John 4, Living water, Eucharist

[Kaylisette]

I hope I am posting this in the right spot. And I am sorry if this has been asked before. I did try to search for it.

As I have been thinking about Catholicism, an objection my friend brought up is this:
Jesus said to the woman at the well, in John 4:10, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

Somehow that verse was used as an argument against the Eucharist and against all the sacraments. My friend believes that a person only needs the Bible to know everything we need to know about salvation and godly living and very much against anything “extra-biblical.” So this verse was used to show me that the Eucharist is wrong and that we do not need to be baptized or even go to Mass to have a healthy spiritual life. If someone has only the Bible and has figuratively drank the living water, they have everything.

Can anyone help me kindly answer this objection?

 

[puzzleannie]

the objection would hold water if Jesus handed her a bible – with a compete New Testament – at the conclusion of the conversation

 

[WesleyF]

Somehow that verse was used as an argument against the Eucharist and against all the sacraments.

How?

So this verse was used to show me that the Eucharist is wrong and that we do not need to be baptized or even go to Mass to have a healthy spiritual life.

I don’t understand how one can rationally come to that conclusion. What is his/her reasoning behind this?

If someone has only the Bible and has figuratively drank the living water, they have everything.

Now who is doing the “extra-biblical” talk? Does the Bible say anything about figuratively drinking the water? Does he/she not know that the living water is a reference to the Holy Spirit?

" “He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” Now** this he said about the Spirit** …" (John 7:38-39)

And don’t we know that baptism is the primary means through which the Holy Spirit is given to us?

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

 

[Kaylisette]

the objection would hold water if Jesus handed her a bible – with a compete New Testament – at the conclusion of the conversation

Very true. I think I mentioned that (or I did while trying to field another objection) and the basic idea is that all a person needs is Jesus. And now, we have the Bible. Or even if someone hears part of the Bible, they can get all they need for salvation and the Bible itself is the sole source of knowledge of godliness.

 

[mcrow]

the objection would hold water if Jesus handed her a bible – with a compete New Testament – at the conclusion of the conversation

Exactly.

The bible isn’t all of what the Lord wanted us to know. No question that it contains a lot of what He wants us to know and follow but it’s not the only source.

Not to mention the above verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist. The living water that is talked about in that verse is refering to the Holy Spirit and really isn’t related to the Eucharist.

 

[Kaylisette]

How?
Well, I thought it was a reference to the Holy Spirit, too but I was told it wasn’t.

" “He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” Now** this he said about the Spirit** …" (John 7:38-39)

And don’t we know that baptism is the primary means through which the Holy Spirit is given to us?

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Oh, I know it’s strange. But please don’t roll eyes. I was also indoctrinated against the Catholic church. Perfectly nice but very misled. Thankfully not anymore. It honestly wasn’t an argument but us trying to come to the same conclusion. (Obviously, I failed.) Since I was not raised in a church as this person was, I am at a disadvantage.

Anyway it was used as an example of Jesus saying that someone only needs to know Jesus – no need for baptism, Eucharist, etc. And that Jesus would have told the woman that she needed the bread and wine, not water.

I tried to say that the living water referred to the Spirit, but that wasn’t good enough.

Regarding baptism …
Well, there’s the big problem. My friend rejects baptism as the primary means and feels it is symbolic. The thief on the cross came up (again) as proof that baptism isn’t necessary and that there is no way either he or Jesus went to purgatory. And when I’m done trying to figure out that objection, I’ll probably post another plea for help.

Anyway, I really do appreciate your response. Very helpful!

 

[WesleyF]

Anyway it was used as an example of Jesus saying that** someone only needs to know Jesus** – no need for baptism, Eucharist, etc.

Does this mean that one should not love Jesus? Of course not! Is it possible for a person who does not love Jesus to enter heaven? No! Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). That means keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation. Merely knowing Jesus wouldn’t suffice.

And that Jesus would have told the woman that she needed the bread and wine, not water.

