Question About Vows

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Fidei Defensor, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you saying that you wouldn't label snake-handling in services as an odd doctrine? Or "Jesus only" doctrine? Or Christian Science's "mind over matter" doctrine? I'm not hesitant to call those ideas odd, if not worse (heretical).

    I hope you don't actually "come around" all the way to transubstantiation. This doctrine causes its adherents to bow down in homage to a man-made wafer as Almighty God; if this were pleasing to God, He would have had no problem with the golden calf. The idea of physically eating the actual human flesh and blood of the pre-incarnate Jesus is a concept I now find repulsive, as well as pointless (new birth is a spiritual change, and we feed on Christ spiritually, so nothing spiritual can be gained from a physical ingestion of Almighty God even were it possible to do so).
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    124
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Quite so. John Wycliffe, father of the English Reformation once said. "If Rome can get them to believe that, it can get them to believe anything".
    .
     
  3. Fidei Defensor

    Fidei Defensor Active Member

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    Kingdom of Heaven
    Religion:
    Christian
    I do not count heterdox groups such as LDS, Christian Science (which does not affirm the divinity of Jesus), Jehovah Witnesses, Gnostics, or sects of Messianic Judaism that deny the divinity of Jesus as Christian.

    To be Christian a group one must affirm and believe the Nicene Creed, Apostle’s Creed, and The Holy Scriptures.
     
  4. Fidei Defensor

    Fidei Defensor Active Member

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    Kingdom of Heaven
    Religion:
    Christian
    Before I get declared a Papist or whatever, let me turn you to some Scriptures the Transubstantiationlists use to prove their view:

    “53So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.54But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day.55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.57 I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me.58I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.” (John 6:53-58) Granted one coukd say his is a parable or metaphor Jesus isxusing to convey a spiritusl truth, but its hard to skip over the line, “For my flesh is true (liferal) food, and my blood is true (literal) drink.” (John 6:55)

    19He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”20After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)

    “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
    17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
    18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?
    19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
    20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.
    21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
    ” (1 Corinthians 10:16-21) Here Paul says wecparticipate in the blood of Christ when we drink the cho ans he ilkusgrates that the priests of old ate the sacrificed to God in the temple and so this raises the question if Jesus is being literal in John 6:55, “my body is literal food and my blood literal drink.”

    “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
    24 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.”
    25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
    26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
    27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
    28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
    29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
    30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died.

    31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such jusgwment.” (1 Corinthians 10:23-31).

    Here clinches Transubstantiation:

    For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

    That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died.
    ” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).

    It is clear Transubstantiation can be supported with Scripture and is not some “odd” Romanite rite that cane from the vain imaginings of corrupt priests in a sect of Medieval Roman Church.

    P.S. Lutherans believe Transubstantiation, as do Eastern Orthodox.
     
  5. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, you did say "church group" and not "Christian group". :rolleyes:

    I will say to you what I have said to RCs: I can agree that a reasonable person can interpret scripture to mean that transubstantiation is correct, if the person can agree that one can also reasonably interpret scripture to say otherwise. A good many RCs are too dogmatic to agree with the latter, but that's their problem.

    1 Cor. 11:29-30 in no way "clinches" transubstantiation. A Christian can discern the body and blood of Christ spiritually and sacramentally without discerning or recognizing it literally.

    Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation, in the way the RCC teaches it. The RCC teaches that the very substance of bread and wine cease to be, and only the 'accidents' (appearance, taste, smell, texture) of bread and wine remain. As I understand the Lutheran doctrine (not being from a Lutheran background), they believe that Christ is present "in, under, and through" the eucharistic elements, although (I think) their substance of bread and wine do not change; thus no transubstantiation occurs. They certainly don't hold with transubstantiation as the RCC defines and describes it.

    I am not familiar enough with the Eastern Orthodox concept to say much about it, but I think it is much closer to RC doctrine than to Lutheran doctrine.

    If Jesus presented His own literal body and blood for the apostles to eat and drink under the accidents of bread and wine, then He would have been in two places at once (inside His own skin, plus in the accidents). Although God is omnipresent, Jesus came to earth as the Son of Man and to do that He chose to temporarily lay aside such divine attributes as omniscience and omnipresence. Thus we don't see Jesus appearing in two or more places at once, and we see Him praying to the Father for guidance and telling His disciples that "no one but my Father knows the day or hour" of the second Advent. And there was no need for the elements to literally transform into His body and blood, since the apostles knew the rich symbolism behind the Passover meal they were participating in (the Passover bread and wine were already perceived as a type of Messiah). So when Jesus spoke those famous words, He was identifying Himself clearly to them as the Messiah, the antitype.

