Are Protestants dead?

hedrick said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good explanation. Thank you Hendrick. I agree with you in regards of the many gifts of the Holy Spirit to many Christian communities. I don't believe that the Sacrament of 'communion' can happen and be true unless handed down by the laying on of hands to preserve the communion in one faith.

Eloy Craft said:

Good explanation. Thank you Hendrick. I agree with you in regards of the many gifts of the Holy Spirit to many Christian communities. I don't believe that the Sacrament of 'communion' can happen and be true unless handed down by the laying on of hands to preserve the communion in one faith.

Click to expand...

The community I belong to (PCUSA) practices this, and I recommend it. But there are communities that don't have a succession back to the Apostles. If you exclude them, then you take an act that is supposed to symbolize our unity and make it the paramount sign of our disunity.

Eloy Craft said:

The timing has no connection to divine revelation.

Click to expand...

?? How does that answer what I said?

Eloy Craft said:

Jesus ordained the Apostles.

Click to expand...

No he didn't.
He chose and called the disciples, sent them out to preach, heal and proclaim the Kingdom of God, Luke 10:1-3; Matthew 28:19-20 and, after Pentecost, filled them with his Spirit to enable the to do this.
Jesus has chosen, called and empowered all Christians, if we follow him; we are his disciples.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said "do this in memory of me", not, "do this only when you have someone who has been 'ordained' and can read the words from Scripture that I said". There is no mention in Acts of HOW the early church broke bread, far less that they had a particular apostle presiding. So why does the church insist on this today?

Eloy Craft said:

The early Church had ordained ministers.

Click to expand...

Scripture says they had elders - not that they were ordained. Nor that they had special responsibility for the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion.

Eloy Craft said:

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.

Click to expand...

Of course there would.
We are all members of the body of Christ and no one is more important than anyone else. Jesus is the head of his body, not an ordained clergyman.
According to Peter, we are also all priests, and Jesus is our great high priest. We can, and should, pray for one another, care for and minister to, one another and confess our sins to one another. Since we can do all this, why aren't we "allowed" to take bread, break it and say "Christ died for you"?

Eloy Craft said:

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?

Click to expand...

Firstly, yes, THE church - which is believers from all denominations, all countries and cultures - IS numerous. Why is that a problem?
Secondly, what someone believes is between them and God; he sees their hearts and yet does not exclude those whose theology is not yet perfect.
Think about the Last Supper - Judas was about to betray Jesus, Peter was about to deny him and Thomas would later doubt him. ALL the apostles questioned the women who said that the tomb was empty; none of them seemed to understand or believe. Did Jesus say, "well there is only John who really loves me, and only maybe two others who believe the "right" things about God"? No, he shared that last meal with all 12 of them.

Eloy Craft said:

I don't see how a communion of faith can be one faith that way.

Click to expand...

We are one faith because we believe the same Gospel.
Ultimately, individual church practices don't matter - infant or adult baptism, female clergy, the translation of Scripture that is used, speaking in tongues/prophecy/dancing in the aisles, using the prayerbook - or not; don't matter and can't save us.
If we have accepted Christ, bear his name, have received eternal life from him, are filled with his Spirit and are God's children, we are his, and part of the church; the bride of Christ.[/QUOTE]

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...

We worship using the bread and wine because Jesus commanded it of His disciples ... to help them (and us) to remember and celebrate two things... what Jesus did on the Cross for our salvation and the resulting union we have with Him forever. He is in us and we are in Him. By faith, not ritual.

Yes, an over-emphasis on the "Real Presence" in bread and wine (drifting toward transubstantiation as many Roman Catholics perceive it) wrongly suggests (and leads many Christians to believe) that we don’t have the Real Presence of Christ with us at other times.

