Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

What is the likelihood of turning water into wine?

When Jesus turned water into wine, there was a real manifestation of it. In other words, the water really became wine. I’m sure they tasted it and said, hey, this is wine not water. But when Jesus said “this is my body which is given for you,” It was a reference to the giving of his literal body at the cross as a sacrifice, broken for us. This did not happen in the moment He said the words. Therefore His speech cannot be taken literal and physical. It was metaphorical.

To you. Because, as you explained, the idea is laughable to you. But we connect His words, “this bread is my Body”, to His explanation in John 6, “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” Along with the fact that He also said, “I am the Bread of God.” And “My Flesh is real food and my Blood real drink.”

In addition, we never finished our discussion, I think it was with you, about His saying, “My words are spirit and truth.”

Remember that He also said, “the flesh avails nothing”. But Protestants connect “the” flesh to His flesh. But do you not see a difference between Him saying, “My flesh is food indeed” and “the” flesh is food indeed. He did not say anything, in John 6, about “the” flesh.

What is THE flesh? It is the abode of sin. That is why THE flesh avails nothing. But Christ’s flesh avails us to eternal life.

He who eats MY flesh and drinks MY Blood, has life everlasting. That is what Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, said.

But we are not going to agree on this, so this will be my last statement on it De_Maria

I understand. It is as you said, it takes grace to understand the spiritual Teachings of Jesus Christ. Without it, you will find His Teachings, laughable.

1 Corinthians 1:18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Who can believe that a man who was crucified is counted as having overcome the world? The flesh and the world, find that idea laughable.

Who would think that this man is supposed to have risen from the dead? The flesh and the world find this idea, laughable.

Who would think that this man is supposed to have saved all mankind from their sins? The flesh and the world, find this idea, laughable.

But I want to thank you for a polite discussion and for being honest and allowing us to compare your beliefs to ours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Because Jesus Christ transubstantiates the natural bread into the Bread of God, which He is.

Please show me this teaching in the foundations of biblical thought.

Catholic Doctrine is the foundation of Scripture. Catholic Doctrine came before the New Testament. It is Christ who taught Catholic Doctrine and He commanded the Catholic Church to Teach all the world. It is upon this Doctrine that the New Testament Scripture is founded.

Please show me how Paul taught this, how Peter taught it. It is a nice way to explain it, but falls short of biblical reality.

On the contrary, that which falls short of reality, is your idea that all Teaching is founded in Scripture. It is Scripture which is founded in Teaching. Even Scripture tells you that Jesus Christ commanded the Church to Teach and that He never wrote a word of Scripture. Or if Jesus Christ wrote something, point to it.

But please,… give me transubstantiation from scripture.

Simple. The bread which I will give IS MY FLESH.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

The Spirit always does the Baptizing. Water baptism is merely the means by which the Spirit is called forth.

If physical water is a necessary element needed to meet a spiritual condition for the holy Spirit to spiritually baptize people into Christ body, then Paul would say so. He did not.

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

First of all, you don’t get to declare what St. Paul would say and what he wouldn’t. You’re not God.
2nd. St. Paul did say it and often. The word “baptize” means to wash and strongly infers, water.
3rd. St. Paul was a Hebrew who was well founded in Pharisaic custom. And Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, comes directly from the Hebrews.

Therefore, St. Paul didn’t need to say, “water Baptism”, because for him and for the whole world except for Protestants, IT IS REDUNDANT.

When Peter spoke of new birth in 1st. Peter 1:23 he said, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever.” Where is the call to use water for baptism?

Why does it have to be in that statement? Why can’t it be here:

1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

New birth is a new identity in Christ, a new family to be born into. We are placed into Christ body by the holy Spirit. We are soaked into His body

Where do you get His blood to wash with? We get His Blood in the Eucharist. But you consider that laughable.

and made one with Him.

We believe we are made one with Christ. When did Protestants start believing this? Most of you ridicule this idea the same way that you ridicule the Eucharist.

Yet Peter, did not instruct the method by which this is accomplished. I could find at least 10 other examples where water is not included in the “method.”

Show me. And I’ll show you where you are reading into Scripture, your errors.

