Refuting Transubstantiation

Why Bother?

Since this topic is one that often arises when in dialogue with Romanists, I have found it necessary to make a list of some refutations of the Romanist heresy of transubstantiation. The Romanists believe that the elements of the Lord’s Supper become the literal body and blood of Christ. This is patently false for a myriad of reasons. Let us look just a couple of these.

Ontological Dilemmas

While the New Testament does not explicitly teach us everything we would want to know about the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, what it does teach us helps see just how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written:

“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”[1]

Further, we note that because Christ is no longer corruptible it would be impossible for the bread and wine to turn into the corruptible flesh and blood that our Lord bore while He was on the cross dying in the place of His elect sheep. What we also must note, before we move on to our next refutation of the heresy of transubstantiation, is that even if the Lord’s words concerning His flesh and bones were not intended to teach us about the constitution of His resurrected body, although that is the present author’s understanding of the passage in question, it nonetheless remains a hard and fast fact that the apostle Paul declares,

“What you sow does not come back to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of anotherI tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable…”[2]

Thus, the heresy of transubstantiation is shown to be false in this way, for it purports to know of what nature the resurrected body of Christ is made apart from the Scriptures. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then Christ’s resurrected body must be different than these, for He inherited the kingdom of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father. And if different, then it cannot be that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus our Savior.

Moral Dilemmas

The Lord tells His people that He does not change;[3] therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in.[4] Therefore, it is impossible for God to be commanding the New Testament church to do what He identified as an abominable practice. To even suggest that God would do such a thing is to accuse God of sin. Either God does not change and He will always reject the consumption of human flesh and blood as a means of worship; or God does change and is self-contradictory. The Romanist does not want to choose either of these options, but there is no third option. Either God is worshiped by the consumption of human flesh and blood, or He is not. The clear evidence, then, is this: God never has and never will accept the consumption of human flesh and blood as an appropriate means of worship.

Moreover, we see that the doctrine of transubstantiation is patently false, for if the Law was not fulfilled until Christ proclaimed “It is finished!” from the hill of Calvary just prior to His descent into the grave, then He would have been guilty of breaking the dietary laws under which He was born and compelled to fulfill as our Substitute and Spotless Sacrifice. It would have also been sin for Him to teach others to do the same, for He Himself declares that,

“…not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called the great in the kingdom of heaven…”[5]

Therefore, if Christ established the Romanist doctrine of the transubstantiation, He is a sinner and least in the kingdom of heaven. This is the strongest refutation of the heresy of transubstantiation, but we may note another as well.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that Christ truly did establish the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation. If it were the case that Christ taught “clearly,” as the Romanists pontificate, that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, then  why did the apostles in Acts 15:1-29 tell the Gentiles to not partake of sacrificial blood? The dilemmas that arise here are as follows. In the first place, if the Lord Jesus taught His disciples that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, and that the consumption of this flesh and blood was requisite to one’s salvation, then the declaration of the council in Acts 15:1-29, which makes no distinction between the sacrificial blood offered to idols and the sacrificial blood offered to God, would be wrong for commanding the Gentiles to “stay away from blood.”[6] However, how could the very same disciples that received the depositum fidei utter such words in contradiction to Christ’s command to “take and eat”? How is it that these men, among whom was Peter the Infallible, whose decisions were to be infallible proclaim infallibly what Christ infallibly contradicts, if the words He speaks at the Last Supper are indeed the “words of consecration” in which the accidents proper to bread and wine remain the same but the substance of each is fully changed into the respective flesh and blood of Christ?

More to the point, however, we have yet another dilemma that remains unanswered. For if the Lord commanded the disciples to command others to drink the blood of Christ, and the disciples taught the Gentiles to stay away from blood, then they were not “teaching them to observe all that [He had] commanded [them].”[7] Yet, if they taught both, would this not make it so that if the Gentiles obeyed Christ’s command to drink His blood, which is an infallible command, then they could not obey the command of the apostles, which is an infallible command, to stay away from blood? If the Gentiles obeyed Christ, then they sinned against Him by disobeying the apostles. However, if the Gentiles obeyed the apostles, then they sinned against Christ by being obedient to Him! Madness!

Conclusion?

