Nature and Meaning of the Lord's Supper (Message)

Mr. Begg
I listened to your latest message, Nature and meaning of the Lord's Supper and am confused on a few things. For one, you say most importantly for us to read our bible and understand for ourselves what it says. I have read my Bible and come to a completely different interpretation of what it says than you have. I believe I am being led by the Holy Spirit in my interpretation, so obviously, I can't be wrong, because the Holy Spirit would not lead me astray, so that leads me to the conclusion that you must be wrong. Unfortunately, I assume you feel the Holy Spirit is leading you as well, so who is right?
Another point I am always confused about is the Bible itself. You said you believe in the Bible only (sola scriptura) and its "authority for understanding what the church is to be and how the church is to operate", but where did the Bible itself come from and how do I know what’s in there is all God intended, and nothing more? Why isn't the Gospel of Mary Magdalene included in your bible? or the Gospel of Judas? If I am to believe only in the bible, and in no outside authority, where in the bible does it list what books should be included in the bible? For that matter, if all Christians should only believe in what they read in the Bible, what did Christians do before there was a Bible? What did the early church study and learn from before the bible was codified into the book it is today?
I appreciate you teaching and you sound like you know what you’re talking about, but I am not sure of your qualifications to teach. You made some interesting points, but some of them I disagree with. If we disagree, how do we know who is right? If the matter is as important as our salvation, I think its kind of important to know for sure who is right and wrong.

Thanx for explaining things.

if you believe the Holy Spirit is leading you, then why are you asking begg? ohhh, it's a rhetorical question, right? kinda like these, right? am i getting the hang of it? how about shaking the sand out of your shoes and moving on george? ahhhhhh... you got a point to make. yikes! i answered my own question. it would appear that i am becoming quite skilled at this art as well. now if i can just go find a cause--somewhere that i could really stand out. yes yes yes, then i would have my forum.

thanx for turning me on to a new purpose in life.

George, you don't sound like you know the truth when you hear it, you don't recognize your Shepherd's voice when He calls. All your questions are evidence of the serpent's doubting questions to Eve.

Alistair Begg has performed a brave and much needed service.

I had been Roman Catholic for years before joining an Evangelical church and being baptized as an adult, as an ordinance. Randomly (providentially) catching his talks - Part A yesterday on the radio, I woke up at night and listened to BOTH on the Internet. I took careful notes on each talk, between 1 and 3 AM today.

For the first time, he has proven to ME - already an Evangelical Christian - the need for God's Word and NOT His ordinances as the focus of our worship. One does have a choice between positions, but...these choices are not mutually exclusive.

Rather than castigating our Roman Catholic friends, we must engage in thoughtful and compassionate dialogue. Surely, Christ did not want us to go about life in uncertainty - "I'm not sure if I'm saved yet, because I'm not yet dead." How dreadful to live in fear this way, and so AGAINST the plain writings of Scripture.

For bravery, integrity, clarity, courage, and a very needed remediation, praise the Lord for the pure biblical teaching of Alistair Begg.

Christians have never been without scripture. They had the Old Testament which was recognized and quoted by Christ. The New Testament books and letters were being copied and shared among the churches from the time they were written. Peter recognized and referred to Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:16). I think it is important to understand that the various church councils did not give us God's Word (God did that). They recognized God's Word. One criteria to recognizing God's Word is that it did not contradict previous scripture as the Holy Spirit would not contradict itself.

Hi George (Smith). The Holy Spirit/God is NOT the author of confusion. And the last thing HE would lead any of us to do, is create confusion on a website or within an arena/forum that is read by Believers and more importantly NON believers alikel. Alistair, as well as many of us, always do what the "Berean Christians" do...search the Scriptures for ourselves. If you have a problem with Alistairs teaching and if GOD LEADS, go to another place to be fed...there are many. Not that negative things can not be said...or they would sensor and not post these emails, but, please...let's not waste God's time in dividing the church...Paul says that in the Scriptures as well. If anyone has taken books away from the Bible or added some, GOD KNOWS...and as the Word says, HE WILL DEAL WITH THEM...and that...I am even afraid for those who may have "TAMPERED" with the Spirit inspired Word of God. Let GOD spank all those who are wrong...and LET US pray for them to see the LIGHT, if we truly do believe THEY ARE MISLED. Peace George...if NO ONE IS CORRECT in preaching the Word of GOD...as God says...HE is TRUE and every man a liar...so..if we are preaching the WORD...than it is GOD speaking, for the Word is just that. If we are NOT preaching the Word...a simple review of scripture is what is needed. And let's say, for all "practical purposes" that the Bible is NOT the inspired Word of God...But then again, Let's SAY THAT IT IS..I would rather "ERR-OR" on the side that it is...then Die and find out I made the WRONG choice. The SPIRIT of GOD...gives WITNESS to the TRUTH...you are acting like Pilate...and to that I say as Jesus did...

George,

He is the deal, Jessie is correct. Let God be true and every man a liar. You say what brother Begg said is wrong. Well, George, you need to go back and read your bible. You need to research the subject yourself. You need to let God lead you and not you mind, for the " Natural mind is emnity with God " in other words you can't get the things of God with just your mind. If you would take the time to research what Brother Begg has said then you would know for sure that Jesus Himself talked about it also. So the obvious problem is that you aren't well versed in the bible. As for the books that you have mentioned. Those books are deamed heretical. In other words they are gnostic. They don't line up with what scripture say's in a lot of places. If you read you bible you are going to see that the whole bible lines up with itself, not with what people think. God is true, His word is true and His Spirit is true. God doesn't lie. You would do well to believe what you read and Touch not mine annointed. Thats what scripture say's. He put Brother Begg there not you or any person. He gave him the job of teaching people the gospel, and the bible. Do you remember where God said that " because of their disobedience God gave them over to strong delusions"? Well, that might be what is happening with you. This man of God teaches the word of God from the bible. His teaching from what I know of them are true and correct and line up with the bible, they don't however line up with what the world say's or the tradition of men. Jesus said that you have made the word of God of no effect by your tradition. Have you not read that the just shall live by faith. Faith in what some may ask, in Jesus, who is the Word of God. Or do you not know that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. They accosted Jesus also, told Him that He wasn't true and Jesus in turn promised each of us that if He was so treated that we would be to. So, you if you look in Rev. 12: 10, you are gonna see that the one who accuses the brethren is the devil. If you look in Job you are gonna see him in the very act of it, when he in fact accuses Job, makes false accusations toward both Job and God. So when we accuse another, unrighteously we are being like the enemy, for that is what he does. One more thing and this I know when you revile and persecute Mr. Begg then you are in fact bring him blessings.