But if you want to use water in a water baptism, I’m good with that. It does not change life for me. But if you try to impose this on me, you would need to use the SUM of thy word is truth, principle to convince me.

I’m not imposing it on you. God did. You are rejecting God’s word.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 

[guanophore]

I think Peter’s answer fits best here.

Indeed yes! It was Peter who insisted that water could not be refused to the house of Cornelius when He saw the Spirit had fallen. Jesus did this for Him to convince HIm that the Gentiles were to be brought into the New covenant through baptism. It was Peter’s preaching at Pentecost, and his directive that all who wanted to save themselves from this perverse generation to be baptized.

Peter said, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh…” meaning not a literal bathing with water to remove physical filth, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

Baptism is a ritual washing, to remove filth from the soul, not from the body.

Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest.

I think we will all agree that baptism is not bathing to remove dirt from the body. What amazes me is the degree to which certain ecclesial traditions people will go to avoid a Catholic understanding of baptism.

You seem to have this either/or thinking that is inconsistent with Apostolic faith. Of course it is a spiritual submerging, but that is not separated from literal water.

Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest. Literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, namely sin. Sin is a spiritual problem to be dealt with spiritually not literally and physically.

Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest. Literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, namely sin.

We will agree that literal water cannot, of itself, cleanse people of their sins. But to say that literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, you might need to go back and read.

First of all, the context of Peter’s discussion about saving water is the Flood. He makes an analogy that the family of Noah was saved “through the water”, just as “baptism …now saves you”. to say that he is not referring to literal water seems to grossly ignore the context. The water itself does not save, but God saves “through” the water.

 

[guanophore]

Another important reference is the story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. "Elisha sent a messenger to say to him (Naaman), “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”

This story is a type of what baptism would do for the faithful. Leprosy is used as a type of original sin in many ways. Naaman is offended that the prophet tells him to take a ritual bath (seven times) in the Jordan. But it was God’s way of showing that the Jordan would be the Source of spiritual cleansing when Christ came. Jesus entered the waters of the Jordan and joined the Holy Spirit to those waters.

Naaman did not have only a physical problem (leprosy) but a spiritual one. When he was cleansed by the ritual washing, he came to believe.

"Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel. " v. 15

This is the story of a conversion of heart that happened “through the water”, just as Noah and his family were saved “through the water”. They are spiritually significant events that are manifested through literal water (not metaphorical).

Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal,

Are you suggesting that no literal water was involved on the day of Pentecost?

Secondly, the Apostle Paul used the word Baptize in a non-literal sense when he said, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” 1st. Cor. 12:13. Notice, it is the Spirit who did the baptizing and Christ body became the object to which we were spiritually submerged. This concept is all spiritual and not literal.

You are projecting your theology into the passage when you claim it was “non-literal” On the contrary, baptism is the rite of initiation into the Body of Christ. We are joined with Him in Baptism to his death and resurrection. Of course it is the Spirit that does the spiritual work.

Are you suggesting that, when Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize, He was not referring to water?!

“Spiritual” does not equate to “not literal”. Spiriual realities are still literal (real, not just metaphorical".

Naaman was literally healed of leprosy after his “baptism” in the Jordan. He was not told to metaphorically submerge himself!

 

[guanophore]

What, you don’t believe that He could be in two places at once? This is a grace that even His lowly Saints, like Padre Pio, have been given. Yet, you don’t think that the God of the universe has power over time and space?

It does boggle the mind that anyone who calls themselves “Christian” would deny that God supercedes his own physical laws. It requires an amazing redaction from the Bible, and not just the NT>

Jesus sounds illogical to you, because deep down, you don’t believe that He is God. You think of Him as a regular Joe, who couldn’t produce a supernatural sign or miracle, to save His life.

That is really how it comes across!

 

[guanophore]

It is not about His ability. It is about the likelihood of it. It is very unconvincing to me. Rather than take his statements as a metaphor, to which you seem to do easily with his other statements, you’d rather suggest Jesus became literal bread, while he held up the very same bread. I almost want to laugh if it wasn’t so important and serious.

I am glad that we agree that Jesus could hold Himself in his own hands.

http://www.acfp2000.com/Saints/St_Augustine/st_augustine.html

I find it curious that you, being “unconvinced” about the “likelihood of it” is the standard by which you have determined this doctrine of the faith. You are willing to spurn the faith of centuries of Christians (including Augustine) in favor of your own rationale.

