The Eucharist of Jesus Christ

The Gospel of John, Chapter Six, The Holy Bible ^ | October 2, AD 2002 | the_doc

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The Eucharist of Christ

The following is a consideration of John chapter 6, with regard to the Roman and Protestant arguments thereupon. It was originally composed as a Response to a Roman argument on a prior “Eucharist” thread; however, due to the length and theological depth of the Essay, it is being Posted as a stand-alone Article

John 6:30-66 -- They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 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. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

It has been said of Protestants:

You're in agreement with all those who also walked away from Him in John Chapter 6. You Protestants love to take scripture literally when it suits you, and symbolically when it doesn't

No, it isn't that simple. There is a lot more in the passage than you have noticed.

I don't know about all "Protestants" in our day, but I am only interested in what a given passage really means. I try not to make the mistake of interpreting a literal passage as merely symbolic; by the same token, I try not to make the mistake which very often proves to be even worse (for several reasons, perhaps!)--which is to interpret a completely metaphorical idea literally!

With regard to your charge that Protestants are exemplified by the unbelievers mentioned in John 6:60 and 66, let me say that you are badly mixed up as to who those folks really were in that verse. You have presumed that the people who walked away from the Lord in John 6:66 "realized" at some level of their souls that Christ was "surely" talking about somehow eating and drinking His literal flesh and His literal blood--and that these unbelieving folks wanted no part of that! But you are just reading your own pro-RCC, anti-Protestant presuppositions into the text. You can't even begin to prove your position. Your whole approach is hermeneutically improper (translate that as "dishonest").

Granted, some of the unbelievers mentioned in vv.60 and 66 may very well have had a notion that the Lord was talking about eating and drinking His literal flesh and literal blood. But that's altogether different from what you insinuated. And since you can't rule out the scenario I am now proposing, you Romanists are suddenly discovered to be skating on very thin theological ice!

Please be sure you understand what I am saying: the people who could not continue with Christ may have been the ones who thought He was teaching some kind of variation on your basic position. If that is the correct interpretive scenario, then the fact of their apostasy would by no means support your position. It would actually fit the Protestant position beautifully.

So, everything in this doctrinal/interpretive case boils down to something which you didn't honestly face in your post accusing us Protestants. I am referring to the "minor" matter of what the Lord actually meant (and what He did not mean, of course) in vv.48-58! (You see, you just defined the Romanists as the believers in John 6 and the Protestants as the unbelievers. You can't just arbitrarily do that. You need to look more carefully at John 6.)

---

IN THIS SERIES OF SEVEN CONSECUTIVE POSTS, I will show you what the Lord meant in John 6:48-58.

If you find yourself angry at what you are reading in these posts, you need to keep in mind that I am rather calmly responding to the insinuation that John 6 condemns us Protestants. You have managed to get everything backwards, and I am trying to help you get this stuff straightened out. If I wind up making you angry, it will be because I am a fairly clear communicator telling you the Truth which you don't want to hear, not because I am wrong.

Furthermore, if you do get angry, it will not be because I am rude in my presentation. The fact is, I will be careful to show considerable rhetorical restraint even as we cover painfully difficult matters.

Having said that, I do feel the need to warn you again that I propose to be completely clear in my Scriptural defense against your insinuations. And that does pose a problem if you are going to attack us Protestants and then expect us to respond in a strictly vague way just to avoid offending you. I have given a great deal of thought to this, and I have concluded that I need to follow historical precedents which some Romanists will find irksome.

Allow me to illustrate: The Romanists on this thread have already admitted that the transubstantiation position has been labeled by its detractors as "cannibalism" since the early days of the Church of Rome and was labeled as "hocus-pocus" by the Protestant Reformers. These are certainly not the Romanists' preferred terms for transubstantiation, but they do crystallize the Protestants' theological objections, objections which I am duty-bound to keep more or less in front of you.

I will not use the terms as gratuitous insults, but I don't see how we can reasonably avoid certain unpleasant historical terms in the context of a truly serious discussion of this matter. Even as I am trying not to be counterproductively inflammatory, I need to be clear in my defense of the Protestant position. Remember: You have charged us Protestants with unbelief concerning your doctrine of transubstantiation. Well, I will stipulate that we do not believe what you believe. We do regard your position as completely false. And we can disprove your position from the Scriptures.

That, in turn, would make the doctrine of transubstantiation a matter of cannibalistic hocus-pocus, would it not? Of course it would.

Do you see my dilemma here? I have no desire to be unnecessarily inflammatory. The problem is, the Scriptures are on my side -- completely so. In this series of posts, I will show you what I mean.

---

***Observation 1: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVE

The first thing you need to realize (or remember, if you already realize this) is that I am an absolute predestinarian. (All of the Protestant Reformers, certainly including Luther and Calvin, were predestinarians. Calvin was the strongest spokesman for the predestinarian position, and he drew more doctrinal fire over this doctrine than did Luther. However, Luther is the one who first commented that the controversy over man's free will was the pivotal doctrine of the entire Reformation.)

You will never understand where I am coming from in these posts unless and until you understand the fact of my predestinarian perspective.

I believe that the Bible is clear in asserting a doctrine of "double predestination." God will save His elect, who are predestined to heaven. But many -- perhaps most -- people are reprobate. Many people are predestined to hell. And this awful predestination merely gives fallen sinners what they deserve.

Augustine clearly saw these ominous truths in the Bible. He could even be called a proto-Calvinist. It is definitely worth reading Augustine's writings on this topic of "double predestination." (Alas, I have discovered that it is not worth reading the RCC's summaries of Augustine concerning this doctrine. The RCC consistently misrepresents what Augustine was saying. Rome's apologists have done this for almost five centuries. No kidding. Read Augustine's writings, not those who "interpret" his writings.)

Now, if many or even most people are predestined to hell, this requires that there be a devil. (God is not the author of sin!) Furthermore, God's devil has been given broad powers.

(Notice from this that I am rejecting the very common heresy of dualism. In an odd but undeniable way, the devil really is God's devil. We see this in 2 Thessalonians 2:11.)

God has even ordained that the devil be "the god of this world" after the Fall. Lost sinners are enslaved in a demonic deception as a punishment for their seminal participation in the Fall (see Augustine again!). When God breaks through that deception, He does so deliberately and selectively. God deliberately withholds the spiritual means of true conversion from the non-elect. This seals their justly deserved doom. They get what they wanted. They wanted Satan in Adam, and they are now stuck with Satan in a mess of Adamic-Satanic idolatry.

(Again, you really ought to read Augustine on this topic. Most of his writings on predestination are Scripturally solid. And being Scripturally solid is what matters! The Protestant Reformers repeatedly embarrassed Rome by quoting Augustine's Scriptural teachings on the doctrine of predestination, including the doctrine of God's awful reprobation of non-elect sinners.)

Notice that God's predestination of sinners unto hell involves what necessarily amounts to religious deception. Some fools are more religious; some are less religious. But religious deception is an awful, even pervasive problem. That definitely includes deceptions within professing Christianity. The Lord Jesus Himself issued several warnings about antichrists who would come in the Church age.

What are we to do about this? The answer is simple. We follow Sola Scriptura. We don’t follow Calvin. We don’t follow Augustine. And we don't trust your Pope, either. (Pardon me, but we Protestants definitely do think that would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse.)

What I am saying is that the spiritual reality which the Bible itself presents to us ultimately demands the Sola Scriptura approach. The Scriptures are our necessary and sufficient refuge (2 Timothy 3:16).

Today's Romanists will not, indeed, cannot appreciate this perspective--so long as they are determined to remain Romanists, that is. The problem is, Romanists have been taught only to scoff at Sola Scriptura-- so, if they are faithful to Rome, they will scoff at it.

This is reflexive with Romanists. But I say that this is because they are stuck in the very mess which the Protestants' Sola Scriptura perspective is concerned to address. I am persuaded that my Romanist friends have gotten themselves badly deceived. (Alas, the deception is so bad that they get exceedingly angry if I clearly tell them what I believe has been going on with them. In the predestination of God, that anger on the part of my Romanist friends is part of the deception.)

It is beyond the scope of this post to go into the myriad reasons why I say that the RCC is actually antichristian, but I do have my reasons. (The problem is, some of the thread monitors will not allow historic Protestants to present most of our really weighty Scriptural arguments against Romanism. The matter of whether our Protestant arguments happen to be correct seems to be lost on them. The fact that we historic Protestants do not hit the abuse button even when Romanists are publicly trashing us without any Scriptural basis also seems to be lost on a few of them.) Suffice it to say that I regard Romanism as illegitimate and that I have plenty of Scriptural reasons for this.

On the other hand, I believe that it is important for me to affirm that Romanism has not always been incompatible with Biblical Christianity. Some of the errors which I have personally noticed in Romanism started in the earliest days of the RCC. As it turns out, these were not necessarily fatal errors. (Although a substantial number of Christians flatly refused to be part of the RCC from the very beginning, it would be presumptuous for historic Protestants to say that there were no true Christians who were aligned with Rome.) Unfortunately, things got much, much worse over time -- murderously so, in fact. Finally, in the 16th Century, the Protestant Reformers pulled another huge population of Christians out of Rome. These folks realized that they wanted no part of what the RCC had become.

A lot of them were murdered for their trouble, of course.

Martin Luther was especially grieved to leave his formerly beloved Church of Rome, but he felt that he had to very clearly condemn the RCC in his Ninety-Five Theses. He felt that the RCC had become an empty shell, that the Spirit of God had departed from the RCC and written "Ichabod" over its door.

Now that the Protestant option exists as a credible option for Christians, most of us historic Protestants do not fall all over ourselves making apologies for professing Christians who choose to continue in Romanism. The RCC is a gigantic mess -- obviously so. (See [link here].) And when we compare testimonial notes with today's Romanists, we discover that the spiritual experiences of the typical Romanist really are different from those of us in the Reformed tradition. So, if there are true Christians left within Romanism, we argue (vigorously!) that they need to get out of it. And we frankly believe that God's elect will not remain indefinitely within Romanism.

Again, the Lord God is in absolutely perfect, absolutely complete control of the destinies of all things and the salvation or damnation of all souls. In this background discussion, I have not bothered to prove this predestinarian position. My reason is very, very simple: I will prove it from John 6!

And you will discover from my exposition of John 6 that the doctrine of predestination is more than just a perspective which emboldens us Protestants to oppose the Papacy as apostate. It turns out that the doctrine of God's predestinating sovereignty in election and reprobation is actually a strangely funny part of our Scriptural disproof of your doctrine of transubstantiation.

---

***Observation 2: The nominal disciples who assumed that the Lord was speaking in some literal way in John 6 were wickedly confused

In John 6:31-58, the Lord used a kind of extended metaphor.

