I understand and I appreciate your candor. I'll try and check this thread from time to time and see how your journey is going. I'm truly grateful that you believe salvation is by grace through faith and we can share this belief. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
No Calvinist would say that fortune is part of salvation. It's by God's grace, wouldn't you agree? Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"
To say that Calvinist doctrine bases salvation on fortune is really an unfortunate mischaracterization.

You don't believe that Christ only paid the penalty for sin for those who believe in Him (John 3)?
Are you making a case for universalism?

Believers, Christians, elect, chosen, those who belong to Christ, the church, etc. are all referring to the same group of people. I realize you take exception to the terms chosen, elect, and predestined but those are biblical terms. Could you give an exegesis of Ephesians 1:4-5?

If you don't mind, I'd like to respond.

First, thank you for the Ephesians 1:4-5 question. I take those verses exactly as they are written: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, having predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. I have no problem with the biblical words "chosen," "elect," or "predestined."

In your post, you asked whether I believe that Christ only paid the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him. I assume that is your position (often called limited atonement), but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'll respond on that basis.

Let's look at John 3 together. John 3:16-17 says:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

If "world" here means only "those who would eventually believe," several things become very difficult to explain:
- The world Jesus entered included Herod (who tried to kill Him as a baby), the religious leaders who opposed Him, and the Roman authorities who crucified Him — none of whom believed.
- Why would Jesus need to clarify that He was not sent to condemn "the world" if that world consisted only of future believers?
- Why does the text say the world "might" be saved rather than "shall" or "will" be saved? The word "might" includes the real possibility that some will not be saved.

In addition, John 15:18-19 shows that believers are not considered part of "the world":
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

And yet John the Baptist calls Jesus "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

1 John 2:2 is even more explicit. John, writing to believers, says:
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

Just a few verses later in the same letter, John warns believers: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15-17). Clearly "the world" in 1 John 2:2 cannot mean the whole church — otherwise John would be telling the church not to love itself. Instead, "the whole world" refers to all humanity living in the sinful world system that is opposed to God.

I believe the blood of Jesus is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world — not just for believers. This does not mean I believe everyone will be saved (that would be universalism). People are still fully accountable to repent and trust in Christ alone. A helpful illustration I've heard is this: It's like someone handing you a valid check for a million dollars. The check has full value, but you still have to deposit it into your account to receive the benefits. Dying with that uncashed check in your pocket does you no good.

Believing the atonement is sufficient for all does not deny God's justice or sovereignty. On Judgment Day, no one will be able to say, "I couldn't be saved because Jesus didn't pay for my sins." The payment was made — they simply refused to receive it by faith.

Just as believing there is only one God does not mean I deny that Jesus is fully God, and just because I believe the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God does not mean I believe in three gods, the Bible teaches both truths at the same time. Likewise, just because I believe Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world does not mean I believe all will be saved. The Bible teaches both the sufficiency of Jesus' blood to atone for the sins of the whole world and the necessity that each person confess Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rey HRH,

I am not trying to alter the course of the thread; I am confident we can maintain multiple discussions at once. That said...

When considering the Eucharist, how is John 6:35 factored in? It certainly confirms the Protestant view on the matter. I suppose the Catholic position is bolstered by other scripture on the matter that seems much more literal, combined with church tradition and evidence of Eucharistic miracles.

Does the fact that Jesus himself implies it's a metaphor in this moment have any impact?

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
-John 6:35

I have very-much enjoyed all of these conversations, men. Thank you for your continued participation.

I appreciate the grace that we have all extended to one another. With His help, in accordance with His will, for His glory.

I have continued thinking about that 2Peter 3:9 and Matthew 7:13-14 reference I posted on page 42. He knew we were going to be bad stewards of His truth. Of course we're up against the enemy, hard hearts, and our pathetic flesh. I suppose all those things are what ultimately cause these denominational "fractures" in the church that we regularly discuss in this thread. I think these fractures do hurt our credibility and hinder our stewardship. In this thread though, it's very heartening to see how we can largely transcend these boundaries in our discussions, in the interest of honoring Him.

It seems weird to say it, in regards to an internet chat room, but I think the Spirit is in this.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I am not trying to alter the course of the thread; I am confident we can maintain multiple discussions at once. That said...

When considering the Eucharist, how is John 6:35 factored in? It certainly confirms the Protestant view on the matter. I suppose the Catholic position is bolstered by other scripture on the matter that seems much more literal, combined with church tradition and evidence of Eucharistic miracles.

Does the fact that Jesus himself implies it's a metaphor in this moment have any impact?

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
-John 6:35

I have very-much enjoyed all of these conversations, men. Thank you for your continued participation.