As to the true nature of the elements in Communion, I think I can clear this up very simply: We all agree that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, be we Catholic or Protestant. And without adding anything to the Word of God, we have Jesus Christ’s clear teaching in John 6:50-58:
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, 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. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
In this Scripture passage, Jesus never declares that he is speaking “figuratively” or “symbolically,” so we cannot possibly say that he is. He said that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink.
He described his words as “spirit and life” in John 6:63, but (according to commentaries) spirit is a noun (pneuma in Greek, meaning breath, wind, or air), and the “life” is Jesus God-given eternal life. “ When He speaks figuratively, He says so, as he did two chapters earlier in John 4:31-34 and also again in Matt. 16:5-12.
Anyone who believes Sola Scriptura must believe exactly what the Bible says, not adding his own interpretation or meaning . This verse, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood,” was difficult for his disciples, and “many turned away and no longer followed Him.” (John 6:66) But Jesus did not rephrase his words or retract what he said. The twelve disciples believed, even though it was difficult and could only be believed through FAITH.

Catholics believe and have always believed that Jesus meant what he said. Protestants all believe that, whatever Jesus meant, he certainly did not mean what he said.

In the liturgy of the Mass, Catholics express their FAITH in the real presence of Christ, His body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the species of bread and wine.

Check out the writings of the early church—You will not be able to find one Christian in the world for the first 1000 years who ever denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I wept upon hearing Part B. I attended Roman Catholic School ages 6-12 and latin mass six days a week. I was indoctrinated. As a young girl I went to confession several times a week confessing my disobedience to my parents and my impure thoughts. In my twenties, nearing the Christmas holiday and hoping to become a mother, I confessed I had been on the birth control pill. I can clearly remember the priest's words like they were yesterday, "I don't know if I can forgive you. Being it's Christmas, I guess I'll have to." You are absolutely correct in stating that the very mechanisms they created to bring their followers to salvation are the same ones that condemn them. I know of Catholic women who were turned away from the communion rail because of their hysterectomies, medically necessary. If communion was to be their means of salvation, now what? My mother in her terminal illness asked if I believed in the resurrection of the body. I reminded her of the Apostles Creed which she prayed frequently and wrote out the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15, knowing she would read a letter from me but may not open the bible. For their 50th anniversary I gave my parents bibles and encouraged they read them. My mother has since passed, the bibles have been returned and I have been excommunicated from my family. I thank you for speaking the truth and for speaking it so eloquently. I am so blessed to hear you in this rural area. The fields are ripe.

To Mary Best, I thank the Lord for the churches I've attended, Baptist, Bible Church, and PCA, and the people in them who God used so mightily in my and my family's life. But among those pastors, Bible teachers, and sweet Christians were also some who gravely wounded the flock, taught error and some who outwardly and scandalously sinned. Some people left and stopped following the Lord, others stopped going to any church. So I know the hurt and wounds that can be experienced. But Jesus tells us in Scripture that His Church will have wheat and tares, goats and sheep, and false prophets--that's what His Church is going to look like.
I'm so sorry you were mistreated in the Catholic Church. I really am. You wrote some appalling accounts about flawed people and false teachings in the Catholic Church. But as a Catholic convert, I can assure you that you have not represented the beautiful, Blbical, orthodox teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

To Will: The things Jesus said in John 6 got their explanation in Matthew 26 and Luke 22 when He shared the bread and wine with them and explained its symbolic meaning. This is a common occurrence in scripture where the understanding comes later to those who obey in faith.

You are very brave and full of the spirit. Thank you.

Praise God for bold speakers like Alistair Begg. May God bless you with every good thing in order for you to continue. As a former Catholic, I know there are those in the Catholic church that will battle to degrade the Holy Word of God down to an extra just to keep the traditions of men. Mr. Begg very succinctly pointed out the scriptural basis to reject such idol worship as transubstantiation. For those who have ears, let them hear. And I pray God opens the ears, eyes and hearts of those who don't yet have understanding.

George Smith and Will Evans: I cannot believe you have questioned Alistair Begg's qualifications to teach. His qualifications are well documented and posted. How about your qualifications? After reading your comments, by your own scriptures you condemn yourselves. Let me quote an often overlooked statement by Jesus when he rebuked Peter..."Get behind me, Satan!".

To all, Thank you for the kind words. My post to Mr. Begg was not intended to be mean spirited or abusive, it was meant to answer a question I have had for a while. If two people, both highly educated and well versed in the scriptures read the exact same verse in the bible and come to a different interpretation of it, is there any way to know who is correct? A few people have said again “Go read it for yourself”, so does that make me the final authority on the bible? I know I am not smart enough to be that, so with something as important as my eternal salvation, I want to make darn sure I get it right. Mr. Begg had some very good thoughts in his sermon that I listened to, but they contradict some very good thought s I have heard from some other very knowledgeable teachers. If that is the case, and my eternal salvation is at stake, do I believe Mr. Begg, or the other teachers? Is there any way I can be sure? Yes, I can read it, and make my own interpretation, which may or may not agree with Mr. Begg, but I just can’t believe Jesus would give us his obviously inspired word, then leave it up to us mere mortals to interpret it as we please. Wasn’t that the problem with John Jones and David Koresh? Didn’t they read the bible, interpret it incorrectly (as most of us would agree), then convince allot of other people that he was interpreting it correctly? Mr. Begg has allot of very convincing arguments and I can understand what he is saying, but I disagree with his conclusions. Is there any way to know for sure the he is right and I am wrong, or that I am right and he is wrong? With our salvation at stake, I think its kind of an important distinction to make. Mr. Orth, you start off your response by saying I need to go back and read my Bible. I have read it, and I have prayed over it, and I feel the Holy Spirit is helping me understand what I am reading, so is it possible that I am right and Mr. Begg is wrong? I am not saying that is so, but is it possible?

Sorry, second half of my thought. this forum wouldn't let me post it all together:

As for my question about the Bible, my point was that the Bible cannot itself authoritatively define the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it list all the books of the Bible, so we had to rely on some outside source to decide what was the Bible, and what wasn’t. I agree, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas were deemed heretical and excluded for that reason, but who deemed them so? Did the Bible tell us that those books were heretical? Doesn’t the Koran say it is the word of God (or Allah)? Doesn’t the Mormon’s Book of Mormons say it is the word of God? But do we believe that? If not, why don’t we believe that? Just because a book says it’s the word of God doesn’t make it so, so someone or something outside the book itself had to define it as the Bible. The whole idea of Sola Scripture (if I understand it correctly) is that we only believe what is in the Bible, and yet we are going to some outside authority to determine what the Bible is. For that matter, which Bible? Aren’t there an extra few books in the Catholic Bible that were omitted by the reformers in the Protestant Bible? So now we can’t even say we go by the Bible, we have to specify which Bible we go by?

George - The Bible does define itself, in 2 Tim 3:16-17. The "all scripture" it refers to is the 66 book Bible as canonized under the direction of the Holy Spirit. As I said in the earlier post some things must be accepted on faith and the understanding comes later.
The fact that the Catholic church misses the boat on the Lord's Supper brings into question its other decisions too, like canonization.

To Bill Giordano - If you use 2 Tim 3:16-17 to define the Bible, that would be the Old Testament alone which Paul was referring to, since the New Testament did not exist at the time of Paul's life, but there were many letters circulating around. A few were eventually approved for the Bible, but many were not, such as I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Nor does the Bible give us a list of books to be included in the Bible. "The Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth," (I Tim. 3:15) gave us the Bible.