We do understand the statements metaphorically, as well as literally. We accept what Jesus taught, through His Apostles. “This is My Body” and “This is my Blood”.

You would join the many who mocked and scoffed, especially those who abandoned HIm after John 6. Jesus was laid in a manger at birth. This is the trough for the grain fed to the animals. He is the Bread of Life!

Please show me this teaching in the foundations of biblical thought. Please show me how Paul taught this, how Peter taught it. It is a nice way to explain it, but falls short of biblical reality. But please,… give me transubstantiation from scripture.

Transubstantion is a later concept to refer to the Real Presence, just like Trinity is a later term added by the Church to refer to God, three persons in One.

You will not be able to see the Real Presence in Scripture, because your preconcieved denial of it prevents you from apprehending the meaning of what is written.

When Jesus turned water into wine, there was a real manifestation of it. In other words, the water really became wine. I’m sure they tasted it and said, hey, this is wine not water. But when Jesus said “this is my body which is given for you,” It was a reference to the giving of his literal body at the cross as a sacrifice, broken for us. This did not happen in the moment He said the words. Therefore His speech cannot be taken literal and physical. It was metaphorical.

Yes, it is a reference to Jesus giving his real body on the cross. He did not give a “metaphorical” body to pay for ours sins. He is the Lamb who was slain for our sins. At the last supper, the spotless lamb, slain for the faithful, was eaten (physically and literally).

At the moment Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he was about to suffer HIs passion. He gave Himself in the REal Presence through the Bread and Wine so that He could remain with us. This was understood and accepted by all Christians everywhere (except heretics) until the Reformation. You, being a child of the Reformation, are demonstrating your separation from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

But we are not going to agree on this, so this will be my last statement on it

Ok. I was not expecting to pursuade you. Accepting the Apostolic faith would require a complete rearrangement of your theology, and probably a major lifestyle change as well. I have written as much for the many reading this thread who may be ready, willing , and able to accept the Apostolic faith.

If physical water is a necessary element needed to meet a spiritual condition for the holy Spirit to spiritually baptize people into Christ body, then Paul would say so. He did not.

Well, we read it differently.

But no, God is not bound by the Sacraments. What we do know is that He will graft into His One Body all those who are baptized in faith, and that those will be saved through the water, regenerated, and joined with HIm in His death and resurrection. He is able to graft anyone into His One Body in any way He wishes.

When Peter spoke of new birth in 1st. Peter 1:23 he said, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever.” Where is the call to use water for baptism? New birth is a new identity in Christ, a new family to be born into.

He was speaking of the Word which he preached at Pentecost, the Gospel message. Part of that Word is to be baptized. The gospel message has never been separated from water baptism.

New birth is a new identity in Christ, a new family to be born into. We are placed into Christ body by the holy Spirit.

Yes. This happens during baptism.

We are soaked into His body and made one with Him. Yet Peter, did not instruct the method by which this is accomplished. I could find at least 10 other examples where water is not included in the “method.”

God is not bound by water baptism. What Peter and the other Apostles taught is that baptism is regenerational, and creates literal, spiritual changes in the recipient. The efficacy of baptism is not discounted by the “exclusions” as you seem to think.

But if you want to use water in a water baptism, I’m good with that.

LOL is there some other kind?

 

[guanophore]

Are you so oppositional that you now are going to say there is no water involved in water baptism!?

It does not change life for me. But if you try to impose this on me, you would need to use the SUM of thy word is truth, principle to convince me.

This proves the point I was making. If you were to accept the Apostolic teaching on this matter it would most likely change your life considerably.

We cannot “impose” the faith of the Apostles upon you. We can tell you what they believed and taught, and you can decide whether you want to mock, scoff or believe.

Since you have created a standard that is foreign to the Apostles themselves as convincing, then it is not likely you will be able to embrace their faith.

The Apostles taught the regenerative nature of baptism before a word of the NT was ever written.

 

[tgGodsway]

But once the holy Spirit came to indwell the believer these things were no longer needed and the emphasis faded so they hold a minimal place in Christian worship. We now worship in spirit and truth. It is no longer about which mountain one will worship. See John 4.

