The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[Eternally Grateful]

If it can be stopped IT IS CONDITIONAL...

You mean it was fated to certain people from before time (eternity) and they have nothing to do? No faith, no belief, no Jesus, no conditions?
Good luck on finding that in the Bible!

If it can be stopped. IT IS NOT ETERNAL...​

If it starts... IT WAS NEVER ETERNAL!

Strange... I never hear you make that inevitable conclusion!

I wonder why people can not see this.​

1. It was predetermined, Not fated, Please leave the calvinist stuff out of our conversation.

2. It was predetermined based oh Gods will. What is Gods will? That HE who SEES and BELIEVES in the son will have eternal life. and he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day (john 6)

3. Again, Eternal does not mean it has to have always existed. Your trying to force a word to meet what you want it to mean, not what it actually means. In fact, using your argument, You will never have eternal life. Even after you get to heaven, Because you had a beginning.. So why would you make this statment to argue against me, when it hurts even your own position?

 

[Candidus]

Another one who did not read the three possible definitions of eternal

Please go read them and come back to me.. Eternal does not mean we have to have a beginning.

Another answer by someone who ignores the context and the stated condition of "having" that eternal life. If you do not meet the condition, you cannot possess the result.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes! Let's go to the First Century!

Not a single Early Church Father taught OSAS or Eternal Security!

We finally found agreement!

Oh?
Yet the Bible does

So we still have no agreement

Again, If you want to earn salvation, Feel free. I am not trying to stop you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Another answer by someone who ignores the context and the stated condition of "having" that eternal life. If you do not meet the condition, you cannot possess the result.

lol

It does not matter

If we HAVE IT, It can NOT BE LOST

so what ever condition you think must be done to receive it. Once you get it. IT IS YOURS FOREVER

Hence the term, ETERNAL life.

 

[FollowHim]

If you think this, then I can not agree with you. Because again, it is a gift. A promise.

If God says you HAVE eternal life. Yet in reality, you may still die, Then you do not have eternal life. You have what would be called conditional life.



You continue to make it all about you. (you need to buy the ticket, You need to get on the plane..etc etc

You need to make it all about God..

The interesting thing about language is adjectives can be used to imply emphasis in different ways.
So in Christ we have life, the life that is eternal, the life of God. If I call this life eternal life, meaning it is the life that comes from walking with God. If I lose this walk, I lose eternal life, the life that is in God.

Gifts. I see a gift as a thing, an object. Now if I distinguish between life as we have now as humans, and life we have in fellowship with God, then the life I have in God I can call eternal life. And this life, this communion can be a gift.

If life is the same in Christ as it is in the world as humans, but goes on into eternity, I could call this eternal life, to distinguish the life that does not end. Now the promise is not the gift, the not dying is the gift. But I can frame this gift is not delivered now, but when everyone who is not written in the Lambs book of life is throne into the fire.

It is interesting to explore this nuances, buried in such a simple term, eternal life.

I like your observation it is all about me. But this misses the point. It is all about Jesus, but we need to respond. If we do not respond we have nothing. It seems you cannot admit our response is a condition for salvation. Those that believe will be saved, those that confess etc.
If you want a faith with no action, you have universalism, 100%. You also deny scripture. How did Jesus describe heaven?

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.
2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.
4 He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.'
5 So they went.
6 "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
7 "'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8 "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9 "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius.
10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.
11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.
12 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13 "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?
14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.
15 Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
16 "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Matt 20:1-16

Salvation is the payment, the same for all, no matter how long one works.
The glorious thing is we work for the Lord, He chose us and we responded, amen.

It is all about God and His Kingdom, love and victory, but no response and we miss it all.
All I can see is this idea of the need to respond, and to walk, is so disliked you have to just disagree. God bless you

 

[FollowHim]

"Its all about me" is a strange accusation, because yes salvation is all about us.
Jesus died on the cross for us, He raised up Israel, saved them from Egypt, spoke through the law and the prophets, established the church etc. so that we might be saved.

