1) C.H. Spurgeon was probably one of the greatest preachers who ever lived. He left such a spirit-filled paper trail, there can be no doubt he went straight to heaven on a direct line. Because my opponent is taking the position that John 6 refers to the Eucharist, I thought it apropos to mention that the very first sentence of one of Spurgeon's sermons begins with, "Our Lord Jesus did not in this passage allude to the Lord's Supper, as some desiring to maintain their sacramental superstitions have dared to affirm!"
My feelings exactly. He continues...
"Understood literally, it is horrible and revolting to the last degree! That there are millions of people who accept so monstrous an error and believe in literally feeding upon the body of the Lord Jesus, is probably the highest point of profane absurdity to which superstition has yet reached. While we wonder that the Jews so misunderstood the Savior, we wonder a thousand times more that there should remain upon the face of the earth men in their senses not yet committed to a lunatic asylum who endeavor to defend such a dreadful error from Holy Scripture. Brothers and sisters...it is a gospel certainly more fitted for savages and madmen than for persons in the possession of their senses...[it is] absolute barbarism! We are not required, however, to believe anything so impossible, so degrading, so blasphemous, so horrifying to all the decencies of life!" (Sermon 1288, delivered 4/9/1876).
AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH ISN'T ALLOWED TO ERR
2) Before anyone calls Spurgeon over-dramatic, the Council of Trent said (in their decree on the Eucharist) that any metaphorical view of Jesus' words was, "satanic, godless, contentious and evil". How then can we determine whose righteous anger is justified? One way is to examine what the Roman Catholic Church says about the Eucharist under the magnifying glass of her claim to be infallible. To be infallible, Rome must not err while claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If Rome makes even one mistake while claiming to speak infallibly about the Eucharist, then Jesus no more gave the gift of infallibility to Rome then there is a man in the moon. This then would classify Transubstantiation as an "unfruitful work of darkness" which must be exposed (Eph 5:11).
BRINGING DOWN THE VATICAN GOLIATH
3) In the same way it took David to bring down Goliath with one stone, all it takes to bring down Transubstantiation is one word. That one, single, solitary word is, "truly". If it can be shown that the word "truly" has been used in a manner that is factually and indisputably incorrect, then the monstrous claim of infallibility must fall to the ground, and Transubstantiation right along with it.
Here is what I mean. Catholicism teaches that the Council of Trent was infallible (CCC 888-892). Trent announced they were being guided "day by day" by the Holy Spirit, (twice!) in their decree introduction on the Eucharist. They forbid anyone to even "dare" believe otherwise. The catechism quotes this council in #1376...
"Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread".
No, he did not say any such thing.
Let's unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not "SAY" that he was "OFFERING" anything, let alone that the bread was "TRULY" his body. Trent's first error was the brazen lie of telling us Jesus said something, when he didn't.
Their second error declares Jesus offered himself in sacrifice right there at the dinner table in the upper room before he went to the cross. We are told that even though all eyes were fixed on him, he began to co-exist, simultaneously, in the bread and wine by some eerie, metaphysical process unknown to man. Trent teaches, "At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine..."
NO! Such words are a direct assault on the space/time dimension wherein God deals with us. In practice and in precept, Jesus offered his body, chronologically, only once (i.e., at the cross) and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today.
The third offense was to shamefully put the word "truly" into the mouth of Christ at the Last Supper, where he did not "truly" affirm anything at all. No Bible on Earth records Jesus saying the bread was "truly" his body. With blood boiling in their veins in reaction to the Reformers, Trent was being guided by nothing more than their raw, unbridled emotions.
Trent even contradicts the counsel of modern day Rome, when we read, "In him [Christ], he [God] has said everything; there will be no other word than this one" (CCC 65). Yet...Trent did indeed add a word, and it is by that single, erroneous word that exposes the "gift of infallibility" to be a farce. Catholicism has, "boasted of a false gift [making them] like clouds and wind with no rain" (Proverbs 25:14). This one, single, misapplied word is a crack in the armor of the Vatican when it comes to their claim of infallibility, and by extension, their instructions on the Eucharist. It results in a living nightmare of, "another jesus" per 2 Corinthians 11:4, a wolf in eucharistic clothing, who decides to shrink himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker so sins may be forgiven by consuming his physical body parts down to the last toenail. Essentially, this is nothing but salvation by a metaphysical form of cannibalism, which is, quite frankly, disgusting.
4) OBJECTION: Trent did not quote Christ. They were simply paraphrasing what he said.
