Grace, Faith, and Works

Crucifixion, by Cavallini

Real Audio Lessons on this Topic

Justification by Faith Alone? I
Justification by Faith Alone? II
Justification by Faith Alone? III
Justification by Faith Alone? IV
What it means to be born again
Are you saved?

The Catholic position on salvation can be summed up thus: We are saved by Christ's grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Sola gratia! Grace alone -- but a grace we have to co-operate with. Thinking that all one has to do is pray the "Sinner's Prayer" once to be saved is wrong. Thinking that all one has to do is be a "good person" to be saved is wrong.

"We are saved by 'Faith alone'": No!

It takes more than simply knowing Jesus is the Messiah to be saved; even the Evil One knows Who Christ is.

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The Bible and the Catholic Church don't separate the "works of faith," preceded and caused by grace, from salvation (see relevant Scripture below) You can have all the faith in the world, enough to move mountains, but if you don't have charity, you are nothing:

I Corinthians 13:2 2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

"We can work our way into Heaven": No!

Catholic teaching for 2,000 years:
we are saved by grace alone, through faith that works in love

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The Catholic Church and Her Bible condemn the idea that one can work his way to Heaven on his own merit or that God "owes" a person for doing the right things.

All our works get their merit only from Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. We can do "works" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for the rest of our lives, but without Christ's grace, they are nothing. Works have no merit in themselves -- and faith without works is not enough. We are saved by grace alone -- a grace that we accept neither "by faith alone" nor "by works alone," but "by faith that works in charity" (Galatians 5:6).

Something I came across on the Internet demonstrates the obvious importance of works. Below is a (albeit rather smart-alecky) joke letter to a pastor who preaches "faith alone":

I am a former Catholic who was recently saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ. All my life I knew I was a homosexual. The Catholic Church told me that I had to refrain from what I was in order to be saved! I never knew that my good works meant nothing! To think, I would have spent my entire life struggling not to engage in homosexual activity, just to wind up in Hell! I now realize that Salvation is through the finished work of Christ ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!

The pastor, almost completely misunderstanding Catholicism but who has an entire ministry devoted to "saving Catholics", responded in part by saying:

It is true that a person is not saved by his works and that salvation is completely of grace. However that does not mean that works have nothing to do with salvation.

Well, "pastor," that's what Catholics have been saying all along!

The bottom line: all salvation comes from the grace of Christ's Sacrifice and only from the grace of His Sacrifice. Salvation is a free gift -- a gift that is not "owed" to us, that God didn't have to offer us, and that we could never "earn" on our own -- that we accept by faith and works. Christ doesn't have to give us this gift of salvation; we don't "deserve" this gift, we can't "earn" it; but He, in His endless Love for us, offers it nonetheless. We have to believe this gift exists (have faith) and then open our hands to receive it (obey, inspired by the grace given to us).

An analogy: there is a train called "Grace" that is the one and only route to Heaven and which is fueled by Christ's Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension alone. Some Protestants seem to believe that all one has to do is believe the train exists and all will be well. They accuse Catholics of thinking that belief in the train is unecessary, that we can give out free soup in the train station and, thereby, bypass the train altogether. But what Catholics actually believe is that the train -- Grace -- is the only way to Heaven, that it is the only means by which we are saved, that we can't take another route and can do nothing about getting to Heaven without that train. But we also teach that we have to believe in the train's existence and board it through repentance and obedience to what Christ teaches. God is the Conductor of the train, completely Sovereign, and can go off the tracks if need be to pick up those who are truly and invincibly ignorant of the train's existence but who are of good will, obey the natural law, and whom He deigns to save. If, when, and how He might do such a thing is completely up to Him and not for us to bicker about. It is to us to do what He has taught us: to believe, repent, love God and neighbor, and preach the Gospel.

Born Again?

