Are Protestants dead?

[sparow]

I’ve never heard that before. I wouldn’t bet money on that. It sounds like a anticatholic false rumor.

I cannot find anyone accusing the RCC today but they have in the past and this is confirmed by the RCC having a defence.

 

[Episaw]

If I understand what you're saying here, it's dead wrong.
The Eucharist is absolutely, 100%, the central focus of the Catholic Church. Period.

That is what he said.

 

[DRobert]

I don't see how it's helpful for one religious group to attack another.

This calls for discernment. We would be wise to assume OP’s intention was pure, sincere and honest, unless proven otherwise.

 

[Afra]

Yes and to have a full understanding of the entire bible and not base beliefs on bits and pieces.

The Eucharist is prefigured in the OT. Check out Brant Pitre’s work on that if you are interested.

 

[Afra]

It has been common for Catholics to believe salvation is only through the Catholic church; the Lord's supper is hardly relative.

The Lord's supper is the Passover meal, which at least would be unleavened bread; Jesus is now the Passover Lamb but it seems to me that there is something wrong with eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The consumption of blood is against the Law and as for eating His flesh, Jesus did not chew the cud or have split hooves. It doesn't seem likely to me that Jesus would use illegal rhetoric as a metaphor or symbolic language.

It would seem that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is analogous with believing.

John 6:47 (NKJV)
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

Well, the difference is that our Lord is not an animal. Nor is he only human. I think if you go back to the OT, you will notice that the prohibition on drinking animal blood was because the “life” of the animal was thought to be in the blood, and to drink it would defile the man by him consuming the life of an impure animal. On the other hand, there is nothing about God that could defile us. By receiving him we are sanctified, we receive divine life, we become partakers of the divine nature.

Also, if “eating flesh” is being used as a metaphor for belief, it is a rather poor metaphor, because in those times the metaphorical sense of eating flesh was to wage war on someone, not to believe in someone. You can see that in Revelation 19 an Psalm 27, for example, where the author uses eating flesh as a metaphor for making war against someone.

 

[Ronald]

What Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood" is true when he said it. What you make of it is up to you. You can take it literally or not. It's your choice. Baptists and Pentecostals appear to take it "spiritually" not "literally". No matter how you decide to take it the blood of Jesus Christ is "real drink" and it also cleanses Christians from all their sins; the body of Christ is "real food". If the difficulty is seeing the body & blood of Jesus as "really and substantially present" in communion then perhaps thinking of it as a miracle will help.

OK, but remember, Jesus said Himself, IT IS THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN THAT WE MUST EAT. In John 6:48, 50, 51, He makes this clear, that the bread is His Spirit/His words. Then He said He will give His flesh for the life of the world. So we believe in His Spirit, His words, His death and resurrection.
Vs. 63 clarifies the confusion they had: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
So, since "the flesh profits nothing", why would you think a piece of bread or grape juice does anything but help you remember?
Since we don't experience it actually changing physical form, you must believe this happens spiritually, right? So then you must agree that this is a spiritual and not physical/fleshly experience. The fact is, it doesn't turn into His body or blood - it remains bread and wine and digests through your system like any other food. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom".
But hey, we've beaten a dead horse as they say, enough of that.
Peace to you and blessings!

 

[BukiRob]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Exceedingly dangerous to take a single verse out of context and build a position on it.

In verse 22 we see WHO Yeshua is speaking too. It is to both the people and the ruling Jews (Pharisees and scribes) In verse 35 Yeshua states I am the bread of life come down from heaven.

It is equally important to understand that Yeshua when he spoke publically used riddles and parables and did not speak plainly (openly) to the general public and as such to distort what he is saying in verse 53, is a gross error.

It is clear in this chapter that he is not and was not speaking about communion. Yeshua is what gives us LIFE, eternal life and we are told this in Paul's writings. His blood represents the eternal Passover lamb. The Passover lamb was the annual sacrifice for the nation that was merely a placeholder for Yeshua who as the innocent Lamb in which no sin is found, was the ETERNAL covering for our individual and collective sin.

