Communion of the Body of Christ

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Do you see the legalism and lack of grace in your statement?

There is no lack of grace. God has promised to forgive sins through His Word and Sacraments. Is that legalism to you? God has chosen the means by which He will forgive our sins. His choice, not yours. His gifts to give, yours to receive in faith. Your problem is that you want to tell God what He can do, where He can be and how He can forgive based on nothing more than your whims and wants.

 

[Particular]

There is no lack of grace. God has promised to forgive sins through His Word and Sacraments. Is that legalism to you? God has chosen the means by which He will forgive our sins. His choice, not yours. His gifts to give, yours to receive in faith. Your problem is that you want to tell God what He can do, where He can be and how He can forgive based on nothing more than your whims and wants.

Sins are only forgiven of the elect, not of those who do not know God as their Savior. For the elect, sins are forgiven when we confess them (1 John 1:9). Neither communion nor baptism forgives sins simply by partaking in them. (Acts 2 is not saying baptism forgives sin. Peter is saying, Repent to have your sins forgiven and be baptized. The emphasis is on repentance. That is the Greek word that is connected to forgiveness, not baptism.)
You seem caught in legalism and a works based soteriology.
God's grace is not given out based upon the works of men. If it were, humans would not need grace.

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
~ Romans 11:2-6

 

[Josiah]

Your first question has already been answered in this thread.
Your second question is answered as: All of them.
Proof: The Apostles were not cannibals.

1. YOU claimed all the apostles understood that Jesus and Paul MEANT to say "symbolize" .... but you offered NOTHING from ANY Apostle to support your bold claim....


2. This thread is not about cannibals. You have been told, REPEATEDLY, that no Christian has EVER taught that we consume Jesus. The absurdity you echo is from PAGAN HATERS of Christ and Christianity, you simply echo them. Christ is RECEIVED in the Sacrament but not CONSUMED. When those haters of Christ charged Christians with this absurdity (found nowhere in Scripture), did any of them, did even one of them, even ONE BELIEVER IN 1500 YEARS, reply, "No because Jesus and Paul misspoke and didn't mean what they said, it's only a metaphor, only a worthless symbol?" NO! Not one! Not ever! What they said is: Jesus is received but not consumed, they believed Real Presence (or at least there is ZERO evidence that EVEN ONE did not). You should stop this silly accusation of PAGAN HATERS of Christ. BTW, your view (first invented in the 16th Century) is NOT because Zwingli thought he was a cannibal but because his lay concept of physics meant that what Jesus said and Paul penned COULD NOT BE TRUE, and he appointed himself to correct Jesus and Paul. You echo him, only you chose to embrace the ignorant argument of PAGAN HATERS of Christ rather than appeal to medieval concepts of physics (maybe you don't want to go there because I have a Ph.D. in physics?)

 

[Josiah]

You are right - "IS" means "NOT IS"...

1. I'm still waiting for him to quote from a dictionary (ANY dictionary!) where the meaning of "is" is NOT.


2. And for some explanation for why bread and wine fully exist after the "IS" but not body, blood or forgiveness. Why SOME of what "is" actually is but not most? Well, I know the answer: because he says so. Never mind what Jesus said.... never mind what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write... never mind what every Christian on the planet believed for over 1500 years... he knows.


3. And this view seems founded on his conviction that PAGANS who HATED Christ must be right: Christians are cannibals. He echos THEIR ignorant, hateful accusation.... rather than believe what Christians hold: We receive Christ but don't consume Him (in a physical sense) Those unbelivers who HATE Christ must be right, Christians must be wrong. Personally, I much prefer the usual Zwinglian argument: What Jesus said cannot be true so someone has to correct Him. I like that better than "The pagan haters of Christ are right."


- Josiah



.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

"Sins are only forgiven of the elect, not of those who do not know God as their Savior. For the elect, sins are forgiven when we confess them (1 John 1:9). Neither communion nor baptism forgives sins simply by partaking in them. (Acts 2 is not saying baptism forgives sin. Peter is saying, Repent to have your sins forgiven and be baptized. The emphasis is on repentance. That is the Greek word that is connected to forgiveness, not baptism.)"