Many non-Catholics, in their confused zeal for Jesus, are constantly asking Catholics if we are "born again," admonishing us that unless we are "born again" we cannot be saved. But you see, Catholics, like St. John the Evangelist in the third chapter of his Gospel, relate the phrase "born again" to the results of Baptism. Baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant, in the same way the Hebrews and Israelites entered the Old Covenant through circumcision (which, you'll note, was done to infants).

When many Protestants use the phrase "born again," they seem to be referring to an "emotional experience." They often expect instant transformation (which can certainly happen), speaking in tongues, miracles, etc. as some sort of "proof" of having been "born again."

Traditional Catholics most certainly agree that repentance (what we call "metanoia") is necessary and that inner transformation (what we call "theosis" or "sanctification") is the goal, but we are very conscious of not confusing "feelings" with "faith." These are two different things, and mere "feelings" can lie: ask anyone who's ever been "love-bombed" in a cult, experienced cocaine or Ecstasy, been to a Woodstock-like music festival, or is just having a really excellent day. Oceanic "feelings of oneness" and "happiness" can be had in pagan religions (read about Greek and Roman "bachanalias" sometime), through natural or artificial chemicals, through the feeling of "falling in love," through hypnosis, through highly sensual experiences, and other things that have nothing to do, inherently, with Christ. The ancient Greeks babbled in tongues, and glossolalia can is still practiced today among Voudun ("Voodoo") cults, during Japanese seances, and by other false religions and in other cultures all over the world. These sorts of experiences must be discerned, and the spirits must be tested! Remember what Christ said would happen even back in the first century:

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

It is important to test the spirits and not devalue reason and doctrine! Know that the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance according to Galatians 5:22-23. The fruits of the Spirit are not out of control shaking, screaming, running around, falling down, "holy laughter," vocalizations that don't edify the Church, a "feeling" that doctrine and religion are now unimportant, etc. One should be more in control of one's self after an encounter with the Holy Spirit, not less.

St. Teresa being filled with the Holy Spirit (by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 17th c.). Catholics would call this experience "being in ecstasy" or "having a mystical encounter."

As to "personal relationship with Jesus, " think of the great Saints -- everyone from Thérèse de Lisieux to St. Francis -- are these people not "born again" in the Protestant sense of "having a deep relationship with Christ" while still remaining 100% believers in traditional Catholic doctrine? Read about the life of St. Patrick and then talk to me about a "personal relationship" with Jesus that some Protestants think Catholics just don't understand.

What of our holy martyrs like Maximilian Kolbe or Nikolaus Gross, murdered by Nazis because of the virtue compelled by their Catholic faith? What about Joan of Arc, martyred for her refusal to deny the divine origins of the voices that led her to defeat the English? If you want "personal relationship with Jesus," read the writings of St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross!

Have you been saved?

Another question Catholics often hear is, "Have you been saved?" Catholics, though, don't see eternal salvation as a one-time event that one can pinpoint and relate to others by saying, for example, "I was saved at 5:30 pm on 23 October 1988 when I got on my knees and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." We think of salvation, ultimately, as a process that is begun with faith and Baptism (or just Baptism in the case of infants) and is then "worked out" (Phillipians 2:12) as we endeavor to "put on Christ." Additionally, we don't see salvation as something that can't be lost (2 Peter 2:20-21). Even St. Paul himself, the one who did more than anyone else to spread the Gospel, wasn't sure of his own salvation. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:27

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Who are we to be more "sure of our salvation" than the Apostle Paul?

Most Catholics, of course, are able to speak of specific events such as the first time they truly "got it" that Jesus is Lord or that the Church and its Scriptures are true; many are able to tell specific stories of experiences of the Holy Spirit. Many have wonderful stories of healings, consolation, and miracles. But to speak of "having been saved," in the past tense, is something we tend not to do unless we are speaking about our Baptism, at which time we were first justified. We speak, instead, of "being saved," in the present tense, as we obey Him after Baptism and endeavor to keep accepting the gift of salvation which we could never earn on our own.