The flaw in this reasoning is that Jesus told her everything at once. This is the implied assumption in your friend’s argument. But there is no such proof in the text. Jesus didn’t say that you don’t need bread and water. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What your friend is doing is rejecting the principle of the Unity of Scripture, which Jesus himself taught us. He/she is reading scripture in isolation and doing no justice to the other texts of scripture, for eg. 1 Peter 3:21 which says “Baptism… now saves you”.

Regarding baptism …
Well, there’s the big problem. My friend rejects baptism as the primary means and feels it is symbolic. The thief on the cross came up (again) as proof that baptism isn’t necessary and that there is no way either he or Jesus went to purgatory. And when I’m done trying to figure out that objection, I’ll probably post another plea for help.

Ask you friend one question - Do aborted babies go to heaven or hell?

Obviously they never believed in Jesus, so perhaps your friend would suggest that they should go to hell? But how can Jesus demand something from a person that the person is not able to offer?

In the same way, how could Jesus demand baptism from the thief on the cross when it was not possible for him to get himself baptized?

God does not demand from a person as a requirement for salvation what the person cannot offer. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but God himself is not bound by his sacraments. So if a person who believes in Jesus cannot get baptized through no fault of his, then he won’t be denied salvation. But if a person who believes in Jesus does not get himself baptized even though he can, then God will condemn him for his disobedience.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Life Giving Waters has a symbolic meaning to it. Water is an important part of life. Without it, we all die. But water by itself cannot save your immortal soul. For a long time water was used for purification in religion by people of that day. In fact, Baptism has it roots in those traditions.

When he said “life giving water” he was speaking of “life giving grace”, which only God can provide.

Now, your friend reasons that grace is given to use freely by God, and this is correct. But they fail to understand that God provides for us in the way that Jesus taught:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:25-27[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, in observing the bird, does it sit in its nest all day and wait for food to come to it? Does the bird wait for the rain to quench its thirst? God provides for the bird, but the bird must go out and seek and partake of what God provides.

Likewise, God provides Living Water (Saving Grace) through the sacraments, they are springs for us to drink from. You must go out and take part in the sacraments, not sit and wait for God to rain down Grace upon your head.

As to their suggestion that none of these things are necessary because all we need is Jesus (who is God) is horribly incorrect. God commanded his people in Exodus, knowing full well what was in their hearts, to put the blood of the lamb on the door in order for the Angel of the Lord to pass over them. Upon those who did not, death came to their household. Had his people said to Moses, “Well we don’t need to do that, all we need is God.” they would have brought death into their homes.

 

[Joe_5859]

The implicit assumption in your friends argument is that “drink of the living water” = “reading the Bible in its present (Protestant) form”. That’s quite an exegetical leap. Your friend would need to explain why this passage must be interpreted as referring to reading the Bible. I suppose such an interpretation makes sense if you approach it with the pre-conceived notion of Sola Scriptura. But otherwise it doesn’t make much sense.

As Wesley said, we need to look at the content and unity of Scripture. No passage exists in a vaccuum. We must look at passages together.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I hope I am posting this in the right spot. And I am sorry if this has been asked before. I did try to search for it.

As I have been thinking about Catholicism, an objection my friend brought up is this:
Jesus said to the woman at the well, in John 4:10, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

Somehow that verse was used as an argument against the Eucharist and against all the sacraments. My friend believes that a person only needs the Bible to know everything we need to know about salvation and godly living and very much against anything “extra-biblical.” So this verse was used to show me that the Eucharist is wrong and that we do not need to be baptized or even go to Mass to have a healthy spiritual life. If someone has only the Bible and has figuratively drank the living water, they have everything.

Can anyone help me kindly answer this objection?

Whenever someone quotes a verse, make sure you read the entire chapter or subject of the verse.

John 4:

7There cometh a woman of Samaria, to draw water. Jesus saith to her: Give me to drink.

8For his disciples were gone into the city to buy meats.

9Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew, ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans.

10Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

11The woman saith to him: Sir, thou hast nothing wherein to draw, and the well is deep; from whence then hast thou living water?

12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

13Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever:

14But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.

15The woman saith to him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw.

16Jesus saith to her: Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered, and said: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: Thou hast said well, I have no husband:

18For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly.

19The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20Our fathers adored on this mountain, and you say, that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore.

21Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, not in Jerusalem, adore the Father.

22You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.

24God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

25The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

I don’t see how there is anything against the eucharist in this passage. But a strong (not that there is any other ) teaching from our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Kaylisette]

Thank you so, so much to everyone that has responded.

 

[Kaylisette]

I suppose such an interpretation makes sense if you approach it with the pre-conceived notion of Sola Scriptura. But otherwise it doesn’t make much sense.

As Wesley said, we need to look at the content and unity of Scripture. No passage exists in a vaccuum. We must look at passages together.

Yes, the person is coming from a Sola Scriptura view. Well, leaning Reformed, anyway. I expressed my agreement with looking at the unity of Scripture but was told the Bible does not support the Catholic teachings, even if they do not actually violate Scripture.

 

[Kaylisette]

Does this mean that one should not love Jesus? Of course not! Is it possible for a person who does not love Jesus to enter heaven? No! Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). That means keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation. Merely knowing Jesus wouldn’t suffice.

Thank you again. Well, I think the person would say “know”=knowing, loving, and having faith in Jesus.

But the basic argument being: that a person all by himself, not around any Christians but somehow in the possession of the Bible, would be able to having saving knowledge (love, faith, repentance of sins) in Jesus just by reading the Scriptures and could bear the fruit of good works without ever getting baptized, taking communion, going to a church service in a building. And that since the Bible is all he or she needs, you don’t need any knowledge of church history or tradition, especially since the early church Fathers disagreed about the Eucharist and other key things anyway and if that person did join a church, it would be better to go somewhere that isn’t as complicated and focuses on doing good works as a result of faith instead of sacraments and liturgy.

I just can’t believe that since I don’t think that it is realistic.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Yes, the person is coming from a Sola Scriptura view. Well, leaning Reformed, anyway. I expressed my agreement with looking at the unity of Scripture but was told the Bible does not support the Catholic teachings, even if they do not actually violate Scripture.

And we could say that, based on our interpretation of the Bible, it does not support their teachings either.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Thank you again. Well, I think the person would say “know”=knowing, loving, and having faith in Jesus.

Yes, but you know that Jesus says that if you Love Him then you will keep his commandments, and so loving Him is not equal to just knowing Him.

And there is this:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:22-23[/BIBLEDRB]

These people do good works, but Jesus still doesn’t know them because they fail to keep is commandments. Of course this person will probably find some lame way to explain that scripture away.

 

[Kaylisette]

Exactly.

The bible isn’t all of what the Lord wanted us to know. No question that it contains a lot of what He wants us to know and follow but it’s not the only source.

Not to mention the above verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist. The living water that is talked about in that verse is refering to the Holy Spirit and really isn’t related to the Eucharist.

Well, I agree with your first point. I also thought that the living water referred to the Holy Spirit but that didn’t go over too well. I tried!

And we could say that, based on our interpretation of the Bible, it does not support their teachings either.

And that is pretty much why going Reformed didn’t work out for me.

 

[mcrow]

Yes, the person is coming from a Sola Scriptura view. Well, leaning Reformed, anyway. I expressed my agreement with looking at the unity of Scripture but was told the Bible does not support the Catholic teachings, even if they do not actually violate Scripture.

I would suggest reading a couple of Scott Hahn’s books. “Reasons to Believe” and “The Lamb’s Supper” should debunk the idea of the Catholic Church not being supported in the bible.

Start first with the Pope, since Peter being the first Pope or not is basically the crux of the issue.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Matthew 16:18

Keep in mind the word kepha in aramaic(the language that Jesus spoke) was tranlated to petra in Greek, The anglicized to Peter for us. The original meaning of the word “kepha” is “rock”.

