The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

Grace to You.org ^ | 1997 | John MacArthur, Grace Community Church

[Elsie]

Do you believe that insulting Christians is in your best long-term interests?

It's worked so far...

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

--Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

[Elsie]

Teo; of course.

But there is always Jeanie...

[MayflowerMadam]

You can spew pope-stuff ‘til the cows come home; it means nothing to non-Catholics. So you’ve wasted time and keystrokes. We believe the Bible; you believe a man/pope. Why don’t we just stipulate that our religions’ tenets are different, agree to disagree, and move on? I’m good with that. I get the concept of “free will of man, and I respect your choice.

[daniel1212]

1 Corinthians 10:23-26 23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.... For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.....20And 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.

Three things that warrant more focus:

1. 1 Corinthians 10:24 states, "this is my body, which is broken[ klaō] for you." Klaō means break/broken/breaking, and corresponds to

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised [dâkâ']for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5) "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [dâkâ'] him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," (Isaiah 53:10), and dâkâ' means "crumble; transitively to bruise (literally or figuratively): - beat to pieces, break (in pieces), bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress, smite," (Strong's) And it is thus translated:

break, 3: Job_19:2, Psa_94:4-5 (2); broken, 3: Isa_19:9-10 (3); crushed, 2: Job_4:19, Job_5:4.

2. Matthew 26:28 states, "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," and which corresponds to,

"because he hath poured [ârâh] out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12) And as such ârâh is translated "Until the spirit be poured [emptied] upon us from on high..." (Isaiah 32:15)

Thus "broken" and "poured out" metaphorically speak of what Christ would endure for us sinners, glory to God.

3. 1 Corinthians 11:26 states,

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō] the Lord's death till he come.

Kataggellō means "to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, shew, speak of, teach," (Strong's) and as such it is translated, Total KJV Occurrences: 17 preached, 6: Act_4:2, Act_13:5, Act_13:38, Act_15:36, Act_17:13, Phi_1:18; preach, 4: Act_17:3, 1Co_9:14, Phi_1:16, Col_1:28; show, 3: Act_16:17, Act_26:23, 1Co_11:26; declare, 1 Act_17:23

The reproof of the Corinthians here is that while they were physically coming together to eat the Lord's supper, they really not coming together to eat the Lord's supper (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper), not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full (for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken), while ignoring other blood-bought saints who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not." (1Cor. 11:20-22,26)

Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the church which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood (Acts 20:28) as actually being the body of Christ (thus Paul was persecuting the Lord by persecuting His body, the church: Acts 9:4). And thus they were not remembering/showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose: v. 26), by treating members of it as outcasts. Paul the pastor elsewhere reproves Christians for harming brethren, "for whom Christ died (Rm. 14:15; 1Cor. 8:11) Therefore the rank hypocrisy here of these Corinthians left them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by which He bought the church, as they were acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.

And since the problem was that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the Lord's supper and do as before due to lust for food. (Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. Vs. 33,34)

[daniel1212]

Without belief in the Eucharist, there is NO resurrection.

And if there is belief in the resurrection then there is no salvation, so be consistent and admit that there is no salvation for all who do not believe in and receive the Cath Eucharist.

As for your belief, that has abundantly been shown to be untenable and heretical. But if you want to try to defend it then show your stuff.

[daniel1212]

Jesus now doubles-down and does not try to correct his literal meaning. 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Again, while it can easily be shown that obtaining spiritual life is by believing the gospel message, (Acts 10;43-47p; 15;7-11) you must be consistent and admit that there is no salvation for all who do not believe in and receive the Cath Eucharist, as this is essential to even obtain spiritual life.

Failing that, you must show why this statement is not an unequivocal imperative as much as other "verily, verily" statements in John are.

Failing that, you had best leave the thread. Rather than showing this from Scripture, appealing to uninspired writings of post apostolic men is an admission that this is the source of your belief.

[daniel1212]

Your argument in comparing one church with a broadly defined groups of churches is simply spurious unless:

•You can find and argue with someone here who defends all the churches you call Protestant

• You make complete comprehensive doctrinal unity the criteria for validity, and define Jn. 17 are referring to this, and ignore the divisions in Catholicism.

• You define unity based upon formal professions, and limited to binding beliefs, and not on what is actually believed and can be disagreed on (including what is binding) in Catholicism.

