Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life..is this OSAS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malachi_a_serva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malachi_a_serva

Guest
I am hoping that someone can answer for me why Jesus’ words in John 6:54 “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life;…” are not to be accepted as fact or taken literally. To me this seems confusing. This should prove eternal security, with all one needing to do is take Catholic Communion. Why the flip flop? “has eternal life” is Jesus himself in error? I am interested to hear explanations as to why it is accepted that the bread IS flesh and the drink IS blood (all of this is on another post so you need not comment on this part of it) but then “has eternal life” is not assurance of such.
 
Jesus did not say, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; no matter what sins he commits later on.”

The problem with OSAS is that it implicitly denies the existance or possibility of sin. If one is guarenteed salvation, no matter what sins one commits, then sin really doesn’t exist.

That’s obviously wrong. People can commit sins that result in the loss of salvation.
 
vern humphrey:
Jesus did not say, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; no matter what sins he commits later on.”

The problem with OSAS is that it implicitly denies the existance or possibility of sin. If one is guarenteed salvation, no matter what sins one commits, then sin really doesn’t exist.

That’s obviously wrong. People can commit sins that result in the loss of salvation.
Click to expand...
I guess you are missing my point. If someone can commit sin that, as you say, results in the loss of salvation, but continues to receive communion (after going to confession…or maybe not), then Jesus’ statement, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life” is a lie. Jesus did not qualify it, he just stated it. Again, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life”.

This would be true even if someone received communion once.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
I guess you are missing my point. If someone can commit sin that, as you say, results in the loss of salvation, but continues to receive communion (after going to confession…or maybe not), then Jesus’ statement, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life” is a lie. Jesus did not qualify it, he just stated it. Again, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life”.

This would be true even if someone received communion once.
Click to expand...
What you have there is called “garage sale theology” – based on the implicit assumption the Bible was just discovered (at a garage sale) and people who have no background or training or tradition can interpret it for the rest of us.
 
vern humphrey:
What you have there is called “garage sale theology” – based on the implicit assumption the Bible was just discovered (at a garage sale) and people who have no background or training or tradition can interpret it for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I always thought it would be the “have it your way” ‘Burger King theology.’ Now I see a deeper meaning.
 
vern humphrey:
What you have there is called “garage sale theology” – based on the implicit assumption the Bible was just discovered (at a garage sale) and people who have no background or training or tradition can interpret it for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Interesting, my post is seeking explanation. Not attack. Explain it then please. Please explain Jesus’ words so that anyone, even without training or background (?) or tradition, could understand it.

As it appears, Jesus is “so clear” that people “without training or background or tradition” can see transubstantiation…then it is equally clear that anyone who partakes of the Euchrist has eternal life. If not why?
 
40.png
onesimplemind:
I always thought it would be the “have it your way” ‘Burger King theology.’ Now I see a deeper meaning.
Click to expand...
A variant of the Weather Report theory of biblical exegesis (as in tabloid headlines in the supermarket saying, “Bible Predicts Coldest Winter on Record.”)
 
Very well done Malachi.
IF the phrase was literal like Catholicism contends it would assure us of eternal life. You are absolutely correct. I, in a way, wish it could be true. I am greatly saddened when I think about the invevitable consequences of sin being Hell for those who do not accept Christ.
 
40.png
onesimplemind:
I always thought it would be the “have it your way” ‘Burger King theology.’ Now I see a deeper meaning.
Click to expand...
If someone who takes the Euchrist does not have eternal life, explain it. Jeus said it, perhaps he was wrong?
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
Interesting, my post is seeking explanation. Not attack. Explain it then please. Please explain Jesus’ words so that anyone, even without training or background (?) or tradition, could understand it.
Click to expand...
Can a person who has not mastered arithmetic understand Quantum Mechanics?
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
As it appears, Jesus is “so clear” that people “without training or background or tradition” can see transubstantiation…then it is equally clear that anyone who partakes of the Euchrist has eternal life. If not why?
Click to expand...
If you seek to understand, you must study. Simply stumbling across a verse in the Bible and interpreting it out of context doesn’t qualify.

Jesus’ discourses on salvation are fround throughout the Gospels. He clearly discusses sin – and gives Peter and the Apostles the power to loose and bind. The Apostles, who did not learn about Christianity by reading, but who were taught by Christ, Himself, did not accept OSAS.

Instead of deciding they were wrong, you’d be better off trying to undestand why they were right.
 
