MacArthur

[Isaiah45_9]

May I ask where in John 6 does it say the bread & wine “becomes” the body & blood of Christ, as it does in John 2 when it says the water “became” wine? In fact, where in John 6 does it say that Jesus is talking about communion, or that communion is even occuring? What about John 6:53 where Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh & drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you”? What happens to baptized babies who die, those invincibly ignorant, those baptized by desire (like the repentant thief on the cross) or those baptized of blood (martyrs) who die without receiving communion? Since Jesus said “unless,” which in Greek means “except, or if not,” then wouldn’t Jesus be saying “except, or if not” you eat Jesus’ flesh & drink His blood, you have no life in you"? Wouldn’t these people end up in Hell?

You cannot claim to use the Scriptures to check the Scriptures and then ask a question like this one…

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Is the audience for the “no life in you” passage infants and babies? No. Then why make it something it is not?

Did you know that infants and children partake of communion in the Eastern Rites?

As early as ~140AD we see Justin Martyr saying:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

The other question I have is that as that when I was Catholic, I believed that when Jesus said, “I am the Bread of life,” he was referring to Himself being literally “present” in the communion bread. If this is true, then does that mean that when Jesus used other “I am” statement in John’s Gospel, that He was saying He was a literal “Door,” “Light,” “Vine,” "Shepherd’ of animal “sheep,” etc. If not, then why do so many Christians believe that Jesus is speaking figurative in these other “I am” verses, but He’s speaking literally when He says “I am the Bread of Life”?

It is important to note that later on in the chapter, in vs. 52 the Jews take him literally and so do some of his disciples. At this point Christ would have had a moral obligation to correct them. In those other passages you cited, no one seriously contemplates Christ being an actual door or vine. The audience knew Jesus was speaking figuratively. If Christ was only speaking figuratively about his body in John 6, then He would have told them because He cannot lie.

Also, the greek word for “eats” used in vs. 54-58 is the greek verb used for animal gnawing. I understand that throughout the gospels, Christ doesn’t render what He is actually saying explicit so everyone can understand Him but in those cases, He says things such as “He who has ears let him hear”, indicating that He is speaking figuratively. There is no such indication here. Christ is not a deceiver.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, if that’s true, then it would a benefit to get his study Bible & compare his study notes, which include cross-references to other related passages to the particular text he is commenting on. I think that would a good test for your opinion on him.

I own his study Bible. Sometimes he provides some good info or archaeological background. But theologically, I find his scholarship to be often lacking, even blind at times. For example, he gratuitously asserts in his analysis of John 6 that consumption of Jesus’ body and blood is “metaphorical” only. To back up his argument, he offers nothing but his assertion and arbitrary rules about what Jesus is allowed to teach when.

Another of his leaps is his redefinition of baptism, again based on gratuitous assertion.

Here’s another post at how ignorantly he imposes ridiculous views, a la the strawman, onto Catholics without citing a Catholic source. He only gives you his basis is none other than his erroneous claim.

You can actually get a view of how reckless his research is on Catholicism by looking at the anti-Catholic sources he goes to to learn about Catholic teaching. That’s not scholarship. That’s inanity. (btw, even that source is debunked in my first post in this thread)

 

[dcana]

Come home, Thetazlord. The Lord wants you back again for Himself. As a self-professed, former devout Catholic, you have no choice. Or rather you do have a choice. We always have choices. One is to return to Jesus in the Sacraments, Who you have turned away from. It is to YOU that He says, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you.” This should make you shudder. Do not let your senses and false teachers deceive you. READ AND BELIEVE IN JESUS’ WORDS! HE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND “HAS THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE.” What He says is true. He is the Truth. He does not lie or deceive. He has the power to do all He wills. …“But how can He change bread and wine into His Body and Blood?” Be not unbelieving, like the Jews were, but believe, like St. Peter, even if you do not understand fully. How did He walk on water? How did He create the universe from nothing? You reject the Eucharist because you reject the Church that has it and accept a Protestant sectarian denomination that doesn’t. I beg you, don’t do that. John MacArthur is not the Word and does not have the words of eternal life. He is a Christian heretic, known as a Protestant, which you also are by your free choice, as you admit.

