Protestants and John chapter 6

[lanman87]

I’ve heard your explaination of how we eat the “Living Bread”. I’v just never had anyone give me an explaination of how you get to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking about reading the Bible, singing songs and volunteering to serve in John 6?

I starting to write a long laborious reply. But it really comes down to the fact that we feed on the “Bread of Life” with our hearts to fulfill a spiritual hunger not with our mouth to fulfill a physical hunger.

 

[MT1926]

I starting to write a long laborious reply. But it really comes down to the fact that we feed on the “Bread of Life” with our hearts to fulfill a spiritual hunger not with our mouth to fulfill a physical hunger.

Thanks for the response. Doesn’t really help explain how you get to this conclusion about John 6 other than this is what I believe and this is how I choose to believe it.

Thanks anyway

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

In and of itself, John 6 is metaphorical. We see the reality of the Eucharist, The real presence in the accounts of the Last Supper.

It is only the clearest read of John 6 when read in the light of Christ’s words of institution in the Last Supper accounts. Without His words, “this is…”, one can reasonably argue the symbolic view.

Although I agree that we need to read John 6 in light of the entire Bible, I don’t agree with your assertion that in and of itself John 6 is metaphorical or can reasonable argued to be symbolic.

I think there is way to much in John 6 that would have to be ignored to get the metaphorical or symbolic view.

Let’s just take one that is often overlooked…

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Well we know from Luke 24 that Jesus did in fact ascend where he was before. I find it hard to see that Jesus was telling the disciples here, you will no longer take offense to this purely symbolic/metaphorical saying after you witness the ascension.

John 6 isn’t metaphorical. Jesus was teaching a literal hard saying. Can’t see any symbolism here unless it is read into the text.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Thanks for the response. Doesn’t really help explain how you get to this conclusion about John 6 other than this is what I believe and this is how I choose to believe it.

John Bloom from DesiringGod.org says it better than I ever could

(edit to add) Here is John Piper sermon/notes on John 6.

If believing/faith is how we eat the bread of life then the things we do to grow in our faith are things that help us feed on Christ. They give nourishment to our faith and help it grow.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

In and of itself, John 6 is metaphorical. We see the reality of the Eucharist, The real presence in the accounts of the Last Supper.

It is only the clearest read of John 6 when read in the light of Christ’s words of institution in the Last Supper accounts. Without His words, “this is…”, one can reasonably argue the symbolic view.

Although I agree that we need to read John 6 in light of the entire Bible, I don’t agree with your assertion that in and of itself John 6 is metaphorical or can reasonable argued to be symbolic.

I think there is way to much in John 6 that would have to be ignored to get the metaphorical or symbolic view.

Let’s just take one that is often overlooked…

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Well we know from Luke 24 that Jesus did in fact ascend where he was before. I find it hard to see that Jesus was telling the disciples here, you will no longer take offense to this purely symbolic/metaphorical saying after you witness the ascension.

John 6 isn’t metaphorical. Jesus was teaching a literal hard saying. Can’t see any symbolism here unless it is read into the text.

God Bless

I do not wish to argue in depth, since in large measure, we agree. My point is not that Christ is not being literal in some ways in John 6, only that if one is to successfully defend the doctrine of the real presence, it seems reasonable to start with the verba in the accounts of the Last Supper. John 6, then, is a remarkable portion of scripture that supports Christ’s institution.

 

[MT1926]

I do not wish to argue in depth, since in large measure, we agree. My point is not that Christ is not being literal in some ways in John 6, only that if one is to successfully defend the doctrine of the real presence, it seems reasonable to start with the verba in the accounts of the Last Supper. John 6, then, is a remarkable portion of scripture that supports Christ’s institution.

I can agree with this.

Wasn’t trying to start an argument just when you said it’s metaphorical I thought you meant nothing Jesus said was literal.

No harm no foul

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Wasn’t trying to start an argument just when you said it’s metaphorical I thought you meant nothing Jesus said was literal.

I know you weren’t. I could have been a little more clear, for sure.

 

[Telstar]

If believing/faith is how we eat the bread of life then the things we do to grow in our faith are things that help us feed on Christ. They give nourishment to our faith and help it grow.

If possessing or showing a “believing/faith” is all that’s necessary to “eat the bread”, and that’s all that’s meant by what Jesus said in John 6, then the devil and his minions must also benefit by exercising their own ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in Jesus. Because, not only do they totally ‘believe’ in Jesus Christ, but they also completely believe in the Divine Power that’s found in the Holy Eucharist. That’s why Satanists steal Consecrated Hosts from Catholic Churches to use in their Black Mass and other rituals, because they absolutely recognize the Divine Power contained within Them. They do it in order to desecrate the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and to attempt to steal that Divine Power. Personally, I’ve never heard of Satanists trying to steal the bread or grape juice from any non-Catholic church.

 

[lanman87]

If possessing or showing a “believing/faith” is all that’s necessary to “eat the bread”, and that’s all that’s meant by what Jesus said in John 6, then the devil and his minions must also benefit by exercising their own ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in Jesus.

