Born Again

[Jim_Dandy]

I’d love to know the source from which your education sprang. I searched high and low and Witherington is the first published information on this that I could find. He gave no credit to anyone else as far as I could tell.

Thanks and God bless.

I was taught the “amniotic fluid” interpretation by Rev. Jack Maben of the Calvary Baptist Church (Southern). I jumped ship and became an agnostic in the early 1970s, so it was well before that.

The earliest reference I was able to find on line was this:

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c 350-428AD) wrote in terms of baptistry as a womb which, he believed, was for preparing Christians for birth; incredibly, he even describes the baptismal water as the water of second birth, which was itself typed by the fluid surrounding the foetus in the mother’s womb (Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord’s Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, pages 53-54).

cgca.net/coglinks/origin/HistoryofBaptism.html

However, to say that amniotic fluid (I’m sure Theodore didn’t know that term) is a type, a prefigurement, of baptism is hardly the same thing I was taught.

The Southern Baptist doctrine I was taught probably came from the late
“Deformation,” because the original “Deformers” didn’t hold this, as far as I know. (The Baptists were a third-generation “Deformation” development.)

Here’s what Catholic Answers has to say about it:

To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, “You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit.” A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where “water” (Greek: hudor) referred to “amniotic fluid” (VIII:314–333).

catholic.com/library/Are_Catholics_Born_Again.asp

Jim Dandy

 

[Pax]

Jim,

Thanks for that and God bless.

 

[Pax]

Can you please document that statement? That seems like too bold of a claim to take your authority on. Please share your source for this information.

Rogare,

The Book of Acts chronicles the earliest data on Christian water baptism and speaks of it in Acts 2:41 saying among other things:

“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

The book of Acts, according to Easton’s( a non-Catholic source), was written no later than 63 AD. Easton’s dates John’s gospel as having been written around 90 AD. Clearly water baptism was being performed and well understood long before John wrote the account of Jesus and Nicodemus.

God bless.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
You’re right, It’s obvious because the Catholic Church taught the necessity of water baptism long before John 3 was even written.

Can you please document that statement? That seems like too bold of a claim to take your authority on. Please share your source for this information.

John wrote his Gospel c. A.D. 100. It was the last or next to last to be written of the 27 ‘books’ that were selected for inclusion in the collection that has been known as the New Testament since the end of the fourth century. All the references to Baptism in the other writings the Church selected for the New Testament are evidence of her earlier teaching.

“From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist (Didache 9.5).” p. 193

“. . . it [baptism] was always held to convey the remission of sins . . .” p. 194

the above quotes are from Early Christian Doctrines, by Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly

Excerpts from The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (“Didache”), a first century document used for the instruction and reception of adult converts into the Church. The Didache is older than some of the NT writings.

QUOTE:
6. See that no man leads you astray from the Way of the Teaching, since any other teaching takes you away from God.
. . .

1. Regarding baptism. Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these [preceding] points, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no runnng water, baptize in other water and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer and the candidate for baptism fast, as well as any others that are able. Require the candidate to fast one or two days previously.
   END QUOTE

These are the earliest known written instructions for Christian baptism.
(Italics in the original.)

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jim,

Thanks for that and God bless.

Pleasure. Glad you asked!

 

[Pax]

So the fact that thousands of people are saved without water baptism is somehow supposed to support the fact that" unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"? That’s odd logic.

Please recall all that I have presented on this subject especially as it pertains to the construction of the New Covenant in regards to baptism. Jesus set in motion the necessity of water baptism and that is the norm. We cannot ignore that instruction which is part of the New Covenant and the standard way to enter into the New Covenant family of God. Circumcision was the standard way of entering into the OT covenant family of God and Paul compares and contrasts that with baptism in Colossians 2:11-14 where he says:

“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. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”

Under the New Covenant we enter the family of God through baptism and we are made alive with him and our sins are forgiven. The bond that stood against us(gentiles), which is circumcision and the OT law, is set aside and nailed to the cross. Baptism and the new life of grace in Christ has replaced it.

That should help you see the necessity of baptism just as it is seen in John 3, but that does not preclude God from exercising his grace for salvation without baptism. It binds us within the covenant and we are obligated to follow the new covenant command of baptism. There will be, however, circumstances where that cannot happen yet a person believes, loves God, repents of their sins, and desires to be baptized. God is not going to spare them his mercy any more than he witheld his grace that enabled them to believe and love him in the first place.