The entire passage is a development of the idea of the "bread of heaven." It is a lengthy exposition of the typology of the manna of the Old Testament. This is the first -- and most obvious -- reason why we have to regard the passage as metaphorical. (The passage is typological -- and types are special kinds of metaphors!)

I realize that diehard Romanists will not be impressed by that argument, but it is correct. I will prove that the nominal disciples who assumed that the Lord was speaking in some literal way in vv.48-58 were just wickedly confused.

The main confusion centers on vv.48-58, but as I indicated above, we need to realize that the metaphor (with an associated confusion!) did not start there. The Lord started off His extended metaphor by presenting the "Bread of Heaven" idea as an elaboration on the manna metaphor (that is, the manna as a type of Christ). The funny thing is, some of His "followers" got very quickly confused.

In v.52 of our text, we see that in a group of folks which included some lost religionists (and that's important!), a number of people thought that He was talking about literally eating His literal flesh. Were these folks right? Of course not. These lost Religionists were confused.

To appreciate why I say this, go back and look at what the Lord had been saying before v.52.

Verses 22-27. In v.22, the Lord had just finished feeding five thousand people by the miracle which included providing physical bread for their physical needs. In v.23, the bread was specifically mentioned. In v.26, when a multitude of people caught up with Him again, He rebuked them for their carnality. Their entire attitude was wrong. They were worldly in their thinking. They definitely tended to think of literal feeding as important, but compared to man's need of spiritual life, it means nothing!

This suggests that the miracle of providing folks with literal bread -- identified as it is with material life -- was actually designed to illustrate their need for the things of spiritual life. After all, this Man Who used a spectacular miracle to feed them was obviously from God. Somehow He had come down from Heaven to live with men! Shouldn't they have asked Him for spiritual life?

Well, they did no such thing. The Lord had to bring up the matter Himself (v.27). It never dawned on His strictly nominal followers Who they were talking to. These folks had no discernment whatsoever. They were talking to their Own Creator God and cared for nothing He was really saying -- or, more to the point of this discussion, nothing He really meant. (Their refusal to pay close spiritual attention to the Lord will become more obvious later in our discussion.)

Verses 27-30. In v.27, the Lord Jesus said "Do not work for food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life." Notice that the Lord chose to call this "work," because we have to exert ourselves to obtain food. The Jews then asked what work they should do for eternal life. The Lord answered that the necessary work of God (!) is to "believe in Him Whom He [God] has sent."

NOW, notice that faith in Christ is something which unregenerate sinners natively lack -- because, by definition, they do not have the Spirit of God working faith in their souls! And this is what we see in our text. Here they are, standing in the very Presence of the God-man who had performed one of the greatest miracles in Biblical history, and yet in v.30 they asked for a sign to establish Jesus's credentials as coming from God!

This certainly angered Jesus, even if the text does not explicitly tell us so. (Elsewhere in the Scriptures, He pronounces this "sign-seeking" attitude wicked and adulterous!)

These people whom the Lord was addressing were a bunch of disrespectful spiritual boneheads. This is not even arguable. They did not pay sufficient heed to His supernatural Power when He had been pleased to use it; they were peculiarly interested in the carnal benefits of following Him; they did not initiate sober inquiries concerning spiritual life; and they tempted God by seeking signs! They had an all-around bad attitude. (They were unreasonable and ungodly!)

To use the language of the Apostle Paul, they had their own bellies as their gods (Philippians 3:19). And although they were not literal cannibals, they were as spiritually stupid as cannibals are -- because they were just as lost as cannibals are.

Verses 31-36. In this part of the passage, the Lord began expounding an Old Testament symbol and was obviously using the language of the symbol itself. That being the case, we have to say that He was being metaphorical in vv.31-35.

But again, we have to remember that the Lord was talking to carnal boneheads. They were not on the Lord's spiritual wavelength at all. They were on an unholy wavelength. The fact is, they were spiritually dead. When they indicated in v.34 that they did want the Bread of God which the Lord had mentioned in v.33, He bluntly pronounced them unbelievers (v.36).

This means that they still did not understand what He was talking about. They had both the confusion of unbelief and the unbelief of confusion.

Verses 49-51. In v.49, He said "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died." If we amplify the ideas in the typology, it becomes "Your fathers literally/physically/materially ate this literal/physical/material food, this manna, in the wilderness, and they [still] died literally/physically/materially." Next, notice that in vv.50-51, He said that if anyone eats that bread which is the Lord Himself, he shall not die.

It is obvious that v.51 is being contrasted with v.49. The Lord's rhetorical strategy is seen in the fact that the issues in v.49 were literal/physical/material, whereas in v.51 they are not. The Lord obviously isn't literal bread, and it is equally obvious that He can't be talking in vv.50-51 about exempting us from physical/material death. By a simple extension of this pattern, the feeding idea to which He refers in v.50-51 is not literal, either.

The obviously non-literal feeding idea is just a metaphor for the assimilation of spiritual verities into the soul. (But remember that the Lord is talking to spiritual boneheads. Most of His audience had no more discernment than a cannibal does. The funny thing is, cannibals do have a doctrine which maintains that the spiritual virtues of one's enemy may be acquired by literally eating his flesh!)

My point is that an unregenerate sinner would not fully grasp what the Lord was saying in this passage. The metaphors which Christ chose to use would not help them. On the contrary, the metaphors would just leave them stuck in their ungodly confusion.

Well, the metaphors don't pose any such problems for me. It is patently obvious to me that vv.48-58 are not to be taken literally. That, in turn, argues that the RCC's doctrine of transubstantiation is just a superstition of pagans which has crept into professing Christianity.

---

***Observation 3: other Biblical examples of the idea of the Word of God as bread

Is there any other direct Scriptural evidence that my reading of the passage is correct? You bet there is! One of the best ways to show this is to look at other Biblical examples of the idea of the Word of God as bread.

One of the most important of these is the statement Christ made when Satan came to Him during a forty-day fast. In that famous temptation, Satan urged Him to go ahead and eat. Christ replied "It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

It is important for us to realize that the Lord's reply to Satan was taken directly from Deuteronomy 8:3, in which Moses referred directly to God's feeding of people with manna! Deuteronomy 8:3 presents the idea of one's spiritual priorities. Man needs to feed spiritually on everything God says. Notice that the gastrointestinal tract is not at issue even if Satan wanted to make it the issue. The Lord's very manner of deflecting the temptation proves this. The Lord borrowed the feeding idea from the Old Testament to make a sharp contrast. He used the idea of literal hunger and literal feeding to talk about the spiritual hunger which we should have and should satisfy from the Scriptures, not from pagan superstitions.

So, in Matthew 4:4, Satan was trying to confuse the issue of what is important. And Satan is the arch-demon of paganism, of course. (Again, it is pagan to confuse literal feeding with spiritual feeding.)

Another good example of this idea of God's Scriptures as spiritual food is seen in the statement of Job "I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food" (Job 23:12) This is the idea of Deuteronomy 8:3 again. It is the idea of Matthew 4:4. Job mentions the idea of literal food -- but only to underscore the amazingly important fact that God's Word is non-literal food. (Again, faith is a feeding which has nothing to do with stuffing something in the top opening of one's gastrointestinal tract. Job is clearly telling us this.)

Interestingly, the Book of Job is apparently the oldest book of the Bible; the symbolism of the manna would come later. But Job's understanding of the spiritual dimensions of salvation confirms that the manna of the Old Testament was a symbol of faith, not a prophetic allusion to "transubstantiation."

Another good example is found in the story of Ezekiel, who was told in Ezekiel 3:1 to eat the scroll which God had given him. Did this entail a literal eating? You bet it did! But was this peculiar gastronomic episode telling us that God was going to institute transubstantiation in the New Covenant? Of course not.

Ezekiel 3:1 is ultimately presenting the same metaphor which Job 23:12 and Deuteronomy 8:3 and Matthew 4:4 are using. We need to be filled with the special-revelatory truth of God, not some pagan counterfeit thereof. And this spiritual filling is, of course, not gastronomic. (Only the symbol in Ezekiel 3 is gastronomic. So, don't confuse the symbol and the thing it symbolizes and call this wisdom. You really could wind up with cannibalism masquerading as Christianity.)

For that matter, Christ used the word leaven -- certainly a word identified with bread -- in more than one instance in the New Testament and used it only metaphorically. The funny thing is, we have recorded for us at least one instance in which even the inner circle of disciples wrongly concluded that He was speaking literally. Christ rebuked them for behaving as hyper-literal nitwits.

Moving away from the ideas of bread and leaven, I know of at least two more Biblical-theological reasons why the Lord might have wanted to use a feeding metaphor in His New Testament discussion of saving faith. The first of these was the fact that the Fall occurred as a crime of a literal feeding at a literal tree at the urging of a literal serpent hanging from the boughs of that literal tree. The Atonement, by contrast, is appropriated through the obedience of "feeding" at a non-literal tree (the Cross of Christ) at the urging of a non-literal serpent (Christ as the imputatively accursed One) as He would be visualized in the gospel hanging from that non-literal tree!

Notice the parallels. These are some of the well-recognized parallels between the Fall and the Atonement. (Paul noticed such parallels.) But we need to notice the reversals as we move from the type to the antitype. (As Paul said in Romans 5, the Atonement is unlike the Fall -- parallels or not.) What I mean is that the "literals" which I highlighted become "non-literals" as we move from the Fall to the Atonement. This, in turn, suggests that the disobedience of a literal feeding is replaced by the obedience of a non-literal feeding.

Perhaps an even better argument against the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation is seen in the fact that the Passover lamb was to be eaten--but, my goodness, it was a literal lamb, of course! The Passover lamb for each household had symbolic merits which had to be symbolically appropriated, i.e., symbolically assimilated by the ritual of feeding upon the lamb.

To finish this particular argument, I will now pose the obvious question: Does the fact that the Passover lamb was to be literally devoured mean that Christ is to be literally devoured? Of course not. The very idea is spiritually revolting. It would also be a violation of the interpretive pattern set out for us in the Book of Hebrews.

As I pointed out earlier, the type symbolizes the antitype. The Book of Hebrews points out something inherent in Biblical symbolism: the type invariably proves to be spiritually inferior to the antitype. Therefore, we should assume that the literal feeding on the Passover lamb anticipates and is replaced by a strictly spiritual feeding on the Lamb of God -- i.e., the non-literal feeding which is simply spirit-sustaining faith in Christ.