So Matthew 16:18 would read like this:
“And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

So basically Jesus said to Peter: You are a rock and on this rock I will build my church.
There can be nothing more clear, IMO, in intent and design once you understand the translation.

It’s also important to note that the idea of the office of the Pope isn’t totally new at the time of Peter. Kings of David’s time often had a “Master of the Palace” to watch over things while he was gone.

Again in the next verse:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

He tells Peter that he gives him the keys of the kingdon of heaven, much in the same way the Master of the Palace would have authority handed to him. The Master of the Palace was an office, meaning it wasn’t given to just one person but to every person entrusted with watching over the Kingdom while the king is away.

John 10:16

16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.** So there will be one flock, one shepherd**.

 

[Kaylisette]

These people do good works, but Jesus still doesn’t know them because they fail to keep is commandments. Of course this person will probably find some lame way to explain that scripture away.

Very good points. I definitely do not see scriptural support for sola scriptura either. And I’m struggling with the objections because this person is offering contracting ideas … that a person can know, love, and obey Jesus with only the Bible as the sole source of information on godliness but also saying that another church group’s good works are evidence of their faith and a better option because they don’t believe in the Eucharist, infant baptism, etc. But at the same time, a person is justified by faith alone, once and for all, without works, sacraments, etc. I just don’t understand the objections well enough to answer them and I appreciate the help here.

But I stop short of calling the person’s ways lame. Not that I don’t understand the frustration of Catholic misconceptions being tossed around, but like I said, this is a conversation with someone I care about and can understand to a certain point. We were both heavily indoctrinated against the Catholic church and lame as it may sound, it is not easy to get past all these things.

 

[Kaylisette]

I would suggest reading a couple of Scott Hahn’s books. “Reasons to Believe” and “The Lamb’s Supper” should debunk the idea of the Catholic Church not being supported in the bible.

Start first with the Pope, since Peter being the first Pope or not is basically the crux of the issue.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Matthew 16:18

Keep in mind the word kepha in aramaic(the language that Jesus spoke) was tranlated to petra in Greek, The anglicized to Peter for us. The original meaning of the word “kepha” is “rock”.
QUOTE]
Thank you. I’m starting a Bible study on Scott’s website.

Oh, the Pope definitely was discussed. I gave basically the support regarding the translation, etc.
I was dismissed. The answer was that the Catholic explanation is just as much dancing around the subject as anyone else and that there’s no way there was papal authority in the early church since the early church was believers getting together and loving the Lord, doing good works, and following His teachings without centralized authority. I am at a loss as to how to answer that.

 

[mcrow]

mcrow;8057274:

I would suggest reading a couple of Scott Hahn’s books. “Reasons to Believe” and “The Lamb’s Supper” should debunk the idea of the Catholic Church not being supported in the bible.

Start first with the Pope, since Peter being the first Pope or not is basically the crux of the issue.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Matthew 16:18

Keep in mind the word kepha in aramaic(the language that Jesus spoke) was tranlated to petra in Greek, The anglicized to Peter for us. The original meaning of the word “kepha” is “rock”.
QUOTE]
Thank you. I’m starting a Bible study on Scott’s website.

Oh, the Pope definitely was discussed. I gave basically the support regarding the translation, etc.
I was dismissed. The answer was that the Catholic explanation is just as much dancing around the subject as anyone else and that there’s no way there was papal authority in the early church since the early church was believers getting together and loving the Lord, doing good works, and following His teachings without centralized authority. I am at a loss as to how to answer that.

Look at St. Justin’s writings where he basically tells us exactly what the mass of his time looked like, it’s very similar to the current Catholic Mass in structure. Read chapters 64-68 of his First Apology, to see the similarities. The First Apology was written about 150AD, so a little more than the full first century of Christianity.

You can see by reading St. Justin’s First Apology that there was already a structured Mass and some heirarchy (president, deacon…ect). It was not simply hippie happy love at Woodstock.