• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured John 22-71 a case for Calvinism?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by friend of, Aug 25, 2017.

  1. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    He is talking about His Word, and His grace, and His love, and His plan of Salvation for me, which I do liberally partake of. And if you aren't as thirsty for His love for you, then maybe you should take a refresher course in what His living water actually means.

    BTW, the term "living water" means fresh running water, as from an artisian well, or similar source.
     
  2. Marvin Knox

    Marvin Knox Senior Veteran

    +1,429
    Protestant
    Married
    Mystical (Websters):
    "having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence"

    Just use the magic word mystical and anything can mean anything. :scratch:
    No - it's not one of the core beliefs and it is not in the Bible - as I have shown. What is in the Bible is something entirely different than your dogma.
    Yes I can.

    "That's not Scriptural."

    By the way - I doubt that God really cares a whole lot if you hold this non scriptural dogma so long as it doesn't become part of a system which denies that a person is justified before God only by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on his behalf.
     
  3. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    I did, and I found that the Reformers were wrong!

    All of these imply that Catholics are not Christian, simply because we are not SMUG enough to walk around saying, "I got SAVED!!!"

    You said,
    Physician, heal thyself! Now report yourself.

    Finally, please tell me where I said that tradition is over Scripture! And remember, Scripture is just another form of tradition. NONE of it was originally written down. From Adam to Moses, it was all an oral tradition. The Psalms, Proverbs, Histories, Prophecies, etc. were NOT originally written down. All of them were written down by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah. A 400 year gap shows up in the KJV, while Catholic and Orthodox Bibles continue the history almost up to the time of the building of the 2nd Temple. Then, the Gospels, Acts, all of the Epistles, were written down and collated by Early Church Fathers in the 2nd-4th Centuries

    . Do you really want to argue TRADITION with me?
     
  4. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    Too bad you can't discern spiritual things spiritually.

    So, the Eucharist DOES have a spiritual meaning or REALITY that is not at all apparent or obvious to your senses or intelligence.
     
  5. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    As I have said before on these fora, transubstantiation is only the METHOD, the HOW God changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, and this is a very Thomistic approach (Thomas Aquinas) that I personally disagree with, as do ALL Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
     
  6. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +26,683
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Book chapter and verse would also be required for Torah and its symbols. However, they are symbols, types and shadows none the less.
     
  7. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    In other words, you don't have a direct quote to answer me, or you would have. So, let's go back to my question: Show me, Book, Chapter and Verse where Jesus talks about His Body being "symbolic."
     
  8. Marvin Knox

    Marvin Knox Senior Veteran

    +1,429
    Protestant
    Married
    They don't imply anything of the sort.

    They merely challenge anyone reading my words to be sure they are in the faith.

    If they are found in the end to not be in the faith, God will sort them out.
    It's not smugness. It's faith.
    Show me where I said that anyone was not saved because he was not in the faith and I will. I have always said that it's up to God. I hope His net is larger than I think it might be. But people still need to examine what they believe - particularly as it applies to soteriology.
    You have not said it directly. But, since you put more value on the tradition of the bread and wine changing into the body and blood than what the scriptures warrant - your tradition over scripture stance is obvious.
    I just did and I will do it again.

    The changing of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood is not in the scriptures and yet you place extreme value on it in spite of what is warranted by reading the text.

    That obviously makes it a tradition and not scripture by any definition of the words.
    I can.
    That's what you said. I disagree.
     
  9. Lily of Valleys

    Lily of Valleys Well-Known Member

    785
    +416
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    Then why don't you take "living water" literally as "fresh running water" that you can literally drink and ask Jesus for this literal "fresh running water" like how you take "wine" means the literal "blood" of Jesus?

    And why don't you take "thirsty" literally as being "thirsty" for the literal "fresh running water" like how you interpret the wine as literally being the blood of Jesus?

    Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:10-14 NASB)
     
  10. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +26,683
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ok I'll play. When did Jesus tell the apostles the bread and cup were transubstantiated?

    Symbols and types are used in direct metaphors. I'm sure you may have taught an English class as clergy.
     
  11. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,743
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    "Do this in remembrance of me " The Greek noun is anamnesis [ajnavmnhsi"] same word being used in Hebrews 10:3

    Hebrews 10:3
    But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

    The sacrifices of the law only served as a reminder of the sins. It makes sense that the same meaning of 'serving as a reminder' of His death is just that ... a reminder ... not the actual body nor is it a reinactment of sins.

    ETA link Remember, Remembrance Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  12. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,743
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    It's a lot like pray without ceasing if one abides in the Presence. There's a song that's played at church a lot "Come Holy Spirit" That's not biblical. The Holy Spirit and bride await Christ. The Spirit should already be with all members of the Body. I don't think that's just my opinion either.
     