The exceptions I cited are just that “exceptions”, but they are not without baptism in a broad sense. The OT Jews past through the cloud and the sea and were thus baptized into Moses and thus drank from the supernatural rock which was Jesus who followed them. They are only an exception in so far as they did not receive the Christian rite of baptism which did not come into being for many hundreds of years when Jesus put it in place. Likewise, someone like the good thief would have “baptism of desire” yet not the formal rite of baptism because it was impossible for him to do so. Jesus does not contradict himself by allowing the exception of the good thief.

My point in all of this is a simple one of logic. Exceptions exist and the rules of logic dictate that exceptions do not establish the rule/norm. Jesus established the rule/norm for water baptism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic in any of this. If anything I am following the rules of logic to the “T.”

God bless.

 

[mackbrislawn]

One question that Atemi brought up that nobody has ventured to answer is one that I feel should be addressed:

Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face.

Sherlock Holmes had a saying: “If you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.”

That seems to be the reasoning here. Since the phrase being born of water and the Spirit cannot possibly be referring to water baptism, what remains, no matter improbable, is true. And what remains is amniotic fluid! Yep, amniotic fluid may sound nonsensical, but because it is the only thing left, it has to be what is meant!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Atemi;8032768]

That sounds good, until we see that nowhere in the conversation is water baptism ever addressed.

Of course it is, but what both of us are doing is assuming the consequent.

What is addressed, explicitly by both parties, is natural birth

Again, this is assuming the consequent. Nicodemus when he hears about being born again, thinks of undergoing natural birth a second time. But this is a mistake, and not what Jesus is talking about at all. Where does Jesus explicitly mention natural birth?

They do mention natural birth and spiritual rebirth, however.

Nicodemus obliquely and mistakenly mentions natural birth, but Jesus never does. Jesus does indeed mention spiritual rebirth.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The three phrases, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, are all different ways of referring to the same thing: the natural birth we all undergo. Note that “born of water” is not among these phrases.

What John is talking about is how they received power to become sons of God–not through natural, fleshly, bloody, birth, but of God.

Here is the Catholic NJB to confirm that even Catholic scholars understand what I have stated:

“who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.”

“Born of blood,” and “from human stock” are simply ways of saying born of the flesh. (Actually, why did not Jesus say, “born of the flesh and then born of the Spirit,” if that is what He meant?)

You were the one that mentioned “how the Jews…viewed natural child birth.”

Was being “born of water” a common expression among the Jews of that day? I doubt it. So, your job is to show evidence that the Jews viewed natural childbirth as “born of water”! Born of woman, yes, born of blood maybe, but water? Find documentation somewhere that demonstrates Jews used that expression.

How they actually viewed live childbirth is how women do today. Nothing has changed.

Nope, it’s a bloody mess.

Scripture is not a medical text.

The idea here is to use the old maxim, “Scripture interprets scripture.” Again, your job is to find another scripture to support the idea that born of water means being born of the flesh!

Natural life comes from water. This is introduced in the very beginning of Scripture.

Gen 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that have life…"

This is the first concept of water God introduces in His Word.

Mebbe so.

But we also have the Holy Spirit associated with water, Genesis 1:2, “And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”

Throughout scripture we have water being associated with cleansing and washing. “Our hearts sprinkled clean with pure water”, Jesus washing the feet of the disciples, General Naaman washing himself in the Jordan to clear his skin of leprosy, and so on. The idea of using water to wash away sins would be natural for the Jews to accept.

The conclusion is: We are born again when our sins are washed away. And, they are washed away in baptism.

Obviously He was not talking about the ritual of water baptism in this text.

Obviously.

 

[Atemi]

**What is addressed, explicitly by both parties, is natural birth **

Again, this is assuming the consequent. Nicodemus when he hears about being born again, thinks of undergoing natural birth a second time. But this is a mistake, and not what Jesus is talking about at all. Where does Jesus explicitly mention natural birth?

Arguably verse 5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Definitely verse 6:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Both Nicodemus and Jesus speak of natural birth. We ignore this at our own peril.

The whole conversation is about the contrast between natural birth and spiritual rebirth…and the utter importance of spiritual rebirth.

**They do mention natural birth and spiritual rebirth, however. **

Nicodemus obliquely and mistakenly mentions natural birth, but Jesus never does.