Many Protestants tend to see salvation in legal terms: "I believe, therefore, I am saved because that is God's promise to me. As long as I believe, I can't lose my salvation because the terms of the contract are that I simply believe and I will be saved." Catholics see salvation more in terms of kinship, our adoption into God's very family, our becoming, literally, true children of God and inheriting Christ's sonship through Jesus' sacrifice. We see "working out our salvation" as those things we, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are called to do as children of God, in the same way that a child honors an earthly parent -- and we see God's gift of eternal salvation to us as an inheritance from our Father rather than a "pay-off" for having fulfilled a "contract" by a simple assertion of faith. And as a father can "disinherit" a child if that child no longer treats him as father and freely walks away from his inheritance, so our Father in Heaven can "disinherit" those who don't treat Him as Father (Romans 11:22; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 3:17-18). For more in-depth information, read the transcript of this debate on "justification" between Scott Hahn, Catholic and former Presbyterian minister, and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary.

To sum up

So, here's how a Catholic would answer the standard questions from Protestants:

Q.	Have you been "born again"?
A.	Yes, when we are baptized, we are "born again of water and Spirit" (John 3).
Q.	Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?
A.	Some Catholics are good Catholics and have a deep personal relationship with Jesus by trusting in Him and receiving His Sacraments. Other Catholics are mere "cultural Catholics" who call themselves "Catholic" because they were baptized once, but don't believe what Christ's Church teaches or don't have the will to practice what His Church commands. Such Catholics are "dead members" of the Church and must be restored by faith and the Sacraments. Instead of the "Sinner's Prayer," each year at the Easter Vigil, Catholics renew their Baptismal promises by rejecting Satan and all of his works, and by affirming their faith in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Ghost. Yes, a Catholic could go through the Vigil by rote and not mean it, just as a person can say the "Sinner's Prayer" and not mean it. Christ is the Judge of men's souls, however, and He knows who truly has faith.
Q.	Have you been "saved"?
A.	Those Catholics who have faith and obey the will of the Father are being saved, by the grace of Christ alone. Catholics who don't have faith and don't obey the will of the Father will not be saved unless they repent and begin to have faith and keep the commandments.
Q.	If you were to die tonight, do you know for an absolute certainty that you would go to Heaven?
A.	No more than St. Paul did when he wrote to the people of Corinth. But we do have the assuredness of knowing that God keeps His promises, that He is good and merciful and just, and that He so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son so we might not perish but have everlasting life if we believe, repent, obey, and trust in Jesus.
Q.	By what means are we saved?
A.	By the grace of Christ Whose Blood was poured out for us at Calvary. This Sacrifice is the only means of salvation; by Christ and Christ alone may a man be saved. There is no other way to the Father.
Q.	Why was His Sacrifice necessary? Why did He have to die?
A.	God is infinite Justice and Perfection. Because He is infinite, our sins offend Him infinitely. There is such a chasm between God in His vast perfection and us in our creaturely weakness that nothing we could do could possibly assuage Him for our offenses. But as much as we deserve death, He loves us still and wants us with Him for eternity. In order to restore His honor and maintain the perfection of His justice, there had to be an infinite Sacrifce of appeasement. So, God Himself took on flesh by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became man, not only to teach us with His words, but to save us with His Blood. Only God Himself could save us from the effects of our offending Him because we are so imperfect and weak.
Q.	What must we do to accept the fruits of this Sacrifice and be saved?
A.	In three words, "Believe, repent, and obey." We must: · believe and trust in Christ (John 3:16); · repent and be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for the remission of sins (Matthew 28:19, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38); · obey the will of the Father and keep the commandments (Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:16-19); · eat the Body of Christ (John 6:51-69) -- but not unworthily, and only after discerning the Lord's Body lest we eat damnation onto ourselves (I Corinthians 11:23-30); · judge ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:28-31) and, when we fall, confess our sins to those to whom Christ has given the authority to forgive sins in His Name, and to obey that authority when it comes to what is bound and loosed (Matthew 9:5-8, Matthew 18:18, John 20:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:18); · love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31).