  13. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    First of all, you have thrown that particular bit of the Gospel of John at me before. Believe me, I have read it, in several different translations. When I quote the KJV, I use it because a lot of Protestants use that as a "touchstone" about whether someone is really saved or not. So don't bother trying it on me any more. And you don't seem to understand that I AM drinking of this LIVING WATER on a daily basis, so I don't get thirsty. I have been "saved" for 40 years. Stop evangelizing at me. Got it?
     
  14. Lily of Valleys

    Lily of Valleys Well-Known Member

    785
    +416
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    I am not testing you whether you are really saved or not. I am just trying to find out what makes you decide the living water in John 4 is to be interpreted figuratively while the blood of Jesus in John 6 is to be interpreted literally. They are both clear words from Jesus. Would you be able to let me know why?
     
  15. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    Both are real--both are interpreted literally. But you don't see people out hiking with Bibles instead of water bottles.

    But the same reasoning goes back to you. I want reasons, now, not Scripture. Why do YOU believe that the bread and wine are symbolic, but the living water is literal?

    And remember, you can't stop when you're hiking, get out your Bible, and take a swig of water. No matter HOW many times you hold it up to your lips to drink, you're still only going to get paper and ink.
     
  16. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,705
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    As I know I have mentioned previously on these fora, TRANSUBSTANTIATION is the METHOD that the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe the HOW in how the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood. This particular thought came from St. Thomas Aquinas, trying, again, to explain the HOW. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches to more or less degree, say that it is a MYSTERY, in other words, we don't know how God does it, but during the anaphora, the bread and Wine really become, in a mystical manner, the Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

    We don't NEED to understand the HOW. We just know it happens.
     
  17. Lily of Valleys

    Lily of Valleys Well-Known Member

    785
    +416
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    Then you are not interpreting the living water literally like how you interpret the bread literally. These are what we call interpreting the living water and bread literally:

    She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? (John 4:11 NASB)

    Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52 NASB)

    In John 4, Jesus said whoever drinks of the living water shall never thirst and will have eternal life:

    Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14 NASB)

    In John 6, Jesus said whoever eats the bread of life (His flesh) will not hunger and will have eternal life:

    Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:35 NASB)

    This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. (John 6:50-51 NASB)

    He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:54 NASB)

    According to your interpretation, the living water Jesus said is not literally water, and we do not literally drink it, but the bread of life Jesus said is literally His flesh, and you literally eat it. So you interpret what Jesus said in a different way from the Samaritan woman while in the same way as the Jews.

    I interpret both the living water and the bread and wine symbolically, not literally. As you can see from the above, there is parallel in both. Jesus said he who comes to me will not hunger, and who believes in me will never thirst. Jesus was using what people at the time were the most concerned with - food and drink - to explain spiritual truth.

    Besides, there is a pattern in how Jesus had a tendency to teach using parables and metaphors throughout the gospels:

    "I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7)
    "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:14)
    “I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)
    “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser" (John 15:1)
    “I am the vine; you are the branches." (John 15:5)

    By the same token, no matter how many times I take the Lord's Supper, the bread still tastes like bread and has texture like bread, not human flesh; and the grape juice still tastes like juice, not human blood. And people who are allergic to the ingredients of the bread still have an allergic reaction after taking the bread.

    Most importantly, Jesus still called the cup the fruit of the vine even after passing the bread and the cup to His disciples:

    While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom. (Matthew 26:26-29 NASB)​
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
  18. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +799
    Non-Denom
    Married
    We really have to place ourselves in Nicodemus’ shoes at this particular time to figure out what he was thinking, where he was spiritually, and why he did what he did.

    Yes, Nicodemus was a learned man, but Jesus looks beyond any person, virtually avoiding the words spoken by the person and sees what is on the heart and mind of the person. Jesus sees a huge problem on the heart and mind of Nicodemus a conflict within him, which we should be able to derive from what we know.

    When anyone approaches Christ, we can be assured Christ will address where they are at that moment to help the individual move up the spiritual latter of development. The very best place to start with anyone is with the truth they are certain of, but are personally refusing to do. You are putting the question back on them and it is not intellectual but life changing response needed. I try to ask questions and start with what we agree on but Christ would not have to ask questions.

    Nicodemus is part of the Sanhedrin which knows OT scripture extensively, but at this time might not be certain Jesus is the Messiah. What they are certain of by this time, is John the Baptist is a messenger from God teaching the truth. They avoid the topic of John and John himself, because John is speaking out against the Religious leader’s hypocrisy (which they knew was true and they were hypocrites), so they instituted the kicking out of the Sanhedrin anyone who was baptized by John the Baptist.