Your other choice is to be without Him, which leads to hell. But he doesn’t want that, since “God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”. His Word is Truth. It is the Truth that sets you free. Lies do not set us free. He’s waiting for you, I promise you, and so am I. I’ll be praying for you.
Luke 15:11-32.

“But I’m NOT without Him,” you may protest. Read:

“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

• John 14: 21 (all quotations from NASB)

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.”

• John 14:23

“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

• Luke 6:46

Is this not you, since:
Jesus says: “Take and eat, this is my Body”.
while you say: “I will not take and eat, that is not your Body”.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”

• Matthew 7:21

You say you became a Protestant by “reading the Bible”. I encourage you, by all means keep reading the Bible. But read all of it. Don’t mentally “skip over” passages because they are “too hard” or don’t support what you have come to believe. Don’t do mental or grammatical gymnastics with the Word of God. Like our first Pope wrote:

“…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable DISTORT, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. **You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, **but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Read ALL of Scripture, in context. One part is not more important than other parts, nor does one part ever negate other parts. The problem would not be with the Bible, but with the reader’s faulty interpretation of the Word of God.

 

[asd72]

Obviously, you can find many, many more ECF’s throughout Church history who do believe in literally. However, that’s because from the time the Church “universally” agreed on it, which was very early in Church history, there have been more centuries after the universal Church agreement of it, then there were prior to it. The point being is that since ECF’s were not “universal” on it until centuries after the time of Christ, is it a fair statement that the Church “always” & “universally” agreed on it, all the way back to the time of Christ & His disciples?

Look back at the link I posted on unanimous consent.

The other question I have is that as that when I was Catholic, I believed that when Jesus said, “I am the Bread of life,” he was referring to Himself being literally “present” in the communion bread. If this is true, then does that mean that when Jesus used other “I am” statement in John’s Gospel, that He was saying He was a literal “Door,” “Light,” “Vine,” "Shepherd’ of animal “sheep,” etc. If not, then why do so many Christians believe that Jesus is speaking figurative in these other “I am” verses, but He’s speaking literally when He says “I am the Bread of Life”?

Reason 1: The witness of history. The Church taught this until after the Protestant reformation.

Reason 2: Jesus used very graphical language in John 6. One word he used for “eat” could be translated as “gnaw”. Understandably the Jewish disciples were horrified. Was Jesus suggesting cannibalism? Does he not know God forbids consuming blood?

Many of them left him, but Jesus never said, “wait, I was just using a figure of speech”. The 12 didn’t understand either, but they had faith. Why would Jesus not correct them?

 

[dcana]

Why do I say that “You reject the Eucharist because you reject the Church that has it and accept a Protestant sectarian denomination that doesn’t”? Because you MUST reject it, or rather Him, or else you would know that you’re in the wrong place and need to come home. If the Eucharist is true, then you have rejected Jesus’ greatest gift to mankind (namely, Himself) and are in a false Christian sectarian church following a false Gospel (to one extent or another - certainly to a very large extent at the least), and are in need of returning to Jesus’ Church. But the Catholic Church is NOT the Church founded by Jesus Christ, is it? It just CAN’T be for you or any other Protestant - or Orthodox, for that matter - because you’re not in it. In fact, Jesus didn’t found a visible Church at all, or maybe didn’t even found any Church at all, did he? He COULDN’T have because the Church is now, since the scandalous schisms of Protestantism since the 16th century, “an invisible unity of all believers in Christ”. It HAS to be, else we are not in the Church. Scripture says “Baptism now saves you” but it doesn’t really save us, because it CAN’T because I now believe that it DOESN’T. The Pope isn’t really Christ’s vicar on earth who holds the keys of the Kingdom and is the head of Christ’s Church on earth, to whom one must be subject to be saved because he CAN’T be, because I don’t accept that. And on and on. That is why I said to read and believe all the Scriptures. Likewise, the Sacrament of Confession must be false BECAUSE I now believe I can ONLY go “straight to God” to ask for forgiveness. Sorry, but your are acting according to your own designs and ideas, not God’s. The Holy Spirit really descended upon the Apostles through Christ’s breathing on them on the day of Pentecost, Jesus** really** said what He is recorded to have said in John’s Gospel Chapter 20, He **really **meant what He said and has the power to do as He said, and therefore the Apostles and those who would receive their ministry by the laying on of hands **really **have the power to forgive sins in Jesus’ Name. But that CAN’T be true because then I can’t receive forgiveness after I have committed a mortal sin. Well, it is and you can’t, I’m very sorry to say. Did the Apostles really receive the ability to speak in a way such that peoples of various languages could understand them or is that just a metaphor? Does it say in John MacArthur’s notes concerning the Apostles’ speaking in tongues that “that’s not really what happened” or “that’s not what the text really means”? I seriously doubt it, because whether they did or not doesn’t really affect him. But if Jesus gave to certain men the power to forgive sins in His Name (as He says quite clearly), then that would be another story altogether. First, it would blow a gaping hole in his Protestant theology and second, he would have to inquire if there are men today who have the power to forgive sins IN THE WAY JESUS HAS WILLED, which, because He has willed it, is, ordinarily, the only way that mortal sins (the kind that separate us from God) can be forgiven. He is well aware that there certainly are men who claim to have been given this power - namely, Catholic and Orthodox priests, but those claims MUST be false, right? I’ll be praying for you, him, and myself. God bless.

