Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[NotWorthy]

BereanRuss,

You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…

How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal?

In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone.

How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this? Couldn’t this be the very reason the ancient Jews had so much trouble accepting this hard teaching.

 

[byzgirl]

Sorry byzgirl, I have a policy that I do not follow links. You can bring out the major points and post them here in your own words if you like and I will try to respond to them, time permitting.

Yes, I’m not suprised. You seem to be more ‘akin’ to having us Catholics do all the cutting and pasting of Scipture and quotes from the Catechism). So I’ll do some more retrieval for you here as well. Why I provided a link is that we are not supposed to use large amounts of quoted materials on the forum, and the article (like most things) is not very good for ‘taking out of context’ and for using little snippets. I like to present the whole thing (Peter Kreeft cannot express the Protestant and Catholic positions in one or two paragraphs, I’m afraid). I just thought it better to provide a link to the entire article…but I don’t wish to mess with your personal policy. You ask for the information, but I wonder about your sincerity since this information is easily found, by doing an internet search (under ‘Nature of the Church’):

What is the Church? As Pope John XXIII put it, she is our mater et magistra (mother and teacher), but she is our mother before she is our teacher. We are born into a spiritual family, not by physical birth but by faith and baptism. This spiritual family has various names. The three most important ones are (1) the Church, ek-klesia, literally the called-out ones, those who are called by God out of the world to be part of his new world, new kingdom; (2) the mystical body of Christ, Christ’s own hands and feet; (3) the people of God, the family of God.

How do Protestants understand the Church? Because everything I have just said about the Church is clearly taught in Scripture and because orthodox Protestants believe everything in Scripture, they believe all these things. Where, then, is the disagreement?

For one thing, it is a difference in emphasis. Protestants are more individualistic than Catholics. They tend to think that individuals are saved first and then join a sort of society of the saved. Catholics think, rather, that being saved is to be put into the Church, as Noah’s family was saved by being put into the ark. (The Fathers of the Church often used Noah’s ark as a symbol for the Church, by the way. When you compare the variety of creatures in both vessels, the comparison seems apt).

But Protestants too have to admit that the Church is not just a human social club but of divine origin because Scripture clearly teaches this. Where, then, do they differ with us? Their criticism is usually that Catholics ignore the need to make an individual, personal decision for Christ, or choice to believe; that Catholics think they can be born into the faith, inheriting salvation from their parents.

But this is not a doctrinal disagreement. It is a practical, pastoral concern. Most Protestants are willing to admit that individualism is a mistake, and most Catholics are willing to admit that being born into faith is a misunderstanding. Where, then, is the doctrinal, dogmatic disagreement about the Church?

Perhaps it concerns the authority of the Church. Let’s assume that both Protestants and Catholics understand the true nature of authority: that it means right, not might, in fact, “author’s rights”, and that in Christ it is wielded by love and service, not by lording it over others. Once Protestants understand this definition and understand that Catholics understand it too, the fear of the authority of the Church is largely dissipated.

Because Protestants accept Scripture and because Scripture clearly teaches the authority of the Church (“He who hears you, hears me,” said Christ to his apostles), Protestants admit that the Church has authority. But some of them restrict this authority to the first generation of apostles, forgetting that these apostles themselves authorized successors, bishops. If you believe in the authority of Christ and Scripture, you must believe in the authority of the apostles because according to Scripture Christ authorized them; and if you believe in the authority of the apostles, you must believe in the authority of their successors because the apostles authorized them.

Some Protestants will accept this succession in principle but say that the Catholic Church has betrayed its authority by misusing it (this argument confuses the person with the office) or that the Church claims too much authority (but how do they know what is too much?) or that the Catholic Church is not the only church with divinely commissioned authority. This last idea is quite unscripturall for Christ never spoke of “churches”, only the “Church”. He is not a polygamist.

Protestants reply that these references to the one Church apply only to the “Church invisible”, not to the “Church visible”. But although the Church is invisible (mystical), it is also visible, and visibly one, in Scripture. Saint Paul was utterly scandalized at the beginnings of denominationalism in Corinth.

Some Protestants think Catholics hold that the Catholic Church is divinely inspired, like Scripture, and has the authority to invent new dogmas. This is a misunderstanding. The Church does not claim divine inspiration to add to revelation, only providential protection to safeguard it from subtraction. Even the dogmas not explicitly found in Scripture, like papal infallibility and Mary’s Assumption, are not new but old. The Church merely defined the doctrines that had been believed and lived from the beginning.