ANSWER: Anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare their audience that what follows is not word for word. Otherwise, we are to, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil" (Matt 5:37). Trent did not do this and so they are, by definition, "evil" when it comes to infallibility in general, and Transubstantiation in particular. They gave no indication whatsoever that they were trying to capture the literal meaning of "This is my body" with a paraphrase! They simply assert that Christ "truly" said the bread was actually his body, and leave it at that. But by doing so, they are guilty of adding to the Text. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18).
Furthermore, the lack of quotes around what Christ allegedly "said" are, in fact, there by implication in the very same manner as anyone in the Bible who conveys what the Lord said---but with no quotes recorded around THEIR words. If the grandiose claim of Transubstantiation is on course, it should stand out like a ship in the night with the floodlights of Scripture to guide it without the need to misquote Christ. Based on the premise that, "God is not a man that he should lie" (Numbers 23:19), Trent is not free to teach that the Lord... "said"... the bread was "truly" his body to prove Transubstantiation is fact--- any more than I am free to report that he... "said"... the bread was not his literal body, to convey that Transubstantiation is false. Each of our respective cases must be based primarily on the biblical data without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior so that the better argument is made manifest to all (1 Kings 18:24; Proverbs 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19).
THE EXACTITUDE OF GOD
5) The sanctity and exactitude of God's word is endorsed down to the last "jot and tittle" (Matt 5:18). That being so, the Holy Spirit would never...no, not ever... inspire Trent to misquote Jesus, even just a "tittle". Recall that God tells Moses to simply speak to the rock (Ex 20:8-12) promising to make water flow out of it. However, Moses changes just one word in that command, and instead, strikes the rock. This seemingly insignificant one word change, results in Moses not being permitted to bring the people into the Promised Land. The comparison with Trent's one word modification--- and what their consequences will be on Judgment Day, should be obvious. For if mere fallible human teachers will be judged more severely than the rest of us (James 3:1), how much more so will those who claim to speak infallibly for God? The Bible says, "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken" (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here in evaluating the claim of infallibility with regards to the Eucharist. By adding just one word into the mouth of Christ where it does not belong, Catholicism stumbles, and is guilty of breaking all the laws of infallibility in just the same way as anyone "attempting to keep the whole law but stumbles at just one point, is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).
In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus supposedly said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that he did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that I am in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus actually said, rather than what he supposedly said.
Having taken the Lord's advice to, "investigate, search out and inquire thoroughly" (Deut 13:14), I conclude the gift of infallibility is a sham and a hoax, and thus I would argue that Transubstantiation, as well as the entire Roman Catholic faith should be rejected, per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40.
It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, "The Lord says", (when the Lord did not say), will be swiftly cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21). Ultimately, there are only two choices. Either Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 and the Last Supper, or he was speaking metaphorically in those places. Based on the fact that the RCC has told us something..."infallible"...about God which is incorrect (Job 42:7), there is no other option but to dismiss the Catholic view and accept once and for all, that Jesus had no intention whatsoever for anyone to consume his physical anatomy.
WHAT THEN DID JESUS MEAN BY EATING HIS FLESH?
6) The metaphorical "eucharist onion" that we're dealing with here has an outside layer of skin, "describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith" (says Clement of Alexandria). "Faith, which is the flesh of the Lord", says metaphorical Ignatius, shows that eating flesh and drinking blood is simply a mode of expressing one's faith that, "The word was made flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14), not that he tabernacles in bread and wine for us to eat. When we peel back the layer of that onion, pungent fumes reveal that, "the drink is the word of knowledge [that] Christ...suffered according TO the flesh", says Origin, not that we are to actually eat his flesh. As Augustine said, "To believe [in his flesh and blood achievement] is to eat the living bread. He that believes, eats"...
OBJECTION: But Augustine and others support Catholicism by saying....
ANSWER: Who cares! The point is that the Protestant position has a pedigree that did not just pop up in the 16th century.
When we finally cut to the core of the onion, we smell the strong odor of metaphorical usage regarding eating and drinking in the Old Testament as well, to which we now turn.
