Are Protestants dead?

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:

Not only Acts 15, which eliminated the Jewish ceremonial requirements for Gentile Christians, but we also hear from Paul in Romans 14:4-6 (I encourage all to read the entire chapter): "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord."

Historically, in everywhere but Israel, the early Church quickly moved to gathering for worship on the first day of the week (Resurrection Sunday) and eventually the "weekend" (both Saturday and Sunday) became days of rest and/or worship. Are you saying that the Church (now essentially Gentile believers) was wrong in doing this? Since Jesus (the King of kings and Lord of the Sabbath) came, died for us on Good Friday, was Resurrected on following Sunday, and began the Kingdom of God on earth, are not all days now equally Sabbatical and holy?

Click to expand...

That is categorically FALSE. In fact, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that ALL of the believers in Asia Minor, BOTH JEW AND GENTILE. Kept the feast days and observed Sabbath. It was the corruption of ROME that led to this horrific error.

Polycarp was appointed by the Apostle John to be the bishop of the body in Smyrna. Near the end of his life, he engaged the bishop of the body in Rome over a dispute as to when to celebrate Passover as a celebration of Messiah's death and resurrection. Keeping with the FACTUAL reality that Messiah was the eternal Passover lamb, the body in Asia Minor observed it on the 14th of Nisan.

While you are correct that ROME abandoned the biblical roots and changed the Sabbath to a Sunday day of worship absolutely NOWHERE in scripture is this commanded. WHO is a man to set aside the decree of G-d???? In fact, James exhorts in his decree to the Gentiles Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The things they were to abstain from ALL dealt with IDOLATRY which was the only sin for which the children of Israel were cast out of the land.

Many historical writings suggest that believers in Asia Minor continued to observe Sabbath and the feast-days well into the 4th century Only Constantine passed laws ordering any sabbath observers to be put to death was the Church in Asia minor relegated to a small remnant.

The END of the age of the Gentiles is at hand and the FATHER is restoring HIS ways to the body. The fastest growing segment of the Jewish religion comprising of both JEW and GENTILES. To the observant Jew Christianity looks NOTHING like Judaism. JESUS, to the OBSERVANT JEW, is a GENTILE. YESHUA to the Jewish person looks like a JEW.

Does not the Lord say I reveal the END from the Beginning How then can you so easily cast aside the Lords commandments, decrees, statutes, and laws? DID not G-d say of Abraham that he obeyed his voice? Keeping my commandments, decrees, statutes and laws? How can this be since the Torah was not given until Moses brought it to the children of Israel centuries later? If these things were to be observed by Abraham and then later the children of Israel how then can you proclaim them to be null and void?

BukiRob said:

That is categorically FALSE. In fact, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that ALL of the believers in Asia Minor, BOTH JEW AND GENTILE. Kept the feast days and observed Sabbath. It was the corruption of ROME that led to this horrific error.

Polycarp was appointed by the Apostle John to be the bishop of the body in Smyrna. Near the end of his life, he engaged the bishop of the body in Rome over a dispute as to when to celebrate Passover as a celebration of Messiah's death and resurrection. Keeping with the FACTUAL reality that Messiah was the eternal Passover lamb, the body in Asia Minor observed it on the 14th of Nisan.

While you are correct that ROME abandoned the biblical roots and changed the Sabbath to a Sunday day of worship absolutely NOWHERE in scripture is this commanded. WHO is a man to set aside the decree of G-d???? In fact, James exhorts in his decree to the Gentiles Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The things they were to abstain from ALL dealt with IDOLATRY which was the only sin for which the children of Israel were cast out of the land.

Many historical writings suggest that believers in Asia Minor continued to observe Sabbath and the feast-days well into the 4th century Only Constantine passed laws ordering any sabbath observers to be put to death was the Church in Asia minor relegated to a small remnant.

The END of the age of the Gentiles is at hand and the FATHER is restoring HIS ways to the body. The fastest growing segment of the Jewish religion comprising of both JEW and GENTILES. To the observant Jew Christianity looks NOTHING like Judaism. JESUS, to the OBSERVANT JEW, is a GENTILE. YESHUA to the Jewish person looks like a JEW.

Does not the Lord say I reveal the END from the Beginning How then can you so easily cast aside the Lords commandments, decrees, statutes, and laws? DID not G-d say of Abraham that he obeyed his voice? Keeping my commandments, decrees, statutes and laws? How can this be since the Torah was not given until Moses brought it to the children of Israel centuries later? If these things were to be observed by Abraham and then later the children of Israel how then can you proclaim them to be null and void?

Click to expand...