    Moreover, if we suppose for the moment that the bread and wine did transubstantiate at Christ's hand into His literal flesh and blood, several questions crop up:
    1. Why weren't the apostles grossed out? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is really disgusting!
    2. The O.T. forbade drinking any blood and eating human flesh. Why would Jesus have them do something that was expressly forbidden? Why would Jesus have us do something forbidden? Drinking blood remained forbidden by the apostles, see Acts 15.
    3. How could the eating of mortal flesh and drinking mortal blood provide any spiritual benefit? Recall that when the Last Supper took place, Jesus was still in His mortal body. If RC doctrine were correct, RCs are eating and drinking mortal human flesh and blood at each mass. What spiritual good can come of this? They cannot be eating Jesus' immortal, resurrected body because it cannot see corruption or decay (cannot be broken down in the stomach), and there is also reason to believe that Jesus' incorruptible body of "flesh and bone" contains no blood.
    4. Transubstantiation is not compatible with the Lukan record of Jesus' words: Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20) Jesus told them, This cup is the "new testament in my blood," which means it was the new covenant. Rather than "This cup is my (literal) blood," Luke records that Jesus identified the liquid as a testament to God's unilateral agreement to extend grace to all who would believe. If you've studied the blood covenant, you know that it involved shedding the blood of an animal (killing it and cutting it in half, then walking a figure-8 around and between the halves).
    5. Transubstantiation is not compatible with Matthews record of Jesus' words (Matt. 26:28-29). For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Not only does Matthew repeat the "new testament" language, he also records Jesus saying that He would not drink "this fruit of the vine" again until they were all together in the Father's kingdom. RCs insist on taking the words "this is my blood" literally, but they do not want to take literally Jesus' words, "this fruit of the vine," for if they were to do so, it would be evident that Jesus had just transubstantiated the blood back into wine. But of course, the obvious and sensible interpretation is to conclude that no physical change had taken place at all... the wine remained wine at all times.

    Let's switch gears and look at Eucharist from a different perspective. We know that God created us for His own glory, and also so that He might have intimate fellowship (communion, one-ness) with human beings. Jesus said:
    Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
    Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
    Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    And He said this:
    Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
    Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
    Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
    Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
    Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
    Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
    Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

    And yet again:
    Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    See also Ephesians 1 & 2, and note the places where it talks about us being "in Him":
    Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
    Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
    Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
    Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

    God desires to have a people unto Himself. He wants to be in us, and He want us to be in Him. He wants an intimate relation with each of us. Matrimony is a type of this relationship. And so is the Eucharistic meal! For as we partake of Christ's body and blood spiritually and sacramentally, we represent that He lives in us spiritually and that we look forward to the promised time when we will be joined with Him and in Him forever in His everlasting Kingdom. The Eucharist is like a "preview of coming attractions," a "sneak peek" at our future inheritance! It represents the intimate union which God desires to have with us forever, an intimacy and precious closeness that we can only glimpse dimly while we reside in our earthly tents.

    Cannibals eat their enemies in an attempt to gain their power and strength. Are we like cannibals? Of course not. Our Communion with God consists not in the physical substance but in the spiritual, symbolic, and sacramental nature of what we partake.

    The Eucharist meal is a remembrance of what Jesus has done for us in sacrificing His mortal body and blood for our salvation, and it is a prophetic picture of our coming eternal life as well as a sign of God's covenant with us. But the RCC has perverted it into an alleged source of saving grace that, they teach, is altogether necessary for salvation... and is only available from the hands of a RC priest acting in personam Christi. By this doctrine, along with the doctrine of priestly absolution, they tie and bind their followers to their organization (which is most convenient in maintaining numbers as well as income). :thumbsdown:
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2019 at 10:13 PM
  6. Fidei Defensor

    Fidei Defensor Active Member

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    Kingdom of Heaven
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am going to read your post and respond when I have some time. I wanted you to know I am not ignoring your points, I simply am very busy.

    One point I can answer, Jesus can be in two places, He is on the throne (Acts 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, Ephensians 1:20) and inside us (Colossians 1:27, 1 John 4:15, John 17:20-23). Jesus is God (Colossians 2:9, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-18) and is One (substance and essence) with the Father and Holy Spirit (John 10:30, John 20:20-23, John 14:26, John 15:26). God the Trinity is omnipresent and so can be everywhere and yst be dynamically present and person with each individual believer. Also, though Jesus and His persob came, He says, “
    Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
    9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
    10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (John 14:8-10) and “
    Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
    22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22). These Scriptures show Jesus is not on His own but the Father and the Holy Spirit are in Him. Then you have that Jesus says the Holy Spirit comes from Father as well, “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.” (John 15:26), and in His Name, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26).

