Continuing from my posts above...
THE LAST SUPPER/THE HOLY EUCHARIST/COMMUNION:
Matthew 26:26-28
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat,
this is my
body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for
this is my
blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
The Lord Jesus on the night when ee was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my
body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup 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 this
cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the
bread or drinks the
cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the
body and
blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the
bread and drink of the
cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the
body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."
MY view of His presense...
1. I believe the meaning of is is is.
2. I beleive that we literally receive Christ, in both natures (Real Presense).
3. I believe we ALSO receive bread and wine, so that we receive 4 things: Body, Blood, bread and wine. I leave the physics of that completely to mystery.
Personal opinions...
1. The Bible actually says little about this ritual. But I believe it was important in the first century church and has a long, strong, positive history among us. I embrace that this is something the whole (catholic) church does together, that's very meaningful to me, there is a very, very strong "community" aspect to "communion."
2. The Eucharist is God's way of hugging us.
3. I view this as a Sacrament (something God does for us) rather than as an Ordinance (something we do for God). I view it as Gospel, not Law. A blessing, not obedience (although that's involved).
4. I find it profoundly odd and sad that this Blessing, meant to unite us and express our COMMUNION, is something Christians love to fight over and use in divisive, hurtful, exclusive and sometimes prideful ways. Ironic beyond understanding.
Word of Pope Gelasius
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” Gelasius, bishop of Rome, in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14."
Actually the Real Presense is more scriptural than the modern theology of "only symbolic" since that theology has to twist Jesus' words to be something other than what He said.
I agree.
The same applies to the new, distinctive RCC dogma of Transubstantiation.
Let's look at what Jesus said (read the words):
"Now as they were eating , Jesus took BREAD (what does He say here? Do you know what bread is?) and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take and eat, this is (what did He say here? Did He say "converted?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?") My Body.(what does He say here? Do you know what Body is?)' And He took the cup (do you agree, He means wine?) and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them saying, "Drink of this cup all of you, for this is (what did He say here? Did He say "just converted into?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?) My Blood ( what did He say here? Do you know that Blood means?) which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you the truth, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (I'm sure you'll agree, this means wine) again until that day when I drink it (referring back to "fruit of the vine") in my Father's Kingdom."
Some notes:
1. BEFORE the consecration, Jesus speaks of bread and wine. Catholics agree bread means bread and wine means wine.
2. Jesus then speak of "is." He does NOT say "converts" or "changed into" or "an alchemic transubstantiation happened" rather He says "is."
3. AFTER the consecration, Jesus speaks of Body (which Catholics understand as body), Blood (which Catholics understand as blood) and wine (which Catholics oddly now entirely and completely shift gears. To this point, they have taken the words literally and "at face value." But now they entirely shift gears BUT ONLY FOR THIS SINGLE WORD - not any of the other words before or after. This "wine" doesn't mean wine, it means the Aristotelian accident of wine - a very symbolic interpretation of a single word ripped out of a sentence where every other word is taken literally and. It is a "half real, half not" split interpretation.
Now, let's look at what St. Paul penned by divine inspiration in First Corinthians 11:23-29:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ on the night when He was betrayed , took bread (Catholics agree that bread = bread) and when He had given thanks, He broke it (bread) and said, "This is (note He said "is" not "converted into" not "changed into" not "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) My body (Catholics agree that body = body) which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. In the same manner, He also took the cup (which Catholics agree means wine) after supper saying, "This cup (wine) is (is, not just converted, an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) my blood (Catholics agree blood = blood). Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread (note Jesus said BREAD - the exact same word He used before that Catholics teach means bread, but now they again suddenly and radically shift gears, all has been literal so far but now a single word is ripped out and given a symbolic "non real" interpretation using Aristotle's theory of accidents to dismiss what Jesus said. NO! Jesus said bread, Catholics agree, but that's not what He meant to say, what He MEANT to say was, "this BODY still has the Aristotelian Accident of bread but it's not bread so I don't know why I said bread, I didn't mean to") and drink this cup (Catholics told us that cup = wine, but now they've changed it - it really means blood) you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread (notice: Paul refers to BREAD more often AFTER the Consecration than he does before it!!!!! Same word. But Catholics insist Paul really MEANT to say "Body with the mere Aristotelian Accident or appearance or specie of bread but not really bread") or drinks this cup (earlier Catholics insisted that cup = wine) in an unworthly manner will be guilty of profaning the body (Catholics now entirely abandon all efforts to interpret things symbolically and via Aristotle's Theory of Accidents and arbitrarily completely shift all gears, and insist that body = body) and blood (Catholics are back to literalism and have forgotten all about Aristotle, we're back to blood = blood) of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread (Catholics now forget about being literal and suddenly remember Aristotle again!!! OBVIOUSLY bread does not mean bread, when Jesus says bread He means the mere Aristotelian accident of bread cuz it's not bread, Jesus made a little slip there) and drink of the cup (Catholic are back to the Aristotelian symbolic meanings now) . For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body (Actually, this isn't about symbolic Aristotelian accidents and appearance or species - Jesus means what He says! Body - body!") eats and drinks judgement on himself."