Truth: FOR BELIEVERS, THE LORD IS ALWAYS WITH US, AND ALWAYS IN US THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT. Note these scriptures:

“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Jesus, in Matthew 28:20)

“.. for He has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’” (Hebrews13:5)

Jesus: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another helper, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in You.” (John 14:16-17; “will be in you”-- meaning from Pentecost forward)

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom have received from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19a)

I get the idea that Catholics do not fully believe that Christ is always in them. Many Catholics do not think they are celebrating in the Mass what is already reality for the believer but rather they superstitiously think the Mass is what makes it happen and is required for Christ to be in us and us in Him. As if anything we do could manipulate the Lord! I get this idea from those who worship the bread and wine rather than the Lord Himself, who forget that it is our faith in Christ (through the Word and Spirit), that really matters, not the machinations of any ritual. We are in Him and He is in us ... by faith, not by ritual.

Strong in Him said:

?? How does that answer what I said?



No he didn't.
He chose and called the disciples, sent them out to preach, heal and proclaim the Kingdom of God, Luke 10:1-3; Matthew 28:19-20 and, after Pentecost, filled them with his Spirit to enable the to do this.
Jesus has chosen, called and empowered all Christians, if we follow him; we are his disciples.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said "do this in memory of me", not, "do this only when you have someone who has been 'ordained' and can read the words from Scripture that I said". There is no mention in Acts of HOW the early church broke bread, far less that they had a particular apostle presiding. So why does the church insist on this today?

Scripture says they had elders - not that they were ordained. Nor that they had special responsibility for the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion.

Of course there would.
We are all members of the body of Christ and no one is more important than anyone else. Jesus is the head of his body, not an ordained clergyman.
According to Peter, we are also all priests, and Jesus is our great high priest. We can, and should, pray for one another, care for and minister to, one another and confess our sins to one another. Since we can do all this, why aren't we "allowed" to take bread, break it and say "Christ died for you"?

Firstly, yes, THE church - which is believers from all denominations, all countries and cultures - IS numerous. Why is that a problem?
Secondly, what someone believes is between them and God; he sees their hearts and yet does not exclude those whose theology is not yet perfect.
Think about the Last Supper - Judas was about to betray Jesus, Peter was about to deny him and Thomas would later doubt him. ALL the apostles questioned the women who said that the tomb was empty; none of them seemed to understand or believe. Did Jesus say, "well there is only John who really loves me, and only maybe two others who believe the "right" things about God"? No, he shared that last meal with all 12 of them.

We are one faith because we believe the same Gospel.
Ultimately, individual church practices don't matter - infant or adult baptism, female clergy, the translation of Scripture that is used, speaking in tongues/prophecy/dancing in the aisles, using the prayerbook - or not; don't matter and can't save us.
If we have accepted Christ, bear his name, have received eternal life from him, are filled with his Spirit and are God's children, we are his, and part of the church; the bride of Christ.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Well said. So much of Roman (and even Eastern) church tradition strayed from the earliest NT Church... and began straying soon after the Apostles had gone home, instituting clericalism, ritualism, and a number of other culture-based revisions in the increasingly organized churches.

Strong in Him said:

?? How does that answer what I said?

Click to expand...

If the timing isn't arbitrary, then it would have reason or purpose for when it happened. That would be God's reason and purpose. There fore it would be revealed by God. It doesn't seem to be. So, the change in belief happened at an arbitrary time.

Strong in Him said:

No he didn't.
He chose and called the disciples, sent them out to preach, heal and proclaim the Kingdom of God, Luke 10:1-3; Matthew 28:19-20 and, after Pentecost, filled them with his Spirit to enable the to do this.
Jesus has chosen, called and empowered all Christians, if we follow him; we are his disciples.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said "do this in memory of me", not, "do this only when you have someone who has been 'ordained' and can read the words from Scripture that I said". There is no mention in Acts of HOW the early church broke bread, far less that they had a particular apostle presiding. So why does the church insist on this today?