Your quote of James in Acts 15 is only talking about the Jewish past, not about the Christian present or future. In that first Jerusalem Church Council, the leaders agreed to drop the Jewish requirements on Christians and did not even mention keeping the Sabbath: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." That was it; nothing more. And now you want re-institute those symbolic-prophetic Jewish laws which the Lord Jesus (Yeshua, if you will) fulfilled in His ministry, on the Cross, in the Resurrection, and in God's sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

You must not much like Paul. I notice that you ignored Paul's teaching in Romans 14 (esp. verses 4-6a). Remember, Paul is writing to Romans here. Although changing the holy day from Saturday to Sunday (or all days) is never commanded in the NT, it is clearly allowed.

When Paul condemned relying upon “works of the law” in Galatians and elsewhere, he certainly had in mind circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath. He kept the moral laws intact as applicable to everyone, but these other particularly Jewish cultural, ceremonial, and prophetic things no longer held value before God for Christian believers. The Incarnation of God in Christ Jesus fulfilled their reason for existence in the first place. It is now faith in Christ which matters to God. And of course, from that faith eventually comes moral behavior and good works (grace yield faith yields good works).

The Mosaic laws were meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ. This was the matter of contention between Paul and the believers in Galatia, and it is this issue which consumes the author in Galatians 3:19-25 :. “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make one alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian.” The meaning is quite clear to me.

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:

As I understand it, there are seven sacraments, not just one. There is also lots of emphasis on ecclesiastics (clericalism, the rule of priests, vestments, etc.) and of course, on Mary-- all of which separate the RCC from Reformed believers.

Protestants have the 'sacraments' (although not all use that term) of Baptism and Holy Communion, and much emphasis on studying the Holy Scriptures, personal relationship with Christ, evangelism (the Great Commission in Matthew 28), congregational worship, and personal prayer.

Click to expand...

Minor correction Dr. Atkinson. Protestants have Baptism and Marriage. Not Holy Communion.

Eloy Craft said:

Minor correction Dr. Atkinson. Protestants have Baptism and Marriage. Not Holy Communion.

Click to expand...

Protestants observe Communion/Lord's Supper as Jesus did ...

Matthew 26

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

A_Thinker said:

Protestants observe Communion/Lord's Supper as Jesus did ...

Matthew 26

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Click to expand...

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. At an arbitrary point in time Protestants decided that a lay person could do it. That was not an authentic development of the faith. That was a new belief never believed by Christians before.

Eloy Craft said:

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. At an arbitrary point in time Protestants decided that a lay person could do it. That was not an authentic development of the faith. That was a new belief never believed by Christians before.

Click to expand...

I hardly think that disputes between denominations over the validity of the lines of Apostolic Succession claimed by the respective churches amounts to "a new belief never believed by Christians before" (the Reformation).

However, I understand your earlier point about Protestantism and the sacraments of Baptism and Marriage [sic]. To you and the church of your preference, these two would be the only ones accepted as valid, not that they are the only two sacraments observed by Protestant churches themselves.

Eloy Craft said:

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. At an arbitrary point in time Protestants decided that a lay person could do it. That was not an authentic development of the faith. That was a new belief never believed by Christians before.

Click to expand...

You are right. In fact Protestants don't believe that the bread converts to the body and soul of Christ... It is an emblem. It is not Christs actual body.. It represents the body and blood of Christ. It is an event that is done in remembrance of Christ and it does it's job very well. It is not a necessity of salvation. It does not forgive anyone...
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.

JacksBratt said:

It is not Christs actual body.. It represents the body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

That probably is a minority view among Protestants, however. We should make that clear when discussing this subject.

Albion said:

That probably is a minority view among Protestants, however. We should make that clear when discussing this subject.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which you mean to be the minority view.

Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Period. Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.
It’s funny, but most Protestants want to take the Bible literally until this subject comes up.

AvilaSurfer said:

Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Period. Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.

It’s funny, but most Protestants want to take the Bible literally until this subject comes up.

Click to expand...

Where does Scripture say that communion confers Jesus' soul and divinity ?

A_Thinker said:

Where does Scripture say that communion confers Jesus' soul and divinity ?

Click to expand...

LOL. Are you saying we can consume His body and blood WITHOUT His soul and divinity? Wow.

W2L said:

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Click to expand...

Once we get beyond the normal ecumenical nonsense, we can understand what the Catholic Church teaches by reviewing one of Her dogmas.

"For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation".

John's gospel Chapter 6 corobarates this dogma. And people say Catholics dont follow the Gospel !!!

In answer to the title question, If we are we will rise to be with Christ before the Catholics.

JacksBratt said:

You are right. In fact Protestants don't believe that the bread converts to the body and soul of Christ... It is an emblem.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a false dicotomy. A number of Protestants believe that Christ is actually present through the bread and wine, without it converting as per transsubstantiation.

Eloy Craft said:

Minor correction Dr. Atkinson. Protestants have Baptism and Marriage. Not Holy Communion.

Click to expand...

