How would answer the RC charge

[earl40]

that we as reformed protestants do not believe in transubstantiation and that Jesus was referring to eating His body and blood in John 6:60? I am refering to the creeds which state clearly In my most humble opinion that each nature of Jesus, human and divine, retains it proper attributes. I am also saying the Human nature Jesus is indeed present in communion because of the hypostatic union of the divine nature. Am I off here?

The RC says........"John 6:60 "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" which is the doubting Jews position, one (me) you seem to support."

 

[ProtestantBankie]

That is a very weak argument. Essentially he is saying "You do not agree with me, therefore you are like a doubting Jew"

Look at Peter in 6:68 "[Jesus] hast the WORDS of eternal life" contrasted with "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;"

What can this mean then?

Is it not that, if we accept and live the word - then our spirtitual nature feeds on the very body and blood of Christ?

 

[J. Dean]

I always like to ask how the elements became Jesus' body and blood in the upper room when Jesus was not yet crucified.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The irony of using this as a "proof text" for Christ saying people had to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood is that this was the conclusion of the hard-hearted hearers of Christ. That's all they could hear. Flesh is flesh. Blood is blood. What was hard about the people were their hearts and Christ was repeatedly telling them that they could not come to Him unless the Father drew them. It's almost comical to read Him saying: "You can't come to me unless the Father draws you..." and them essentially demonstrating that his words were exactly right in the kind of response they gave.

Their response was carnal and so is the thinking that surrounds transubstantiation. The flesh profits nothing in understanding Christ.

I exhorted on John 6 not too long ago:

The Living Bread From Heaven (John 6) - SermonAudio.com

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

I always like to ask how the elements became Jesus' body and blood in the upper room when Jesus was not yet crucified.

This is a death knell to this tired, old argument. Romies love to use that but it only falls back onto them and crushes them.

 

[earl40]

I always like to ask how the elements became Jesus' body and blood in the upper room when Jesus was not yet crucified.

Yes I did ask him that exact question and he simply responded that he believed that what Jesus said was literal.

 

[dudley]

I always like to ask how the elements became Jesus' body and blood in the upper room when Jesus was not yet crucified.

Yes I did ask him that exact question and he simply responded that he believed that what Jesus said was literal.

I am an ex roman catholic, now a Presbyterian and I deny the Roman catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. I renounce it as I renounced all the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. Here is the passage Roman Catholics use to justify the false teaching of transubstantiation:

John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

I have read a lot about this argument and I have sided with protestant theologians who argue in the following way:

I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.

There are two reasons why:

1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.

But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.

b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).

2. Another important Roman Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.

The brief questions that I have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these (all related):
Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper? If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death? If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon?

The roman catholic teaching is a blasphemy and an abomination of the sacrament ass is the Roman catholic mass!

 

[jambo]

I have found that a lot of RCs who say they believe the bread is the body of Christ but there are few who really believe that it actually does change from bread to the body. I also find it strange that RCs accept Jesus is speaking figuratively when he says I am the door...vine...light etc yet always take the bread/body and wine/blood literally.

 

[earl40]

The brief questions that I have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these (all related):
Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper? If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death? If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon?

The roman catholic teaching is a blasphemy and an abomination of the sacrament ass is the Roman catholic mass!

What is interesting is that the RC I am in dialog with does indeed say the bread and wine is His body and blood before His death.

Thank you Dudley.

 

[dudley]

I have found that a lot of RCs who say they believe the bread is the body of Christ but there are few who really believe that it actually does change from bread to the body. I also find it strange that RCs accept Jesus is speaking figuratively when he says I am the door...vine...light etc yet always take the bread/body and wine/blood literally.

