Name some characteristics of a lukewarm Christian

[John Zain]

The common elements of bread and wine are supernaturally transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
a miracle so profound it still takes my breath away and brings tears to my eyes.
Seeing the risen Christ with my own eyes, partaking of his body and blood as he commanded us to do,
there's no greater thrill to be had anywhere else.

I suppose you realize that multitudes of millions all over the world who believe in false religions
are also moved to tears re: their religious services, their saviors, and whatever.

Gee, I guess that's why Satan is described as:
“the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9).
“the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).
“the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
“the ruler of this world” (John 12:31).
“there is no truth in him ... he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks
about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

Born-again Christians should realize that the only information we can trust is:
the Holy Scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Everything (and everyone) else is to be spiritually discerned with great caution!

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I suppose you realize that multitudes of millions all over the world who believe in false religions
are also moved to tears re: their religious services, their saviors, and whatever.

Gee, I guess that's why Satan is described as:
“the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9).
“the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).
“the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
“the ruler of this world” (John 12:31).
“there is no truth in him ... he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks
about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

Born-again Christians should realize that the only information we can trust is:
the Holy Scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Everything (and everyone) else is to be spiritually discerned with great caution!

Do you have any idea how the canon of holy scriptures came to be?

 

[John Zain]

Do you have any idea how the canon of holy scriptures came to be?

The Holy Spirit tried to lead some men into choosing which manuscripts were to be included.

P.S. How successful do you think He is in leading men to do His will?
Keeping in mind man's sinful flesh and God-given total free will.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The Holy Spirit tried to lead some men into choosing which manuscripts were to be included.

P.S. How successful do you think He is in leading men to do His will?
Keeping in mind man's sinful flesh and God-given total free will.

The Holy Spirit tried? That's a whole debate in itself that deserves it's own thread whether or not God can be thwarted, his efforts frustrated.

The canon of scripture came about by the councils of Rome and Hippo, men deciding what books should be included and what works don't meet the needed criteria. It flies in the face of the thinking that anything "man made" is assumed to be corrupted. I agree that the Holy Spirit inspired the deliberations, but the larger point is that the Bible is a product of authority, not an authority itself, something even Martin Luther understood when he decided to take books out and change certain passages.

As far as you discounting my emotional response to the Eucharist, can we not as easily dismiss as invalid your emotional response to your worship tradition? Perhaps that's why you're not getting anywhere even in your own thread, because you think your opinion is fact and everyone else disagrees.

 

[williemac]

Do you have any idea how the canon of holy scriptures came to be?

I can answer that. God used men to accomplish it. Period. I would advise against propping up any human organization or group in the process. That would be the equivalent to giving man the credit rather than God. There were no other more logical men to use at that time. This does not represent a validation from God concerning an organization. Remember that Peter was corrected concerning just whom could receive the gospel and the Holy Spirit. How is it that he can receive correction but the organization that espouses his name cannot?

As for your mention of the elements supernaturally becoming the literal body and blood of Jesus...that was also a man made idea. Jesus broke the bread and shared the wine with His disciples and declared "this is My body...and this is My blood...which WAS broken and shed". He used the past tense to speak of a future event. Do you actually suppose that those became literally His body and blood at that time, BEFORE it actually happened...and while Jesus was actually with them in person?

When I say my car is red, am I defining it or just describing its color? Do not take the word "is" to automatically be a definition. It can and more often is used in an allegorical or descriptive sense, such as " my heart IS heavy". The reality is that there is no supporting scripture to allow for such a doctrine as the elements literally transforming into His body and blood. That is merely a man made opinion, and a stretch to put it mildly. It cannot be proven. Not physically nor scripturally. Believing it does not make it real. Peter was not infallable. How do we go from that to the Pope being so? The word of God is profitable for correction, but only to they who can take correction.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I can answer that. God used men to accomplish it. Period. I would advise against propping up any human organization or group in the process. That would be the equivalent to giving man the credit rather than God. There were no other more logical men to use at that time. This does not represent a validation from God concerning an organization. Remember that Peter was corrected concerning just whom could receive the gospel and the Holy Spirit. How is it that he can receive correction but the organization that espouses his name cannot?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Since when is the Catholic Church incorrigible? And nobody is trying to take credit from God, nor is it even possible to do so for God's glory does not depend on man. But now we're arguing semantics. But you're incorrect in claiming that God doesn't validate organization, he did so right before ascending into heaven, leaving a structure of authority and means to pass on that authority to future generations. Jesus left order, not anarchy.

As for your mention of the elements supernaturally becoming the literal body and blood of Jesus...that was also a man made idea. Jesus broke the bread and shared the wine with His disciples and declared "this is My body...and this is My blood...which WAS broken and shed". He used the past tense to speak of a future event. Do you actually suppose that those became literally His body and blood at that time, BEFORE it actually happened...and while Jesus was actually with them in person?