When Evangelical/Protestants say “believe or faith” it is much more than intellectual understanding and/or agreement about who Christ is and what He has done. It is a trust and surrender to Christ. It is knowing Christ and the power of His resurrection. It has having a heart turned from stone to flesh.

The devil and his minions may believe that Jesus is the Christ and understand what Christ has done. But they do not trust in Christ and surrender to their heart and life to Christ.

 

[MT1926]

If believing/faith is how we eat the bread of life then the things we do to grow in our faith are things that help us feed on Christ. They give nourishment to our faith and help it grow.

Thanks, all I can say is I don’t agree. It all comes down to “IF”. The problem is I still don’t see how John Bloom defends the “IF”. He simply puts together a few passages and asserts see this is what it means.

For Jesus eating is believing ; drinking is believing . He promises eternal life to those who believe in him.

Just because verse 40 equates believing to eternal life doesn’t automatically mean eating and drinking means believing. Jesus correlates all kinds of different sayings to eternal life throughout the Bible. Have you ever considered Jesus was basically telling them they must believe what He was about to say?

Verse 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life .

The answer to eating and drinking isn’t believe, believe is is the question.

We should be asking Jesus what do YOU want us to believe while we read John 6. Not that this is simply a metaphor about belief.

Your guy John Bloom almost got it, he asked the right question but then he had to jump elsewhere to read his own theology into John 6 so he could ignore Jesus words.

Believe what? Well, believe everything he says. But, specifically here, believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. That is what [John 3:16] means.

Everything He says? Seriously, doesn’t he mean everything but what is written in John 6.

I would recommend he truly asks the question within the confines of John 6.

Finally, I think John makes a grave error in ending his article on the words of St. Peter. I do agree that St. Peter did not fully understand what Jesus meant because it was a hard saying. If Jesus simply meant to believe He would have cleared up right then and there that it’s not as hard as they think. But instead of clearing it up He tells them when you see the miracle of Me ascending to My Father you will understand that the miracle of the Eucharist is a no brainer.

Thanks for the links, but they leave too many unanswered questions.

God Bless

 

[mch4970]

Former Evangelical Protestant here; they believe it’s symbolic. Not to be taken literally. Before I knew anything about the Catholic Church, it never crossed my mind that it could be taken any other way. Although I thought it was strange every time we’d take communion, the pastor would say “this is symbolic.” Haha.

Former baptist here: I can ditto the above. To add to the confusion, baptism and communion were both symbolic. But you weren’t suppose to take communion unless you were baptized and couldn’t be a member unless you were baptized. So how do restrict a symbolic gesture based on another symbolic gesture? sheesh

 

[Usagi]

I have also attended a Baptist church in the past and found that odd — they’re very specific about baptism and the Supper, even taking their name from their baptism practices, but they don’t think either one actually does anything. They do them just because they are “ordinances,” things Jesus specifically said to do. Which I guess at least shows devout obedience to the Lord.

 

[Usagi]

I encountered a YouTuber yesterday who had literally never encountered the language in John 6 before. As she is a strong believer in the “Mandela Effect” as applied to the text of Scripture, she was quite certain that the cannibalistic elites of society had altered the passage to put words about flesh eating and blood drinking in Jesus’ mouth. I tried to explain that we Catholics have known about this one for awhile and that she can probably find debates over its meaning going back centuries, but of course she just decided that being a Catholic meant I was spiritually blind and couldn’t see the evil changes.

Not that that has anything to do with mainstream Protestant understandings of the passage, but wow was that a weird experience.

 

[ltwin]

Former baptist here: I can ditto the above. To add to the confusion, baptism and communion were both symbolic. But you weren’t suppose to take communion unless you were baptized and couldn’t be a member unless you were baptized. So how do restrict a symbolic gesture based on another symbolic gesture? sheesh

This is an excerpt from an article on The Gospel Coalition written by a Baptist pastor, touching on this issue:

our church’s statement of faith, the Abstract of Principles, says about baptism:

Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord’s Supper.

As a Baptist church, we believe that baptism is a matter of obedience. Jesus instructed his followers to baptize disciples (Matt 28:19), so we baptize those who have become disciples because we want to obey Jesus. We also believe that only believers are united to the body of Christ by faith (cf. Gal 3:26-28), so only believers should be welcomed as members into the visible expression of the body of Christ, the local church. If someone is not repenting of all known sin, trusting Christ for salvation, and submitting to all his commands and teaching, we don’t welcome him or her into church membership. Since we view baptism as a matter of obedience, we understand unbaptized people to be disobedient on this point.

So, while baptism is symbolic, it is nevertheless symbolic of having truly been spiritually incorporated into the body of Christ. Someone who has not actually been incorporated into the body of Christ through regeneration should not be baptized, so, in a Baptist church (at least in theory), everyone will be baptized on their own public confession of faith which should correspond to true faith and repentance.

