A Question for Non-Sacramental Christians

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It you are "non-sacramental", you are semi-Christian at best. The sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ are a core part of true and complete Christianity, and have been for 2,000 years.

I would not go quite that far, but there are definite Gnostic attitudes at times expressed by such folks. The biggest problem it really removes much of the context that is helpful when it comes to the New Testament, and how to apply it. In short, there is a lot more Jewish stuff in Christianity then what people realize. For many people, it's almost like there was this radical shift that came from such events like Resurrection of Jesus, and the tearing of the temple veil. The tearing of the temple veil was indeed significant, but not to the degree that many people read it to be. Some of my former church folk, seem to believe that with events like that the Church pretty much gave up most of everything of old Judaism, that most of it was purely Dispensational where the Church would be like today's Pentecostals, Vineyard Church folk etc. albeit with beards and robes. That is not a historically accurate perception, but many have it!
 
Upvote 0

akaDaScribe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 27, 2018
1,409
920
53
Boston Area
✟97,444.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It you are "non-sacramental", you are semi-Christian at best. The sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ are a core part of true and complete Christianity, and have been for 2,000 years.

I'm not up much on Catholic traditions, but from what I've read, pretty much most Christians practice/support/endorse some variation of the sacraments.

It looks like views mostly would vary for:
Confirmation
Holy Order
Reconciliation
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Sacrament is actually the original context of Holiness in the Bible. Coming from Judaism, things that were used for the worship of Yahew were set apart for His service. You could not use a table, or other utensil that was set apart for the service of Adonai as a piece of furniture or tool for your own personal use (once given or dedicated it could not be taken back temporarily). It was recognized that was a permanent thing, and it would actually would have been considered disrespectful to God, in much the same manner as a young person who is visiting an old person like their grandparents etc. and they prop their feet up on the expensive coffee table (a sign of bad manners etc.).

I would not go this far as to say this because in a day and in countries especially where Christians meet in people's homes for the sake of having no venue for community "public" worship (due to persecution); the items / utensils they use are also common everyday items. This would have been true in the pre-Scripture complete era of the New Testament also.

So I don't see making that argument as a "have to" in Scripture.

This is the context of Holiness in the NT, when saint Paul says things like "present your bodies as living sacrifices" etc. in the epistles etc.

And here is the point made. You are a temple of the Holy Ghost. You are set apart to God's service, not your supper dishes.

Probably the most blatant examples come from certain Pentecostals and Charismatics. Where addresses like "Pastor Bob", "Apostle John" etc. were used quite a bit. And this purely wasn't about identifying the person with the job, because most of the time that was contextually obvious.

Yes, this is true. I've seen it too. Yet, what happens in many of these churches, the means of how they address a preacher or teacher is the least of their problems, Scripturally speaking.

I personally would not concern myself with such issues unless directly confronted by someone about such a thing. It seems to me to be a rather insignificant thing to focus your attention on. There are a lot bigger "theological dragons" to slay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would argue on the title thing that many of anti-tradition folks actually violate "the spirit of the law" in a defacto way, if indeed it is about simply using titles. There is an old adage "You become what you hate", and I've seen that a lot. Probably the most blatant examples come from certain Pentecostals and Charismatics. Where addresses like "Pastor Bob", "Apostle John" etc. were used quite a bit. And this purely wasn't about identifying the person with the job, because most of the time that was contextually obvious.


But for the record I do believe it has something to do about that, but more in the very subservient way people react to authority figures. And a lot of the subtext of that passage comes from the specifics of what was going on in early pre-talmudic Judaism at the time (which becomes even more clear after the Talmud is written). In fact, I actually spoke on that in this thread a few months back.


Tradition of men

the context of Mat 23 starts with v1 "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples..." and he goes on rebuking the Pharisees and teachers of the law of their hypocrisy and their lust for positions of honour. then Jesus says "But you are not to be called Rabbi..." who is "you" of course it is the aforementioned crowds and disciples. In this imperative Jesus is saying don't be like them (Pharisees and teachers of the law) and don't seek places of honor or titles of honor as they do.

This indeed is violated in many circles, I have been peers to many in leadership position within churches yet they would still stop and correct me if I do not use their title which is just silly. I have been to leadership conferences as well where name tags and addresses are all formal and everyone continues with the titles. the latter is not really a violation of it, but it encourages this "us and them" and this demand to be called these titles, even among peers. Part of it is cultural of the area but I still feel regarding this issue it has been left to irresponsible levels and in spirit is a counter message of Mat 23.