When I say my car is red, am I defining it or just describing its color? Do not take the word "is" to automatically be a definition. It can and more often is used in an allegorical or descriptive sense, such as " my heart IS heavy". The reality is that there is no supporting scripture to allow for such a doctrine as the elements literally transforming into His body and blood. That is merely a man made opinion, and a stretch to put it mildly. It cannot be proven. Not physically nor scripturally. Believing it does not make it real.

This is a fundamental inability to think outside the limitations of human perception. In the sacrifice of the Mass, the broken body and shed blood of Christ is supernaturally made present in the elements even though it is an event in the past. It was in like manner made present in the Last Supper. The only way to adequately explain this is that we are bound by time and think in the linear/temporal/sequential mindset, but heaven operates outside of time and it's constraints. It requires imagination to conceive of a reality that isn't subject to the linear/temporal/sequential paradigm. And please don't think I'm talking down to you, because I know you can do this as well as I can, imagining eternity as something completely outside of time.

Moreover, even the emphasis of your argument proves the point I just made, that Jesus was alluding in past tense to an event which hadn't occurred yet. He made a similar point of teaching when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." He spent his whole life and ministry seeing the end from the beginning as only God can do.

But also, this is further spelled out in Hebrews, how the singular sacrifice of Christ went back in time to validate the animal sacrifices which were, in themselves, insufficient for the remission of sins. Every sacrifice conducted by the Levite priesthood would have been utterly in vain without the single, perfect once-and-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God, an event which had not occurred yet, but in God's eyes, had already occurred. To miss the point that the work of the Cross was efficacious for all time, past, present, and future, is to miss the most significant and miraculous aspect of it.

 

[williemac]

I can answer that. God used men to accomplish it. Period. I would advise against propping up any human organization or group in the process. That would be the equivalent to giving man the credit rather than God. There were no other more logical men to use at that time. This does not represent a validation from God concerning an organization. Remember that Peter was corrected concerning just whom could receive the gospel and the Holy Spirit. How is it that he can receive correction but the organization that espouses his name cannot?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Since when is the Catholic Church incorrigible? And nobody is trying to take credit from God, nor is it even possible to do so for God's glory does not depend on man. But now we're arguing semantics. But you're incorrect in claiming that God doesn't validate organization, he did so right before ascending into heaven, leaving a structure of authority and means to pass on that authority to future generations. Jesus left order, not anarchy.

As for your mention of the elements supernaturally becoming the literal body and blood of Jesus...that was also a man made idea. Jesus broke the bread and shared the wine with His disciples and declared "this is My body...and this is My blood...which WAS broken and shed". He used the past tense to speak of a future event. Do you actually suppose that those became literally His body and blood at that time, BEFORE it actually happened...and while Jesus was actually with them in person?

When I say my car is red, am I defining it or just describing its color? Do not take the word "is" to automatically be a definition. It can and more often is used in an allegorical or descriptive sense, such as " my heart IS heavy". The reality is that there is no supporting scripture to allow for such a doctrine as the elements literally transforming into His body and blood. That is merely a man made opinion, and a stretch to put it mildly. It cannot be proven. Not physically nor scripturally. Believing it does not make it real.

This is a fundamental inability to think outside the limitations of human perception. In the sacrifice of the Mass, the broken body and shed blood of Christ is supernaturally made present in the elements even though it is an event in the past. It was in like manner made present in the Last Supper. The only way to adequately explain this is that we are bound by time and think in the linear/temporal/sequential mindset, but heaven operates outside of time and it's constraints. It requires imagination to conceive of a reality that isn't subject to the linear/temporal/sequential paradigm. And please don't think I'm talking down to you, because I know you can do this as well as I can, imagining eternity as something completely outside of time.

Moreover, even the emphasis of your argument proves the point I just made, that Jesus was alluding in past tense to an event which hadn't occurred yet. He made a similar point of teaching when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." He spent his whole life and ministry seeing the end from the beginning as only God can do.

But also, this is further spelled out in Hebrews, how the singular sacrifice of Christ went back in time to validate the animal sacrifices which were, in themselves, insufficient for the remission of sins. Every sacrifice conducted by the Levite priesthood would have been utterly in vain without the single, perfect once-and-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God, an event which had not occurred yet, but in God's eyes, had already occurred. To miss the point that the work of the Cross was efficacious for all time, past, present, and future, is to miss the most significant and miraculous aspect of it.

Nothing you have just said proves that when you take the elements you are literally taking in the body and blood of Jesus. You are dodging that fact with things that I already know and agree with. Those are another subject. God calls things that are not as though they were. Seeing the end from the beginning has no bearing on whether or not Jesus transformed the bread and wine into His real body and blood when He was sitting with His disciples. From their perspective and from the perspective of time, the sacrifice had not yet occured. Jesus entered into this world's timeframe and lived in it. In fact at the time, they did not even understand what the connection the bread and wine had with His death, because it was not yet revealed. He was giving them future instructions. The bread and wine symbolized His body and blood, as they do now.

