Why did He let them walk away?

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Mickey, eternal means eternal. It’s everlasting life. If you can lose it it’s not eternal (everlasting), is it?I believe in eternal secuity because I believe Christ when He says those who believe in Him HAVE eternal life.

80+% of Americans say they “believe” in Jesus. Are all of them going to heaven? I know people who say they believe in Jesus but they know nearly nothing of him–do not know the Bible–do not go to church–but they “believe” in him. Are they going to heaven?

Or is it that those who “SAY” they believe don’t necessarily really believe? How does one know the difference? How does one know at what point what they say is actually true or their own ignorant self-delusion? Don’t you think some of the disciples who “walked with Him no longer” thought that they truly believed until they heard this “hard teaching?”

Tell me–How does one “know” they “really” believe? Many people go through life never being tested–what if they die and never “really” believed–though they thought they were saved? What a horrible shock they must receive when they arrive in Hell!

 

[Stone]

ncgolf:

You are right in that this is the only place those words are recorded but we still do not and will not know if this is the only place they were spoken. It really does not matter how many times Christ is recorded on any subject. He is the Truth. If it was said once only in all eternity by Christ it does not lessen its truth. What is the point of counting how many times Christ is recorded saying something … are you saying if Christ is recorded less on a subject it is less important or significant.

If you look at the subject matter, I’m sure the issue of Jesus giving them manna like Moses in the wilderness was not brought up many times. Based on the dialog one can be certain this was a one time conversation, unique to the situation. The point is you must interpret Jn. six in context with ALL of John’s Gospel account. And it is quite compelling that he does not record Christ’s words when He instituted the sacrament. And the other Gospel accounts do not record Christ’s words in Jn. six. Yet your church leans heavily on those few verses. Gotta admit, it can leave one wondering.

 

[Stone]

mercygate:

I knew my phrase was poorly chosen the second I hit the send button. No. “Having” the life which, in Christ alone, is “eternal” does not mean that it cannot be forfeited this side of eternity. The “life” is eternal; not necessarily my acceptance of it. That’s the whole problem with eternal security, isn’t it?

No, not at all. I believe the Bible when it says one is born again he is truly born again. He can no more be un-born again than you or I could crawl back into the womb and dissolve. And the spiritual is far greater than the physical. And like the physical birth it does happen at a specific moment in time.

Actually, the doctrine of the Eucharist is derived from these passages. Why else would Paul say that he who eats and drinks of the Eucharist “without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself?”

Not really. Jn. six states nothing literally about the Eucharist. The best you can do is assume, or assert, that He’s talking Eucharistically, but you cannot arrive at that exegetically. Paul makes no reference to Jn. six in the passage you reference.

Those people would have told you that they KNEW they were saved, using the same arguments you have just mounted.

I don’t think so. One may insist he* “knows”* Christ throughout his sin-filled life, usually based on his religious upbring, but I don’t think the inward assurance of salvation is really there. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t confirm something that is not true.

We believe that he gave us the Church as a primary means of appropriating his mercy and grace as she responds to Christ’s command that she “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt. 28:19-20)

This is strange language, “gave us the Church.” Biblically speaking God gave us (the world) His only begotten Son that we might believe in Him for eternal life. But the Church is not “given,” actually, it’s being built. Catholics often say Christ “founded” His Church. But I don’t see that as Biblical language either. It says He’s presently building His Church, made up of all true believers, but nowhere is it “given” to us. We are the Church. Upon belief we are baptized into His body by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), and the Body is the Church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23). The Church isn’t some separate entity that rules over us.

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

And it is quite compelling that he does not record Christ’s words when He instituted the sacrament. And the other Gospel accounts do not record Christ’s words in Jn. six. Yet your church leans heavily on those few verses. Gotta admit, it can leave one wondering.

It is not my Church it is Christ’s church … The Church looks at those verses with great respect and awe. Christ said them and we believe them. Although it may seem to some inconsistent it is not at all contradictory. The Catholic Church’s belief in what the Eucharist is in no way contradicts anything else in the Gospels … if it did it would be untrue. The Eucharist is Christ present, physically and spiritually, body, blood, soul and divinity … who would not want that in their lives.