Click to expand...

ordain
verb

or·dain | \ȯr-ˈdān \
ordained; ordaining; ordains
Definition of ordain


transitive verb

1: to invest (see INVEST entry 2 sense 1) officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority was ordained as a priest

2a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT we the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution

Strong in Him said:

Scripture says they had elders - not that they were ordained. Nor that they had special responsibility for the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion.

Click to expand...

you are engaging in semantics.

Strong in Him said:

Of course there would.
We are all members of the body of Christ and no one is more important than anyone else. Jesus is the head of his body, not an ordained clergyman.
According to Peter, we are also all priests, and Jesus is our great high priest. We can, and should, pray for one another, care for and minister to, one another and confess our sins to one another. Since we can do all this, why aren't we "allowed" to take bread, break it and say "Christ died for you"?

Click to expand...

Strong in Him said:

Firstly, yes, THE church - which is believers from all denominations, all countries and cultures - IS numerous. Why is that a problem?

Click to expand...

Denominations. De-named. From what name are all de-named?

Strong in Him said:

We are one faith because we believe the same Gospel.

Click to expand...

The good news of some is not the same as others.

Strong in Him said:

Ultimately, individual church practices don't matter - infant or adult baptism, female clergy, the translation of Scripture that is used, speaking in tongues/prophecy/dancing in the aisles, using the prayerbook - or not; don't matter and can't save us.
If we have accepted Christ, bear his name, have received eternal life from him, are filled with his Spirit and are God's children, we are his, and part of the church; the bride of Christ.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]Accepted Christ, bear His Name, received eternal life,filled with His Spirit,are His child and part of 'the' Church.....I might say ....how is certainty attached to those requirements? How do I know I have r3eceived life that is unchanging when mine is in a process of change? Is there a sign to help me know?

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:

Well said. So much of Roman (and even Eastern) church tradition strayed from the earliest NT Church...

Click to expand...

How can you know the early Church without a continuous Tradition from then till now?

hedrick said:

The community I belong to (PCUSA) practices this, and I recommend it. But there are communities that don't have a succession back to the Apostles. If you exclude them, then you take an act that is supposed to symbolize our unity and make it the paramount sign of our disunity.

Click to expand...

I think that reversal can happen if the Body we commune with is a symbol rather than real.

Eloy Craft said:

If the timing isn't arbitrary, then it would have reason or purpose for when it happened. That would be God's reason and purpose. There fore it would be revealed by God. It doesn't seem to be. So, the change in belief happened at an arbitrary time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by timing.
You said, "at some arbitrary point in time, the protestants decided that a lay person could do it" (preside at communion.)
I'm saying; show me, from Scripture, where it is anyone other than a lay person who presided at the Lord's Supper, or took the lead in breaking bread among the believers.

Eloy Craft said:

ordain
verb

or·dain | \ȯr-ˈdān \
ordained; ordaining; ordains
Definition of ordain


transitive verb

1: to invest (see INVEST entry 2 sense 1) officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority was ordained as a priest

2a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT we the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the meaning of the word is. The point is that Jesus has chosen, called, saved, anointed and sent us - just as he did the 12.
Did Jesus personally lay hands on me when he called me to go into the world and preach the Gospel? No; I'm not 2000 years old.
Did he fill me with his Spirit and appoint me? Yes.

Eloy Craft said:

you are engaging in semantics.

Click to expand...

I'm referring to Scripture.
Where does Jesus say that we should have ordained clergy and they alone should have special responsibilities - like presiding at a service of Holy Communion?
Come to that, where does Jesus say that "do this in memory of me" should become a service, with a special liturgy which involves members of the congregation filing to a a communion rail to receive a tiny bit of bread and sip of wine? In Acts, the church broke bread together. In 1 Corinthians 11 they were celebrating a meal, just as the Last Supper had been a meal.

Eloy Craft said:

Denominations. De-named. From what name are all de-named?

Click to expand...