 

[JonNC]

But once the holy Spirit came to indwell the believer these things were no longer needed and the emphasis faded so they hold a minimal place in Christian worship. We now worship in spirit and truth. It is no longer about which mountain one will worship. See John 4.

I don’t see how the means of His grace, forgiveness of sins, fade and become minimal. I need that in an ongoing way.

 

[guanophore]

But once the holy Spirit came to indwell the believer these things were no longer needed and the emphasis faded so they hold a minimal place in Christian worship. We now worship in spirit and truth. It is no longer about which mountain one will worship. See John 4.

Human beings are not less physical that they were before Christ. God became man, entering into our physical existence. While incarnate, He showed on a daily basis (as JonNC has pointed out) how His grace could work through water, spittle, mud, etc. He gave us the sacraments as vehicles through which His grace would continue after HIs departure. None of these things are contrary to worship “in spirit and in Truth”. We don’t believe that a believer needs to be on a certain “mountain” to benefit from His grace.

I agree with you, though, these things have been jettisoned by modern evangelicals, and emphasis has faded. The further ecclesial communities drift from the Aposotlic faith, the further they drift from the sacramental life.

 

[tgGodsway]

I don’t see how the means of His grace, forgiveness of sins, fade and become minimal. I need that in an ongoing way.

Depending specifically on what you’re talking about, the “means” to God’s grace or forgiveness of sins, is God Himself. God is the actor and we are the recipiants. We have access to the very throne-room of grace by simply going there in prayer freely. His Grace is offered to all because God Himself has offered it.

Grace, or God’s favor is a spiritual favor and our reception of it is firstly spiritual. So God offers this grace to us freely but is not confined or limited by any particular physical or natural “means.” This point is clearly patterned for us over and over again in N.T. scripture.

The concept of quote “a vehicle of grace” is someone’s invention not found or supported in New Testament thinking. If so, please site at least two witnesses.

For example: when Paul said, "For by grace you have been save, through faith, and that not of yourselves… "

Notice how he did not include a natural or physical means to receiving that grace, or, salvation. Why not? It was not in his thinking to do so. When Jesus said, “God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not parish but have everlasting life,…” Notice in the proclamation He did not include any natural or physical “means” to obtaining it. Again, this point is patterned throughout His teachings on how one receives eternal life.

If He wants to save a soul from hell He will not need water to do it or any other natural means for that matter. Nor does the seeker need another person as a means to help them convert to Christ other than for them to simply preach and communicate the truth of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

External, natural, ritualistic, and/or physical means to an end may be found in the O.T. where the people of God were natural people. A natural message using natural means to a natural conclusion was the way God spoke to Israel.

But in the New Testament because we now have become “spiritual” through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, God’s message to us is primarily spiritual. This is why Jesus said, “… the words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and life.” Jn. 6:63.

The new testament is a greater revelation than the old. God no longer speaks to us as natural children using natural means, … but spiritual. I am not restricting God. He can use any means He wants to, but His normal way to convey truth is spiritual, not natural.

Secondly, remember that the Holy Spirit was not resident in the hearts of believes until after the resurrection. Prior to this, all of His disciples were still natural men. This is important when we pick and choose verses of scripture to use in support of our views.

 

[JonNC]

Depending specifically on what you’re talking about, the “means” to God’s grace or forgiveness of sins, is God Himself. God is the actor and we are the recipiants. We have access to the very throne-room of grace by simply going there in prayer freely. His Grace is offered to all because God Himself has offered it.

Grace, or God’s favor is a spiritual favor and our reception of it is firstly spiritual. So God offers this grace to us freely but is not confined or limited by any particular physical or natural “means.” This point is clearly patterned for us over and over again in N.T. scripture.

The concept of quote “a vehicle of grace” is someone’s invention not found or supported in New Testament thinking. If so, please site at least two witnesses.

For example: when Paul said, "For by grace you have been save, through faith, and that not of yourselves… "

Actually it is found through the entire NT, that we receive His grace through the means Christ instituted while on earth: Baptism, His Supper, the power of the keys, as so forth. All of these are instituted to bring His grace to us. Baptism brings to us regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and brings us the Holy Spirit.
The power of the keys - the binding and losing of sins - exercised by the Church - to forgive sins.
Holy Communion bring us forgiveness of sins through His true body and blood.