It still confounds me that some look at John 6 and look for reasons not to believe rather than reasons to believe. People today have to make the same decision as the people present at the Discourse …"“Do you want to go away as well?” … Do I take Christ at his word or do I not.

Trying to understand what is written in John 6 based on what is not written in the other Gospel accounts makes no sense. Would have one more account lets say in Luke been enough … maybe not for some so maybe only if Luke, John and Matthew written of it. All we have is it was recorded once and even though only recorded once since Christ said those words … John quotes Christ throughout … they must be true.

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

One may insist he* “knows”* Christ throughout his sin-filled life, usually based on his religious upbring, but I don’t think the inward assurance of salvation is really there. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t confirm something that is not true.

But people who are “assured” of their salvation vigorously assert that the Holy Spirit has done just that.

This is strange language, "gave us the Church." Biblically speaking God gave us (the world) His only begotten Son that we might believe in Him for eternal life. But the Church is not “given,” actually, it’s being built. Catholics often say Christ “founded” His Church. But I don’t see that as Biblical language either. It says He’s presently building His Church, made up of all true believers, but nowhere is it “given” to us. We are the Church. Upon belief we are baptized into His body by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), and the Body is the Church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23). The Church isn’t some separate entity that rules over us.

There is no contradiction between “giving” us the Church and “building” the Church of living stones, one by one.

How do we know “true” belief? We know it because Christ empowered the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). Thus, “true” belief lies in the Apostolic faith and teaching.

I don’t know what you mean by characterizing the Church as “some separate entity that rules over us.” Yes, we are the Church. That isn’t the same as saying that *I *Mercygate, self-affirmed “true believer,” am the Church independent of the Body. The Bridgroom and the Bride are one flesh. Only in-Christ-and-he-in-us are we the Church.

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

It still confounds me that some look at John 6 and look for reasons not to believe rather than reasons to believe. People today have to make the same decision as the people present at the Discourse …"“Do you want to go away as well?” … Do I take Christ at his word or do I not.

Yes ncgolf, confounding is the word for it. We must take Christ at his word. At present day, there are those who must deny the clear meaning of John 6. For if they were to accept the Eucharist, it would mean that their theology is in error–so they use circular argumentation and revisionist theology to walk away from the Real Presence. I am not a very good apologist, so I let those with the gift of apologetics do most of the refutation. Usually the best thing I can do is quote one of the Church fathers–and there are many to quote from. Unfortunately, those who deny the Real Presence also easily write off the Church fathers and Church history. But like I have said before, The deepest wells have the clearest water!

ST. ATHANASIUS

St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

“‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,

-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,
​

 

[Stone]

Felicity:

What kind of assurance do you want? Ok…If I am eating and drinking Christ’s body and blood, and I drop dead right there at the moment I am eating and drinking (in a worthy state—mind you lest I consume damnation per Paul-1 Cor.) –YES—at that moment I HAVE eternal life–HALLELUJAH! Lord, let me hand the cup of Your Blood safely back to the Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and drop dead at his feet!. I am SAVED!!!

Previously you stated that when you partake of the Eucharist you temporarily transcend into some timeless existence where you temporarily experience no hunger or thirst. Now you assert that you have “eternal” life only during the few “moments” (a conceptual contradiction) you’re receiving and eating the “host” provided by the “Extraordinary Minister.” In fact you even pray that you drop dead at this specific “moment” of time (during the act), which you seem to believe would cause that momentary “eternal” life to prevail.

And yet John says in his Gospel account: “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” It has nothing to do with eating or drinking. In fact even in Jn. 6 Jesus doesn’t say at the time you eat me flesh and drink my blood you have eternal life, but He who eats…drinks…HAS eternal life. In other words, those who eat and drink don’t get it, they’re the ones who HAVE it. Those who have HIS LIFE within them HAVE (as a possession) eternal life. All directly connected to faith in Him: “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who BELIEVES HAS eternal life” (6: 47). Elsewhere in Scripture eternal life is called an inheritance. And a true inheritance is freely given, never based on the actions of the beneficiary. This is what Paul means when he says of believers, “that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope (that’s a living, present hope) of eternal life” (Titus 3:7). Peter himself blesses God who, according to His great mercy, has caused believers to be “born again” to a “living hope,” not through the Eucharist but, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (see. John 6:51), to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will NOT fade away, reserved in heaven for us and protected BY THE POWER OF GOD through faith, for a salvation ready to be revealed (to the world) in the last time (His 2nd Advent, see 1 Jn. 3:2).

