Michael Hranek wrote:
Whoa! Dear Brother, were in the world did you get that!

Brother, I am studying again the missionary journeys of the apostle Paul and friends. This was a time of intense gospel preaching and persecution.

It is interesting the number of different disciples Paul ended up with throughout his journeys, all of them seem to have been men. Indeed, if you can show me a passage of scripture from Paul's missionary journeys where we have a woman preaching the gospel - in the same manner that Paul preached the gospel - well, let me see it and I will rethink what I said.

I am bound by the word of God, and am happy with whatever God says. It is up to him not me. If he says women can preach to men, fine. If he says prophecy is for today (as you seem to be saying) then that is fine by me. I did not invent Christianity, it is God's plan, and it is my purpose and desire to conform to his plan not mine.

I also see the Bible-Study by Unprofitable Servant, and commend all that he taught in that sermonette.

I also see Lurker's excellent message, and commend that to the house.

I also see several others who contributed in a loving and gracious manner, which is a great example to the saints, and edifying to the humble hearted.

All in all, congratulations to everyone who posted something, especially Dr Tim who knows a thing or two about preaching the gospel to the lost, having been called and enabled by the Lord to do such a thing.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
John, answer my questions and we will go from there

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
The verses you cited still teach that communion is symbolic. Are you trying to say it is not? Are you saying there is more to it than symbolism?

Frank wrote:
My communions at home are so shallow. So, if the definition of the breaking of bread would help, please let me know.

But I'll share this anyway.

To have the breaking of bread you have to 'break the bread'. I told you it was simple enough.

Matthew 26:26 KJV
(26)  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

The bread that Jesus would have broken at the last passover was Jewish unleavened matzah bread. This looks nothing like our western sliced bread, which is soft and fluffy, and which you cannot break, only tear. Matzah is like a cracker, which snaps when you bend it. I have found a similar sort of bread in Ryvita Slims, which makes a snapping noise when you break it. It also crunches when you chew it, which ties in with the greek word for 'eat' which means 'gnaw' as in eating nuts, 'eating with a crunching sound'.

It all makes sense to me.

There is more, but I'll leave that for another day.

Frank wrote:
Pilgrim JohnUK
I know that you don’t believe in the catholic definition of communion. That would mean you believe only the priest can change the wafer/bread and the grape juice/wine into the literal body and blood of our Lord and Savior. I know that you don’t attend a catholic church and that you and your team partake of the Lord’s Supper. It is normally immoral for any catholic to take communion anywhere outside the catholic mass.

Yes I take communion every Monday with my fellowship, and at home I take it every day. Today I have taken it twice. It is a wonderful way to become focussed entirely on the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has accomplished at Calvary and even before Calvary. It involves fellowship with him, and that always leads to a time of prayer, which is always rewarding.

It wasn't so long ago I was considering taking the Supper once a year, as was the Passover. But I'm glad the Lord led me to take it every day, as it is being a real blessing.

MS wrote:
John, no one is “attacking” anyone.
But, to propagate false ways needs to be addressed. Your RC view of the Lord’s Table is not shared by most on here, because it’s not Biblical. You have a romanist belief of it.
No need to respond to this, I am taking my leave, as I have said what needs to be said and I am not getting in to a donnybrook about this.

[US wrote: “There is no spiritual content in the elements of the Lords Supper that are consumed, it has none and transmits none”.

AMEN and AMEN!
To try and convey that it does is propagating the devils religion, the cult of RC.
‘Tis what happens when one reads to many heretical RC mystics and their ilk.]

1. Please show me where I made that claim.

2. Please tell me how many RC mystics I have read, and which others of their ilk, and what has happened to me of a consequence.

Here is the thought of most normal theologians: that our wonderful Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, is both 100% man and 100% God. Now if he is 100% man, that means his blood was human and just like ours. If he is 100% God (and God is a Spirit) then he doesn't have any blood from that direction.

So I will agree with you, that his blood is like ours. When it poured out at Calvary, it was like any other blood poured out. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.