In other words, the lamb of the Old Testament Passover was a literal lamb to be literally devoured, but the Lord Jesus is not a literal lamb -- never mind that He is the metaphorical Lamb of God -- so it is spiritually crazy to conclude that He is to be literally devoured. We literally eat literal lambs, but we don’t literally eat the non-literal Lamb -- who happens to be a human being, of course! -- unless we are unrepentant cannibals after all.

In short, the entire Bible militates against the literal reading of John 6:48-58. The passage in John's Gospel is just using the spiritual metaphor which is found throughout the Bible.

---

***Observation 4: there are no other passages which teach transubstantiation

At this point, a diehard Romanist -- who presupposes that the RCC position is the correct interpretation of Scripture no matter what I can demonstrate from the Scriptures -- would probably say "But there are other passages which definitely are teaching transubstantiation!"

But nothing could be further from the truth. I will now show you what I mean.

Most Romanists simplistically assume that John 6:48-58 is referring to the Lord's Supper (Communion) and the transubstantiation which they believe that this Communion ritual involves. But I have already argued that you must not read John 6 literally -- so, the same is obviously true concerning the ideas of the body and blood of Christ in the Communion ritual.

In other words, we must not read mistaken (pagan) notions into John 6:48-58 and then turn around and read the same mistaken notions into, say, Matthew 26:26-29, and then make the whole ungodly mess worse by using our misunderstanding of John 6:48-58 to keep us horribly confused concerning Matthew 26:26-29 and also using Matthew 26:26-29 to keep us horribly confused concerning John 6:48-58!

My point is that Matthew 26:26-29 is not teaching transubstantiation any more than John 6:48-58 is. The Lord's Supper is wonderfully metaphorical. It is not endorsing any sort of Christianized cannibalism as a mechanism for assimilating someone else's virtues!

To stop the vicious cycle of confusion which Romanists do have, I will flatly tell you that John 6:48-58 is not even talking about the Lord's Supper anyway!

Rather, John 6:48-58 is talking about saving faith --and using a wonderful metaphor as a way of doing so. And the Lord's Supper, as instituted in Matthew 26:26-29 is exploiting the same metaphor -- which is found throughout the Bible! -- to give us wonderful material for our faith.

Besides, it is easy to show that John 6:48-58 is talking neither about transubstantiation nor about the Communion ritual in which transubstantiation supposedly occurs (see below).

Look at v.53. If the literal reading of John 6:48-58 is correct, then the sinner who fails to literally partake of this supposedly literal feeding on the literal flesh and blood of Christ is going to wind up in hell. The reason why I say that is because v.53 allows no exceptions whatsoever.

The confused-but-consistent Romanist would understandably conclude that this verse promotes the Communion ceremony to the level of salvation itself -- for the simple reason that, if vv.48-58 are to be read literally, then the transubstantiation which supposedly occurs during the Communion ceremony is the only way in which the sinner could comply with the terms of v.53. But if that understanding is correct, then the Lord Jesus is a liar. The thief who was saved on the cross in the final moments of life never partook of the Communion ceremony -- and yet the Lord told him that he was going straight to Paradise.

It rigorously follows from this that the Romanists have completely misunderstood John 6:48-58.

The fact is, the thief did comply with John 6:53 -- for the simple reason that the verse has nothing/u> whatsoever to do with transubstantiation. Verse 53 is talking about having the soul of Christ supernaturally merged with one's own soul. This is a matter of faith, not digestion. And a hocus-pocus ceremony of ritual cannibalism oddly misses the point as to what a vital union with God in Christ really is!

At the risk of being inordinately tedious (to drive home a point which you Romanists don't want to hear!), let me warn you again that John 6:48-58 is not talking about a ritual of any kind. It is talking about the faith to which the Communion ritual also refers. That being the case, you cannot continue to assert that faith is a matter of doggedly confessing or even believing a doctrine of transubstantiation. The whole mess is superstition masquerading as faith. This is why Protestants have historically condemned Rome's Communion as hocus-pocus ritualism established in lieu of the faith which God demands.

Romanists do not even begin to appreciate the depths of the Protestants' concerns. But you should. This is serious stuff. Satanic deception is a profoundly serious problem, even in professing Christianity. We Protestants think that you need to make absolutely sure you have experienced what the thief on the cross experienced. That's why I am telling you that saving faith is altogether different from the hocus-pocus of the Roman mass.

Now, lest you think I am just a Catholic-basher, I will go on to point out that the saving faith of true Christian conversion is also different from what passes for salvation in a lot of Protestant churches in our day. My point is that a lot of things which pass for saving faith in professing Christianity are no such thing. I'm afraid that most churchgoers miss the narrow-doorway experience of true conversion and wind up in hell. (That's why I often tell folks that as important as church attendance is, it sometimes does prove to be the instrumental means by which people wind up finally damned.)

PLEASE NOTE: I earnestly hope that you can begin to see from this why most historic Protestants utterly reject the RCC and why most of us regard even the ECT movement as a monumental blunder on the part of some naïve Protestant leaders.

Even if you do not agree with our position, you need to notice that we are not as thoughtless as you might be inclined to assume. We look at the Scriptures very carefully indeed. And when we follow the Scriptures carefully, we wind up disagreeing with the RCC on some of the most fundamental points of Christianity.

In short, we historic Protestants don’t think your religious experience is anything like ours. But I submit that our religious experience really does come straight from the Scriptures, whereas yours evidently doesn't. Yours comes to you via the Papacy. Rome just tells you that your spiritual experience is legitimate, saving faith. But we Protestants surmise that you are trusting the Papacy instead of Christ.

In view of what we know about religious deception, we think that is a bad idea, to say the least.

It turns out that the historic Protestants' understanding of saving faith is simpler and purer and more spectacular than you have ever imagined. We fear that you have missed it completely. In fact, we think the professing Church bought into transubstantiation to dress it up for unbelievers and thereby make the partaking of Communion feel more like "faith." Of course, the person who does not have true faith has no idea what it does feel like anyway -- so the whole thing strikes us Protestants as silly. (I certainly didn't know what faith was until I was born again! It turns out to be a pretty staggering thing!)

***

When we are liberated from Rome's wrongheaded interpretation of John 6:48-58, we are liberated to appreciate the amazing passion which pervades the Last Supper.

Perhaps the best way to see that the RCC has completely misunderstood the vital-union theology of John 6 is to look at what the Lord said and did at His Last Supper in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22. He took some bread and broke it, saying "This is My body…". But it was not literally His body. He was actually holding it with (the fingers of) His body! Therefore, He had to be speaking metaphorically. In each of these three synoptic Gospel texts, He was using the same metaphor as He had used in John 6.

The funny thing is, if you would dare to ignore Rome's interpretations of the Last Supper passages, it would be obvious to you that the Lord was employing metaphor when He said "This is My body."

My point is that the Romanists' refusal to understand the Lord's statement is actually hyper-literal and therefore hyper-spiritual and therefore immediately absurd. The proteins of the bread did not become human proteins at any point (which is also why the bread's taste and appearance are unaltered in the Communion ceremony, of course!). So, it is preposterous to say that the bread literally became the Lord's body. It quite literally did not --since the Lord was not speaking literally anyway! (He was using the same metaphor found throughout in the Bible.)

Besides, if the bread did not become human protein, it was not transubstantiated. Period.

If it did not look and smell like human flesh, it was not human flesh. Human flesh definitely does look like human flesh. There are no exceptions to this. Human flesh smells like human flesh. (As a physician, I will assure you that this is the case!) There are no exceptions to this, either.

I realize that Romanists have been taught that people like me are ungodly scoffers, but the truth is, I am the one who is correct. So, a Protestant such as myself is forced to say that the ungodly scoffers in this case are the Romanists, not the Protestants.

Fair enough? (Remember: Rome insinuated that we Protestants are the unbelievers in this case. This insinuation was utterly false. Your doctrine of transubstantiation actually backfires on you, I'm afraid.)

For that matter, if the morsel which the Lord held when He said "This is My body" did become human protein, which human protein was it? Is it even specifiable? If not, then why not? (The Protestant answer is that the type of human protein can't be specified, because it is not literally human substance at all. It is merely designated in the Lord's Supper as human substance. That's different. And it is very, very important.)

It is not at all unspiritual of me to raise these utterly serious objections to your notion, even if you have been taught that I am just an unbelieving scoffer. The truth is, my objections are correct. Furthermore, you desperately need to realize that an unscriptural notion is all you have -- and that a notion is not the same thing as faith. (This was one of the key warnings of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers pointed out that knowing the Lord personally is not just some doctrinal notion or two!)

It is spiritually important, of course, to believe what the Lord says, but it is never spiritual to misunderstand Him. So, I earnestly wish that my Romanist friends would wake up to the spiritual realities of what the Lord meant and what He did not mean. Heck, what I am saying is correct -- obviously so. (So, please don't be such a dork as to disagree with me [grin].)

Notice also that in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, the Lord refers to the cup (of wine) as His blood. Well, if that should have been taken literally, then He was lying -- because His blood was still in His body. And since He cannot lie, we have to understand His statement as metaphor -- just as we have to understand John 6:48-58 as metaphor. (Again, this stuff is obvious. The Bible is clear, even if the RCC wants to invoke cannibalistic hocus-pocus to pretend that it's not.)

In short, we cannot read the cup of wine as literally being the Lord's blood. Rather, His metaphor was referring to His literal blood which would be literally poured out. And that's a big difference, one which reveals the doctrine of transubstantiation to be an error of gnostic assensus.

Interestingly, the inspired record in Luke 22 makes this point in a peculiar but important way. The Lord's statement concerning the cup of wine is recorded differently in Luke 22. In v.20, He refers to it as, not His blood, but the New Covenant in His blood. This poses a problematical question for the RCC: "Which is it, Master? Is the wine Your blood, or is it Your New Covenant involving that blood?"

In other words, if the wine literally is His blood, then why does Luke's record steer us away from this toward an obvious metaphor?

The answer is obvious. It's because the whole thing is metaphorical. This shows us again that the Romanists' interpretive presupposition is completely wrong.

It is not more spiritual to read a metaphorical text literally. It is actually less spiritual. (I hope some of my dispensational brethren will think about that as they seek to understand Biblical prophecy, by the way!)

Besides, it ought to be emphasized that the fact that the Lord's Supper ritual is metaphorical does not cheapen it by any means! On the contrary, the metaphorical nature of the Lord's Last Supper is precisely what makes our Lord's Supper observance spiritually powerful. We need to appreciate this. We need to get rid of the hyper-spiritual stuff of the RCC's too-smug literalism. A correct understanding of the metaphor as metaphor helps us to face reality, helps to strip away the pseudo-faith distractions which the RCC's hocus-pocus confusion actually introduces.