To be continued…

 

[byzgirl]

"Papal infallibility certainly seems to be a specifically Catholic dogma that Protestants cannot accept. But they often misunderstand it. First, they often think of the pope as an autocrat rather than as the head of a body. (A head is part of a body, not floating above it in the air.) Second, they often think of the Church along political lines and want it to be a democracy. But Scripture thinks of the Church along organic lines, and no organic body is a democracy. Third, they often misunderstand infallibility as attaching to the Pope personally. In fact, it attaches to the office, not the person, and only when defining a doctrine of faith or morals.

Perhaps in my haste I have overlooked something. But it seems that all the differences between Protestants and Catholics on this fundamental, divisive issue, the nature and authority of the Church, come down to (1) differences in emphasis, (2) practical, pastoral criticisms, (3) scripturally answerable arguments, or (4) misunderstandings. If this is so, then there is no obstacle in principle to reunion without compromise of dogma.

This morning, while receiving the Eucharist, the thought struck me: “How different we are from Protestants: they have no eucharistic Real Presence!” But then a second thought struck me: “How like them we are even while receiving the Eucharist, for the whole point of the Eucharist is that very Christ whom they too love as their whole point and end and meaning. “ Our signs are richer, but the one signified is the same. He comes to us down different roads (e.g., the Mass), but the one who comes to fetch and fondle his sheep is one. And he wants to fetch them all home to be one."

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and noted Roman Catholic apologist and philosopher. A convert to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination

 

[byzgirl]

chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola6.htm

WHY WE NEED ONE CHURCH (UNITY):

There are at least five major camps on baptism, and I’m positive many would be represented on this list.
I’m not talking about salvation at the moment, but simply Christian truth. The five views are:

1. infant regenerative baptism; 2) Infant non-regenerative baptism; 3) Adult regenerative baptism; 4) Adult non-regenerative baptism; 5) no baptism.

The usual Protestant reply to this critique is that denominations differ mostly over secondary issues, not fundamental or central doctrines. This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority. **Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as “damned” and “out of the Church” **for these reasons. Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther’s Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli’s purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, “This is My Body” was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man’s salvation might be in jeopardy. **St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one’s spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation - a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

SOTERIOLOGY

Protestants also differ on other soteriological issues. Most Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denominationalists and other groups are Arminian and accept free will and the possibility of falling away from salvation (apostasy). On the other hand, Presbyterians, Reformed and a few Baptist denominations and other groups are Calvinist and deny free will and the possibility of apostasy for the elect. In contrast to the former denominations, the latter groups have a stronger view of the nature of original sin, and deny that the Atonement is universal.

Traditional, orthodox Methodism (following founder John Wesley) and many “high church” Anglicans have had views of sanctification (that is, the relationship of faith and works, and of God’s enabling and preceding grace and man’s cooperation) akin to that of Catholicism. These are questions of how one repents and is saved (justification) and of what is required afterwards to either manifest or maintain this salvation (sanctification and perseverance). Thus, they are primary doctrines, even by Protestant criteria.

BAPTISM

The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don’t baptize at all (the latter doesn’t even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

 

[byzgirl]

PART 2: Why We Need the [Catholic] Church:

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism–the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:

Little children…are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism…Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it,…the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by (name removed by moderator)oured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle" (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, p.197).

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him…Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5…Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life…

When sin and conscience oppress us…you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body…Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us…(From ed. by Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1935, sections 223-224,230, pp.162, 165).

Anglicanism concurs with Luther on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. (From The Book of Common Prayer, NY: The Seabury Press, 1979, p.873).

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17), stating that it is “a sign of regeneration, or the new birth.”

continued…

 

[byzgirl]

LAST PART (sorry, this is a lot–but it really highlights the problem of Protestant rejection of the Church (one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic):

THE IRRESOLVABLE PROTESTANT DILEMMA

The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of perspicuity. Again, the Bible is obviously not perspicuous enough to efficiently eliminate these differences, unless one arrogantly maintains that sin always blinds those in opposing camps from seeing obvious truths, which even a “plowboy” (Luther’s famous phrase) ought to be able to grasp. Obviously, an authoritative (and even infallible) interpreter is needed whether or not the Bible is perspicuous enough to be theoretically understood without help. Nothing could be clearer than that. Paper infallibility is no substitute for conciliar and/or papal infallibility, or at least an authoritative denominational (Creedal / Confessional) authority, if nothing else.

The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all “five points” of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself—are not central. Protestants can’t have it both ways.

Or, of course, people like Martin Luther (due to his beliefs in the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration), John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and entire denominations such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Churches of Christ, various Pentecostal groups, and the Salvation Army can be read out of the Christian faith due to their “unorthodoxy,” as defined by the self-proclaimed “mainstream” evangelicals such as Baptists, Presbyterians and Reformed (even so the last two groups baptize infants, although they vehemently deny that this causes regeneration, whereas Baptists don’t). Since most Protestants are unwilling to anathematize other Protestants, perspicuity dissolves into a boiling cauldron of incomprehensible contradictions, and as such, must be discarded or at the very least seriously reformulated in order to harmonize with the Bible and logic.