    So Christ can be in heaven, in us, and in the bread and wine at the same time.

    However, I must say I am veering towards Transubstantiation but not fully there, but I am definately a Brucerist and not Zwinglian.
     
  7. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    124
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    You missed out Matt.15:16-17. So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?"

    Mk.7:18-19. So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated,

    ἐκβάλλω
    STRONG’S NUMBER: g1544
    Dictionary Definition g1544. ἐκβάλλω ekballō; from 1537 and 906; to eject (literally or figuratively): — bring forth, cast (forth, out), drive (out), expel, leave, pluck (pull, take, thrust) out, put forth (out), send away (forth, out).
    AV (82) - cast out 45, cast 11, bring forth 3, pull out 3, send forth 3, misc 17;
    to cast out, drive out, to send outwith notion of violenceto drive out (cast out)to cast outof the world, i.e. be deprived of the power and influence he exercises in the worlda thing: excrement from the belly into the sink
    to expel a person from a society: to banish...

    "This is my body", was spoken by Christ while his actual body was what was breaking the bread, not what actually physically WAS the bread. It was therefore not the body of Christ in any actual physical sense but only symbolically amd sacramentally so. It was still physically just bread, which like everything else which goes into the mouth, passes through the stomach and ends up in the toilet.

    That is why the bread and wine become SACRAMENTS, not just bread and wine, or magically or superstitiously 'physically transformed'. They are symbolically representative of the spiritual reality of 'regeneration of the soul by the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, in faith and humility'. It is this fact that is 'discerned' by the believing soul, i.e. the all sufficiency of Christ Jesus in the sustenance of the life HE alone has enabled within us. Without this vital connection in the understanding of the communicant, the sacrament has no meaning and thus merely passes on to its eventual destination without any spiritual efficacciousness, leaving the recipient lacking and therefore vulnerable. Just as in the case of 'defilement', food and drink cannot defile a man, they simply pass through and go on their way. Defilement comes by other means.

    "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” Matt.15:18-20.
    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019 at 3:09 AM
    Rexlion likes this.
  8. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I can understand; I get really busy at times myself, and on those days I must budget my time carefully.

    As I mentioned previously, though, Jesus voluntarily set aside His omnipresence to be born of a virgin. Jesus came for the purpose of living a mortal life; He referred to Himself as 'son of man' rather than 'son of God' during this time. Jesus was tempted just like any of us, and He had to resist temptation just like any of us.
    Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
    Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

    And yet, God cannot be tempted:
    Jas 1:13 ....for God cannot be tempted with evil...
    This proves that Jesus laid aside His divine attribute of immunity from temptation. If He had come to earth without setting aside some of His divine attributes, He could not have been tempted (nor killed, for that matter).

    Jesus certainly laid aside His divine attribute of omniscience.
    Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    Since no instance (other than the alleged instance of the Last Supper) can be seen in scripture of Jesus appearing in multiple places at once, and in light of His apparent desire to constrain Himself to the boundaries of mortal existence, it is logical to conclude that Jesus was not holding Himself in His hands under the accidents of bread and wine.

    Please note that this does not imply in any way that Jesus was not fully God as well as fully man at all times; He had the power to pick up those divine attributes of His at any time, but He did not do so because it would have been counter to His purpose in coming to earth and being born of a virgin. Instead, Jesus lived His mortal life in the manner of a mortal human: resisting temptation, praying to the Father for guidance, doing the will of the Father while yielding His own human will, speaking the things He heard from the Father, and so on.

    God bless.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM
  9. Fidei Defensor

    Fidei Defensor Active Member

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    Kingdom of Heaven
    Religion:
    Christian
    @Tiffy and @Rexlion

    I am off Transubstantiation. Started reading the Roman Catholic Missal to see what they believe and its not for me. They think the Bread is Jesus there under the Tabernacle at the altar! I was simply seeing Transub as spiritualizing of the bread and wine; that ain’t where they stay. :o
     
  10. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    124
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Good research. The truth shall make you free. Ask and it shall be given you. If anyone lacks knowledge, let them ask God.

    As Wycliffe said. "If they can get you to believe that, they can get you to believe anything".
     

Share This Page