Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[BereanRuss]

I did not say that that was all that the Bible says. I said that the Gospel must first be believed before a person can understand the Bible at all.

 

[guanophore]

H Which is greater, the baptims of water or the Baptism of fire? If a person is baptized in water but not in file will not his baptism become un-baptism?

There is only One Baptism, so the two are both ways of describing the same reality. Those who are bapized into Christ are baptized into His death, which means they are also joined with Him in His suffering. All those who are sealed by the promised HS will be purified with fire. All that is dross must be burned away, in this lifetime, or the next, in order for us to be fit for heaven, since nothing unclean can enter heaven.

 

[mikeledes]

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. [John 6:53]

Catholics then often respond by insisting that Jesus was indeed speaking literally.

Exactly! An here’s why:

One of the reasons why John 6 proves the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the fact that throughout the Gospel of John, John makes an effort to explain things that may not be clear to the reader or was not clear to those who first heard the words of Christ. Here are some examples:

John 2:20-21

20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

John 6:70-71

70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”
71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 8:26-27

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. **

John 10:1-10

1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.

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 13:10-11

**10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”
11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” **

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. **

John 21:23

**23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” **

So it seems rather odd and out of character for John not to provide a clarification or explanation of Jesus’s words in John 6 if Jesus was only speaking figuratively, especially since this is the only recorded instance where disciples of Christ leave because of what Christ said. If John habitually provides a clarification when Christ made less controversial statements, then why is it that he doesn’t provide one when Jesus makes one of the most controversial statements in the Gospels? The fact that John provides no clarification indicates that Jesus meant what He said and hence needed no clarification from John. But John is not the only one that clarifies Jesus’s statements. Jesus also does it Himself.

Continued in next post…

 

[mikeledes]

Jesus also has a habit of clarifying His statements and this habit is most pronounced in the Gospel of John. In fact, in the Gospel of John there is a basic pattern of progressive revelation that usually begins with an ambiguous statement and ends with a calrifying statement.
This is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question/Challenge
3. Clarification

The calrification is usually made by Jesus Himself, but sometimes John does it himself for the reader. 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 in verse 53. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean, using His characteristic “Truly, truly” or “Amen, amen” before He reveals a sacred truth (see John 3:5 and John 8:34) . And not only does he reaffrim, but He also adds drinking blood to eating flesh. All of this indicates that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively.

Continued in next post…

 

[mikeledes]

Here are some more examples of the ambiguous statement/question or misunderstanding/clarification pattern. Also, note the use of “Truly, Truly” in some of the examples:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 11:11-14

**11This He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.”
12The disciples then said to Him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep.
14So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, **

In the last example, we have both John and Jesus explain what verse 11 meant.

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

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. If “Spirit” meant “figurative”, then God is figurative because He is also “Spirit.” So the contrast is not between the literal and the figurative, but between that which is of God and that which is of sin or purely human origin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh 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 were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one thinks in a “carnally minded” way, then one will not accept Christ words. 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.

To be continued…

 

[BereanRuss]

Russ, you still haven’t dealt with the fact that the Early Church had Bishops (Episcopoi), Priest (presbyteroi) and Deacons (Deaconia) from the middle of the 1st Century on. You still haven’t dealt with the fact that in that Early Church, Bishops (or the Priests in absence of the Bishops) offered the Divine Liturgy where simple bread and wine was changed into our Lord’s Body and Blood, and that Early Catholics would have rather died a horrible death than been deprived of our Lord’s Body and Blood (which they called “The Medicine of Immortality”).

We do see communion celebrated in the NT but what we do not see is mediator or preist between God and man except Jesus. There is no earthly priesthood in the Bible.

Communion is not medicine. Nothing you eat can defile you and nothing you eat can make you holy - for everything you eat passes out the other end. It nourishes the body but it cannot nourish the soul. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

It is what comes out of the mouth that defiles you and it is what comes out of the mouth that saves you. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus you will be saved.

