Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation
The Gospel proclaimed on Wednesday of this week included the familiar John 3:16. So familiar is this verse, that many hold up signs or have bumper stickers that simply say, “John 3:16.”
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life (John 3:16).
It is indeed a beautiful verse, but I would argue that many use it inauthentically by pulling it out from its place within a longer passage. The fuller segment is John 3:16-21, which is as much a passage of warning as it is of consolation and assurance.
Here it is again, along with the remainder of that longer passage:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
And this is the verdict,
that the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God (John 3:16-21).
This fuller context has somewhat of a different tone. It sets forth a great drama in which our lives are cast. It amounts to sober assessment of the obtuseness of many human hearts and of the urgent need for us to decide well in life.
Those who merely quote the first verse run the risk of presenting this text as a kind of a freewheeling assurance that all is well and that salvation is largely in the bag, that judgment and condemnation are not a significant factor since “God so loved the world.” And while the concept of faith is included in this first verse, without the larger context the tendency is to soft-pedal the need for repentance and for the obedience of faith. In so doing, the true drama and sober teaching of the fuller text are lost.
The longer passage fleshes the message out and has a balance that the shortened text does not. Here is what Jesus is in effect saying, expressed in more modern language:
As I live, I and my Father do not desire that any should die in their sins or be lost. I have not currently come as your judge but as your savior. I will come one day as the judge of all, but now is a time of grace and mercy extended to you.
But you need to know that you have a decision to make, a decision that will determine where you will spend eternity.
So please listen to me! Open the door to me and let me draw you to the obedience of faith and the beauty of holiness. If you do this, light will dawn for you, for I am the Light and your life will grow ever brighter.
But if you will not repent and come to a lifesaving obedience of faith, your heart will begin to despise me and the light of my glory. You will become accustomed to the darkness and begin to consider the Light (which I am) to be obnoxious, harsh, judgmental, and even cruel. Yes, you will begin to hate me, for I am the Light. You will prefer the darkness because you love your sins more.
Come to your senses and don’t let this happen. You have a decision to make: for the light or for the darkness, for me or for the prince of this world, Satan. Be sober and understand the dramatic choice before you. Your salvation depends on your choice to come to obedient faith in me or to reject me.
And know this: on the day of your judgment, the verdict will not be rendered by me so much as by you. For by then, you will either love the Light or hate it. And I will not force you to live in a light you detest. You will be free to go your own way. It will not be I who reject you. It will be you who reject me.
Be sober. Don’t let this happen. Don’t marginalize or ignore me. Don’t prefer the world and its twisted values and passing pleasures. Your sins will make you hate the light and prefer the darkness. You have a decision to make.
This message is much more complex than that contained in the popular, abbreviated text known as John 3:16. God’s mercy is offered, but the final verdict will center on whether or not we accept it. This message may be less consoling but it is true nonetheless, and only the truth can set us free.
There is a tendency by many to pull out certain verses and isolate them from their context and from the fuller message of the Gospel. The full and authentic Gospel echoes the opening call of the Lord Jesus: “Repent and believe the Good News.”
So yes, John 3:16! But please continue reading. The whole Gospel, please!
If memory serves, the Catholic Mass no longer gives the cup to the attendees. The wine is consumed by the priest and only the wafer is placed in the mouths of the attendees.
BTW, Jesus is not the author of the catholic church. JESUS, GOD with us, IS the creator of the body of believers, who make up the growing CHURCH (ekkelsia) of JESUS not satan’s catholiciism
your comment:”So one MUST believe the wafer and wine change; or NO Salvation; RIGHT?? “
You either believe in the Truth, the words of Jesus or you do not believe.
Perhaps it would help to do some research on Eucharistic Miracles. One source: “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz.
Chapter 21 - The Miracle of Middleburg -Louvain, Belgium 1374
“On the first Sunday of the holy season of Lent of 1374, in accord with her usual custom she encouraged her servants to prepare for this season of penance by going to Confession and receiving Holy Communion. Her words, however, were accepted by the servants only as a duty they had had to perform. One of the servants, known simply as Jean of Cologne, felt obliged to participate with the others for fear of being disgraced, but he approached the Holy Sacrament without having first prepared himself by confessing his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.
Kneeling with the others at the Communion railing, he awaited the approach of the priest. but as soon as the Host was placed upon JEAN’S TONGUE, IT TURNED TO FLESH, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO SALLOW! Frightened by the unexpected development, he attempted to hide his difficulty, but then made the mistake of biting into the flesh. At that moment three drops of blood fell from his lips, staining the cloth over the Communion railing.