I appreciate the grace that we have all extended to one another. With His help, in accordance with His will, for His glory.

I have continued thinking about that 2Peter 3:9 and Matthew 7:13-14 reference I posted on page 42. He knew we were going to be bad stewards of His truth. Of course we're up against the enemy, hard hearts, and our pathetic flesh. I suppose all those things are what ultimately cause these denominational "fractures" in the church that we regularly discuss in this thread. I think these fractures do hurt our credibility and hinder our stewardship. In this thread though, it's very heartening to see how we can largely transcend these boundaries in our discussions, in the interest of honoring Him.

It seems weird to say it, in regards to an internet chat room, but I think the Spirit is in this.

I don't see any implication that what He is saying is metaphorical. In fact, I'd say just the opposite. He doubles down in the rest of the chapter. After Jesus doubles down, many of the disciples walk away from Him. It was, "too hard of a saying." Jesus asks those who stayed of they would leave also. They did not.

So, Jesus didn't correct them and say, "Wait, it's only a metaphor."

And nobody leaves over a metaphor.

I'd also suggest looking at the Greek. When He doubles down, the words change in Greek to say gnaw and munch from eat like casual dining. That's an important distinction.

It's absolutely metaphorical. Or to be more precise, Jesus is referring to himself as the antitype of the manna from the Exodus in the wilderness of the Old Testament. The Jews aren't struggling with anything about Jesus' actual flesh, they are struggling with the claim that he is making that he's the Son of God who came from heaven and that he is the one who gives eternal life (vv. 27-29, 41-42, 51)

Also in this chapter is Jesus dispelling the notion that works earn salvation (vv. 28-29)

Jesus saves those who are given to him by the Father (v.35)

No one can come to Jesus unless given by the Father (v. 44)

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
It's absolutely metaphorical. Or to be more precise, Jesus is referring to himself as the antitype of the manna from the Exodus in the wilderness of the Old Testament. The Jews aren't struggling with anything about Jesus' actual flesh, they are struggling with the claim that he is making that he's the Son of God who came from heaven and that he is the one who gives eternal life (vv. 27-29, 41-42, 51)

Also in this chapter is Jesus dispelling the notion that works earn salvation (vv. 28-29)

Jesus saves those who are given to him by the Father (v.35)

No one can come to Jesus unless given by the Father (v. 44)

The “John 6 is only metaphorical” argument falls apart when you actually read the chapter in context.

First, Jesus had already been speaking metaphorically earlier in John’s Gospel. “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” etc. But whenever people misunderstood a metaphor literally, He clarified it. In John 6, the opposite happens. The crowd is disturbed because they think He means actual flesh and blood, and instead of softening the teaching, Jesus intensifies it.

He starts with the ordinary word for “eat” (phago), then switches to a much more graphic word, “trogo,” meaning “gnaw” or “chew.” That makes no sense if He’s trying to pull them away from a literal understanding.

Then look at the reaction:
“Many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can accept it?’” (6:60)

If they merely misunderstood a metaphor, this was the perfect moment to explain. Instead, Jesus lets them leave. In fact:
“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him.” (6:66)

That is the only recorded time in John’s Gospel where disciples abandon Him over a doctrine. And Jesus doesn’t call them back saying, “Wait, I only meant symbolic faith.”

Scott Hahn points out something important here: the backdrop is Passover and the manna in the wilderness. The Jews already believed manna was miraculous bread from heaven. Jesus isn’t downgrading the miracle into a symbol, He’s elevating it. The old manna sustained physical life temporarily; the Eucharist gives eternal life.

Also, notice that Jesus doesn’t say:
“My flesh represents food.”
He says:
“My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (6:55)

The Greek word for “true” there (alethes) means genuine or real.

And the Protestant fallback of “He meant believing in Him,” ignores that Jesus already distinguished believing from eating. Earlier He says:
“He who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”
But later He moves into explicitly sacramental language about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The discourse develops; it doesn’t repeat itself.

Finally, the Last Supper seals it:
“This IS my body.”
Not “this symbolizes my body.”

The early Christians understood it literally too. People taught by the Apostles like Ignatius of Antioch condemned those who denied the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ. That’s decades before the New Testament canon was even finalized.

So the burden is really on the symbolic-only interpretation to explain:

Why Jesus intensified the language.
Why disciples abandoned Him over it.
Why He never corrected them.
Why the Last Supper uses literal covenant language.
and
Why the earliest Christians unanimously believed in the Real Presence.

quote:

The early Christians understood it literally too. People taught by the Apostles like Ignatius of Antioch condemned those who denied the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ. That’s decades before the New Testament canon was even finalized.

