Why did He let them walk away?

[Mickey]

Stone:

Catholicism and true Evangelicalism will never merge.

Thankfully, not all of evangelicalism adheres to the same interpretations that you do, and so there is reason for encouragement regarding evangelicals coming back to the fold.

Stone:

That’s why we talk past each other when we dialogue.

Yes, The 2000 year history and teachings of the True Church founded by Christ versus the revisionist theology of a 500 year old church which has divided thousands of times and was founded by man.

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

Ah-hah. I see! So to the Catholic the cross is not a “message” of salvation, but a “method” of salvation. As Christ took up His cross, you take up yours. Very enlightening. Ultimately a works “gospel.”

This is important because it helps me to understand why in all of our discussions of John six all of you seem to avoid the saving faith aspects of that chapter: John 6:28-29, 35-37, 40, 44, 47, 67-69.

And this I believe is the reason Catholicism and true Evangelicalism will never merge. What will always separate us is our fundamental belief of the soteriological aspects of the cross of Christ. That’s why we talk past each other when we dialogue.

I will not address the “works” argument in this thread. Your saying it is “works” does not make it true.

But I will address the second paragraph. I don’t avoid a faith discussion. You are the one having problems with faith aspect of John 6 … very similiar to those who were with Jesus on that day. The passages you cite except for 67-69 precede the guts of John 6. Jesus is saying belief in Him is necessary and that is true and if John 6 would have stopped there everything would be nice and tidy for you. But it doesn’t, all of sudden those passages are followed by John 48-58. Jesus upped the ante in faith. Those statements shook their faith to the core and they left, even the twelve must have pondered it because Jesus asked them if they wanted to go too. He could have stopped at John 47 and said nothing more but did not or He could have corrected himself when the crowd grumbled but did not. John 48-58 is almost one continous quotation. There is no interpertation by John, I believe John thougt the words speak for themselves.

What more do you want? I asked previously if the Catholic view of the Eucharist is false then what is it? I await your reply.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

This is important because it helps me to understand why in all of our discussions of John six all of you seem to avoid the saving faith aspects of that chapter: John 6:28-29, 35-37, 40, 44, 47, 67-69.

Wow… I truly believe anyone who has followed this thread (EXCEPT you) can clearly see that over and over again we have affirmed, asserted, maintained, made clear, elucidated, interjected, clarified, explained, proclaimed, and been witness to…the FACT that Catholic belief encompases your beleif system and moves to a deeper reality that is evident in John 6–namely: The Eucharist.

I cannot understand how you can simply overlook all those posts that deal with exactly the tired point you are making…yet again. I can’t understand it in the same way that I cannot fathom how one could be charged with a command by the Only Begotten Son of God and still have the blind ignorance to turn and walk away. I guess you don’t have the luxury of being told by Jesus Himself, but (speaking for myself) I would hate to have to explain*** that*** to Him at the hour of my death.

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

Ah-hah. I see! So to the Catholic the cross is not a “message” of salvation, but a “method” of salvation. As Christ took up His cross, you take up yours. Very enlightening. Ultimately a works “gospel.”

This is important because it helps me to understand why in all of our discussions of John six all of you seem to avoid the saving faith aspects of that chapter: John 6:28-29, 35-37, 40, 44, 47, 67-69.

And this I believe is the reason Catholicism and true Evangelicalism will never merge. What will always separate us is our fundamental belief of the soteriological aspects of the cross of Christ. That’s why we talk past each other when we dialogue.

No…as I’ve told you before…ya still just don’t get it. You think you do…but ya don’t. That’s why I bailed on talkin’ to ya. You just plain don’t get it and I think it’s because you just simply don’t want to… have a nice walk…away.

 

[ncgolf]

The issues discusssed about John 6 in this thread come down to one HUGE issue. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

I do not see what authority Stone, MichaelP or anyone else has to authenticate and validate their claims. Catholics choose and trust the teaching authority of the Church. We do not do follow the Church like robots or automatons, we choose to follow using the Holy Spirit and our own free will.