Relevant Scripture

1 Samuel 2:30
Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 24:13
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 4:14-19
The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

John 3:1-7
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit [Baptism]. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' [This entire chapter is about baptizing, John the Baptist, "ceremonial washing", etc.]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:28-29
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Romans 2:6
God will render to every man according to his WORKS.

Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the DOERS of the law shall be justified.

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:29-30
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. [Note that the verbs here are in the past tense; Paul is undoubtedly referring to those who've died in a state of grace and whose justification and santification have been completed. And don't read this verse out of context of the one that came 12 verses before it -- Romans 8:17, which says that our glorification depends on our suffering along with Christ, and Matthew 22:14 that says "For many are called, but few are chosen." Being "called" doesn't mean automatic justification.]

Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 10:9-10
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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 11:17-23
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. [In other words, you're "grafted in," a part of the New Covenant -- but don't brag because you can be cut off]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [It doesn't say "unless these people have had the experiences of "feeling saved" or having been born again.]

1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. [Even Paul wasn't sure of his own salvation!]

I Corinthians 10:8-12
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. [NIV: "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"]

I Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. [Charity is greater than Faith!]

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:4
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which WORKETH BY LOVE.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For BY grace are ye saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Phillipians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Colossians 1:23-24
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of [lacking in] the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church. [the NKJV and the NIV translate this last part accurately as: "and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."]

1 Thessalonians 1:3
Remembering without ceasing your WORK OF FAITH, and LABOUR OF LOVE, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the WORK OF FAITH with power:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. [RSV: "...worse than an unbeliever." What is being said here is that "believing" is not enough!]

1 Timothy 6:17-19
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:26-29
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

2 Peter 2:20-21
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. [the Greek word for knowledge here is epignosei, which means a knowledge from experience, not just intellectual knowledge, which would be oida. In other words, the people being talked about here "knew Christ", they had a "personal encounter with Christ" and had the experience of "getting saved"; they didn't just simply "know of Him."]

2 Peter 3:17-18
...beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever.

1 John 2:24
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. [in other words, it is possible not continue in the Father and the Son; it is possible to fall away]

James 1:21-27
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But BE YE DOERS OF THE WORD, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.

James 5:20
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Temporal and Eternal Salvation Important article on Protestant and Catholic uses of term "faith"
Righteousness and Merit another article highlighting the differences in Catholic and Protestant language
Justification by Faith Alone
Justification in James 2
Salvation Past, Present and Future
Resisting and Cooperating with God
Are all Christians Predestined to Persevere?
The Evangelical notion that Christians can't lose their salvation is unbiblical

No I don't at the moment sorry. I think it's pretty common knowledge though that this is even common Pagan belief today though so I'll rest wth that. I'm not too concerned about it in other words.

I am as historical claims need substantiation. That pagans did eat of their deceased loved ones who gain life properties of them during at least the last millennium is substantiated.

Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission Moreover, "the custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

The main points are these: Jesus isn't an animal. His blood therefore is not animal blood. Thus the prohibition of drinking animal blood in the Law is not violated.

That is absurd: the prohibition of eating blood was not restricted to animals but humans as well, as cannibalism itself was, based upon Gn. 9:6. And even if that was allowed, consuming human blood would not be any more sanctioned than the blood of a lesser creature would be!

The fact that the priests of old did not drink the blood of the sacrifice is irrelevant here because they had a prohibition at the time to not drink the blood of the sacrifice (because again it was an animal, and an animal's blood cannot give life).

it is by no means irrelevant, and again you are reading into the text a meaning that is not there in order to somehow negate the obvious injunction. There is nothing said about not drinking an animal's blood bcz it was not able to give life, but because it was most sacred then it was only to be used for atonement.