Notes:
1. Paul speaks FAR MORE of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration than he does before it.
2. Post 1551 Catholics join with Zwinglian Protestants in insisting on a split "half real/half not" interpretation of the texts - arbitrarily and without ANY textual reason, they insist that everything Jesus said is literal - except for either bread and wine (Catholics denying that via Aristotelian accidents) or body and blood (Zwinglians denying that via figurative speech). BOTH are in exactly the same "half is, half isn't" camp - they just don't agree on which is real and which isn't. Same/same.
Another post on this:
SOME Protestants teach that SOME of what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration after the Consecration is to be taken LITERALLY (bread and wine) and some is to be taken in some other less-than-entirely-LITERAL sense (Body and Blood). IMHO, this is no different than Transubstantiation that says that SOME of what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration after the Consecration is to be taken literally (Body and Blood) and some to be taken in some other less-than-entirely-LITERAL sense (bread and wine). Transubstantiation does not DENY that bread and wine are "there" in SOME sense (Aristotelian accidents) and nor does the Zwinglian DENY that Christ is "there" in SOME sense (spiritual or in His Divine Nature alone).
Lutherans and Anglicans (who make up one-third to one-half of Protestants - depending on whose numbers you use and who you regard as "Protestant") embrace the Dogma of Real Presence but not the unique Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation. Lutherans, Anglicans (as well as Orthodox and many Methodist) embrace that at the Consecration, Christ IS present (the point is BEING rather than any molecules or substance undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation) - not because alchemy would enable this but because Christ said so and Paul affirmed as he penned God's Scriptures. We affirm that we recieve Christ's literal, real, physical Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist not because Aristotle's theory of accidents could be applied to deny that there is bread and wine but because Jesus said we are receiving His Body and Blood and St. Paul affirmed that as he penned God's Scriptures. We believe that "is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood, because it does and because there's no textual reason to interpret otherwise - nothing to suggest some "figure of speech" such as a metaphor or Aristotelian theory is being taught.
Lutherans and Anglicans do not DOGMATICALLY DENY that bread and wine are "there" since both Jesus and Paul said so - IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as Jesus said and Paul pinned that Body and Blood are there . It just to us an entirely moot point. If I were over 21, I could consume wine anytime (LOL) but only in the Blessed Sacrament do we receive Christ's Body and Blood with all the Eucharistic Blessings!!!! Each Sunday, when my Lutheran pastor places the Host on my tongue, his words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ." He doesn't DOGMATICALLY deny that bread is there, too, but who cares? We just don't share the enormous interest of our full, unseparated and equal brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church over supporting some foreign "half is, half isn't" interpretation so as to dogmatically deny the real presence of the bread and wine. Frankly, we just are not interested in the wine and bread when CHRIST is here!!! And we just see no need for alchemy or Aristotle to agree with what Jesus and Paul said - God's Word is more than enough, we see it as moot what two now entirely rejected theories are. Christ is here! "Is" = is! "Body" = Body! Blood = blood! We affirm Real Presence but we do not affirm the 1551 Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation - and yes, we know that has been a major issue of division of Catholics toward us.
See Post #30 for another post on the Eucharist!
VIEWS ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED'
Gospel:
Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.
John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.
Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."
Law:
John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."
1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."
Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples."
Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life."
Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them"
Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel."
Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."
2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."
2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."
Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.
Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."
As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them.
The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.
MY view...
- Josiah
I'll be posting more stuff in this thread from time to time...
.