Proving the Real Presence

[Sean_Boyle]

Grace is a gift. AND, I can’t DO anything to deserve it. However, to obtain salvation by Grace, I must do it solely through faith. If I try to DO anything to obtain grace, then grace is no longer grace but debt.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

How is your profession of faith not “doing something” to obtain Grace?

 

[believers]

How is your profession of faith not “doing something” to obtain Grace?

You’re missing the point. Grace is not a reward for doing something. Grace is freely offered to you. However, you can only receive this FREE gift through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

 

[Allweather]

You’re missing the point. Grace is not a reward for doing something. Grace is freely offered to you. However, you can only receive this FREE gift through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Grace is more complex than this.

Grace comes in various forms: Actual Grace, Efficacious Grace, Habitual Grace, Justifying Grace, Sacramental Grace, Sanctifying Grace, Sufficient Grace…

Moreover, Grace isn’t something just for the Christian. According to Fr Hardon’s excellent Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

““In Biblical language [Grace is] the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race. it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition””

In this sense, it appears that the provision of life itself, as well as a wonderful world in which to live it, is a function of God’s Grace, and is available to all creatures whether Christian or not.

Fr Hardon goes on:

““As the Church has come to explain the meaning of grace, it refers to something more than the gifts of nature, such as creation or the blessings of bodily health. Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation.””

 

[believers]

Grace is more complex than this.

Grace comes in various forms: Actual Grace, Efficacious Grace, Habitual Grace, Justifying Grace, Sacramental Grace, Sanctifying Grace, Sufficient Grace…

Moreover, Grace isn’t something just for the Christian. According to Fr Hardon’s excellent Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

""In Biblical language [Grace is] the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race. it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition""

In this sense, it appears that the provision of life itself, as well as a wonderful world in which to live it, is a function of God’s Grace, and is available to all creatures whether Christian or not.

Fr Hardon goes on:

““As the Church has come to explain the meaning of grace, it refers to something more than the gifts of nature, such as creation or the blessings of bodily health. Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation.””

Actually, Grace is simple. Grace is a gift from God offered to all mankind and can only be received through faith.

Grace + Law of Faith = Justification

Unless you are justified, you can’t please God. You cannot go boldly to the Throne of Grace. How can Grace abound if you’re not even justified?

BTW, do you have scriptural references for the different types of Graces you’ve listed?

 

[Allweather]

Actually, Grace is simple. Grace is a gift from God offered to all mankind and can only be received through faith.

Grace + Law of Faith = Justification

Unless you are justified, you can’t please God. You cannot go boldly to the Throne of Grace. How can Grace abound if you’re not even justified?

BTW, do you have scriptural references for the different types of Graces you’ve listed?

Like most things of God, both simple AND complex. Depends on how deeply you want to delve. Here is a link to four articles on Grace in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm

These may be too complex for quick reading, unless you’re a genius. I have shorter articles that I can cut and paste for you in a separate place, say email, which describe each “type” of Grace I mentioned, in nutshell, easier to digest than the CE articles. Let me know if you’re interested, I’d be happy to type them into an email for you, or a PM.

When I was swimming across the Tiber, back in 1985, the priest asked me what was my thinking on Jesus. I’d jumped into the river from the fundamentalist Protestant shore, and was still in the shallow water. I told him what I still believe today, and what I think is very true. Jesus can be grasped by the simplest of minds as well by the most advanced minds. (Thank Heaven, because mine is among the more simple!) You don’t have to be a theologian to understand God’s love.

At the same time, a genius should never find himself bored, or run out of material, in the deepest examination of Christian theology. That’s what I mean when I say, it depends on how deeply you want to delve. If you’re happy with simple, then take it simple. There’s nothing wrong with that. And for sure, most of us are very, very simple. But if you want a more expansive knowledge, then you have to move away from simple, towards complex. Unfortunately, most Protestant formulae are so oversimplified, they don’t do justice to what they’re trying to describe, IMO. Simple as I am, I need a little more description, and this I find in Catholicism, whose theologians have been chewing on these matters for many centuries.

 

[Atreyu]

Actually, Grace is simple. Grace is a gift from God offered to all mankind and can only be received through faith.

Grace + Law of Faith = Justification

Unless you are justified, you can’t please God. You cannot go boldly to the Throne of Grace. How can Grace abound if you’re not even justified?

BTW, do you have scriptural references for the different types of Graces you’ve listed?

Does this mean that one who is not justified can do a good work - apart from God’s grace? Or do you think that those who are not justified simply can’t do good works?

