Are Protestants dead?

[AvilaSurfer]

So Jesus just BS’d us with His actual words. Ok got it.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So Jesus just BS’d us with His actual words. Ok got it.

...because Christ never spoke figuratively?
The Christ of the Bible spoke figuratively quite often.

I suppose it was obvious that he was not being figurative when he slapped down a big bloody slab of his own thigh meat on the table and said, "This is my body, broken for you...." James turned to John and asked, "Wait, this is just a symbol, right?"

 

[JF Seabastian]

So Jesus just BS’d us with His actual words. Ok got it.

Jesus’ actual words were not BS. They were understood by his disciples attending the Last Supper, who had followed Him for 3 1/2 years by then. They knew that God (Spirit) only valued the part of humanity that reflected His image (spirit). When Jesus was speaking of the Communion as commemorating His sacrifice, he was speaking entirely of spiritual things. It is one’s soul/spirit that is saved from eternal death—not the physical body. When the priest lifts up the bread and wine, it becomes the flesh and blood of Christ to the spiritual elements of our selves. The Scriptures and Traditions of the Christian faith all down play the importance of the corruptible flesh while focusing on the things necessary to preserving the everlasting soul/spirit of humanity. The doctrine of Transubstantiation can only go two ways; either it physically changes the blood and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, which is scientifically detectable, or it conditions us, spiritually, to receive it as the flesh and blood sacrifice of Christ.

 

[JacksBratt]

So Jesus just BS’d us with His actual words. Ok got it.

I get it. Your Catholic.... You and I are going to disagree.... a lot.

 

[Eloy Craft]

As a protestant myself.. I hold no human as somebody with "power" handed down from an Apostle. Christ alone descides who has certain gifts and abilities and it is quite surprising when you see it... as to who Christ gives special blessings of certain gifts and opportunities.

Jack , I agree power isn't the word I should have used. Authority is better. Gift doesn't convey the authenticity and permanence required for this Sacrament. A gift adds nothing of merit to the receiver. But if we agree that something is handed down from Christ, it follows that in the manner it was handed down to the Apostles, they in turn would hand it down as well. Characteristic of that manner is to be chosen. Jesus said to the Apostles, Those who hear you hear Me. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. He definitely sent them out to choose others to follow Him in the manner He chose them to follow Him.

 

[JacksBratt]

Jack , I agree power isn't the word I should have used. Authority is better. Gift doesn't convey the authenticity and permanence required for this Sacrament. A gift adds nothing of merit to the receiver. But if we agree that something is handed down from Christ, it follows that in the manner it was handed down to the Apostles, they in turn would hand it down as well. Characteristic of that manner is to be chosen. Jesus said to the Apostles, Those who hear you hear Me. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. He definitely sent them out to choose others to follow Him in the manner He chose them to follow Him.

Ya, sorry, they have no "authority" handed down from Christ... They are just men.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus said to the Apostles, Those who hear you hear Me. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. He definitely sent them out to choose others to follow Him in the manner He chose them to follow Him.

If you look at Mat 18:18, that section was addressed to his followers as a whole, not just the 12.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Ya, sorry, they have no "authority" handed down from Christ... They are just men.

Then He didn't authorize the Apostles to speak in His Name? Would something Jesus handed down to the Apostles be eternal like Him?

 

[hedrick]

Then He didn't authorize the Apostles to speak in His Name? Would something Jesus handed down to the Apostles be eternal like Him?

No, he authorized Christians to speak in his name.

 

[Strong in Him]

Protestants believe something never believed before concerning the conversion of the bread into the body soul and divinity of Christ. They believe that it doesn't require a person ordained by the succession of Bishops and the power handed down from the Apostles to them.

On the contrary - most churches require an ordained member of the clergy to preside at communion. Otherwise they would not regard it as "communion".

At an arbitrary point in time Protestants decided that a lay person could do it.

In some churches, possibly; not in Anglican, Methodist and URC churches.

That was a new belief never believed by Christians before.

So when were Jesus and the 12 ordained?
Where do we read about St Paul's ordination service?
It's not Scriptural that it HAS to be an ordained Minister doing this. The early church broke bread together, but nowhere are we told that it was led by an apostle, reading certain words. In Corinthians, they and a meal, not a service during which folk received a tiny piece of bread and sip of wine.
So if any churches allow lay Christians - born again believers, people of faith and knowledge of Scripture - to preside at Communion; good for them. It is the Lord's Supper, and he who is present, blesses the elements and makes them holy; not the clergy.

 

[Eloy Craft]

If you look at Mat 18:18, that section was addressed to his followers as a whole, not just the 12.