Stuart, Roman Catholicism is and was I now see all about control. Roman Catholics are also brainwashed into believing absurd doctrines which have no biblical basis or even make sense. There is no freedom and no true faith under the pope’s authority. It is why I renounced the pope and Roman Catholicism openly to my Westminster class as did the Protestant reformers. I could relate totally with them.
I was not only controlled but was brainwashed into believing that Roman Catholics only had the reception of Christ himself as they believed in transubstantiation. I always believed that Christ was present but would say to others, it is a mystery no man can truly explain. I was brainwashed into believing that all Protestants and especially Presbyterians did not believe in the presence of Christ in the Lords Supper. I knew that Lutherans and some Episcopalians believed in the some true presence. I think that is why I first explored the Episcopalians and the Lutherans they were not as far away from Roman Catholicism, I thought. I was also brainwashed in to believing that the Presbyterians were the farthest away for the Roman church and what they said was the church of Christ. I was told that attending Presbyterian services was a bad idea for any catholic. It was bad because they would undermine the true faith, which they said was Roman Catholicism. I believe it was the Grace of God who blessed me with a good intellect and mind that led me to question those beliefs. I found quite the opposite was true, I believe that the gathering we have of services on Sunday is more in line with the early church which never had a mass. I also began to see that Calvin’s idea of ascending to Christ in faith that he became truly present to us in the Lords Supper; we are fed spiritually which is what Christ intended. The Lords Supper is food for the soul ,it is represented by the bread and wine which remain bread and wine. When I studied Knox very thoughtfully I began to not only see what he saw; the RC mass as and abomination but also a blasphemy. I began to see that nothing remains pure and undefiled in the mass. I began to see the mass was an invention of men, popes and I could as Knox understand how the mass itself is a form of Idolatry. I now understood why I was always turned off to the adoration, of the bread wafer in a Gold monstrance. I thought the practice was repulsive, I still do. I could not even conceive of Jesus Christ when I looked the catholic bread wafer wrapped in Golden ornaments and worshiped. I always in my own mind also thought that the saving of the communion in a Gold tabernacle was also wrong and an abomination. It led to so many superstitious practices and beliefs. The Roman church also church defies the 5th sola of the Reformation which I also believe;
I believe strongly in the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. All Glory and Honor is given to God as he directs us in scripture not when man adds to the service their wicked opinions and change it as did the popes and the Roman church ,the mass becomes a total abomination and not true worship as I at one time believed. I then began to also see that it was the sacrifice of Christ alone on Calvary that freed us from our sins. We are justified by Christ alone and we are saved through his sacrifice alone which gives us salvation. The mass is still taught to be a sacrifice for the remission of sins. I see that as a blasphemy ,because it denies the completion of the one and only sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as written in the Gospel and the words of Christ himself , ‘it is finished” To have a priest offer a sacrifice is in denial of what Christ came to change. I also see it as a way of controlling people and making then believe they must have the RC church to and its ritualistic mass to be saved. Because of the foul teaching I have begun to say to some I changed denominations I am still catholic in the Greek meaning of the word, universal. I am of the Protestant fold and a Presbyterian now. There are some Roman Catholic friends and family who are still little upset at my becoming a Protestant and a Presbyterian. Some are not completely happy with my converting to the Presbyterian faith. I try to tell them that as a Presbyterian and a protestant I began to know a personal Jesus I never met of knew in the Roman Catholic faith. I have told all that I truly receive Jesus in the Lords Supper or the Eucharist as the Roman church calls it. I said in John 6 the RC church misconstrues the teaching of Christ on the Lords Supper. Christ spoke as he did many times symbolically and he meant that the bread which was his body was received spiritually it was meant to be spiritual food ,The bread represent his broken body on Calvary and we feed on his body spiritually in communing. The wine represents his blood and we receive Christ completely in our soul as he intended. I believe I tell others that I receive Christ as much and I believe more so correctly in the Presbyterian church that I ever did in the roman catholic church,. I receive him completely and I do not believe the bread becomes his body and the wine becomes his blood through the consecration of the priest only at mass. (Another way of making the Priest and church a necessity) I believe that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. I see Jesus more clearly when I pray in the Presbyterian Church and worship in the Presbyterian Church more that I ever did while attending the mass and received her Eucharist which I now see as did many of the Reformers a blasphemy and an abomination.
I think many do not understand what I am saying I pray that God will grant to them the grace he granted me.

 

[jambo]

I think it is great to hear of churches in the RC countries of Europe that are growing.When we ministered in the Irish Republic it was an exciting time. I recall a joint service between our church and two other churches from neighbouring towns and afterwards we had a picnic. At the end I took a photograph of the gathering. Later as I looked at it, I realised that of the 60 or so people in the photograph, only about half a dozen had been Christians for more than 5 years and more than 95% of the whole group were former RCs. Although 3 neighbouring churches totalling 60+ people may not seem a lot, and although those churches were the nearest to each other they formed a triangle with each church 30 miles from the other two. Growth was small yet steady and many of the converts were converted after one person in the family was converted and through their witness the Lord drew others into the kingdom. I know you may find it hard with family members not really understanding what has happened yet a converts holy and transformed life lived out in front of others speaks volumes.

 

[dudley]

I think it is great to hear of churches in the RC countries of Europe that are growing.When we ministered in the Irish Republic it was an exciting time. I recall a joint service between our church and two other churches from neighbouring towns and afterwards we had a picnic. At the end I took a photograph of the gathering. Later as I looked at it, I realised that of the 60 or so people in the photograph, only about half a dozen had been Christians for more than 5 years and more than 95% of the whole group were former RCs. Although 3 neighbouring churches totalling 60+ people may not seem a lot, and although those churches were the nearest to each other they formed a triangle with each church 30 miles from the other two. Growth was small yet steady and many of the converts were converted after one person in the family was converted and through their witness the Lord drew others into the kingdom. I know you may find it hard with family members not really understanding what has happened yet a converts holy and transformed life lived out in front of others speaks volumes.

Amen Stuart, I agree and we here in the north eastern US are seeing large numbers of RC's becoming Protestants.