Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
The Catholic Church holds that faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works. Vice-versa, the Church holds that such works are so intimately joined to faith, that, without them, it is impossible for the believer to grow or persevere in his faith.(1)
(excerpt)
We believe in both.
The blood is for atonement. It’s not for consumption.
God expressly forbids the eating of blood throughout Scripture. No way is He going to demand practicing something He’s declared sin.
While “majick juju” is not appropriate terminology for the words at the Seder meal, (it’s outright disrespectful) one must beware of one’s orthography -magic with a “k” at the end could be misconstrued -it was a part of Aleister Crowley’s thelemic “religion.” The TCT Channel had a special on him awhile back: to warn people to AVOID him like the plague. I believe you did not intend that! Just a heads up...
No, that's not true according to Scripture.
John 1:11-13 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Those who are not born again have no idea of what a regenerated spirit's response to sin is.
Anyone who thinks that a true born again believer can sin with impunity cause they know they're saved, clearly does NOT understand that work in the heart by the Holy Spirit.
And there is the aspect that someone else brought up, that somewhere some Catholic is busy biting their fingernails down thinking that somewhere, some Christian is getting away with something they can't do.
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)according to human precepts and teachings?
These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Do what the Lord said to do:
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. (Luke 11:4)
And Peter:
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (Acts 8:22)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Forgiveness can also be synonymous with healing, (Mt. 9:2-7) and I believe there can be cases in which God is chastening a believer due to sins he is ignorant of, or are otherwise unconfessed, or in discipline for a fault, and in which case God has regard for intercessory prayer from the righteous.
Which primarily is a function the NT pastors (not Cath. priests ), but which James teaches also extends to all righteous believers. Which Elijah exampled in binding the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosing them again. (Ja. 5:14-18; cf. 1Kg. 17:1; 18:42-45)
Thank you again for your kind reply, I appreciate the courtesy, but look to the Wiccans, Muslims, or a forum elsewhere with Satanists. We'll fight alongside you to try and change their minds, just as many faiths united recently in the March for Life. But you'll not change mine.
I, too hate conflict. But I'll stand in front of an abortuary with you; pray with you against the Satanists; and I pray to God that I'll persevere if some Muslim extremist wants to decapitate me because of the Crucifix I wear. I will not deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament! God bless you in your endeavors; may we meet some day in Heaven!
Of course, it had always been forbidden. This is precisely why so many departed when Jesus DID demand that we drink his blood.
I don’t see how you can possibly say that “no way” would Jesus demand that we drink his blood, when, in John 6, Jesus DOES demand that we drink his blood.
And if you say that his words were merely symbolic, why would Jesus even speak SYMBOLICALLY about doing something that was forbidden?
Unless, of course, Jesus was God, in which case he had the authority to establish a new law, a new covenant, and a new sacrament.
We are His Children, made in His image and likeness.
God bless you!
</signoff>
The question has to be asked: Did the REASON for the OT prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim continue to exist after Jesus had sacrificed himself?
These connections [between the action and the words of Jesus on the one hand and the Passover celebration and sacrificial thought in the Old Testament on the other] could not have been introduced only later in the Lords Supper tradition. This is proved by the great difficulty that the idea of the blood of Christ causes in this connection. That the body of Christ is eaten, in fact must be eaten, as the body of the true Passover lamb is understandable if the parallel between the Passover in the Lords Supper is really to be valid. But the idea of partaking of blood had to cause most serious offense for those whose thinking was schooled in the Old Testament. For partaking of blood was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament, and even the parallel between the covenant blood in Exodus 24:8 and the covenant blood in the Words of Institution is seriously distorted when the latter is given to the disciples to drink. The difficulty is so great that one can credit no one, least of all Paul or John, with having burdened the idea of the Lords Supper with it after the event. There is really no other possibility than the assumption that Jesus himself is the originator of the idea that not only is His body taken as that of the Lamb without blemish or spot (1 Pet. 1:19) but also His blood... But if Jesus did express this idea that was so offensive to Jewish and perhaps all human thought, then His meaning could only have been the following: Partaking of blood is forbidden in the old covenant because according to Lev. 17:11 the bodys life is in the blood and because the life belongs to God. But the life of Jesus has been offered up for men. It should be for their benefit. For here men do not bring a sacrifice to God through a priest, but the High Priest offers Himself as a sacrifice to God for the sake of men. That Christ gives His blood to those redeemed by Him to drink is the strongest expression of the fact that He sacrifices Himself for men entirely, unreservedly, and completely. (Sasse 1985, 89-90)
http://dawningrealm.org/papers/passover.pdf
In short, the REASON for the ancient prohibition no longer existed after Jesus sacrificed himself, because: Under the Old Law, the life (blood) of the victim belonged to God.