 

[Eloy Craft]

So, since "the flesh profits nothing", why would you think a piece of bread or grape juice does anything but help you remember?

oops. I doubt you really mean that Christ's flesh profits nothing. Spiritual reality doesn't exclude physical reality. Christ felt it important to prove that to the Apostles. This isn't an 'either or' but a 'both and' The Figurative meanings have unifying value but to think they are realities able to exclude a physical meaning isn't reasonable or biblical.

 

[Afra]

OK, but remember, Jesus said Himself, IT IS THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN THAT WE MUST EAT. In John 6:48, 50, 51, He makes this clear, that the bread is His Spirit/His words. Then He said He will give His flesh for the life of the world. So we believe in His Spirit, His words, His death and resurrection.
Vs. 63 clarifies the confusion they had: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
So, since "the flesh profits nothing", why would you think a piece of bread or grape juice does anything but help you remember?
Since we don't experience it actually changing physical form, you must believe this happens spiritually, right? So then you must agree that this is a spiritual and not physical/fleshly experience. The fact is, it doesn't turn into His body or blood - it remains bread and wine and digests through your system like any other food. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom".
But hey, we've beaten a dead horse as they say, enough of that.
Peace to you and blessings!

Perhaps, but I think that rather what is happening there is that our Lord is dispelling the notion that his physical flesh would be cut off from his bones and eaten in the same manner that we eat animal flesh. He tells us that he is going to give us his flesh in another way (which he does, of course, in the Eucharist).

That is why in verse 62, before he says "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life", he asks the question "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?"

St. Augustine goes into that a bit here:
CHURCH FATHERS: Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine)

1. We have just heard out of the Gospel the words of the Lord which follow the former discourse. From these a discourse is due to your ears and minds, and it is not unseasonable today; for it is concerning the body of the Lord which He said that He gave to be eaten for eternal life. And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, To be carnally-minded is death. Romans 7:6 The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally. As in these words that follow:

2. Many therefore, not of His enemies, but of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? If His disciples accounted this saying hard, what must His enemies have thought? And yet so it behooved that to be said which should not be understood by all. The secret of God ought to make men eagerly attentive, not hostile. But these men quickly departed from Him, while the Lord said such things: they did not believe Him to be saying something great, and covering some grace by these words; they understood just according to their wishes, and in the manner of men, that Jesus was able, or was determined upon this, namely, to distribute the flesh with which the Word was clothed, piecemeal, as it were, to those that believe in Him. This, say they, is a hard saying; who can hear it?

3. But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,— for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself — answered and said, This offends you; because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before; certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

4. And He said, It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Before we expound this, as the Lord grants us, that other must not be negligently passed over, where He says, Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? For Christ is the Son of man, of the Virgin Mary. Therefore Son of man He began to be here on earth, where He took flesh from the earth. For which cause it was said prophetically, Truth is sprung from the earth. Then what does He mean when He says, When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? For there had been no question if He had spoken thus: If you shall see the Son of God ascending where He was before. But since He said, The Son of man ascending where He was before, surely the Son of man was not in heaven before the time when He began to have a being on earth? Here, indeed, He said, where He was before, just as if He were not there at this time when He spoke these words. But in another place He says, No man has ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. John 3:13 He said not was, but, says He, the Son of man who is in heaven. He was speaking on earth, and He declared Himself to be in heaven. And yet He did not speak thus: No man has ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of God, who is in heaven. Whither tends it, but to make us understand that which even in the former discourse I commended to your minds, my beloved, that Christ, both God and man, is one person, not two persons, lest our faith be not a trinity, but a quaternity? Christ, therefore, is one; the Word, soul and flesh, one Christ; the Son of God and Son of man, one Christ; Son of God always, Son of man in time, yet one Christ in regard to unity of person. In heaven He was when He spoke on earth. He was Son of man in heaven in that manner in which He was Son of God on earth; Son of God on earth in the flesh which He took, Son of man in heaven in the unity of person.

