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!
Apparently, you remain clueless as to what Paul was referring to when he said ‘would be guilty of the body and blood of The Lord’. You see, the Levitical laws forbade eating human flesh and drinking the blood, so if the person taking the Lord’s Table unworthily they (not discerning the spiritual significance, so they came to the Table without reconciling to God by confessing their sins FIRST) they were committing cannibalism and violating the drinking of blood because the bread and wine would not count for them REMEMBRANCE of His crucifixion sacrifice. Baal worship got all that food sacrificed to idols thingy started. Your religion has revived it, apparently.
You miss the whole point. Of course, there were books and writings, but they became the official version of the Bible only after the books in the Bible were formalized in AD 384 in the Council of Rome. The Holy Spirit that insured the accuracy of the judgment of the Church fathers in presenting the true written Word of God did not evaporate later with the various schisms, and where these schematic beliefs then began to divide among themselves.
Nonsense. The great scholarly tradition of Augustine, Aquinas, and Benedict has long put the lie to this false interpretation. Indeed, the early Church fathers before the written word was confirmed had much to say on this aspect.
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR WAS BORN A PAGAN BUT CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY AFTER STUDYING PHILOSOPHY.
He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (A.D. 148-155.)
And yes, we cannot leave out St. Irenaeus
ST. IRENAEUS
St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies. Yet he never could have imagined the Protestant heresies that would follow centuries later. But here’s what he wrote:
“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
But that’s not what the early followers of Christ believed. i.e “a sacred spiritual metaphor.” Nor is this supported by the text. Nor did those who after cross-checking the several hundreds of fragments of texts over 300 years in assembling the Books of the Bible thought so either. Nor did the early martyrs of the Church. Nor have the hundreds of converts from all parts of the world, from all religions, atheists included, and all walks of life from philosophers, and theologians and scientists to the Church think so either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
History however, shows a different position than that of the catholic.
There was no sifting through of hundreds of documents.
The majority of the NT canon was considered Scripture by 100 AD. Paul's letters were considered Scripture by the church as noted in 2 Peter 3:16. The OT canon, from Genesis to Chronicles (excluding the apocrypha), was already in place.
By 170 AD the Gospels were well into circulation along with Paul's letters. Acts, Jude, 2 Epistles of John and Revelation were accepted.
By 200 AD all the NT books were accepted by the church.
The official roman catholic canon was only determined at Trent. I always find it ironic that when they had the chance to include such writings as the Didache, The Protoevangelium of James which would have greatly supported their false teaching on Mary, they did not.
Now, to the Mass.
If you do a word study on believe you will see that in John alone the word was utilized 50+ times in relation to faith in Christ.
Now which is more credible?
John as moved by the Holy Spirit noted Jesus saying you have to believe on more than one occasion to have eternal life or
Jesus speaking to a group of unbelieving Jews who refused to understand His message of belief...that He was the bread of life and that by believing in Him one would have eternal life.
It was the unbelieving Jews who raised the issue of how could Jesus give them His flesh and blood to eat and drink. Jesus understood their hardheadedness and told them something so improbable it could not happen. They had to physically eat and drink His flesh and blood.
If cathoicism wants to take this as a literal understanding then right then and there they should have killed Him and began to consume His flesh and blood.
Further, if catholicism wants to take this as a literal understanding, then every catholic needs to go sell everything they have to obtain eternal life as Jesus told the rich young ruler.
That consuming His flesh and blood was not what He meant was clearly understood by the disciples as evidenced in John 6:67-69 when Peter replied to His question....We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.
They knew it was about faith in Him. This message of faith is clearly in line with the rest of the NT. The catholic position of consuming the flesh and blood is the outlyer.
A question for catholicism....if the disciples had died at that moment, without benefit of consuming His flesh and blood, would they have gone to Heaven or Hell?
What about Paul? There is no evidence he participated in the Mass as defined by catholicism.
What about the woman at the well and the people who believed as a result of her testimony? Heaven or Hell for them?
They had no benefit of the Mass as defined by catholicism. All they had was belief.....which is what Jesus, and the NT tells us repeatedly, is the way to obtain Heaven.
What about the words of Christ Himself in John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
Recall, He was talking again to the unbelieving Jews at this point.
To accept the catholic position of the Mass we have to accept there was more than one way to appropriate Heaven. Faith for some and the Mass for others.
That is an inconsistent position.
The careful reader of the Bible will note it has always been about faith going back to Abraham. This is evidenced through both Old and New Testaments. The difference being the means of forgiving sins.
The NT clearly teaches Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that it was a one-time sacrifice.
Further the concept of the roman catholic Mass where the priest tells Jesus to come down from Heaven to be re-sacrificed again and again is in stark contradiction to Hebrews 10.
Hebrews 10 speaks of one sacrifice for sin. Catholicism, in spite of denails, tells us Jesus is re-sacrficed over and over and over again.
