How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Esdra]

But just curious. if The Eucharist is not the real flesh of Christ how do you feel we can obtain eternal life then. John 6:50-69 How do we eat this bread that comes down from heaven if not in the Eucharist. How can we have eternal life then. Because Jesus says who ever eats this bread will live forever. Because you deny what John 6; 50-59 claims, that the bread that Christ gives us is his flesh for the life of the world. Once again how do you obtain it?

I will put it in two simple words that also Luther has used: SOLA GRATIA (alone through mercy!)

If we accept Christ Jesus as our Savior and so become Christians - and are then baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost. - Baptizm Water as an outward sign. - Then we are saved. We don’t need the Eucharist. The Eucharist as the Catholics are practicing it, is a pagan rite. The Last Supper was ONLY meant as a Feast in His remembrance - what He did on the Cross for US. - He took all our sins up to the cross and the promissory note is now torn apart. We can go no faithfully to our Lord, YHWH, our Father in heaven again.

But I think you also know my position as well as I now your own - because it has been stated SEVERAL times in this thread!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[PRmerger]

Another major problem with the source, along the same lines, is that it seems to be taking regional divisions of denominations and counting them separately. For example, I counted about 50 Assembly of God denominations on there; but in cross checking them with their websites, they are all one denomination spread over different areas. The same is true of the Lutheran churches. For example, the International Lutheran Council is made up of 30 churches over several countries - but they are all in fellowship both on doctrine and communion. So, really, they are one denomination. It doesn’t seem to be a fair way to count church bodies.

Perhaps.

Let’s just say that there’s really only 4,000 different Christian denominations, each coming to their own doctrines by studying the same Scriptures as anyone else…doesn’t that seem.…wrong…to you? How could there be 4000 different understandings of the very same Scriptures (ok, give or take 7 books)??

Doesn’t that clearly show that one cannot simply read the Scriptures and say, “The HS is going to lead us to know what God has revealed”?

Even if we take one verse, “Baptism now saves you”…here’s a few understandings of what that means:
-it’s a sacrament
-it’s an ordinance
-it means we baptize babies
-it means we wait until they’re adult
-it means we wait until they’re at the age of reason
-it means we immerse them
-it means we sprinkle them
-it means we have to go down to a river
-it means it’s symbolic
-it means it provides an indelible mark on the soul

:hypno:

 

[PRmerger]

I will put it in two simple words that also Luther has used: SOLA GRATIA (alone through mercy!)

If we accept Christ Jesus as our Savior and so become Christians - and are then baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost. - Baptizm Water as an outward sign. - Then we are saved.

Catholics take the entire Bible in order to understand how we are saved.

We are saved…

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By believing and being baptized (Mk 16:16)

By repentance (Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

By eating his flesh (John 6)

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit?

The Answer:

These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up; overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather, she holds them all in their fullness." From raeshomepage.bravehost.com/Master.html

 

[FantomScholar]

Perhaps.

Let’s just say that there’s really only 4,000 different Christian denominations, each coming to their own doctrines by studying the same Scriptures as anyone else…doesn’t that seem.…wrong…to you? How could there be 4000 different understandings of the very same Scriptures (ok, give or take 7 books)??

Doesn’t that clearly show that one cannot simply read the Scriptures and say, “The HS is going to lead us to know what God has revealed”?

Even if we take one verse, “Baptism now saves you”…here’s a few understandings of what that means:
-it’s a sacrament
-it’s an ordinance
-it means we baptize babies
-it means we wait until they’re adult
-it means we wait until they’re at the age of reason
-it means we immerse them
-it means we sprinkle them
-it means we have to go down to a river
-it means it’s symbolic
-it means it provides an indelible mark on the soul

:hypno:

What if we say it’s a sacramental ordinance that we baptize adults and babies with and then do it again at the age of reason, we sprinkle them the first time, then we immerse them in a river. It leaves a symbolic indelible mark on the soul. There, problem solved.

But seriously…yes I agree that differing interpretations are a bad thing. What is the proposed solution?

 

[KathleenGee]

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a strengthening of conviction and confirming a person in the Holy Spirit into the Church, reflective of the graces of Pentecost. Baptism is the first sacrament, which is a Catholic rite that all Protestant churches use, thus baptizing their members into the universal/Catholic faith. Thus we see others as separated brethren in the Church.

