Posted on 03/18/2018 9:02:06 PM PDT by No One Special
Thank you for this elucidation of the unexplainabkle and illogical. I’ll remember the line of reasoning: It is because it isn’t. Hmmmm.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
So; you appear to know how this happens.
I hope your meds are working.
You people show up like herpes. You take interesting threads and dirty them up and expect people to come running to your religion.
***
When you can convince your fellow RCs to stop posting the ‘Luther=Hitler’ propaganda on Lutheran, Evangelical, and Protestant threads, I’ll consider leaving Catholic threads alone.
At least daniel1212 is posting actual theology and not flinging around insults like asking how many abortions you’ve had or speculating on your sexual history like some of the FRoman contingent has been doing to us.
If you don’t like it, debate him or ignore him, but don’t act like the FRomans are always the meek lambs getting stomped on.
As the Apostle Paul wrote: “23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Some have told me that Paul’s referring to sinning against the body of Christ as in the church body, but that doesn’t wash, because the church body has never been referred to as ‘the body and blood of the Lord.’
So I’m just going to be assuming that Paul said what he meant and meant what he said.
And I've found Catholics just as nasty and vulgar and inaccurate in real life as they are on FR threads.
FWIW, I don't see any non-Catholic pushing their religion on FR as *the one true church*, consigning everyone else to hell because others don't follow their religion (denomination), or encouraging others to join their church promising salvation though it.
The only way of salvation is through CHRIST, not through a religion or religious acts or sacraments.
It's ironic and hypocritical that when non-Catholics point out the problems within Catholicism, we're considered *antis*, *haters*, and *bigots*.
And yet when Catholics point out the very same problems within the Catholic religion, they are the heroes, the *true* Catholics, who are trying to get back to the *real* Catholic faith.
I must have hit a nerve - you had to call in all your familiars. Why do you guys always call for backup I wonder? It makes you look like the freaks at the end of the movie Freaks.
If we're not trying to bring people to Christ, then what's the point?
Is that what you’re trying to do?
He is if He says He is.
Are you seriously saying you haven't seen this asserted countless times on FR, or are you only saying you think we poor, benighted Papists are too stupid to follow a syllogism?
Which attitude fits perfectly with atheist materialism, but not with Christianity.
Yes...that should be the goal of all believers....to bring others to Christ.
2. Catholics are not Christians
What we do see a lot on these threads are people identifying with a church....not the Savior.
How rare it is for a Roman Catholic to identify as a Christian. I've encountered that in the real world as well...when asked if you are a believer in Christ people say "I'm a Catholic.".
That's not the question.
Jesus put a similar type question to Peter and the disciples when He asked them, "Who do you say I am?" or "Who do people say I am?".
I've asked numerous Roman Catholics, you included, on these threads if they follow Christ and Christ alone....and the reply? Often times....silence.
The New Testament is clear....if you're not trusting in only Christ for your salvation, then you're not one of His followers.
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 NASB
8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” Romans 10:8-11 NASB
Will you, or anyone else reading this thread, call upon the Lord and be saved today?
I would be humbled to discuss this further on freepmail if you or anyone else has any questions.
Well, I feel that Paul truly meant what he said, but it is not clear to me that your understanding or interpretation of what Paul's purpose was in bringing the passage verses 27 through 32 as related to participation of the communal breaking of bread.
My inclination is that your doctrine says the bread and grape juice constitute, at least in the spirit realm, the sin offering that Jesus effectually and effectively presented to The Holy God. But if that is your contention, you need to stop right there, for in the pre-Incarnation practices, the priesthood could not eat the sin offerings. They were totally and wholly consumed by The LORD, burned up as in smelting fire. So the bread and juice consumed by the New Testament priest is of the materials symbolic of the Old Testament peace offering, reminiscent that the forsaking of the sins by both God and man had already taken place. And this occurred only once, when Jesus died for us and was raised for our justification.
You say the emblems are the atonement, they are Jesus. That is, to me, an unacceptable explanation of the Remembrance
So, what is the meaning of the passage under consideration?
First, the overall purpose of this first canonical letter to the Corinthian assembly was to invoke corrective church discipline, citing the cases, their condition, and the methods of correction. The core of the scripture in view is unworthiness to partake of the symbols of peace with God and solidarity in the assembly. It is in that context one interprets the passage.
Secondly, the cause of unworthiness (1 Cor 5:1, 1 Jn 2:4) is that of unconfessed sinfulness (1 Cor 5:2, 1 Jn 1:6,8,10), with the resultant chastening of God The Father either looming or in process, for not only the unworthy individual, but also for the assembly and its members (1 Cor 5:3-5,11-13; Heb 12:6-8; Joshua 7:1), some of whom are likely (even though passively) complicit.
The Breaking of The Bread observation is not so much about the individual (for each is, moment by moment--not just once a week--accountable to The Father): it is primarily about The Local Body, its holiness (1 Pet 1:14-16), its unity (Jn. 17), and its testimony to the world (1 Cor. 5:13, 11:26).
I believe it is just for this purpose that Joshua 7 was written (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4) to warn us that forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, without church discipline preceding the kononia of the Remembrance, the whole assembly suffers. In contrast when the conditions of assembly are met, with the old leaven having been purged, that the Body of Christ may as often (often=the first day of the week) as it gathers for the Memorial, to be cleansed, to regroup, and to take out the Gospel of the Cross to the lost and dying world of desperately sinning humans. If any one does partake unworthily, all will suffer, just as Achan brought down God's judgment and chastening to death of all the People of God for his sins and sinfulness.
Jesus and His Doctrines, the Logos, are in the Bible, not in the tokens of God's reconciliation and peace to us, the bread and blood of the cluster.
Where the corpse is, the eagles gather together.
Where a Catholic convert story is posted, the bigots gather on FR.
... so says the ardent FReminist who always pings her posse, lol.
Again proving that is it usually, thought not always, the Roman Catholic who resorts to the personal attack and/or profanity when the argument goes against them.
I think you’re assuming that I believe what Catholics believe in regards to the Lord’s Supper, and so your arguments aren’t really relevant to me.
I was simply saying that if St. Paul and Jesus refers to the Lord’s Supper as the Body and Blood of Christ, I’m going to take them at their word.
As for salvation in the Lord’s Supper, well, Jesus does say “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” And being the words of the Lord, I can’t ignore the link that Jesus deliberately puts there, just as Catholics shouldn’t ignore Ephesians 2.
So how do we resolve this? I have to get to work; I’ll get you more about the Lord’s Supper and into how we still believe in grace alone and faith alone when I get the chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.