We have shown that the heresy of transubstantiation is ontologically incorrect and, therefore, false. We have shown, moreover, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, if assumed to be true, raises a slew of moral dilemmas that cannot be glossed over, for they concern the very salvation of our souls. The logical consequence of the refutation of this one doctrine, however, is much greater than this, for if this one doctrine is shown to be an error, then the entire Roman religion is shown to be equally false, for this doctrine supposedly comes from the infallible man in Vatican city, as well as his infallible magisterium. The doctrine of transubstantiation is patently false; therefore, the pope and the magisterium are not infallible. Therefore, the Roman religion is equally false.

-h.


[1] Luke 24:38-39

[2] 1 Cor 15:36b-50

[3] Cf. Mal 3:6

[4] Cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 19:26; Deut 12:3

[5] Matt 5:18a-19

[6] Acts 15:20b, 29a

[7] Matt 28:20a


Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Refuting Transubstantiation

  1. Michael Morris says:

    Leaving aside your pet theory on the passage from St. Luke’s Gospel, what does Jesus do in John’s Gospel immediately before the “Bread of Life” discourse? He feeds 5,000+ people with five loaves and two fish. Does this not show that He controls all matter, Is it not then possible that He as Augustine said:

    “How this [‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

    Further, as Joe pointed out at Shameless Popery, where is the dog barking in the night time as Father after Father all said much the same.

    Including Ignatius of Antioch http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
    They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
    Letter to the Syrmnaens chp 6

    Justin Martyr http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
    And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
    First Apology

    So Hiram in effect what you are saying is that the Church nearly immediately fell into apostasy, idolatry and heresy.

    So Christ’s words even without the papacy aspect in Matt. 16 are rendered null and void while people who learned from the Apostles themselves are still alive. That’s almost as early as the LDS believe the Church fell into total apostasy. It’s not a very tenable position. Unless you believe in some sort of vast Catholic conspiracy intended to sucker a billion people into believing they have the oldest Christian faith, by destroying the true Protestant nature of the early Christians.

    Like

  2. Hiram says:

    MIchael,

    It’s easy to speak condescendingly toward someone who objects to your faith, it’s quite another thing to offer a substantial criticism. In your comment you haven’t dealt with any of my objections.

    1. You simply dismiss what is very obviously an ontological dilemma. Are the wafer and wine the body and blood of the resurrected Christ? If they are, then they were not given for you for Christ suffered in His corruptible flesh, i.e. non-glorified flesh. However, if the wafer and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ in His humiliation, on the cross for the sins of His people, then how is it that He has both an eternally incorruptible and glorified body and flesh and blood corruptible body.

    You’re allowed your opinion regarding which arguments I favor more or less than others; but your opinion about how much I like an argument doesn’t disprove it or begin to address what I’ve written.

    2. If Jesus literally turned the wafer and wine into His flesh and blood, then He was sinning by breaking the dietary laws of the Old Covenant, under which He was born for the express purpose of fulfilling. Since this is the case, I must reject any interpretation of the Lord’s Supper that, essentially, turns Christ into a sinner and makes His once for all sacrifice for my sins blemished and ineffectual.

    If you answer these objections convincingly, then we can talk about “the father.” Until then, I take it that your position is refuted.

    -h.

    Like

  3. Michael Morris says:

    1. I don’t dismiss anything, I accept the mystery of the faith…it’s not my place to understand how Transubstantiation works, it’s my place to decide if I am going to believe Christ spoke the Truth when He said This is my body, eat my flesh, drink my blood, etc. I choose to do so.

    2. The bread and wine don’t cease to exist.Christ is fully present in the appearance of the bread and wine.

    3. You can take it that my position is refuted as you choose, you have yet to do so, here or on facebook. Also you didn’t answer my question

    So Hiram in effect what you are saying is that the Church nearly immediately fell into apostasy, idolatry and heresy.

    So Christ’s words even without the papacy aspect in Matt. 16 are rendered null and void while people who learned from the Apostles themselves are still alive. That’s almost as early as the LDS believe the Church fell into total apostasy. It’s not a very tenable position. Unless you believe in some sort of vast Catholic conspiracy intended to sucker a billion people into believing they have the oldest Christian faith, by destroying the true Protestant nature of the early Christians.

    Where is the evidence that “Rome” has just made this all up? It’s called faith because it requires we look beyond what our rational minds expect.

    So as I said if the ecf’s are all in agreement pertaining to Transubstantiation (well the Real Presence at least, Transub was dogmatized later, but was held as Tradition from the first) , and none of them were called out as heretics, and even the other Protestant Rebellion leaders disagreed with Zwingli’s theological novelty, what reason is there to believe it’s the correct interpretation.