Thanks, Cous2492 for sharing your understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
This is faith and difficult for many to accept as the appearance of bread and wine remains.

I think the “metaphor” stuff sometimes comes because people don’t think about Christ as both God and Man, at the same time.

When He spoke, it was as both.

Good post, Cous. I am very appreciative of content from Cous, Rey, BlackTalon, etc.

I appreciate all posts, and am grateful for continued contributions from anyone and everyone, but some contributors are on another level, and I am thankful for them sharing their thoughts.

And I appreciate the ongoing civility. These discussions certainly have potential for fiery debate, but everyone is polite, considerate, and empathetic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

Also, notice that Jesus doesn’t say:
“My flesh represents food.”
He says:
“My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (6:55)

But you said correctly when Jesus said "I am the door" and not "I am representing the door" that it's a metaphor. So he doesn't have to use the word 'represents'.

Also, why would Jesus want to say his flesh represents food? That's not the point he's making here. He's talking about eternal life. He's talking about how the manna temporarily sustained life here on Earth for the Israelites in the wilderness, but if they believe in the true bread of life (Jesus) they will live forever. That's the entire point of this whole chapter. It's not about bread and wine transforming into Jesus' flesh at all.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

Also, notice that Jesus doesn’t say:
“My flesh represents food.”
He says:
“My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (6:55)

But you said correctly when Jesus said "I am the door" and not "I am representing the door" that it's a metaphor. So he doesn't have to use the word 'represents'.

Also, why would Jesus want to say his flesh represents food? That's not the point he's making here. He's talking about eternal life. He's talking about how the manna temporarily sustained life here on Earth for the Israelites in the wilderness, but if they believe in the true bread of life (Jesus) they will live forever. That's the entire point of this whole chapter. It's not about bread and wine transforming into Jesus' flesh at all.

You say that, but 2000 years of Church history disagree. Christians who predated the Bible disagree.

“I am the door”
Obvious symbolic setting, audience understands, no scandal, no one leaves, metaphor explained by context.

John 6
Audience takes Him literally, they are horrified, Jesus intensifies the language, switches to a more graphic verb, disciples leave, Jesus does not correct them.


To make the argument that Jesus was metaphorical is to make the same argument that the disciples who walked away made. And they are not the only people who left Jesus over the Eucharistic Covenant He made with His disciples. Judas left immediately after Jesus said that, "This is my Body" and "This is my blood." Judas didn't betray the Son of God because he didn't like his metaphor.

Conversely, look at the men on the road to Emmaus. They didn't know they had walked with Jesus until the breaking of the bread. Their eyes were opened at that moment. Why? Because Jesus was Sacramentally present in the bread itself. Scott Hahn often emphasizes something striking here: the disciples recognized Jesus not merely while hearing the Bible explained, but specifically in the Eucharistic act. Scripture prepared them; the breaking of the bread revealed Him.

Then, Jesus vanishes. Christ’s visible bodily presence gives way to His sacramental presence. The disciples no longer relate to Him merely physically, but through the Eucharistic mystery that will sustain the Church after the Ascension.


Another question to ask yourself is why would the entire Old Testament lead up to Jesus' edgy metaphor? There are literally dozens of examples, but for simplicity take the Manna from Heaven, the Passover lamb (blood on the crossbeams of the doorway and consumption of the lamb). Add that to things like Bethlehem meaning "house of bread" and being laid on a manger (food trough for sheep), I'd say that writing John 6 off as a metaphor is a grave error in theology. The same error that those who walked away and Judas Iscariot seem to have made.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Let's look at John 3 together. John 3:16-17 says:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

I think it's helpful to backup to at least verse 12 where Jesus says "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Jesus mentions the world in verse 16 because he's been talking just prior about earthly (world) and heavenly things. He's simply saying that God loves his creation and sent Jesus from heaven to the world.

In verse 16, the text says that God gave the Son to whoever believes in Christ and they will have eternal life. The literal translation from Greek says "every believing one". So I don't understand how the mention of God loving the world (kosmos) and God giving the Son to everyone who believes equates to Jesus dying for everyone. It seems clear from the text that the Father gave the Son to those who believe in him and not each and every person who has ever lived.

Putting John 3 aside for a moment, there are several places that mention Jesus paying the sins of only some people and not the whole world.

John 10 Several times Jesus says he gives his life for his sheep

Isaiah 53:12
"yet he bore the sin of many"

Matthew 26:28
"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28
"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Perhaps the best parallel to John 3:16 is 1 John 4:9 which mentions the Son entering the world but being the propitiation for our sins (not the sins of every person who ever lived)

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

My post is pretty long so I'll end here but I'm happy to try and cover any question I missed.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

To make the argument that Jesus was metaphorical is to make the same argument that the disciples who walked away made.