•You can prove that under the Cath model for determination of Truth and for unity Caths there is no division, and that under a SS a superior , unity cannot be realized.

• You can prove that under the Catholic model for determination of Truth the flock will never experience confusion and formal division, and that the flock cannot and do not engage in interpretation of their supreme authority (their church), even if holding to basic unity in core teachings.

• You ignore the fact that those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental (and attacked) Truth held by the Reformers (and a minority of Catholics), that of the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, are overall yet the most unified major religious group in core beliefs, in contrast to Caths overall.

• You can prove that the basic premise for the Catholic model for determination of Truth, that being the magisterial historical stewards of express Divine revelation, and inheritors of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation means such are the infallible authorities on what Scripture is and means. And thus those who knowingly dissent from this magisterium are in rebellion to God.

[mrobisr]

“There can be only ONE authority to teach ONE truth.”
You are so right about the one authority to teach, but it isn’t any man. Hint: It’s the third member of the Godhead.

1 John 2:27 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

Isn’t that just the funniest thing that your own Bible disagrees with you.

See what you are missing is that once you are taught that Jesus is Lord and you accept him as your personal Savior and are reborn then the Holy Spirit takes over the leading, teaching, and guiding position in your life.

That’s why you RC’s are so flawed in your thinking you let a flawed sinful man lead you and well when you drink from a tainted well you will get sick and die.

[daniel1212]

You're quoting the USCCB, the United States Conference of Communist “bishops. It has no doctrinal authority.

Really? Then what does require assent? Only what is infallible?

[MHGinTN]

It zooms right past the catholic mind that Jesus had to be speaking of the spiritual feasting because if He had been speaking literally He would be contradicting the LAWS HE GAVE to the Hebrews for all their generations, one of which was standing before Him seeking signs. Therefore, the god and jesus of catholiciism is duplicitous. BUT Thanks be to God, the Bible supports the symbolic, the spiritual TRUTH in Jesus’s statement to these literalists who could not see the spiritual TRUTH. Likewise the catholic religion sees only a literal meaning which reveals the god of their religion is duplicitous in light of the rest of The Bible..

[imardmd1]

Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the church which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood (Acts 20:28) as actually being the body of Christ

This is a good point to bring out, and one to reinforce. The "not discerning the Lord's body" is not about the bread, the symbol of his flesh. It is about the unified assembly of saints, the local body of people of which He is the Head and Authority.

Thanks, Dan for emphasizing this.

[Mark17]

Our unity is in Christ, not an organization. Nobody has to agree lock step with every single last point of doctrine of any church leadership or they get damned to hell, like the Catholic church loves to do to force compliance to itself.

I agree, no one has to be in lock step on every doctrine.
I will say, however, that there is ONE doctrine EVERYONE needs to agree on totally and completely. That would be the plan of salvation. That is the one issue, where no one dare make any mistakes. It has eternal ramifications. I'll see you in the rapture. 😇

[Mark17]

The problem with Catholicism is those who have researched it, taught, and preached it for a lifetime have claimed it is true in all its forms

I did, during a different lifetime, but no more.
Now, if you will excuse me, I feel rather presumptuous, as I enjoy my assurance of salvation. Care to join me? 😎😀😆

[Mark17]

Name them one by one...

Are you counting the mythical 30,000 churches, or counting your blessings? 😄😀😎

[Mark17]

It does, but it also tells us how to avoid Hell. If you read the Word in context you may see that.

You know what bro? I am not convinced that everyone wants to avoid Hell. It might be possible that some will choose to go there, because they want to establish their own righteousness, rather than being born from above. That's on them.

[Elsie]

You can spew pope-stuff ‘til the cows come home; it means nothing to non-Catholics.

Wanna bet?

[Elsie]

But if you want to try to defend it then show your stuff.

[Elsie]

Failing that, you must show why this statement is not an unequivocal imperative as much as other "verily, verily" statements in John are.

Bah!

We don't need no steenkin' show NUTTIN!!!

We are CATHOLICs; Baby!!

[Elsie]

Merely making a comparison - inside of heads.

[Mark17]

Merely making a comparison - inside of heads.

It would appear to me, that you live rent free in some people's heads. 😀😆😃😎😄