    So Hiram when did the Church fall into this evil idolatrous, heresy, thus making Christ a liar as He was unable to keep the Gates of Hell from prevailing over his church?

    After all, it was believed by Christians from the beginning until the 1500’s so, were they than not really Christians?

    Like

  4. Hiram says:

    This will be my last response to you on this subject, seeing as you won’t stay on topic.

    “1. I don’t dismiss anything, I accept the mystery of the faith…it’s not my place to understand how Transubstantiation works, it’s my place to decide if I am going to believe Christ spoke the Truth when He said This is my body, eat my flesh, drink my blood, etc. I choose to do so.”

    Yes, you dismiss the ontological dilemmas that arise from your interpretation of the Eucharist. You also dismiss the moral dilemmas that arise. My blog had nothing to do with how transubstantiation works. My blog is about why it cannot be true. I’ve already proven that if your conception of the Eucharist is correct, then Christ broke the Old Covenant and He is neither Messiah, Savior, Lord, God, or even Righteous.

    I believe Christ spoke the truth as well. That isn’t the issue. The issue is: Do the wafer and wine undergo a substantial change? Or is Christ using a figure of speech?

    If He was speaking literally, then He was sinning.
    If He was using a figure of speech, then He was not sinning.

    “2. The bread and wine don’t cease to exist.Christ is fully present in the appearance of the bread and wine.”

    I didn’t say that they cease to exist :/

    “3. You can take it that my position is refuted as you choose, you have yet to do so, here or on facebook.”

    Michael, the blog shows that is impossible for your interpretation to be correct,

    “Also you didn’t answer my question”

    I didn’t answer it because it is a red herring. Instead of dealing with the extremely problematic nature of your doctrines, you start trying to pull weight by “quoting” the fathers and then claiming that your doctrine has been around for 2,000 years. It hasn’t. Even modern Romanist scholars admit this much. For instance, Dollinger in his work “The Pope and the Council.”

    “So Hiram in effect what you are saying is that the Church nearly immediately fell into apostasy, idolatry and heresy.”

    Where did I say that? I disagree with you on the matter of whether or not your religion has changed. You say it hasn’t, I say that it has. You say that it is Biblically based, I say that it is not at all. If we want to pull historical weight, then my sources beat yours: Christ and His apostles did not teach transubstantiation, nor did they teach the papacy, nor did they teach the veneration of image, nor did they teach the veneration of Mary….these are all abominations that crept into the churches.

    “So Christ’s words even without the papacy aspect in Matt. 16 are rendered null and void while people who learned from the Apostles themselves are still alive.”

    No. God the Word did not say a word about the papacy. And I reject the idea that the early churches believed it as well.

    “That’s almost as early as the LDS believe the Church fell into total apostasy. It’s not a very tenable position.”

    I’m not familiar with their claims.

    “Unless you believe in some sort of vast Catholic conspiracy intended to sucker a billion people into believing they have the oldest Christian faith, by destroying the true Protestant nature of the early Christians.”

    There is a conspiracy, read Genesis 3:15: Satan’s desire is to crush the people of God. He will not triumph ultimately, but in the meantime the church that Christ has established is not the glistering, glittering, gilded, “infallible,” and politically powerful machine you think it is – Jesus promised that His followers would be persecuted, killed, and undergo tribulation for the sake of the Gospel. He also said that those who would be killing them would be under the delusive impression that they were doing God’s work.

    Read up on your history, Michael. Read about the Donatists, Paulicians, Waldensians, Albigensians, Lollards, and how your religion ruthlessly murdered them. Read about Savanarola, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Jan Huss, and the others who were killed by your religion for reading the Bible, preaching the Bible, and denouncing the heresies your leader forces you to cling to under threat of anathema.

    Read about Catholics who understood that Papal infallibility is a myth, such as the Irish Catholics who in their 1755 Declaration wrote:

    “It is not an article of Faith, neither are we hereby required to believe or profess, that the pope is infallible.”

    (source)

    “Where is the evidence that “Rome” has just made this all up?”

    See above,

    “It’s called faith because it requires we look beyond what our rational minds expect.”

    This is a completely unbiblical understanding of faith. The Holy Spirit says: By faith we understand.

    “So as I said if the ecf’s are all in agreement pertaining to Transubstantiation (well the Real Presence at least, Transub was dogmatized later, but was held as Tradition from the first) , and none of them were called out as heretics, and even the other Protestant Rebellion leaders disagreed with Zwingli’s theological novelty, what reason is there to believe it’s the correct interpretation.”