The extraordinary emphasis and powers Catholicism attaches to the Eucharist just doesn’t seem to resonate with Biblical revelation, or even the simplicity of Christ’s words in Jn. 6 regarding faith in Him (or for that matter, his whole Gospel account). Could it be possible this is what is meant by “Reformation?” The reforming of the Church back to Divine revelation? That which God Himself has revealed regarding sin, Christ, the cross, salvation, faith and eternal life?

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

Could it be possible this is what is meant by “Reformation?” The reforming of the Church back to Divine revelation? That which God Himself has revealed regarding sin, Christ, the cross, salvation, faith and eternal life?

Nope…that wasn’t what the supposed “reformation” was about at all. Read Luther’s 95 Theses.

Your inabilty to see the plain sense of a passage of scripture and the gymnastics that you carry out to make your interpretation fit would be kinda funny if they weren’t so sad. It’s like all of us Catholics just sit here and wonder…“Why isn’t he gettin’ this? This isn’t hard at all.”

Your problem with Felicity’s statements is not because she is wrong…but that she doesn’t have the facility with words to communicate something that she feels very very deeply. I understand what she means and though she fails in her analogies sometimes (all analogies fail sooner or later), I agree with her 100%. There are recorded cases of people living on nothing but the Eucharist for very long times. One case in particular comes to mind, though I cannot remember the woman’s name right now, though Felicity may know it. She lived for over 20 years like that. Miracles do not prove doctrine, but as in the early church, they certainly witness to the power of God. And as Jesus Himself said…“By their fruits you will know them” and the fruits of such things has been deeper faith In Him and holier living.

Speaking of which…Since our Lord said that very thing and we all know it to be true, just what aspect of the lives of real faithful Catholics do you find so immoral that we cease to qualify as a Christian Church? If you do not know us by the fruits of His presence in our lives then what immorality are we faithful committing that disqualifies us as Christians?

Hmm I seem to have just hit upon a new thread topic.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

Could it be possible this is what is meant by “Reformation?” The reforming of the Church back to Divine revelation? That which God Himself has revealed regarding sin, Christ, the cross, salvation, faith and eternal life?

uh…nope.

Thou protesteth too much!

The reformation (deformation), was responsible for the creation of a false revisionist theology which the devil uses to seduce souls into accepting cheap grace and then prompts them to blaspheme the one true Catholic Church which God established.

**ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA **
“He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”

-“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.

“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_felicity]

CM is right–my analogies fail all the time–it drives my husband crazy because I’m always comparing/contrasting…sometimes to confusion when I actually mean to clarify. Forgive me if my flippant analogies have “confounded” anyone. I hope (as CM seems to testify to) most will get my meaning rather than focusing too much on my liberal use of language…

Stone:

Previously you stated… which you seem to believe would cause that momentary “eternal” life to prevail.

Obviously there are some important things you don’t know about Catholic practice, terminology, and belief…I’ll try to address a couple that seem obvious here…

1. the Eucharistic miracle is first and foremost a Mystery–which to the Catholic mind is something that is True, but ultimately unable to be comprehended by mortal men in its entirety due to the fact that God’s mind (essence) is so far above our ability. He has revealed Himself to us so that we may know Him, but we are still called to have faith in some aspects.
2. God is eternal–not subject to time–He is the creator of time. I am subject to time. When I am united to God in the Eucharist–there is no “time warp” that I experience (this just feels foolish to explain…but…) but I am “communing with the infinite and timeless God”–it is a Mystery–(see #1)
3. The Mass contains a penitential rite (I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault…" and the consumption of Holy Communion itself serves to expiate any venial sin (a sin that does not rupture our relationship with God, but only distances us for our ability to accept His full grace). Therefore–if I died at that moment–I would be saved as long as I was truly receiving in a state of Grace.
4. Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist is simply someone who is not a priest, but who is qualified to present the consecrated Body and Blood to the members of the Church.
5. little ol’ Felicity is no where near qualified to explain the ins and outs of Catholic doctrine concerning the Mystery of the Eucharist–I can do my lame-o best and hope some of the Truth can be seen in my pitiful attempt. Go to the experts–they are there and they are much more thorough and clear and qualified than I…Mickey has listed MANY!

