Protestant Explanation of John 6

[kaycee]

Pope Gelasius uses the word ‘substance,’ but he does not use it with the Thomistic meaning. Thomas was to come much later. What he means is the bread and wine look the same before and after consecration. One cannot perceive the change by means of the senses. Yet he calls the sacrament “a divine thing,” by which we are made partakers of the divine nature. How could a mere symbol do that?

As for Augustine, see post #37. Does anyone really think that Augustine did not believe in the Eucharistic real presence?

Certainly Augustine believed in a spiritual presence, just not a physical one.

The issue was not settled until 1215!

Ratramnus employs Augustine in his 9th century defense of a Spiritual only defense!

homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/srratramnus.htm

While the author of the quote above draws his own conclusions about the historical import of the debate between Ratramnus and Radbertus, it is sufficient enough for us to note simply this–the tradition of “transubstantiation” (a word not even used in the debate) in the ninth century was hardly codified and certainly not what we see later in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD. The differences between the respective positions from over a thousand years ago happened within the bounds of orthodoxy and not outside them. When one further understands that transubstantiation was made dogma in 1215 only by the Western Church, great difficulty exists in calling it a catholic doctrine on par with the Trinity or other doctrines found in the ecumenical creeds and believed by the saints for all time.

reformedcatholicism.com/?p=457

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once the idiotic comparison of us to the Jews who didn’t understand stops!

How are you different?

Neither seems to be able to comprehend with your “fleshly/carnal” reasoning that Jesus WHO IS GOD said he would give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink and then made good on His promise in the Upper Room!

Boy, considering that John 6 is supposed to be all about accepting his teaching as “spiritual”, etc, etc, Jesus sure chose His words poorly during the Passover meal 'cause instead of clarifying everything and demonstrating the “obvious” symbolism , all He managed to do was muddy the waters even further!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How are you different?

Neither seems to be able to comprehend with your “fleshly/carnal” reasoning that Jesus WHO IS GOD said he would give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink and then made good on His promise in the Upper Room!

Boy, considering that John 6 is supposed to be all about accepting his teaching as “spiritual”, etc, etc, Jesus sure chose His words poorly during the Passover meal 'cause instead of clarifying everything and demonstrating the “obvious” symbolism , all He managed to do was muddy the waters even further!

I’ve no problem understanding, the water is not muddy…Afterall Jesus said “my sheep will hear my voice”

 

[kaycee]

How are you different?

Neither seems to be able to comprehend with your “fleshly/carnal” reasoning that Jesus WHO IS GOD said he would give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink and then made good on His promise in the Upper Room!

Boy, considering that John 6 is supposed to be all about accepting his teaching as “spiritual”, etc, etc, Jesus sure chose His words poorly during the Passover meal 'cause instead of clarifying everything and demonstrating the “obvious” symbolism , all He managed to do was muddy the waters even further!

Matt 26:29"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom."

Will Jesus be drinking His own Blood in Heaven?

 

[DJim]

Matt 26:29"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom."

Will Jesus be drinking His own Blood in Heaven?

Apparently–would you have a problem with that if that’s what God wanted to do?



DJim

 

[kaycee]

Apparently–would you have a problem with that if that’s what God wanted to do?



DJim

So, Jesus and the saints in Heaven will be drinking Jesus Blood together for all eternity?

Mass will be said for all eternity?

 

[DJim]

So, Jesus and the saints in Heaven will be drinking Jesus Blood together for all eternity?

Mass will be said for all eternity?

If the Book of Revelation is accurate in its account of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, I would think so…

DJim

 

[kaycee]

If the Book of Revelation is accurate in its account of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, I would think so…

DJim

Why would Jesus be drinking His own Blood? Was’nt Jesus sinless? Won’t the saints be sinless in Heaven?

Heb 9:22 - And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb really a mass?

 

[DJim]

Why would Jesus be drinking His own Blood? Was’nt Jesus sinless? Won’t the saints be sinless in Heaven?

