Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 35 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 204
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[a] without discerning the body,[b] eat and drink judgment against themselves.

First, before I begin, I would like to apologize for speaking of this verse, a verse I am sure the vast majority of you have already read and discerned. Since my retirement, I have had a lot of meaningful time in reading the Scriptures and am trying to understand and bolster my faith in doing so. I know what I learn today, you guys have already learned, but I want to extend what I think and expose it to those in here who might further enlighten the topic with your thoughts. So, forgive my late entrys and please feel free to add, admonish or build upon my post.

I think this verse is the most conclusive of all the potential verses (notably John 6, the Bread of Life discourse) to expose the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Paul speaking of the potential for unworthy consumption. “Answerable” to the point put forth by Paul in terms of murder (answerable for the body and blood of the Lord). You can eat unworthily if you do or don’t believe in the real presence of Christ and (2) you will be held accountable for the body and blood of the Lord if you do partake unworthily. He describes the sin of those who do not recognize Christ’s true body in this sacrament and therefore receive him unworthily, as well as those who say they believe but still partake unworthily. You would still be held accountable for an imaginary, symbolic representation of the true presence because nonbelief would be the ultimate sacrilege for partaking in an unworthy manner. IMO, Paul’s statement here, is not the language of pure symbolism, but in the true belief of the sacrament. This is the language of real presence, for which all Christians will be held to account. Some for not believing while partaking, for others who say they believe but still partake unworthily. I don’t know which is worse but none of that is good.

You can partake of His Eucharist, but you must examine yourself first. I think this means to (1) look interiorily, seek out your trespasses and (2) confess them before you can partake.
This is the great coordination of the responsibility of the believer in the true presence’s belief and then the requirement of reconciliation before partaking. Belief in God and asking forgiveness all wrapped up in one verse. Is this not the good news?

Lastly, the point involving the discernment. Discerning the true presence of Christ in the sacrament is I think the main aim here of Paul’s discussion. We must “discern the body”, realize the actual presence here in the Eucharist! This is, to me, conclusive evidence of the real presence of our Lord in the words of Paul: “you eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in judgement of yourselves”. Again, these are not the words in description of a symbolic interpretation but of a real presence whereas you can licit true judgment upon yourself by partaking unworthily.

I can also imagine that the individual worthily partaking of His body and blood is an indication of true faith and belief that will only strengthen the whole body (church) of Christ and thereby enhance the definition for discernment of “the body”, to the great benefit of the body of His one true church on earth through sacrificial purity of eating only after examining and confession. If we judge ourselves, examine our consciences now in our humanity, we save ourselves from eternal spiritual judgment. By continuing to eat this “bread from heaven” in this manner we bolster our faith, strengthen our relationship with God and allow us to experience heaven on earth through the sacrificial mass.

Paul’s words here indicate the importance of the belief in the true presence of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. If it were only symbolic, an untrue representation alone, he would not have so intimately referenced the last supper in the verses just before this dissertation. I think his last supper dialogue (1 Cor. 11:23-26) is the first time these words were issued by an apostle to the church as a whole. He would have no more misinterpreted Christ’s words (those to His apostles that night in the upper room) than to this day of his proselytizing to the church in Corinth, the day he spoke these verses. Paul sees the Eucharist sacrifice as real presence a true and covenential sacrament, not symbolism, as I think is evident in his choice of words and use of his specific word smithing in 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

Well, anyway, one man’s opinion. I am sure I have gone off the tracks here somewhere, so if you feel inclined, let me know your thoughts on the topic and my rendition of it.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4863
Location: Wherever my horse or pipe weed may take me.
Religion: Catholic
Another angle regarding receiving unworthily can be related to a situation where you have a couple betrothed, abd they go to be married, but in the nuptial chamber the groom finds out that his bride, with whom he thought was a maiden, had already given herself to someone else.

That's just an analogy of the betrayal involved in receiving unworthily, of "not discerning the body," both the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and your own body that we join to Christ through receiving the Eucharist.

_________________
"End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it. White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:26 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78023
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
A Protestant friend of mine says that "discerning the Body of Christ" in this context refers to the Church gathered in communion.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 204
Religion: Catholic
I sorta get that Father ...

I can also imagine that the individual worthily partaking of His body and blood is an indication of true faith and belief that will only strengthen the whole body (church) of Christ and thereby enhance the definition for discernment of “the body”, to the great benefit of the body of His one true church on earth

not identical, but in the ball park ... this is why I have such a hard time with so called perspicuity ... sometimes it feels like there is no wrong answer ... what say you father, how do you solve for this verse ?