To Bill Giordano, The things Jesus said in John 6 were an explanation of Matthew 26 and Luke 22, since scholars agree that John wrote his gospel at least 20 years after the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Since his gospel is so different, it is believed that he used his gospel to add important events and explanations to the other three. So John meant to tell us the crucial fact that the wine and bread actually become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, it requires FAITH not sight to believe in the true presence of Jesus. "Thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway, the bread of the Presence." Exodus 25:30

I hope for George's sake there is salvation in a lame version of Socrates. On the other hand the correct spelling of "George" might very well be "troll."

Clearly, no search for truth just a silly game of questions with a thinly veiled desire to beg the question.

Best I have for you George, "work out your own salvation ...:" I long ago lost interest in watching a cat chase its tail. Have a nice day.

Will, do you actually believe that John 6 instructs us to physically eat His body and drink His blood ? For starters, how do you do that 2000 years after the fact ? How many times are we to sacrifice Him ? Was His atoning sacrifice not enough ? Is there more for him to do on our behalf ?

Dear Aistair, I so admire your courage & your grasp of the Bible. It gives me more courage than ever before to speak out about Jesus Christ. I am trying to be a disciple of Christ's but I find it hard to memorize where, you can find passages of Scripture in the Bible. I can remember what they say but not where they are found in the Bible. Maybe with more time spent in the word, I will be able to remember more. Anyway keep up the good teaching directly rom the Bible.

Curtis, thanx for taking time out of your busy life to give us such insightful opinions. If, as you say, you are tired of this conversation, why are you joining in? Just go away, since obviously you have nothing constructive to add. Personally, I am emjoying learning from both sides of this discussion. While I don't always agree with what is said, I would always be polite enough to listen and thoughtfully consider it, then, if permitted, voice my reasons for disagreeing. In this way, I just may learn something new. When idiots such as yourself pipe in with nothing useful to add, it acts just as a distraction. Who was it that said better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and confirm it?

Dear Pastor Begg,
Your lesson on the Lord's Supper took my breath away, bringing me to tears. Without rant or rancor, you proclaimed the truth of God's Word rather than the commandments of men--it was riveting! I wanted to stand up and cheer at the boldness of the message. Thank you for acting on the courage of your convictions. Echos of another who said, "Here I stand; I can do no otherwise. God help me. Amen!" I thank God for the work of His Holy Spirit through your ministry. May He continue to bless you and all those who labor with you.

Mr. Begg,

The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by non-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.

The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner"—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Insti...

You also noted a Bible cannot be found in a Catholic Church but I guess you have
never stayed for the liturgy of the Word. The Catholic readings cover the Bible in it's
entirety on a regular cycle.

I am amazed you have perfect knowledge of the scriptures with a historical context such
as tradition. You would do very well in our legal system where the words on contracts
only a few years old are debated daily in court with witnesses confused by the written word.

You have a valuable ministry when your focus is on God.

RC

Mr. Begg,

The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by non-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.

The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner"—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Insti...

You also noted a Bible cannot be found in a Catholic Church but I guess you have
never stayed for the liturgy of the Word. The Catholic readings cover the Bible in it's
entirety on a regular cycle.

I am amazed you have perfect knowledge of the scriptures without a historical context such
as tradition. You would do very well in our legal system where the words on contracts
only a few years old are debated daily in court with witnesses confused by the written word.

You have a valuable ministry when your focus is on God.

RC

I have a number of Roman Catholic and former Roman Catholic friends. Every one of them who has had their spiritual eyes opened to the truth will agree wholeheartedly with this sermon. You mentioned taking years off your life by proclaiming this truth and I greatly admire any preacher of the Bible who will tell the truth at whatever personal cost. There is far too much "friendly" preaching going on in our country today and it is deceiving people and leaving them in darkness to spend eternity in a sinner's hell. Thank you!
F Cox

Will: Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything written in the Bible is interpreted literally.
It means “scripture alone.” It views scripture as inerrant and sufficient and as the only authoritative and inspired Word of God. Scripture is to be interpreted according to its plain intention. Looking at context, it is to be interpreted literally when meant to be taken literally and figuratively when meant to be taken figuratively. One should also interpret scripture with other scripture to be sure the correct meaning is being concluded as the Holy Spirit would not contradict itself. To understand the meaning of Christ’s words during the last supper (or Christ’s earlier remarks to His disciples in John 6), one needs to look at all related scripture including 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in which Paul instructs the Corinthians that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance of the Lord’s sacrifice for us. Jesus, in answering His disciples in John 6, when they were struggling with His words, said "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." It think it is clear that Jesus was speaking figuratively to give them spiritual truth, just as when He said He is the door of the sheep in John 10:7.

There are some interesting points on Sola Scriptura. Ironically this doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible. If all things necessary for salvation are found in scripture alone, then sola scriptura must also be found in scripture.

Let me assume however that the doctrine of sola scriptura was to be specifically found in scripture. Why are there so many different nuances in the Protestant denominations? Would the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures which clearly give guidance without tradition or a historical context be interpreted so many different ways? I have non Catholic friends in non denominational Churches as they feel the 'spirit' is no longer in their Lutheran, Baptist, or Episcopal Church.

Again assuming Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine how can I view this passage figuratively since scripture alone speaks to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: "Truly, 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

RC

Dear Pastor:

First, I've listened to this sermon (both A and B) twice, and have downloaded them for copying onto my iPod. Your courage is moving beyond words. My prayer is that God's comfort be with you today and in all the days ahead.

Judging by the screeds above, polite, well intentioned, and dead wrong, you're going to need it.

My pastor has lost his way, preferring the entertainment a large church can provide instead of solid teaching. This makes me spend more time on my knees in prayer for his heart, and praising God for yours.

Kathy

Pastor Alistair,

Thank you for the clarity and courage by which you've proclaimed this very important message on the Nature and Meaning of the Lord's Supper. It stirred my heart that I was compelled to listen to it several times and also share it with others.Surely, I've heard other sermons and expositions given on the Lord's Supper, however, none in my recollection was ever delivered with such honesty, truthfulness, and compassion. I could sense the anointing of the Holy Spirit on every word spoken.

Be encouraged my brother. The Lord is with you.

Paul

Mr. Begg,

It may interest you to know Catholics take great pride in venerating the cross as it is carried down our Church with or without a eucharist at the center. I would be wary of listening anyone who calls the cross idolatry. Your message seems to acknowledge this yet disclaim it at the same time. I'm curious what has led you to reading the Catechism of the Faith? Will you also be challenging the doctrines of other faiths in upcoming sermons?

I'm not sure what kind of church / denomination that you lead but the video clip from your last sermon illustrated there is absolutely no symbolism to lift the mind to the divine. Then again I assume you consider that idolatry. Is it better to let the congregation look at a drum set, podium and microphones?!

Some of the readers on this forum may have an interest in Where is that in the Bible? :
http://www.amazon.com/Where-That-Bibl...