The way that we parake of His flesh and blood is by accepting His sacrifice that was made for our sake. It is all about faith. The purpose in our partaking of the elements was to do it in remembrance of His death. There is no necessity for this to be a literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood in order to simply remember it. And remembering His sacrifice regularily does not put life into us nor does it save us. John 3:16 and Rom.10:9,10 confirm that our salvation to everlasting life is by faith. The new birth is a one time event. It doesn't need propping up or sustaining through communion.

When He took the bread and said "this is My body which was broken for you"...what that means is ..." this represents My body...." There is no supporting scripture to make the doctrine that it was literally His body. You have shown me none and will not in the future. There is none.

I am very sorry that this is off topic, but I do recall replying to it because you mentioned it first. Please don't forget this fact, as I don't want you to think I am attacking or invalidating the Catholic religion in general. I am disputing one of the doctrines here.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

When He took the bread and said "this is My body which was broken for you"...what that means is ..." this represents My body...." There is no supporting scripture to make the doctrine that it was literally His body. You have shown me none and will not in the future. There is none.

I can't believe you don't see it for yourself. You're inserting words that confound what the Scripture actually says. "And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1Cor 11:24,27)

Furthermore, never in Christian history has the scripture been reinterpreted to make the communion elements mere symbolism. Christians have worshipped all these centuries understanding that the common elements of bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. Nothing in scripture supports your watered down interpretation.

The gospel says, "This is my body" not "This represents my body." Will you continue going by your own beliefs or what the Bible actually says?

 

[williemac]

I can't believe you don't see it for yourself. You're inserting words that confound what the Scripture actually says. "And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1Cor 11:24,27)

Furthermore, never in Christian history has the scripture been reinterpreted to make the communion elements mere symbolism. Christians have worshipped all these centuries understanding that the common elements of bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. Nothing in scripture supports your watered down interpretation.

The gospel says, "This is my body" not "This represents my body." Will you continue going by your own beliefs or what the Bible actually says?

I have a Catholic friend who considers himself to be a mystic. In our many conversations I have observed his mindset and how he reads things into simple ordinary events that commonly occur with most people. My educated guess is that some mystical type at one point in time looked at this passage and took it literally. You can call my version watered down all you like, but I have a great deal of passion and expereince in bible interpretation to go on. One of the most basic rules of thumb in the forming of major or even minor doctrines is that they need support in scriputre. In other words, a doctrinal stance has very little validation if is derived from just one passage or one vers of scripture. That is the case, here.

I am not closed to mustical or spiritual things. But I am also not interested in drawing conclusions from one place in the bible if there are no other places that expand, expound, or even mention the subject. Your stance, which I assume was introduced to you in the first place by your religion and not by your own mind in your own studies, violates one of the most basic principles of bible interpretation.

The inability to appreciate the use of figures of speech in communication is what I am seeing here. In John 6:48-51, we see Jesus using the same kind of language on this very subject. Here it is:
"I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world".

He then goes on to tell them that whover eats this flesh and drinks this blood has eternal life. " For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (vs.55). His flesh is food? His blood provides nourishment?

So how is it that I can prove that He was speaking symbolically? Simple. We can start with John 3:16. ...."that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" Either he is contradicting Himself in this verse, or He is revealing the connection. Is it by faith that we are saved and receive life, or is it because we remember His sacrifice and literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is supported many places in Paul's writings, where in regards to salvation, he makes no mention at all about communion being necessary. Rom. 10:9,10 sums it up nicely. It is by confession and faith. Period.

Paul also reminded the Galatian church that they received the Holy Spirit by the hearing of faith...period. Jesus, in John 6:40 declares that everyone who sees the son and believes in Him will have everlasting life. If this is literal then we are all lost, not having literally laid eys on Him. And in John 6:47, Jesus said.." He who believes in Me has everlasting life". This is all about faith, not about eating a chunk of bread and sipping a cup of wine. Snap out of it, my brother.

You have to realize who He was speaking to here. He was speaking into a tradition that was part and parcel of their religion. The passover meal was all about the fortelling of His sacrfice for sin. But this was hidden from thier understanding, and for a good reason. The sacrificial lamb was also part of this tradition. Jesus therefore is called the Lamb of God. Are you going to stay consistent with your stance and say that Jesus is literally a lamb? I highly doubt it. Do you take His claim to be living bread so literally that you believe He was actually made from the ingredients of bread? You know better than that. You can see from those examples that it is a valid part of bible language to use comparison and symbolism.