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13610
Location: Inverted Cross domain
One can be held accountable for dishonering a symbol.

There's a law against desacrating national flags. So the verse is not conclusive proof of the real presence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:39 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78023
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I think it refers to the substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; it's often referenced in discussions of the reason why unworthy reception is a mortal sin.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 204
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
So the verse is not conclusive proof of the real presence.


No beng, I suppose it doesn’t show conclusive evidence, if you like. But it does show that St. Paul, who offers “all those who eat and drink unworthily cast judgment against themselves” feels that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Why would he cast a persons’ judgment against themselves on a symbol, a desecrated flag, if you will, if not for his holy and faithful discernment showing otherwise? There are dozens more verse references to the Eucharist and it’s holy composition through out the Old and New Testament in support of St. Paul’s conclusions, all of which I feel sure you might find inconclusive individually, but more difficult to refute as an entire body of work in support of the divinity of the Eucharist.

Surely, you should follow your road of discernment and I will do likewise, in the footsteps of St. Paul.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:17 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 204
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
I think it refers to the substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; it's often referenced in discussions of the reason why unworthy reception is a mortal sin.


amen :salut:

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:49 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Speaking of the perspicuity of Scripture, those of us who hold the doctrine would hold this verse up as a good example of the problem. The passage is clear. If you bothered to read it in context, you would note starting in verse 17 what the nature of the unworthiness is. To claim that "discerning the body" refers to the "real presence" of Christ in communion would be, to put it mildly, a massive subject change, introducing an idea quite literally out of nowhere. And worse, not only does it introduce the real presence out of nowhere, it does so at the expense of how Paul has previously been talking about "the body" in those same verses. So we ask, where the heck do you get the notion of "real presence"? It doesn't come from this text, because this text is about the unity of the body (insofar as Paul is condemning divisions, a major theme of the book as a whole). So from whence does it come? Your traditions, of course, as must always be the answer.

No, the text is very clear when read as its own witness. It is only unclear when you insist that it must be since, taken clearly, it doesn't support (or even contradicts) your traditions.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:17 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:23 am
Posts: 19140
Location: NYC area
Religion: Catholic
In the Our Father, the word for 'daily bread' is epiousios, which is found no where else in the Bible. It refers to a super-substantial bread, and not just a bread needed for sustenance.

_________________
A modern day Shunamite woman. (2 Kgs. 4:26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:41 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
nm

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78023
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I might note (and am) that St. Paul has just discussed the institution of the Eucharist, so the claim that there is no context for the Presence interpretation is questionable. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch suggest that St. Paul is using analogical meanings of "body" here. That would not rule out the need to discern Christ's presence in the assembly.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
And I might disagree (and am) that "the claim that there is no context for the Presence interpretation is questionable." It is an unavoidable and inarguable fact that there is absolutely no contextual justification for the Presence interpretation.

Look, no one ignores or fails to notice Paul's discussion of Jesus' instituting the Lord's Supper. Almost every Protestant uses this passage every single time they take communion, for God's sake. But just citing the Lord's Supper does not provide a context for the Presence interpretation. So I would remind you of my actual words: "where the heck do you get the notion of "real presence"? It doesn't come from this text, because this text is about the unity of the body (insofar as Paul is condemning divisions, a major theme of the book as a whole). So from whence does it come? Your traditions, of course, as must always be the answer."

The question is where the Presence interpretation comes from, because it is not in this particular passage . . . again, there is no contextual justification. You have to presume your traditions, which is to say, you have to make a circular argument. And I grant that if you presume your tradition, then of course the text is not perspicuous, not clear. How could it be clear when it doesn't clearly and obviously say what you need your traditions to make it say? But if you don't eisogete then the text is clear. Paul is talking about divisions in the Church. He points out how they are eating in an unworthy manner -- some are humiliating others by eating in abundance ("getting drunk") while others have nothing. There is quite literally no "communion" here. Notice that this "despise(s) the Church of God."