Our behaviour needs to reflect our inheritence, who we are and who Christ is. But in this what we are showing is all about Jesus and the wonderful gift salvation is in Christ, that we sinners might be forgiven if we repent and believe, follow and obey, worthy of the King of Kings to be called His people. There are two equal senses, we need to follow because that is what expected of us, but also we need to follow because we want to and this is the way of life, joy, praise, victory and eternity.

I am guilty of wanting God because of what He offers, because I need it, desperately. Jesus described the Kingdom of heaven like this

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.
46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
47 "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.
48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away.
49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous
50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matt 13:44-50

So we desire the reward because we value it above everything else. And if this reward is staying a sinner and being like the world, goodbye, not interested. As James says

4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
James 4:4-6

But I suspect some love the world and their state, and God is just an added extra in the tank, for times of trouble.

 

[Candidus]

1. It was predetermined, Not fated, Please leave the calvinist stuff out of our conversation.

2. It was predetermined based oh Gods will. What is Gods will? That HE who SEES and BELIEVES in the son will have eternal life. and he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day (john 6)

3. Again, Eternal does not mean it has to have always existed. Your trying to force a word to meet what you want it to mean, not what it actually means. In fact, using your argument, You will never have eternal life. Even after you get to heaven, Because you had a beginning.. So why would you make this statment to argue against me, when it hurts even your own position?

1. It was predetermined, Not fated, Please leave the calvinist stuff out of our conversation.

If you demand a definition that inevitably results in fatalism, then I will go to the definition that fits that view; Calvinist or Fatalist. I will point out that in your unbiblical circular reasoning, you would be more consistent and less self-contradictory as a committed Philosophical Fatalist.

Words have little meaning apart from context. You want to have the meaning you want and the results you want it to conclude, but you consistently ignore the context and the conditionality of it as stated in Scripture.

2. It was predetermined based oh Gods will. What is Gods will? That HE who SEES and BELIEVES in the son will have eternal life. and he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day (john 6)

God's "will" in John 6 is not "predetermination," but "desire." [theloo]

If you want to find the Greek work for "will" that hold a stronger meaning of "determined" it will be found in 2 Peter 3:9. [boulomai], the root being [bouleuo] deliberate, resolved, determines. God is not willing [determined] that ANY should perish! If there is absolute determinism an any passage in Scripture, it is here, not in John 6.

Just another example of how you run with a definition, dance in a circle, and then force it upon Scripture. In the context of the whole Bible, I know that God "willing" in the strongest of terms, is not an argument for Universalism, for it is obvious that salvation is conditional in Scripture, and we are told that most will not be saved. Context tells us that that "determination" in 2 Peter 3:9 is not to be taken as a decree or predetermination that ALL will be saved.

3. Again, Eternal does not mean it has to have always existed. Your trying to force a word to meet what you want it to mean...

No, I am admitting that if Eternal means anything in the way of Endless Existence, it has to include everything that "Eternal" means. I do not pick and choose what doctrinal whim I want to support by a mere definition. If Scripture were to say that receiving "Eternal life" were stated to be unconditional, I would accept a definition that would apply. What I will not do is to determine a definition that has the outcome I desire, and ignore the context and condition of having it. I am not the forcing a definition. Eternal Life is gained in time, on a present tense condition of faith/belief on Jesus Christ. If the faith/belief is abandoned, so it the eternal life connected to it. You cannot say otherwise, at least Biblically, unless you have solid proof from Scripture to support it. Otherwise you are twisting a definition to establish a doctrine that is nowhere stated in Scripture. This is not hermeneutics, it is not exegesis, but the a specious tactic to make your eisegetical conclusions to extinguish the conditions stated in Scripture.