7) To suppose that the Savior means for us to consume his physique, is simply out of sync with the biblical precedent of "eating God" in a metaphorical sense. "Hearken diligently to me and eat" (Isa 55:2) is obviously metaphorical. The same goes for, " Oh taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8). The same goes for he being the "Fountain of Living Waters" (Jeremiah 2:13). The same goes for, "everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters...and draw water out of the wells of salvation" (Isaiah 12:3, 55:1; cf. Psalm 42:1, 63:1). The same goes for when Israel, "drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). God quenched their thirst in the wilderness, splitting rocks and causing streams of water to flow out (Psalm 78:15-16). However, the rock was not literally Christ, just as the bread was not literally his body. They "drank" from their spiritual Rock, by faith, who was Christ supplying their need. Today, we "drink" the supply of all his promises, by faith (John 7:35-7). Today, we "taste the kindness of the Lord" , by faith (1 Peter 2:2-3). Today, we "drink the pure milk of the word", by faith (1 Peter 2:2). Today, we all, "drink into one spirit" by embracing all of his benefits, by faith (1 Cor 12:13).
8) A towering inferno of metaphor from the O.T. confirms eating and drinking should be taken in just that very way. In Psalm 27:2 , David says, "When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell" (cf: Micah 3:1-4, Rev 16:6).
OBJECTION: Yes, the physical abuse David feared is expressed metaphorically by his enemies wanting to "eat his flesh". But if "eating flesh" is meant to convey doing someone harm, your position demands that Jesus is asking his audience to actually harm him in exchange for eternal life.
ANSWER: No. It is not we who actually harm the Savior by "eating his flesh" in the negative sense; rather, after we "eat" Jesus (i.e., by "tasting and seeing that the Lord is good"), then we reap the BENEFITS of his death by those who DID seek to "eat his flesh" in the negative sense. Our faith is a means of appropriating the physical and psychological abuse inflicted on him by his enemies when they sought to eat his flesh by, "bruising him...making his soul an offering for [our] sin" (Isaiah 53:10; Psalm 22:17). As Origen said, "He himself was wounded, whose blood we drink; that is, receive the words of his teaching. "
And again, "That bread which God the Word confesses to be his own body, is the word that nourishes souls ".
The same motif continues in the life of David in his war with the Philistines. They had taken the town of Bethlehem and he remarked how much he would love a drink from the well in that area. Three of his men heard this, fought their way through the Philistine line, got water from Bethlehem and brought it back. But David responded, " May God forbid it me, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy? For at the risk of their lives they brought it" (1 Chronicles 11:19).
To drink that water would be equivalent to "drinking the blood" of those men; not literally, but it would be like enjoying the BENEFITS which came at the expense of risking their lives. Consequently, these examples succinctly and gloriously sum up what Jesus is talking about in John chapter 6. When he commands us starving sinners to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he's talking about eating and drinking the whole food bank of BENEFITS which come from both his triumphant life and violent death! (Romans 5:10).
Furthermore, the objection simply assumes that "eating flesh and drinking blood" can only and exclusively be metaphors for contempt. Not so. Sometimes they metaphorically express divine justice (Numbers 23:24; Rev 16:6). Sometimes it means God causing internal factions (Isa 9:20, 49:26), and James speaks of eating flesh as a metaphor for greed (5:3). Actually, any given word or words can be used metaphorically in a number of ways. One on-line Reformer reminds us that the "sword" which will pierce Mary's heart is a metaphor for sorrow (Luke 2:25). But in Revelation, the "sword" in Jesus ' mouth is a metaphor for judgment (cf. Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). In Matthew 10:34, 'sword' is a metaphor for division and violence, whereas in Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12, the "sword" is a metaphor for the Word of God. Hence, "eating"...under the banner of an act of the intellect, cannot be denied. "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart " (Jeremiah 15:16).
9) "So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, "Take it and eat it"... (Ezek 2:8-9; 3:1-10).
In the same manner that Ezekiel was told to eat the book he saw in outstretched hands, so too was John told to "take and eat" the little book held in outstretched hands in Revelation 10. Likewise, Christ said to "take and eat" what was in his outstretched hands at Supper. When Ezekiel was told to " Open your mouth and eat what I give you (2:8); "feed your belly and fill your stomach with this scroll" (3:3), it was not for nutritional purposes. Neither is the Eucharist for the purpose of salvation. "Eating" meant to internalize the message, making it an inward passion, ready to deliver to others. God was preparing the prophet to, "Hear with your ears and receive into your heart all my words" (Ez 3:10; cf. Psalm 119:9, 103; Job 23:12).
The books (or scrolls) that were eaten were not made of any sort of literal paper because our bodies were not designed to digest those materials. Neither is the Catholic Eucharist made up of the literal Christ, which our bodies were not designed to digest either. The books, as well as the bread in Communion, were indeed meant to be consumed, but the overarching purpose of both was to digest the message and then proclaim those truths. " For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26). "Eat what you find; eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel" (Ez 3:2). Thus, the metaphorical concept of eating which is defined as incorporating into our being what we believe (thus becoming a part of us just as food becomes a part of us after assimilation) has a rock-solid foundation that Rome totally avoids in her catechism because they know it rains on her eucharistic parade.