The unforgiven would not be hearing God's word or receiving the Sacraments by faith, because they are not saved. God instituted the Sacraments to deliver forgiveness to us and yes Acts 2:38-39 absolutely says baptism saves you and forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. It's right there on the page for all to see. The Sacraments are not works we do for God, they are gifts God gives to us by grace.

"You seem caught in legalism and a works based soteriology."

I'm not, I have never said we do works to receive forgiveness of sins. That's just your refusal to understand Scripture and what it actually says.

"God's grace is not given out based upon the works of men. If it were, humans would not need grace."

I never said the Sacraments were works we do for God. That's just an error you've been taught and don't care to correct.

"God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

~ Romans 11:2-6"

I have never said it was based upon works. You are the one who thinks God has to perform how you want Him to. That He can forgive sins only in ways you are comfortable with. You say Baptism and Communion don't forgive our sins. Have you not read Scripture? Do you not believe what Acts 2 says? What Matthew 26 says? I'd have to say that no you do not believe the plain words of Scripture.

 

[Particular]

1. YOU claimed all the apostles understood that Jesus and Paul MEANT to say "symbolize" .... but you offered NOTHING from ANY Apostle to support your bold claim....


2. This thread is not about cannibals. You have been told, REPEATEDLY, that no Christian has EVER taught that we consume Jesus. The absurdity you echo is from PAGAN HATERS of Christ and Christianity, you simply echo them. Christ is RECEIVED in the Sacrament but not CONSUMED. When those haters of Christ charged Christians with this absurdity (found nowhere in Scripture), did any of them, did even one of them, even ONE BELIEVER IN 1500 YEARS, reply, "No because Jesus and Paul misspoke and didn't mean what they said, it's only a metaphor, only a worthless symbol?" NO! Not one! Not ever! What they said is: Jesus is received but not consumed, they believed Real Presence (or at least there is ZERO evidence that EVEN ONE did not). You should stop this silly accusation of PAGAN HATERS of Christ. BTW, your view (first invented in the 16th Century) is NOT because Zwingli thought he was a cannibal but because his lay concept of physics meant that what Jesus said and Paul penned COULD NOT BE TRUE, and he appointed himself to correct Jesus and Paul. You echo him, only you chose to embrace the ignorant argument of PAGAN HATERS of Christ rather than appeal to medieval concepts of physics (maybe you don't want to go there because I have a Ph.D. in physics?)

1. Nether do you for bread and wine becoming human flesh and human blood.

2. If the bread turns to flesh and the wine turns to blood (Real Presence) then it is cannibalism.

 

[Josiah]

1. Nether do you for bread and wine becoming human flesh and human blood.

I don't hold to that position as you have been told perhaps over 20 times now.

. If the bread turns to flesh and the wine turns to blood then it is cannibalism.

1. I reject the "if." I accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. If you would have accepted the exercise you were repeatedly asked to do, you'd know that the word "turn" never appears in any Eucharistic text. Nor does "change" or "become" or "alchemy" or "transubstantiation" or "not" or "seems" or "symbol" or "represent" You'd KNOW that if you read the texts.


2. As you have been informed REPEATEDLY, you're echoing and embracing PAGAN HATERS of Christ on this matter is simply echoing their lack of faith and ignorance. NO ONE ON THE PLANET holds that anyone consumes Christ in the Eucharist. Your attempt to embrace the argument of pagan haters of Christ rather than embrace what Jesus and Paul state only weakens your view (not even Zwingli would do what you are).


3. READ post 131. In spite of being informed at least 20 times now, you STILL have no idea what Real Presence is.... nor what is the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.




.



.

 

[Particular]

I don't hold to that position as you have been told perhaps over 20 times now.






1. I reject the "if." I accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. If you would have accepted the exercise you were repeatedly asked to do, you'd know that the word "turn" never appears in any Eucharistic text. Nor does "change" or "become" or "alchemy" or "transubstantiation" or "not" or "seems" or "symbol" or "represent" You'd KNOW that if you read the texts.


2. As you have been informed REPEATEDLY, you're echoing and embracing PAGAN HATERS of Christ on this matter is simply echoing their lack of faith and ignorance. NO ONE ON THE PLANET holds that anyone consumes Christ in the Eucharist. Your attempt to embrace the argument of pagan haters of Christ rather than embrace what Jesus and Paul state only weakens your view (not even Zwingli would do what you are).