In fact, using your argument, You will never have eternal life. Even after you get to heaven, Because you had a beginning.. So why would you make this statment to argue against me, when it hurts even your own position?​

Where have I ever said such a thing? I have pointed out Scripture, where "he that believes [present tense, active in the moment, right now] has Eternal Life. l asserted that this condition must be present for the result (Eternal life) to exist presently. That is plainly what the Bible says. No one has an irrevocable gift if that gift is conditional. If the Bible says that a present tense faith is required to get Eternal Life now, it sets the condition for that Eternal Life to continue with the Believer. It is not difficult to see that before belief a person did not have Eternal Life. After faith and belief, they have Eternal Life. It is obvious that the "Life" is "Eternal," and not that person's possession of it. ​

 

[FollowHim]

"need" - comes in two sense, obligation, something you need to do because that is your job, or a promise, or part of how things work and need, something you desire, burns within one, pushes one forward, like an addiction, a desire, something that takes over everything else, and draws you forward.

I realised this needs to be stated because one responder suggested needing to do something is because of fear or a desire for reward, earning something, but in an unhealthy way, as if it was a kind of slavery, being beaten up and abused but always in the end failing.

What is interesting is part of this is also true. We are slaves to righteousness, the reward of faith and following Jesus is salvation and eternity and everything He brings into our lives, and yes we should fear God, for He is rightly to be feared, given what He has declared and how unbelievably fragile we are. And funnily enough earning reward, working for wages is how we live our lives so it is no bad thing, it is even a gift of life to have a job.

 

[FollowHim]

1. It was predetermined, Not fated, Please leave the calvinist stuff out of our conversation.

If you demand a definition that inevitably results in fatalism, then I will go to the definition that fits that view; Calvinists or Fatalist. I will point out that in your unbiblical circular reasoning, you would be more consistent and less self-contradictory as a committed Philosophical Fatalist.

Words have little meaning apart from context. You want to have the meaning you want and the results you want it to conclude, but you consistently ignore the context and the conditionality of it as stated in Scripture.

2. It was predetermined based oh Gods will. What is Gods will? That HE who SEES and BELIEVES in the son will have eternal life. and he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day (john 6)

God's "will" in John 6 is not "predetermination, but "desire." [theloo]

If you want to find the Greek work for "will" that hold a stronger meaning of "determined" it will be found in 2 Peter 3:9. [boulomai], the root being [bouleuo] deliberate, resolved, determines. God is not willing [determined] that ANY should perish! If there is absolute determinism an any passage in Scripture, it is here, not in John 6.

Just another example of how you run with a definition, dance in a circle, and then force it upon Scripture. In the context of the whole Bible, I know that God "willing" in the strongest of terms, is not an argument for Universalism, for it is obvious that salvation is conditional in Scripture, and we are told that most will not be saved. Context tells us that that "determination" is no decree or predetermination.

3. Again, Eternal does not mean it has to have always existed. Your trying to force a word to meet what you want it to mean...

No, I am admitting that if Eternal means anything in the way of Endless Existence, it has to include everything that "Eternal" means. I do not pick and choose what doctrinal whim I want to support by a mere definition. If Scripture were to say that receiving "Eternal life" were stated to be unconditional, I would accept a definition that would apply. What I will not do is to determine a definition that has the outcome I desire, and ignore the context and condition of having it. I am not the forcing a definition. Eternal Life is gained in time, on a present tense condition of faith/belief on Jesus Christ. If the faith/belief is abandoned, so it the eternal life connected to it. You cannot say otherwise, at least Biblically, unless you have solid proof from Scripture to support it. Otherwise you are twisting a definition to establish a doctrine that is nowhere stated in Scripture. This is not hermeneutics, it is not exegesis, but the a specious tactic to make your eisegetical conclusions to extinguish the conditions stated in Scripture.

In fact, using your argument, You will never have eternal life. Even after you get to heaven, Because you had a beginning.. So why would you make this statment to argue against me, when it hurts even your own position?​

Where have I ever said such a thing? I have pointed out Scripture, where "he that believes [present tense, active in the moment, right now] has Eternal Life. l asserted that this condition must be present for the result (Eternal life) to exist presently. That is plainly what the Bible says. No one has an irrevocable gift if that gift is conditional. If the Bible says that a present tense faith is required to get Eternal Life now, it sets the condition for that Eternal Life to continue with the Believer/ It is not difficult to see that before belief a person did not have Eternal Life. After faith and belief, they have Eternal Life. It is obvious that the "Life" is "Eternal," and not that persons possession of it. ​

I saw something just now that is linked to our linear thought process.
To empathise with someone, you go through their logic, step by step and see their conclusion. What happens if this persuades you they are right but you emotionally hate them?

