this is what happened

[nature boy]

so a friend of mine posted this picture on facebook:

10018_570337663028080_379771167_n.jpg (28.85 KiB) Viewed 1122 times

and the discussion went like this (in its pure unadulterated glory... save the colons i put in for clarification of speaker and comment):
Richard Kevin Williams: When the New Testament talks about grace, it always seems to be pointing to the specific actions of Jesus Christ in His death on the cross, not in reference to baptism or communion.
4 September at 20:19 · Like · 2

Clara Yeung: Imagine the border in the middle being painted with an animated 24 pt red wavy line, like a bloody river 8-\
4 September at 21:07 · Like

Lawrence T. Cheung: The discussion on the original thread is worth our time!
4 September at 21:32 · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: I've already heard stuff like what is in the thread before. I could repeat what I said here there.
4 September at 21:37 · Like

Edward Yang: Jesus didn't tell the thief on the Cross that today he'd see him in paradise...but only if he got baptized and had communion first.
12 hours ago · Like

Edward Yang: If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. -Romans 10:9
12 hours ago · Like

Edward Yang: "Do this in remembrance of me", not "do this to be saved".
12 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: Why can't it be both? At best I'd say it's a poor diagram depicting what I think the artist is trying to show as a contradiction. I see both baptism and communion as a means of grace (please note that I nor the picture said the ONLY means) as well as our practice of the two as a display of obedience. Or maybe I'm just understanding the picture wrong.
11 hours ago · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: I think that people misunderstand the whole context of John 6 - see my comments at the original link.
11 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: I don't get what john 6 has to do with communion and baptism being a means of grace. Again, I don't see the diagram saying that they're the ONLY means of grace, nor do I see it saying that you must be baptised and have communion to be saved. I have this funny feeling that the confusion lies not in the nature of communion and/or baptism (or anything that one may consider a sacrament for that matter), rather it lies in the definition of grace.
11 hours ago · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: Nathan, did you read John 6? It is the crucial passage that people use in regard to the whole issue of communion. I suggest that you slowly read it in the entire context and see if you can make out what it is saying.
11 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: I probably should qualify that with saying that I believe that God's grace is found in more than just salvation, but it is also found in creation, our relationships with others, and essentially in all the ways God cares for and provides for us. The fact that we have an outward symbol of God's salvation and forgiveness through baptism is gracious. And the fact that we have a means in which we can visibly see how we are joined in community through bread and wine is gracious. That's what I mean when I say that the sacraments are a means for God's grace.
11 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: I did read john 6, yes. All I see is it supporting the notion that communion is a means of grace. But again, not the only means of grace. And again, by my definition of grace.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic, lawrence. You should sell advertising space on your wall with all this traffic it's getting!
10 hours ago · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: Well, Nathan, you probably need to take a class on biblical interpretation and understanding how to read the biblical text in context just like many others do.
10 hours ago · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: My point about John 6 is that the bread and wine were never meant to be taken literally as the flesh and blood of Christ, hence when Jesus says in verse 63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." The Jews were looking for physical bread as a miraculous sign (vs.30-31). Jesus was trying to tell them all that they had to do was believe in Him (v.29). Jesus was trying to point out to them something greater than physical bread and a miraculous sign - that was the whole point of what he was saying and the disciples were offended (v.61). It was a matter of just having faith. This is to be read in the context of Jesus feeding the five thousand and the crowds who searched Him out looking for more than He had shown them. It was grace in that it was only God who could enable people to have faith in Him (v.65).
10 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: Um, ok. I thought we were talking about communion and baptism as a means of grace. Where did anyone in this discussion (or that diagram) talk about the bread and wine being literal flesh and blood?

I agree with what you're saying that it is only God that enables that faith, and I believe that it can be enabled through bread and wine and baptism. I also believe that it can be enabled by other means as well. I don't see how it has to be a contradiction.
9 hours ago · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: Nathan, I am not sure you were listening to everything I said. Actually, what Jesus was saying. People were trying to obtain grace through means other than faith.
4 hours ago · Edited · Like

Richard Kevin Williams: I thought the context of the photo was talking about the grace of salvation.
3 hours ago · Like

Nathan Fong: i have been listening to both you and Jesus (who by the way, are two very different people). i'm not sure if you're listening to what i'm saying though. i can see Jesus speaking against those who were trying to obtain grace through other means of faith, but that is in no way what i'm saying here. so pulling out random scripture passages that don't pertain to what i'm talking about in order to disprove my opinion is just acting based on a gross assumption which, might i add, that i tried to squash right in my first comment of this discussion.

btw richard, i have a masters in divinity and a ba in religious studies. i've also taken numerous courses from various institutions that didn't add up to another degree. i could probably piece some of them together and be halfway into obtaining a doctorate in theology. so it's safe to say that i've taken courses on biblical interpretation. please do not make assumptions about me just because you assume i'm talking about something you don't agree with.
about an hour ago · Like

[geForce]

Has he replied since?

[nature boy]

nope. my friend who posted the picture messaged me twice telling me to be careful of that richard guy because he can be really close-minded and nasty on facebook haha.

[joel]

yeah, it sounds like RKW was interpreting the pic as imagery for differing views on salvation and how it is received. i can sort of see why he interprets it that way, though there is no mention of salvation at all in the picture. but the words "instrumental" and "non-instrumental" could be viewed by as meaning necessary. alternatively, it doesn't state what exactly is "instrumental" or not with the picture.

it sounds like the issue was more about your differing interpretations of what the picture is trying to say. sometimes if we look at a picture, we assume everyone sees the same picture. but there are probably many things (personality, experiences, etc...) go on in to how we interpret what we see. our "lens" paints the picture with slight variations of meanings.

sounds like the discussion gets a bit heated.

[[JT]]

I got some popcorn and i'm ready for MOAR!!!!!

[nature boy]

haha, he didn't post at all after that. maybe my friend told him to stop? i dunno.

as for non-instrumental vs. instrumental, i think that's a new term for this idea. as in, the sacraments are instruments of grace, or they're not instruments of grace.

[joel]

yeah that makes sense too.

[nature boy]

[geForce]

What grinds my gears is that this guy is getting off thinking he won some debate against two fully educated theologians.

[Duncan]

not to be a dork here, but just because you have degrees doesn't mean jack, and certainly doesn't mean that you're the absolute authority on anything. i'm not saying that Nathan doesn't know jack (hah, although sometimes i wish he didn't know anything about grammar and spelling). I'm not saying that the guy knows what he's talking about either... but putting emphasis on education is a poor way of supporting an argument (and yes, i know Nat didn't bring it up, the other dude did). Two people with uber degrees could and do see things very differently. That's why there are so many different interpretations on the bible out there. I'd like to see this guy debate about the 7 day creation story lol.

anyways, i agree on the fact that he doesn't understand your interpretation. It's like a book i read to my girls all the time. It's called "Duck! Rabbit!". The picture looks like a duck or rabbit depending on how you look at it. Either way, theological debates online always seem to end up this way. It's a shame that it gets heated 98% of the time.

[Wetundies]

that's a funny looking rabbit.

[geForce]

[nature boy]

[nature boy]

[Duncan]