. Its been around a long long time. I am not personally bothered that groups do not agree with me as it relates to truth. Certainly Catholicism does not let the abundance of groups bother them so why should it bother me?

no. you are very correct. the bible does not support denominations. it supports one Church. also this may be better for another thread. but we need a teaching authority, and not just our own understanding. i dont read hebrew. well very little. but if you take the first verse of genisis alone, there are 100 different possible interpretations. without a teacher, we would be lost in the sauce even if we can read hebrew. the children of israel, were certainly not an island to themselves, nor was the early Church. just a thought. thanks for the mantanist and oriental orthodox avenues tho. will research them. peace

 

[Rightlydivide]

no. you are very correct. the bible does not support denominations. it supports one Church. also this may be better for another thread. but we need a teaching authority, and not just our own understanding. i dont read hebrew. well very little. but if you take the first verse of genisis alone, there are 100 different possible interpretations. without a teacher, we would be lost in the sauce even if we can read hebrew. the children of israel, were certainly not an island to themselves, nor was the early Church. just a thought. thanks for the mantanist and oriental orthodox avenues tho. will research them. peace

Catholics do not HAVE an official view on Genesis 1:1 benedict.

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Just saying…

 

[benidict]

Catholics do not HAVE an official view on Genesis 1:1 benedict.

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Just saying…

i think you missed my point.