When Paul says, "For by grace you have been save, through faith, and that not of yourselves… " we find His grace, that grace that instills faith in us, in His sacraments. It is a mistake to see these as opposed to each other, when in fact they are one and the same.

This is important when we pick and choose verses of scripture to use in support of our views.

We should not be picking and choosing. We should be looking at the entirety of scripture.

 

[exnihilo]

I think Peter’s answer fits best here. Peter said, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh…” meaning not a literal bathing with water to remove physical filth, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is a spiritual submerging not literal, as Peter suggest. Literal water has no significance to a spiritual problem, namely sin. Sin is a spiritual problem to be dealt with spiritually not literally and physically.

Peter says ‘baptism now saves you’. He says it (the washing) doesn’t remove filth. By that he means physical filth. But it does remove moral filth.

If sin is a spiritual problem to be dealt with spiritually then why the incarnation? Christianity refutes your statement.

 

[tgGodsway]

Actually it is found through the entire NT, that we receive His grace through the means Christ instituted while on earth: Baptism, His Supper, the power of the keys, as so forth. All of these are instituted to bring His grace to us. Baptism brings to us regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and brings us the Holy Spirit.

These are nice opinions but you have not used the scriptures themselves to validate what you say. Please explain, for instance, how new birth, or regeneration does not include (as a condition) water baptism in Nicodemus’s discussion with Jesus in Jn 3. Please explain how when Peter spoke of new birth, he did not include water baptism as a condition to be met in 1st. Peter 1;23. If ever there were a place to teach this it would be in 1st Pet. 1:23.

The Titus 3;5 passage that talks about regeneration also does not include water baptism as a condition. Please explain why not.

I am not saying that water baptism should not be apart of the overall experience, or that the New Testament forbids it. It includes it in certain passages, but it does not in ALL passage dealing with new birth. No no … I am only saying that scripture does not treat it as a “condition” to be met in order to become born again. if this was the case, then eternal life could not be called a free gift, as it is, because water baptism is a good work. Scripture is very clear about "it being a gift of God and NOT OF WORKS, let you should boast. Eph. 2:8,9

 

[tgGodsway]

When Paul says, "For by grace you have been save, through faith, and that not of yourselves… " we find His grace, that grace that instills faith in us, in His sacraments.

Where did Paul in Ephesian 2:8 talk about sacraments? You are not consistent with Paul’s clear teaching here. Where are sacraments mentioned in the many passages in John’s gospel concerning eternal life? John didn’t mention it, why are you?

 

[rcwitness]

Ummm… John 3 does refer to Baptism (water).

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

This passage has been difinitively interpreted as referring to water Baptism by the Church.

The Sacraments are tangible expressions of the Word (Logos). When we participate in them, we are being touched by God Himself.

I specifically used Evangelical language to relate to your faith tradition.

The presence of the Word and water can be traced to the second sentance in the Bible:

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Notice that His Spirit with water was together during the creation of the world, and also together with the creation of the new man.

 

[tgGodsway]

We should not be picking and choosing. We should be looking at the entirety of scripture.

exactly!.. The SUM of thy word is truth! … If the New Testament was teaching that water baptism was a necessary condition to be met in order for one to be eternally saved, there would be a consistency of thought without hit and miss verses, some including baptism and others not.

An example in the reverse: There is one condition included in every verse dealing with how one receives eternal life. Do you know what that common denominator is?.. it is the one thing all verses have in common about how one can obtain eternal life. It is to 'BELIEVE." If we add water baptism to this equation, then the same rule applies. all N.T. verses should be saying the same thing … the same principle is applied to “repentance.” So that repentance is included in all verses dealing with how one becomes eternally saved.

Jesus deliberately but proactively declared how one can be eternally saved with his repetitious pronouncements found in
John’s gospel. It is overwhelming to hear the consistency in His message. If He wanted to, He could have added water baptism, repentance, or any other condition to new birth, but you will not find such a notion.

 

[rcwitness]

John certainly records Jesus referring to His Eucharist in the Bread of Life discourse. Chapter 6