PDA

View Full Version : What is the pure sacrifice?



arunangelo
Nov 1st 2010, 01:39 AM
Jesus said, “The bread that I will give you is my flesh” (John 6:51); and further stated that, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life within you” (John 6:53). Then at the Last Supper, He made an offering of His sacrificial body and blood by the following acts. He thanked His Father, took bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples to eat, and said, “This is my (sacrificial) body”; and then took the cup and gave it them to drink and said, “This is my (sacrificial) blood”. (Matthew 26:26-29). He then commanded us do this (re-enter his sacrificial offering) as often as possible so that we will keep His Spirit alive in our heart (Luke 22:19); and make His eternal sacrifice ever-present to the World (1 Corinthians 11:26). Therefore, when ever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, it fulfills Malachi’s prophesy (Malachi 1:11) which stated that, from the rising of the sun to its setting, in every place a pure sacrifice will be offered to God. Paul emphasizes the reality of Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper by stating that, those who eats the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (Corinthians 11:27).

MoreMercy
Nov 1st 2010, 02:35 PM
When I found out what Christ's perfect/pure obedience was unto, then I found out what pure sacrifice was to be also for me unto Father.

Father does no longer desire sacrifice from us, He desires our love of Him, and our love of our fellow man, amen.
That is my pure sacrifice now, learn children and let that be all of our: pure sacrifices unto Him.


Father blesses.

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 02:59 PM
Father does no longer desire sacrifice from us, He desires our love of Him, and our love of our fellow man, amen.
That is my pure sacrifice now, learn children and let that be all of our: pure sacrifices unto Him.




I think the OP is specifically referring to the sacrifice of the Eucharist. The Passion and death of the Lord are made present in the Eucharistic elements under the form of bread and wine, memorializing Christ's sacrifice for us.

karenoka27
Nov 1st 2010, 03:36 PM
Jesus said, “The bread that I will give you is my flesh” (John 6:51); and further stated that, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life within you” (John 6:53). Then at the Last Supper, He made an offering of His sacrificial body and blood by the following acts. He thanked His Father, took bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples to eat, and said, “This is my (sacrificial) body”; and then took the cup and gave it them to drink and said, “This is my (sacrificial) blood”. (Matthew 26:26-29). He then commanded us do this (re-enter his sacrificial offering) as often as possible so that we will keep His Spirit alive in our heart (Luke 22:19); and make His eternal sacrifice ever-present to the World (1 Corinthians 11:26). Therefore, when ever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, it fulfills Malachi’s prophesy (Malachi 1:11) which stated that, from the rising of the sun to its setting, in every place a pure sacrifice will be offered to God. Paul emphasizes the reality of Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper by stating that, those who eats the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (Corinthians 11:27).

Communion is taken in remembrance of the what Jesus Christ did.
1 Corinthians 11:24-"And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me."
There is nothing in the bread and wine that does anything to the partaker.
When Paul said:
1 Corinthians 11: 27-29-"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

What Christ did for us was die for our sins. It is not to be taken lightly when we have communion, we are to remember what Christ did for us and take it with a pure heart by confessing our sins. Those who take it without thought or consideration of all that was done for them, take it unworthily.

I don't understand how Malachi 1:11 has anything do do with communion today. Could you explain?

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 03:57 PM
There is nothing in the bread and wine that does anything to the partaker.


I have to disagree on this point. I believe that a grace is transferred, as this seems quite explicit in the words of Christ himself in the Gospel of John, as well as the Pauline writings on Eucharistic theology.

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 04:18 PM
I have to disagree on this point. I believe that a grace is transferred, as this seems quite explicit in the words of Christ himself in the Gospel of John, as well as the Pauline writings on Eucharistic theology.
Gods grace is received through faith which comes through hearing the word of God. Catholic theology of receiveing grace through the communion elements is wholly against the word of God. The inference (original OP) that the Holy Spirit dies in the heart of him who does not receive the elements of the communion is wrong.