5. What is it, then, that He adds? It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

6. Hence the words, says He, which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: The love of God, says he, is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us. Romans 5:5 Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens, for it is the Spirit that makes living members. Nor does the Spirit make any members to be living except such as it finds in the body, which also the Spirit itself quickens. For the Spirit which is in you, O man, by which it consists that you are a man, does it quicken a member which it finds separated from your flesh? I call your soul your spirit. Your soul quickens only the members which are in your flesh; if you take one away, it is no longer quickened by your soul, because it is not joined to the unity of your body. These things are said to make us love unity and fear separation. For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ's body. For if he is separated from Christ's body, he is not a member of Christ; if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. But if any man, says the apostle, have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. Romans 8:9 It is the Spirit, then, that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What means are spirit and life? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? So also are they spirit and life, but are not so to you.

 

[GingerBeer]

OK, but remember, Jesus said Himself, IT IS THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN THAT WE MUST EAT. In John 6:48, 50, 51, He makes this clear, that the bread is His Spirit/His words.

Your post misquotes what Jesus said. He said "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." (John 6:35) And he also said "48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (John 6:48-51)

Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven. And Jesus gives his flesh for the life of the world. You can take that however you like but he said he himself is the bread of life. Not as your post says. Your post incorrectly says that "the bread is His Spirit/His words" and that is just not the truth. It is not what the verses you cited say.

 

[devon]

If a friend asked you to remember him, would you frame a photograph of his bloody body at an accident scene, and stare at it? People (C or P) that are hooked up on that may just be missing everything Jesus lived for.

Willey, how are you? Yet here. Did you ever figure out what 1Cor. 12 and 14, and Ephecians 4, and Romans 12, and 1peter 5 and Acts 20 are all about? The organic, living, operating body of Christ with Jesus actually the Head?

 

[thecolorsblend]

We have different opinions and I guess that is why we have different religions. I don't know much about Catholicism but what I have heard it accused of is crucifying Christ each Mass in order to get the flesh and blood that they eat and drink.

I’ve never heard that before. I wouldn’t bet money on that. It sounds like a anticatholic false rumor.

The "Catholics crucify Our Lord in each Mass" misses the forest but hits the trees. It's inaccurate, poorly worded and yet not really a lie.

What Mass does is make Our Lord's sacrifice present, in the here and now. When Our Lord was on the cross, He said "It is complete" or "It is accomplished" or something similar depending on the translation. Obviously what He was referring to was His sacrifice.

As people, we live in a basically 4D world. Actually more dimensions than that but four seems to be the number that most people can wrap their heads around. It isn't controversial theology even to most Protestants to say that although Our Lord's sacrifice on the cross took place at a fixed moment in time, it nevertheless applies to the past as well as to the future. Our Lord paid the full price of sin, in the time before His ministry, during His human lifetime and for all the future.

However, the Church has an explicit recognition of that reality which some Protestants find troubling. They don't seem to realize that the one sacrifice Our Lord ever offered on the cross isn't being repeated in each Mass. Rather, the Mass recognizes that Our Lord's sacrifice has happened, it is happening and it will happen.

Our Lord made a 4D atonement on the cross which applies to the past, present and future. And I think Salvador Dali well understood this as exemplified by his wonderful Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) work.

Here we see Our Lord being crucified on a tesseract rather than a traditional cross. Four spatial dimensions, illustrating the 4D nature of Our Lord's sacrifice. As I say, His sacrifice transcends the moment in history in which it happened, reaching all the way back to the beginning of time and stretching all the way ahead to the end of time.

It is Sacrifice to the fourth power.

The Mass, thus, does not "re-crucify" Our Lord; it merely recognizes the past, present and future of His sacrifice. The Catholic Church recognizes the applicability of His sacrifice to the always-present moment in the Mass.

Admittedly this is tricky subject matter but there's a world of difference between the understanding that His sacrifice happened once for all times (literally for ALL times) and repeating the event unnecessarily in each Mass.

 

[sparow]

Well, the difference is that our Lord is not an animal. Nor is he only human. I think if you go back to the OT, you will notice that the prohibition on drinking animal blood was because the “life” of the animal was thought to be in the blood, and to drink it would defile the man by him consuming the life of an impure animal. On the other hand, there is nothing about God that could defile us. By receiving him we are sanctified, we receive divine life, we become partakers of the divine nature.

Also, if “eating flesh” is being used as a metaphor for belief, it is a rather poor metaphor, because in those times the metaphorical sense of eating flesh was to wage war on someone, not to believe in someone. You can see that in Revelation 19 an Psalm 27, for example, where the author uses eating flesh as a metaphor for making war against someone.