Incorrect.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

**Here is the Catholic NJB to confirm that even Catholic scholars understand what I have stated:

“who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.” **

“Born of blood,” and “from human stock” are simply ways of saying born of the flesh.

(Actually, why did not Jesus say, “born of the flesh and then born of the Spirit,” if that is what He meant?)

He said that emphatically:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

You were the one that mentioned "how the Jews…viewed natural child birth."

Was being “born of water” a common expression among the Jews of that day?

No one claimed it was an “expression.”

How they actually viewed live childbirth is how women do today. Nothing has changed.

Nope, it’s a bloody mess.

Jewish women’s water did not break 2000 years ago?

I doubt it.

The idea here is to use the old maxim, “Scripture interprets scripture.” Again, your job is to find another scripture to support the idea that born of water means being born of the flesh!

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

…

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

You’re struggling to make John 3 express your amniotic fluid theory and it just isn’t happening. Likewise, you have provided no additional scriptural evidence from elsewhere in the bible that would support your contention. Just because every woman’s water breaks during the course of labor is not evidence that a particular society or any society would have cultural understandings concerning child birth that are centered on or expressed in terms of amniotic fluid and the water breaking. The evidence from scripture does not support your claim for that understanding and that is the crux of your problem in trying to make that connection. So far you haven’t done so.

Try looking at John in the following way:

In verse 3 Jesus says:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So the Lord is speaking about being born again/born anew. In the next verse Nicodemus asked the Lord how this would be possible, and rather ineptly asks if a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time. The question as inept as it is, presumes that a man is already born and living his life and that is why he asks about entering the womb a second time. Jesus does not correct him on that assumption. Jesus is also speaking of a man who is already born being born again. Therefore, Jesus response to Nicodemus is defining what it means to be born again and it has nothing to do with the first birth which already occurred sometime in the past. Jesus response is not about the first birth and then the second birth of being born anew. Jesus is defining what is involved in being born again. That definition includes water and Spirit.

The exact words of Jesus are:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

As pointed out earlier, although you disagree, the grammar and syntax supports what I am pointing out concerning the definition of being born again of water and Spirit. This is further reinforced by two things that follow in verses 6 and 7 where Jesus says:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ "

He is telling Nicodemus to forget his inept thinking and to think about what he[Jesus] is getting at. The new birth is not of the flesh but is of God just as pointed out in John 1:13. You who have already been born must be born anew as “previously defined.”

In summary, what we see is Jesus telling Nicodemus that you must be born again. Then Jesus tells him how a person is born again, and that is by water and Spirit. He then repeats the statement that you must be born again/born from above.

Jesus definition of how a man is born again is bracketed by the statement that a man must be born again. Setting the definition between the statement under discussion makes perfect sense and the combination of water and Spirit is that definition. That is the clear, simple, and straight forward way to read the text. Furthermore, that is the way it has always been understood in Christianity until sometime after the Reformation when some decided to depart from the constant Christian teachings on baptism.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

You’re struggling to make John 3 express your amniotic fluid theory and it just isn’t happening. Likewise, you have provided no additional scriptural evidence from elsewhere in the bible that would support your contention. Just because a woman’s water breaks does not indicate that child birth is culturally defined by that event. As pointed out earlier, scripture indicates many things associated with child birth within the Jewish understandings but it does not include any mention of the amniotic fluid. Scripture supports scripture, and you have no scriptural support for that contention.

Try looking at John in the following way:

In verse 3 Jesus says:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So the Lord is speaking about being born again/born anew. In the next verse Nicodemus asked the Lord how this would be possible, and rather ineptly asks if a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time. The question as inept as it is, presumes that a man is already born and living his life and that is why he asks about entering the womb a second time. Jesus does not correct him on that assumption. Jesus is also speaking of a man who is already born being born again. Therefore, Jesus response to Nicodemus is defining what it means to be born again and it has nothing to do with the first birth which already occurred sometime in the past. Jesus response is not about the first birth and then the second birth of being born anew. Jesus is defining what is involved in being born again. That definition includes water and Spirit.

The exact words of Jesus are:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

As pointed out earlier, although you disagree, the grammar and syntax supports what I am pointing out concerning the definition of being born again of water and Spirit. This is further reinforced by two things that follow in verses 6 and 7 where Jesus says:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ "

He is telling Nicodemus to forget his inept thinking and to think about what he[Jesus] is getting at. The new birth is not of the flesh but is of God just as pointed out in John 1:13. You who have already been born must be born anew as “previously defined.”