It's why catholicism continues to depict Christ on the cross where the NT clearly teaches He is no longer on the cross.
That this is catholic belief is evidenced by John O'Brien's writings in The Faith of Millions, The Credentials of the Catholic Religion
“No act is greater,” says St. Thomas,” than the consecration of the body of Christ.”23 In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our alter to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperor: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, O’Brien, John Anthony Rev, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc, Huntington, Indiana, Nihil obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: Leo A Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, pages 255-256 The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion
By your lights for three hundred plus years, the very Church fathers who gave us the official books of the Bible after three centuries of painstaking debate and scholarship, all got it wrong; as did the early followers of Christ, as did friends of St. John; as did the early Christian martyrs and saints, and as did all the renowned scholars, theologians, and historians.
That’s a lot of history; scholarship, and theology to cast aside.
the church fathers didn’t give us the Bible. The early church did.
Check Council of Rome AD384
May GOD have mercy on your soul. You prefer your error over the Truth. You make God out to be double minded. God have mercy on you in your preferred ignorance.
Yes...and?
Likewise, I say the same to you. Looks like several hundred of saints, martyrs, scholars, theologians, and historians, to say nothing of the early Church fathers, all got it wrong, including several leading theologians and scholars from non-Catholic faiths that converted to Catholicism.
Here from a non-Catholic source.
The following account is according to the Protestant source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):
382 AD - Pope Damasus decrees for the universal Church, what books are in the Bible. This papal decree stated:
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....
“It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book [included Baruch]; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.
Likewise, is one book of the Apocalypse of John and the Acts of the Apostles, is one book.
Likewise, the canonical epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. “
This is the first canon of Christian history that explicitly decrees the books that are to be accepted as divine Scripture for the universal Catholic Church. This same canon is what the Catholic Church continues to use today.
When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.
This decree of Pope Damasus to the universal Church was more than just a canon of a local synod. It established what ought to be accepted by the “universal Catholic Church.” It was not definitive but it was binding. “Definitive” in Catholic lingo means “immutable.” Binding means it was canon law, and as such, you were obliged to obey it. This list was subsequently affirmed by several local synods and Ecumenical-(General or worldwide) councils in the past 20 centuries.
This canon list is the same list used by the Catholic Church today. Because it was not definitive, Catholics could disagree with the canon without charge of heresy, yet they were bound by it.
Despite the opinion of some, the consistent judgment of the Church was that the above canon was to be included as Sacred Scripture.
The Jews did not recognize the apocrypha as canon.
Plus, if we start examining those books we find problems with them that don't line up with Christianity. Roman Catholicism maybe, but not Christianity.
You are vonfused. I have not made reference to the New Testament canon, though you are wrong, I leave you with that. I have been addressing the blasphemy of asserting you eat GOD and consume His DIVINITY in the Catholic Mass.
“This completely does away with the roman catholic concept of the Mass being required for salvation.”
Archbishop Sheen said that he would absolutely hate the Catholic religion as believed by many Protestants.
Regarding the Mass, it is not “required for salvation” but it IS salvation, the time when we are closest to heaven. It is a prayer and an adoration, not a service. It lifts the veil. I don’t go to Mass because I have to. I go because I want to which is why, throughout the world, there are daily masses attended by millions of people. I have been to numerous Protestant services. I challenge you to go to a Catholic Mass - sit in the back if you must. Just listen and observe. I promise no one will grab you and force you to do anything. Listen to the scripture. The entire Bible is read and reflected on as the annual liturgy progresses. Adoration and Eucharist is something that becomes more and more a part of my life. So just go and sit and listen. Keep on coming.
Don’t ya think the Baal worshippers felt that same empowerment when they sacrificed food to their idol then ate it, getting their idol into their ... gut/
The priest calls up to Heaven and summons Jesus, who leaves His throne mind you, to be once again placed on the altar and offered again and again and again as a sacrifice.
The Mass, no matter how solemn and moving it is, is against what is taught in Hebrews and the NT regarding how one acquires salvation.
It's been shown also on these threads the entire Bible is not read in the annual liturgy process.
If one goes to daily Mass the Bible reading is complete. And you have not said whether you will accept my challenge to attend a Catholic Mass. I’ll go to any Protestant service you wish. I live in eastern Kansas. Pick one.
The most recent Protestant service that I attended was to go with my MIL to her Methodist service on Easter Sunday with my husband and our children. The minister (a woman in sensible shoes) did not mention the word Jesus one time nor the resurrection. This was on Easter Sunday!
Opps, I lied. I went with my son to the Old South Church and the woman leading the service had a homily about a same sex young man abused by his partner and how we should welcome him into our lives. OK. I’m all about that. But then after the service the bread remaining on the altar was raided by her son who ate it all. Seriously creepy. So send me to a service where Jesus is totally loved and lifted up.
I'd rather be dragged naked through a room of broken glass and then used as a catbox. How can you stand it?
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.