But then you forget about all that and take one verse literally, making it a mystical thing that has no support anywhere in the bible. No sir, I am not watering anything down. Scripture is to be understood and interpreted correctly.
John 6: 33..." For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" Did Jesus come in the form of a man, or in the form of actual bread? Did Mary give birth to bread? It may be hard for you to be open because of your commitment to your Catholic faith. That is too bad. The word of God is profitable for correction...to they who are correctable.

 

[aspen]

The Eucharist was practiced for centuries before Protestantism,,,,,,not sure how some
Christians believe they can just ignore all church history besides their own....and especially think they can convince educated Catholics who look at all church history

 

[williemac]

The Eucharist was practiced for centuries before Protestantism,,,,,,not sure how some
Christians believe they can just ignore all church history besides their own....and especially think they can convince educated Catholics who look at all church history

I don't know of any non Catholic who disputes the necessity and the benefit of remembering the Lord's sacrifice through the taking of the communion emblems. I am not doing that here. This is not about whether we should do it, but about whether the emblems (bread and wine) magically (or supernaturally, I should say) transform themselves into the literal body and blood of Jesus during the partaking of them. Protestants take communion. We remember His death regularily. But everlasting life, eternal life, the new birth, whatever you wish to call it, is a one time gift, not something that is repeated or maintained through communion (Eucharist). In John 6, Jesus says that whoever eats of His flesh and drinks His blood will have everlasting life. But He also says whoever believes in Him has everlasting life. This is how they are partaken of; through faith in Him, not by literally eating or drinking Jesus.

In Heb.6:1, we find that the giving of life is a one time event and is not repeated, which is the reason the author gives as to why the foundations do not need revisiting. In fact he states that if one should fall away from this life, it is impossible to get it back. The Eucharist is not for the purpose of getting everlasting life over and over again, nor for the purpose of maintaining it. Paul's warning to not partake of it in an unworthy manner is not meant to keep anyone saved, but rather to prevent chastening from the Lord.

 

[aspen]

I don't know of any non Catholic who disputes the necessity and the benefit of remembering the Lord's sacrifice through the taking of the communion emblems. I am not doing that here. This is not about whether we should do it, but about whether the emblems (bread and wine) magically (or supernaturally, I should say) transform themselves into the literal body and blood of Jesus during the partaking of them. Protestants take communion. We remember His death regularily. But everlasting life, eternal life, the new birth, whatever you wish to call it, is a one time gift, not something that is repeated or maintained through communion (Eucharist). In John 6, Jesus says that whoever eats of His flesh and drinks His blood will have everlasting life. But He also says whoever believes in Him has everlasting life. This is how they are partaken of; through faith in Him, not by literally eating or drinking Jesus.

In Heb.6:1, we find that the giving of life is a one time event and is not repeated, which is the reason the author gives as to why the foundations do not need revisiting. In fact he states that if one should fall away from this life, it is impossible to get it back. The Eucharist is not for the purpose of getting everlasting life over and over again, nor for the purpose of maintaining it. Paul's warning to not partake of it in an unworthy manner is not meant to keep anyone saved, but rather to prevent chastening from the Lord.

I understand where you are coming from. My surprise is when many noncatholics act as if celebrating the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a new idea - as if those weird Catholics are just trying to be different or evil by following some new magical formula. As soon as I realized that Church history did not start with Christ raising from the dead and the next day, preceded with Luther's conversion, I recognized how the early church came to the conclusion and practices they participated in. In my case, it lead me to the Catholic Church.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't know of any non Catholic who disputes the necessity and the benefit of remembering the Lord's sacrifice through the taking of the communion emblems. I am not doing that here. This is not about whether we should do it, but about whether the emblems (bread and wine) magically (or supernaturally, I should say) transform themselves into the literal body and blood of Jesus during the partaking of them. Protestants take communion. We remember His death regularily. But everlasting life, eternal life, the new birth, whatever you wish to call it, is a one time gift, not something that is repeated or maintained through communion (Eucharist). In John 6, Jesus says that whoever eats of His flesh and drinks His blood will have everlasting life. But He also says whoever believes in Him has everlasting life. This is how they are partaken of; through faith in Him, not by literally eating or drinking Jesus.

In Heb.6:1, we find that the giving of life is a one time event and is not repeated, which is the reason the author gives as to why the foundations do not need revisiting. In fact he states that if one should fall away from this life, it is impossible to get it back. The Eucharist is not for the purpose of getting everlasting life over and over again, nor for the purpose of maintaining it. Paul's warning to not partake of it in an unworthy manner is not meant to keep anyone saved, but rather to prevent chastening from the Lord.

You don't even speak for all Protestants. The majority of Protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc believe in a literal transubstantiation of the elements. So no, it isn't a Catholic vs Protestant thing, it's your misguided belief against what Christians have always believed for 2000 years, going all the way back to the early church and the teachings of the Church fathers in the 2nd century on the issue of communion.