For the time will come [and dare I say, is now here] when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

• 2 Tim 4:3-4 (NASB)

That “time” has been here from the beginning, but its effects and spread have been escalating slowly but constantly all along. It came very early on, the “they” referred to going from the Gnostics to the Aryans to the Muslims to the Protestants to the Mormons, and so on, now arriving at the secular, atheistic, pro-death, “post-modern” culture.

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared [Mohammed, Luther, etc.]; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went OUT FROM us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

• 1 John 2:15-19

“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is Truth.”

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

By quoting Slick, I am assuming that you have done the necessary checks and that you agree to his statements.

Based upon desire to keep word count within a response to each ECF, I will respond not in the order of the ECF as presented by Slick. But I will attempt to respond to each. I may not have all the writings on hand yet but will try to source for them.

1. Arthenogoras says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men. "But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act;

Have you read it? This quotation has nothing to do with the Eucharist at all. Slick probably didn’t even read it. The Chapter Heading reads “CHAP. VIII.—HUMAN FLESH NOT THE PROPER OR NATURAL FOOD OF MEN”. Except for cannibals, I think there is no one on earth that disagree with this. Eucharist was never mentioned or partaking of Christ body. To tender this as referring to Eucharist partaking is bad scholarship bordering on deceit.

1. Origen

Origin says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. “Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)

See the item bolded. The bread changed “in respect of the prayer which comes over it”. Indeed "it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord". It is clear that the prayer of sanctification makes it worthy partaking of the Lord. This quote actually supports the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Bread becomes our Lord upon sanctification. If nothing has changed, Origen would still be taking about bread and not our Lord.

In fact Origen in other writings confirmed that the Eucharist contains our Lord.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xxxiii.html

*For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; **and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. ***

cont’d

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

cont’d

1. Theodoret (393-457)

Theodoret says the elements remain as bread and wine. "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)

The statement Slick quoted is completely true. The accidents of the bread remains.
And the next sentence says:

But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.

Why didn’t he continue to the next sentence? Inconvenient to disclose it? Why didn’t you spot it?

And the response:

Eran.— Yes; and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation; it is no longer called by the name it went by before, but is styled body. So must the reality be called God, and not body.

1. Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?)

Theophilis of Antioch denies that Christians eat human flesh.   "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

And nothing here says anything about the Eucharist. Having lots of supporting documents but without addressing the subject is really a time waster don’t you agree?

And ironically this was the chapter heading:
Chapter 4. How Autolycus Had Been Misled by False Accusations Against the Christians
If false, why bring it up?

cont’d

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

cont’d

1. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

1. Clement of Alexandria says the comunion wine is called wine.  "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)

Firstly you have to look at the beginning of that Chapter 2 On Drinking". At the 4th paragraph:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.
It is so clear that we are to drink the blood of Christ. The problem is Slick thinks there is only one figurative way to interpret the Eucharist. It is literal. It can also be used symbolically. One can also use it to teach figuratively. It is all of the above.

1. Clement of Alexandria said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”–(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

Let me include the paragraph prior to the quoted portion.

But if human wisdom, as it remains to understand, is the glorying in knowledge, hear the law of Scripture: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord.” [1] But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, “I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for ye are not yet able,” regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind.