Can someone even live if not for the grace of God? But people can live without being justified - are they living by some means other than the grace of God…?

 

[Sixtus]

The Real Presence is ultimately something that is not realised but revealed by God to whom He choses.

Revelation by God cannot be subject to human testing or proven

 

[Atreyu]

The Real Presence is ultimately something that is not realised but revealed by God to whom He choses.

Revelation by God cannot be subject to human testing or proven

Ok, but we can test whether or not it has been divinely revealed, right? If the Scriptures have been divinely revealed, do the Scriptures teach the Real Presence? That is the question addressed in my OP.

 

[Sixtus]

Atreyu posted:

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
The Real Presence is ultimately something that is not realised but revealed by God to whom He choses.

Revelation by God cannot be subject to human testing or proven

Ok, but we can test whether or not it has been divinely revealed, right? If the Scriptures have been divinely revealed, do the Scriptures teach the Real Presence? That is the question addressed in my OP.

Of course the Scriptures teach the Real Presence!
1 Cor 11: 25-31; 2 Cor 6:14

 

[believers]

Does this mean that one who is not justified can do a good work - apart from God’s grace? Or do you think that those who are not justified simply can’t do good works?

Can someone even live if not for the grace of God? But people can live without being justified - are they living by some means other than the grace of God…?

I stated earlier that you can’t please God unless you’re justified. I was in a hurry when I typed that and now looking back I realized that I should have said… **unless you have Faith, it is impossible to please God **

 

[BrandenRush]

On another board I’ve been having some discussions with some Protestants on the Real Presence, and I think I’ve got the argument down pretty well, so I thought I would post it here too. As far as I can tell (and please tell me if I’m wrong), the only thing I have assumed is the inerrancy of the Bible.

**The First Argument **
that we must eat the literal flesh of Christ in order to receive eternal life

1. 
   *]Jesus says we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. John 6:51a: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” John 6:53: "Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
   *]Jesus says the flesh that we must eat is the same flesh that he will Sacrifice on the Cross. John 6:51b: “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
   *]Jesus’ literal flesh was Sacrificed on the Cross.
   *]Therefore, we must eat the literal flesh of Jesus to have eternal life.
   
   The Second Argument
   that the Apostles physically ate the literal body of Christ at the Last Supper
   1. 
      *]At the Last Supper, Jesus instructed the apostles to physically eat bread, which he called “his body”. Matthew 26:26 - While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
      *]Jesus said the body the apostles would eat at the Last Supper is the same body that would be Sacrificed on the Cross. Luke 22:19: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
      *]Jesus’ literal body was Sacrificed on the Cross.
      *]Therefore, the apostles physically ate the literal body of Christ at the Last Supper.
      
      The Third Argument
      tying the first two arguments together
      1. 
         *]In the gospel of John, we are told we must eat the literal flesh of Christ in order to receive eternal life (The First Argument).
         *]The Twelve Apostles were instructed by Jesus to physically eat the literal body of Christ at the Last Supper (The Second Argument).
         *]Christ’s body and Christ’s flesh are the same thing (or near enough for the sake of these arguments).
         *]Therefore, we must physically eat the literal body of Christ to receive eternal life.
         
         The Second Argument is needed to define the context of what is meant by “eating” the flesh of Christ - is it meant in a physical sense? The Second Argument proves that it is. The First Argument shows that we must “eat” the flesh of Christ in order to receive eternal life. Therefore, both arguments are needed. The Third Argument really isn’t an argument as such; more of a summary.

1. 1. 1. 
         I completely agree with the real presence as outlined in scripture. I just don’t agree that it is for RC’s only. Jesus didn’t found the RCC. He founded Christianity as his church. Many folks have the real presence, Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalains etc.

 

[Atreyu]

I completely agree with the real presence as outlined in scripture. I just don’t agree that it is for RC’s only. Jesus didn’t found the RCC. He founded Christianity as his church. Many folks have the real presence, Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalains etc.

I agree that the Orthodox have the Real Presence. I do not think that the Episcopalians do, but my reasoning for that goes outside of Scripture and so I am reluctant to get into it.

However, so long as you agree that a Church must have a doctrine of the Real Presence, then I am happy as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Sixtus]

—Quote (Originally by BrandenRush)—
I completely agree with the real presence as outlined in scripture. I just don’t agree that it is for RC’s only. Jesus didn’t found the RCC. He founded Christianity as his church. Many folks have the real presence,

Some can accept ALL the teachings of Christianity and His Church and some can only accept some of them.