Confused Baptist, Potential Convert...

  • Thread starter Thread starter kedera
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are some interesting quotes from ECFs on the Real Presence. It is interesting to note that at least Ignatius of Antioch studied at the feet of the apostles. Tradition holds that Ignatius was appointed bishop of Antioch by none other than Peter himself (source: St. Ignatius of Antioch). I place much more importance on the interpretations of someone who studied with the apostles and lived in the earliest period of Church history than I would on those who came along to deny it some 1400 years later, after the Reformation.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr:

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Augustine:

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Source: The Real Presence*
 
mtr01 said:
You make a great deal of errors in this eisogesis. First, you must demonstrate that carnal is a synonym for literal. Next, you must demonstrate that literal is an antonym of spiritual. Unfortunately it can’t be done (unless, of course, you are making the fundamental error that most Protestants make in the eisogesis: equating “spiritually” with “symbolically”).

What you have done, most likely unawares, is stumbled upon part of the truth. The fact is, Our Lord was trying to correct the disciples’ carnal understanding of his words (cannibalism) for a spiritual understanding. However, He did this in the verse **prior **to the one you quoted:The Ascension both will validate his words, but also demonstrate that we are to partake of his glorified body and blood (which is exactly how all Apostolic Churches understand the Eucharist.)
Click to expand...
Wishful understanding on your part. Everyone here understands that you will never cave in on this one.
 
OneForTruth said:
Wishful understanding on your part. Everyone here understands that you will never cave in on this one.
Click to expand...
Which part of mtr01’s post is ‘wishful understanding,’ and why should we be expected to ‘cave in’ (or not) when the truth is at stake?

If ‘wishful understanding’ is that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist as stated in scripture, then I suppose St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine and St. Justin Martyr are also guilty of a ‘wishful understanding,’ even though they were around the Church a LOT earlier than any of the post-Reformation stepchildren who deny it.

Again, I’ll stick with those who were closer to the source than any of the folks upon whose interpretations you hang your hat.
 
I posted this a while back in another thread, but I think it needs to be reposted here. John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael
 
John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. fkesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who are “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael
 
OneForTruth said:
Wishful understanding on your part. Everyone here understands that you will never cave in on this one.
Click to expand...
The wishful thinking is entirely yours. Unless of course it is your contention that the coming of the Holy Spirit was in fact symbolic since it was a spiritual act?

If you definition is to applied universally then the ideas that Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit living in us is not real but symbolic, Prayer is not real but symbolic, and in fact God is not real but symbolic since all are “Spirit”. Is this the logic you’re honestly trying use here? Or is it (as is most likely the truth) that Spirit mysteriously means symbolic in this instance because it justifies your otherwise arbitrary and unfounded denial of the words of Christ?
 
djrakowski said:
Which part of mtr01’s post is ‘wishful understanding,’ and why should we be expected to ‘cave in’ (or not) when the truth is at stake?

If ‘wishful understanding’ is that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist as stated in scripture, then I suppose St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine and St. Justin Martyr are also guilty of a ‘wishful understanding,’ even though they were around the Church a LOT earlier than any of the post-Reformation stepchildren who deny it.
Click to expand...
We’re off topic, but Catholic understanding of Communion is merely “wishful understanding”, the I suppose some Protestants might also call Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints merely “wishful understanding.”

Yes, I wish that St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine, and St. Justin Martyr still actively participate with Jesus in the salvation of the world through not only their writings, but also their intercessionary prayer. I wish St. Paul and St. Peter (who wrote in scripture that St. Paul’s letter were hard to understand) and the rest of the Apostles and Evangelist who wrote the New Testament would pray that the Holy Spirit guides everyone who reads the Bible. I strongly suspect these Church Fathers prayed such prayers in their lifetime on earth, and I wish to believe that life does not end with death, and therefore I believe the Saints ability to pray for us continues in heaven.

I wish to believe when we pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” God’s will includes that Christians pray for one another, and that therefore Christians in heaven pray for us on earth. Perhaps this is merely “wishful thinking”, but I believe that God is loving enough to share His glory with the Saints in heaven, who in turn glorify God through their heavenly intercession for Christians on earth. I wish to believe God is big and powerful enough to redeem us without help, but He is also humble enough that He often works through other Christians. I wish to believe the Christians in heaven surround us like a cloud of witnesses, cheering us onto join them with God in heaven.

I believe the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints is correct. Those who don’t believe it correct, might find it too good to be true and dismiss it as merely wishful thinking.
 
gardenswithkids said:
We’re off topic, but Catholic understanding of Communion is merely “wishful understanding”, the I suppose some Protestants might also call Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints merely “wishful understanding.”

Yes, I wish that St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine, and St. Justin Martyr still actively participate with Jesus in the salvation of the world through not only their writings, but also their intercessionary prayer. I wish St. Paul and St. Peter (who wrote in scripture that St. Paul’s letter were hard to understand) and the rest of the Apostles and Evangelist who wrote the New Testament would pray that the Holy Spirit guides everyone who reads the Bible. I strongly suspect these Church Fathers prayed such prayers in their lifetime on earth, and I wish to believe that life does not end with death, and therefore I believe the Saints ability to pray for us continues in heaven.

I wish to believe when we pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” God’s will includes that Christians pray for one another, and that therefore Christians in heaven pray for us on earth. Perhaps this is merely “wishful thinking”, but I believe that God is loving enough to share His glory with the Saints in heaven, who in turn glorify God through their heavenly intercession for Christians on earth. I wish to believe God is big and powerful enough to redeem us without help, but He is also humble enough that He often works through other Christians. I wish to believe the Christians in heaven surround us like a cloud of witnesses, cheering us onto join them with God in heaven.

I believe the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints is correct. Those who don’t believe it correct, might find it too good to be true and dismiss it as merely wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Very, very well said!

I apologize for my contribution to the derailing of this thread, but I simply can’t let silly attempts to refute our theology of the Eucharist stand. And I can’t for the life of me understand how Jesus’ very literal and graphic expressions of the Eucharistic reality, language that gets decidedly more emphatic as the chapter nears its climax, could be un-done by John 6:63 unless the plain meaning of the text is shredded to pieces by extremely unconvincing eisegesis.
 
I guess I sort of contributed to the drerailment of this thread. Sorry about that. :o

God Bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
I posted this a while back in another thread, but I think it needs to be reposted here. John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves… Edited due to lack of space.
Click to expand...
Okay… this is the last thing I will say on this topic. The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are two more:

John 12:32-33

32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Agreed. This thread is wandered from topic and is now closed.

If the OP wishes to post specific questions in new threads they will be better addressed there.
MF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top