    I don’t grant any of what you have written here. If you want to read about a different point of view than what your religion promulgates, typically at the cost of the lives of all who disagree, see this website:

    http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/true_ch/witn/html/title-in.htm

    “So Hiram when did the Church fall into this evil idolatrous, heresy, thus making Christ a liar as He was unable to keep the Gates of Hell from prevailing over his church?”

    No. Christ’s church is victorious in His victory, not in massive crusades against heretics, finely adorned clergy, an impenetrable vault of forbidden books written by her opponents.

    Christ’s church is falsely accused of blatant immorality and deviance; your church is guilty as charged.

    Christ’s church glories in Christ alone as the Head of His Church, the Rock of their salvation, and the King of kings and Lord of lords.

    Peter was just a man.

    “After all, it was believed by Christians from the beginning until the 1500′s so, were they than not really Christians?”

    This is more poor reasoning.

    1. Early Christians did not believe what you believe.

    2. Can a church structure be in error and yet have true Christians in it? Sure. As long as Christ alone through faith alone is being preached from the Scriptures alone, He is in the midst of them.

    If you have any comments regarding the actual content of the blog, then I will respond accordingly. However, if you do not have any meaningful response to my blog’s content, then I will not publish your comments.

    -h.

    Like

  5. Michael Morris says:

    I love me some church father’s. Ambrose, you remember him right, he’s the one Joe at Shameless Popery was slapping you with the other day, uses Luke 24:39 to defend the Catholic position.

    BTW this comment is directly related to content….Just saying…However I will be giving a full treatment of this post on my blog soon.

    123. If, then, there has neither been a time when the Life of the Son took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us consider what His meaning was when He said: “Even as the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father”? Let us expound His meaning as best we can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.

    124. Take notice, then, what He said in an earlier part of His discourse. “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” He first teaches you how you ought to listen. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” John 6:54 He first premised that He was speaking as Son of Man; do you then think that what He has said, as Son of Man, concerning His Flesh and His Blood, is to be applied to His Godhead?

    125. Then He added: “For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].” John 6:56 You hear Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, you perceive the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, John 6:52 and you dishonour His Godhead. Hear His own words: “A spirit has not flesh and bones.” Luke 24:39 Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.”

    126. Then, after calling on us to take notice that He speaks as Son of Man, and frequent repeated mention of His Flesh and His Blood, He adds: “Even as the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eats Me, he also lives by Me.” How then do they suppose that we are to understand these words?— for the comparison can be shown as a double one. The first comparison being after the following manner: “Even as the living Father has sent Me, I live by the Father;” the second: “Even as the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father, so also he that eats Me, he too lives by Me.”

    127. If our adversaries choose the former, the meaning is this, that, “as I am sent by the Father and have come down from the Father, so (in accordance therewith) I live by the Father.” But in what character was He sent, and came down, save as Son of Man, even as He Himself said before: “No man has ascended into heaven, save He that has come down from heaven as Son of Man.” John 3:13 Then, just as He was sent and came down as Son of Man, so as Son of Man He lives by the Father. Furthermore, he that eats Him, as eating the Son of Man, does himself also live by the Son of Man. Thus, He has compared the effect of His Incarnation to His coming.

    128. But if they choose the second method, do we not infer both the equality of the Son with the Father, and His likeness to men, together, though in clear mutual distinction? For what is the meaning of the words, “Even as He Himself lives by the Father, so we also live by Him,” but that the Son so quickens a man, as the Father has in the Son quickened human nature? “For as the Father raises the dead and quickens them, so also the Son quickens whom He will,” John 5:21 as the Lord Himself has already said.

    129. Thus the equality of the Son to the Father is established simply upon unity in the action of quickening, since the Son so quickens as the Father does. Acknowledge therefore the eternity of His Life and Sovereignty. Again, our likeness with the Son is discovered, and a certain unity with Him in the flesh, because that, like as the Son of God was quickened in the flesh by the Father, so also is man quickened; for thus it is written, that as God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, so we also, as men, are quickened by the Son of God. Romans 4:24

    130. According to this interpretation, then, immortality is not only applied to our condition by grace of bounty, but is also proclaimed as the property of Godhead— the latter, because it is the Godhead which quickens; the former, because manhood is quickened in Christ.