One approach is to change the logic as you go through it, to only reflect ones own position so reinforcing ones own conclusion.
Another approach is to build up other perspectives which demonstrate different aspects of the same argument, not included in the original argument chain. This means you already have conclusions which are robust and substantial.

Now for people who can rewrite peoples comments as they are read, to mean something friendly to the reader, then the conclusion is distorted and incorrect, but they are incapable of seeing this, because repeating the thought process ends in the same place.

Because we are only emotionally relative creatures, we insulate ourselves completely from new input if we do this, but we bring real stability to our lives. It makes sense of the curious behaviour, writing out what others have not written as if they have, and declaring this is their meaning. They must be doing this all the time, which is why the discussions end in such odd places.

I find it illuminating how passages of scripture can be ignored that do not fit, without a proper explanation, and ones conclusions are held complete. I am grateful that a difficult passage will bother me until I find a way through, because then I know I am being built into the image of the Lord and His ways. Some have no clue how difficult this is, and in some ways requires faith, love and perseverance. God bless you

 

[Candidus]

I saw something just now that is linked to our linear thought process.
To empathise with someone, you go through their logic, step by step and see their conclusion. What happens if this persuades you they are right but you emotionally hate them?

One approach is to change the logic as you go through it, to only reflect ones own position so reinforcing ones own conclusion.
Another approach is to build up other perspectives which demonstrate different aspects of the same argument, not included in the original argument chain. This means you already have conclusions which are robust and substantial.

Now for people who can rewrite peoples comments as they are read, to mean something friendly to the reader, then the conclusion is distorted and incorrect, but they are incapable of seeing this, because repeating the thought process ends in the same place.

Because we are only emotionally relative creatures, we insulate ourselves completely from new input if we do this, but we bring real stability to our lives. It makes sense of the curious behaviour, writing out what others have not written as if they have, and declaring this is their meaning. They must be doing this all the time, which is why the discussions end in such odd places.

I find it illuminating how passages of scripture can be ignored that do not fit, without a proper explanation, and ones conclusions are held complete. I am grateful that a difficult passage will bother me until I find a way through, because then I know I am being built into the image of the Lord and His ways. Some have no clue how difficult this is, and in some ways requires faith, love and perseverance. God bless you

You are correct in the observation of a common problem. This stems from the belief (stated or unstated) that truth is determined by logic, not Scripture. It is the Philosophical idea that man determines what is true by logic and reason. The difficulty, as is seen in Philosophical circles, that no one can find the perfect Philosophy that everyone's logic and reason will agree upon.

Much of what passes for "Theology" today (and throughout history) is not really Theology, but man-made Philosophy. Theology is based upon what God says, not what man thinks. The reason most trained Philosophers reject the Bible and Christianity is that they see it as a Philosophy and not a Theology. Much of what passes for "Systematic Theology" is more times than not, Philosophy. Our "System" must be circular in its reasoning. Every element must conform. This is not to say that God and Scripture is inconsistent or self-contradictory, because God is not inconsistent and self-contradictory. Yet where the line is crossed is when a "System" does not have clear sanction to "fill in the gaps" where Scripture is not as clear as we would like. The "System" then applies circular logic that makes claims that "fit in" yet are not really "Theology" because it is not Scripture that says it, but the "System" concludes it. Reducing Christianity and the Bible down to a perfect Philosophical "System" is Philosophy, and is only a poser as "Theology." People buy into such claims of Theology so much that they are blinded to the reality that they are trusting flawed human logic as equal to Scripture. Once someone becomes Philosophically Committed to a System, their objectivity goes out the window! They cannot accept anything that does not align with their System... and it does not matter if it comes from God Himself!