The point was that spiritual life was realized because the shed blood was sacred and used for the atonement, not by eating.

It's only when something is objectively evil (in other words something that offends God) should we not do it. Taking a life even an animal life, in order to consume its blood is an offense to God because again, only He is the Author of Life, and thus it is not our place to take a life to save our own (except for self defense of course but that's tangential to this point).

That is frankly absurd, but which is a consequence of your incorrect premise. Again, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not, thus death was not prevented, but as the blood is the most precious substance in the body so as to represent life itself, thus its use was restricted and only used for sacrifice.

Thus, while a scandal to those who think with the carnal mind, as can be seen from the reactions of the Jews in John 6,

As it should be and was designed to be, that of speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, in which Nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. And as such it must exclude all who deny the physical interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.

For as in John and elsewhere, souls obtain spiritual and eternal life by believing on the Lord Jesus as the Divine Son of God, being born of the Spirit in conversion in believing the gospel message, not by consuming the Lord's Supper. Which is nowhere preached in Acts or elsewhere is the means of regeneration.

And then they live by Christ by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God as means of grace, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them., (Col. 3:16) Which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as again, Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

In contrast, nowhere is the Lord's supper described as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves.

Rather, the Lord's supper in its only manifest description in the life of the church with any detail, is that in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. As shown and explained more here. .

Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.

That is the problem of relying on CA, whose specious polemics have been refuted time and time again, while if these erroneous interpretation of Scripture are not official ones, then they could be contradicted by other Catholic teaching, as some are. And is contrary to the goal of apologetics, which is to try to convince evangelicals by Scripture to trust in the assured veracity of Rome for determination and assurance of Truth.

Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?

Again, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not, thus death was not prevented, but as the blood is the most precious substance in the body so as to represent life itself, thus its use was restricted and only used for sacrifice.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here but I never said the death of anyone was prevented by the Temple sacrifice. Rather my only point all along has been that the drinking of Christ's blood does not violate any Law.

...the prohibition of eating blood was not restricted to animals but humans as well, as cannibalism itself was, based upon Gn. 9:6. And even if that was allowed, consuming human blood would not be any more sanctioned than the blood of a lesser creature would be!

I also never said the prohibition against drinking blood was only against killing animals. As you point out in Gen 9:6 (and of course the command against killing) forbids the shedding of human blood. I even said in my posts repeatedly that "obviously" the Jews couldn't perform a human sacrifice as it was against the Law. But as you and I know (as Christians) a sacrifice of a human (a perfect one at that) was indeed the only way a sacrifice could truly atone for sin.

So we are left with a quandary as Christians: do we believe in a God that is a liar, or do we believe in a God who is not bound by the same Law he gives? Because if He is bound by this same Law, then the very Sacrifice of Christ is a transgression against God himself.

Since that's impossible, it's impossible for God to transgress against Himself, it must be true that God is not bound by the same Law that binds us. So again, as I've stated repeatedly, He being the Author of Life is free to give life as He chooses. So there is nothing that violates any Law if indeed God commands us to drink His Son's blood. And indeed even on top of this (that you dismiss this reasoning as specious is irrelevant) Jesus is not an animal, so there is nothing broken in the Law anyway.

Cannibalism (or even the drinkng of human blood) is forbidden because it necessitates murder (or at least the taking of a life the Donner Party being a rare exception). Therefore since it necessitates murder to take place it is wrong. That is, it's wrong because it's murder, not because of the act itself. It's wrong because it's taking a life to sustain another just as I said before.

Certainly it's true that the reason (as stated in Scripture) that the drinking of animal blood was forbidden was because it was "sacred". Here though one must use the brain God has given and reason, "Why is the blood of an animal sacred?" "Just because?"

No, it's sacred because it is just as the Pagans believe. It's sacred because as science tells us today: it brings life. It contains life. It doesn't just "represent life". Thus, it's consumption is a sin because it takes something that is not ours for our own.