Catholics teach that grace is received through the seven sacraments. This is works based salvation and wholly opposed to Gods plan of salvation by grace through faith apart from works. Those who depend on anything other than Christ for their salvation are on the road that leads to destruction.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 04:29 PM
Gods grace is received through faith which comes through hearing the word of God. Catholic theology of receiveing grace through the communion elements is wholly against the word of God.

It's not just a Roman Catholic doctrine. It was held by the Reformers as well, and has multiple scriptural bases.

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 05:41 PM
It's not just a Roman Catholic doctrine. It was held by the Reformers as well, and has multiple scriptural bases.
Nothing in scripture supports the idea that grace is received by anything other than faith and that faith through the hearing of the word of God.

The reformers were trying to escape the oppression of rome. The rcc has a long history of holding its adherents hostage by teaching that the "church" is the vehicle through which grace is given to men. Those who have come to Christ are free from serving the rudiments of men. Free to worship Christ our Redeemer in Spirit and truth.

Heb 10:9-14 describes Christ's sacrifice of Himself for the redemption of men. Verses 28-31 stand in stark warning to rome.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 05:59 PM
Nothing in scripture supports the idea that grace is received by anything other than faith and that faith through the hearing of the word of God.



One cannot divorce the eucharistic celebration from faith. The scriptures are extremely plain in this regard, as well as the grace bestowed on the communicant (even pointing out that damnation is the end for misuse).

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 06:09 PM
One cannot divorce the eucharistic celebration from faith. The scriptures are extremely plain in this regard, as well as the grace bestowed on the communicant (even pointing out that damnation is the end for misuse).
The misuse as you put it is unsaved persons partaking thinking through this observance they will receive favor from God. The communion observance is not necessary for salvation. Like water baptism communion is for born again believers but has no direct influence on their salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 07:38 PM
The misuse as you put it is unsaved persons partaking thinking through this observance they will receive favor from God. The communion observance is not necessary for salvation. Like water baptism communion is for born again believers but has no direct influence on their salvation.



While from a theological perspective, the celebrating of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation, it forms the basis of Christian worship, inasmuch as it is communion with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning baptism, we read in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. God has linked salvation together with baptism, that we must be born of water and the Spirit. However, even though the Lord ordained the sacraments for salvific grace, He himself is not limited by them.

petepet
Nov 1st 2010, 07:55 PM
I have to disagree on this point. I believe that a grace is transferred, as this seems quite explicit in the words of Christ himself in the Gospel of John, as well as the Pauline writings on Eucharistic theology.

You talk as though grace was a kind of gravy to be poured out of a gravy bowl. But the grace of God is describing God's attitude towards us. It is not something that occurs of itself. When we partake of the bread and wine god acts in grace towards us and blesses us. I am sure we can agree on that. But there is no 'grace' in the elements. The meal is one at which the Father and Jesus Christ are present. And it is they Who act graciously in our hearts along with the Holy Spirit.

When Paul says 'by grace are you saved' (Ephesians 2.8) he was not saying that there was a something called grace. He was speaking of our Saviour acting through His grace, i.e. His undeserved love and compassion.

petepet
Nov 1st 2010, 08:06 PM
While from a theological perspective, the celebrating of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation, it forms the basis of Christian worship, inasmuch as it is communion with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning baptism, we read in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. God has linked salvation together with baptism, that we must be born of water and the Spirit. However, even though the Lord ordained the sacraments for salvific grace, He himself is not limited by them.

Happily we can agree on your first point. It might have been different if u had expanded on it lol :-))

You cannot really take one verse in a doubtful passage (Mark 16.16) and make it the dogmatic answer to the question of the necessity of baptism. And besides you will note that Jesus only said that those who did not believe are condemned. He did not say it of those who were not baptised. Thus his emphasis in the statement was on believing or not believing. Baptism was mentioned because it was simply expected that someone who believed would be baptised.

Paul put it in its correct place. 'Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the Gospel. for the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.' (1 Corinthians 1.17-18) He too lays the emphasis away from baptism. Of course we should be baptised. However many Quakers and Salvationists were never baptised, but it would be a brave man who denied, especially in the second case, that those highly successful preachers of the Gospel were not saved.