The whole chapter is on using figurative speech to describe the faith, not the Eucharist. It does not deny the Eucharist is the body of Christ at all. Symbolic language can be used in many circumstances but it is a bad conclusion that it is the only way. If you want to know what he thinks specifically of the Eucharist, see above.

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

1. Eusebius (263-339)

1. Eusebius says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

Look at “with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” . If it is “only” bread and wine, why are there mysteries of His Body and saving Blood? It is the mystery of transubstantiation.

1. Eusebius says the bread and wine are symbol’s of Christ’s Body. “The words, ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,’ again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine,’ seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, ‘Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.’ And, ‘His teeth are white as milk,’ shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, ‘And his teeth are white as milk.’ This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, ‘Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.’” (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)

Where does it say Christ is not in the Eucharist? He said plainly “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you…” Christ did not say take the symbol, or wine, but “my blood”. How can anyone argue this? Matthew/Mark/Luke all wrote it as the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ said so. Paul agreed too.

 

[oneofmany]

Actually, it was John MacArthur who set me on the final phase of the road to conversion to the Catholic faith. I used to be a regular listener to him, and in one of his radio broadcasts he played a message that he gave to young ministers, in which he described a particular method of Bible reading (specifically, the New Testament) that he had used when he was a young minister. I wasn’t a “young minister,” but I set myself to read the NT in that way, and it was during that course of reading that I discovered that in order for the bible to be an inerrant guide to Christian life, there had to be an infallible interpreter. The rest, as they say is history.

Later on I wrote him a letter thanking him for setting me on the road to Catholicism ( ), and someone on his staff (I doubt that it was him personally) sent me a two-CD set on the “heresy of the Catholic Mass.”

That is just like Tim Staples’ book, “Jimmy Swagart made me a Catholic.”

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

cont’d

1. Tertullian (155-220)

1. Tertullian says the communion bread represents Christ's body.

"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.
(Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)

The quoted portion falls far short of what Tertullian was trying to do. Marcion denied that Christ had a true Body of Flesh and Blood. Tertullian therefore in several writings demonstrate that Christ had a real body of flesh and blood. Tertullian explained why Christ calls himself bread (and not a melon).ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.xl.html

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,”that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,”which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed “in His blood,” affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?”The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, “He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes”—in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.

1. Tertullian refers to the communion supper as spiritual words. “He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”–(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)

Nothing here says that the Christ is not in the Eucharist. In fact it states very clearly that “His flesh be the bread which cometh down from heaven”. I think everyone agrees that Christ being the Word is spirit and life. Tertullian is merely using figurative speech to describe the desire for Christ.

 

[Porknpie]

Nothing here says that the Christ is not in the Eucharist. In fact it states very clearly that “His flesh be the bread which cometh down from heaven”. I think everyone agrees that Christ being the Word is spirit and life. Tertullian is merely using figurative speech to describe the desire for Christ.

Ericc -

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Slick too follows a solo scriptura approach, twisting not only scripture but the early Church to confirm God to his views.

Christ can not be any clearer “take … eat … my body”

Nothing about his words being symbolic.

**Brandt Pitre has an excellent youtube video here **that corresponds to his book of the same. It’s well worth the hour long talk as he explains why the early Jewish Christian converts so readily accepted Christ’s teaching on the Real Presence. I should note that his book is 5* on Amazon. Would be good for Slick’s and the MacArthur’s of this world to read it too.

“It is a hard saying” for many, just like the bible says. That’s egg-actly why “it is the Spirit gives life, the flesh is no avail.” We can not understand the Real Presence with our fleshy minds alone.

 

[sennincatholic]

Thanks Ericc for the great job done:thumbsup:

 

[agnes_therese]

Thanks Ericc for the great job done:thumbsup:

Ditto.

 

[thetazlord]

So McArthur believes that scripture is inherent word of God and is sufficient in and of itself to impart all the wisdom of the Lord . So my question is based on whose interpretation of Scripture ? For instance you and I obviously disagree on the interpretation of John:6. How do we resolve that? Is endless verse wars and arguments over what the meaning of “is” is really what Jesus intended when he founded his church? When Jesus ascended to heaven were his last words “I left your book ,now figure it out for yourself”?And if McArthur is right why did God wait 1500 years to reveal this to his people ?

