Annalex: Where is the "artistry"?
Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."
But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".
may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation
The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.
if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning. Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.
If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word
If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water. Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.
in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.
Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.
Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it. However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?
the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.
...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
No argument there.
non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist
That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).
it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with
We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.
you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard
Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.
Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation
That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.
Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."
But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".
It is not a passing reference, as being consistent with John's gospel and epistles, eternal life is received by believing in no uncertain terms. Again, you cannot find any place where one is made spiritually alive by eating and drinking, but by believing on the blood of Christ, while living out that life as by a guide is done as Jesus did, (Jn. 6:57) according to God's word and will, which did not involve eating blood to do so. See more below.
The discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disciples his actual flesh to eat parallels what the Lord did in Jn. 3 in speaking enigmatically about being “born again,” resulting in Nic supposing Jesus referred to being born again physically, like as the carnally-minded Jews in Jn. 6 thought Jesus referred to physical food. And those that are not born from above try to conform the physical plane to their physical understanding. But in both cases the Lord made a difference between the flesh and the Spirit, with the latter giving life, showing He was speaking analogically, likening physical birth to spiritual birth, and physically eating to spiritually eating. And which is the only interpretation the rest of the New Testament supports, as showed.
may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation
The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.
The water itself does nothing, and the dietary and purification practices prefigures the spiritual in the new, and thus the temple itself was a prefigurement of the spiritual church, and surely you would not dispute that the allegorical use of eating and such things as David equating the water gotten at the risk of their live of his men with that of their blood would prepare the Lord's apostles for His words in the Last Supper. Again, to presume such kosher Jews would consume Jesus' literal flesh and blood without a word of query like as Peter did later in Acts 10, when right up to the supper and even in it they are shown to question things that troubled them, is absurd. And in no place do we see a miracle in which Jesus was physically in two places at once, such as being in the disciple's stomachs while sitting before them.
if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning.
So when Jesus says He is a door, (Jn. 10:9) then Rome holds that a in the church is transubstantiated so that a door is really Jesus while maintaining the appearance of wood? Maybe they could say that this is how Jesus got through closed doors. (Jn. 20:19,26)
Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.
It is Rome that explains the defining conclusion away, in which, after stating He would not even be there physically, He states, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) Rome explains this away (the the NAB footnote on “Spirit . . . flesh:” says “probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6) to disallow that this means spiritual consumption, like a Jesus lived by the Father, and which the rest of the Scripture concurs with. Thus Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Jn. 6:68.69) Rome tries to make this refer to Jesus words in Jn. 6, but nowhere does John or any other writer have eternal life being received by consuming the Lord's supper. Instead, we have words such as in the next chapter,
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39) And Scripture confirms this life is realized by becoming born again, such as in Acts 10:43ff.
And then in the next chapters we read,
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38)
"And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there." (John 10:41-42)
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." (John 11:25-27)
As for losing disciples, those who left Him were those who had come for physical food, (Jn. 6:26) their minds being on what is below, and those who try to turn bread into Jesus might as well try to be physically born again. However, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” (v. 29) and which, consistent with what is written, means those who believe the gospel message realize life, and live by His word. While this includes keeping the Lord's supper, they get life by believing, and they way they live it out is by His word, of which the Lord's supper is only an occasional (“as oft as ye do this”) part and is to help show this life of love for each other.
Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.
Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it.
Rather, every Catholic who thinks that John 6 talks of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read that passage, and Mt. 4:4 which Jesus quoted to the devil who also took things quire literal, and then read all the verses again on how one gets spiritual life, and what and how one lives.
However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?
That was never in disputation, and if you read my replies you should realize that i affirmed that believers are to fulfill their righteousness of the law, which confirms their faith as salvific, but to the degree that they do does not make them morally worthy of eternal life. Do you dispute that you are not?
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.
It seems that your “no” is yes, which it is. Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, and just what is infallible magisterial teaching is far from settled.
If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
What Roman Catholic church do you belong to? Your own NAB Bible and the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars deny you this assertion, as do most Roman Catholics. Meanwhile it is evangelicals who are accused by Roman Catholics of being guilty of literal interpretation. You really seem to see the Roman Catholic through rose colored glasses and evangelicals through the opposite, but i have lived all my life in Roman Catholic “country,” and have been in both and know the difference.
it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word
If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water.
It is Roman Catholics you are not surrendered to the very Scriptures you condescending use, as they are a secondary authority for them at best, and their conclusions are not by comprehensive objective analysis, which they seem to disdain, but as you continue to show, are ordered by allegiance to Rome. And rather than running from Roman Catholic misconstruance of Scripture we are prone to contend for them, and relatively far and few between are the Roman Catholics who even will debate them. Meanwhile the idea that SS Protestantism is contrary to works of faith is contrary to the facts, which show Roman Catholicism is the one that marginalizes such obedience, due to confidence in their morality, and their church to make up for the lack of it.
Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.
Christ says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” which is clearly defined as believing the gospel and living it by His word through the Spirit, but Roman Catholics refuse to accept the Bible interpreting itself and surrender to it, and instead rely upon an a self-proclaimed infallible interpreter. Indeed, “some surrender.”
in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.
One cannot be sure of faith and morals except by the assuredly infallible magisterium, and polemical Catholic appeals to Scripture as the supreme authority which one can ascertain truth by has at its goal the convincing of one that he cannot, but is to implicit trust the AIM of Rome. And being bound to defend Rome militates against arriving at objective logical conclusions.
the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.
This is just another indication of how dedication to Rome might determine perception. Protestants are actually typically accused of rejecting the teaching magisterium and just going by Scripture, and indeed rather than running to pastors first they are trained to examined all teaching by Scripture. In contrast, it is Catholics who speak of relying upon men, and who rush to see what their pastors says rather than objectively seeking to ascertain truth by the Scriptures! Such responses makes this interaction closer to an end.
...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
No argument there.
non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist
That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).
It is not humorous or ironic, as while it is a foundational divine institution (Heb. 6:1) which Protestantism has always practiced, you missed the point which is the fundamental basis for authority. Which is not by formal historical decent or conference but most essentially is that of holiness, teaching and effects which correspond to the Scriptures, being attested to by God.
it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with
We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.
Placing implicit trust in an office of men means your mind is in cult-like bondage. If Rome were more doctrine and disciple intensive like the WTC, then it would be more extreme.
you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard
Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.
No, it is a lower standard, as it elevates the opinions of men and interpretations thereof above that objective authority which alone is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallible.
Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation
That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.
It is i how have much affirmed that a believer must realize who/what he is in Christ, though being one who sadly yet does sin, but I am honestly disturbed at your seeming attitude expressed here and in other replies on this issue, as if men realizing their damnable and destitute condition and utter inability to escape their just punishment in eternal Hell fire or gain eternal life with God by any moral merit of their own — and thus trust in the mercy of God in Christ, for Him to forgive them right then and there, and make them His own, receiving the gift of eternal life life — was a pre condition that was just “fine, and not necessary. We should be alarmed any teaching that such a faith and condition does not mean it must continue if real, and seek to on to perfection, and do works that will be rewarded, but one cannot do such unless they are first made accepted in the Beloved, to the glory of God.
Then you've changed your position on the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Scripture does say Jesus had brothers and sisters.
There is no way to read those verses as anything other than Mary's and Joseph's children after he knew her after the birth of Christ.
Likewise with her alleged sinlessness. For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and there is none greater among men born of woman than John the Baptist.