Anything that comes from God does not involve thinking or interpretation, OT or NT; those who read or hear certainly do a lot of thinking and interpreting. The Jews who were being spoken to were not offended, neither did they understand; and I have wonder about people today practicing communion, do many really commune?

 

[Ronald]

Perhaps, but I think that rather what is happening there is that our Lord is dispelling the notion that his physical flesh would be cut off from his bones and eaten in the same manner that we eat animal flesh. He tells us that he is going to give us his flesh in another way (which he does, of course, in the Eucharist).

That is why in verse 62, before he says "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life", he asks the question "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?"

St. Augustine goes into that a bit here:
CHURCH FATHERS: Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine)

1. We have just heard out of the Gospel the words of the Lord which follow the former discourse. From these a discourse is due to your ears and minds, and it is not unseasonable today; for it is concerning the body of the Lord which He said that He gave to be eaten for eternal life. And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, To be carnally-minded is death. Romans 7:6 The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally. As in these words that follow:

2. Many therefore, not of His enemies, but of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? If His disciples accounted this saying hard, what must His enemies have thought? And yet so it behooved that to be said which should not be understood by all. The secret of God ought to make men eagerly attentive, not hostile. But these men quickly departed from Him, while the Lord said such things: they did not believe Him to be saying something great, and covering some grace by these words; they understood just according to their wishes, and in the manner of men, that Jesus was able, or was determined upon this, namely, to distribute the flesh with which the Word was clothed, piecemeal, as it were, to those that believe in Him. This, say they, is a hard saying; who can hear it?

3. But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,— for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself — answered and said, This offends you; because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before; certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

4. And He said, It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Before we expound this, as the Lord grants us, that other must not be negligently passed over, where He says, Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? For Christ is the Son of man, of the Virgin Mary. Therefore Son of man He began to be here on earth, where He took flesh from the earth. For which cause it was said prophetically, Truth is sprung from the earth. Then what does He mean when He says, When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before? For there had been no question if He had spoken thus: If you shall see the Son of God ascending where He was before. But since He said, The Son of man ascending where He was before, surely the Son of man was not in heaven before the time when He began to have a being on earth? Here, indeed, He said, where He was before, just as if He were not there at this time when He spoke these words. But in another place He says, No man has ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. John 3:13 He said not was, but, says He, the Son of man who is in heaven. He was speaking on earth, and He declared Himself to be in heaven. And yet He did not speak thus: No man has ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of God, who is in heaven. Whither tends it, but to make us understand that which even in the former discourse I commended to your minds, my beloved, that Christ, both God and man, is one person, not two persons, lest our faith be not a trinity, but a quaternity? Christ, therefore, is one; the Word, soul and flesh, one Christ; the Son of God and Son of man, one Christ; Son of God always, Son of man in time, yet one Christ in regard to unity of person. In heaven He was when He spoke on earth. He was Son of man in heaven in that manner in which He was Son of God on earth; Son of God on earth in the flesh which He took, Son of man in heaven in the unity of person.

5. What is it, then, that He adds? It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

6. Hence the words, says He, which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: The love of God, says he, is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us. Romans 5:5 Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens, for it is the Spirit that makes living members. Nor does the Spirit make any members to be living except such as it finds in the body, which also the Spirit itself quickens. For the Spirit which is in you, O man, by which it consists that you are a man, does it quicken a member which it finds separated from your flesh? I call your soul your spirit. Your soul quickens only the members which are in your flesh; if you take one away, it is no longer quickened by your soul, because it is not joined to the unity of your body. These things are said to make us love unity and fear separation. For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ's body. For if he is separated from Christ's body, he is not a member of Christ; if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. But if any man, says the apostle, have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. Romans 8:9 It is the Spirit, then, that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What means are spirit and life? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? So also are they spirit and life, but are not so to you.

I prefer to believe, honor and worship the Lord with all my soul and spirit, as I am continuously nourished with His word, growing into His likeness with the grace, hope and peace He has provided. I cannot imagine our Lord reducing the essence of His being into a piece of bread and His blood into wine. It was miraculous enough that He became a human and dwelt among us. However, I will receive the bread and wine always as a remembrance of His sacrifice, but cannot accept that it is somehow the literal flesh of our Lord (as if that would be spiritually beneficial in some way).