And what reality do we need to face? Here it is: at the time of the Last Supper, the God-man Jesus Christ was facing an imminent and horrible betrayal and death. He wanted to institute with His friends, His people, a ceremony of remembrance. As a human being Who was about to be deserted by His friends and tortured to death, He was not giving a magic discourse for gee-whiz nonsense in lieu of poignant true faith!

This is another reason why historic Protestants are offended by the Romanist doctrine of the Eucharist. We take the Lord's Supper more seriously than do the Romanists, not less so. I will have more to say about this when I show you what John 6:48-58 really means. (I haven't bothered to do that yet, because I have been forced to spend almost all of my time showing you what it doesn't mean!)

---

***Observation 5: the historic Protestant's strenuous and unfortunately appropriate objections to the Roman Mass

Having already offered a compelling argument that vv.48-58 has to be metaphorical rather than literal, I now want to get further into one of the most important arguments -- an argument which I have only lightly touched upon. I am referring here to the touchy but important subject of cannibalism.

To be sure, I have alluded to cannibalism several times in this series of posts even if I have not bothered (or even dared) to talk much about the idea up until this point. But now I want my Romanist friends to start thinking about it. I believe that if you will ever stop long enough to reflect honestly on what the RCC is pronouncing to be a bizarre but somehow lovely doctrine, you will begin to understand the historic Protestant's strenuous and unfortunately appropriate objections to your mass.

A few months ago, OP actually demonstrated on another thread the propriety of the Protestants' objections when he stated your own doctrine of the Eucharist very clearly for you Romanists. You folks found his demonstration of your position offensive -- and got him temporarily suspended for his efforts on your behalf.

But he was just giving back to you your own doctrine. So, by condemning OP's post, you RCs actually condemned yourselves. You were offended at your own position.

Of course, FR's Romanists claimed that OP had only presented a blasphemous parody of the doctrine of transubstantiation. But this is not the case. What he did was to use the gruesome, realistic language of cannibalism -- and then to ask the important question "Is this what your doctrine of transubstantiation is saying?" Of course, it ultimately is!

This is why I will now say that you really ought to go back and re-read all of my arguments. You need to notice that the Lord was not speaking literally in John 6:48-58. You need to notice that your beloved RCC is dead wrong. You need to notice that your position is a pagan misunderstanding of the Lord's metaphor.

To take the Lord's words literally in an obviously metaphorical context is a disastrous blunder. In the case of John 6:48-58, it really does lead to cannibalism masquerading as Christianity. No kidding.

To underscore this awful fact, I would point out that you Romanists objected to the gruesomeness of OP's display of your doctrine but also that none of you could stand up and tell him that your position is not gruesome. Heck, it is the seeming gruesomeness of Christ's language which convinces you that your literal interpretation is correct! As a matter of fact, I am aware of at least one Romanist on FR who freely admits this. Claud argues for the literal reading of John 6:48-58 on the grounds that the language seems gruesomely voracious to him!

Well, I don’t agree with Claud's conclusion at all. (I'll have more to say about this later.) Nevertheless, the above paragraph does illustrate the Romanists' willingness to believe that Christ is advocating something gruesome and then to turn right around to become incensed at others would dare to press that very point with them.

In my opinion, this is rank hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. If your position is gruesome, you'd better look at the passage again. You need to realize that the gruesome reading is not correct in the first place. It is pagan. But it definitely is your position.

And please don't play the game of saying it's not really gruesome inasmuch as the Lord has been pleased to make His body and blood look and taste like bread and wine after all. The gruesomeness consists in the pagan idea of literally eating and drinking Christ's blood. You can disguise this idea by appeals to supernatural "mystery" and the like, and you can get angry when someone rips away the disguise by refusing to treat your superstitious doctrine with any reverence , but it is still a gruesomely pagan idea which deserves to be exposed for what it is and thrown out of christendom.

How have you gotten into this mess? It turns out that you have actually stepped into a rhetorical trap. I will elucidate the ominous features of that trap when I present my final argument against the Romanist position. (I might as well tell you that I am saving the best argument for last!)

---

***Observation 6: what John chapter 6 does mean

Before I offer my final, crushing argument against the Romanists' interpretation of John 6:48-58, I want to show you what the passage does mean.

First, let's go back and document what we have picked up from the near context and the overall Biblical context:

• We have seen that almost everything the Lord does with the idea of bread is a teaching device concerning spiritual verities. This goes back to the feeding of the five thousand hungry people earlier in John 6, but the bread/food metaphor appears over and over in both Testaments of the Bible.
• We find it in Job. We find it in Deuteronomy. We find it in Ezekiel. We find it in the Wilderness Temptation in the New Testament.
• We even find that the Lord rebuked his disciples for taking Him literally with regard to His bread metaphors.
• We also discover a Biblical-theological parallelism between the carnal/material features of the Fall and the spiritual/non-material features of the Atonement. The important thing to notice is that typology involves a kind of antithetical parallelism. (The literal idea in the type is replaced with a purely spiritual idea in the antitype.)
• We also find the Passover lamb being assimilated through an eating in the Old Testament, but we must not conclude that the Lamb of God is to be literally eaten -- since He is not a literal lamb.

In each of these instances, we find food being used as a metaphor for spiritual Truth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with transubstantiation. It has to do with faith, not the literal consumption of anything whatsoever. (Notice that in Matthew 4:4, Christ was actually fasting when He confronted Satan with the Biblical metaphor of the necessity of feeding upon God's Truth. In other words, Christ definitely was "eating" God's revelatory Truth even though He was not taking any material food whatsoever into His mouth!)

We also see from John 6:31-51 that every single thing in the passage militates against the notion that Christ is speaking of literally eating His flesh. The fact that some of the people in His entourage thought He was speaking of this should remind us that His entourage included people having no spiritual discernment whatsoever (v.36).

Furthermore, when we look at the Romanists' insinuation that John 6:48-58 is talking about the ritual of Communion -- which ritual is ultimately at the center of the transubstantiation controversy -- we discover that it can't be talking about a ritual.

• Verse 52 would be declaring that a person cannot be saved apart from partaking of that ritual, but the thief on the cross was saved. This means that vv.48-58 are not talking about a literal eating of any kind - -not even the symbolic eating which occurs in a ritual observance. Rather, they are talking about vital union with God in Christ through a faith that hungers and thirsts after righteousness.
• And when we look at the Last Supper as the paradigm for the Communion ritual, we discover that it is obvious that Christ was speaking metaphorically rather than literally when He said "This is My body" and "This is My blood." The Lord Jesus even went on to say "This do in remembrance of Me." Transubstantiation is not in view at all. The eating which occurs in the Communion ritual is literal, of course, but it is a memorial teaching device which feeds our souls with Truth--not with the literal substance of the human body of Christ.

The Lord's Supper, then, is just using the same Biblical metaphor which appears over and over and over in the Bible. It is a metaphor for faith, not a declaration of transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper. It is the same metaphor which we find in John 6:48-58, of course. And again, it is a metaphor.

So, it is spiritually irresponsible to take it literally.

On the other hand, it would be spiritually irresponsible not to understand that it is a metaphor for something pretty important! The very fact that the feeding idea occurs over and over and over in the Bible without ever once referring to a literal eating and drinking of Christ's literal flesh and His literal blood should signal us that we'd better notice what the metaphor does mean.

See below.

The flesh-and-blood metaphor in John 6:48-58 is a new metaphor in the larger passage in that flesh and blood are specific ideas which have not been mentioned as such until this point. But the flesh-and-blood metaphor is still just an elaboration on the manna idea, i.e., on the Bread from Heaven metaphor. This is seen when we compare vv.48-51 with v.58.

One reason why we need to see this as merely an elaboration on the earlier metaphor is because we must not stupidly conclude that He is moving away from the idea of Truth from God to a discourse on anatomy. By the same token, He is not abandoning the figurative idea of feeding upon Christ to switch to a literal idea of eating Him in v.51.

But why does the tone change? Why does the language get so vivid?

To answer these questions, we need to notice that in the entire passage which we have been studying (vv.22-58), the Lord Jesus is actually talking about His Own incarnation. He is not merely soul-sustaining Bread for the spiritually hungry soul, but Bread from Heaven. In the entire passage, He is telling sinners that they must appropriate -- i.e., believe! -- this truth of His incarnation. (See especially vv.27-29, which tell us that He is talking about saving faith, not any work of literal eating -- ritual or otherwise.)

The reason why the tone changes in v.51 is because the Lord is talking about the two key ideas in His incarnation (see below).

The human soul is the union of body and spirit. It is specially prepared material substance plus a non-material life force. (This is seen in Genesis 2 when God breathed life into material shaped from the ground and it "became a living soul.") What the Lord is doing in vv.51-58 is splitting the soul idea of the manna from heaven into its constituent elements of material body and non-material spirit. The metaphor for the Person of Christ on whom spiritually hungry souls will feed is now seen to be that of flesh (body) and blood (spirit).

Notice that this vivid presentation of the Person of Christ as constituted of flesh and blood vividly emphasizes the true humanity of Christ. He is a true human being. He literally lived and literally died and literally came back to life to live literally forever. He is a true human soul (Who happens to be materially absent from the earth at this time--which, of course, rules out transubstantiation, in case you haven't noticed!). Having physically departed from the earth, He has left us with His Spirit, but we must remember Him in His humanity in order to access Him in the Spirit of faith where He is now.

In a very important manner of speaking, we must remember Jesus as the Son of Man if we hope for Him to remember us. The bread of Communion is an especially poignant reminder of His human substance. We who desperately hunger after righteousness feed on this truth of His self-sacrificing humanity as we remember Him. He thereby sustains us in Christianity.

The other half of the soul-sustaining truth of Christ's incarnation is the found in the vivid language involving His blood. This idea of blood is not at odds with the humanity idea mentioned earlier, but it is ultimately different. The blood is actually a reference to His life-force. As the Old Testament puts it, "The life is in the blood." When one's blood is poured out, the life is gone from the body. Notice also that when the life-force is gone, the spirit has departed from the body. In this way, the blood functions as an emblem of one's spirit in this presentation of human life.

So, what is the important truth which the true believer will drink as he thirsts after righteousness? It is that the Man Christ Jesus is not merely a man. He is Almighty God. He did not derive His life-force by natural generation from Adam. His Life originates directly in God. He is God Incarnate. His Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself.

This is why Mary's virginity was important. Christ did not derive his life force from Adam even if his flesh was Adamic, i.e.., human. This is why Christ, though human, was born sinless, i.e., not guilty of the crime of Eden. He was never really in Adam, even if He had the same human flesh as the rest of us.