Whether one accepts the Tradition and teachings of the Catholic Church or not, at least it courageously takes a stand on any given doctrine and refuses to leave whole areas of theology and practice perpetually up for grabs, at the mercy of the “priesthood of scholars” and the individual’s private judgment—which in turn often reduces to mere whim, fancy, or subjective preference, usually divorced from considerations of Christian history and consensus. For this so-called “dogmatism” and lack of “flexibility,” the Catholic Church is often reviled and despised. But for those of us who are seeking to be faithful to Christ within its fold, this is regarded, to the contrary, as its unique glory and majesty, much preferable to the morass of competing truth-claims (i.e., relativism) which prevail within Protestantism (even among the subgroup of evangelicals).

Orthodox Catholics believe that Christians can place full confidence in the firmly-established Tradition which is found not only in Holy Scripture, but in the received doctrines of the Catholic Church, appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ as the Guardian and Custodian of the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Dave Armstrong was received into the Catholic Church in 1991 from Evangelical Protestantism. His complete conversion story can be found in Surprised by Truth /B

 

[ralphy]

Hmmm… what is the “for” for in the parable. He sets the goats aside and tells them why. He doesn’t say its because they were unsaved. He says because they didn’t do the things that are asked (of all Christians).

I’ll ask you ralph, where does Jesus talk of our own Judgment and not include our works in the balance?

Our works has NOTHING to do with salvation. If you got saved at 10 am in the morning and died at 11 am that same morning, you would go straight to heaven, not much time for works there. Ralph

 

[bradwill911]

What if you got saved at 10:00am, denounced Jesus at 10:59, and died at 11:00? Not saved to begin with, right?

Your hypothetical leaves room for one work, “getting saved.” You still have to accept the gift of salvation, which is a work. Persevering for one hour would certainly be easier than persevering over a lifetime, but would still require perseverance.

 

[NotWorthy]

Our works has NOTHING to do with salvation. If you got saved at 10 am in the morning and died at 11 am that same morning, you would go straight to heaven, not much time for works there. Ralph

I 100% agree!!! And so does the Church!!! There are numerous people being baptized and confirmed into the Church tomorrow night (Easter Vigil) all across the world!!! If anyone dies immediately after, they would, in all likelihood, go to Heaven.

But, by this statement of yours, Ralphy, you are showing a glaring misunderstanding of Catholic Doctrine. Our works don’t save us, and no Catholic can correctly teach that. But, given that we don’t die 1 hour after our “being saved”, we need to participate in good works and avoid bad works in order to remain in Christ!!!

So, back to the parable of the Sheep and Goats:
How do you deny what Jesus says? “What does ‘for’ mean, when He explains the reason He’s separating the sheep and the goats”?

Also, where does Jesus preach about our Judgment and not include our works in the formula.

 

[joe370]

Just a few questions that have already been asked and ignored --to ALL non-Catholics…

If Jesus Christ is our one and only intercessor/mediator… why do we as priests, of the royal priesthood intercede and mediate, as we do here at CAF?

{the only difference is: catholics, as per the Holy Bible defer to Jesus’ One Holy Church for guidance and counsel, and protestants, ignoring what the Holy Bible says vis-a-vis private interpretation, defer to their One Holy Bible for guidance and counsel given to them by the One Holy C.C. which, as the bride of Christ, is being guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, as per Sacred Scripture…}

…why do pastors and ministers/teachers in the myriad protestant churches, all isolated from one another, intercede/mediate for their flock? Based on Jesus’ singular role as Intercessor/Mediator, which is the traditional protestant interpretation of the book of Hebrews, shouldn’t we as priests…shouldn’t all pastors, ministers and teachers stop mediating and take it to our One and only Mediator? How does one take it to Jesus Christ as our one and only Mediator/Teacher, if He doesn’t visibly teach or mediate on this earth. as He did 2000 years ago? I thought He empowered men to mediate/teach in His stead? Acts 1; Matthew 28:20…If the presbyters and bishops of the C.C. are not allowed to intercede/mediate/teach, as they have been doing since Pentecost, then surely no one outside the C.C. is allowed to mediate and teach --Am I wrong???

If you say: our pastors/teachers don’t act as a conduit for the Holy Spirit to re-present Christ’s Body in the form of bread and wine, as per the words of Institution by our one and only Savior, as per the Holy Bible, then lets assume for the moment that the Holy Bible is errant; Jesus is still are one and only mediator/intercessor; why do the teachers of protestant churches act as intercessors/mediators by preaching the “word” from their pulpits? Is this not an act of mediation/intercession, which is to be done by Jesus alone, as per protestant belief?