Please show me where the false disciples who walked away made this argument.

Earlier in your post you said they took him literally and then disciples left.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
John 6
Audience takes Him literally, they are horrified, Jesus intensifies the language, switches to a more graphic verb, disciples leave

I don't see anywhere that it says anyone was horrified. They left in verse 66 after Jesus said that no one can come to him unless granted by the Father (vv 64-65).

"But there are some of you who do not believe. (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Do you believe that no one can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father?

Again, this chapter is about salvation and eternal life. Let's not try to make it about anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

To make the argument that Jesus was metaphorical is to make the same argument that the disciples who walked away made.

Please show me where the false disciples who walked away made this argument.

Earlier in your post you said they took him literally and then disciples left.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
John 6
Audience takes Him literally, they are horrified, Jesus intensifies the language, switches to a more graphic verb, disciples leave

I don't see anywhere that it says anyone was horrified. They left in verse 66 after Jesus said that no one can come to him unless granted by the Father (vv 64-65).

"But there are some of you who do not believe. (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Do you believe that no one can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father?

Again, this chapter is about salvation and eternal life. Let's not try to make it about anything else.

I compare the people who said, "this is a hard saying" and "He was only using metaphor" because they are one in the same.

We seem to be spinning our wheels with the metaphor vs literal interpretation, so let me just ask you this:

What makes BlackTalonJHP's interpretation better than 2000 years of faithful Christians who took Jesus words to be literal? The early Christians unanimously held the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Thousands of wrings of early Church fathers support this. Their interpretation predated the Bible itself. The New Covenant was a Sacrament before it was a document, according to the document! It's kind of a funny saying, but it's also true. Hundreds of years of Eucharistic Christianity before the canon of the New testament existed. Then it was another 1200 years of consistent Eucharistic tradition and a literal interpretation. People who knew Jesus believed in the Eucharist. All the early Church Fathers believed in the Eucharist. 2000 years of Catholics believed in the Eucharist.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
What makes BlackTalonJHP's interpretation better than 2000 years of faithful Christians who took Jesus words to be literal?

Because it actually addresses the text of scripture instead of using your logical fallacy of appealing to tradition and authority.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
What makes BlackTalonJHP's interpretation better than 2000 years of faithful Christians who took Jesus words to be literal?

Because it actually addresses the text of scripture instead of using your logical fallacy of appealing to tradition and authority.

The text of the scripture completely affirms the Catholic position. It's not a logical fallacy to appeal to tradition and authority. This issue is the perfect example of why tradition and authority are necessary. Were the early Church fathers and early Christians just wrong about the Eucharist? The metaphorical belief wasn't widespread until Zwingli and the reformation. To agree with him you have to say that you know better than 1500 years of Christians before him and 2000 years of Catholics and Orthodox rites. That somehow your English translation of the scriptures that actually does say that it IS His flesh and blood is better than firsthand accounts from people who knew Jesus and/or the Apostles. You have to ignore the Greek. You have to ignore the rest of the context clues throughout the Old and New Testaments.

This has been a very interesting discussion. As previously discussed and, I think, agreed upon: The Eucharist is a "secondary issue". Cous believes in his heart that it is the ultimate form of obedience, worship, and communion with Christ on this side of heaven. He is passionate about it and, understandably, wants his fellow Christians to understand it so they can also enjoy the richness of relationship with our savior that he sees in it.

Because it's a matter of the heart, and the heart is oriented toward a desire to love, honor, glorify, and fellowship with Christ, I can't conceive of any reason why it could be a real problem.

I maintain, based on my experience, that the Eucharist, combined with other Catholic doctrine/dogma may serve to dilute the gospel message and potentially delay someone's honest initiation of a relationship with Christ in faith. This is my personal perspective on the matter.

I'm not ignoring English translations or the Greek text. I'm not ignoring the context. I'm the one here willing to engage with the English and Greek text and the context instead of appealing to authority.

My interpretation is that Jesus is saying that we must believe in him (the true bread) to truly have eternal life and it's clear from this chapter in John and many other places in scripture that is how we inherit eternal life. Your interpretation is that we must eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood to have eternal life. I don't think we're going to find common ground on this issue but if you are willing to engage with the questions I posed and the text of scripture, I will listen to what you have to say.

quote:

I don't think we're going to find common ground on this issue...

No, we are not. You either believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, or you don't.

quote:

Your interpretation is that we must eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood to have eternal life.

I have not gotten the impression that this is Cous's belief.