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:10 PM
He did not say it of those who were not baptised. Thus his emphasis in the statement was on believing or not believing. Baptism was mentioned because it was simply expected that someone who believed would be baptised.

You say this as though it was mentioned in an offhanded way, almost as an afterthought. However, it wasn't, and the Apostle Peter confirms we are "saved by water", not by the physical act of getting dunked, but again, by grace of God who works through the sacrament. I fail to see how that is analogous to pouring gravy.

John1:1
Nov 1st 2010, 08:11 PM
I have to disagree on this point. I believe that a grace is transferred, as this seems quite explicit in the words of Christ himself in the Gospel of John, as well as the Pauline writings on Eucharistic theology.

We already received God's grace, he sent His Son to die for our sins. Scripture does not teach that we receive His grace once we take communion, it has a symbolic meaning; but it contributes nothing towards our salvation.

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:17 PM
We already received God's grace, he sent His Son to die for our sins. Scripture does not teach that we receive His grace once we take communion, it has a symbolic meaning; but it contributes nothing towards our salvation.

No one is arguing that the Eucharist gives salvation, since only Christians can partake of it, not the lost. It is necessary to be baptized and to have publicly confessed Christ before approaching the Lord's Table. However, nowhere in the scriptures is the Eucharist described as "symbolic". It is a real communion.

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 08:18 PM
While from a theological perspective, the celebrating of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation, it forms the basis of Christian worship, inasmuch as it is communion with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

No it doesn't. We worship Christ in Spirit and in truth not in earthly elements. The Holy Spirit does not change earthly elements into vehicles of grace.

Concerning baptism, we read in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. God has linked salvation together with baptism, that we must be born of water and the Spirit. However, even though the Lord ordained the sacraments for salvific grace, He himself is not limited by them.
Again earthly elements are not involved in the second birth. Sacraments for salvitic grace is catholic mumbojumbo. The Phillipian jailer asked Paul what he should do to be saved and Paul's answer was to believe on Jesus Christ and his household as well. Acts 16:31

Now if you want some real homework then demonstrate from Mark 16:16 that the baptism present is water baptism and not Holy Spirit baptism. Explain why he that believeth not is condemned and not he who is not baptised in the referenced verse.

Christ has finished all that is required for salvation. Christ said from the cross it is finished, He did not say I am finished.

Heb 10:10, 14 Christ was offered one time for sin. The shadow offerings of the Jewish temple offerings had to be offered every year because they could not take away sin vs 1-4 but the perfect offering of Christ vs 12 allowed Him to sit down the work was finished.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 08:22 PM
You say this as though it was mentioned in an offhanded way, almost as an afterthought. However, it wasn't, and the Apostle Peter confirms we are "saved by water", not by the physical act of getting dunked, but again, by grace of God who works through the sacrament. I fail to see how that is analogous to pouring gravy.
God does not work through sacraments. God works through His declared Word. Paul does not confirm that we are saved by water, Paul affirms that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. Eph 2:8-10 Rom 10:9-10

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:27 PM
No it doesn't. We worship Christ in Spirit and in truth not in earthly elements.

The "earthly elements" that you are speaking of are the Body and Blood of Christ. Without the sacrifice of Christ, in his very tangible physical body, there is no remission of sin, and we lay down together in the dust.


Now if you want some real homework then demonstrate from Mark 16:16 that the baptism present is water baptism and not Holy Spirit baptism.

Because Jesus purposefully sought water baptism, his apostles received water baptism, and he instructed the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, water baptism is shown to be linked to salvific grace in the Petrine epistles.


Explain why he that believeth not is condemned and not he who is not baptised in the referenced verse.

He that believeth not, and he who is not baptized, is the same person. Believers submit themselves to be baptized.


Christ has finished all that is required for salvation. Christ said from the cross it is finished, He did not say I am finished.

Christ also said that he who believes and is baptized will be said, as previously quoted.

petepet
Nov 1st 2010, 08:29 PM
You say this as though it was mentioned in an offhanded way, almost as an afterthought. However, it wasn't, and the Apostle Peter confirms we are "saved by water", not by the physical act of getting dunked, but again, by grace of God who works through the sacrament. I fail to see how that is analogous to pouring gravy.