He was speaking to disciples about forgiveness. He describes efforts to correct another disciple that didn't work. They were calling the sinning disciple to repentance. As a last resort He tells them to take the disciple to the Church. If the disciple fails to hear the Church then the power to loose and bind is mentioned. That the Church is mentioned as a location, a place to take the disciple, distinguishes certain people as having the power to bind and loose doesn't it?

 

[hedrick]

On the contrary - most churches require an ordained member of the clergy to preside at communion. Otherwise they would not regard it as "communion".

But for most of us, this is a matter of church order. It doesn't indicate that clergy have a special power to make communion happen. If someone had their own communion service, it would be unauthorized but I wouldn't say it isn't communion if it was done Scripturally.

 

[JacksBratt]

Then He didn't authorize the Apostles to speak in His Name? Would something Jesus handed down to the Apostles be eternal like Him?

I think that it is totally arrogant for any man to hold himself to the same level as the Apostles... These men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the canon..... Nobody has lived, since, to be held to this honor.

So, no... nothing "handed down for Eternity.

 

[Eloy Craft]

No, he authorized Christians to speak in his name.

I mean speaking the Word of God with the authority of Jesus.

 

[hedrick]

I mean speaking the Word of God with the authority of Jesus.

That's what I mean too. It appears that Jesus promised this to everyone. When any two agree on something it will be done. There are certain obvious practical problems with this, but it's what the passage says.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I think that it is totally arrogant for any man to hold himself to the same level as the Apostles... These men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the canon..... Nobody has lived, since, to be held to this honor.

So, no... nothing "handed down for Eternity.

I agree. The Public Witness of the Apostles ended with the death of St John. That doesn't mean that the authority to teach what the Apostle proclaimed was over too. Christ's authority isn't temporal.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That's what I mean too. It appears that Jesus promised this to everyone. When any two agree on something it will be done. There are certain obvious practical problems with this, but it's what the passage says.

Interesting. I have to agree that this can happen to individual Christians at times but how could one be certain it happened?

 

[hedrick]

Interesting. I have to agree that this can happen to individual Christians at times but how could one be certain it happened?

At least in this passage it seems to be talking not about individuals but about the community. Note: two agree, two or three gather, what do I do about a member of the church misbehaving?

The power to loose and bind was, as I understand, the authority of a rabbi to make interpretation of Torah. We all know that Scripture doesn't directly answer specific questions about what to do. It gives principles, but how to apply them to specific circumstances is left to us to decide. In my opinion, Jesus didn't intend to give us rules that answered every question that would ever come up. He left this to his followers. I think every Christian community has the responsibility to help people make these decisions. Note: this isn't given to those who are in the Apostolic Succession, but wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name.

Of course churches today don't agree. I don't doubt that many of them have made and will continue to make bad decisions. We'll be held accountable by God for how we use this authority. But we have no choice: we have to decide how to apply Jesus' teachings in today's situation, and this is best done as a community. So I think every Christian community has the responsibility for making these kinds of decisions. I'm saying community rather than church because Christians have made varying arrangements for carrying this out. Some are strictly congregational. Some look to the Pope to control the whole process. De facto, many who are members of churches look to parachurch communities for guidance.

 

[Eloy Craft]

On the contrary - most churches require an ordained member of the clergy to preside at communion. Otherwise they would not regard it as "communion".

But that communion is a partaking in one Body of Christ for over a thousand years.

In some churches, possibly; not in Anglican, Methodist and URC churches.

The timing has no connection to divine revelation.

So when were Jesus and the 12 ordained?
Where do we read about St Paul's ordination service?
It's not Scriptural that it HAS to be an ordained Minister doing this. The early church broke bread together, but nowhere are we told that it was led by an apostle, reading certain words. In Corinthians, they and a meal, not a service during which folk received a tiny piece of bread and sip of wine.
So if any churches allow lay Christians - born again believers, people of faith and knowledge of Scripture - to preside at Communion; good for them. It is the Lord's Supper, and he who is present, blesses the elements and makes them holy; not the clergy.

Jesus didn't need to be ordained and Jesus ordained the Apostles. The early Church had ordained ministers. If any person who calls themselves a Christian could minister communion with the Body of Christ there would be no real communion with the Body of Christ. That communion of faith would be as numerous as there are people who call themselves Christians but believe different things about God wouldn't it? I don't see how a communion of faith can be one faith that way.

 

[FireDragon76]

If a friend asked you to remember him, would you frame a photograph of his bloody body at an accident scene, and stare at it? People (C or P) that are hooked up on that may just be missing everything Jesus lived for.

That's a strange objection since Evangelicals traditionally talked a great deal about Jesus death as a propitiation for sin, often in graphic terms.