Christ, on the other hand, in sacrificing himself, gave his life TO US as a gift. He tells us to drink his blood precisely in order to tell us that he is GIVING US HIS LIFE.
Again:
"Partaking of blood is forbidden in the old covenant because according to Lev. 17:11 the bodys life is in the blood and because the life belongs to God. But the life of Jesus has been offered up for men. It should be for their benefit. For here men do not bring a sacrifice to God through a priest, but the High Priest offers Himself as a sacrifice to God for the sake of men. That Christ gives His blood to those redeemed by Him to drink is the strongest expression of the fact that He sacrifices Himself for men entirely, unreservedly, and completely."
In other words, to REJECT drinking Christ's blood is to say that, in his sacrifice, Christ did NOT give his life TO US as a gift.
To refuse to drink the blood of Jesus is to CLING TO THE OLD COVENANT AND THE OLD SACRIFICES, refusing to accept the life Jesus has given to us.
completely destroys the false catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist.
I taught a class on Communion to my Methodist Men’s group. That’s exactly what it teaches. They don’t believe it is merely symbolic but don’t exactly define what happens.
There is usually very little left.
Not for a true Catholic, it doesn’t!
HaHa...We got all the study material we (and you) need right here...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Thus when someone approaches us and posits that a certain thing we do is a sin - we welcome the critique since we hate the idea of not following the commandments of our Lord much more than the temporary embarassment of being confronted with our own sin. Since the true believer frequently studies the Word of God and prays, and they keep the Lord in their thoughts continually and have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, they may realize from time to time sins in their thoughts, words or deeds, and these evoke the same response.
The Bible tells us that the response to sin must be repentance.
and
While we all fall short of the glory of God, and our human nature is that we are born into sin, the Bible tells us that we will not live a sinless life, that even the most faithful among us will occasionally sin, sometimes not so serious a sin, sometimes a grave sin. We may find ourselves sometimes repeating a sin that we have confessed before. That being said, if we find ourselves having little or no success at all in avoiding repetition of our past sins, the professing Christian should really consider the condition of their soul - have we really put off the "old man", are we born again ? Anyone professing Christ while they continually and habitually commit grave sins for which they are not repentant is clearly not convicted of their own sin in their heart, they do not fear the Lord, and they actually are an unbeliever. Many Christians profess Christ outwardly, but are unregenerate sinners, unbelievers, and this is evidenced by their habitual, grave sins that display a hatred of God's Word and their rejection and opposition to it.
Additionally, as Paul speaks in Romans 7, even those who are regenerate and born again, will sin. The difference is that they do not want to sin. They take no pleasure in sin, their pleasure is in pleasing the Lord because He has put a heart of flesh in them to give them that desire. Oh, there may be some initial "pleasure" in sinning, but it is fleeting because sooner or later, they have to come to grips with knowing they have sinned against the Lord that they love. Then comes the struggle many know so well of coming to repentance, to quit struggling with God and giving control over to Him in that temptation to obey Him rather than our sin nature. And oh, what blessed peace there is then! And we know that this cycle will be repeated, over and over, but as it is, we also know that He is conforming us more into His image.
Contrast this process to the unregenerate who thinks they have to do all these things to not sin. That it is up to them. They have a pride in all that they do or can do, in order to live "holy" lives. Instead of having a great desire to obey their Redeemer, knowing they are unable in and of themselves, they look to the things they can do or say or touch or eat, or whatever and put their trust that God will be more pleased with them if they do so.
The gospel is simple: He is a holy God and we are not and can never be and we need Him alone to fix what is broken in us. So simple, but so difficult.
Amen.
hint: Saying something in a big font does not make it true, does not prove your position, and does not speak well of you in a civilized discussion. Just saying...
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.