Since only the truly regenerated should partake of the Lord’s Supper, it follows that all who partake should first be baptized. While the Lord’s Supper is symbolic, what it is symbolic of is the body and blood of Christ, which is very real (though not literally the Supper). If unconverted people are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper (even understood symbolically) it nonetheless makes a mockery of the ordinance.

 

[ltwin]

To expand on the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper, Baptist theologian Roger E. Olson writes in chapter 4 of The Lord’s Supper: Five Views:

Here, of course, “means of grace” means visible and material objects such as water, bread and wine as conveyers of grace. Baptists do not necessarily reject grace present and active in the ceremonies of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. What they have usually rejected is any idea that the grace of God is especially attached to these visible, physical objects or emblems (bread and wine/grape juice) and especially that participants in the Lord’s Supper actually eat Christ’s body and drink his blood. (Baptists typically interpret John 6:53-56 metaphorically; Jesus was with the disciples when he said people must eat his flesh and drink his blood.) Baptists do insist that God’s supernatural presence, power and grace appear in a special way among God’s people when they participate in the ordinances (baptists’ preferred term for baptism and the Lord’s Supper) with genuine faith (including repentance). This “special presence,” however, is not different in kind or degree from God’s presence in ordinary faith-filled worship and proclamation. “Special” here means simply “distinctive” and not “greater.” Baptists also reject any idea of a “real presence” of the body and blood of Christ in, with or under the emblems of bread and wine/grape juice. That does not mean they believe in a “real absence” of the Lord in the Supper, as some critics have alleged. Rather, they regard the emblems as symbols (not “mere symbols,” as some have said, but “visible words”) of Christ’s death and the Communion service as a “memorial meal” that commemorates the same. Baptist folk theology probably has vulgarized these emblems and the Communion service so that they are “mere symbols” and “nothing more than a memorial meal,” but baptist theologians have often insisted that the emblems are objects in an event in which Christ is present and active in strengthening participants’ faith.

It’s interesting how Olson distinguishes between the type of language used by educated Baptist theologians and that used by less theologically educated pastors and lay people within Baptist churches. (For those who may not know, since local Baptist churches are autonomous, the quality of education among Baptist clergy can vary widely. Some Baptist ministers are seminary trained while others might be self-taught.)

 

[mch4970]

Itwin, those are great references. I’ve read something to the effect of both of them.

since local Baptist churches are autonomous, the quality of education among Baptist clergy can vary widely

It’s not just the quality of education that the autonomy affects, it’s the consistency in beliefs. Perhaps that is what you are alluding to. The Baptist church’s autonomy does not leave room for authority, creeds, or anything other than the Baptist Recipe (not to be confused with a creed though, that would be too Catholic ).

Baptists: What Makes a Baptist a Baptist? | Beliefs, polity, ministries, practices, organizations, and heritage of Baptists

 

[ltwin]

The Baptist church’s autonomy does not leave room for authority, creeds, or anything other than the Baptist Recipe (not to be confused with a creed though, that would be too Catholic ).

There is authority; it’s just local. There are also a tale load of Baptist confessions, but each church chooses which one it will adopt as its own or it can make one completely unique.

 

[kainosktisis]

Islam has no such problems, and is ascending - both in prominence and in power.

When I would listen to Ravi Zacharias, there is a video (It’s on YouTube actually), where he interacts w/ a Muslim student who’d raised the point of Christianity being divided, & Ravi retorted that there are scores of Islamic sects.

From “A Muslim Student Challenges Ravi Zacharias” (YouTube):

“The first 2 Caliphs were murdered. Assassinated. Why? 2 of them were by counter-Muslims. You’ve got the 7-ers, & the 12-ers, & the Ismailis, & the Amadias, & the Shiites, & the Sunnis, & uh…& on & on & on…”

I would add that now we have the Taliban, ISIS, Nation of Islam, the Brotherhood of Islam, Hamas, etc.

 

[vz71]

. As she is a strong believer in the “Mandela Effect” as applied to the text of Scripture, she was quite certain that the cannibalistic elites of society had altered the passage to put words about flesh eating and blood drinking in Jesus’ mouth.

She is literally claiming history has been changed.

I’m not sure anything can reach that.

 

[kainosktisis]

Since only the truly regenerated should partake of the Lord’s Supper, it follows that all who partake should first be baptized. While the Lord’s Supper is symbolic, what it is symbolic of is the body and blood of Christ, which is very real (though not literally the Supper). If unconverted people are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper (even understood symbolically) it nonetheless makes a mockery of the ordinance.

This does not follow with all Protestant churches. I used to be Baptist, & I recall that in my Baptist church of long ago, only the baptized were allowed to partake of communion - Baptist baptized, mind you.

I recently had a discussion of sorts with my husband over this matter because we have a grown daughter who was never baptized who wants to get baptized (non-Catholic), & the subject had come up of partaking of communion. His nondenominational church teaches that you only need to believe (baptism not required) to partake of communion. I told him that’s not the practice of my Baptist church long ago. He said there were different views on the matter, & he went with the view his church teaches & my daughter took communion unbaptized. I was overruled & dismissed that way.