In summary, what we see is Jesus telling Nicodemus that you must be born again. Then Jesus tells him how a person is born again, and that is by water and Spirit. He then repeats the statement that you must be born again/born from above.

Jesus definition of how a man is born again is bracketed by the statement that a man must be born again. Setting the definition between the statement under discussion makes perfect sense and the combination of water and Spirit is that definition. That is the clear, simple, and straight forward way to read the text. Furthermore, that is the way it has always been understood in Christianity until sometime after the Reformation when some decided to depart from the constant Christian teachings on baptism.

God bless.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Atemi;8039390]Arguably verse 5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

This is a definite example of affirming the consequent, because what being born of water means is the very thing under discussion.

Definitely verse 6:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Yep, you’re right. But what is Jesus point? He is saying that to begin with we are flesh, but after being born again spiritually, we are of the spirit. That doesn’t necessarily relate back to His meaning “being born of the flesh” as “being born of water.” Jesus is simply saying being born again (of water and Spirit) is being born of the Spirit. He means water (baptism) is how we receive the Spirit. See Acts 2:38.

Both Nicodemus and Jesus speak of natural birth. We ignore this at our own peril.

Okay, Jesus speaks of natural birth as being born of the flesh, but Nicodemus simply misunderstands Jesus when he hears the phrase born again. So I don’t see the significance of Nicodemus’ question in this context.

The whole conversation is about the contrast between natural birth and spiritual rebirth…and the utter importance of spiritual rebirth.

Not entirely, because that contrast doesn’t begin until verse 6. Verse 5 isn’t a contrast at all; it is saying how one becomes born of the Spirit, through water. Spiritural rebirth is utterly important, but I guess natural birth is too, because without it, no one would be around to possibly experience spiritual birth! Is that what Jesus means when He says “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God”?

No,
I asked, “Why did not Jesus say born of flesh and then born of the Spirit,” if that is what He meant? I should have gone on to say, so you wouldn’t misunderstand, is “as opposed to what He did say, 'born of water and the Spirit.” Notice Jesus does not use the word “then” as He would have if He meant two contrasting things. It seems that you want Jesus to mean something like this: “You first have to be born of the flesh, and after that, then you have to be born of the Spirit.”

He said that emphatically:

"That which is born of the flesh

is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I was referring to verse 5, not verse 6.

No one claimed it was an “expression.”

Uh, I guess I don’t get your meaning here. Of course no one claimed it was an expression. Claiming so is unnecessary, because everyone already knows that it is an expression. An expression is a way of saying things.
My question is, that still needs to be answered, was “born of water” a Jewish way of saying being born of the flesh? Probably not, so to avoid providing evidence that there was such an expression, all is said is, “No one claimed it was an expression”!

Jewish women’s water did not break 2000 years ago?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Is that your way of evasion? Cattiness does not become you.
Because, I was trying to agree with you. Oh, I did try to get a little dig in, with the expression “bloody mess” because I think blood is more associated with childbirth than water.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

We all are familiar with the idea of, if one passage of scripture is obscure, then find other passages that relate to the topic that are more clear. “Scripture interprets scripture.” The above quote is the response to a request I made for other passages of scripture that show that “born of water” means natural birth. I don’t see the connection with the verse provided, so apparently there aren’t any such passages.

You see, all in all, It seems you want Jesus to be saying that first you have to be alive, first you have to exist, first you have to have been born, and then, and only then, can you be born of the Spirit. Well Jesus, I guess your right, like, duh! I have to be around first! We can’t be here listening to you unless we are here listening to you. And we can’t be here in the flesh unless we are first born of the flesh…

Well, I’m being a little catty here myself. But logic and reason by themselves don’t seem to be enough…

 

[mackbrislawn]

[Pax;8039526]Atemi,

Pax, you’re saying it in a nice, polite way!

 

[babylonsfalling]

Sherlock Holmes had a saying: “If you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.”

That seems to be the reasoning here. Since the phrase being born of water and the Spirit cannot possibly be referring to water baptism, what remains, no matter improbable, is true. And what remains is amniotic fluid! Yep, amniotic fluid may sound nonsensical, but because it is the only thing left, it has to be what is meant!

Your problem remains that (as in the other thread) you have no Scripture supporting the notion that it’s amniotic fluid.