    I am sure: Nicodemus would love to have a nice intellectual discussion with Jesus, but where would Jesus want to begin with Nicodemus?

    Jesus would start with what Nicodemus knows is true, but is refusing to do, but Jesus will also force Nicodemus to think and force him to confront the truth he already knows. Jesus does not have to tell Nicodemus what Nicodemus already knows, since that would also suggest Jesus did not know what Nicodemus knew (that would make Jesus words a lie [like Jesus did not know something already]).

    Jesus just cannot say: “You need to accept John’s baptism and be baptized”, because Nicodemus knows that and Christ knows he knows that. Christ does not want us doing stuff just because we have been “ordered” to do it, but because it is our choice to do it out of Love. Nicodemus will come to the realization Jesus knows what he is even thinking, but it may not come at that very moment. Nicodemus will leave still hypocritically refusing to accept John’s baptism to really stay in the Sanhedrin.

    John’s baptism in this case is referring to being born again and for Nicodemus to submit John’s baptism would be a born again experience since he would be leaving the Sanhedrin.

    OK but Judas was not spiritually minded at this time either.


    Was anyone regenerated prior to Pentecost?

    If Judas felt leading the soldiers to Jesus would not really get them anything, but would get him 30 pieces of silver, what’s the big deal?

    Like when the prodigal son brought himself to his senses by his own poor conduct, each of us over time will be brought to our senses and can make the choice to be macho going on fighting or wimp out and quit fighting God (surrender).

    James saw a lot of Jesus but he like those at this time (after the feeding of the 5000), was not a “follower”, but that does not mean he would be lost.

    A earthly teacher (even a false teacher) can present God’s revelation, so in that respect their spiritual eyes were open, but what is the difference between those who open their eyes and those who keep their eyes closed?

    Being on Jesus’ left and right side in an earthly kingdom (which is what they were thinking at the time) is not just some “intellectual pursuit”?

    What? Judas wanted the 30 pieces of silver for himself not to put in the group’s money bag.

    “God (Christ) tempts no one”.

    The whole situation Judas created would allow Judas to truly have the very best opportunity to repent, but he chose instead to kill himself.
     
  19. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,743
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I don't accept this explanation. First because Nicodemus was a Pharisee therefore not part of the Sanhedrin. John 3:1
    But more importantly rebirth does not mean a shift in circumstances!!!! but rather a new nature entirely in which one is born into the Kingdom of God. John 3:3
    John the Baptist had familiarized Pharisees with the words of water and the spirit. Matthew 3:11 So there shouldn't have been any need for Jesus to explain further. Also they should have been familiar with the concept of living water from their scriptures Jeremiah 17:13; Zechariah 14:8-9

    Jesus' ministry was Spirit-based and that is what He was telling Nicodemus about John 3:5 He was introducing him to the concept of the new creation, not a new turn in his natural life. He was telling Nicodemus about regeneration. But the mystery had not yet unfolded so it was impossible for him to understand heavenly things. But worse yet that he didn't even understand earthly things. John 3:12
    Jesus showed the regeneration to Nicodemus in John 3:6. The first Spirit is Holy Spirit and the second spirit is human spirit. Born of the Holy Spirit is regeneration of the human spirit. Like the wind is invisible yet it still is a fact. But understanding how that can be lags far behind.
     
  20. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,743
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I just posted this in reply on the discipleship forum but it may do well to post here too.

    I think that what a lot of people don't realize is that, like Jesus, we still retain both natures after regeneration. That's the only way that free-will remains. If we just received God's nature and if our old nature immediately died we definately would be sinless creations immediately. But God's plan is much more complicated than that because He has left us with our old natures that the bible says needs to come under submission to the new nature. An ongoing battle rages within the new creation. This is the time of sanctification. It's really what Romans 7 is describing.

    Putting to death the deeds of the body is the process of the old being replaced to the new Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5; Colossians 3:8. That's pretty much comes down to the lifetime process we all as Christians aka the new creation have to go thru. Colossians 3:10. Understanding being not under control of the old nature and being under control of God is the key to understanding how to yield to this new nature imo because we truly are new creations! 2 Corinthians 5:17 but it's Christ we need daily. He comes to our rescue to save us from that body of death we carry about with us. Romans 7:24-25 Thank You Lord Jesus! Every day!

    The unique experience of each of us shows God's love and care for us as individuals, so never be dismayed that one new creation's experience of sanctification is not the same as your experience of sanctification. As bling has said
    That is what Jesus does with each of us when we daily go to God in prayer and the Holy Spirit brings those things to mind. Don't sear the conscience by refusing that truth you have been given.

    ETA it's when we don't pick up our cross by not going to Him so that we can die daily that sins back up, accumulate and throw us into a state of confusion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
Loading...