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.
In my reply I was assuming that you are holding that (as you previously wrote) in some way, the bread is Jesus' Body, not merely a symbol of it; and that the grape juice is Jesus' Blood, not merely a symbol of it (consubstantiation).
Furthermore, I am assuming that you hold that somehow, 1 Cor. 11:24-29 proves your theory.<> My conclusion is that Paul's use of the text not only does not support your hypothesis, but that the thrust of verses 27 and 29 is directed toward exposing the spiritual blindness of a participant regarding the puros of the ordinance. So how do we resolve this?
We obviously are not going to resolve this Mexican standoff in this life, since you believe that the emblems of the Cross-death are sacraments, and I do not. I believe that the conclusion of this discussion should at this point be according to Romans Chapter 14, without further wrangling that benefits no one.