 

[Afra]

I prefer to believe, honor and worship the Lord with all my soul and spirit, as I am continuously nourished with His word, growing into His likeness with the grace, hope and peace He has provided.

OK. But what does God prefer?

I cannot imagine our Lord reducing the essence of His being into a piece of bread and His blood into wine.

Why not? And is our Lord limited by what you can imagine?

However, I will receive the bread and wine always as a remembrance of His sacrifice, but cannot accept that it is somehow the literal flesh of our Lord (as if that would be spiritually beneficial in some way).

Oh, you most certainly can accept it. But you choose not to accept it.

Here is a quote for you to ponder: Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - St. Augustine

 

[BNR32FAN]

OK. But what does God prefer?

Why not? And is our Lord limited by what you can imagine?

Oh, you most certainly can accept it. But you choose not to accept it.

Here is a quote for you to ponder: Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - St. Augustine

Brother Ronald obviously loves and honors God and even though he doesn’t fully understand the significance of the Eucharist he still receives it out of obedience to The Lord. Understanding is not a requirement of salvation. His love, honor, and obedience is all that is required according to the scriptures.

 

[Afra]

Brother Ronald obviously loves and honors God

God is the judge of that.

His love, honor, and obedience is all that is required according to the scriptures.

Baptism is also required according to Sacred Scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I cannot imagine our Lord reducing the essence of His being into a piece of bread and His blood into wine. It was miraculous enough that He became a human and dwelt among us.

I find it interesting that you mentioned the Incarnation there. Because if you hadn't, I would have.

Something a lot of people don't understand is how unthinkable the idea of God becoming man was to the ancients. Today a lot of Christians are perfectly comfortable with the idea that God took on human flesh. But to the ancients, their prejudices didn't easily permit the idea that God would become human, require food, sweat, go to the bathroom, etc. It was simply unthinkable to them.

And yet, the spread of Christianity testifies to the fact that people eventually found a way to make peace with that idea.

My point is that if God can become man in a culture that was offended by that very concept, is it really so hard to believe that He is unable or unwilling to in effect become bread? It is true that many Protestants find the idea revolting. But their disgust is nothing compared to the disgust the ancients had at the prospect of the Incarnation.

If they can put aside their prejudices long enough to consider the Incarnation, is it really so challenging for you to put aside your prejudices long enough to consider the Eucharist?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are Protestants dead?

The title of this thread got my attention
Brings to mind this verse:

Luke 20:38
He is not God of the dead, but of the living,
for to Him all are alive."

 

[BNR32FAN]

I find it interesting that you mentioned the Incarnation there. Because if you hadn't, I would have.

Something a lot of people don't understand is how unthinkable the idea of God becoming man was to the ancients. Today a lot of Christians are perfectly comfortable with the idea that God took on human flesh. But to the ancients, their prejudices didn't easily permit the idea that God would become human, require food, sweat, go to the bathroom, etc. It was simply unthinkable to them.

And yet, the spread of Christianity testifies to the fact that people eventually found a way to make peace with that idea.

My point is that if God can become man in a culture that was offended by that very concept, is it really so hard to believe that He is unable or unwilling to in effect become bread? It is true that many Protestants find the idea revolting. But their disgust is nothing compared to the disgust the ancients had at the prospect of the Incarnation.

If they can put aside their prejudices long enough to consider the Incarnation, is it really so challenging for you to put aside your prejudices long enough to consider the Eucharist?

I don’t know of anyone who finds the Eucharist revolting. From what I’ve experienced the debate has been more about what Jesus was actually trying to convey. Was He simply saying we must eat bread and drink wine or was He saying that we must receive Him within us. That we must consume His knowledge and spirit and allow Him to dwell within us. In our heart. Personally I believe he was speaking figuratively because most of the people didn’t believe His message and only came to see Him because He gave them food. To me it seems pretty clear that His intention was to deliberately disgust those who didn’t believe in order to weed them out. If you notice the more they complained and argued the more He pushed the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood and that He is the Son of God. He was making it difficult for the nonbelievers to understand so they would leave.