It is reported that Jean was punished for his sacrilegious Communion by being instantly blinded. Feeling overwhelming remorse for his sin, he knelt at the feet of the priest and confessed his sin, before the entire congregation. His sincere sorrow resulted in the restoration of his sight.”
“The part of the miraculous Host that is kept in Louvain is slightly brown and somewhat smaller than formerly, yet it is perfectly distinguishable as flesh. .... All the important records regarding the history, travels and examinations of the miraculous relics are kept in the Church of St. Jacques.”
There are many other Eucharistic Miracles. Recently in Poland and Argentina. Jesus continues to show us the Truth of His Words.
You can either believe or chose not to believe.
Catholics have not denied the importance of Faith, but you do exclude from your beliefs some important teachings of Jesus, such as the Real Presence.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence
Actually, the Fathers of the Church were clearly unanimous when it comes to the Real Presence. As far as Tertullian is concerned, there is some question as to whether or not he should be categorized as a true Church Father because of the fact that he died a Montanist heretic. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.
When Tertullian and St. Augustine use the term “figurative,” they do not mean to deny the Real Presence. In the texts cited, St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.
Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.
St Augustine Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.
Yes. It is either your personal opinion or the Protestant talking points.
I encourage you to critically examine the teachings of the Catholic church which is true to the teachings of Jesus.
Obviously the Catholic Church is made of of imperfect men and women, but I believe that Catholic church has not erred in the teachings of Jesus.
I understand that many christian churches want to increase their membership and sometimes waiver from the true teachings of Jesus. Many do not accept the word of God, but come up with various ways to dispute or change the meaning. I can’t say how the Lord views those that seem to express faith in God but do not believe all that he taught. God wants us to love Him and our neighbor.
You continue to make false personal opinion statements without substance.
Both the consecrated Host and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.
Depending on the practice of the parish or diocese, one can receive either the Consecrated Host or the Consecrated Cup. Both are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Of course, there were discussions and debates and disagreements. This is why the command was to Peter and his disciples to go forth and preach ONE truth, not the several, confusing, and contradictory interpretation that sprang from the curse of the Reformation.
Tell me where you live and I’ll suggest a parish there. Otherwise end of story.
My feeling is that one who speaks about the Catholic Church would have more credibility if they would be willing to observe a Catholic Mass and gain an understanding of what Catholics experience when they attend Mass. The same is true for Catholics who speak about other Christian congregations. I have attended several services over the years in the St. Louis area; Methodist, Lutheran, Christian, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, non-denominational, Baptist, and Evangelical. These different experiences all enriched me in one way or another. The one common thread for me, though, was that I missed the special closeness to Jesus that I experience during a Mass when I receive His body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist.
I have gone to Mass at several Catholic churches in the Kansas City area. My son lives near St. Peter’s at E. Meyer and Holmes, so I usually go there when visiting him. I have also gone to St. Joseph in Shawnee and Holy Spirit in Overland Park. I have gone to several other Catholic churches when visiting my son and daughter in the East. While there are minor differences from one church to another, it is comforting to know that where ever I go, I can find a nearby church where I can experience the same Order of the Mass that I experience at home.
Oh, now you want to spin Luther’s word because it is embarrassingly true. But again, we don’t need Luther. For eleven centuries, and beyond, we have the Church through its saints and martyrs, and a galaxy of scholars, historians, and theologians confirm the doctrine of the Church based on sacred oral tradition; scripture, and tradition.
Outside of the Church, you can go find a palette of false teachings to pick and choose from from the musings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the frothy nonsense dished out by Rev. Billy Graham to the absurd feel-good prosperity gospel of Joel Osteen. All scam artists.
That you have been taught to believe that a catholiciism priest can 'consecrate a wheat wafer and God obeys and transubstantiates that wheat wafer into the actual body and blood, and soul and DIVINITY OF GOD IN CHRIST is the basis of a demonic cult.
The habit of conflating things, attaching a demonic lie to a truth is a startling aspect of your 'other religion; called Catholicism. ALL the earliest Christians believed int he real presence of Jesus, not for cannibalistic ingestion but because Jesus said where two or more are gathered in mty name THERE am I in the midst of them.
To awaken to the truth all you need do is read Augustine's caution regarding breaking the law alongside what Jesus clearly taught. Would Jesus, if there are two or more gathered in His name participate in breaking the law He authored?