If you have a title, even if its Rabbi or Father, to me you are in violation of Christ's words when you demand that title or when you have sought it. Let the titles fall where they may, don't insist upon them or seek them but I would be careful to reject them as well as they may be the expressed desire of the people addressing you (like when someone using other formal salutations such as Mr/Mrs) I personally try and deemphasize them but if they continue then so be it and I certainly don't demand them.

For example, I run a business in SEA and a lot of my employees call me "Master". I didn't like this, especially with a sensitivity to racial differences but regardless how much I tried to "fix" what they called me "Master" was just what they liked to use. The sensitivity here was mine not theirs and what I learnt is I actually was getting into a place of demanding they not use what was just a natural term of honor they felt comfortable to use, without it, they felt it would dishonour me.

They use master because this is what they learn in school because "Mr" actually represents "Master". Since they have little experience practicing English among native speakers they learn very formal English which is probably never actually spoken so it comes across as awkward. So I now let it be, and if they call me Master then that's what they call me (I still don't really like it, but that's my problem, not theirs) because I know it comes from their desire to respect not my desire to be glorified.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This question is for nonsacramental Protestant Christians who think sacraments are "unbiblical".

many protestants will object to the language of sacrament because they understand it as "to make holy" like as if it's a magic potion or object which I don't think you mean. But to a non-sacrametal believer, it might be challenging to grasp it. For starters, as you probably already know, many protestants have an allergy to words not found in the Bible (even if they have wide exceptions) if they don't know what it is, and the word is not in the bible, they will probably object to it. So it would be great to educate people of the bible support of sacraments.

From what I have read sacrament is from Latin "sacramentum" which means "a consecrating" but I have also read that the Latin is a load-translation from the Greek "mysterion" (mystery) so there is a bit of an east/west tension here as always. If true perhaps the language of sacrament needs to be unpacked a little bit, at least from an Orthodox perspective, then again unpaked with Biblical support. This way we are not all stumbling over our own limits.

I keep saying Biblcal support because to a non-sacrametal believer they are going to value biblical support always so you may quote as many Church Father's as you desire but it will probably fall on deaf ears because they are not valued outside of biblical support. If "non-sacrametal believers" are the addressed audience of the OP you'll reach them better but using logic they trust and accept, such as unpacking it biblically to make it more clear as to the values you speak of so that non-sacrametal believers can identify with better.
 
Upvote 0

Brian Mcnamee

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2017
2,308
1,294
64
usa
✟213,965.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This question is for nonsacramental Protestant Christians who think sacraments are "unbiblical".


Matthew 6
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Acts 4
34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.


My Question is "Why did this whole situation, that led up to the famous Ananias and Sapphira incident take place? Jesus said in the sermon of the mount that giving, especially giving to the poor is best done "in secret". So why did the early Christians in the book of Acts violate this clear scripture?


(I know that lieing to the HS is going to kill you.
But that doesn't explain why you would toss a money bag at the apostles feet in full view of everybody as opposed to waiting when you could be alone in with the apostle and make an anonymous donation!)



As Christian Sacramentalist, I got clear reasons why this happened, but this situation always perplexed me as a nondenominational, non-sacramental Charismatic Protestant, so I'm sharing it with you!
If any one who had a mixed or false motive in doing anything for the LORD was struck down we would all be dead. This example did create fear not only among the believers but those outside. If you notice a bit later Paul was having to take up a collection for those in Jerusalem who were now impoverished.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I would not go this far as to say this because in a day and in countries especially where Christians meet in people's homes for the sake of having no venue for community "public" worship (due to persecution); the items / utensils they use are also common everyday items. This would have been true in the pre-Scripture complete era of the New Testament also.

So I don't see making that argument as a "have to" in Scripture.

I will speak about this in terms of paradigms because that is the most exact/ appropriate term I can think of to describe this stuff. Tradition/paradosis would be another I guess.

1) There existed a Seder Dinner Paradigm, that also corresponded with the Shabbat. (Which would be my nod to your point.)

There also existed a

2) Paradigms for the Tabernacle, Temple, and Synagogue
And the stuff I previously mentioned does apply to that.


But even in the household one, there are still the "Set apart"aspects if I recall they had to have separate kitchenware for passover that could not be used normally during the year. And mostly likely had other Sabbath stuff much like people of the past used to have "their church clothes", or their good china to be used only when relatives and friends come to visit.