The Catholic Church’s teaching is that we are saved by the grace of faith. The semantics involve what defines a credible faith…one that follows Christ. And then this creates another dispute among the protestants using works, when in reality the works of mercy are the same in both the church and various denominations.

The bottom line is accepting Christ’s authority. Faith with certitude.

 

[Esdra]

Catholics take the entire Bible in order to understand how we are saved.

We are saved…

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By believing and being baptized (Mk 16:16)

By repentance (Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)
**
By eating his flesh (John 6)**
**
Yes, dearest PRMerger, we can cross out the above out - because it is NOT necessary to salvation. - See in my posts, and those of RichardKastner, RevKevin (and certainly also FantomScholar) WHY THIS IS SO!

Esdra**

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit?

The Answer:

These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up; overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather, she holds them all in their fullness." From raeshomepage.bravehost.com/Master.html

 

[PRmerger]

**

Yes, dearest PRMerger, we can cross out the above out - because it is NOT necessary to salvation. - See in my posts, and those of RichardKastner, RevKevin (and certainly also FantomScholar) WHY THIS IS SO!

Esdra

**

Can you see that we must take the entire Scriptures into account to see how it is that we are saved? Can you dismiss James saying that works are necessary? Can you dismiss Jesus’ words that “not everyone who says ‘Lord! Lord!’ will be saved”? Can you ignore Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats?

 

[PRmerger]

But seriously…yes I agree that differing interpretations are a bad thing.

:sad_yes:

What is the proposed solution?

History.

Check out how the 1st century Christians worshiped.

If we were transported back into history and attended a 3rd century ecclesial gathering, whose liturgies today would it most resemble?

 

[FantomScholar]

**

Can you see that we must take the entire Scriptures** into account to see how it is that we are saved? Can you dismiss James saying that works are necessary? Can you dismiss Jesus’ words that “not everyone who says ‘Lord! Lord!’ will be saved”? Can you ignore Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats?

Fascinating that you bring this text up (Matt. 7:21-24). I’m preaching on this one next Sunday, Lord willing.

There is a very, very delicate balance that has to be struck. We have to avoid falling off the twin cliffs that border our worldview on both sides. On the one, works-righteousness, on the other, an antinomian, make-a-decision-for-Jesus mentality. Scripture provides us with a beautiful balance to counteract both positions,

 

[FantomScholar]

:sad_yes:

History.

Check out how the 1st century Christians worshiped.

If we were transported back into history and attended a 3rd century ecclesial gathering, whose liturgies today would it most resemble?

Considering the majority of them were in the East, probably the Orthodox LOL

 

[PRmerger]

Considering the majority of them were in the East, probably the Orthodox LOL

I’ll accept that answer.

The Orthodox Church believed in the Real Presence, then, during the 1st century? and the 2nd? and the 3rd?

 

[FantomScholar]

I’ll accept that answer.

The Orthodox Church believed in the Real Presence, then, during the 1st century? and the 2nd? and the 3rd?

Based on the historical research, there are numerous opinions on the real presence in those early centuries, and many of them do not coincide with the modern Roman or Orthodox viewpoints on the doctrine. There is also the ever-present anachronisms of reading modern theological concepts back into the patristic sources. common example can be drawn from Ignatius, who, when writing to the Smyrneans, said,

“They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.”

To the ear trained to hear the Fathers as Roman Catholics, Ignatius sounds as if he is referring to the real presence. He is not. Going back to the context, one finds he is making the same argument that Tertullian made. He is arguing against the docetic gnostics who denied the reality of the physical incarnation of Christ. It is foolishness to participate in the Supper, which calls us to remembrance of the flesh and blood of Christ, broken for us, if, in fact, there never was such flesh! Only by reading a doctrine that would take a thousand years to crystalize back into Ignatius can one come up with a Roman Catholic understanding. Interestingly enough, Irenaeus, likewise, in his Against Heresies (5:2:2), is making the exact same argument, not teaching a physical presence or transubstantiation, but instead fighting against the docetic gnostics who denied the physical reality of Christ’s incarnation.