The short answer to this is that if two views of Scripture conflict, then you have to ask yourself, does one of these views conflict with other relevant passages in Scripture? For example, the same God that spoke in John 6 also commanded not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14). God didn’t just say the “flesh” of animals, but any “flesh.” Yet, Jesus says “eat” My “flesh.” So, is God speaking literally or figuratively? If figuratively, how does that conflict with Leviticus, since in Jesus’ day, the Law was still in effect? This would certainly explain “why” many of His disciples walked away (John 6:66). Understanding John 6, in context with Leviticus, and specifically with John 6:35, Jesus speaking figuratively would explain “why” they walked away…because they misunderstood Him to be speaking literally. And the reason He didn’t stop & correct them, is because being the Omniscient God, Jesus knew their hearts. Nothing He would say to them would change their minds, just as what He said didn’t change the minds of the Pharisees.

 

[thetazlord]

Funny thing after reading the bible that made me catholic, so that kind of disproves bible alone 1 Tim 3:15

1 Timothy 3:15: “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

This verse by Timothy actually supports sola scriptura, because the Church, the “pillar & support of the truth” accepts what Paul has written. It doesn’t say that they accepted what Paul did not write that conflicted with, or “exceeded” Scripture. In fact, Paul commands the opposite (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

[thetazlord]

And did either one of them start a new denomination? Or did both of them submit to the pillar and bulwark of truth?

That’s not the point. The point is that “universality” in every Christian doctrine or belief was not a trait found in the early Church, even among later “canonized saints” like Augustine & Jerome. In fact, many early Christians did not agree with their own Church even in matters of “official” doctrines, such as the Eucharist, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc, including Christians who would later be “canonized” as “saints.” And what Paul stated was the “pillar & support of truth” they early first century Church accepted was based on what he wrote (1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[thetazlord]

You cannot claim to use the Scriptures to check the Scriptures and then ask a question like this one…

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Is the audience for the “no life in you” passage infants and babies? No. Then why make it something it is not?

Did you know that infants and children partake of communion in the Eastern Rites?

You’re kind of making my point. What about those infants & children who don’t “partake of communion”? What happens to them when they die if they have “no life in them,” since they didn’t “partake in communion”? And if the passage “no life in you” Jesus isn’t referring to communion, they “why” are those infants & children who do “partake of communion” partaking in it? It still doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is saying “unless” in John 6:53, which in Greek means “except, or if not.” Jesus is not specifying “who” this refers to. He is speaking in general.

 

[estesbob]

The short answer to this is that if two views of Scripture conflict, then you have to ask yourself, does one of these views conflict with other relevant passages in Scripture? For example, the same God that spoke in John 6 also commanded not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14). God didn’t just say the “flesh” of animals, but any “flesh.” Yet, Jesus says “eat” My “flesh.” So, is God speaking literally or figuratively? If figuratively, how does that conflict with Leviticus, since in Jesus’ day, the Law was still in effect? This would certainly explain “why” many of His disciples walked away (John 6:66). Understanding John 6, in context with Leviticus, and specifically with John 6:35, Jesus speaking figuratively would explain “why” they walked away…because they misunderstood Him to be speaking literally. And the reason He didn’t stop & correct them, is because being the Omniscient God, Jesus knew their hearts. Nothing He would say to them would change their minds, just as what He said didn’t change the minds of the Pharisees.

And having done all this what if we still disagree? Why should I accept your personal interpretation of Scripture?

1 Timothy 3:15: “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

This verse by Timothy actually supports sola scriptura, because the Church, the “pillar & support of the truth” accepts what Paul has written. It doesn’t say that they accepted what Paul did not write that conflicted with, or “exceeded” Scripture. In fact, Paul commands the opposite (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Again based on who’s interpretation of Scripture?

That’s not the point. The point is that “universality” in every Christian doctrine or belief was not a trait found in the early Church, even among later “canonized saints” like Augustine & Jerome. In fact, many early Christians did not agree with their own Church even in matters of “official” doctrines, such as the Eucharist, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc, including Christians who would later be “canonized” as “saints.” And what Paul stated was the “pillar & support of truth” they early first century Church accepted was based on what he wrote (1 Timothy 3:15).

You really need to do some more research.For instance:

“I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” — Saint Augustine

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

St Jerome

Yet once again you and I disagree on what Scripture says How do we resolve that? Is God the author of confusion?