Besides that a point that gets buried is that many "house churches". were actually buildings or rooms donated to the local church body where paradigm 2 would be in play, rather than paradigm 1. Basically in much the same way, people sold properties for the poor and other church needs people also gave properties to the local body for meetings.
https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/dura-church


The whole "no take backs" rule to holiness actually had a positive benefit of organically growing the church with different facilities with time. Because it was also a rule of Faith, that churches also wanted to all meet together to worship because of being "One Body of Christ". So that meant they needed bigger and bigger venues, but as they did the old venues remained still in play to be local chapels, shrines, neighborhood churches and so forth.

This sort of thing is especially true for places outside Italy that evaded persecution for a long time.
I think the Italian Christians had to be more covert in their worship.
 
Upvote 0

BCsenior

Still an evangelist
Aug 31, 2017
2,980
715
British Columbia
✟72,426.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
This question is for nonsacramental Protestant Christians who think sacraments are "unbiblical".
Is this whole thing serious ...
or are you pulling our collective legs?
You were a charismatic Protestant?
Are you sure you were?
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Is this whole thing serious ...
YES. I admit the whole point will probably be pretty obscure for someone of your background.



You were a charismatic Protestant?
Are you sure you were?

Absolutely. I was dead set against Orthodoxy and had a frame of mind probably very similar to your own I reckon. My story however is not unique.

Recovering the Ancient Paths · Journey To Orthodoxy


O Lord, Establish This Vineyard · Journey To Orthodoxy


From Oral Roberts University to Orthodoxy · Journey To Orthodoxy
 
Upvote 0

BCsenior

Still an evangelist
Aug 31, 2017
2,980
715
British Columbia
✟72,426.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
YES. I admit the whole point will probably be pretty obscure for someone of your background.
Okay, great ...
What's wrong with being born-again?
and
What's wrong with being baptized with the HS?
and
What's wrong with being a serious "faithful"
saint like the ones Paul was writing to in
Ephesians (1:1) and Colossians (1:2)?

Do you really think we need sacraments
other than for the Lord's Supper?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Okay, great ...
what's wrong with being born-again
and
what's wrong with being baptized with the HS?

I'm not against those things.

The gist of the question is aimed at "this is unbliblcal" folks. People like that often throw claims like that will nilly but actually do not have much of a background in the OT, and the OT is the context for understanding much of what is going on in the NT.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Those things are the critical things!

Because of your charismatic experiences,
are you now a cessationist?

NO.

Interestingly enough when I was raised a Lutheran I was formally taught Cessionism. But Cessanionism itself is a Protestant dogma that originated from John Calvin and spread from Calvinism into various other bodies like certain Lutherans, and other "bible based" fundamentalist churches like many Baptists and other Bible churches for instance.
 
Upvote 0

BCsenior

Still an evangelist
Aug 31, 2017
2,980
715
British Columbia
✟72,426.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Cessanionism itself is a Protestant dogma that originated from John Calvin and spread from Calvinism into various other bodies like certain Lutherans, and other "bible based" fundamentalist churches like many Baptists and other Bible churches
It has been my understanding that almost all
of the RCC and EOC have NOT believed in the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the 9 spiritual (power) gifts!
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It has been my understanding that almost all
of the RCC and EOC have NOT believed in the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the 9 spiritual (power) gifts!

Our understanding of things are different than most Protestants. We do believe in present day miracles etc. The two churches I grew up with in childhood and later in adolescence (Lutheran ones), however, most definitely believed the old line (from Calvin) that "miracles went away with the death of the original apostles".

But if you are interested in this kind of subject you might like this book which you can read for free here.
http://uit-genade-door-geloof.nl/downloads/files/2000YrsCharismChristHyatt.pdf


You may also like this video.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
It is the original context for having faith and reverence for God in the Bible. God himself has the saving power, but it is an important Biblical truth for understanding such things which is why I feel sorry for you Protestants who cannot understand that.
I am not a protestant but I was thinking on OCD this morning and how closely that is possibly aligned with religious rituals . ( I must DO this or otherwise xyz may or may not happen .) In my own experience I know that even something as simple as my private prayers can take on a ritual and be devoid of life . It seems that any observances that became sacraments may potentially put the power of salvation into our own hands . It seems that was the point of the New Covenant ...the old observances had a shadow of Christ but were not Christ . Going to church can become a "means " of my salvation and we are certainly commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together , but going to church is not Jesus . The bread and wine are great remembrances but they are not sitting on the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints . We are commanded to make disciples and to preach the word but again ...we dare not make those our salvation .
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I keep saying Biblcal support because to a non-sacrametal believer they are going to value biblical support always so you may quote as many Church Father's as you desire but it will probably fall on deaf ears because they are not valued outside of biblical support. If "non-sacrametal believers" are the addressed audience of the OP you'll reach them better but using logic they trust and accept, such as unpacking it biblically to make it more clear as to the values you speak of so that non-sacrametal believers can identify with better.