 

[mikeledes]

When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):

**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **

This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):

**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **

In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truth He has revealed regarding His origin and hence the fact that what He said regarding His flesh and blood is of the Spirit (i.e. a revelation of God) and not of the flesh (a statement of purely human origin). That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. This goes against Jesus’s established teaching method in which the metaphor or parable usually precedes the explanation, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares.

 If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then why the controversy? :shrug:  Didn't He just explain that eating His flesh and drinking His blood means to believe in Him?  And if they were already *disciples*, then what would be the problem with accepting  that they must believe in Him?  In fact, there was no real controversy when He said earlier about believing in Him in order to receive eternal life.  The first objection was *not* to Christ being the object of faith, but to His claim regarding His origin (i.e. from heaven). 

 And as I have stated in previous posts, the established pattern in Jesus's method of teaching/preaching in the Gospel of John is one of progressive revelation.  He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, *not* from clarity to greater ambiguity.  So it would  be odd and out of character for Him to start with the literal meaning *first *(i.e. faith) and then use the metaphor.

Moreover, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

The Greek word translated “abiding” is “meno,” which means to continue, stay, remain, etc. Thus the assumption is that the person who abides in Christ has already come to faith in Him and has already been incorporated into Christ. Hence, abiding occurs subsequent to coming to Christ in faith and incorporation. What is being decribed here is an act rooted in faith, but not identical to faith.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who have a living faith can subjectively benefit from receiving the Eucharist. And those who remain in Christ will be raised by Him on the last day and not suffer eternal damnation.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BereanRuss]

There is only One Baptism, so the two are both ways of describing the same reality. Those who are bapized into Christ are baptized into His death, which means they are also joined with Him in His suffering. All those who are sealed by the promised HS will be purified with fire. All that is dross must be burned away, in this lifetime, or the next, in order for us to be fit for heaven, since nothing unclean can enter heaven.

To say that baptism in water is equivalent to baptism of fire is to make God subservient to you. To say that every person who is baptized in water is also baptized with the Holy Spirit is to play the role of God.

No ritual – no formula can move the hand of God in obedience to your will.

 

[mikeledes]

The truth is this. All men are sinners. The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, you will be saved.

I think about 99% of protestants believe these truths.

On a superficial level, they may. But in reality, they don’t. There are Protestants who believe in faith alone and baptismal regeneration (Lutherans) and other who believe that baptismal regeneration and faith alone cannot be reconciled (Baptists being one example). There are those who believe faith alone entails that salvation cannot be lost (the OSAS evangelicals) and those who believe in faith alone and that salvation can be lost ( Historic Arminians, Methodists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc.). Then you have the division between Calvinists and Arminians and both camps have a fundamentally different understanding of faith.

And if confession with the mouth is necessary for salvation, how does faith alone fit in?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BereanRuss]

…

Mike,

Have you ever heard of twitter? I am sorry bro, I just don’t have time to sort thrugh all of that. Can we take smaller chuncks at a time so we don’t choke?

 

[jmcrae]

It simply doesn’t make sense that “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe in Christ.”

Right, exactly - because what this does, is it reduces the name of God (Christ) to nothing but a magical incantation which, if recited, causes one to become “saved” regardless of the meaning of that word. This is a clear violation of the Commandment that teaches us to make the right use of God’s name.

But if I mean by “Christ” something that is not, in fact, Christ, (say, if I believe in a Christ who had a sinful mother, for example) then I cannot be saved, no matter how many times I say, “I believe in Christ.”

I have to know, first of all, who Christ is (which I can only know by the teaching of the Catholic Church) in order to be able to believe in Him (rather than a self-made imaginary substitute for Him), and be saved by Him.

But imaginary substitutes for Christ, no matter how pleasing they may seem to us, cannot save us - they have no more power to save than the dead idols of wood and stone that were worshipped by the enemies of Israel.

 

[jmcrae]

To say that baptism in water is equivalent to baptism of fire is to make God subservient to you. To say that every person who is baptized in water is also baptized with the Holy Spirit is to play the role of God.