The Author of Life is free to give life however as He chooses. We are not "killing Jesus" by drinking His blood. We aren't even taking it from Him. We are receiving a gift freely given by the only One who can give such a gift. It's not murder. It's not cannibalism. It's obedience to His Word.

Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

I'm glad you brought these verses up as they actually demonstrate the uniqueness the discourse of John 6.

You will note in all these instances we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, specifically members of a given audience asking questions like, "How can this man say he is a lamb?" Or "How can he be a bronze statue?" This is because his audience at the time well understood he was speaking metaphorically. If He was speaking the same way in John 6, there would be no such confusion that would result in questions like "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

As for the woman at the well, and Nicodemus, we can see how our Lord did not let them wallow in fleshy confusion. Indeed, the woman did believe He was speaking of a literal water. But He actually did not let her remain in such ignorance. This is precisely unlike John 6, as after understanding Him to mean "eating his body", Jesus did not correct them as He did the woman at the well.

Similarly for Nicodemus, when he mistook Our Lord to mean we must re-enter our mother's womb. He corrected him in his error. Clearly. And without ambiguity.

So these passages only serve to highlight the unique nature of the discourse in John 6 which is that John 6 is indeed literal. No other passage where symbology or typology is used, do we witness confusion reigning among His audience, at least not for long (and certainly not as a reason for some of His disciples to depart). So, you read Scripture one way, I read it another, who's to say who's hermeneutic is correct? That's a rhetorical question mind you as we have been down this road before and I have no desire to repeat such a journey.

The answer to this is related to what I said before. Anyone who knows the Catholic teaching on those outside the Church, knows that such people still can be saved by God, according to His good pleasure, because while the Sacraments are indeed the normative means God has chosen to dispense his Grace, He Himself is not bound to these same Sacraments.

Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you asserted that this was against the Law because it was wrong "to take another life for oneself," and only God has the power to give and take life from one to another." But as i pointed out, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not. Thus reasoning that a text such as Lv. 17:10 was to prevent death is absurd.

Moreover, the prohibition against drinking blood transcends slain animals, but it can hardly be held that it would not also apply to any eating of blood. It was reserved for sacrifice in death as the singly most precious aspect of body atones for the most destructive.

I also never said the prohibition against drinking blood was only against killing animals.

Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you reasoned that to drink Christ blood is "not violating the Law. For it’s not the blood of bulls or goats we drink but His blood."

Thus according to this logic, if God commanded us to drink the blood of an animal then it would be violating the Law, but not if He commanded us to drink the blood of a human!

But as you and I know (as Christians) a sacrifice of a human (a perfect one at that) was indeed the only way a sacrifice could truly atone for sin. So we are left with a quandary as Christians: do we believe in a God that is a liar, or do we believe in a God who is not bound by the same Law he gives? Because if He is bound by this same Law, then the very Sacrifice of Christ is a transgression against God himself...So there is nothing that violates any Law if indeed God commands us to drink His Son's blood.

As your premise is false so is your conclusion. There is no law against laying down your life for others, which is what Christ chose to do. (Jn. 10:!8) He did not kill Himself either, thus there is no violation of the Law.

But He did clearly forbid eating blood, and which the kosher disciples certainly would have kept, and Peter especially would not even silently submit to eating unclean animals or having his feet washed by the Lord, let alone eat His flesh and drink His blood!

It's sacred because as science tells us today: it brings life. It contains life. It doesn't just "represent life". Thus, it's consumption is a sin because it takes something that is not ours for our own.

It is not the whole person or life, but because it is the single most precious substance for life, it represents the whole life. But not eating it does not prevent death, but the blood was poured out as a sacrifice to the Lord, and not be consumed.

We are not "killing Jesus" by drinking His blood. We aren't even taking it from Him.

But it remains that the blood you imagine yourself eating was shed in death. And again, you will have a hard time arguing prohibition against drinking blood does not also apply to eating of the blood of living things, outside of dire need, which can be your only argument.