Heb 9:22 - And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb really a mass?

Yup.

The Eucharist is not merely a means of sanctification.

DJim

 

[Kazige2007]

The evangelical/protestant explanation of Jn 6 is untennable if one probes into this matter seriously with an open mind to the Holy Spirit.
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And what, among other things, does Jesus require you to believe?

Quote: Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread that came from heaven, If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh which ***I will give ***for the life of the world”

Here Jesus gives a promise: “…I will give …”. Clearly, here Jesus he doesnt refer to the “spoken word”, so to speak. He doesnt promise to give that which he has already given!

The promise in Jn 6:51 was later fulfilled, as recorded in the synoptic gospels.
Quote: Mk 14:22 “* Take it. This is my body…” *This is the body spoken of and promised in Jn 6.
And what did the early Church understand about this matter?
Qoute: 1Cor 10:16 “…Is not the bread we break a fellowship in the body of Christ?..”

Evidently, Paul believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which was promised in Jn 6. And so did the ECFs’ unanimous stand on this doctrine.

 

[kaycee]

Yup.

The Eucharist is not merely a means of sanctification.

DJim

So, the sacrafice of the mass will be repeated in Heaven, but it won’t be a sacrafice?

What are the other purposes for the sacrafice of the mass in Heaven?

 

[kaycee]

The evangelical/protestant explanation of Jn 6 is untennable if one probes into this matter seriously with an open mind to the Holy Spirit.
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And what, among other things, does Jesus require you to believe?

Quote: Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread that came from heaven, If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh which ***I will give ***for the life of the world”

Here Jesus gives a promise: “…I will give …”. Clearly, here Jesus he doesnt refer to the “spoken word”, so to speak. He doesnt promise to give that which he has already given!

The promise in Jn 6:51 was later fulfilled, as recorded in the synoptic gospels.
Quote: Mk 14:22 “* Take it. This is my body…” *This is the body spoken of and promised in Jn 6.
And what did the early Church understand about this matter?
Qoute: 1Cor 10:16 “…Is not the bread we break a fellowship in the body of Christ?..”

Evidently, Paul believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which was promised in Jn 6. And so did the ECFs’ unanimous stand on this doctrine.**The ECF’s were clearly not unanimous! **
The Augustines held to a Spiritual presense, not a physical one.

The matter was not settled until 1215!

Ratramnus employs Augustine in his **9th century defense **of a Spiritual only defense!

homepage.mac.com/shanerosenth…rratramnus.htm

 

[OneForTruth]

The evangelical/protestant explanation of Jn 6 is untennable if one probes into this matter seriously with an open mind to the Holy Spirit.
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And what, among other things, does Jesus require you to believe?

Quote: Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread that came from heaven, If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh which ***I will give ***for the life of the world”

Here Jesus gives a promise: “…I will give …”. Clearly, here Jesus he doesnt refer to the “spoken word”, so to speak. He doesnt promise to give that which he has already given!

The promise in Jn 6:51 was later fulfilled, as recorded in the synoptic gospels.
Quote: Mk 14:22 “* Take it. This is my body…” *This is the body spoken of and promised in Jn 6.
And what did the early Church understand about this matter?
Qoute: 1Cor 10:16 “…Is not the bread we break a fellowship in the body of Christ?..”

Evidently, Paul believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which was promised in Jn 6. And so did the ECFs’ unanimous stand on this doctrine.

From a Catholic standpoint…you really need to do some fancy footwork. A lot of good dancers in here. I do not pretend at all that you will ever see the light, so-to-speak, because you will not. It does not matter what I say or what anyone else says…you believe what you believe. So, it does not surprise me that I am seeing what I am seeing in this thread.

 

[djrakowski]

From a Catholic standpoint…you really need to do some fancy footwork. A lot of good dancers in here. I do not pretend at all that you will ever see the light, so-to-speak, because you will not. It does not matter what I say or what anyone else says…you believe what you believe. So, it does not surprise me that I am seeing what I am seeing in this thread.