RC

To RC,

You are partly right, about the Bible being read in the Catholic church. I have attended masses for years, and they do readings at each mass. However, after listening to Truth For Life for about 5 years, and hearing the stories of Ruth, Gideon, Naaman, etc., I realized that there were things in the Bible I had never heard before. Plus, the priest often did not expound on the reading afterwards, so what little is read from the Bible (approx. 6 min. per mass) pretty much flies out the window. I learned more about the Bible from Truth For Life in 5 years than from the Catholic Church (incl. Catholic School) in 40 years. God bless Alistair Begg and other teachers like him! I was blind but now I can see!

V

To RC

I believe a disciple can only go so far as his mentor. If the priests themselves do not have a profound understanding of scripture, no amount of bible reading in liturgy and preaching on his part can stir the hearts of his parishioners. If we prayed for Catholic leaders' true conversion, just like St. Augustine's encounter with God, maybe less Catholics would be leaving their churches and seeking satisfaction for their hunger for God elsewhere such as in Allister Begg's teachings.

There is a lot being said on this forum that is not found anywhere in the Bible. There is also much unkindness. And I think we should all recommit to love each other because one thing Jesus said we can all agree on is to love even our enemies (which I hope none of us feel we are with each other.)
If the Lord's Supper is a symbol, why was this not taught until Calvin and Zwingli came along and invented the idea? Jan Huss believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So did Martin Luther. So did all of the Church through the first 1600 years of Christianity.
There are numerous letters from early Christians that recognize and document this belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In 2000 years there have been no letters discovered from early Christians that indicate they thought it was just a symbol.
No, the bread and wine, when consecrated by the priest, become, not a new or separate sacrifice, but that same body and blood which Christ shed on the cross, and which is RE-PRESENTED, presented again and again, that once and for all, same sacrifice that Christ gave 2000 years ago, and this true body and true blood of Christ is ALSO a commemoration, a memorial of his death until he comes again.
"What belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]). In Augustine's writings, he describes communion as both the outer sign and the invisible reality which it signifies.

We see in John 6:60-61 that many of Jesus' disciples stopped following Him because of this teaching on eating his body and blood, and they could not accept by FAITH something that was "a difficult statement," "a hard saying," which caused them "to stumble," or to "take offense."
And when Jesus says in verse 63, "the flesh is no help at all," He means carnal man. He does not mean that His own flesh is no help at all, for He just said in verse 51 that "the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Will,
When God appeared to the people in a dark thunderous cloud, the people were so scared they rejected God for Moses(Ex.20:18,19). When He came down in the form of a man they were so blind they rejected Him for Barabbas and Caesar and nailed Him to a cross(Mat.27:26 John 19:15). Now that He comes to us in the form of bread and wine they say,"Ya gotta' be kiddin'"(John 6:66[Rev.13:18]) and they reject Him for a man called Begg(John 5:43).

Mark Yaegel, So true. It's just heartbreaking to see the extent of blindness or deception that was started by an overly-scrupulous Augustinian monk who got carried away with his own private interpretations, leading to the 40,000 Protestant denominations in the world today--all interpreting the Bible according to whoever their leader is. It's just so divisive and tragic, especially for the unknowing sheep who idolize them.

Rev. Begg - I have been following recent broadcasts closely, at a time when my own faith in Catholic doctrine is being seriously challenged. Your sermons are persuasive and re-inforce some of what I have been considering as I continue my faith journey towards eternity with Jesus, God willing (and please no presumption). I have a fair grounding in Catholic theology, though needless to say, nothing approaching that of the Church fathers, who protected and promoted Christianity thru millenia. Of course as any thinking person, I must ask, what is wrong in the Catholic church that could lead to the shame of the sex scandals? On the other hand, I have never pretended that the Church, as a human institution, is without fault, and in many eras, serious fault at that. And yet it persists. This doctrine of the Real Presence is critical. IF it is true, and the Eucharistic Host IS Christ, given to us freely once and for all, then where does that leave your charge of idolatry? I've spent quite a little time reviewing Augustine's position. It is unequivocal as far as I can tell. Has it occured to you (and I certainly don't ask rhetorically) that there is a reality here, and a mystery that goes beyond our limited understanding? I have to grant at least that possibility. As far as re-presentation, vs. repitition --- I think there is the notion, possibly valid, that God is TIMELESS - maybe the scientists are correct that time is not linear. Christ's salvific moment is continued for all eternity. And then it seems at times you choose your scripture rather selectively in saying there are only two sacraments in scripture. When scripture says "whose sins you shall forgive .... whose sins you shall retain", it would seem to make a reasonable case for the Sacrament of Reconciliation --- tough to to imagine without confession and repentence (I'm not unaware that among Catholics, there has been a sharp decline, as in other eras, in the practice of individual confession). One final point --- to accept the insinuation that the Catholic fathers contrived all this, you have to impugn a horrid motive - not simple misguidance. Were those men so thoroughly evil and calculating? If you say yes, then your argument stands, but if not ... In any case, I'm going to continue to pray, and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, and be thankful. I just wish there was a forum for a true meeting of the good minds who wrestle in all honesty with these questions. I know you are a very busy man, and have an important ministry. Still, I would love to hear your reply. Yours in Christ, Dave.

Dear Dave Berger,

Time only exist where there is change, God say's He is unchanging. In Him there is no time and no sin.

say dave, david berger that is, i'm protestant and definitely not the best spokesperson for protestants, but i would like to say as another fellow human being here, your line of questioning seems sincere. i'm not saying that as if maybe it weren't, but rather to let you know how it jumps off the page. a lack of body language with this cyber stuff makes real communication a challenge. to you, i offer a word of encouragement. you seem like an honest man looking for honest answers. i pray that God honors that and blesses you to that end. i hope nobody takes jabs at you on account of your comment. i did on that first guy up there because his questions seem to be more from an atheist's viewpoint and very well may be. he was also bullying some lady around on another page-- which i really don't have any use for that sort of thing. it is completely uncalled for. but at any rate, grace and peace to you sir.

Victor: Thanks for the response. Let me first state that I am glad you have found Mr Begg's sermons useful in your faith. Many of my friends are not Catholic or have no faith at all it seems. I personally like Joel O'steen as a motivational teacher but do not view that as a religion that I could tie salvation to. I think Mr Begg does quite a bit of good but must be ready to debate historical references when discrediting another faith. The other point you raise is about only 6 minutes being spent on the Bible in Mass. We always have 3 readings of approximately 5 minutes each and not only does our pastor discuss these but also incorporates old testament and compares and contrasts the gospels and the audience the writer was addressing at the time. I appreciate getting the full picture rather than an abridged one.

tish dj:
I find it interesting you think Catholic priests do not have a profound understanding of the scripture. Was it not the Catholic monasteries that kept the scriptures alive in the middle ages long before Luther, Wesley, and Calvin? The priests that I have met study in the seminary at length. The learn the linguistics of Greek and Aramic in relation the scriptures. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ So I'm not convinced the seminary is not giving priests a profound understanding of the scripture. As for not being able to stir parishioners I only need reference Bishop's Fulton Sheen legacy on YouTube many years after his death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xFwS... and Father John Corapi who is often on EWTN :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyEZ... I get a healthy does of preaching that can stir the heart on Sunday and from EWTN which is also a podcast in iTunes.