Here is the context of Jesus telling His followers that those gathered in His name can be assured He is there in their midst. See if you find ANYTHING in His words that indicate He is there to be eaten so God-life can infuse the spirits of those gathered:
'A Brother who Sins' (Caption Deuteronomy 19:15-21)15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That is the context for the real presence of Jesus , where two or more are gathered in His name.
Now read again what Augustine said about something which violates the law --which was given to govern the flesh and thus impact the spirit and soul of man-- therefore of necessity must be taken figuratively. We have cited this as sacred metaphor, or sacred symbology.
Ask yourself, please, if this catholiciism ritual was so vital to get saved, why did the first CHURCH Council not include it in the instructions to the new converts in Asia Minor? And yet we know these converts celebrated on Nisan 14 the Lord's Table, breaking bread and sipping the wine IN REMEMBRANCE of what Jesus has done for us all. They did not claim to be eating the real presence of Our Lord, they took the break and wine as Jesus instructed, in Remembrance ... Augustine called it 'memoria'.
Teaching sincere people that they are eating in a wheat wafer the real flesh and blood of the Risen Lord is bad enough demonic inveigling; but to insist that this demonically inspired misuse of the Lord's Table is even more satanic when the 'other religion' insists that by eating this 'consecrated wafer' the adherents are digesting THE SOUL and DIVINITY OF GOD THE SON!. THAT is blasphemy writ so large that the blinded minds of this other religion cannot even comprehend their sin! ... And this in defiance of what JESUS called the cup contents as He held it up instituting the Lord's Table Remembrance! He call the contents WINE, fruit of the vine.
And lastly, JESUS instituted The Lord's Table on the night BEFORE He went to the cross. So how does your 'other religion' conflate that Remembrance with feeding His flesh a nd blood of the Risen Savior as practiced in your eucharistic ritual? It is an absurdity that only a magic explanation can cover.
It's totally contrary to the Word itself.
And we see catholicism doing the very thing they accuse non-catholics of doing.
We're told you can take or leave Fatima and the other Mary apparitions, we're told we only have to believe the pope when he speaks ex-cathedra, which catholics cannot tells how many times he's actually spoken this way.
We're told sometimes baptism is needed for salvation and sometimes it's not.
We see roman catholics take the words of the ECFs, although they are contradictory on a host of topics, over the inspired Word itself.
You're saying ALL of the ECFs believed this. You might want to research that statement. I believe you are in error.
It is consumed by the ministers of the cup.
Or we can listen to Francis and see what he has to say about accepting homosexuals or climate change.
Or we can go shop at the vatican store and get your own Pope Francis crucifix for free with every order! http://www.vaticangift.com/contents/en-us/d47_Pope-Francis.html
LOL....you can't make this mess up.
Yes, we've seen a lot of this "historians" and theologians work....like O'Brien's who says the priest calls Christ down from Heaven and He jumps so He can be re-sacrificed on the altar again and again and again in direct contradiction of Hebrews. To date, no catholic has denied this is what happens and they have not be able to reconcile this blasphemous teaching with Hebrews.
I see you left out the stigmatics on your list this time.
Are the ECFs in 100% agreement on the Eucharist being the actual flesh and blood.
If it's as well understood as you say this should be the easiest question you'll get on this topic.
What say you?
Yes?
or
No?
This show the level of ignorance non-Catholics have about Catholic teaching, dogma, instruction, and social work. Catholic doctrine is not subject to change.
You should take your concern to Ulf Ekman, Sweden’s most prominent Lutheran pastor.
His was one of the world’s largest Lutheran congregations of some 4000 members in Sweden and Elkman explains the reasoning behind his conversion to Catholicism:
“I discovered how little I really knew about [Catholics], their spirituality and their beliefs. Unconsciously I carried many prejudices and bad attitudes and have been quick to judge them without really knowing what they actually believed. It has been good to discover and to repent from nonchalant and shallow opinions, based not on their own sources but on their opponents, and to discover a very rich heritage, a strong theological foundation and a deep love for Jesus Christ among them.”
I won’t assume you will keep an open mind. This issue has been hammered and answered over the corse of over 2000 years and even famous theologians from other denominations have now accepted this and converted to Catholicism.
Inquiring minds have embraced this doctrine even among former atheists and communists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
Well I understand that you are not a practicing Catholic, but your personal opinions do not change the teachings of the Church or the nature of the Sacraments.
The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better translated “Offer this as my memorial offering.”
Perhaps you should cite the authority for your personal opinion.
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.