Justification is not in the future tense. Salvation is sometimes past tense and sometimes present or future. “You are saved” is past tense. I also quote either the NASB or ESV, not the KJV. If I need to choose a translator between someone on the Internet, and the translators of the NASB, I’ll take the latter.
http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php
Now, why is it sometimes have been saved, and others being saved?
Salvation sometimes refers to justification, and sometimes refers to both justification and sanctification.
HAVE BEEN SAVED. Justification.
BEING SAVED. Sanctification.
Once you understand this, passages that seem in conflict come into agreement.
CONTEXT. If a passage is discussing what happens apart from Christ’s intervention, then that passage, taken out of context, is NOT the Gospel. That is nor some strange Protestant doctrine, but simply reading like an adult.
“That ends up in the necessity of believing in His presence in the Eucharist, does it not?”
No. It does not. Just as Jesus is speaking there of spiritual life, he is speaking spiritually when he calls himself bread...and he makes that clear repeatedly throughout John 6. He contrasts manna, that brought physical life, with Himself, bringing spiritual life.
It takes a special sort of blindness to take one verse in a chapter, say it is physical, but all the other verses are speaking about spiritual matters. I don’t choose to be blind. Jesus was consistent in John 6.
First, it is inaccurate just textually. See, for examples, Mt. 12:37 "will be justified", the same in Romans 3:20 and 3:30. It looks like people start with the artifical division between justification and sanctification and no longer look at what is actually written.
passages that seem in conflict come into agreement
I have not seen passages in the Scripture that are in conflict. I see plenty of passages that are in conflict with the Protestant heresies, but that is not my problem.
Just as Jesus is speaking there of spiritual life, he is speaking spiritually when he calls himself bread
There you go again. How is calling someone a physical matter "spiritual", especially followed by an invitation to eat it because it is "food indeed"?