3. READ post 131. In spite of being informed at least 20 times now, you STILL have no idea what Real Presence is.... nor what is the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.




.



.

I understand, which is why I don't consider your quasi position to be actual real presence.
Is isn't actually is.

 

[Josiah]

I understand

I find that extremely unlikely - given the confusion, amazing misrepresentations, and pagan accusations you give. You appear to have ZERO understanding of Real Presence (in spite of several explaining it well - like 20 times now) and very little understanding of the modern Catholic view of Transubstantiation, and NO understanding of the difference between them.

 

[Particular]

I find that extremely unlikely - given the confusion, amazing misrepresentations, and pagan accusations you give. You appear to have ZERO understanding of Real Presence (in spite of several explaining it well - like 20 times now) and very little understanding of the modern Catholic view of Transubstantiation, and NO understanding of the difference between them.

I understand. You want your quasi version to be valid. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing.

 

[Arsenios]

Be honest please.

I believe Christ and not you...

You believe your church.

I believe Christ and not you...

You don't believe Jesus

I believe Jesus and not you...

is literally a giant head and everyone in the church is literally a body part.

No one said that except you...

You believe your church.

I believe Christ and not you...

You don't literally believe you are consuming a human piece of meat and human blood.

No one said that except you...

Is doesn't really mean is.

Obviously, for you, IS means NOT IS...

I believe Christ and not you...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

1. Nether do you for bread and wine becoming human flesh and human blood.

2. If the bread turns to flesh and the wine turns to blood (Real Presence) then it is cannibalism.

Joh 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.

I believe Jesus and not you...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Is isn't actually is.

I believe Jesus and not you...

IS is not NOT IS...


Arsenios

 

[Particular]

I believe Christ and not you...



I believe Christ and not you...



I believe Jesus and not you...



No one said that except you...



I believe Christ and not you...



No one said that except you...



Obviously, for you, IS means NOT IS...

I believe Christ and not you...


Arsenios

Great, you believe Christ. That is as it should be. Which means you don't believe what your church teaches since Christ didn't teach what your church teaches.
I am happy you believe Christ. That is as it should be for all of us.

 

[Particular]

Joh 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.

I believe Jesus and not you...


Arsenios

Does is mean is in that verse? Is Jesus saying he's a living loaf of bread? Is Jesus saying any person who eats the bread loaf will never physically die?
Is Jesus being uncompromisingly literal?

 

[Particular]

I believe Jesus and not you...

IS is not NOT IS...


Arsenios

Jesus said "IS is NOT IS...?"
Chapter and verse please.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus said "IS is NOT IS...?"
Chapter and verse please.

Chapter and verse where Jesus said of Communion, "what I said isn't true.... nothing is present except bread and wine.... the meaning of is is is not..... Paul was wrong to say if you receive it wrongly ergo judgment will come because all that's present is just bread and wine.... is means symbolize......" Quote Him (or Paul) saying that. Quote ANY Apostle saying that. Quote ANY Christian for the first 1500+ years of Christianity saying that.

 

[Particular]

Chapter and verse where Jesus said of Communion, "what I said isn't true.... nothing is present except bread and wine.... the meaning of is is is not..... Paul was wrong to say if you receive it wrongly ergo judgment will come because all that's present is just bread and wine.... is means symbolize......" Quote Him (or Paul) saying that. Quote ANY Apostle saying that. Quote ANY Christian for the first 1500+ years of Christianity saying that.

The Corinthians were actually eating an entire meal, not just a wafer and a shot glass of wine.
They were partying and leaving out the poor who had nothing. They were being exclusive rather than inclusive of all believers (perhaps something for closed communion advocates to think about). They were disrespecting the meal and turning it into debauchery. That is why God's wrath was upon them. It was not because some failed to think the bread and wine had failed to become Jesus actual body and blood, as you believe.

Josiah, do you think your churches ceremony is an exact replica of the last supper or does it symbolize what took place?

 

[Albion]

The Corinthians were actually eating an entire meal, not just a wafer and a shot glass of wine.

Nobody else was eating a "wafer" and a shot glass of wine, either.

 

[Particular]

Nobody else was eating a "wafer" and a shot glass of wine, either.

Do you think your churches ceremony is an exact replica of the last supper or does it symbolize what took place?