RC

I think what I was trying to address in my last post was difference at some level between entertainment and doctrine taht at times may be very far from entertaining. I think if you look at the video of Mr. Begg's church or worship center it is apparent their is an entertainment and commercial element. This site has a store with many products meant for consumption. I am also guessing there is a commercial element to the message that many find very appealing.

This is very different from a Catholic Church. I also get the impression from another section of this website that the larger mega churches such as Joel O'steen's are a point of contention for Mr Begg? Does anyone know if his church is Presbyterian or is that his theological roots?

One of my favorite Catholic speakers that converted from a protestant sect is Dr. Scott Hahn: http://www.scotthahn.com/index.html His journey as a minister to Catholicism addresses many theological points and the issues he had with Catholicism for many years.

The 2000-year interpretation of Scripture passages and the divine authority of the Catholic Church declare that the elements of communion, when consecrated by a valid priest, are truly Christ's body and blood (whether we like it or not, whether it's difficult or not). Were I not convinced for those reasons, I would choose to believe by FAITH (not sight) that it is so, rather than not believe for lack of human logic or material evidence--something akin to Pascal's wager. Whatever the various Protestants believe Jesus meant, "you must eat my flesh . . ," they certainly do not believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said.

Here is a link to a biblical connection to the Roman Catholic Mass:
http://www.stcharlesspokane.com/Scrip...

That the Catholic church believes and teaches that the bread and water become the flesh and blood of Christ is not being questioned. The question is whether that is the teaching of the scriptures. As with many Catholic doctrines, I do not feel it is supported by scripture and is therefore false doctrine. When Jesus first introduced Himself as the Bread of Life in John 6, He was speaking to a crowd who was following Him because He had given them physical food. He told them not to labor for food that perishes but for food which endures to everlasting life which the Son of Man could give them (John 6:27). He was trying to help them see their spiritual needs. Similarly He told the woman at the well who was drawing water that whoever drank of the water that He could give would never thirst again (John 4:14). He spoke metaphorically to teach a spiritual truth. Jesus said in John 6:35, “He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” When Christ instituted the practice of the Lord's Supper, He said to do it in remembrance of Him, meaning remembering his sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. Our spiritual need is met by believing that Christ's blood shed on the cross paid for our sins. We can not save ourselves by religious works or rituals for as it says in Isaiah “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” We are saved as was Abraham who “believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3) “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” for “God credits righteousness apart from works.” (Romans 4:5-6).
This is important because at spiritual risk are those who trust in participating in outward acts to save them from sin. Thank you Rev. Begg for upholding the authority of scripture and teaching what it says.

"As with many Catholic doctrines, I do not feel it is supported by scripture..." There are many protestant doctrines that Catholics always don't find supported by scripture including Sola Scriptura.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-co...

Sola scriptura is the belief that the written scriptures are sufficient for the teaching of truth necessary for salvation and Christian living and they are our supreme authority.
This is taught and implied in scriptures. The sufficiency of scripture is plainly taught in
2 Timothy 3:15-17 which tells us that the Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation, are given by the inspiration of God, are profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. This applies to both the Old and New Testament which have been given to us by God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for putting aside the written scriptures to follow their traditions. In 1 Corinthians 4:6 Paul tells not to go beyond what is written. Obviously, while the New Testament was being written, the apostles taught verbally, but in the final New Testament to be written, Revelations, John warned that “if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.” Rev. 22:18. At that point, the churches were copying and passing around the letters and books and treating them as scripture.

Roman C: You are dead on. While i have found much of A. Begg's teaching to be helpful in a number of areas, his (and Prostestantism's) emphasis on Sola Scriptura leaves a gaping hole that is never well or logically filled. For example: What is the true nature of Jesus? There is nothing in the scriptures that explicitly state: Jesus is both fully human and fully God - no separation and no confusion between the two natures. This took the Church a couple hundred years to figure out how to say that with clarity (even having to invent a word that had not previously existed - "homoousious" - using statements from writings the Church came to recognize as God's expressly stated Word. But it was the Church that identified both what was and was not scripture and what constituted truth regarding the nature of Jesus - both of those in response to those who said, "These writings are of God," that were not and, "This is who Jesus is," when such statements were inaccurate. If we trust the authority of the Church to correctly identify what constitutes scripture and what does not and to correctly define the dogmatics of Christian faith, what has changed so that we cannot trust the Church to correclty interpret what those scriptures mean?

In the earliest extra-biblical writings of the leaders of the Church (bishops, priests, etc.) the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist was obvious.

I'm glad Pastor Begg cites the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church... and since he insists his listeners imitate the Bereans (healthy practice) i would encourage us all to do the same. Research what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Eucharist - not just the snippets some (like Pastor Begg) use with only "enough knowledge to be dangerous."

There has been some good explanation in this forum as to what The Roman Catholic actually teaches regarding the Eucharist. I'm quite certain that Pastor Begg has not researched that nearly enough since he makes claims about the Eucharist that is clearly contrary to what the Catholic Church actually teaches regardless of what some Catholics say.

Mary,
The Catholic Church(1Tim3:15) mirrors the scripture. It is by the Spirit of God that we confess that Jesus Christ come in the flesh(John 6:64, 1John4:2). That's present tense. He's constantly coming into the world(John 11:27) through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass(1 Cor.11:23-30). The Mass is our Passover feast( 1Cor.5:7,8). To celebrate the passover feast you must eat the Lamb(Ex.12:1-30, John 1:29, 6:52, Rev.19:9) So Mary, keep the feast(1Cor.5:7,8), eat the Lamb(Ex.12:4, John 6:54) and adhere to the Word of God that you profess(John 5:39) and come home to the Catholic Church, that is, the Church that Christ established at the price of His Blood.(Acts20: 28). There is no other(Mat.16:18, Eph.3:10,21)

Mark,
I appreciate your sincere appeal but I believe the church the New Testament refers to is the body of believers who have been born again (John 3) by repenting of their sins and trusting in Christ’s blood alone to pay for their sins. In Matthew 16 Christ clearly was not referring to Peter as the foundation of the church but Himself. As you probably are aware, the inspired Greek word used for Peter in Matthew 16:18 meant “small stone,” whereas the inspired Greek word used for the one on whom the church was to be built meant “foundation boulder.” This is in fact what Peter himself taught. In Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:6-7, Peter identified Christ as the chief cornerstone of the church. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul wrote that the foundation was Christ. In 1 Peter 2:4-5 Peter taught that believers are living stones built up into a spiritual house (with the chief cornerstone being Christ). In addition, in 1 Peter 5:1, Peter described himself as a fellow elder (not one with authority over the other apostles). Jesus said He was leaving us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13). His Spirit abides in believers who have been born again and reveals spiritual truth to us (1 Cor. 2:10, 1 John 2:27). While God has through His Spirit has gifted some to be teachers, it is the Spirit who enables believers to understand spiritual truth. For our part, we do well to mediate on His word day and night (Psalm 1) for His Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.