(Beyond this, Mary's virginity is completely unimportant. So is the Romanist theory of Mary's immaculate conception. The RCC's dogmas of Mary's perpetual virginity and Mary's immaculate conception just demonstrate that Romanists do not have a solid appreciation of the Lord's incarnation! Oddly enough, it is much simpler than they are making it by their overweening emphasis on Mary herself.)

At the bottom-line, I am telling you that the sinner must claim Christ as the Mediator between God and men, as the One Who embodied a true merger of true Godhood and true humanity. And I am telling you that we claim Christ only by faith in the Truth of Who He really is. When we have true faith in the Son of Man Who is also the Son of God, we experience the strange merger of God with us.

It is a weird, wonderful experience. We assimilate Christ into our souls. We know Him personally in this very way. And as I have said over and over and over, it has nothing to do with Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation.

As I have repeatedly indicated in these posts, I am concerned that most churchgoers have never experienced this union with God. A disturbingly high percentage of the churchgoers with whom I have discussed the experience of regeneration unto conversion manifestly don't have the foggiest idea what I am talking about it. (And the highly religious Romanists keep trying to make this merger a thing involving the gastrointestinal tract. Oh, great.)

***

Another passage which confuses Romanists is 1 Corinthians 11:29. The very fact that it speaks of the sin of "not discerning the Lord's body" throws them a curve. Most Romanists, being thoroughgoing anti-Protestants, quickly gravitate to the notion that this statement by Paul is affirming their doctrine of transubstantiation and also condemning those who will disagree with them.

But Paul is just respecting the Lord's metaphor as presenting a serious remembrance concerning the awful death of the Son of Man for His elect. Paul understood from the Lord's metaphor that the gospel is not just a notion but a message concerning a very real event involving a very real human being Who died for His people. It is patently obvious that the elements of the Communion ceremony are to be treated with profound respect for what they definitely represent, not for the supposed fact of their transubstantiation (because transubstantiation doesn't take place).

As a matter of fact, if you will read the entire passage, you will discover that is crystal clear that Paul's reference to the sin of "not discerning the Lord's body" has nothing whatsoever to do with transubstantiation but with one's own awareness of membership in the Body of the Church which died in Christ when Christ died. In other words, Paul is mindful of the mystical union between Christ and His people ("His body"!) and arguing from this mystical reality that it is unthinkable for a professing Christian to behave contemptibly toward another true Christian during the Lords Communion ceremony. See vv.19-22 and v.33.

In short, the ceremony is serious. It has momentous spiritual significance. To despise the Body of the Church is to hate the Lord of the ceremony. Inasmuch as this was Paul's point, transubstantiation is not being intimated in the text. When Paul talks about "discerning the body," he is actually talking about making the spiritual connection between the bread of Communion and the human community of the elect.

Another way to say it is that the metaphor of the bread as Christ's human body includes an allusion to that body of humans who vicariously died in Him when He died on the cross! (This is seen in the fact that the Table of Shewbread in the Old Testament tabernacle had twelve loaves on it. This was an obvious symbol of the chosen people themselves! We can be virtually certain that Paul, an expert on the Law, was aware of this symbolism in the tabernacle.)

Furthermore, Paul is telling us that we'd better be sure we are true believers before we partake. This is a big problem with Romanism, which has no real doctrine of conversion. (In this way, Paul's warning amounts to an indirect warning against the doctrine of transubstantiation -- since most of its adherents don't appear to be true believers in Jesus Christ. They certainly don't have the same conversion testimony as the rest of us. Sadly, it is pretty obvious that they don't believe the same Bible which we believe. And by their doctrine of transubstantiation they are heaping contempt on us Protestants as they partake of their "communion." That's not a good idea. The Protestants are the ones who correctly understand and appreciate the ceremony, not the hocus-pocus Romanists.)

---

***Observation 7: The Lord deliberately used a metaphor to seal unbelieving sinners in their unbelieving confusion

As I said earlier, I have saved my most ominous argument against transubstantiation for last.

For starters, you need to realize that the overwhelming majority of people in this world have no meaningful spiritual discernment whatsoever. They are stuck in the mire of spiritual foolishness. This foolishness is what Romans 1:18 styles as fallen man's Truth-suppressing wickedness. Almighty God, who is angry with the wicked every day, ordinarily just leaves fools in their foolishness. Their occasionally "impressive" religiosity ordinarily just makes Him more angry -- and more determined [so to speak] to leave them stuck in their foolishness.

You will never fully grasp what the Lord Jesus is doing in this regard in John 6:48-58 unless you really know the Lord Jesus personally. And since by the sheer grace of God I happen to know Him personally, I will assure you that He is not some wimpy nerd who automatically forgives every dorky notion which people have about Him.

What I am saying here is that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. He is the God of the Old Testament. He is the God Who witnessed man's seemingly innocuous crime in Eden and cursed the entire world for that one crime by one man. He is the God of Romans 1. He is the God of Romans 9. He is the God of reprobation. He is the God Who is angry at wicked, Truth-suppressing sinners.

And His very real, fierce anger burns against shallow, hypocritical religionists. (That was the thrust of the famous warning by Jonathan Edwards in 1741, the warning which lit off the Great Awakening which made our great nation great.)

Let me show you from the Scriptures what I mean. In an episode documented in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8), one of the Lord's inner-circle disciples asked Him why He so often spoke to the religionists of His day in parables. His answer was "So that they will not understand."

This was an ominous statement! The verse which He went on to quote from Isaiah is about reprobation. That verse, Isaiah 6:9, is cited more times in the New Testament than any other verse from the Old Testament. (If my memory serves me correctly, it is used in one form or another nine times in the New Testament.) That stark emphasis should tell us something. Reprobation is a monumentally serious matter. And it is in the hands of God Himself.

To put this in perspective, let me say at this point that metaphorical language in the Bible often does facilitate understanding in the souls of God's elect. To God's elect, it has been given to know, to grasp the things of the Kingdom of Heaven -- and Biblical metaphors are delightful to us in this regard (even when they challenge our understanding). But to the non-elect, this privilege is not given. The Bible's metaphors very often seal the doom of the non-elect. The fact that they may profess to be Christians, the fact that they even think they are Christians, changes nothing. On Judgment Day, they will be revealed as unregenerate fools who publicly fraternized with the Lord, so to speak, who even did good works in His name, but who never really knew the Lord at any time. More to the point, He never knew them.

We see something of this phenomenon in John 6. Gosh, a regenerate sinner should realize that Christ is not talking about literally eating His flesh and literally drinking His blood. But some of His followers didn't get it. And they were actually ordained to not get it.

My point is that Jesus Christ owes the lost sinner nothing except damnation. And the lost sinner's multitude of asinine notions are offensive to Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you are a lost professing Christian, you must not assume that the Lord will gently take you aside and gently straighten you out.

Remember: When asked why He used metaphors in His now enscripturated messages to the people of His Own day, the Lord did not say "Oh, it's because I am a great teacher and I try to present things in a striking and clear way." Rather, He said "It's because I fully intend to let them misunderstand Me." (Remember also that the reprobation verse He went on to quote from Isaiah is the New Testament's favorite Old Testament verse! I have never met a Romanist who knows that or who even has a clear spiritual capacity for reflecting on its significance.)

My point in telling you this is to warn you, as earnestly as I know how, that the Lord Jesus did use metaphors to blind His enemies in their own God-dishonoring foolishness. He did this a lot. By His Own confession, His primary objective in this was not to be understood, but to be misunderstood. And this is precisely what He is doing with the metaphor in John 6:48-58.

No kidding. The RCC has stepped into a God-ordained trap. (If you say "But Jesus would never let that happen--much less ordain it!," I will urge you to read 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12. And I will gladly point out some other things which you have never been willing to face about the RCC. But I will not bring them up in this series of posts.)

I am sure that the Romanists reading this post will be horrified and angry at what I am saying, but I am afraid that my explanation of the passage is correct. The Lord Jesus planned His discourse to let spiritually silly pagans -- certainly including lost professing Christians ("Christian Pharisees"?) -- think that He was talking about literally eating and drinking His literal flesh and blood.

The whole thing is rather funny -- if one happens to be a Protestant. The Lord surely knew about the controversy which had arisen as of v.52 concerning his metaphorical discussion of the Old Testament type of Christ, the Bread of Heaven. What did He do about it? Did He stop and say "Hey, guys, I am just expounding the very-common Old Testament metaphor. The literal feeding is a symbolic reference to the non-literal feeding which is saving faith. Only a spiritual bonehead would conclude from My discourse that you are supposed to eat Me physically. Puh-leez be more discerning. Puh-leez pay more attention to the situational context and the overall Biblical context."

Nope, He didn't do this. He just plowed forward knowing many of His hearers were hyper-literal nitwits. The fact is, He was more than willing for them to misunderstand. (Remember: He was angry at them for their carnally stupid, disrespectful unbelief. They were tempting Almighty God by their behavior!)

What He did do in vv.52-58 was to extend the metaphor in a way which could be expected to worsen their dilemma of foolish confusion. He used the seemingly awful language of voraciously devouring His human flesh and the nauseating imagery of drinking His blood.

Romanists, of course, have concluded from the apparent gruesomeness of the language that He must have been speaking literally. The rest of us, however, have rightly concluded that this is a very good reason to believe that He was not speaking literally (as the larger passage and the overall Biblical context also confirm, of course). The Lord was talking about the desperation of elect sinners in their hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but He knew that his vivid language would discover ungodly thoughts in the foul minds of the non-elect.

The Lord was sometimes even willing to risk confusion on the part of His Own inner circle of disciples, because He knew that He could correct them in private on an as-needed basis. The important question for you is this: What is the Lord doing with you through me? Are you elect in the heart of God, or will my thoroughly Scriptural warnings just make you angry at me? In other words, is it too late for you?

***

Let me now be crystal clear about something: I am not merely supposing that the Lord was using a metaphor as a trap for foolish sinners in John 6. It is a fact that He was doing so.

As I have already pointed out, He did this sort of thing all the time -- by His Own admission of this fact. And it is a fact that all of the evidence in John 6 and in the Bible as a whole disproves your doctrine of transubstantiation. And it is a fact that the doctrine of transubstantiation amounts to a hocus-pocus form of cannibalism.

Perhaps you are still reluctant to believe what I am showing you about the deception which has ensnared you in a bizarre religiosity. If that is the case, let me show you some other facts from the text.

Go back to v.37. It is a verse about God's predestination in matters of salvation. In the second half of that verse, the Lord presents the free offer of the gospel: "The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." But the overall idea in verse is not appreciated until we grasp the first half of the verse: "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me."

That is talking about predestination. This is a fact which is beyond any controversy.