When people tell me that the blood of Jesus Christ does not cleanse me from all sin, I start calling them the devil, because that sort of talk comes from him.

God is a gracious God.

John 3:17 KJV
(17)  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Beloved, this is not the way.

Beloved, Jesus is not pleased.

Beloved, there are consequences.

Dr. Tim wrote:
Revelation 22:17—“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.” If you’re thirsty, you are invited by the Holy Spirit of God to come, and if you will come, you can drink. This is not man’s philosophy or “Arminian dung.” It is the solemn promise of God Almighty. To deny it is to call God a liar.

But that is the state some hyper-Calvinists get into.

I put it down to a lack of experience in seeing people saved through spending too much time doing other things, like listening to hyper-Calvinists.

The other thing is not accepting the Bible as God's word, which gives them freedom to jettison much of scripture which opposes their view. And there is a huge amount of scripture which opposes their view, sure there is.

Any evangelist, taught of God, will be more than happy to quote this text of scripture during his address, because it is the word of God, plain and simple, easy to understand, easy to explain.

The gospel produces a thirst in many souls. They thirst for forgiveness. They thirst for Jesus Christ. They thirst for a fresh start in life. They are becoming thirsty for all the things of God. So what instruction does the Spirit of God give to anyone in such a state of thirstiness? He says, "Come, and assuage your thirst." And who has this water of life? This living water? To whom must they come? To Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, who already said in the gospels, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink."

Is this talking about the salvation of the sinner? Sure it is. And those who avail themselves, get saved. And those who don't, don't get saved. At some point, you have to make a decision. "Shall I come to Jesus and ask him to save me?" "Or shall I do nothing, and if he wants to save me he will."

Does this mean you are an argumentative type? That you just love to spar with me? Sure it does.

Okay, fine. I think. Look at the following verse, and then answer the question. If you are unable to answer the question, because you've never thought about it, why not say so? Here it is.

John 6:53 KJV
(53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Sorry John, I am not the brightest person in the world and you are losing me on what point you are trying to drive home. The verses you cited still teach that communion is symbolic. Are you trying to say it is not? Are you saying there is more to it than symbolism?
I Corinthians 11:26
Fir as often as ye eat this bread, and drunk this cup, ye do SHEW the Lord's death till He come
The word translated shew means (as seen by how it is translated elsewhere in the New Testament) means
to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, shew, speak of, teach.

Are you saying that there is no spiritual content in the communion? That it is merely a "shew", a showing forth? That there is no need for faith as we partake of the bread and wine? That nothing "happens" when we partake? That we are not doing what Jesus talked about in the following verse:-

John 6:53 KJV
(53)  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
John doesn't show that He wasn't using symbolism at the Passover meal with His disciples. Thanks

1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV
(16)  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

koinonia = communion = fellowship

1 Corinthians 10:16 GNB
(16)  The cup we use in the Lord's Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ.

When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the blood of Christ? And when we break the bread, aren’t we sharing in the body of Christ? NLT

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? NIV

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ESV

Galatians 5:22-23 KJV
(22)  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23)  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
John none of those passages negate my point

John 17:4 KJV
(4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Jesus says he has finished the work which God the Father gave him to do. This was before he had finished the work which God the Father had given him to do.

Jesus instituted the new covenant in his blood before even the crucifixion took place. "Drink ye all of it, this is the new covenant in my blood." And "do this in remembrance of me." Remembrance of what, exactly? It had not happened yet. A moment before, they were still living in the old covenant, celebrating passover.

Are not these things so?

Mike wrote:
Might be a good idea. And when the pastor is jailed, the elders need step up. And when the elders are jailed, lay teachers step up. No point in letting it be easy for the adversary's helpers. Whole armor time.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Brother John
Let me speak a little "Prophetically"
Churches need to be prepared for persecution

The wheat and tares are almost indistinguishable from each other these days. But praise God for the little remnant who remain true to Jesus and will not compromise. The love of God is very precious to them, and the grace and mercy of God constrains them.