Maybe we’d get better arguments from non Catholics who were also from the Scripture Only crowd.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Your problem remains that (as in the other thread) you have no Scripture supporting the notion that it’s amniotic fluid.

Maybe we’d get better arguments from non Catholics who were also from the Scripture Only crowd.

Yep, but if you automatically reject every other interpretation, what else is left? Even if what else is left is really off the wall?

Uh, of course that isn’t what I myself think, but is a humorous way of summing up the logic of those who are forced to accept the amniotic fluid notion.

 

[adrift]

When I said “the conversation itself,” I was referring to the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, which was taking place in John 3.

.

Oops! Sorry I misunderstood:blush:

 

[babylonsfalling]

Yep, but if you automatically reject every other interpretation, what else is left? Even if what else is left is really off the wall?

Uh, of course that isn’t what I myself think, but is a humorous way of summing up the logic of those who are forced to accept the amniotic fluid notion.

I have a feeling though that some of these guys are using the Sherlock Holmes method of interpretation on the one hand and then calling themselves Scripture Only types on the other hand.

 

[Ysidro]

I explain it in this manner when queried:
Like Jesus, Heaven opens for us at our Baptism.
Like Jesus, the Father says to us, "This is my beloved (adopted) son/daughter.
Like Jesus, the Holy Spirit descends and is present in our lives.
Like Jesus, we have a mission to fulfill.

 

[Simka]

Do not all non Catholic Christians, that believe baptism to be an outer sign only, without regeneration, believe that our Savior is referring to the water within the womb?

I would be interested in finding out what others that don’t believe that Baptism saves believe Jesus was referring to when he said born of water and Spirit.

There are Protestant denominations (e.g Baptist and Pentecostal) that repudiate altogether the concept of “sacraments”. Baptism and Holy Communion are Ordinances of the church which are practised because Christ commanded them. There is no spiritual connotation … no symbolism.

Other denominations (e.g. Presbyterian and Anglican) recognize these as Sacraments of the Gospel. According to Richard Hooker (a colleague of Thomas Cranmer, the architect of the Reformation in England) a sacrament is “the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace” (and by ‘grace’ is meant ‘an unmerited, undeserved gift from God’).

Looking first at Holy Communion, or the Eucharist, or The Lord’s Supper, the outward and visible sign is the eating and drinking of the bread and wine representing the broken body and shed blood of Jesus. The inward and spiritual grace of which this is a sign or symbol, is our salvation/eternal life (based on Jesus’ words in John 6:53-58). But since Paul speaks so clearly about the danger of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, it is apparent that merely receiving Holy Communion does not, in and of itself, convey the grace of which it is a symbol. We are saved by grace through faith, not by receiving Holy Communion. If one does not have a saving faith, eating the bread and wine will not save him.

Likewise, Baptism as a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace … the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). But one receives the Holy Spirit when he believes, not when he is baptized. Baptism may come before or after a believer’s receiving the gift of the Spirit (Acts 10:44-48), but baptism does not, in and of itself, convey the gift of the Spirit. A non-believer who, for whatever reason, undergoes a baptism ceremony but without faith and without repentance, does not receive the Spirit so long as he remains a non-believer.

When Christ spoke of “water” in connection with being born of the Spirit, I suggest He was speaking figuratively to the need for cleansing (e.g. Ezek. 36:24-27; Num. 19:17-19; Is.44: 3-5) which is accomplished by the Spirit at the moment of salvation (cf Ephesians 5:25,26).

 

[mackbrislawn]

Simka;8067661]).

But since Paul speaks so clearly about the danger of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, it is apparent that merely receiving Holy Communion does not, in and of itself, convey the grace of which it is a symbol. We are saved by grace through faith, not by receiving Holy Communion. If one does not have a saving faith, eating the bread and wine will not save him.

Umm…even if receiving Holy Communion does not, in and of itself, convey grace, it seems from scripture that partaking of the Eurcharist in an unworthy manner does, on the other hand, convey a negative grace. Not a symbolic negative grace, but a real one that makes people weak and sick, and sleep. 1Cor 11:27,30. Partaking unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eats and drinks judgement to himself. This does not sound symbolic to me. And these were Corinthians who presumably had faith.

So, I don’t understand why partaking in a bad manner, in and of itself, brings actual bad things, but when partaking in a good manner it is only symbolic!

I conclude that when one partakes in faith, in a worthy manner, the grace one receives is real.