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!
Your defense of roman catholic teaching is typical of what I've seen on these threads.
A statement is made about this or that and when asked to substantiate the claim the catholic obfuscates and provides mis-direction or just won't answer the question.
Holy Spirit is my home parish. I love it. But Mr. Mercat and I do travel quite a bit and go to Mass all over. This year we are first going to the front range of Colorado although I think one Sunday we’ll be in Moab. Then in September we’ll be RVing around Europe for several weeks. I hope I can still find a Catholic Mass there. November - the Grand Canyon. I found a mission there in the employee village so it is possible to go to Mass without leaving the park. My favorite experience was in a very small town in Georgia. I was surprised to find that they even had a Catholic Church but what a wonderful service, full of the Holy Spirit and I’m thinking the most racially and culturally diverse event in the county, maybe in the state. OK, I may have lied. Years ago we were in the Virgin Islands with our kids and we went with them and another family - total of 7 kids - to the local parish. We were the only white people there. Oh my goodness the singing!! The rest of the week everywhere we went people recognized us and greeted us.
To be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic.
When I was growing up, the communicants NEVER got any of the wine. It was the host only.
Only the priest drank the wine.
I believe the words of Jesus.
Right here.
And there's no mention of eating Him.
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
The Catholic Church has never said that there is unanimous agreement on everything in the Church. There is full agreement on the main principles. The Church has been true to the teachings of Jesus and has consistently exposed the heresies.
Just like the Scriptures are not always clear, differing understanding among the early church fathers occurred, but on the principles of faith they were clearly in substantial agreement and unanimous on the main principles.
Again you make general statements without facts.
You can’t be serious. 100% and nothing else?
I gave you a link that comprehensively discusses the crucial debate and consensus on the doctrine of substantiation. Rather than making an attempt to inform, you reflexively post the same stuff that reflects the instruction given by some corner street pastor.
The writer of Hebrews disagress with roman catholicism. There is no longer a need for the sacrifice nor does Jesus leave His throne at the command of a mere man. But contradicting the Word has never been a problem for roman catholicism.
12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:12-13 NASB
, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist.
The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings.
To continue to insist as the roman catholic does is in disagreement with Scripture.
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.”
The Greek translation makes this clear this is a remembrance of what Christ is doing for us...not an offering as He is the offering.
None of the major translation, including the Douay-Rheims translates the passage as you do.
The DR translates as following: And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
The key word is anamnesin. It conveys the following: "bring to mind") – properly, deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice). HELPS Word-Studies
It is translated in the Greek as "remembrance" in both of the passages you cite.
Jesus' command to the disciples, and it was a command, was to do this in remembrance of Me.
Luke 22:20 is key to understanding the significance of what Christ was about to do on the cross.
He said, And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
Why is this significant? In the OT, there were several offerings which were offered for forgiveness. The Sin, Guilt, Burnt and Peace offerings required the shedding of blood.
In some cases, it was sprinkled against the altar. The blood not used was poured out .
In NONE of these sacrifices was the blood ever consumed. NONE
The people were forbidden to eat the blood (Lev 17:10; also Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:31-34), since life belonged only to God.
: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life [that is in it]” (Lev 17:11).
For roman catholics to continue to insist the blood is eaten goes against not only the OT prohibitions on the blood, but also against what was reiterated in the NT at the Council of Jerusalem. The Council wrote: "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. " Acts 15:19-20 NASB.
The WHOLE CHURCH was in agreement with this as noted in Acts 15:22-29.
For the catholic to continue to insist the early church understood the "eucharist" as being a sacrifice is not substantiated in the OT or the NT in any fashion.
You realize you contradict yourself in your own statement?
You said ALL of the ECFs were in agreement on this. ALL means 100%.
Polycarp saw this coming and journeyed from Smyrna in Asia Minor all the way to Rome in his old age to refute rising heresies being foisted upon the Roman congregants.
Apparently, he was ignored because one of the heretical changes Anicetus was making (perhaps under Marcion's guidance?) was to change the day for the Lord's Table to always meet the pagan Sunday rather than remain on Nisan 14 as Jesus instituted it in REMEMBRANCE of what He was about to do.
And BTW, you still have not explained hoiw Jesus would serve His Real flesh and blood of the Risen Savior, on the nioght before He was crucified. Your magicsteeringthwem commands you to eat the flesh and blood and soul and DIVINITY of The Risen Lord, yet this same gaggle of magicians insist the Lord's Table the night before the cross is the 'first eaucharist'.
Consensus doesn’t fall from the skies. There is discussion and debate. In the end under Petrine authority the early Church fathers, as the link provided you so exhaustively explains, affirmatively held to this belief and it is so today to the point that leading non-Catholic theologians and scholars have accepted this doctrine and enthusiastically converted to the Catholic Church. This is no longer a matter of debate except among those who fear to do so since their livelihood (think Joel Osteen etc) will be threatened.
Any position that is in contradiction of the Word itself is wrong. It doesn’t mater if 20% or 100% make a statement.
You know where to look. You only accept some of his words. You don’t accept Jesus words to eat His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. I presume that you participated before you left the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you.
you need to read or re-read post 188.
Your comment: “For the catholic to continue to insist the early church understood the “eucharist” as being a sacrifice is not substantiated in the OT or the NT in any fashion.”
Again, you are wrong and you just keep repeating what you want to believe.
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.”
Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church “the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have “a pure offering” made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. TheDidache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .
“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
One more time: The catholic religion insists that the first eucharist was Passover night, the day before the cross. Yet that same duplicitous religion insists that the eucharist serves the flesh and blood of the Risen Savior. Explain that. Then you can try explaining the blasphemy that you are eating the very Soul and DIVINITY of God the Son, to get God's Life in you rather than doing what Jesus told you to do, believe on Him Whom God has sent for your salvation.
The devilish little lie at the heart of the catholic Mass is that each adherent is trying to work, or strive, or struggle to get God life in them and these works of obedience to the ism of catholic is their pride-filled secret way to become worthy.
Guess which position carries the greater auhtority?
The mormons, like roman catholicism, also rely upon a lot of external writings to justify their false teachings. Yet they remain just that....false teachings.
Unless the catholic can show how the rcc understanding of a continual re-sacrifice of Christ and the eating of the blood is not contradicting any of the passages in the OT or NT on the blood or the NT regarding Christ as a one time sacrifice the rcc position remains wrong. Very wrong.
You've been shown the Word and you chose the writings of men over the Word.
"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
This is my final posting on this particular thread.
Why?
It is just a retread of your personal opinion with a few quotes that seem to have that protestant interpretation.
Luke:
19* j Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.k
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.