Rome does not even follow the logic of their own book of Sirach, where the concept of "wisdom" is personified in an unambiguously metaphorical way. She (wisdom) offers an unusual meal, in which the more one eats, the more one desires. "He who eats me will hunger still; he who drinks me will thirst for more" (24:21). Now if all Catholics believe "eating and drinking wisdom" is metaphorical in the book of Sirach, they have no excuse for denying that Jesus, who is THE VERY WISDOM OF GOD (1 Cor 1:30) may also be metaphorically eaten in chapter 6 and the Last Supper.
"Wisdom" again speaks in Proverbs 9:1-5, portrayed as a person. She issues a metaphorical invitation... at a table setting... precisely as Christ did: "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine I have mixed." It's irrefutable that bread and wine are being used here in a symbolic sense, which makes it all the more absurd why Rome should repudiate the idea that Jesus was using metaphor...at a table setting also.
A ROCK, A SHIELD, A HORN, A DOOR...
10) Having now established the metaphorical usage of eating and drinking, I now refer to God being typically represented as an inanimate object. He is called a rock, a shield, a horn, a door, a light, a branch, a root, a vine, a tower, a temple, a fortress, a shadow, a treasure and on and on! Never was he any of these things in actual fact, and thus the bread and wine never were or ever shall be, his actual body and blood!
Catholicism insults the Christian faith by not "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). To rightly divide the word of truth would allow the bread and wine to take their rightful place alongside all the other places where God is represented by an inanimate object and thus, do away with Transubstantiation entirely, for it serves no purpose whatsoever. Catholic magicians wave their magic wand and pull like a rabbit out of a hat, the supposed virtues one receives from swallowing the Eucharist. None of it is biblical, including the sanctimonious scam of abiding in Christ "more intimately" (CCC 790, 1391).
All the vivid, metaphorical imagery listed above results in the papacy's own metaphorical curse whereby they surely "eat and drink judgment to themselves" by spreading this hideous lie (1 Cor 11:29).
11) OBJECTION: But Jesus said if you don't eat his flesh there is no life in you.
ANSWER: John's commentary swings the wrecking ball at Rome's interpretation of that verse. He tells us point blank that "having life" results not from the Eucharist, but that by, "believing, you might have life in his name" (20:31). Incidentally, this is not a case of "both/and" (see #13).
Likewise, Tertullian recommended, "that we may have life, [by] devouring him with the ear, and to ruminate on him with the understanding, and to digest him by faith" ("On the Resurrection of the Flesh", xxxvii).
By simply believing, Spurgeon and millions of others who abhor the RC Eucharist, have shown all the earmarks of the Spirit dwelling within. James says that taking care of the needs of orphans and widows defines a religion that is "pure and faultless" (1:27), and Mr. Spurgeon did exactly that... in abundance! Simple observation of these "orphan helpers" demolishes the Catholic notion that the Eucharist is needed to "strengthen our charity" as the catechism bogusly asserts (CCC 1394). Regardless of Mother Teresa's "Home for the Dying", Mr. Spurgeon and company did not for a moment need to dine ON Christ to increase their charity; rather, it was because they dined WITH Christ that their charity was strengthened (Rev 3:20). These types of people are, "a letter from Christ, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God" (2 Cor 3:3), whose testimonies negate the preposterous idea that eating the literal flesh of Christ is necessary to have vibrant, spiritual life.
The former mystery, hidden in times past, is now revealed; "the mystery of Christ in you, the hope of glory" (1 Col 1:27), not the mystery of Christ in the bread, the hope of glory (CCC 1405). In the O.T., the Holy Spirit came upon certain people to empower them for service, but would then leave (John 7:39).
Today, the Spirit indwells us permanently (John 14:16-17; 16:7). Catholicism is under the bondage of O.T. protocol wherein the "real presence", at that time, LEFT. The "real presence", according to them, lasts only about a minute, (i.e., only "as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain"), after which, "jesus" bids them farewell until the next Mass (US Conference of Catholic Bishops, on-line; CCC 1377). In light of such quick departure, the "Real Presence" doctrine is for all practical purposes, useless.
THERE IS NO LAST SUPPER ACCOUNT IN JOHN'S GOSPEL
12) This glaring omission actually verifies that Jesus was not referring to the Eucharist in John 6. Here's why...