So why can't Paul praise them for this? Look at what Jesus said they were supposed to be doing. When He instituted the Supper, He said "this is my body" and "this is my blood," that they were to do that in remembrance of Him. And all of this means that when they have this Supper together, they are "proclaiming the Lord's death" -- the means by which the Church is, together, saved as the body of Christ. So to eat unworthily -- in context, to eat with such divisions, humiliating one another, setting one above another (sarcastically, "to show which of you have God’s approval," v19) -- is to sin against the body and blood of Christ Himself. Not merely against the Church (I think you're friend's language should have been much stronger: to discern the body of Christ is to discern the very unity of the Church exemplified in the Supper), but more, against what Christ Himself did on the Cross. To despite the Church, particularly in this way, is to despite the Sacrifice, to call it an unholy or profane thing.

And that this is the correct and only and clear reading is evident in the conclusion: "So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together." Paul's concern is that we eat together, in fellowship, without divisions. He doesn't say a word here anywhere about the Real Presence of Christ. That may or may not be true, but if it is, then it isn't in this passage. At least, it isn't clearly in this passage. In order to get to the Real Presence from here you have to presume the Real Presence. You have to read that into the text, into the background of the text as preexisting material by which the text is to be interpreted. And if you want to do that, fine. But don't use that as an argument against the perspicuity of Scripture. That's just silly. To say that a clear passage isn't clear because you can't get something out of it that you don't first read into it says more about your method of reading it than it does about Scripture itself. As it stands, the passage is very perspicuous. It says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says, and all of this is perfectly in line with the primary theme of the entire book (divisions in the body of Christ).

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78023
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Do we have to have this argument again? Because I think you are predisposed not to see any Presence meaning there (or anywhere) and so don't see traces of it that are truly present (accidental pun that I can't think of a way to rephrase).

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
What, the argument you won't have? You never argue, Obi. You dismiss evidence without evidence yourself. But more to the point, I'm not rehashing an old argument. If anyone needs the polite reprimand, it's ES. For I'm not making again my standing argument regarding the self-contradiction at the heart of the church's claim to authority in interpretation or that Scripture must be clear in order for revelation to even be a coherent notion. I am objecting to ES' claim that this illustrates the problem with the perspicuity of Scripture. To suggest this illustrates why Scripture isn't clear is absurd. Look at the logic. The passage refers to the Real Presence -- we know this from tradition -- but it isn't obviously so. In fact, there is nothing in the text that contextually warrants that. It's just, again, something we know that must be true from tradition. There are other readings that at best don't uphold and at worst contradict what we know to be true from tradition. And therefore, Scripture itself is unclear.

But that, plainly, is irrational. The fact that you need your tradition to warrant seeing the Real Presence in the passage doesn't mean that the Scriptures themselves are unclear at all. That's just an incorrect inference. Rather, on the contrary, without that presumption, you have a very real and clear and obvious meaning in and of itself. That meaning may or may not be consistent with your tradition. That's your problem, not mine, and I make no claim on that one way or another. Perhaps you can be a good Catholic and say that this is perfectly consistent with the Real Presence of Christ. Perhaps you can say that everything I have said it true and that it is ALSO true (not from this text, but from another or from your tradition or whatever) that to eat unworthily brings judgment because of the Real Presence. That's fine. But to say, as ES did, that this illustrates a problem with the clarity of Scripture demonstrates a lack of clarity on his part. And for you to make this about the argument I've had before illustrates, once again, your failure to understand or interact with what I actually said, and that after claiming that I don't understand and can't articulate your position (which I did).

Obi, I've done all the work here, over and over again. You ignore me, like you always do, and then seek to dismiss me and here to claim I'm saying yet again something I've not said. I expect better from you. I'm more charitable than that. You should be, too.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 204
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
But to say, as ES did, that this illustrates a problem with the clarity of Scripture demonstrates a lack of clarity on his part.


Actually theJack, you are far from charitable, as I found it most interesting that you claim perspicuity but cannot reiterate what I said without creating a meaning of your own of my personal meaning, unknown and founded in my words. I said "this is why I have such a hard time with so called perspicuity ... sometimes it feels like there is no wrong answer"

I haven't impugned your or anyone else's claim to perspicuity of the Scriptures, I have simply correctly and humbly admitted i have a problem with it, understand how anyone can claim perspicuity when the verses are not always so cut and dried as you seem to feel. It is a personal problem of mine that you have just elevated to a problem you've decidedly stated as "I am objecting to ES' claim that this illustrates the problem with the perspicuity of Scripture." with your thoughts on the subject. You thinking for me ... you're the higher authority?

