Sacraments necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _jesus_is_god
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Already did. You have opinion. We have experience, and scholarship as well. Consequently it wouldn’t even matter how, exactly, John 6 was intended. Jesus commanded the Eucharist and the fact that EO, Catholics, and other churches with lineages traceable to the beginning revere the Eucharist as the absolute center of the celebration in a way few Protestants can relate to , and have since the earliest of times, should give any Christin pause…

Burt, instead…lets pick up the bible and give this theology business our best shot. Right? Best-guess theology
 
Last edited:
If only it didn’t contradict, Rom 10: 9-10; John 3:16; Rom 1:16-17; Rom 4:1-5; Rom 10:12-13; Acts 16:30-31 and on and on…
 
1: As I said, he is referring to the previous chapter. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in no way does your reply (to me) prove me wrong? I appreciate the definition of figurative language, but I’m well informed on it already.
Christianapologist said:
What seemed hard to understand for the disciples during the life of Jesus would become clear after His death, resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit (see vv. [13], [14]; [14:26]; [15:26], [27].
Click to expand...
And this proves me wrong how?
Your 2nd argument has the same basis as someone arguing “Jesus died and everyone saw it…he obviously can’t be alive”
As for your 3rd argument: Unless I am mistaken, there is no law against eating flesh. (And to give the benefit of the doubt…) if I’m wrong, Jesus has gone breaking rules before such as healing on the sabbath. Have you considered that He does this for a bigger reason?
4: Jesus doesn’t say spiritual bread. I’m just going to use @TheLittleLady’s point because I think it is a great point (and because you haven’t actually answered it yet)
 
To understand Christianity one has to understand what God is meaning to accomplish. And what faith accomplishes. Faith pleases God not because it somehow satisfies the demand for righteousness by itself, but because it establishes relationship/communion with He who alone can realize righteousness in us. He is our righteousness and so the first and peimary aspect of man’s justice is that very communion. Sort of the opposite direction from which Adom journeyed
 
If you refer back to how this began, it was a statement that reflected God’s path to salvation. Unfortunately it wasn’t through the sacraments. For clarity, this exchange is not too prove someone wrong, it’s to show God’s, “self explained” path to salvation… period.

I’m not quite sure how you’re comparing eating fish and Jesus’s flesh… the point: the statement in John 6 was figurative.

Jesus had referred to himself as Spiritual bread in John 6:35, 41, 48, 51, 67, and certainly not the last, John 6:63: It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
 
Well said…! As long as you meant communion to be that relationship vs. eating a physical wafer or, or…
 
And what, might I ask, is your authority for opposing the 2,000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church, whose Metropolitans trace in an unbroken line back to the Apostles and to Christ, your Savior?

EDIT: Someone has taught you gross error in bible interpretation. It is not a DIY project. Oh, and kindly note that John 16 (when He began speaking plainly) occurs textually and chronologically before the last supper narratives. Thus, speaking plainly at that last supper, He meant what He said. Why do you not believe that?

The Apostles did. Paul did. 2,000 years of the greatest Christian Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church and theologians all took Him at His word.

I’m confused with your instruction here.
 
Last edited:
Christianapologist said:
The debate over the number of sacraments has been long standing… The question is, does “God say” we need to participate in the sacraments to be saved… Roman’s 10: 9-10, or even John 3:16 would easily dismiss that. Scripture overtly explains that Grace, through faith, through Jesus Christ is the path to Salvation.
Click to expand...
Ah, then yes it is biblical. One of the ways to show you have Grace, Faith in God and are willing to have Jesus be your path to Salvation is to show your love for Him, by doing as He asks.
 
Jesus did say three times, "Those whose sins you forgive on will be forgiven in by my Heavenly Father in Heaven and those whose sins you hold bound will be held bound by my Heavenly Father.
 
You and I have had this discussion already…
Scripture tells us that if you speak the Word of God accurately, you then can speak the authority of Scripture boldly. Also, the authority of God and His Scripture was in place long before the concept of church… Psalm 119.
And previously posted:… Jesus had referred to himself as Spiritual bread in John 6:35, 41, 48, 51, 67, and certainly not the last, John 6:63: It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Regarding you thoughts on what the Apostles, Paul, Saints, Martyrs, Doctors and theologians practiced… All of them followed God’s direction / revelation… and in that direction, He shares that we should test what we believe against Scripture… Act’s 17:11. No where in Scripture does it require sacraments for salvation, although the participation in the two sacraments are promoted as a practice within God’s church.