Biblical predestinarians embrace both halves of v.37. But we notice that v.37 implicitly warns that the Father has not elected everyone unto saving faith -- and this despite the truth of the free offer of the gospel!

It is also a fact that the Lord Jesus issued this ominous statement concerning God's sovereignty in salvation immediately after He pronounced a bunch of His nominal followers unbelievers. Remember: They had remained faithless in spite of the privilege of a live interview with the Lord; in spite of the Lord's instruction concerning the serious matter of believing His testimony; and in spite of the miracles which He had already performed for them. The Lord was explaining the mess of their unbelief. He was alluding to the fact that only God's elect will receive saving faith.

In other words, the wonderfully awful idea of God's sovereignty in bestowing saving faith was integral to Christ's doctrinal thinking at this point. This becomes crystal clear when we see what He said in v.44: "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." This promise of resurrection bliss, prefaced as it is by a doctrinally profound warning, has the same rhetorical form as v.37. And in the first half of v.44, the Lord Jesus was clearly talking about the predestinarian doctrine of the sinner's utter depravity (and associated helplessness) in unbelief.

It should also be noted that the Lord made the pronouncement of v.44 right after further displays of unbelief on the part of His nominal followers. He really was explaining the fact that they were spiritual boneheads.

So, it is a fact that the Lord Jesus was peculiarly aware that the unbelieving sinners whom He was addressing were at God's mercy for the spiritual discernment associated with saving faith. And it is a fact that He was aware that there was no meaningful evidence that God the Father was drawing any of them to God in Christ.

It is also a fact that the Lord was deferring to His Father in the matter of who would wind up with saving faith. (This is one of important ideas in both v.37 and in v.44.) But it is also a fact that the Lord Jesus is the Almighty God Himself. And Christ's determination to defer to the First Person of the Trinity for the grace which follows election does not leave Christ with nothing whatsoever for Him to do with sinners.

That fact becomes important when we realize that the sinners in our passage had made Him angry. The fact is, their unbelief was offensive to Him. Not only had they tempted God by stupidly and disrespectfully seeking signs, but they also grumbled in their unbelief in v.43. (Remember: The Lord Jesus is the God Who slew 40,000 Israelites for the sin of murmuring in the Old Testament!)

In His anger, Christ decided to make an example of the unbelievers in His entourage. And that is why He exercised His divine prerogatives to permit His unregenerate hearers to get even more confused in vv.48-58. He owed them nothing except damnation anyway. The Spirit of God could still illuminate their minds as to what He was really saying, but the Lord Jesus was not Personally interested in being humanly clear. He was more interested in teaching His truly faithful disciples the doctrine of God's sovereignty (and hence, His Own sovereignty!) in salvation.

The Lord's faithful would witness the entire controversy; would notice the confusion; would notice that the Lord wasn't exactly brokenhearted (!) over the confusion; and would notice from this that He was not necessarily trying to build up a big following anyway. Those are facts. This is easy to see when we read vv.60-65 as a unit. In v.60, it is impossible to tell precisely what the unbelievers were concluding about the Lord's extended metaphor. However, it is virtually certain that some of them did still think that He was speaking literally in vv.48-58. (Remember: They had thought so as early as v.52 -- when it was clearly stupid to believe that He was speaking literally -- and the Lord did nothing whatsoever to help them out of their confusion. What He did say in the vivid language of His extended metaphor in vv.52-56 just made their dilemma of unbelief worse. Oddly enough, their misunderstanding was their own fault through the entire discourse!)

Think about that for a minute. As I said at the outset of this series of posts, the Roman insinuation that the Protestant position is one of unbelieving apostasy actually backfires on you. I have demonstrated by numerous irrefutable arguments that the Lord was not speaking literally in vv.48-58. I would therefore dare to argue that many of the people who left Christ complaining that His teaching was too hard, too awful, were those who did think that He was speaking literally -- when He wasn't. And again, I am flatly declaring that this was not an accident. The Lord deliberately used a metaphor to seal unbelieving sinners in their unbelieving confusion. He really was driving home the point He had made in v.44. He was making the depraved unbelief of His strictly nominal followers almost comically conspicuous.

In other words, He did not care to save them -- at least not most of them! On the contrary, He made fools out of them as a group for their repeated displays of spiritual impertinence.

The take-home point here is that the God Who is Jesus Christ Himself is absolutely sovereign in salvation. The Lord was showing His elect that non-elect sinners cannot believe the gospel (and that even an elect sinner will not be saved until God's timing has arrived for a truly sound conversion to Christ). He was showing His faithful disciples that in the decidedly awful providence of our sovereign God, non-elect sinners will never be supernaturally humbled to savingly understand what saving faith is.

And this is true of churchgoers, too. Being religious is not the same thing as having saving faith.

Now, having conceded that we cannot know precisely what the unbelievers were thinking in v.60, I will go on to concede that some of the unbelievers in the group may have begun to suspect that He was speaking in metaphorical terms. But even that insight would not be enough to save them. The problem is, they still could not appreciate what the Lord Jesus was saying about saving faith. And they definitely were aggravated in their confusion. There aggravation was made worse by the realization that He was talking about something profound which was definitely beyond their experiential grasp. His whole discourse just irritated them pretty badly.

At any rate, the unbelievers complained in v.60. The Lord was aware of this, as He had been aware of their earlier grumblings, and He responded by shifting His emphasis away from the doctrine of His incarnation as the Spiritual God perfectly united with man. He went back to the matter they had specifically grumbled about in vv.41-42. He confronted them in v.62 with the fact of His pre-existence in Heaven.

In other words, He warned these smug and unbelieving religionists that He is the LORD.

Now, please notice that this dovetails beautifully with the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation. In the overall context, it constitutes a fearful warning indeed for the fools who would dare to say that the faith which mysteriously merges a sinner's soul with the soul of Christ surely has to be something which any sinner can produce. Gosh, everything in the passage, including the confusion which the sinners in our passage displayed, demonstrates that saving faith -- the truly repentant kind! -- is both fully supernatural and sovereignly bestowed or withheld by the Lord God of Heaven. The passage is ultimately telling us that although the elect sinner will be saved (v.37), the non-elect sinner is doomed (v.44). Moreover, the non-elect sinner is doomed in his own spiritual stupidity. And by a very simple application of the text to our own Church Age, the non-elect professing Christian is doomed in his peculiarly religious stupidity.

Are there such folks in professing Christianity? You bet there are. There are tares all over the place. (According to Matthew 13:30, God already plans to burn them.) And it would appear that some denominations are dominated by tares rather than by true Christians.

So, if you think that the point of John 6 is to teach us a doctrine of transubstantiation, you have completely missed the point. The real point of John 6 is that although saving faith is a thing which must be responsibly and arduously exercised by a given sinner, it is ultimately a supernatural work attributable to God, not to man (see again v.29!). It follows from this theological reality that non-elect sinners cannot be saved. Churchgoing reprobates will never experience saving faith. The God of predestination will just leave them in their confusion. They deserve nothing from Him but damnation anyway.

As a way of showing that this really is what the Chapter is emphasizing, let me remind you that v.37 keys on both the omnipotence and sovereignty of God in His work of saving sinners by uniting them to Christ in true faith, not the dopey/carnal religiosity which the lost Jews displayed in John 6. Let me also remind you that v.44 went on to delineate the mess the confused Jews were in (i.e., they were manifestly not elect in the heart of God). Finally, let me point out that the ominous warning of v.44 is actually repeated in v.65.

FINALLY, let me point out that the controversial passage (vv.48-58) which the Romanists have incorrectly interpreted as presenting a doctrine of transubstantiation, as the supposedly pivotal teaching of the Chapter, is actually bracketed by v.44 and its echoing verse, v.65. These two ominous verses warn us that the Lord is not even trying to save everyone.

And that makes the bracketed passage all the more ominous. Christ definitely did use metaphors to suffer His enemies to perish in their confusion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I submit that I have given you a completely faithful exposition of John 6. And I am afraid that it thoroughly condemns the RCC on all points.

In my opinion, the RCC left the Lord Jesus quite a long time ago (John 6:66-67).

***********

~~ the_doc

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Gridley has fired, when ready.

;-)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

As promised, my brother....

"The_doc"s comprehensive exposition on John 6 as it pertains to the study of the Eucharist.

I will assume about 5% credit for the Formatting, Editing, and preliminary Scriptural citations. HOWEVER, the other 95% (the Body of Exposition) is pure "the_doc"; please give credit where it is due!!

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I have been disappointed, my fellow Protestants, to leave aside the KINGDOM AMILLENIAL discussion.

Professional demands necessitated my temporary absence; but I insist, my fellow Protestants, that we soon return to the KINGDOM AMILLENIAL discussion. There is much good soil for learning there, even (perhaps especially) when the Plow cuts painfully deep.

However, when we have argued strenuously and in good conscience all "afternoon" as it were, it is right and fitting that we should Sup at the Table together awhile before we return to the "after-dinner" discussion of Eschatology.

Let us Sup again at the Table together awhile... upon the Words of spirit and life.

The_Doc's "Eucharist of Jesus Christ" Thread is now open for discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This is mostly "the_doc"s exposition of John chapter six; and I am aware that some of you elect to engage in discussion with "the_doc" only on a selective basis.

BUT, it really is top-notch Protestant exegesis. It's much better than I do, anyway; at least usually (I am, after all, primarily an amateur Apologist, not an exceptional Theologian).

Even if only to INFORM YOURSELVES, I would commend you this article for your consideration.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Alas, I have discovered that it is not worth reading the RCC's summaries of Augustine concerning this doctrine. The RCC consistently misrepresents what Augustine was saying. Rome's apologists have done this for almost five centuries. No kidding. Read Augustine's writings, not those who "interpret" his writings.

FWIW, "doc", the eminent Roman Catholic the reverend Father William Most does NOT misinterpret or misconstrue the teachings of the great Doctor Saint Augustine on the Biblical Doctrine of Absolute Predestination.

The reverend Father William Most has made a very honest admission, which relatively few Roman Catholics are willing to make: Fr. Most acknowledges that Doctor Saint Augustine taught that Divine Predestination is Double, Determinate, and Absolute.

And, believing (as do we all) that Augustine is NOT in-and-of-himself INFALLIBLE, the reverend Father William Most calls all of Roman Catholic magisterial teaching to his cause to demonstrate that Augustine's position on Absolute Divine Sovereignty is, in his opinion, quite mistaken according to the "Infallible Bar" of Roman Conciliar Tradition.

But that said, EVEN IF WE ADMIT the reverend Father Most's argument that Augustine WAS WRONG (and of course, here in America, Rev. Fr. William Most certainly enjoys the constitutional first-amendment Right to believe whatever he likes), it is important to recognize the premise that Fr. Most's analysis of Doctor Saint Augustine does admit.