Denomination doesn't mean de-named. You can have denominations of currency.
denomination
(dɪˌnɒmɪˈneɪʃən)
n
1. (Theology) a group having a distinctive interpretation of a religious faith and usually its own organization
2. (Units) a grade or unit in a series of designations of value, weight, measure, etc: coins of this denomination arebeing withdrawn.
3. (Currencies) a grade or unit in a series of designations of value, weight, measure, etc: coins of this denominationare being withdrawn.
4. a name given to a class or group; classification
5. the act of giving a name
6. a name; designation

Eloy Craft said:

The good news of some is not the same as others.

Click to expand...

There is only one Gospel, one means of salvation and one person who can save us.

Eloy Craft said:

Accepted Christ, bear His Name, received eternal life,filled with His Spirit,are His child and part of 'the' Church.....I might say ....how is certainty attached to those requirements?

Click to expand...

Jesus said that those who believe in him have eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40. And that he had come so that people might have life, John 10:10.
If you believe in, trust and have accepted Jesus, you have eternal life. Jesus is God, he is also truth, and his word is truth.

Eloy Craft said:

How do I know I have r3eceived life that is unchanging when mine is in a process of change?

Click to expand...

Eternal life means spiritual life which is eternal and does not end at death.
Whatever happens to you in this life; your relationship with God is secure - unless you choose to end it - and you have spiritual life that lasts forever.

Eloy Craft said:

Is there a sign to help me know?

Click to expand...

If you have received the Holy Spirit, he is a deposit which guarantees our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 5:5. He also confirms to us that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17.

Eloy Craft said:

If the timing isn't arbitrary, then it would have reason or purpose for when it happened. That would be God's reason and purpose. There fore it would be revealed by God. It doesn't seem to be. So, the change in belief happened at an arbitrary time.


ordain
verb

or·dain | \ȯr-ˈdān \
ordained; ordaining; ordains
Definition of ordain


transitive verb

1: to invest (see INVEST entry 2 sense 1) officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority was ordained as a priest

2a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT we the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution


you are engaging in semantics.



Denominations. De-named. From what name are all de-named?

The good news of some is not the same as others.

Click to expand...

Accepted Christ, bear His Name, received eternal life,filled with His Spirit,are His child and part of 'the' Church.....I might say ....how is certainty attached to those requirements? How do I know I have r3eceived life that is unchanging when mine is in a process of change? Is there a sign to help me know?[/QUOTE]

As if anything God does (or that He allows us to do) is "arbitrary." God is truly sovereign, don't you know.

Eloy Craft said:

How can you know the early Church without a continuous Tradition from then till now?

Click to expand...

Yes, we have some records from the early church leaders (I don't like calling them "fathers" due to Jesus' command in Matthew 23:1-12). But there are definite differences between what the NT commanded (by Jesus and the Apostles) and what the churches actually developed as "tradition" over the next millennium. Clericalism was obviously disobedience.

Although there are a couple (only a few) NT instances of the Apostles laying hands on and praying for individuals for specific purposes and missions (not lifelong offices), there are no commands to continue to do so or to develop some kind of “pass it on” Apostolic Succession. This was developed only after the Apostles were gone to heaven. Of course there were to be leadership roles (as Paul indicated in a letter to Timothy—overseers, elders, and deacons (servants), but never clericalism, never a separate ruling class of clergy.

You should know about the origin of the word "priest" from "presbyter," which originally meant "elder" in the Greek and had no association whatsoever with a priesthood like that of the Jews. Note: "hiereus" = priest, "presbyter" = elder. But the desire for the early church leaders to be part a privileged and powerful ruling class caused "elder" to morph into sacramentally ordained clergy (a Jewish-like priesthood) within three hundred years. Clearly this was never the intention of Jesus or Peter. 'Presbyter' (elder) was never supposed to become 'priest' (hiereus).