I’ll ask again; if you were present at the last supper with the Apostles, would you believe Jesus when He did and said the following:

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Jesus said: this is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.

What are Jesus’ chosen ministers, starting with His Apostles suppose to do in perpetuity??? Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood; the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so, does He?

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Does this trouble you at all, as it did me, as a former Lutheran???

Jesus, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul, took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body…’

Jesus, according to John --said:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

How can anyone say: there is no correlation between the last supper and John 6??? How can anyone say: Jesus was speaking in metaphor or symbolically, considering the fact that He didn’t say: I Am speaking in metaphor… I Am speaking symbolically???

Remember, to the grumblers, symbolically eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood would have been just as ghastly and offensive to them, as opposed to: I am the door, I Am the vine, or I Am the light of the world, which is clearly metaphorical language that was not offensive to the grumblers sensibilities; that is the very reason why they didn’t walk away from this teaching!!! Are we in agreement???

 

[ralphy]

What if you got saved at 10:00am, denounced Jesus at 10:59, and died at 11:00? Not saved to begin with, right?

Your hypothetical leaves room for one work, “getting saved.” You still have to accept the gift of salvation, which is a work. Persevering for one hour would certainly be easier than persevering over a lifetime, but would still require perseverance.

My friend, if you had to work for a gift, then it is not a gift, you earned it, you paid for it. This seems pretty easy to understand. Ralph

 

[bradwill911]

Our works don’t save us

You mean to tell me that I can’t earn my way into heaven?

People are so convinced that the Church teaches this, but it does not.

 

[bradwill911]

My friend, if you had to work for a gift, then it is not a gift, you earned it, you paid for it. This seems pretty easy to understand. Ralph

You’re absolutely right, you don’t earn a gift or work for it, but you do have to accept it and you are free to reject it. Accepting a gift is an act or a work. This seems pretty easy to understand.

 

[NotWorthy]

My friend, if you had to work for a gift, then it is not a gift, you earned it, you paid for it. This seems pretty easy to understand. Ralph

So does the Parable of the Sheep and Goats!

What does “For” mean, Ralph?

 

[NotWorthy]

My friend, if you had to work for a gift, then it is not a gift, you earned it, you paid for it. This seems pretty easy to understand. Ralph

I’m struck by the parable of the workers in the field. They seemed to have to strive in order to get their pay, whether it was all day or just one hour.

Maybe some of them were hired at 10:00am and received their pay at 11:00am, eh Ralph?

Jesus seems to be placing our work into the formula of His Heavenly Gift!

 

[ralphy]

You’re absolutely right, you don’t earn a gift or work for it, but you do have to accept it and you are free to reject it. Accepting a gift is an act or a work. This seems pretty easy to understand.

“Receiving a gift” is an act of work, where is the work involved? That is not easy to understand! Ralph

 

[NotWorthy]

“Receiving a gift” is an act of work, where is the work involved? That is not easy to understand! Ralph

I think by “accepting the gift”, our good friend is saying he is “putting on Christ”. When you are in Christ, you need to follow His teachings to the best of your ability. In other words, you need to act like a sheep, rather than a goat.

 

[bradwill911]

“Receiving a gift” is an act of work, where is the work involved? That is not easy to understand! Ralph

Next time someone gives you a gift, try to not accept it. It should be pretty clear that you can accept or refuse a gift. The next time you try giving someone a gift, don’t allow them to accept it. It’ll probably be fairly awkward, but I think you’ll understand that the act of accepting is part of the process.

In order to “get saved” did you have to DO anything or was salvation forced upon you? I would bet that you still had to accept the gift. You might have responded to an altar call or verbally accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior or something like this. YOU DID SOMETHING. That “something” that you did is a work.

 

[ralphy]

I’m struck by the parable of the workers in the field. They seemed to have to strive in order to get their pay, whether it was all day or just one hour.

Maybe some of them were hired at 10:00am and received their pay at 11:00am, eh Ralph?

Jesus seems to be placing our work into the formula of His Heavenly Gift!

In fact that is what happened. Some started early in the morning,some later and some later yet, yet they all received the same reward. This is refering to being saved, some are saved when they are young, some around middle age and yet some in their old age, however they all receive the same reward, a home in heaven. Ralph

 

[joe370]

“Receiving a gift” is an act of work, where is the work involved? That is not easy to understand! Ralph

The protestant church to which you belong and the catholic church to which I belong, both believe that Salvation is a free gift, thanks to Jesus Christ, Who is the One and only Savior of His established Church!!! Neither your church nor my church believe that we can earn Salvation; perhaps we can get back to John 6…?

Would you take a look at post 308 and share your thoughts?

Thanks Joe370…