Will a human being live to a ripe old age by just eating once? No, a human (any living thing, actually) must continue to eat again and again. It can therefore be understood, by analogy to natural food and natural life, that Christ’s words are a call for continued participation in the Eucharist, not just a one time participation. Further, as Paul points out, one must partake of the Eucharist in a worthy manner, which includes both recognizing the Eucharist for what it is (Christ), and being free of major sin. If one thus lives a life of partaking in the Eucharist while being free of major sin (either through non-commission or by confessing major sins when committed), then one does have the continual assurance of eternal life.
 
Because you can’t take one verse of Scripture to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture.

The NT is also very clear in telling us how we can reject our salvation. Why do you not take one of these verses and apply your ‘one verse’ approach?
 
My point being, that the whole of the quote is accepted literally by Catholicism, except the “has eternal life”. Yes, people will say you need to look at all of scripture to know its meaning. That is what non-Catholics say to explain the symbolic menaing of “flesh” and “blood” but that is then brushed aside. Sounds like irrational reasoning.

We know the following as fact. Jesus said those words. FACT. People heard those words. Fact. Was Jesus lieing to them that heard him then? They could not read “The Book of Acts”, or “The Gospel of John.” They just heard him speak.

Yet, if one accepts the prior statment as symbolic, the “has eternal lfe” not only makes sense, but is absolutely 100% true.

I guess I am looking for an explanation that would convince me. And if it does not convince me, at least worthy of it stopping me in my tracks like some other expalanations I have received did.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
I am hoping that someone can answer for me why Jesus’ words in John 6:54 “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life;…” are not to be accepted as fact or taken literally. To me this seems confusing. This should prove eternal security, with all one needing to do is take Catholic Communion. Why the flip flop? “has eternal life” is Jesus himself in error? I am interested to hear explanations as to why it is accepted that the bread IS flesh and the drink IS blood (all of this is on another post so you need not comment on this part of it) but then “has eternal life” is not assurance of such.
Click to expand...
Whose eternal life? Yours or His? In verse v53 he states the opposite, if you don’t eat His flesh and blood, you don’t have life in you. Then the next verse he says, if you do eat His flesh and blood, you do have eternal life. Then the last part is a promise of the future (providing we don’t fall from grace, Christ even prays for this not to happen to the apostles at the last supper).

The presumption is that He is talking about your eternal life, which is incorrect.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Elzee:
Because you can’t take one verse of Scripture to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture.

The NT is also very clear in telling us how we can reject our salvation. Why do you not take one of these verses and apply your ‘one verse’ approach?
Click to expand...
I am not trying to prove OSAS (I just learnt what those initials meant by the way), just trying to decifer why a few prior words are taken literally and not explained out from other text quotes but this part is?
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
My point being, that the whole of the quote is accepted literally by Catholicism, except the “has eternal life”.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. We do take these words literally. He who eats Christ’s flesh and drinks His blood (worthily, as Paul clarifies), does indeed have (notice – not will have, but has) eternal life. Like all food, the eating and drinking are not one-time acts but are continued throughout our lives.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
I am not trying to prove OSAS (I just learnt what those initials meant by the way), just trying to decifer why a few prior words are taken literally and not explained out from other text quotes but this part is?
Click to expand...
You’re making a wrong assumption. You assume the Catholic Church interprets the Bible in bits and pieces. It doesn’t. It interprest the Bible in context – reading it all, because many passages shed light on other passages.

We also use Tradition – we ask ourselves, “What did the Original Catholics believe?” Since they did not see this verse as you see it, there is no basis for the interpretation you offer.
 
Just to play devils advocate for a minute, a negative non answer would pi** me off too. He asked a sincere question. It’s better to not answer or say I don’t know than not answer the why of the question.

Sorry for the rant, the go study and in another thread (go look it up) comments are a pet peeve. People can’t learn without hearing from other people the gospel - that’s the biggest part of oral tradition.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
vern humphrey:
You’re making a wrong assumption. You assume the Catholic Church interprets the Bible in bits and pieces. It doesn’t. It interprest the Bible in context – reading it all, because many passages shed light on other passages.

We also use Tradition – we ask ourselves, “What did the Original Catholics believe?” Since they did not see this verse as you see it, there is no basis for the interpretation you offer.
Click to expand...
I would think that if Jesus said something, it would mean something. From another Thread, I understand Catholic teaches it does interpret “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood” as being the bread and wine in communion (transubstantiation), then why leave out the last part. From what I gather, your answer as put forth, is because of Tradition.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
If someone who takes the Euchrist does not have eternal life, explain it. Jeus said it, perhaps he was wrong?
Click to expand...
Actually I totally agree with you. There is no way I can understand the truth about Christianity by reading the Bible. I can know every word in the Bible, recite it all forward and backwards, but I am still a human being with all my built in biases. The truth isn’t about whatever I think it is, I need a teaching authority, and that teaching authority has to have been there since the time of Jesus.

There can only be one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top