First we acknowledge...
a) the RC requirement that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (CCC 1129, 1355, 1359; Trent, "Concerning Communion", ch. 1; Mysterium Fidei, intro).
b) The catechism says, "The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist [when he says] "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (1384).
NO! Sleepy catechism editors failed to see there was nooooo invitation to the sacrament of the Eucharist in chapter 6. Mention of the Eucharist at this point would have been incomprehensible on the one hand, and impossible to comply with on the other, because the Eucharist would not be instituted until a year later at the Last Supper! How could his audience in chapter 6 either understand or comply with this supposed "eucharistic invitation" should they wish to obey his command? Answer? They could not comply. But they could indeed accept his invitation to believe on him, since many in attendance were flat-out unbelievers (6:64). Others were merely "fair-weather" believers, which is unacceptable (Luke 8:4-15). Even if Transubstantiation were true, he would not lead this type of crowd to a higher level until they first rolled out the red carpet for this man. Does a teacher with students having a hard time understanding Algebra, advance them to a course in Chemistry to rectify the problem? (cf: John 3:12). "This is the work of God; that you believe on him whom he hath sent" (6:29), is exactly what eating and drinking signifies.
Be it resolved then that while the main focus was to indeed "eat", it was only in the metaphorical sense of believing in the benefits he offered as the Messiah and nothing more! For, it is undeniable that "eating and drinking" are synonymous with "believing" because they both produce the same result: namely, eternal life! In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47, we read that believing in him results in everlasting life. When compared with 51 and 54, we learn that eating his flesh and drinking his blood also brings eternal life.
Stated plainly: "everyone who sees the Son and believes on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (6:40)
Stated figuratively: "whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (6:54).
What Jesus states literally in vs. 40, he states metaphorically in vs. 54. The latter is the metaphorical equivalent of referring to the former. Hence, these are merely two ways of saying the same thing. Jesus simply employed the stylistic variance of two requirements, but in reality, having only one requirement in mind.
13) OBJECTION: We say that this is a case of "both/and". We ought to both believe AND eat his flesh.
ANSWER: NO! Was it "both/and" when Jesus said Lazarus was asleep, and in the next breath, said he was actually dead? Lazarus was either asleep or he was dead, not both/and. Nicodemas was told to be born again physically or be born again spiritually, not both/and. He offered the woman at the well a drink of physical water, or the living water of the indwelling Spirit, not both/and. He wanted the Jews to either believe he could rebuild the temple in three days, or to believe on him as the Messiah, not both/and. Jesus wants us to either eat his flesh or to believe in him, not both/and.
14) Now we get to the fact that John's gospel is the only book which claims to stand alone for those seeking salvation. "THESE are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name" (20:31).
The ability of John's gospel to stand alone is detrimental to the Catholic position that demands John 6 refers to the Eucharist. How so?
Because without the Last Supper account in John's gospel to tie up and bind chapter 6 to the upper room event, finding salvation via the Eucharist by using this gospel alone, becomes impossible and is therefore not what Jesus was aiming at. If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have incorporated the Last Supper account into the Text to ensure that the promise of eternal life via the Eucharist was fulfilled, and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established.
15) OBJECTION: Who cares if there are no salt and pepper shakers in John's gospel? After the resurrection, there is no account anywhere in the Text of the ascension into heaven. Don't you consider belief in the ascension, essential for salvation?
ANSWER: While there's no account of Jesus being lifted up on a cloud, he confirms he will ascend in 20:17, so it's a given to the reader of John's gospel. On the other hand, Transubstantiation via the means of bread and wine would be incomprehensible to readers of that book without the Last Supper account for explication and fulfillment.
16) OBJECTION: But people had access to the other gospels which did include the words of institution.
ANSWER: It doesn't matter! We take the author strictly at his word, and he says that his report ALONE is enough to find the key to eternal life, period, end of story.
At the end of the day, Jesus was asking them to "labor for the meat that results in eternal life"....now. He continues, "unless you eat", i.e., "now", present tense. Without Jesus providing any tangible way for them to immediately comply with his command to labor and to eat, the crudely literal Catholic position must be rejected. The Protestant position, on the other hand, correctly teaches that spectators could indeed comply with his request to "labor" for and to "eat him" -- simply by believing in him. Hence, the only "Transubstantiation" the Bible speaks of is, "having made himself of no reputation, taking upon himself the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:6-8). Through the incarnation, the Creator of Heaven and Earth takes on the form of a servant, not the form of bread. Neither is it... both/and!
Word Total 5000 words