Our problems start when the argument is Logic, Logic, Logic! Instead of Context, Context, Context! One is seeking Philosophical consistency, and the other is seeking what God says.

 

[Candidus]

lol

It does not matter

If we HAVE IT, It can NOT BE LOST

so what ever condition you think must be done to receive it. Once you get it. IT IS YOURS FOREVER

Hence the term, ETERNAL life.

That is not even logical, alone Biblical! No passage in all of Scripture claims that a person has an Eternal Life as an Eternal Possession of it! You have zero Biblical basis for your claim.

Everyone has been given a gift that they either lost or thrown away, but in the case of Eternal life, it is only possessed on the condition of a Present Tense saving faith! I do not have the power to get you to accept Scripture that might budge you out of the impenetrable vortex of your own circular reasoning. I do not say that there is a present tense condition to possessing Eternal Life, God does! If you do not want to believe what God tells us, I certainly cannot convince you. Ultimately, your argument is not with me, it is with God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just like the catholic church is a man-made mess.

I beg to differ . . .

Matt. 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The interesting thing about language is adjectives can be used to imply emphasis in different ways.
So in Christ we have life, the life that is eternal, the life of God. If I call this life eternal life, meaning it is the life that comes from walking with God. If I lose this walk, I lose eternal life, the life that is in God.

You can call this life whatever you want

JESUS called it eternal. PAUL called it eternal

And they both said we have it when we TRUST or place TRUE saving faith in Christ.

so it does not matter what you call it, or how you think we get it What matters is what God says

I am sure you will agree with me in that matter

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. You showed me what you THINK it means
You have not resolved the issue that one is to be taken often, and is a physical meal. and promises nothing the other promises
And the other is a spiritual food. Which endures to eternal life. Which gives the one who eats all Jesus promised
Until you resolve those issues
You have nothing to offer me.

I already resolved ALL of these issues - with Scripture.

Spiritual Food
John 6:58
This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

To be taken OFTEN
1 cor. 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Just like those who abandoned Christ in John 6:66 - YOU are a textbook example of a person in DENIAL . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why would I care?
I care about what the word of God says, Not Men.
Tell me @BreadOfLife Why do you insist on following men not the Bible

When you answer MY question - I will be more than happy top answer yours.

AGAIN:
The Early Church was UNANIMOUS in its teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
"Unanimous" means they ALL agreed. It was not a source of debate in the Early Church - as they ALL believed in it.

WHY do you suppose this is the case??

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If you demand a definition that inevitably results in fatalism, then I will go to the definition that fits that view; Calvinist or Fatalist. I will point out that in your unbiblical circular reasoning, you would be more consistent and less self-contradictory as a committed Philosophical Fatalist.

Words have little meaning apart from context. You want to have the meaning you want and the results you want it to conclude, but you consistently ignore the context and the conditionality of it as stated in Scripture.​

Thats your problem, Everything is about what men say to you. What the bible says seems to come second in your view

Predestination is a term used in the bible. It is NOT a calvinist or fatalist view. While yes. they have their interpretation of what it means, I neither agree with their definition or interpretation of what that means. So if you want to argue with them, feel free. But to argue with me as being calvinist. Well, it just shows how far off you are.

The bible says I was predestined. That is not calvinist.

so once again, DO not confuse me as one of them.
​

God's "will" in John 6 is not "predetermination," but "desire." [theloo]

If you want to find the Greek work for "will" that hold a stronger meaning of "determined" it will be found in 2 Peter 3:9. [boulomai], the root being [bouleuo] deliberate, resolved, determines. God is not willing [determined] that ANY should perish! If there is absolute determinism an any passage in Scripture, it is here, not in John 6.

Just another example of how you run with a definition, dance in a circle, and then force it upon Scripture. In the context of the whole Bible, I know that God "willing" in the strongest of terms, is not an argument for Universalism, for it is obvious that salvation is conditional in Scripture, and we are told that most will not be saved. Context tells us that that "determination" in 2 Peter 3:9 is not to be taken as a decree or predetermination that ALL will be saved.​

See how you go in circles.

It does not matter if I say it is his desire or it is his will. It still means the same

And what is Gods desire (will)

All who see and believe will have eternal life and will be risen

so if this is Gods will. Do you not think he will carry it out?

No, I am admitting that if Eternal means anything in the way of Endless Existence, it has to include everything that "Eternal" means. I do not pick and choose what doctrinal whim I want to support by a mere definition. If Scripture were to say that receiving "Eternal life" were stated to be unconditional, I would accept a definition that would apply. What I will not do is to determine a definition that has the outcome I desire, and ignore the context and condition of having it. I am not the forcing a definition. Eternal Life is gained in time, on a present tense condition of faith/belief on Jesus Christ. If the faith/belief is abandoned, so it the eternal life connected to it. You cannot say otherwise, at least Biblically, unless you have solid proof from Scripture to support it. Otherwise you are twisting a definition to establish a doctrine that is nowhere stated in Scripture. This is not hermeneutics, it is not exegesis, but the a specious tactic to make your eisegetical conclusions to extinguish the conditions stated in Scripture.

Ahh, SO you admit, it is YOUR interpretation

John said I can KNOW I HAVE eternal life

According to you. John is a liar, because that is impossible

Where have I ever said such a thing? I have pointed out Scripture, where "he that believes [present tense, active in the moment, right now] has Eternal Life. l asserted that this condition must be present for the result (Eternal life) to exist presently. That is plainly what the Bible says. No one has an irrevocable gift if that gift is conditional. If the Bible says that a present tense faith is required to get Eternal Life now, it sets the condition for that Eternal Life to continue with the Believer. It is not difficult to see that before belief a person did not have Eternal Life. After faith and belief, they have Eternal Life. It is obvious that the "Life" is "Eternal," and not that person's possession of it.

​

But they could not have eternal life. because as you said, they had a beginning

Your argument is falling on itself. Or your just arguing to argue, I have not figured that out yet[/quote]

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That is not even logical, alone Biblical! No passage in all of Scripture claims that a person has an Eternal Life as an Eternal Possession of it! You have zero Biblical basis for your claim.

Everyone has been given a gift that they either lost or thrown away, but in the case of Eternal life, it is only possessed on the condition of a Present Tense saving faith! I do not have the power to get you to accept Scripture that might budge you out of the impenetrable vortex of your own circular reasoning. I do not say that there is a present tense condition to possessing Eternal Life, God does! If you do not want to believe what God tells us, I certainly cannot convince you. Ultimately, your argument is not with me, it is with God.

lol

I am sorry, I can no longer go on with this.

What you just stated (the bible claims no person has eternal life as a possession) is so nonsensical it is laughable.

You ither have eternal life

or you do not

If you do. It means you will never die. Just like Jesus said in John 6

But you can not believe this, So I can not help you.

Good luck my friend.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I already resolved ALL of these issues - with Scripture.

Spiritual Food
John 6:58
This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

To be taken OFTEN
1 cor. 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Just like those who abandoned Christ in John 6:66 - YOU are a textbook example of a person in DENIAL . . .

Look at the words highlighted in red
they are APPOSED

One says forever

One says ONLY as often as you eat (hence it is NOT forever)

I do not see why you do not see this MAJOR difference

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When you answer MY question - I will be more than happy top answer yours.

AGAIN:
The Early Church was UNANIMOUS in its teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
"Unanimous" means they ALL agreed. It was not a source of debate in the Early Church - as they ALL believed in it.

WHY do you suppose this is the case??

I could care less what people thought. I care about hat the BIBLE says.

So no, I will not answer your question and could care less if you answer mine either

But in not answering, you in effect already have answered.

Thank you

 

[Grailhunter]

Your argument is based on how you feel... not Scripture fact.

No no, I am being facetious. Thanks for noticing~! The point is, Christ would never day such a thing and the facts are just the opposite. lol