I

n other words, those who eat and drink don’t get it, they’re the ones who HAVE it. Those who have HIS LIFE within them HAVE (as a possession) eternal life.

It’s that both/and thing again…I have eternal life because I believe in Him AND receive Him! I receive eternal life (Christ in the Eucharist) because I believe in Him.

And a true inheritance is freely given, never based on the actions of the beneficiary.

You can receive no inheritance unless you ACCEPT it. So there is an action that must be taken–accept Him.
The extraordinary emphasis and powers Catholicism attaches to the Eucharist just doesn’t seem to resonate with Biblical revelation, or even the simplicity of Christ’s words in Jn. 6 regarding faith in Him (or for that matter, his whole Gospel account).

Believe what you want to–you have free will. I think you are wrong and that my Church is right. So be it.

 

[ncgolf]

My deeper understanding and love of the Eucharist came in a more round-about way than for others. It was something I did not always have. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church but honestly for a long time did not understand or appreciate the Real Presence in the Eucharist. For some reason a few years ago the subject of the Real Presence became a much more important topic for me to understand. I read the Church’s teaching, read the Bible more and read as much as I could about the Eucharist.

As I reflect back on that time I believe the reason it became more important to me was a grace given by God. I can think of no other reason. It was visceral and real and it penetrated deeper into me than anything I had experienced before. I see the gift the Eucharist is … a complete sharing of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity with me. It is both an awesome and humbling experience. Awesome that the Creator of all things not only spiritually resides within me but physically too. Humbling because I see my sins and faults and yet Christ still resides within me. I feel more like the 1 sheep that Christ looks for and not part of the other 99.

I cannot explain all of what this means through biblical means … many more are much more well versed in the Bible than I but I know what Christ meant about eating His Body and I believe it … no hesitation at all. I believe the scriptual basis for what the Catholic Church believes is supported biblically.

The title of this thread is very appropriate though somewhat misleading … Christ never let them walk away … they did it on their own, they chose to walk away. There is a choice to be made in this debate, “Do you want to go away as well?”

 

[Stone]

80+% of Americans say they “believe” in Jesus. Are all of them going to heaven?

I could only pray that they would, but I’m a realist. Professing Catholics are said to be over a billion strong. Are they all TRUE Catholics? When it comes to believing in Christ there is a “said” faith, even by those who call Him “Lord” (in name only), but don’t spiritually “know” Him, or better, are not “known by Him” (see Gal. 4:9). Not even works are a guarantee of a demonstration that He knows them (Matt. 25:12).

I know people who say they believe in Jesus but they know nearly nothing of him–do not know the Bible–do not go to church–but they “believe” in him. Are they going to heaven?

Am I God? Do I know their hearts?

I can’t help but wonder about anyone’s salvation if he/she can not grasp the most rudimentary, the most foundational, the most basic of all doctrinal truths: salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, which is so clearly revealed in God’s written Word. The question then is, who or what are they actually trusting in for salvation? If in themselves, then they fail to comprehend the depth of their own sinfulness. If someone or something other than the Person and work of Christ, then they’ve been deceived by the evil one and have never truly accepted the gospel message of grace. To trust in anyone or anything other than Christ Himself is a failure to understand sin (even the slightest) in the eyes of an infinitely holy God, and the dire need for a redemptive source wholly outside ourselves.

How does one know the difference? How does one know at what point what they say is actually true or their own ignorant self-delusion?

People know themselves. And Christ knew which of the disciples that followed Him did not believe in Him. That’s why He said what He did and allowed them to leave.

Tell me–How does one “know” they “really” believe?

When they trust in Christ alone. Anyone can examine (question) their own faith as to whether or not they’re trusting wholly in God’s only provision (Christ) for their redemption, or their own works of righteousness (it cannot be both) as the criterion for their salvation and acceptance by God. All one has to do is ask himself what the object of his faith truly is. Either Christ, which amounts to true faith, or anything or anyone other than Christ, which amounts to a false faith. Quite simple. Paul, in fact, tells the Corinthians to test themselves to see if they are in the faith (1 Cor. 13:5).