Here is my example:

I could create my own church out of various passages of the Bible. I will take Matthew 16:24. “Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’” as an example. I love to play golf so I interpret carry your cross as carry your own golfbag. I proclaim that Christ did not want us to ride carts because He said carry. So we meet each Sunday morning for 18 holes and only play on courses that allow walking. Shame on all those who play on Sunday and ride carts. I can say, even honestly, that I did receive this understanding after much prayer and discernment and you could not disagree with me. I do not think I would have trouble getting followers for my church. Others may disparage or criticize my church and beliefs but they have no standing to do so. I am free to make my own intrepretation and live by it.

That is the rub. Authority … who has it ?? Catholics believe that the authority to teach was passed by Jesus himself to Peter and then on to others. The freedom we have as humans is to choose whether one will submit to the Church created by Christ or submit to a man-made one. That is why some chose to walk away.

 

[Stone]

ncgolf:
Stone,
If the Cathloic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not true … then what are the Catholics doing? Would we be guilty of some sort of offense to God?

Please let me know.To claim that Jesus meant something that He did not would be “some sort of offense to God,” I would say, yes. Of course!! You would certainly be guilty of adding to the Word of God. The doctrine of transubstantiation was time-developed. Origen, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianze all retained the symbolical or spiritual conception of the sacrament. Others like Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom held that the flesh and blood of Christ were in *some way *combined with the bread and wine in the sacrament. Augustine, however, though he spoke of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless distinguished between the sign and the thing signified, and did not believe in a change of substance, and stressed the commemorative aspect of the sacrament.

It was during the middle ages that Augustine’s view was gradually transplanted by the doctrine of transubstantiation. In 818 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus formally proposed the doctrine but he met strong opposition on the part of Rabanus Maurus and Ratramnus. And then in the eleventh century a furious controversy again broke out between Berenger of Tours and Lanfranc. The latter making the the crass statement that “the very body of Christ was truly held in the priest’s hand, broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful.” The view was formally defined and designated as the doctrine of transubstantiation by Hildebert of Tours in 1134 A.D. Then formally adopted by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., but not without many debates by the Scholastics; such as the duration of the change, the manner of Christ’s presence, the relation of the substance and accidents, and the practice of adoration, etc. The FINAL formulation given by the Council of Trent.

So you see, it wasn’t a universally accepted, fully developed doctrine for 1500 years before the Reformation, as some have asserted on this thread. And I have pointed out in a previous post that it began as a “thank offering” and not until later did it develop into a “sacrifice.” This wasn’t a doctrinal development through the study of the Scriptures, like the Trinity, but a notion formulated out of minds of men. It was when men (not bound by government and power constraints of a medieval church) got back to the study of the Scriptures that the doctrine was again challenged as it was throughout the previous centuries.

So, yes, I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation is an offense to God. It completely obscures what Jesus was trying to convey to the crowd about Himself as the “life” of all men dead in Adam, and our only source of eternal life through faith in Him alone.

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

So, yes, I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation is an offense to God.

Wow, are you in for a shock one day!

:bigyikes:

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

Origen, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianze all retained the symbolical or spiritual conception of the sacrament. Others like Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom held that the flesh and blood of Christ were **in **some way combined with the bread and wine in the sacrament.

Symbolic and spiritual?!?

In some way?!?

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ

“Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”

-“Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.

​

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA
“The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”

-“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.​

ST. BASIL THE GREAT
**“What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.” **

-“The Morals” Ch. 22

​

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”

Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:​

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”

Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:

​

Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

​

​

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

It was during the middle ages that …

Been readin’ your Wylie, eh?

 

[Church_Militant]

So, yes, I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation is an offense to God. It completely obscures what Jesus was trying to convey to the crowd about Himself as the “life” of all men dead in Adam, and our only source of eternal life through faith in Him alone.