There is one very important point I have yet not made that underscores all my prior posts. Catholics can firmly point to the Bible for all parts of the mass and our beliefs as Protestants can argue the differences using the same scriptures. Putting our differences aside I think we share far more than we disagree on. I also think we are often allies politically. My non Catholic friends do not try to convert me nor I them. The whole reason I came to this board was to offer a Catholic perspective as it was not given in the broadcast. That is why I asked what denomination Mr. Begg practiced to understand his historical point of view in light of the Reformation. Many of the the same passages that are being discussed are viewed very differently by the different Protestant denominations which I find interesting since there is a common history.

If we use Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, and nothing else, to understand II Tim 3:16,17, no where does it say that Scripture is sufficient. All it says is that Scripture is profitable for the man of God to be complete. Well, we can say that a rifle is profitable for a soldier to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But that does not mean that a rifle is sufficient and nothing else is required. Ammunition for the rifle is profitable. Clothes and a helmet are be profitable, etc.

No Christian I know, be they Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, etc., believes that the Bible alone is enough for the man of God to be complete. Grace and faith are necessary also. So the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura anywhere, nor did anyone teach it for the first 1600 years of Christianity, when Scripture was so devotedly, faithfully, and carefully copied and recopied by hand.

In James 1:3-4, we read an identical claim about steadfastness, that the man of God may be perfect, complete and lacking in nothing. But no one would say that steadfastness alone is sufficient, and the Bible doesn’t say that either.

Only the Old Testament known and circulated at the time that Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, which would mean that the New Testament is not profitable, since Paul was speaking of the Old Testament.

Some of your interpretations in your last post I heartily agree with. But concerning Peter (Rock), throughout the Gospels and Acts we see Peter’s leadership. (I have a list if you’d like it. I had to research this thoroughly myself when I was investigating the Catholic Church.)

We’ve got to have some divine authority guaranteed by Christ to rely on for the correct interpretation of Scripture, or else, as Luther said, everyone will be interpreting Scripture according to their own opinion, all claiming to be being led by the Holy Spirit. Peter himself warns that people were twisting Scripture even during his time. II Pet. 3:16 “There are some things in [Paul’s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
I'm sure we'd all agree that Mr. Begg is a Calvinist, but I don't think he is in a formal Calvinist denomination like the PCA for some reason.

So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17)

Mr Begg seems to have more issues with the Catholic Catechism (curious why he is reading the Catholic Catechism and not his own?!) on the Baptism Broadcast part B if anyone is interested: http://www.truthforlife.org/broadcast...

George Smith- responding from Jan 14 2010 post God bless your devotion to scripture and your tenacity to understand truth. I commend you on your courage to post your questions in light of being possibly the center of ridicule from so many upright beloved.
You are correct the Holy Spirit would not lead you astray. However, consider this:
The heart of man is wickedly deceitful. The will of man’s heart is to disobey God and depend upon his feelings and his own understandings.. They are blinded. Unbelief is accomplished, especially in unbelievers and also in believers through the blinding of their hearts and mind through many ways. Satan accomplishes blinding by intoxicating their thinking process, corrupting their heart with philosophies that are false and of man not God. This blinding also occurs through belief in superstition and or idolatry ( Do you watch hours of television, listen to talk radio, look at the new age or Gnostic sections in the book stores, consume yourself with various other media outlets…if so how many hours a day?) Finally this blinding happens by having a disproportionate view of the value of temporal things and are distracted from focusing their minds on the eternal.
As believers in the body of Christ I cant go down the road you are going in terms of your stance. I want you to like what I am saying, but as a believer, as people who are from a democratic society to express opinions, and perhaps you may be a truthPartner- as am I- please consider taking the time to purchase a copy of Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, as well Shepherd’s Notes on Mere Christianity (Publisher Holman Reference) and The Reason for God “Belief in an age of Skepticism” by Timothy Keller. Your questions are good and I encourage you to look at Chapter Seven “You Can’t Take the Bible Literally.” from Reason For God on Page 105 has very solid explanations as to why Jesus is unique and why his birth, life, and death are historically significant and documented. It is a fact that Paul’s wrote his letters to the Corinthians as early as 15 years after Christ ascension. These letters were in circulation during the life of the Eye witnesses he referred to could deny the facts. Marks Gospel was recorded from eye witness accounts. Details that have nothing to do with the narrative are placed in the scripture. Highly unlikely for writers of their time and highly improbable that someone added them down the road. Paul in his letters refers to a body of five hundred eye witness who saw Christ at one time if one is going to propagate the greatest lie of all time in human history they would more than likely wait until all eyewitnesses are dead so they can not refute the claim. This is not the case. Keep pressing for the truth.
Good Luck and God Bless

Here is where I'm coming from: I'm a ruling elder in the PCA, though presently a member of an EPC congregation. Our local EPC is very much like the PCA. I've been in the reformed camp for over 35 years. I was raised Roman Catholic.

Movements often seek to solidify their positions with concise statements. This may at times hurt the movement, as those brief statements rarely convey the complexity of a position. Such can be the case with the Reformational "sola" statements. Sole Scriptura, from an historical/biblical perspective, is a hard sell. Maybe Timothy would have considered Paul's writings as Scripture, but he certainly would not have been thinking of a NT canon of 27 books.

When we (evangelicals) say "sola scriptura", we are not saying that we listen to nothing but the Bible. We prove that when we adopt an understanding of the Bible that is in line with our accepted teachers. But nor does it mean when we listen to our acceptable teachers that are we aligning them with the Bible. I read the same Bible as Alistair Begg and yet disagree with him on baptism. That doesn't mean that Alistair and me have become laws unto ourselves, it simply means we vary in how we understand the text. What distinguishes us as evangelicals is that we defer to the Bible as our final authority, fully allowing that we, and our teachers, may actually be wrong. Alistair's denial of infant baptism may actually be right, though of course I don't think it is. I think he would concede the same thing to me. This may sound like chaos to Roman Catholics, but they offer no better thing. The problem many of us have with the RC view of the Bible isn't that they admit the influence of tradition and canon law, but that they admit tradition and canon law that undoes one of their admitted sources of authority, that is, the Bible.

To cut to the chase, they admit Mary as a co-mediator, when the Bible (which they accept as authoritative) admits no such thing, but in fact admits only Jesus Christ as our mediator. The ways and means of this is too complicated to go into here, but it is at junctures like this that we evangelicals must, at the end of the day, defer to the Bible as final authority, hence, the Bible alone. For to do anything else means to be able to accept dogma that is not only extra-biblical, but at times, non-biblical, as in the example of allowing a mediator other that Jesus Christ, who as God incarnate, mediates the violation of broken covenant Himself, by taking the curse of such violation (which is our doing) upon Himself. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us, thereby mediating the enmity between God and man. And this he did by Himself, as there is no mediator between God and man but the Lord Jesus Christ.