You are wrong. People obviously did think He was speaking literally, as seen by their statements or questions. As said, Jews thought the Lord was speaking of destroying the physical temple, thus this misunderstanding was invoked in His trial and crucifixion, as shown. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) And which meaning was not explained to them.

Likewise as said and shown, Nicodemus thought the Lord referred to physical birth, and thus asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4) And the meaning of the response, "born of water and of the Spirit" was not made clear unless one reads more of Scripture.

Likewise in Jn. 4, the women thought the Lord referred to physical water, and thus said, "The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (John 4:15) And the Lord simply pointed out her sin that needed repentance, and revealed Himself as being the Messiah. This infers the water that gives eternal life is by believing on Him, but left with this unclear explanation, a Catholic could see it was meaning the Lord would give her some sort of transubstantiated water! For indeed, gaining spiritual life is connected to believing the words of Christ in Jn. 6, with both meanings being made clear as we read more of the Lord's words. Which only affirm faith comes by hearing, and by believing the gospel one obtains spiritual and eternal life. But RCs insist on reading an utterly foreign idea of how one obtains spiritual and eternal life.

Later on, the disciples also did not understand what the Lord was referring to by "I have meat to eat that ye know not of," thinking maybe someone brought him something to eat. But which was explained as doing the Father's will, as man is to live by every word of God, (Jn. 4:31-34) which metaphor prepares us for "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Jn. 6 is a more extended discourse using the same method of allusion to physical things to refer to the spiritual, that which earthly vs. the heavenly, which is John's recurring method. Thus you are wrong that "we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, but you simply cling to the physical example and reject the spiritual explanation.

Wrong. As said, the women was not told anything about the nature of this water, except by taking her to the spiritual level and that Christ was the Messiah who knew her life and sins, which became her message. And which infers that believing is how one obtains everlasting life, which is contrary to having to physically eat or drink Christ to do so.

Similarly for Nicodemus, when he mistook Our Lord to mean we must re-enter our mother's womb. He corrected him in his error. Clearly. And without ambiguity.

Only that it was not physical birth, not the meaning of being born of water and the Spirit, but which explanation by itself is hardly less clear than that the Lord was not speaking of a form of cannibalism in Jn. 6, eating human flesh and blood to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which is a radical pagan understanding that is nowhere taught. Even the Lord's supper account, which came later and was not known to the hearers in Jn. 6, does not teach at all that eating human flesh and blood obtains spiritual and eternal life. Both Jn. 2,3, and 4 require reading in the context of more of Scripture.

Wrong again, as shown. Souls remained thinking the Lord would destroy the physical temple, while what this living water was and how one is born gain is no less or more clear than that gaining spiritual life is by believing Christ who has the words of eternal life. Which further revelation confirms is by believing the gospel, (Acts 15:7-9) and then living according to God's words, (Mt. 4:4) making doing His will their "meat."

So, you read Scripture one way, I read it another, who's to say who's hermeneutic is correct? That's a rhetorical question mind you as we have been down this road before and I have no desire to repeat such a journey.

Indeed you should not, as that is the fundamental issue , for while you attempt to substantially engage in what is private and not official interpretation, a faithful RC is bound to make Scripture serve Rome, to support RC teaching, under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome as being the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation.

But which is contrary to how the church began, with common people seeing what the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation would not, and thus in dissent from them following itinerant preachers whom they rejected. But who reproved them by Scripture as being the supreme standard, and by Scriptural substantiation established their Truth claims. And thus the church began and thus it continues. Thanks be to God.

Such equivocation is so much special pleading! This "verily verily" statement is not equivocal, anymore than others such as "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47)

Nor do Caths treat is as such, but love to invoke it as the absolute unequivocal imperative that it is, while the fact remains that you cannot find any place in which souls consumed the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, but instead they believed the gospel of the One whose words are spirit and life!