No ritual – no formula can move the hand of God in obedience to your will.

God has already said to the Pope, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

This means that when the Pope or his delegate (the Bishop, priest or deacon) baptizes a person in water, thus binding him to eternal salvation, God also, in the same moment, binds the person to eternal salvation - the water of baptism poured by the priest over the person becomes the fire of the Holy Spirit working in that person for salvation, by means of the power given by God to His Church for binding and loosing.

 

[BereanRuss]

There are Protestants who believe in faith alone and baptismal regeneration (Lutherans) and other who believe that baptismal regeneration and faith alone cannot be reconciled (Baptists being one example). There are those who believe faith alone entails that salvation cannot be lost (the OSAS evangelicals) and those who believe in faith alone and that salvation can be lost ( Historic Arminians, Methodists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc.). Then you have the division between Calvinists and Arminians and both camps have a fundamentally different understanding of faith.

None of them teach against baptism, right? They all agree that we should be baptized.

Suppose that I believe that a Christian should eat only vegetables so I walk in obedience to what I believe God is speaking in His word. Another believer eats meat and he also is walking by faith in what he believes that God is speaking to him. Both are walking by faith.

…he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. [Rom 14:23]

 

[BereanRuss]

But if I mean by “Christ” something that is not, in fact, Christ, (say, if I believe in a Christ who had a sinful mother, for example) then I cannot be saved, no matter how many times I say, “I believe in Christ.”

Are you saying that until you have a perfect understanding of Jesus, you cannot be saved? Jesus is God. You will never completely understand Him with human mind.

When a person is born again, they are an infant in the faith like a newborn child is an infant. How much does a newborn child understand about life and mom and dad? Yet the child has life even with no understanding. The child will grow as he is nourished by the parent.

The believer in Christ is as a newborn babe. God will nourish and teach and mature that child by His loving hand.

…as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby… [Peter]

I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. [1 John]

 

[BereanRuss]

This means that when the Pope or his delegate (the Bishop, priest or deacon) baptizes a person in water, thus binding him to eternal salvation, God also, in the same moment, binds the person to eternal salvation - the water of baptism poured by the priest over the person becomes the fire of the Holy Spirit working in that person for salvation, by means of the power given by God to His Church for binding and loosing.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word… Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" [Acts 10…]

 

[mikeledes]

Mike,

Have you ever heard of twitter? I am sorry bro, I just don’t have time to sort thrugh all of that. Can we take smaller chuncks at a time so we don’t choke?

You can take your time. The posts are not going away. I don’t want you to choke.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jmcrae]

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word… Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" [Acts 10…]

1. If water were not required, why would Peter have called for water?
2. These were the first Gentiles admitted to the Church. The Holy Spirit fell on them first, in order to show Peter that it is permissible for Gentiles to become members of the Church. This miracle only occurred once, in order that Peter would make a ruling in favour of the Gentiles being allowed to join the Church. (But if the Holy Spirit can do this all by Himself, then why does He need Peter to make a ruling for the Church? )

 

[mikeledes]

None of them teach against baptism, right? They all agree that we should be baptized.

Suppose that I believe that a Christian should eat only vegetables so I walk in obedience to what I believe God is speaking in His word. Another believer eats meat and he also is walking by faith in what he believes that God is speaking to him. Both are walking by faith.

…he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. [Rom 14:23]

True, none of them teach against baptism. But Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons also don’t teach against baptism. The problem is that Protestants disagree on the nature and role of baptism. Lutherans, following Martin Luther, uphold the historic understanding of baptism (baptismal regneration - which was unanimously taught by the Early Church Fathers, from Ireneaus to Augustine. However, there are plenty of Protestants who believe that baptismal regeneration contradicts the Gospel and faith alone and - as you yourself have stated - subjects God to man, a serious charge. So I don’t think you can compare this issue relating to salvation with eating vegetables or meat.

And the fundamental differences between Arminians amnd Calvinists remain.

God Bless,
Michael