To George Smith: I commend you for your patience, and your persistence as you ask questions that will enhance your faith walk. Asking tough questionswalk does not fundamentally make one evil or stupid. It is often easier for others to assert these claims than to answer the questions.
Your fundamental question seems to be, “Why should I trust those who came up with the Bible?” Most of your question seems to center around which books were excluded and why. There are many good resources that can explain this better than I, but I hope that this might help you. Try reading, "Finding The Real Jesus, by Lee Strobel".
The primary reasoning behind the selection of the Gospels that you find in your traditional Bible today, is because they have been independently confirmed to have been written either by first person witnesses to the events or by people who obviously interviewed first-person witnesses to the events contained therein. The dates of these Gospels date them within a generation of Christians following his crucifixion.
The gnostic gospels you mention were written many centuries later. This leads to a significant lack of credibility to the stories. That said, Gnosticism was around during Paul’s ministries. In fact Paul’s letter to the Colossians was a response to many of the gnostic teachings in the early church.

More for George:
While the post-modern notion of plurality of theology would have you believe that there is no difference between the Gnostics and Christianity, there are some major differences. Gnosticism at its core was a cross between Greek logic and Eastern mysticism. Gnostics claimed that since the body is all evil and the spirit is all pure, a pure God could never occupy an “impure” body. In this, they deny that Jesus was both God and Man. The problem with this is that Jesus claimed to be both fully God and fully Man. Therefore, if the gnostic gospels are included, they are in conflict with both the other Gospels and the eye witness reports of those who lived at the time.
Note that this is not uncommon. The old testament prophets warned the Israelites over and over again against diluting the Word of God with seemingly “benign” offshoots. It was popular for the Israelites to worship many gods in their households while claiming to be the children of Yaweh, “just in case” there was a grain of truth in someone else’s theology. This practice crept in until they were sacrificing children to Molech in front of God’s altar in the temple.
As for the differences between the “Catholic Bible” and the “Protestant Bible”, you’re referring to the Apocrypha. These are books that the Roman Catholics do not recognize as divinely inspired, but recognize as good “history” books that tell a great deal of information about Jewish history at different times in history. Often misunderstood, we as Christians need to focus more on our similarities than our differences. Ultimately, none of us knows who is a member of the real church (i.e. invisible) and who isn’t. We need to focus on loving each other.
Keep questioning, and keep praying. If we submit ourselves to God’s service and pray for His wisdom, He will lead you to Him. Don’t neglect the Old Testament. It is points to Christ. God bless.

RC,

I want to comment on a couple of points you made if I may.

In regard to "Sola Scripture" the reformers were not introducing a new concept. To illustrate this one must confirm what Scripture is. It is the teaching of the Gospel as passed on to the Apostles by Christ and the Holy Spirit of God. So although there is no phrase that says "Sola Scripture" I can point to and I can reconcile that the Bible does teach "Sola" Christ. Furthermore, I can also point to teaching that commands us to adhere to the teaching found in the letters to the Churches by the Apostles. That was the main if not sole purpose of the Canon, to affirm what had already been known to be Scripture and to condemn other teachings that were contrary to the sound "doctrine" of the Apostles as given to the Church. Peter himself similarly affirms Pauls teaching as "Scritpure" because Peter recognized the anointing of the Spirit of God on Paul's teaching.

So to say that there is no call to adhere to the teaching of Scripture in the Bible is extremely inaccurate and misleading.

Now in contrast where in the teaching of the Apostles, as passed down to them by Christ and his Holy Spirit does is it taught that the Passover meal as practiced by Christians is somehow a necessity for Salvation teaching that somehow we are required to ingest Christ's body and blood? That is the nuts and bolts question here. You quote John 6 but never point us to Peter or Paul or John for clarification that your interpretation of that Scripture affirms the Catholic view of the Eucharist as the actual body of Christ being partaken of as another sacrifice for sin. Forgiveness of sin doesn't save us anyway...it sets sin aside for Salvation which is God's Spirit in us. In fact I can point you to Romans 8 and Hebrews wherein the teacher painstakingly clarifies what Christ's sacrifice accomplished for us by faith, not by works, but through grace and not by ordinances and traditions of men.

Now in closing let me reference a Scripture that affirms for me Scripture alone:

Galatians 1

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel ; 7 which is really not another ; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed ! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed !

Now in reference to the reformers, they were not protesting the Roman branch of the church but the Church itself as a whole which had as a whole embraced teaching contrary to the Gospel of Christ Jesus.The call for "Sola Scripture" was a call to return from where the Church as a whole had fallen from.

with respect,

Joseph

When discussing how to know if something about the gospel is true or not, I like the verse from Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thesaalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." This is the only place we know from the bible what is noble to God. An adherence and trusting of his word. It doesn't say I searched the traditions, ceratinly the jews had them. They searched the scriptures. That is the ultimate truth to base whether something preached is true, or not. It is the only authority, or God would have told us here, of another.

Brother Begg, I thank you for this message and your holding true to biblical truth. That is noble.

In all respect to Pastor Begg (we’ve had the pleasure of hearing him preach several times up at Camp-of-the-Woods in NYS) He is clearly ignoring his early church fathers and almost all of Christian history before the time of John Calvin. His arguments would be seen as foolishness by the early Christian church as evidenced by the following quotes from men who revered and studied every word both spoken and written by the apostles.
Take care, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, along with the priests and deacons, my fellow-servants. St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-107AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Syrian; ecclesiastical writer, bishop, martyr
How can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the Body of the Lord and with His Blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? The bread, which is produced from the earth, receives the invocation of God, and is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (125-203AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Asia Minor; bishop, missionary, theologian, defender of orthodoxy
As long as the invocation and prayers have not begun, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been pronounced, then the bread becomes the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine becomes His Blood. Let us come to the celebration of the mysteries! St. Athanasius of Alexandria (297-373AD) on the Eucharist
Mini-Bio: Egyptian; bishop, theologian, Doctor of the Church
There is one Christ everywhere, complete both in this world and in the other; one body. Though offered in many places, He is but one body so there is but one sacrifice ... We offer now what was offered then. ~ Reflect, O man, what sacrificial flesh you take in your hand -- and to what table you will approach. Remember that you, though dust and ashes, do receive the Blood and the Body of Christ. ~ Not only ought we to see the Lord, but we ought to take Him in our hands, eat Him, set our teeth upon His Flesh, and most intimately unite ourselves with Him. St. John Chrysostom (347-407AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Syrian; archbishop, Doctor of the Church
The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body" (Mt. 26:26). Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another nature is spoken of, after the consecration, the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration, it has another name; after, it is called Blood. And you say: "Amen," that is, "It is true." Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters; let the soul feel what the voice speaks. St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: German; bishop, Doctor of the Church

A few more Quotes:

Given to you in the figure of bread is His Body, and in the figure of wine His Blood; that you, by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to St. Peter, we became partakers of the divine nature. ( 2 Peter 1: 4 ) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Palestinian; bishop, scholar, Doctor of the Church

Just as if someone were to twist two pieces of wax together and melt them with a fire, so that the two are made one, so too through participation in the Body of Christ and in His precious Blood, He is united to us and we to Him. In no other way can our corruptible nature be made alive except by being united bodily to the Body of Him who is, by His very nature, Life: that is, the Only-Begotten. St. Cyril of Alexandria (376-444AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Egyptian; bishop, theologian, Doctor of the Church

If I am asked how bread is changed into the Body of Christ, I answer: "The Holy Ghost overshadows the priest and operates in the same manner in the elements which He effected in the womb of the Virgin Mary." St. John Damascene (of Damascus) (675-749AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Syrian; priest, monk, theologian, poet, Doctor of the Church

As in the life of the body, after a man is born and becomes strong, he requires food so that his life may be preserved and sustained, so also in the spiritual life, after being fortified, he requires spiritual food, which is Christ's Body: Unless you shall eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His Blood, you shall not have life in you. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Italian; Dominican philosopher, theologian, mystic, hymnist, Doctor of the Church

Every day He humbles Himself just as He did when He came from His heavenly throne into the Virgin's womb; every day he comes to us and lets us see Him in lowliness, when He descends from the bosom of the Father into the hands of the priest at the altar. St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226AD) on the Eucharist Mini-Bio: Italian; preacher, mystic, stigmatist, founder of the Order of Friars Minor (Franciscans)

If the Bible is all one story why not read what the people did when in Egypt during the time of Moses? God gave them directions for the Passover meal. Jesus was participating in this meal when He gave His disciples the third cup which had a meaning for the Jews. - their Redeemer. He was telling them who He was and declaring His intentions to complete what His Father had give Him to do. Instead of arguing about what priests have decided, why not go back to Jesus? Didn't He have the same problem with priests in His day making all kinds of rules to follow? I have been to groups where there have been similar arguments, but most have never studied the Old Testament as a background. Pastor Begg is like a breath of fresh air. His teachings are Biblical without all the manmade rules and regulations thrown in - just like Jesus. Would the real Jesus of Nazareth be welcomed in many of the churches today? Would He know the rituals necessary to participate? Would He be welcomed at the communion table?

From my reading of George's question, it appears as though it was directed at Alistair. Funny, how many people feel compelled to answer for him. George, should Alistair ever get around to answering your question, I would enjoy to hearing how he answers it as well.

Alistair,

I listen to your radio sermons often on during my morning commute. You have a gift for breathing life into the Bible, making its meaning clear and its message all the more vital. I sincerely thank you for that and will continue to listen.

That said, as has been raised more eloquently by others above, you lost me some on this morning's message. I couldn't help wondering, "Why does Alistair so emphatically believe in a literal reading of the Bible. But only sometimes?" Why NOT a literal intepretation of the last supper? Perhaps the emotion and frustration I heard in your voice today isn't the result of how others intepret the lord's supper (that is, literally), but more because of something you believe you are missing?

All the best,

Ed

Dear Pastor Begg, Thank you so much for fearlessly teaching the truth. Catholics love to quote the "Church Fathers", but they too were error-prone and their quotes are often taken out of context. The Bible consistently warns against false teachers who were creeping in early on. The church fathers I rely on are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude! The apostles at the Last Supper cannot possibly have taken the bread and wine to be Christ's real body and real blood because Christ was sitting there with them! He is telling them that in the future when they partake of the supper to remember Him. It is as you said. If you study the history of the Roman Catholic church, it is about power. Nothing gave it more power than to make their priests the only ones capable of ordering Jesus Christ down from heaven and into a wafer, and then making eating the wafer the only way to heaven.

I have listened to Pastor Begg for quite a while now, he is a very good teacher. I do however find it odd that he quotes for I Corinthians up to a point. He has no problem using the verse until it says "whoever eats the bread and drinks form the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of The Lord". If we want to be in error we can use partial verses and take them out of context. However I think it is clear in this passage that if Christ is not present in the bread and wine then you cannot sin against His body and blood. Please don't use only the parts that enforce your side, use the entire verse.

Did I understand this right? He said Catholics aren't in Christ, Catholicism is from the devil. Wow! Thanks for straightening that out, I just hope most people won't trust you alone.

Dear Pastor Begg, I understand your message completely. When I married 33 years ago I joined the Catholic Church. In 1995 I went back to my church from birth. It doesn't matter what religion, It teaches God's word and backs it with scripture. My husband's family is Catholic and they are bound in chains by Catholicism. It hurts to see them hurting. I am glad you are not afraid to speek the truth. Keep it up.

I am a first time listener and just signed on to this site. As a Catholic, my knowledge of the bible is poor. I am in awe of the knowledge of the bible that has been expressed in the foregoing comments. I have a few questions of Pastor Begg and/or anyone else. Did the HOLY SPIRIT only come to those Christians revealed in the New Testament 2000 years ago? Or, has the HOLY SPIRIT spoken to the Church since? Why does Pastor Begg only look at the "Bible" and not consider that the HOLY SPIRIT has and is speaking to man during the past 2000 years?

Montie,
You are so correct. We must always remember that unless you are born again and filled with the Holy Spirit all things are foolishness.
The Word says" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cort. 2:14
Pastor Begg, continuie to speak the whole truth, the church needs it terribly,for judgment will start there first.

From reading all these comments, it seems the Bible is open to numerous interpretations, and it seems that the correct one depends on what the denomination one belongs to believes. A. Begg accuses Catholics of idol worship, strictly forbidden by the 10 commandments. Yet when I read Num. 21:6-9, the Lord himself commanded Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a standard so when the people were bitten by fiery serpents they could look upon the brass serpent and live. If that's not an idol, I don't know what is! This is just one of many contradictions found in the Bible. No wonder confusion reigns among the many different Christian denominations.

For eight years now I have been a member of a modern evangelical non-denominational church. Over the course of the past year I have been introduced to the Eastern Orthodox Church. One of the things that fascinates me is the lack of input from their traditions ANYWHERE. I'm learning things in the history of the church that most of the leaders at my church that I have talked to have never heard of. Twice in the past week I've been asked what a Schism was. I didn't know what a schism was 9 months ago. Go to a christian supply and look for anything from the Orthodox Church. And all these discussions between Protestants and Catholics never go into Orthodoxy. The fact that there was another church before western catholicism is never brought up. I am not Orthodox at this point and still attend a non-denominational church. There are differences between catholicism and orthodoxy, big differences. Mr. Begg points to some of Augustine's writings. The Orthodox would contend that Augustine of Hippo was the beginning of the western church trying to understand and put human definitions on things that should've all along be left to the mystery of God. This is the first time Ive been to this site and have enjoyed it so far. It just seems to me that alot of protestant ideas that I've come to believe in the last eight years of my life are new beliefs and that we have just blocked out the first 1500 years of the church.

I want to clear that Rome was part of the church, just that the western philosophy that has taken place in the western roman catholic church does not in alot of ways match up with what the early church believed.