And once again, you are assuming my position and accusing me of things I don’t believe. Strawman fallacy ahoy!
That’s why I spent so much time elaborating on my answers to you, because I wanted to keep exactly this from happening.
And it seems I am vindicated, because you took my simple answer and stretched it far beyond anything I actually said!
No, I don’t believe I did. You claimed that the “unworthy” partaker of the Remembrance Supper was saved, although still engagng in deliberate unrepentant sin. Didn’t you?
No, I did not. What I am recounting is what one must believe in if one is to assume that the sense of 1 Cor. 11:27 is to be taken in the plain-literal versus the figurative-literal sense.
(Which it is not possible assume that was the sense of the original text, or of someone participate in in that rite today.) Having shown that the text must be seen in the figurative-literal sense. that if the person IS saved, he/she cannot be blamed for any sin by God, because at the point of salvation the recipient at that moment must first be justified, be pardoned of any sin past, present,or future; judicially declared "Not guilty!" by the Omnipotent Judge' and being thus cleansed of all unrighteousness thus entering into the uninterrupted state of having the righteousness of The Judge's Son imputed to him/herself, and thus being ever-worthy to partake of the elements of the peace meal offered to him/her by the Heavenly Father Who has convened the Peace Supper in Remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus' Body and Shed Blood of which the Father's Righteous Demands on the believing supplicants were fully satisfied forever, propitiated, and the pleading sinner's unruly behavior ever, always forgiven, such that the cleansed person was--and uninterrupted continues to be--ever worthy of partaking of this peace meal celebrating his/her reconciliation with The Father on the basis of Christ's death and Resurrection as the Savior, to whose saving actions no other human can add anything of eternal value.
Therefore, the person's unworthiness MUST be only because that person has NOT been pardoned of sin and thus MUST be unsaved. But you say NOT! for in Post #215 you say: No, not quite. Unworthy means guilty of deliberately unrepentant sin.
Meaning that you presume that the person IS saved, but his/her acts once again make them unworthy to partake of the elements of the rite, having once again engaged in the practice of "deliberate unrepentant sin"(-ning, and I take it that you mean as being habitual).
Luircin, this condition is doctrinally impossible if the individual is saved, integrally having the ability to discern both good and evil and the consequences thereof, exercising their God-given freedom from and power over the compulsion to sin.
So your reasoning simply does not make sense, when the absolute evaluation by Blessed John of a person's stance does not permit a person to be saved and living in truth if he/she is engaged in deliberate, habitual, unrepentant sinning, to which I gave you previously here the relevant scripture passages.
With this shown to you, please don't say again that I mistook what your position was on this matter, a position that your previous retorts clearly show. Don't say again that I have neglected, distorted, twisted, or mistaken exactly that to which I have brought an oppositionaly proof of an incorrect illogical unscriptural claim from you.
I am not "assuming" a position that you do not occupy; only responding to a stance that you have already taken, or that at least your words seem to point to. And it is the position that I respond to, not a dislike of or meanness toward your person as a professed child of God and spiritual brother saved by faith alone in Christ as Savior alone. ============
Furthermore, I also answered one of my own questions asked of you in Post #181:
o Is there not more than one definition of "The Lord's body" or "the body of Christ" found in this epistle to the Corinthians?In the same book of aPul's recounting of the Lord's Remembrance Supper and its incorrect observance, we find in Chapter 12takes:
1 Co 12:12-20 (AV)This is an illustration of the fact that the local assembly of members professing salvation by faith and regeneration when congregated for fellowship and teaching in the doctrine of the apostles, for the breaking of bread and prayer together, that gathered together they are, figuratively speaking, the body of Christ Jesus when He (not anyone else, and not headless) is the spiritual Head of them.12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spiritrather than His Blood.
14For the body is not one member, but many.
15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20But now are they many members, yet but one body.
Whereas in 11:27 the body spoken there is literally that of Jesus borne on the Roman engine of torture and death, but the body spoken of in 11:29 is NOT the literal flesh-and-bone body of the Risen Heaven-resident Christ, as the imaginers of "transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" continue endlessly to insist, but rather it is the local assembly of congregated believers figuratively spoken of by Paul writing under the direction of the Spirit, which the spirit-blind false interpreters mis-interpret and ignore.
The visiting of the Satanic effects (of the inclusion of the unsaved but un-elder-discerned-and-screened-out-by church-discipline communicant) are allowed to occur on various assembled members of the body of believers, in the same way that the whole nation of Israel were inflicted with God's judgment because of one Israelite's (Achan's) surreptitious disobedience toward God, undiscerned by Israel's elders, until it was discovered by testing tribe by tribe, family by family, and person by person, then found and eliminated.
In a similar way, this disobedience in the assembly, of lack of conviction on perceiving the purpose of Jesus' death, is continued in the writing and immediately integrated with the ongoing corrective purpose of the passage:
29For hethat self-identifies as "Christian" but is indeed carnal and unsaved that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation(God's) judgment to himself, not discerningdistinguishimg himself from the Lord's bodyof truly regenerated disciple-servants.The misuse and misinterpretation of this passage has been in using it to substantiate the invention of the fantastical doctrine of con/trans/substantiation of the supposed "Real Presence" of the bodily substance of the Lord Christ (Who is actually and wholly residing in the spiritual dimension of God's Heaven and has not yet in any part returned to the temporal dimension of the physical, natural cosmos) with a view toward gaining influence and dominance in this world over the power and wealth of those professing allegiance to Christ; and until the American Revolution, the control and financial support of the Christian "religion" by national governments, which universally robbed Christ of His control of His subjects apart and above any civil governmental interference.
30For this causeof one unsaved communicant's inclusion manyof the true members of the figurative "body of Christ" are weak and sickly among youthe Corinthian assembly, and many sleepphysically die. (just as the whole nation of Israel was affected by one man's--Achan's--subterfuge)
31For if weas a whole group would judgeevaluate, discriminate amongst members of the group ourselves, we should not be judgedto receive God's chastening of the whole group until it has been corrected.
32But when we are judgedwith contingent correction and passed with universal approval, we are chastened of the Lord, that weas a regularly instituted unit should not be condemnedto removal from service, dissolution, and death as a functional unit (along with) with the world.
This is where, of course, Luther and Calvin and Westminster Abbey completely failed to institute the inscripturated Christian influence as Jesus and His Apostles desired, local community by local community, town by town, independently and autonomous, as it had begun and continued for centuries until Constantine, Justinian, and Augustine decided differently, stamping out any opposition to their plan.
Luther and the Anglican Protestant Reformers went along with that plan, pleading for and implementing appointment as the religious organ of the civil government. rather on relying on God's provision and integration alone.