Jesus never said “my blood is water” or “I am water” or “my body is water” or anything like that in John 4, so your comparisons fail there.

What?! He used water as representing what He would give (eternal life), as blood was used in Jn. 6, while this is only one of my comparisons. In addition to which Christ said He was a door, (Jn. 10:7) and said rivers of living water would flow from the belly of believers who drank of Him. (Jn. 7:36,37) .

This use of figurative language, using the material for the spiritual is clear and consistent with John, while making the obtainment of spiritual life by literally eating something physical is not, or with all of Scripture. Thus who must are desperately try to disallow it in Jn. 6 by demanding the exact same language

Even in the OT, to be consistent with your plain meaning literalism you should hold that David engaged in transubstantiation, as he plainly stated that precious water was the blood of the men who obtained it at the risk of their lives was their blood. Therefore he would not drink it. but poured it out to the Lord as an offering, as was done with blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17; cf. Lv. 9:9)

The misunderstanding of the woman was that there was another kind of water Jesus was offering her, not that He was claiming to be water. So He did correct her in that false belief by showing her sin to her, he convinced her He is the Messiah.

That was far certainly implied (though read in isolation Catholics could contend He would give transubstantiated water), and but which He did in Jn. 6, quite obviously if one reads it in context of Scripture, but this you refuse to see, and resort to argumentation that not even official teaching uses.

Similarly with the Temple, Jesus never said “My body is the Temple which will be destroyed in 3 days”. Indeed the Temple itself was destroyed in AD 70 so there was nothing to correct there. (When He was on trial).

This also is non-sense, as He clearly referred to a physical temple an an allegory to His death and resurrection, and left the Jews to figure it out, while He corrected the absurd idea in Jn. 6:62-64 that flesh itself gave spiritual life, and which is NOWHERE taught. It is believing on Christ as the Divine Son of God that one passes from death to life, (Jn. 5:24), believing the gospel by which one receives the Spirit, as seen and taught elsewhere!

Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

Similarly with Nicodemus, he thought Jesus meant to return to the womb. This was a mistake on Nicodemus’ part that Jesus then corrected.

Imprecisely, saying the birth was of the Spirit, by believing, not eating, and likewise Christ did explain Himself in Jn. 6, by teaching we live by Him as He did in believing and thus obeying the Father, and that He would soon no longer be with them, but It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. (John 6:63,64)

So for those three passages where mistake/confusion was, the audience was either corrected or there was no actual mistake made on anyone’s part.

Indeed, as in Jn. 6, and as seen in the rest of Scripture, in which nowhere is spiritual life obtained by consuming the Lord's Supper, which is what you literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54 has to mean, versus being born of the Spirit by believing the gospel. The actual mistake is on your part, following Rome!

To conclude, the rest of the passages you cited again do not show the type of confusion that reigned in John 6, specifically, no one said “How can this man claim to be a bronze statue” or “how can this man claim to be a lamb?”

Actually, souls were yet assuming the Lord was referring to the physical temple in His trial and crucifixion, and the confusion seen in Jn. 6 is akin to that of Nicodemus supposing Christ was speaking literally, and the women at the well, while the spiritual explanation in such is also given in Jn. 6, and is the only one that is consistent with them !

Your refusal to see it is not God's fault, and the only one your vain argumentation is convincing to is yourself and those of like obstinacy, or the ignorant.

I’m certainly not too concerned about your personal opinion of Scripture (because whether you claim it’s “just Scripture” you’re offering, you’re still wrong. It’s really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says).

As is some of your argumentation in support of Rome, but whose presumption determines what you must argue for and against, and thus dismiss reproof as just being an opinion, rather than going wherever the Truth leads.

But as you resort to this "only your *opinion*" solution, then you must again defend the premise behind it, which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

If you cannot establish this as the indisputable Truth then all you are doing in giving your opinion of the opinion of one church among others. So go ahead or try to disagree with other RCs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.