Let me know if you’re still confused…?
 
Thanks… but I’m not quite sure what you meant by “yes it is biblical”. And just for clarification, if something is biblical, it’s not necessarily a passage that explains our path to salvation… i.e. the eating habits of the Hebrews in the OT… So, does God tells us that the sacraments are required for salvation…?
 
Thanks… but what is the relevance to sacraments and salvation…?
 
Christianapologist said:
John 16:25 in figurative language. The word means “veiled, pointed statement” that is pregnant with meaning, i.e., something that is obscure. What seemed hard to understand for the disciples during the life of Jesus would become clear after His death, resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
This is the explanation for the use of sacraments. We use them because they help us experience Christ in solid terms that become clearer as we live our lives. We experience the death and resurrection of Christ through them, and the Holy Spirit comes to us, guiding us to that knowledge we will share with Christ in heaven.

Are sacraments necessary in the sense of the material signs must occur in our lives? Only God knows! Are they necessary in the sense that they help us blockheads to know Christ and his merciful love? Probably.
 
Last edited:
Christianapologist said:
Well said…! As long as you meant communion to be that relationship vs. eating a physical wafer or, or…
Click to expand...
Well, it may not be enough for more sophisticated types- such as yourself or the well-known Christian intellectual Jimmy Swaggart who had other names for the wafer- but for us common folk including the early Church the physical and the spiritual meet in that wafer, that common “work of human hands” as the Eucharistic prayer puts it. Communion and the nourishment that partaking of it signifies and realizes in a worthily prepared partaker (1 Cor 11) (even as we still recognize our unworthiness in an overall sense) is meant to encourage and beget vigilance, the regular examination of our state of being or justice in order for communion with God to even be reasonable. So the regular physical act helps us remain in Him and He in us (John 15:4).

Now this doesn’t mean that it can’t all be done mechanically, without care or conscientiousness, but then communion would be no more valid than it is with one who thinks they’re good with God while sinning wantonly. Either way, relationship with God is not an intellectual enterprise- and the physical aspect of sacraments is meant to help place our focus on the spiritual.
 
Christianapologist said:
Scripture tells us that if you speak the Word of God accurately, you then can speak the authority of Scripture boldly.
Click to expand...
See, there’s your appeal to your infallibility gift again. You’re uniquely equipped to “speak the word of God accurately” and apparently won’t be swayed, or corrected, regardless of opposing or conflicting interpretations by equally well meaning readers. Or by the Church that God established and designated for that purpose. But novel and false gospels have existed since the beginning. And people will keep picking up the Bible, centuries after the fact, reading it in their private environment vacuumed clean of the messy and inconvenient past, just them and the Spirit. And maybe a concordance or two. Etc, etc. I used to do it too.

And some Sola Scriptura adherents hold to a doctrine of the Real Presence in some form or another BTW.
 
Last edited:
Christianapologist said:
What I’m not clear on is your comment “His command to eat of His flesh and drink His blood”. That passage wasn’t literal. One place that confirms that is the Levitical laws of the time…
Click to expand...
A few questions:

Firstly, where in Church history- prior to the 1500s- is your interpretation of John 6 as anything but literal held? Where has the Church or any Church Father denied the literal meaning of this passage, or where have they denied the Real Presence at all?

And doesn’t the Levitical command against consuming blood prove that Jesus meant His words literally? You can understand His words one of two ways: as literal, where He means what He plainly says, and allows disciples to walk away because they understood Him literally (and were aware of the Levitical command against consuming blood, their reason for leaving Him), or you can understand Him to be speaking “metaphorically”, and so He allows disciples to leave Him because of a misunderstanding.

Which is it? Which view do you hold, and when has your view been standard in Christianity?
 
I do agree with most of what you wrote.

What you should know is that we can know whether or not we’re saved. 1 John 5:13 - I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

And so you know, the Catholic church has this view: Catholic Catechism 1129 . Church teaching is that the sacraments themselves are necessary for salvation . Not taught or hinted at, anywhere in Scripture…
 
Well written… as long as you don’t believe that Jesus is actually in the host… As promoted in CCC 1374-78.
 
Let me say this slower… Only God’s Word, through Scripture has authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Those who convey God’s Word, speak with His authority… 1 Peter 4:11 - 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

So, do you have any substantive sources, or just an opinion… I still don’t know why you believe what you believe…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top