Let me repeat, with proofs: The development of a separate ruling priesthood was never commanded by Jesus nor by any Apostle in the NT record—which the Lord could easily have accomplished by His Spirit. It was therefore NOT ORDAINED BY GOD. In fact, we have warnings and commands by Jesus about avoiding just such a ruling class in the Church (e.g., Mark 10:42-44; Matthew 23:1-12), and the only “priesthood” as in the OT priesthood that is mentioned for the Church is by Peter (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9) who speaks of the priesthood of all believers, not a separate group. Then we have Paul speaking of different gifts and offices but spiritual and ecclesiastic equality in Galatians 3:23-29 and 1 Corinthians 12: 21-25.

What the Roman and Eastern churches developed quite early after the Apostles were gone go very much against the commands of Jesus, especially Mark 10:42-44:: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them,‘ ’You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." See also Matthew 23:1-12.

Why did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the Roman Church? I can tell you exactly why — because of the human ego and desire for ecclesiastic power and public prestige. Thus we have the extreme split between clergy and laity. In the past, laity were even discouraged from reading the Bible because of the ‘danger’ of misinterpretation. Only priests (and preferably bishops) were considered qualified to understand the meaning of scripture passages and the laity must listen only to their teaching.

Thank God for the Reformation, the printing press, and the translations of the scriptures into the living languages of the people!

Eloy Craft said:

If the timing isn't arbitrary, then it would have reason or purpose for when it happened. That would be God's reason and purpose. There fore it would be revealed by God. It doesn't seem to be. So, the change in belief happened at an arbitrary time.


ordain
verb

or·dain | \ȯr-ˈdān \
ordained; ordaining; ordains
Definition of ordain


transitive verb

1: to invest (see INVEST entry 2 sense 1) officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority was ordained as a priest

2a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT we the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution


you are engaging in semantics.



Denominations. De-named. From what name are all de-named?

The good news of some is not the same as others.

Click to expand...

Accepted Christ, bear His Name, received eternal life,filled with His Spirit,are His child and part of 'the' Church.....I might say ....how is certainty attached to those requirements? How do I know I have r3eceived life that is unchanging when mine is in a process of change? Is there a sign to help me know?[/QUOTE]

Very important questions.
Why am I secure in my Christian faith? I certainly am not perfect in all my ways; I am not without sin. So why do I never doubt my salvation?

It is very simple. I trust Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord, and I know that He is the Lord of all creation who loves me with an everlasting love. From childhood, I accepted that Jesus died on the Cross for me and I believed the Gospel account, including His resurrection and ascension. He will return to earth to complete His Kingdom building and to rule.

One thing I know for sure: at one point in my life (age 29), I committed my life 100% into God’s hands. I meant it; God received it. I cannot imagine ever taking that commitment back! Paul wrote that he was “convinced that [the Lord] is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12) Likewise, I trust that the Holy Spirit will continue to work in me toward full sanctification. That is my assurance, my security.

That I happen to do some good works for the Kingdom, well that is nice, but I regard it as inevitable given the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. The good works themselves are not my security. Jesus Christ is my security.

I also accept the fact that I am not perfected yet and will sometimes blow it; sometimes (perhaps often) I am a clumsy instrument. That is not my favorite truth, but I must accept it, and I can, knowing the end of the story.

Paul makes an interesting comment, with Arminian beginning and a Calvinist ending. In Philippians 2:12, he writes “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” and then in the same sentence (verse 13) he says something that immediately takes away the fear and provides peace “… for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose.” (Philippians 2:13) Yes, in the flesh, we will have fear and trembling, because we know we are weak and that we simply cannot work our own salvation. However, we can indeed have peace and joy and assurance of salvation because the Lord is the “Author and Perfecter” of our faith and it is His power that will get us there, not our own.

A favorite blessing: ““May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and He will do it.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24) This is my hope; this is His peace that He provides. Jesus promised: “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” (John 14:27)

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...

I’m glad you said “most”
We don’t all disagree. In fact, you may even be surprised how many of us agree with you