And it is this, nothing less:

The reverend Father William Most, in acknowledging the Augustinian teaching of Absolute, Sovereign, Double Predestination and arguing that such a position is wrong, Fr. Most does at least honestly admit the Truth of the contention that...

...as concerns the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination...

SAINT AUGUSTINE HIMSELF WAS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY PROTESTANT, Lutheran, and Calvinist.

And of course, that's what we have always maintained.

The Romanists can argue that Doctor Saint Augustine was wrong (and indeed, we would even expect that they would argue thus!!); but unless the good reverend Father William Most was lying though his teeth, the fact of the matter is that...

...as concerns the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination...

SAINT AUGUSTINE HIMSELF WAS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY PROTESTANT, Lutheran, and Calvinist.

And as far as the Patristics go, that is what we have been saying all along.

[exnavy]

Interesting read, I'm afraid I have to agree with you on the RCC.

I belong to a Wesleyan church at this time, I read Gods word every day, pray about as much as one person can.

In short, I love my God with all my heart. And I try always to understand Gods word, knowing full well that I will never measure up to the task.

It is the mystery of God that He reveals to us what He wants us to know in His own good time.

[Catholicguy]

<> I wish this post was longer. OK, I admit it. We are liars, Augustine was a Crypto-Calvinist, we are cannibals, and Jesus did abandon the Church He established. I thank you and the Doc for your illuminating doctrine so humbly ofered.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

Here is a link that historically (pace, protestants)refutes your temerarious and presumptuous positions. Your old errors don't elicit anger, they cause ennui.

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ468.HTM

<>Link for those who think St. Augustine tip-toed through the TULIP (s)<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Oh, forgot to add. Scroll down to the end of the page after you read about St. Augustine and click on "protestantism." There, you will find many of your, well-intentioned, errors corrected by a former protestant.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/AUG2.TXT

<>Fr. William Most on St. Augustine. You protestants selectively quote out of context and you apear to think that every word a St. writes automatically becomes Doctrine while it is the case that Theologians haze zero teaching authority - until their teachings ARE officialy adopted.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm

<>St. Augustine on the Eucharist. Now, I think the protestant response will be that what St. Augustine taught about the Eucharist that is approved by H.M. Church will be rejected while what St. Augustine allegedly taught about TULIP and was rejected by H.M. Church will be accepted. That about right?<>

[Wrigley]

Bump for read

[Catholicguy]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

<>Calvinism and Catholicism contrasted<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Here is a pacific view of Catholicism V Calvinism from a former protestant. I have posted quite enough, for now. There is plenty of truth in what I have posted for those with honest eyes. I won't engage in polemics.<>

A Tiptoe Through TULIP

by James Akin

Predestination means many things to many people. All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination, because the Bible uses the term [1], but what predestination is and how it works are in dispute.

In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism [2]. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches [3].

Even though Calvinists are a minority among Protestants today, their view has had enormous influence, especially in this country. This is partly because the Puritans and the Baptists who helped found America were Calvinists, but it is also because Calvinism traditionally has been found among the more intellectual Protestants, giving it a special influence.

Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation. These people are known as "the elect" [4]. They are not saved against their will. It is because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among the elect, "the reprobate," will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not be saved [5].

Arminians claim God predestines people by pronouncing (but not deciding) who will accept salvation. He makes this pronouncement using his foreknowledge, which enables him to see what people will do in the future. He sees who will choose to accept his offer of salvation. The people who God knows will repent are those he regards as his "elect" or "chosen" people.

The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often fierce. These groups frequently accuse each other of teaching a false gospel, at least on a theoretical level, although on a practical level there is little difference between the two since bonow about these subjects: First, Catholics are often attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic position on these issues. Second, Catholics often misunderstand the teaching of their own Church on predestination. Third, in recent years there has been a large number of Calvinists who have become Catholics [8]. By understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more Calvinists make the jump.

Total depravity

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love [9].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term "total depravity" to describe the doctrine [10], he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so [11].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere [12].

Unconditional election

The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will [13]. God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.

To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says, "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.... So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills [14]."

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" [15]

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught [16].

The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema.... If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema." [17]

Limited Atonement

Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25) [18].

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. A person may be said to have given himself for one person or group without denying that he gave himself for others as well [19]. Biblical proof of this principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at all implying that Christ did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is said to have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself for all men in a different way.

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church [20], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.

Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [21]

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell.

The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." [22] God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." [23]

A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. [24] A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. [25] While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all). [26]

Irresistible Grace

Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this the doctrine of irresistible grace.

This designation has the drawback of making it sound as though God forces people against their will to come to him (like a policeman shouting, "Resistance is useless! Throw down your weapons and surrender!") The designation also sounds unbiblical, since Scripture indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!" [27]

For this reason many Calvinists are displeased with the phrase "irresistible grace." Some have proposed alternatives. Loraine Boettner, perhaps best known to readers of This Rock as the author of the wildly inaccurate Roman Catholicism, prefers "efficacious grace." [28] The idea is that God's enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation.

This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [29] Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God's enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [30]

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'" [31] Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." [32]

Perseverance of the saints

Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the saints. [33] All those who are at any time saints (in a state of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure. [34]

Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God's children. They infer that, just as a child's position in the family is secure, our position in God's family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out.

This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have "eternal security" in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God's children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually "born again." [35]

Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach perseverance of the saints. The chief ones are John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them out of context [36], and there are numerous other exegetical problems with their interpretation. [37]

Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. A person might be predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other. [38] One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed.

If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were not predestined to final salvation). [39] Either way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. [40] There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to "believe for a while" but "in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). [41]

A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification their "saintification") completed. [42] If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance."

The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect." [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace.

Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man...needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions...[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give." [46]

The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as "Calvinists before Calvin." While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.

If one defines "saint" as one who will have his "saintification" completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a "perseverance of the saints" (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called "the predestined" or "the elect," one might replace "perseverance of the saints" with "perseverance of the predestined" or, better, with "perseverance of the elect."

A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP:

T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)

U = Unconditional election

L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)

I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)

P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance. [48]

ENDNOTES:

1. See Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, 11. For the Catholic Church's teaching on predestination see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242-244, and William G. Most, Catholic Apologetics Today, 114-122.

2. Calvinists are followers of John Calvin (1509-1564). Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), not people from the Republic of Armenia.

3. In Catholic circles, the two major groups discussing predestination are the Thomists and the Molinists, the followers of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Luis de Molina (1536-1600). Thomists emphasize the role of grace, while Molinists emphasize free will. Neither school ignores grace or free will.

4. From the Greek word eklektos, which means "chosen."

5. Calvinists are sometimes wrongly criticized as teaching that a person can be unconcerned about his salvation since he is already either among the elect or the reprobate. According to a Calvinist it would be a mistake for a person to say, "Well, if God chooses me, I'll be saved, and if he doesn't, I won't, so I can sit back and do nothing." A person who said this until his death would show he was not one of the elect because he never did the things, such as repenting and trusting God, which are necessary for salvation.

6. Among Catholics the discussion has been much more peaceful. Since the controversy over grace in the late 1500s and early 1600s, Thomists and Molinists have been forbidden to accuse each other of heresy. In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable Catholic teachings.

7. There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or "four-point Calvinists," who hold all of TULIP except for "L."

8. Including Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others.

9. There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents' discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards.

10. That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term "radical corruption," although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term "total inability."

11. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary" (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that "as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that "man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that "without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him" (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God.

12. Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I-II:109:2-10.

13. The Arminians, one will recall, said God bases it on his knowledge of what individuals will do in the future.

14. Catholics understand this hardening in terms of Romans 1:20-32, where Paul repeatedly states God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge him. See also James 1:13.

15. ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.

16. ST 1:23:3.

17. Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught by the Second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were ecumenical councils, though the canons of II Orange are normally considered infallible due to their special papal reception.

18. Calvinists view these groups as identical with the elect. This assumption is false. Not all who are at one time Christ's sheep or Christ's friends remain so (see below on perseverance of the saints). Similarly, not all who are in the Church are among the elect.

19. Suppose a father sacrifices his life in order to save an endangered group of people that includes his family plus two friends. He might be said to have given himself for his family, even though the group he saved also included other people.

20. See Ott, 188f. 21. ST III:48:2.

22. 1 Timothy 4:10.

23. Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.

24. Matthew 18:7-9, 22:13, 24:40f, 51, 25:30, Mark 9:48, Luke 3:17, 16:19-31, and especially Matthew 7:13f, 26:24, Luke 13:23ff, and Acts 1:25.

25. Although one must be sure to maintain that God desires the salvation of all men, as the Catholic Church teaches. 1 Timothy 2:4 states God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." See also Ezekiel 33:11. This does not conflict with God's intent to save only some, since a person may desire one thing but intend another. A father may desire to not punish his son, but he may intend to do so nonetheless.

26. Some Calvinists are unhappy with the statement that the atonement is limited. They prefer saying that Christ made a "particular redemption" rather than a "limited atonement." These mean the same thing, but the former destroys the TULIP acrostic, so the latter is normally used.

27. See also Sirach 15:11-20, Matthew 23:37.

28. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932), ch. 8, "Efficacious Grace."

29. Some Molinists, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, almost have bee Thomists. they agreed with almost all that Thomism says, such as its affirmation of unconditional election, but they resisted the idea that grace is intrinsically efficacious.

30. One should note Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists believe in. They claim God's grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will's freedom. Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature," De Veritatis 22:9.

31. ST I-II:112:3.

32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being associated with this paschal mystery" means being saved.

33. Many Calvinists prefer the phrase "preservation of the saints" since it puts emphasis on God's preservation of the saints rather than on the saints' efforts in persevering (which is thought to smack of "works-salvation"). This often results in a "holier-than-thou" attitude ("Look how holy I am; I place the emphasis on God's action, not man's"). But Scripture normally uses a human point of view. It calls men to repent, have faith, convert, and persevere. When one insists on preservation-language over perseverance-language, one is actually taking a holier-than-thou attitude, because the one who wrote Scripture used perseverance-language more than preservation-language. In effect one is playing spiritual one-upmanship with Scripture and the one who wrote Scripture.

34. This differs from the "once saved, always saved" teaching common in Baptist circles. According to that theory, a person never can lose his salvation, no matter what he does. Even if he leaves the faith and renounces Christ he will be saved. Perseverance of the saints states that, while a person will lose his salvation if he fails to persevere in faith and holiness, all who do come to God will persevere. If a person does not persevere, it shows he did not come to God in the first place.

Passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21, which say a person will not inherit the kingdom if he commits certain sins, are understood to mean that, if one habitually commits these sins, he was never a true Christian, no matter how sincere he appeared. Both "once saved, always saved" and perseverance of the saints teach "eternal security," but they are not the same. Calvinism admits there are mortal sins, such as failure to persevere, but says that no one who is saved commits these sins. "Once saved, always saved" says no sins would be mortal for a Christian, even in principle.

35. Elements of these responses are brought together in Luke 15, where the prodigal son begins as a son, then leaves the family and is spoken of by the father as "dead," only to return to the family and be spoken of as being "alive again" (Luke 15:24, 32). Christ teaches we can be sons, die spiritually by severing our ties to the family, then come back and be alive again--spiritually resurrected.

36. John 6:37-38 and 10:27-29 are taken out of context with John 15:1-6, which states Christians are branches in the vine which is Christ (v. 5), that God removes every branch from Christ which does not bear fruit (v. 2), and that the destiny of these branches is to be burned (v. 6). Romans 8:35-39 is taken out of context with Romans 11:20-24, where Paul compares spiritual Israel to an olive tree and states that since certain branches of spiritual Israel were broken off because of unbelief in Christ (v. 20), Christians will not be spared if they fall into unbelief (v. 21), but will be cut off (v. 22). The branches which had been broken off may be grafted in again (vv. 23-24). Romans 8:35-39 is also taken out of context with Romans 8:12f, 17, and 14:15, 20.

37. For further discussion see Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989) and Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 348ff. Both authors are Baptists who believe in conditional security, not eternal security.

38. For example, if a person was predestined to enter my living room, it would not mean he was predestined to remain forever in my living room.

39. Catholic theology has defined "predestined" to mean "predestined to final salvation." Thus those who will end up with God in heaven are spoken of as "the predestined" or "the elect." That a person experiences salvation at some point does not mean he is among the predestined (those God has chosen to persevere to the end).

40. Once the philosophical issue is cleared up, we can evaluate the teaching of Scripture objectively. When we do so, it is clear there are numerous indications in the Bible that a person can lose salvation. We already have mentioned John 15:1-6, Romans 8:12f, 17, 11:20-24, and 14:15-20. There are many more. Robert Shank gives a list of eighty-five passages he believes will, if carefully interpreted in context, show that loss of salvation is possible; see Shank, 333-337.

41. I recognized this fact even when I was an ardent Protestant.

42. "Sanctification" and "saintification" are the same word in Greek. When one has been completely sanctified (made holy), one has become a saint in the fullest sense of the word. Since this happens only in heaven, it corresponds to the common Catholic usage of the term "saint."

43. Trent's Decree of Justification, canon 16, speaks of "that great and special gift of final perseverance," and chapter 13 of the decree speaks of "the gift of perseverance of which it is written: 'He who perseveres to the end shall be saved [Matt. 10:22, 24:13],' which cannot be obtained from anyone except from him who is able to make him who stands to stand [Rom. 14:4]."

44. Aquinas said it always saves a person because of the kind of grace it is; Molina said it always saves a person because God only gives it to those whom he knows will respond to it. But the effect is the same: The gift of final perseverance always works.

45. ST I:23:6.

46. ST I-II:109:10.

47. The fact Calvinists are not aware of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the "Augustinian" view. While Calvin's view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine's view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints," and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis's article "Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine," in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine.

48. This has important applications for Calvinists who are thinking about entering the Church, and it has implications for Catholics who want to know what the Church requires them to believe and how they might defend the Church against anti-Catholic Calvinists. For an example of how Thomism can be used to refute Calvinist attacks on the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences, see my article "Fatally Flawed Thinking" (This Rock, July 1993). The article critiques The Fatal Flaw, a book by James White, a Calvinist and a professional anti-Catholic. For further reading on Catholic teaching in this area, see predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (St. Louis: Herder, 1939). Pope John Paul II studied and wrote his dissertation under Garrigou-Lagrange.

[SoothingDave]

Unfortunately, things got much, much worse over time -- murderously so, in fact. Finally, in the 16th Century, the Protestant Reformers pulled another huge population of Christians out of Rome. These folks realized that they wanted no part of what the RCC had become. A lot of them were murdered for their trouble, of course.

Yes, and of course no Protestant ever engaged in religious-based warfare or intolerance. Nope, never.

SD

[Rambler]

I try not to make the mistake of interpreting a literal passage as merely symbolic; by the same token, I try not to make the mistake which very often proves to be even worse (for several reasons, perhaps!)--which is to interpret a completely metaphorical idea literally!

This is the crux of the problem really. It is you doing the interpreting instead of the teaching church established by Christ. The early Church fathers have taught us well.

One of the oldest Christian documents in existence is the Didache, also known as the Teaching of  the Twelve Apostles, which was written between 50-150 A.D. and was used to instruct new Christians or catechumens.  It says:

"In regard to the Eucharist--you shall give thanks thus: First, in regard to the cup:  --We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son [who was a descendant of David]. Glory be to you forever.  In regard to the broken bread [the bread is broken at every Mass]: --We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge you have made known to us through Jesus your Son.  Glory be to you forever. At this the broken bread was scattered on the mountains, but brought together was made one, so gather your Church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.  For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.  Let no one eat or drink of this Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said, 'Do not give that which is holy to dogs.'"

             St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third *Bishop of Antioch, who provided the first written evidence that the Church called itself “catholic’ [meaning “universal”] referred to the Eucharist [Body and Blood of Jesus received in Communion at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass] in the following terms in his letter to the Ephesians written before 110 A.D. when he was on his way to Rome to be martyred for his faith:

Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of  God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.

  *the word Apostle in Greek is Episkopoi which means “bishop or overseer” 

            Ignatius, in a Letter to the Romans written at the same time, notes, “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life.  I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” Again in his letter to the Smyrnaeans he writes: 

           "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.  They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their own disputes. "

            Writing to the pagan emperor Antoninus in about 151 A.D., St. Justin Martyr wrote of the Christian celebration of the Eucharist in the terms present day Catholics can easily recognize from the Mass:  

            . . . . After the president has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus. (First Apology of Justin, chapter 128)  

Justin Martyr explains how the Eucharist of the New Covenant replaces the Temple sacrifices of the Old Covenant:

"Concerning the sacrifices once offered by you Jews, God as I have already said, has spoken through Malachi the prophet [see his book in the Old Testament], who was one of the Twelve [minor prophets]: 'I have no pleasure in you,' says the Lord, 'and I do not accept your sacrifices from your hands, because from the rising of the sun to its setting my Name has been glorified among the Gentiles.  And in every place incense and a pure sacrifice are offered to my Name, because my Name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord, while you have profaned it.' (Malachi 1: 10-12).  Already then did he prophesy about the sacrifices that are offered to him in every place by us Gentiles, speaking, that is, about the Bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)

             Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, France, and greatest theologian of the Second Century and one who taught that the Eucharist prepared our bodies for the resurrection, writing about 189 A.D. in his great work, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresy, notes, “If the Lord were from other than the Father [and thus capable of performing miracles], how could he rightly take bread, which is the same creation of our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” He continues:

            "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies.  When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life–flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Ibid., 5:2)  

In Book IV of the same document seeking to counter the arguments of Gnostics who denigrate the value of the body, he explains:

"Again, moreover, how do they [heretics] say the flesh will end in corruption and not receive life, that flesh which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord?  Therefore let them either change their opinion or cease to assert such things.  Our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion . . .  Just as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but rather the Eucharist consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly, so our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life."

             Clement, the third Pope, writes, “‘Eat my flesh [Jesus] says, and drink my blood.’  The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.”  (The Instructor of Children 1:6: 43: 3) [191 A.D.] 

            Tertullian writes:   

            Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. 

Tertullian again notes:

             There in not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges.  And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . The flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul may also be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God. [The Resurrection of the Dead 8, 210A.D.]

             Hippolytus wrote, “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Proverbs 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table" [i.e., the Last Supper] [Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs, 217 A.D.] He also wrote of the Eucharist in his treatise Apostolic Tradition:   

            Everyone should be on guard lest a non-believer taste of the Eucharist, to say nothing of a mouse or some other animal, or lest some part of It fall and be lost For this is the Body of Christ, which is to be eaten by believers; It must not be despised.

            Origen spoke in a similar manner of concern.  In his Homilies on Numbers 7:2 he says:

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

             Although the Fathers of the Church did not have the refined concepts and vocabulary that were developed by Scholastic theologians during the Middle Ages, their belief in the Real Presence of Christ after the Eucharistic prayer or Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus].  Although they did not use terminology like “transubstantiation” [change of substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ], they believed the transformation occurred when the priest recited the words used by Jesus at the Last Supper [the Eucharistic prayer or Epiclesis in Greek] “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood.” Early theologians were not concerned with exactly when the change happened but with the simple truth that it did. 

            Cyprian cites St. Paul to recall the great sin of receiving the Lord unworthily.  He writes: 

            He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward and denounces them saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Cor 11: 27].  All these warnings being scorned and condemned [lapsed Christians will often take communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged, by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord. [The Lapsed 15-16m 251 A.D.] 

            Aphraahat the Persian Sage wrote:

             After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested [Golgotha].  But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood while he was pondering on the dead.  With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his own blood as drink. [Treatises 12: 6, about 340 A.D.]

[xzins]

The non-catholic position that I subscribe to is verse 6:63. I don't read the_doc's opinions too much when he uses abusive language and says it's necessary to be abusive. I consider it enabling.

6:63 says very clearly about eating flesh and drinking blood....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Symbolic is NOT Real. Spiritual is Real (God is Spirit). Physical is Real. The transformation of bread and cup is Real (spiritual) but it is not Real (physical).

The Lord is spiritually present in the elements of communion. There is real power there. Paul warns of that and reminds that the power is so real that those who receive unworthily become physicially sick.

[the_doc]

I don't read the_doc's opinions too much when he uses abusive language and says it's necessary to be abusive.

I regard you as a wolf in Protestant's clothing.

I am at least being straightforward. The RCs need to start facing the fact of how much trouble they are in. (What in the world do you think all of the SCANDALS of sodomy and pederasty in the RCC are all about? [And what about all of the Protestants who have been murdered by the RCC over the centuries?])

This is not the time to mince words. I was not being abusive. I was being clear.

Your smarmy post would tell the RCs to ignore my "opinions." But my "opinion" is merely a correct reading of the Scriptures. Transubstantiation is a fraud. It gives lost people something to believe, something that won't save them.

The doctrine of God's angry reprobation of fallen sinners is TRUE, xzins. It traces back to the Fall, before any of us were even BORN.