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34044.htm

    EMPHASIS ADDED

    Like

  6. Hiram says:

    Michael, I published your prooftexting of Ambrose – even though it does not deal with the argument I’m making in this blogpost. Like I told Joe, I don’t agree with your religion’s interpretation of Ambrose. And I’m not the only one.

    http://baylor.academia.edu/DanMarrs/Papers/845973/Real_Presence_True_Presence_Assessing_Thomas_Cranmers_Appropriation_of_St_Ambrose

    There is debate as to what Ambrose meant when he spoke of the change of the bread and wine.

    Yet, the fathers are not the issue. Rather, what does the Scripture say?

    If your interpretation of the Eucharist is correct, then Jesus is a sinner who broke the Old Covenant Law and hence is neither God (for God cannot sin), nor morally perfect (for He sins by eating flesh and blood and teaching others to do the same), nor does He fulfill the Law.

    On the other hand, if Jesus is eternally holy, He has never sinned and never will, and He has fulfilled the Law, then it is not at all possible that your interpretation of the Eucharist is correct.

    I’d like a Scriptural response, please.

    -h.

    Like

  7. Michael Morris says:

    I’ll give you one…Jesus abrogates the old law when He commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6….So then since you still hold to the Levitical law do you sacrifice turtledoves, hold slaves etc. Are we under Grace or under the law….The institution of the Eucharist is in Christ’s own words the institution of the New Covenant thus rendering His command to Eat His flesh and drink His blood not a violation of the Old Law. Cf. With Matthew 5, Where Jesus supersedes the old ways “You have heard it said….But I say unto you….This is what is occurring in John 6. Jesus fulfills and supersedes the old law.

    Given that the pagans thought they could acquire the life of the animal whose blood they consumed was the reason for the prohibition. However God desires us to have the life within the Body of Christ, hence the repeated urging to consume His flesh and blood.

    Like

  8. Hiram says:

    “I’ll give you one…Jesus abrogates the old law when He commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6”

    No, He doesn’t. The Holy Spirit says that Christ was “…canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross…” (Colossians 2:14), and that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Galatians 3:13). That is why God the Word of God’s last words are “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit (John 19:30). Christ did not fulfill the Law in its entirety until He spoke these last words. The Holy Spirit makes this clear when He tells us that “the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split” (Matthew 27:51), and that “when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[e] then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. It is Christ’s death that does away with the Old Covenant.

    “….So then since you still hold to the Levitical law do you sacrifice turtledoves, hold slaves etc…”

    I don’t hold to the Levitical Law. However, Christ did up until He proclaimed: It is finished.

    “Are we under Grace or under the law….”

    Those who believe the Gospel are under grace, for Christ has fulfilled the Law in their place. They are justified by faith alone. However, those who are still working in conjunction with the sacrifice of Christ are under a curse, under a covenant of works that they are obligated to fulfill as perfectly as Christ has fulfilled it for His elect bride.

    “The institution of the Eucharist is in Christ’s own words the institution of the New Covenant thus rendering His command to Eat His flesh and drink His blood not a violation of the Old Law.”

    No, they aren’t. The Holy Spirit explains:

    Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

    The first covenant was still operative until Christ proclaimed: It is finished.

    “Cf. With Matthew 5, Where Jesus supersedes the old ways “You have heard it said….But I say unto you…”

    Jesus doesn’t supersede the old ways; Jesus is cleaning up what the Pharisees had muddied up with their traditions.

    “This is what is occurring in John 6. Jesus fulfills and supersedes the old law.”

    The Old Covenant was not fulfilled in Christ and by Christ until He said “It is finished.” So, no, Jesus is not fulfilling and superseding the Law in John 6. He is fulfilling it, but this work of “fulfilling all righteousness” is not completed until….John 19:30.

    “Given that the pagans thought they could acquire the life of the animal whose blood they consumed was the reason for the prohibition. However God desires us to have the life within the Body of Christ, hence the repeated urging to consume His flesh and blood.”

    Whatever the reason was, the fact remains: Until Christ said “It is finished” He was willingly subjected to the Old Covenant stipulations and so were His disciples.

    Once the Law was fulfilled in Christ, however, the veil is torn from top to bottom, for the Law, which stood against God’s elect people, was nailed to the Cross and died with Christ.

    If Jesus taught the Jews to eat His literal blood and literal flesh, therefore, then He was sinning.

    However, if Jesus is not a sinner, if He is the One who has fulfilled the Law in the place of all who trust in Him alone for salvation, then His words in John 6 and in the Last Supper accounts necessarily mean something other than what your religion teaches.

    -h.

    Like

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s