The very same criticism could easily be applied to you, and with more validity, considering that you’re making your case against Catholic teaching in a forum that’s populated mostly by Catholics.

In other words, why should we accept your argument on its face, without any shred of evidence that your interpretations are better than any of the other conflicting non-Catholic opinions available (including those of the Orthodox, who believe the exact same things as Catholics on the Eucharist, or Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, who hold very similar views)?

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that Protestants have to do a lot of fancy footwork to avoid the plain teaching of Jesus in John 6 and three institution narratives, including the one reiterated by Paul, where he specifically warns against receiving the Eucharist without recognizing Jesus’ body. For believers in sola scriptura, this never ceases to amaze me. Even the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized Him “in the breaking of the bread.”

 

[DJim]

So, the sacrafice of the mass will be repeated in Heaven, but it won’t be a sacrafice?

What are the other purposes for the sacrafice of the mass in Heaven?

Well…let’s be careful here–the Mass is not a repeated Sacrifice of any kind–which is exactly why it’s united to and one with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. There is only one Sacrifice that “is” the Mass. On earth, every Mass is a participation in that one Sacrifice*–the Heavenly Banquet. In Heaven it simply remains the Heavenly Banquet…this is presumably the deepest expression of the joy of Heaven–communion with God…

DJim

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Quote: Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread that came from heaven, If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh which ***I will give ***for the life of the world”

Here Jesus gives a promise: “…I will give …”. Clearly, here Jesus he doesnt refer to the “spoken word”, so to speak. He doesnt promise to give that which he has already given!

:

The problem Kazige is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught ). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life." Jesus was speaking about salvation.

To teach that Jesus meant for us to literally digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. otherwise he is a door and a gate

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

Matthew 10:38 reads, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”
Does God mean that we should literally carry crosses around over our shoulder?
See how ridiculous this all seems?

 

[Church_Militant]

See, this is why one has to take one’s beliefs from the entire context of scriptures on any one topic, because of the implied nature of the teachings that Jesus is offering in John 6 it is critical to consider them in the context of what St. Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians.
10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
and
11:23-30
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Obviously St. Paul is here teaching that he believes in the Eucharistic Real Presence since he in no way embraces a “symbolic” meaning to the Eucharist and neither did the earliest of the church fathers because St. Ignatius of Antioch writes as follows to the church at Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

…It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with(15) them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

Not much question in either account from what I can see.

 

[jpaul]

I received the following from a forum member via email:

---

Thoughts from our separated brethren? Anyone?

---

brother randy,

peace and all-good!

I am happy to know that you are a convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

Several converts to the Roman Catholic Church are good apologists. Among them are Dr. Scott Hahn, David Currie and Patrick Madrid.

The whole chapter of John 6 can be understood in the context of the Last Supper (Mt. 26: 26-28).

The disciples undertoods our Lord Jesus Christ speaking literally, and that is why they remarked, “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?” (John 6:60).

It is not metaphorical. The statements of our Lord Jesus Christ is very, very clear, “For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” (John 6:55).

To the un-believers, our Lord Jesus Christ asked, “Does it shake your faith?” (John 6: 61).

To the Twelve (faithful), our Lord Jesus Christ asked, “Do you want to leave me too?” (John 6: 67).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[OneForTruth]

See, this is why one has to take one’s beliefs from the entire context of scriptures on any one topic, because of the implied nature of the teachings that Jesus is offering in John 6 it is critical to consider them in the context of what St. Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians.
10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
and
11:23-30
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Obviously St. Paul is here teaching that he believes in the Eucharistic Real Presence since he in no way embraces a “symbolic” meaning to the Eucharist and neither did the earliest of the church fathers because St. Ignatius of Antioch writes as follows to the church at Smyrna. Not much question in either account from what I can see.

Spiritually and not literally - for during this time, we are reminded of His death and look forward to his return…we give thanks for the gift that He has given in His body and His blood…I would say I receive just as much spiritual benefit in our Lord’s Supper as you would.