 

[PRmerger]

Based on the historical research, there are numerous opinions on the real presence in those early centuries, and many of them do not coincide with the modern Roman or Orthodox viewpoints on the doctrine. There is also the ever-present anachronisms of reading modern theological concepts back into the patristic sources. common example can be drawn from Ignatius, who, when writing to the Smyrneans, said,

“They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.”

To the ear trained to hear the Fathers as Roman Catholics, Ignatius sounds as if he is referring to the real presence. He is not. Going back to the context, one finds he is making the same argument that Tertullian made. He is arguing against the docetic gnostics who denied the reality of the physical incarnation of Christ. It is foolishness to participate in the Supper, which calls us to remembrance of the flesh and blood of Christ, broken for us, if, in fact, there never was such flesh! Only by reading a doctrine that would take a thousand years to crystalize back into Ignatius can one come up with a Roman Catholic understanding. Interestingly enough, Irenaeus, likewise, in his Against Heresies (5:2:2), is making the exact same argument, not teaching a physical presence or transubstantiation, but instead fighting against the docetic gnostics who denied the physical reality of Christ’s incarnation.

I guess this brings me back to my earlier post–about taking things in their entirety.

If you take one ECF and he says something bizarre, well you can dismiss that. But, if you take them as a group and see, what did the ECFs think about the Eucharist, about the primacy of Peter, about praying for the dead, about Mary ever-virgin…I think you are disingenuous if you don’t come out with a Catholic or Orthodox understanding of the early church.

 

[PRmerger]

To the ear trained to hear the Fathers as Roman Catholics, Ignatius sounds as if he is referring to the real presence.

LOL!! Since there only were Catholics (or Orthodox) for 1500 years, then what other “ear” would there be to understand Ignatius?

Only by reading a doctrine that would take a thousand years to crystalize back into Ignatius can one come up with a Roman Catholic understanding.

Don’t forget your reference to the Orthodox as well! It’s their understanding too.

 

[FantomScholar]

I guess this brings me back to my earlier post–about taking things in their entirety.

If you take one ECF and he says something bizarre, well you can dismiss that. But, if you take them as a group and see, what did the ECFs think about the Eucharist, about the primacy of Peter, about praying for the dead, about Mary ever-virgin…I think you are disingenuous if you don’t come out with a Catholic or Orthodox understanding of the early church.

And I think that doing such is reading far more into them than is warranted by what they actually said. Of course, pulling quotes from them is never going to do anything. Yet, the Roman Catholic argument generally falls along the lines of any church father having something nice to say about Peter is immediate evidence for Petrine primacy.

 

[FantomScholar]

LOL!! Since there only were Catholics (or Orthodox) for 1500 years, then what other “ear” would there be to understand Ignatius?

That’s an assertion, however, not an argument. Since it is claimed by Catholics that the Roman Church of today is the same, fundamentally, as the Roman Church of Ignatius’ time, that burden of proof is on those making the assertion.

Don’t forget your reference to the Orthodox as well! It’s their understanding too.

Yes, it is. It’s also their understanding that the Roman dogma of transubstantiation is false. So, while the two beliefs are similar, they’re hardly compatible.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it is. It**'s also their understanding that the Roman dogma of transubstantiation is false**. So, while the two beliefs are similar, they’re hardly compatible.

I was not aware of this. Could you please cite a source?

 

[FantomScholar]

I was not aware of this. Could you please cite a source?

oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=132&MONTH=June&YEAR=2007

Incidentally, Rome finds Orthodoxy’s view acceptable; yet finds the Lutheran and Anglican views, which are almost identical to the East’s as unacceptable. This is beyond the view of Holy Orders.

 

[rinnie]

Not that I am in a position to answer for Esdra, but we do so by doing that very thing that Jesus is addressing in John 6; by coming to him and believing in Him,

What about the Holy Bread that comes down from heaven. I do not see Jesus saying all we must do is come to him, and believe in him. He said you must eat the flesh of my flesh to have eternal life.

 

[FantomScholar]

What about the Holy Bread that comes down from heaven. I do not see Jesus saying all we must do is come to him, and believe in him. He said you must eat the flesh of my flesh to have eternal life.

The eating is the metaphorical aspect to Christ’s statement. Christ is comparing coming and believing to eating and drinking.