The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Irenaeus on Transubstantiation

I seriously doubt we agree on the MEANING of the phrase "the blood of Christ's flesh". It is my strongly held belief which is in total accord with the majority of conservative Reformed scholars, the Puritans, et al, that this phrase is not meant to convey the idea that there is redemption in the physical blood itself... . Rather, this phrase refers to the vicarious substitutionary death, represented by the "shedding of blood", "for the life of the flesh is in the blood". It was well known among the Jews that one was never to eat blood for the one who did such was cut off from the people of God and God Himself. (cf. Gen 9:6; Lev 7:26,27; 17:10-14,12). To suggest that Christ violated that law by commanding that His physical blood be consumed is to deny Christ's sinlessness and thus the effectiveness of His sacrifice. Christ was the "lamb of God" who was given as the perfect once-for-all sacrifice to God for the purpose of atoning for the sins of His people. His blood shedding was evidence of His death. His flesh was evidence of His identification as a true human. Neither is to be consumed but rather embraced by faith unto salvation.

Re: the use of metaphor in Jh 6 is just that... a metaphor and not literal. Eisogesis doesn't work when the use of metaphor is conceded. There are many places in Scripture which are unique but no such hermeneutical gymnastics is used to explain them... Why here? Either it is a metaphor or it is not and the context falls heavily upon that it is metaphor.

The subject of "sanctification" has not been the focus of this discussion. I have no disagreement, at least with the general statement, that the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism can extend sanctifying grace to true believers. What I wrote in my previous response was that there is no SALVATION inherently found in the sacraments themselves. Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone... NOT by grace through faith and xxxx. This Paul was adamant against as the letters to the Romans and Galatians clearly show. Neither circumcision, baptism or partaking of some event called the "Eucharist" affords anything toward justification/salvation.

Let's try and stay on topic, shall we?