Not so in protestant Anglicanism (which I can easily prove by their 39 Articles of Religion). It is also certainly NOT true in Lutheran churches.
You will have to prove that other protestant denominations do not regard the Lord's Supper (or Holy Communion or Eucharist) as something approaching sacramental in importance (many protestant denominations simply do not use the word 'sacrament') and instead regard marriage in this way. Where in their canons or essential church rules do they regard marriage as more important than the Lord's Supper (which He commanded of His disciples)? If you cannot come up with the evidence, then we can dismiss your statement out of hand.

hedrick said:

This seems to be a false dicotomy. A number of Protestants believe that Christ is actually present through the bread and wine, without it converting as per transsubstantiation.

Click to expand...

Maybe I spoke too soon... however, here in Southern Ontario.. I have attended an Associated Gospel Church, Fellowship Baptist Church, Pentecostal Church, Dutch Christian Reform Church and, presently back to an Associated Gospel Church...

Not once have I heard of this concept that the Bread and the cup become the actual embodiment of Christ. It is always presented in a way that states "This represents" His body or "This represents" His blood.

Combine that with the scripture that states:

Matthew 18:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Why do I need Christ, in the bread and in the cup.... He is there anyway.

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:

Not so in protestant Anglicanism (which I can easily prove by their 39 Articles of Religion). It is also certainly NOT true in Lutheran churches.
You will have to prove that other protestant denominations do not regard the Lord's Supper (or Holy Communion or Eucharist) as something approaching sacramental in importance (many protestant denominations simply do not use the word 'sacrament') and instead regard marriage in this way. Where in their canons or essential church rules do they regard marriage as more important than the Lord's Supper (which He commanded of His disciples)? If you cannot come up with the evidence, then we can dismiss your statement out of hand.

Click to expand...

I didn't base my statement on what Protestants believe it is. I based it on what constitutes an authentic developement of faith.

JacksBratt said:

Maybe I spoke too soon... however, here in Southern Ontario.. I have attended an Associated Gospel Church, Fellowship Baptist Church, Pentecostal Church, Dutch Christian Reform Church and, presently back to an Associated Gospel Church...

Not once have I heard of this concept that the Bread and the cup become the actual embodiment of Christ. It is always presented in a way that states "This represents" His body or "This represents" His blood.

Combine that with the scripture that states:

Matthew 18:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Why do I need Christ, in the bread and in the cup.... He is there anyway.

Click to expand...

You have to be careful about what words mean. I'm Reformed (though admittedly liberal Reformed). I would agree that the bread represents Christ's body. However we think that Christ instituted communion as a means of being present with us. So while the bread remains bread and a symbol, the Holy Spirit works through it to unite us with Christ's body. Thus in our liturgy when the minister hands us the bread, he says "the body of Christ." Not that the bread is literally his body, but that in offering us the bread he is really offering us Christ's body.

The Lutheran view is a bit more literal but still combines the understanding that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but that we really commune on Christ's body and blood. For them, Christ's body and blood are literally present in and under the bread and wine, so when we eat the bread we eat Christ's body.

Methodists and Anglicans don't have a specific theory of Christ's presence, but also believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in communion.

Disciples of Christ, in discussions with the Roman Catholics, emphasized that they do not restrict communion to a remembrance. Christ is truly present. "For Disciples, “communion with Christ” at the Eucharist occurs in a multiplicity of ways: meditation, prayer, anamnesis, and “feeding on Christ.”" (https://councilonchristianunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Tabbernee-paper-2005-_Word_.pdf)

hedrick said:

You have to be careful about what words mean. I'm Reformed (though admittedly liberal Reformed). I would agree that the bread represents Christ's body. However we think that Christ instituted communion as a means of being present with us. So while the bread remains bread and a symbol, the Holy Spirit works through it to unite us with Christ's body. Thus in our liturgy when the minister hands us the bread, he says "the body of Christ." Not that the bread is literally his body, but that in offering us the bread he is really offering us Christ's body.

The Lutheran view is a bit more literal but still combines the understanding that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but that we really commune on Christ's body and blood. For them, Christ's body and blood are literally present in and under the bread and wine, so when we eat the bread we eat Christ's body.

Methodists and Anglicans don't have a specific theory of Christ's presence, but also believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in communion.

Disciples of Christ, in discussions with the Roman Catholics, emphasized that they do not restrict communion to a remembrance. Christ is truly present. "For Disciples, “communion with Christ” at the Eucharist occurs in a multiplicity of ways: meditation, prayer, anamnesis, and “feeding on Christ.”" (https://councilonchristianunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Tabbernee-paper-2005-_Word_.pdf)

Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. However, I will always see it as a symbol, an icon, a representation of the bread and wine that was used at the original "last supper". When Christ dipped the bread into the wine... it was not His physical body... When I take the cracker and grape juice.... it is still a representation... It is not His physical body or blood. It does not transform into physical Christ.