Many people go through life never being tested–what if they die and never “really” believed–though they thought they were saved? What a horrible shock they must receive when they arrive in Hell!

If they die unsaved it’s because they spent their entire lifespan inwardly rejecting the pure and simple salvation message concerning Christ and the cross. If they were never actually saved then they were inwardly trusting in their own works, their own righteousness; and in that case, rejected Christ and never did actually experience a full assurance of their salvation. No, I don’t think Hell will be a shock for them at all. The shock would be if they arrived in Heaven.

 

[Stone]

ncgolf:

It is not my Church it is Christ’s church … The Church looks at those verses with great respect and awe. Christ said them and we believe them.

I believe His words as well. But what you’re actually saying is: Christ said them, the Magesterium interpreted them, therefore, as a Catholic, I obediently accept their interpretation. I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with that. But there is something fundamentally wrong with giving all power of interpretation over to certain group of men who claim infallibility, and not objectively examining the Scriptures for yourself, thereby testing if their interpretation of those few verses is actually true or not (see Acts 17:11). If you’ve objectively examined the Scriptures yourself and arrived at the same conclusion as the Mageterium, then fine. Then it’s your belief and you’re held responsible for it. Although, that still doesn’t take you off the hook. You’re still held responsible for accurately handling the Word of truth.

Trying to understand what is written in John 6 based on what is not written in the other Gospel accounts makes no sense.

Not really. Often Scripture interprets Scripture. But if what is said in Jn. 6 is not interpreted elsewhere, then one must rely upon the immediate context, the entire document (the Gospel account of John), and what is revealed (or not revealed) elsewhere in His written Word relating to the subject. I believe Jn. six interprets itself.

 

[Stone]

Mercygate:

But people who are “assured” of their salvation vigorously assert that the Holy Spirit has done just that.

True Holy Spirit assurance is based on the Scriptures He Himself inspired to be written. He would not give anyone “assurance” apart from, or independent of, what is revealed in the Scriptures concerning Christ and He being the only God given provision for our total redemption and peace with God (read Rom. 4:25-5:2). What people say (outwardly) and what they actually believe (inwardly) can be two different things. God knows the heart of every man:

"And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Lk. 16:15).

“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us…” (Acts. 15:8).

“Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness” (2 Tim. 2:19).

There is no contradiction between “giving” us the Church and “building” the Church of living stones, one by one.

Sure there is. Scripture states that God has given TO the Church Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints and building up the body of Christ unto maturity (Eph. 4:11-16). The contradiction of terms is to say the Church was given to the body when in fact they’re one and the same. The Church is the body, the body is the Church.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

Nope…that wasn’t what the supposed “reformation” was about at all. Read Luther’s 95 Theses.

Luther’s 95 Theses was merely the beginning of testing the traditional teachings that developed over time and adopted by the Church. To question one part of the system (indulgences) was to question the whole “system.” So as time went on other time-developed traditions were brought to the table and examined under the scrutiny of the written Word.

Your inability to see the plain sense of a passage of scripture and the gymnastics that you carry out to make your interpretation fit would be kinda funny if they weren’t so sad. It’s like all of us Catholics just sit here and wonder…“Why isn’t he gettin’ this? This isn’t hard at all.”

I present no gymnastics. I quote other Scriptures to confirm that what I say and believe is taught and elaborated on elsewhere in God’s Word. However, If I look like a fool in your eyes, I don’t believe I do in the eyes of God.

I agree with her 100%.

Then you believe you enter into a transcendent timelessness when you partake in the Eucharist, where you experience no hunger and thirst; this being what Christ meant in Jn. 6:35? And that the “eternal life” Jesus refers to in Jn. 6:40 & 54 is a brief moment of time while in that transcendent mode of timelessness? Is that what He means in Jn. 3:16, also?

There are recorded cases of people living on nothing but the Eucharist for very long times. One case in particular comes to mind, though I cannot remember the woman’s name right now, though Felicity may know it. She lived for over 20 years like that. Miracles do not prove doctrine, but as in the early church, they certainly witness to the power of God.