To this kind of objection I would point out some of what I shared before about the original context of Holiness in OT Judaism, as far as being set apart for God service etc.


There is also stuff in the NT where a temple/sacramental context is there in a behind the scenes or subtle basis. The Protestants I've met and known when writing, preaching, teaching etc. on the book of Acts do not grasp the origins of the deacon in the Book of Acts. Pretty much the universal depiction of the event typically portrays this purely as extemporaneous, practical, and common sense solution, much like how Moses followed the advise of his Father in law Jethro to begin delegating authority to others etc. And sure there probably is a little of that, but that is not the primary origin of the deacon! The deacon was actually directly lifted from the shomash/chomash rabbinic assistant of the Synagogue (deacon is just the Greek term for that Aramaic term). And the Chomash was a direct adaptation of the tabernacle and temple Levite.....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I am not a protestant but I was thinking on OCD this morning and how closely that is possibly aligned with religious rituals . ( I must DO this or otherwise xyz may or may not happen .) In my own experience I know that even something as simple as my private prayers can take on a ritual and be devoid of life . It seems that any observances that became sacraments may potentially put the power of salvation into our own hands . It seems that was the point of the New Covenant ...the old observances had a shadow of Christ but were not Christ . Going to church can become a "means " of my salvation and we are certainly commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together , but going to church is not Jesus . The bread and wine are great remembrances but they are not sitting on the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints . We are commanded to make disciples and to preach the word but again ...we dare not make those our salvation .

Needy the ritualism is not entirely bad. And I can have a few minor OCD tendencies myself a times (nothing that needs treatment but I do things like check to make doors are locked multiple times etc)


A few years back, I got my first firearm. There was a lot of ritualism at the gun range and when it came to gun safety. That sort of thing is proper when something is dangerous. It's good to treat things with care etc. And I would argue this is a point that sometimes needs to be highlighted in the Church when it comes to Anias and Sapphira and Paul's word's of caution about taking Communion in an unworthy manner and so forth.


But in particular, I would highlight my past experiences in the Protestant end of the Charismatic movement. There is a almost ubiquitous cultural belief in that movement that I have nicknamed "The Cult of Spontaneity", which associates that everything that is spiritual or "anointed" comes from some kind of extemporaneous worship like activity. While there are few examples of that in the Bible like, David "dancing before the Lord" when the ark of the Lord was returned etc. But by and large that is a false view of the Judeo Christian tradition, basically it's cherry picking the Bible to highlight a few notable events that is favorable to that unofficial theology but ignoring the rest of the context of the scriptures which depicts the worship of Israel and the Church as being primarily liturgical in nature.


PS - I know Anabaptists tend to see themselves as not being Protestant, but generally this movement is classified as being a general movement within Protestantism known as "The Radical Reformation" seeing how you do believe in founding principles like Sola Scriptura and the other 4 Solas.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To this kind of objection I would point out some of what I shared before about the original context of Holiness in OT Judaism, as far as being set apart for God service etc.


There is also stuff in the NT where a temple/sacramental context is there in a behind the scenes or subtle basis. The Protestants I've met and known when writing, preaching, teaching etc. on the book of Acts do not grasp the origins of the deacon in the Book of Acts. Pretty much the universal depiction of the event typically portrays this purely as extemporaneous, practical, and common sense solution, much like how Moses followed the advise of his Father in law Jethro to begin delegating authority to others etc. And sure there probably is a little of that, but that is not the primary origin of the deacon! The deacon was actually directly lifted from the shomash/chomash rabbinic assistant of the Synagogue (deacon is just the Greek term for that Aramaic term). And the Chomash was a direct adaptation of the tabernacle and temple Levite.....

there are some major changes from old to new. in the old there was a temple, a priest and a sacrifice and in the new, all of these are Christ and then through him, we are all of these. so to look at a system of holiness through things and have it point to another system of holiness through things seems to miss the point when there are such clear shifts. You certainly aren't going to convince any non-sacramental Christian with this type of logic.
 
Upvote 0