I’ve pointed out to you before that you have based all your statements on biased sources and Mickey has just clearly shown that you have misrepresented the fathers that you alleged did not support the Eucharist. You have either been lied to or have intentionally misrepresented these sources. Which is it Stone?
In any event, your remark about the Eucharist is blatantly offensive.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

To claim that Jesus meant something that He did not would be “some sort of offense to God,” So, yes, I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation is an offense to God.

You sound like one of those PR guys in front of celebrities … always explaining what the person really meant, not what they said. I did not put the words in Jesus’s mouth … He said them … read the book … look at the data. I can understand how and why Transubstantiation may have taken a while to solidify. It is not an easy concept to comprehend in fact when it is all said and done it takes the greatest of faith to accept it. I always thought it should be easier for a biblicist to believe in the literal meaning since that is your sole source. I bet you believe in the 7 day creation in Genesis. So some things you believe literally and some you don’t. If someone can be a cafeteria Catholic I guess there can be cafeteria biblicists.

Stone:

It completely obscures what Jesus was trying to convey to the crowd about Himself as the “life” of all men dead in Adam, and our only source of eternal life through faith in Him alone.

John 48-58 obscures Jesus’s true message … no Jesus was telling like it is. I am still confused as to why it cannot be … is it impossible, non-sensical, too radical … what??? You can’t use Jesus did not mean it because He said it … there has to be another reason.

 

[mercygate]

Mickey:

Symbolic and spiritual?!?

In some way?!?

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA
ST. BASIL THE GREAT
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
Origen

Mickey, you left out Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca 200 a.d.) – It was in today’s *Office of Readings From Against Heresies *Lib. 5, 2,

He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body an blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life?

 

[ncgolf]

mercygate:

Mickey, you left out Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca 200 a.d.) – It was in today’s *Office of Readings From Against Heresies *Lib. 5, 2,

To you and Mickey. AMEN.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

Mickey, you left out Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca 200 a.d.) – It was in today’s *Office of Readings From Against Heresies *Lib. 5, 2,

Oh yes, and there are many more. But the real closer is Ignatius of Antioch. Of course our friend stone already shot him down as unreliable.

 

[st_felicity]

Mickey:

Symbolic and spiritual?!?

In some way?!?

Great post! And super following posts too to CM, mercygate, & ncgolf!!!:bowdown2: You’s guys are awesome!:clapping:

 

[Stone]

Mickey:

Symbolic and spiritual?!? In some way?!?

The problem is you read back into the quotes the much later fully developed doctrine of transubstantiation.

Wow, are you in for a shock one day!

You think so?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

What if you thanked Him for already having demonstrated His mercy toward you a sinner, once-for-all, by obediently enduring the cross as a substitutionary, sin-sacrifice for the forgiveness of all your sins (past, present and future), and thanked Him for giving you eternal life?

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Been readin’ your Wylie, eh?

What’s a “Wylie?” Actually I’ve studied Schaff’s eight volume History of the Christian Church.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

I’ve pointed out to you before that you have based all your statements on biased sources and Mickey has just clearly shown that you have misrepresented the fathers that you alleged did not support the Eucharist. You have either been lied to or have intentionally misrepresented these sources. Which is it Stone?

Neither. What I have not done is read INTO them something they don’t actually teach.

In any event, your remark about the Eucharist is blatantly offensive.

Yes, I’m sure it is. But “ncgolf” pressed me for my opinion. What would you have me do, give the politically correct response, or the one truthful to my own convictions? We’re adults here, I think we can handle it. And let’s face it, I’m out numbered 1 to ???. So I’m far from being a threat.

 

[Stone]

ncgolf:

You sound like one of those PR guys in front of celebrities … always explaining what the person really meant, not what they said. I did not put the words in Jesus’s mouth … He said them … read the book … look at the data. I can understand how and why Transubstantiation may have taken a while to solidify. It is not an easy concept to comprehend in fact when it is all said and done it takes the greatest of faith to accept it.

So you admit that it was not a doctrine taught for 1500 years before the Reformation. Actually, the reason it so long to “solidify” is because of the constant opposition to the doctrine when presented; many, through the centuries, understood Christ’s words to be figurative. Think about it, we have no accounts of the Apostles actually teaching this doctrine in the Epistles, nor in the Book of Acts celebrating the “Eucharistic Mass” as its done in Catholicism today.