But that, plainly, is irrational.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I represented you exactly as you represented yourself just there. If you can't see how you are making an argument against the perspicuity of Scripture, but doing so by assuming that eisogesis is legitimate, then I don't know how much more I can help other that to restate the necessary implications of your position. Again, you interpret the passage by bringing in ideas foreign to this particular portion of Scripture (in this case, the Real Presence). That is an idea that may or may not be true, but it is an idea that is certainly not contextually warranted in this particular bit of text or context. You are then offered an interpretation that is perfectly consistent with the text as it is written and contextually warranted. So notice where we are. We have two interpretations, one based on non-textual warrant (which is to say, eisogesis) and the other completely textually warranted (which is to say, exegesis). And then rather than say that you embrace the position warranted by your tradition even though is not warranted by the text alone, you claim that the text alone cannot be trusted -- or in your own words, that "it feels like there is no wrong answer." But there IS a wrong answer, and the wrong answer is your unwarranted one.

Now, if your unwarranted answer is CORRECT, then there is ALSO a wrong answer, namely, the exegetical position you were offered. The problem here is NOT the perspicuity of Scripture, contrary your claim/implication. And I have been incredibly charitable by making my positions as clear as I can and taking time, going out of my way, to clearly state positions I don't agree with in ways that others can agree with them, and all this while assuming the best motives of those who disagree with me. Obi can attest that I've done exactly that. You, here, have not done so to me any more than Obi did in his most recent post (not once, but twice; once I talked about here and the other via PM). In your case, rather than asking me how it is that I see you making an irrational claim against the clarity of Scripture, you start attacking me for being uncharitable and saying I've misrepresented you. Perhaps I have, but the mere pronouncement of such without asking me to clarify in case you yourself are the one who misunderstood . . . not helpful.

ES, try to LISTEN. That's what I've been doing here for YEARS. If, having listened, you think I've gone astray, point it out. Please. I'm not opposed to it. But don't just assume that I'm gone astray. In this case, I've not. Perhaps I've not made my argument clearly enough. But I don't think I've misrepresented you at all.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:26 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 3709
Religion: Catholic
And now for a detour.....

When I was an independent Baptist, we were having the Lord’s Supper at our Christmas Eve service. The preacher said (paraphrased), “Do not partake of the Lord’s Supper if your conscience isn’t clear. To do so is to damn yourself.” The preacher was a “Bob Jones trained” minister. Nearly everyone in our Church went to Bob Jones.

For years I did, but also didn’t understand what he meant....

We were taught that the Lord’s Supper was an observance - a symbolic act to honor Christ. And it didn’t make sense to me, one iota, that partaking of the Lord’s Supper without a clear conscience could damn me. I mean, all I had to do was ask forgiveness of my sins and all was forgiven. But, scripture said I could damn myself, it was very clear. Yet heck, I was already forgiven for my sins too. And before one asks, I’m not being the least bit snarky. It’s what I thought at the time.

The verse didn’t make sense to me until I became Catholic. So while one might view the scriptural interpretation we have is based on our tradition, I’ve seen it from both sides and don’t think that my former Protestant tradition makes sense compared to the Roman tradition.

This entire subject is why I accept we need tradition, magisterial teaching, and scripture to reconcile everything....in a vacuum without all three, things just don’t all make sense...at least to me.

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 75384
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
theJack wrote:
Speaking of the perspicuity of Scripture, those of us who hold the doctrine would hold this verse up as a good example of the problem. The passage is clear. If you bothered to read it in context, you would note starting in verse 17 what the nature of the unworthiness is. To claim that "discerning the body" refers to the "real presence" of Christ in communion would be, to put it mildly, a massive subject change, introducing an idea quite literally out of nowhere. And worse, not only does it introduce the real presence out of nowhere, it does so at the expense of how Paul has previously been talking about "the body" in those same verses. So we ask, where the heck do you get the notion of "real presence"? It doesn't come from this text, because this text is about the unity of the body (insofar as Paul is condemning divisions, a major theme of the book as a whole). So from whence does it come? Your traditions, of course, as must always be the answer.

No, the text is very clear when read as its own witness. It is only unclear when you insist that it must be since, taken clearly, it doesn't support (or even contradicts) your traditions.


The sad part of this is that I honestly think you don't realize how arrogant, smug and just downright smarmy you sound when you say things like this. :nooo:

This picture is an illustration of what you sound like:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:24 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
The sad part is that you seem terribly uninterested in responding the subject matter. I know it's a lot easier to attack the tone of a post and now my integrity. Feel free to keep up the personal attacks. *shrug*

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 35 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Jump to: