Communion

"The first paragraph is problematic. Paul's language seems to pretty clearly reinforce that the bread is Jesus's body in some sense. I can't get away from the conclusion that you're merely making the passage say something it doesn't." I find this passage to be an example and metaphorical. After all, if you go over to the very next verse, Paul says that we are one bread and one body.

"And why would Jesus have to continually die?" If the bread and wine transform into his actual flesh and blood. Then it is now more then just a token of remembrance of his death. We are now re-sacrificing him everytime we partake of his flesh.

"To clarify, I believe in John Calvin's view of spiritual presence. This is what Presbyterians and many Baptists have always believed. Jesus nourishes us with His spiritual body and blood (which doesn't make it any less real) through the physical bread and wine." If communion imparts spiritual nourishment. Then why not take it everyday? Or multiple times a day? After all we need all the spiritual help we can get.

As for "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” I would argue that repenting isn't salvific either. But it is a natural response once God has saved you, as should be baptism. Sinners repent of there wrong all the time, but that doesn't make them saved, sinners can be baptized as much as they want, but that doesn't save them either. Only after God has saved someone does true repentance or baptism happen.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

(Colossians 2:11–13) this passage also seems very metaphorical. "With the circumcision made without hands. "Circumcision of Christ" and " risen with him through the faith of the operation of God " sound like representations to me.

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

(1 Peter 3:21) this also appears to be saying that spiritual baptism savedls, and that physical baptism is a sign of the spiritual baptism.

I agree that "you can't be saved without turning away from the things of the world" but God has to save you first. Sinful wicked man cannot repent on there own.

I guess so, but you cant choose God until after he chooses you, even if it's almost instantaneous

"The first paragraph is problematic. Paul's language seems to pretty clearly reinforce that the bread is Jesus's body in some sense. I can't get away from the conclusion that you're merely making the passage say something it doesn't." I find this passage to be an example and metaphorical. After all, if you go over to the very next verse, Paul says that we are one bread and one body. We all partake of the one bread, but we are not the bread. We are one body, true, but note how we are never compared to the blood of Christ. This cannot be what this passage is referring to in the earlier verses.

"And why would Jesus have to continually die?" If the bread and wine transform into his actual flesh and blood. Then it is now more then just a token of remembrance of his death. We are now re-sacrificing him everytime we partake of his flesh. I don't know how we are "re-sacrificing" him, or how this follows from a physical or spiritual presence view: this is a phenomenon unique to Roman Catholicism that I do find problematic. Again, it's not something we do for God, but vice versa.

"To clarify, I believe in John Calvin's view of spiritual presence. This is what Presbyterians and many Baptists have always believed. Jesus nourishes us with His spiritual body and blood (which doesn't make it any less real) through the physical bread and wine." If communion imparts spiritual nourishment. Then why not take it everyday? Or multiple times a day? After all we need all the spiritual help we can get. Maybe you've got a point! Roman Catholicism typically offers daily mass in many churches, and the Eucharist is the centerpiece of their worship services/assemblies. I don't mind daily mass, but since the Eucharist doesn't do anything per se, I don't see a particular reason to take on a daily basis. I don't have a thought-out position on this idea though.

As for "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” I would argue that repenting isn't salvific either. But it is a natural response once God has saved you, as should be baptism. Sinners repent of there wrong all the time, but that doesn't make them saved, sinners can be baptized as much as they want, but that doesn't save them either. Only after God has saved someone does true repentance or baptism happen. I hope you would agree that repentance goes hand in hand with belief and regeneration. After all, what is this belief that we speak of? Belief that God became man and died on the cross for our sins! This implies that we want to be freed from our sins and have rejected them (aka repentance). So is repentance necessary for salvation? In a way, of course it is! This is not to say that it is the active agent (for of course that is God), but that it will always be present when regeneration is. Baptism is similar: it is part of the gospel, just like repentance.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

(Colossians 2:11–13) this passage also seems very metaphorical. "With the circumcision made without hands. "Circumcision of Christ" and " risen with him through the faith of the operation of God " sound like representations to me. I disagree. Baptism is the new circumcision: this passage is the clearest articulation of that. Circumcision made Israelites part of God's covenant in the Mosaic covenant era, and in the new covenant under Christ, baptism performs the same function. And does "baptism, wherein (in which) you are risen with him" really sound metaphorical to you? It seems much more straightforward and logical to take a view of baptismal efficacy like I do.

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

(1 Peter 3:21) this also appears to be saying that spiritual baptism savedls, and that physical baptism is a sign of the spiritual baptism. Baptism per se doesn't impart grace (contrary to what Lutherans and Catholics would say), but it still saves in some sense. I would agree with the statement that you wrote, but that there's also more to it than that.

At this point it am unsure as to what you believe. You say it's not his actual flesh and blood, but that it's more then just bread and wine. You say that it doesn't save, but still has some spiritual part in salvation.

Also -and I'm not trying to make and Ad-Hominem by saying this- it seems odd to me that you would take a lot of these passages so literal after believing that the whole beginning of Genesis if figurative