I always thought it should be easier for a biblicist to believe in the literal meaning since that is your sole source. I bet you believe in the 7 day creation in Genesis. So some things you believe literally and some you don’t. If someone can be a cafeteria Catholic I guess there can be cafeteria biblicists.

Actually I believe in the literal six days of creation (which I’m sure is what you meant). No, it would not be easy at all for a true Biblicist to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation since we thoroughly recognize figures of speech and symbols used in the Scriptures, or when quoted by Christ and others.

John 48-58 obscures Jesus’s true message … no Jesus was telling like it is. I am still confused as to why it cannot be … is it impossible, non-sensical, too radical … what??? You can’t use Jesus did not mean it because He said it … there has to be another reason.

Well, it becomes VERY obvious to me that Jesus is speaking figuratively when in verse 48 He states, “I am the bread of life.” And it seems very apparent to me that “eating” and “drinking” is to be understood figuratively, as well, since He began with that figure of speech. And the fact that none of the Gospel writers, nor even Paul in 1 Cor. 11, follow through with identifying these words with the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room, helps also to confirm my convictions. And when Jesus said to His disciples while in His body and His blood running through His veins, “this is My body which is given for you…do this in remembrance of Me,” symbolism clearly screams out at me. He came into this world via the virgin birth to take on humanity. A true Kinsman Redeemer. No human body can be something it is not, nor can it be somewhere other than where it is. In other words, no true human body can be omnipresent. Otherwise it is no longer human and no longer a real body. Hence, if transubstantiation is true then Jesus did not take on TRUE humanity, true human form. But I believe He did. And I believe He sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High in His full, intact, glorified, HUMAN body. The same body that was crucified, the same body He showed to Thomas, telling him to touch His nail scarred hands and spear scarred side. Spiritually, being Divine, He can be everywhere, but not in Body.

As a true Biblicist, I can believe no other way. I understand that as a Catholic you can, but as a Biblicist, I cannot. Like you say, my source is God’s Word, and by it I must test even the doctrines of men.

There is one verse in Scripture I have always found extremely interesting. Now I can’t build doctrine on it, but it is very interesting nevertheless. Jesus appeared to the disciples after the two men returned from Emmaus. They thought He was a spirit (Lk. 24:36), but he assured them He was not, and said to them: “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Lk. 24:39). Now notice He does not say “flesh and blood,” but instead, “flesh and bones” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). It is possible our glorified bodies will not have/need blood? Blood is the “life source” for our fallen, Adamic bodies (Lev. 17:11), but is it possible, even probable, that blood will not be needed as a “life source” in our glorified, resurrected bodies? Glorified bodies which will be like Christ’s. Is it possible the resurrected Body of Jesus has no blood?

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

Neither. What I have not done is read INTO them something they don’t actually teach.Yes, I’m sure it is. But “ncgolf” pressed me for my opinion. What would you have me do, give the politically correct response, or the one truthful to my own convictions? We’re adults here, I think we can handle it. And let’s face it, I’m out numbered 1 to ???. So I’m far from being a threat.

You never are a “threat”. And all this is is more of your opinion. I read the same sources you did and you wanna tell us that these sources don’t agree with all the rest of the writings of the ECF…when in fact they do… You’re the one that doesn’t agree. And who are you?

What’s wrong? Can’t handle the fact that you can’t cause the wholesale collapse of the Catholic Church with your posts? Couldn’t possibly be that there are far more of us that believe the Word of God and the truth of Jesus’ own words as opposed to the smelly new wind of doctrines that have blown all over the place since 1517, could it? I think so. You tell us that you discern the “doctrines of men”…that cracks me up because IMO that’s all your posts are.

You might mislead some poor cafeteria Catholic that doesn’t know his backside form a hole in the ground with all you misqoutes and such…but those of us that really know the faith and the truth will always be here to help them get it right.