Have you, yourself, tried living on it even for even one year? What’s the point of the alleged miracle? Are you saying this is the object of Christ’s teaching in Jn. six? That the Eucharist, like the “manna” in the wilderness, is for sustaining physical life? Did this woman eventually die? If so, why? Jesus said: “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate (referring to the manna), and DIED, he who eats of this bread shall live FOREVER.” In other words, Christ, the Bread of life, was not given to sustain our present physical lives (believers still die physically), but to provide eternal life for the soul and immortality for the body through the power of the resurrection for all who now possess eternal life through faith in Christ (see Jn. 6:40; 11:25; Rom. 8:23).

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

You can receive no inheritance unless you ACCEPT it. So there is an action that must be taken–accept Him.

No and yes. An inheritance is never conditioned upon the willful acceptance of the inheritor. One BECOMES an inheritor by the will of another, not his own. Scripture reveals that God has willed, according to His sovereign grace through Christ, that ALL who, by faith, receive His Son, inherit eternal life:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40).

Possessing eternal life is not conditioned on our accepting it, but on our believing in Christ.

John’s Gospel account is replete with the words “believe” and “eternal life.” You should read it with those words in mind. Very enlightening, indeed.

 

[Genesis315]

Stone:

No and yes. An inheritance is never conditioned upon the willful acceptance of the inheritor. One BECOMES an inheritor by the will of another, not his own. Scripture reveals that God has willed, according to His sovereign grace through Christ, that ALL who, by faith, receive His Son, inherit eternal life:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40).

Possessing eternal life is not conditioned on our accepting it, but on our believing in Christ.

John’s Gospel account is replete with the words “believe” and “eternal life.” You should read it with those words in mind. Very enlightening, indeed.

Just to jump in real quick, you are right that inheritance doesn’t depend on the willful acceptance of it, you still inherit it. But you won’t have it until you accept it. If my uncle dies and leaves me 20 bucks, that’s my inheritance whether I care or not. I still have to accept the check. If I want, I can say “I choose not to accept the 20 bucks.” I think you basically believe the same thing. To you, believing in Jesus is accepting the check so to speak. To us, we have to believe and obey to accept it. As for the rest of this thread, I guess I would also say to you that believing that Jesus is present under the appearance of bread and wine and that He meant what he said when He said “my flesh is true food” would be part of believing in Him. Does that help?

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone says:

Often Scripture interprets Scripture. But if what is said in Jn. 6 is not interpreted elsewhere, then one must rely upon the immediate context, the entire document (the Gospel account of John), and what is revealed (or not revealed) elsewhere in His written Word relating to the subject. I believe Jn. six interprets itself.

And this is exactly why I believe in the Eucharist. Other passages do indeed help interpret John 6…most notably 1st Corinthians 11:23-31 because of if the impossibilty of becoming guilty of Christ’s body and blood if it is only there symbolically. This is called contextual criticism. The context of John 6 is interpreted in light of other passages on the same topic in the NT. Jesus said “This is my body…this is my blood” at the last supper and when taken as a whole all these passages point to the literal meaning of the bread of life discourse.

As for your other remarks…I’m not gonna answer all that since you are detremined to walk away anyway and nothing any of us say will get through to you. Face it Stone…you won’t believe anything that we say because it’s Catholic. If we said the sky was blue…you’d argue just because one of us said it. Walk away if you want…it doesn’t change the reality.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[SPOKENWORD]

He let them walk away because they were only seeing in the natural and Jesus was speaking supernatural. Its impossable to see the supernatural in the natural. Cannot be done and Jesus knew it. God Bless

 

[st_felicity]

If they die unsaved it’s because they spent their entire lifespan inwardly rejecting the pure and simple salvation message concerning Christ and the cross.

What does “inwardly rejecting” mean–is it the same as “self-delusion”? You point out that believing in the message of the cross is “pure and simple”. I have had many conversations with my Protestant mother on this specific thing–that Protestants think Catholics put too many “clauses” and “have tos” and that we make it so “complicated”. What is your real reason for not believing “My flesh is TRUE food; my blood is TRUE drink”? If anything is simple–THAT is it. Is it really so hard to take Jesus at His word?

If they were never actually saved then they were inwardly trusting in their own works, their own righteousness; and in that case, rejected Christ and never did actually experience a full assurance of their salvation.

Again–what does this mean? How does one experience “full assurance of their salvation”? What does it look like? Or how exactly does it came across to the faithful person so they know they are assured and not just thinking they are? Is it a feeling? Please explain.