I did not say it was in an offhand way only that it was not part of the main argument. The point was whether people believed or did not believe. Furthermore we have to question whether Mark 16.9 onwards is reliable tradition. It was not a part of Mark's original Gospel But that is another question.

With regard to 1 Peter 3.20-23, if u read it carefully you will see that they were saved through the resurrection of Christ. Baptism did not remove filthiness. It was simply the answer of a good conscience towards God. As the water lifted up the ark, so baptism lifted up the conscience towards God. But it is the resurrection which is the saving factor. It is that that removed the filthiness within. If you had said God in His grace working through the sacament i would have been closer to agreeing with you. :-)) 'Grace' is not a something that God uses. It is God's undeserved compassion.

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:31 PM
God does not work through sacraments.

He most certainly does.


Paul does not confirm that we are saved by water

I didn't say Paul, I said Peter.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

I Peter 3:20-21

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:33 PM
With regard to 1 Peter 3.20-23, if u read it carefully you will see that they were saved through the resurrection of Christ. Baptism did not remove filthiness. It was simply the answer of a good conscience towards God. As the water lifted up the ark, so baptism lifted up the conscience towards God. But it is the resurrection which is the saving factor. It is that that removed the filthiness within. If you had said God in His grace working through the sacament i would have been closer to agreeing with you. :-)) 'Grace' is not a something that God uses. It is God's undeserved compassion.

I actually agree with this, so there may have been a misunderstanding in what was said. By the way, I did say that God in grace works through the sacrament, and Roger said He didn't!

John1:1
Nov 1st 2010, 08:37 PM
No one is arguing that the Eucharist gives salvation, since only Christians can partake of it, not the lost. It is necessary to be baptized and to have publicly confessed Christ before approaching the Lord's Table. However, nowhere in the scriptures is the Eucharist described as "symbolic". It is a real communion.

You said "grace is transferred" may I ask what you meant by this? If by "real communion" you mean Christ being present I am not referring to that, although I do follow the reformed views here, I was talking about its relevance to salvation, which we appear to be in agreeance on (it is not necessary).

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 08:39 PM
The "earthly elements" that you are speaking of are the Body and Blood of Christ. Without the sacrifice of Christ, in his very tangible physical body, there is no remission of sin, and we lay down together in the dust.
Rome teaches that they become the body and blood of Christ but they are only symbols earthly representations of His body and blood. His blood is in the heavenlies pleading for us before the Father. It was expressly forbidden to eat blood and that would have been even more so of human blood. I am speaking of bread and the cup not the literal blood and body of Jesus.

Because Jesus purposefully sought water baptism, his apostles received water baptism, and he instructed the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, water baptism is shown to be linked to salvific grace in the Petrine epistles.
You missunderstand Peter if you beleive he said water provides salvitic grace. You are way way off from salvation by grace through faith. Peter said we are not saved by corruptable things but by the blood of Christ. 1 Pet 1:17-19

He that believeth not, and he who is not baptized, is the same person. Believers submit themselves to be baptized.
Then it was their belief and not their baptism that saved them. Belief is required water baptism is received for obedience not for salvation.

Christ also said that he who believes and is baptized will be said, as previously quoted.
Still your application is in error. Rom 10:13 Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. The baptism part got dropped again. Oops.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 1st 2010, 08:41 PM
You said "grace is transferred" may I ask what you meant by this? If by "real communion" you mean Christ being present I am not referring to that, although I do follow the reformed views here, I was talking about its relevance to salvation, which we appear to be in agreeance on (it is not necessary).

There is a grace that comes with worshiping the Lord. There is often a big difference in the spiritual life of people who do attend the Lord's Table regularly, and those who only go to church on Easter and Christmas.

Yes, I agree with you that it's not explicitly necessary to salvation, as one must be saved in order to partake. However, Christ also told us that if we love him, we will keep his commandments.

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 08:43 PM
He most certainly does.
God works through His word. It is simply false to attribute salvitic merit to the sacraments.

I didn't say Paul, I said Peter.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

I Peter 3:20-21
The water does not do the saving. Peter said in Ch 1 that it is the precious blood of Christ that saves. What you alledge puts Peter at contradiction with himself and the whole of scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Nov 1st 2010, 08:53 PM
There is a grace that comes with worshiping the Lord. There is often a big difference in the spiritual life of people who do attend the Lord's Table regularly, and those who only go to church on Easter and Christmas.
What kind of grace do you suppose comes from worshipping the Lord? I know of only one kind of grace that comes from God and that is found only in His Son.

Yes, I agree with you that it's not explicitly necessary to salvation, as one must be saved in order to partake. However, Christ also told us that if we love him, we will keep his commandments.
We do not keep His commandments to be saved. That was a quick change of gears but obedience follows salvation it does not produce salvation. Eph 2:10 we are His workmanship created unto good works.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

John1:1
Nov 1st 2010, 08:56 PM
He most certainly does.



I didn't say Paul, I said Peter.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

I Peter 3:20-21

The water itself did not save Noah, he still needed the ark. Christ is our "ark" so to speak. Water baptism represents the regenerating power of God through the Holy Spirit. Peter calls it the answer of a good conscience; water does not and cannot save man, it is done through the blood of Christ. May I ask what happened to the thief on the cross who was not baptised, yet Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise?

Free Indeed
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:36 PM
The water itself did not save Noah, he still needed the ark. Christ is our "ark" so to speak. Water baptism represents the regenerating power of God through the Holy Spirit. Peter calls it the answer of a good conscience; water does not and cannot save man, it is done through the blood of Christ. May I ask what happened to the thief on the cross who was not baptised, yet Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise?

While God has linked salvation with baptism, He himself is not limited by the sacraments. Baptism is not 100% necessary for salvation. Even the RCC admits that catechumens are saved if they die before baptism by virtue of the fact that, as new Christians, they desire baptism and to follow the Lord's commandment.

notuptome
Nov 2nd 2010, 04:46 PM
While God has linked salvation with baptism, He himself is not limited by the sacraments. Baptism is not 100% necessary for salvation. Even the RCC admits that catechumens are saved if they die before baptism by virtue of the fact that, as new Christians, they desire baptism and to follow the Lord's commandment.
If the sacraments are even 0.000000001% necessary for salvation then the grace of God is insufficient to save a soul. Water baptism is always after salvation. Communion is always after salvation. Sacraments do not save and do not keep one saved. Grace saves and grace keeps one saved.

Rome is full of pious sounding nothingness. Why discount the virtue of Christ? God's grace is all sufficient. Heb 10:14 For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. We are perfected forever by Christ offering His blood on the alter of God in the heavenlies.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Free Indeed
Nov 2nd 2010, 05:33 PM
If the sacraments are even 0.000000001% necessary for salvation then the grace of God is insufficient to save a soul.

This sort of misses the point. It is God himself who instituted baptism. Saying God is insufficient only confuses the issue. It is God who chose to make baptism the method for believers to partake of the mystery of His Son's death and resurecction.

the rookie
Nov 2nd 2010, 06:05 PM
Anyone want to take a crack at 1 Peter 2:5? What's Peter talking about there - and does it relate to Mal. 1:11?

Secondly, if you're going to hit the OP's interpretation of the fulfillment of Mal. 1:11, can I recommend sharing some options to how you see Mal. 1:11 fulfilled?

notuptome
Nov 2nd 2010, 07:02 PM
Anyone want to take a crack at 1 Peter 2:5? What's Peter talking about there - and does it relate to Mal. 1:11?

Secondly, if you're going to hit the OP's interpretation of the fulfillment of Mal. 1:11, can I recommend sharing some options to how you see Mal. 1:11 fulfilled?
Mal 1:11 is a prediction of the millenial kingdom. See Ezek 40-48 & Zech 14:9-21

1 Pet 2:5 Spiritual sacrifices in light of Heb 10:18 are not sacrifices for sin. Our sacrifice is to believe. To enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. Heb 10:19 vs 22 Drawing near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger