A Question for Non-Sacramental Christians

[Gregory95]

Also has putin not just in recent times been a aggressor on surrounding nations did he not threaten Europe with the Poseidon nuke

Many leader say many things it is in their actions we see what they are

Just look at trump a professed evangelical Christian

And to that I would respond with the story of how the Ukraine and Russia weres evangelized.

Shopping for a Church
Vladimir apparently wanted to unite the people under one religion, so around 988 he sent envoys to examine the major religions. The options? Islam, Judaism, the Catholic Christianity of Western Europe, and the Orthodox Christianity of Eastern Europe (though as yet, there was no official break between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians).

The story of Vladimir’s choosing Orthodox Christianity is part legend, part fact. According to the tradition, Vladimir didn’t like the dietary restrictions of Islam and Judaism. Catholic Christianity was all right, but what impressed the grand prince was the dazzling worship his ambassadors described seeing in the great Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. ...

How Christianity Came to Ukraine and Russia


You know Protestant evangelists give glowing "praise reports", for successes that are much, much, smaller than evangelizing an entire enormous geographical region.

 

[Dave L]

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!

Do you trust in Christ directly? Or in the sacrament and your manipulation of it to save you?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes the whole public offering thing is kind of like putting a tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden. I don't image Anias and Sapphira having that kind of problem without that sort of setup situation.

Well the text doesn't tell us that the apostles were actually the ones who "set up" or desired to make Anise and Sapphira's offering public. They very well may have done that on their own. The story reminds me of the one Jesus told about the religious leaders who make a public spectacle of their offerings to purposefully be seen of the people. So not only was this a display of pride, it was a dishonest display of pride besides.

So in that sense, I don't see this story as being directly contradictory to the Scripture.

 

[paul1149]

In this case Sacramental is a paradigm, that temple worship still exists as a kind of model, or type of worship even though we don't actually slaughter animals etc. and the Jewish temple was destroyed in AD 70.

That is a major stretch. Immediately after this episode with Ananias comes the story of Stephen, our first martyr. Stephen is hauled before the Sanhedrin, and commences giving a speech that increasingly agitates his audience. And what is the statement that got him killed?

However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands -Acts 7​

Stephen just laid waste to the whole Temple system of sacrifice, liturgy and hierarchy. God doesn't need such systems anymore to get His work done. What then is He looking for? Allow me to repeat one of my previous posts:

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, yet you Jews say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus told her, “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews.
But an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him.
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” -John 4:20-24​

This is one of my favorite interchanges in the Bible. The woman is essentially asking which tradition is correct. Samaria had started off Jewish, but quickly established its own worship centers rather than traveling to Jerusalem. It went downhill from there, but still the Samaritans clung to their tradition.

Look carefully at Jesus' answer. He doesn't say Jerusalem is the correct place to worship. He doesn't even say that either place would be an acceptable place to worship. Instead, He says the improbable - that NEITHER place will be suitable for worship. In one breath He offends both Jews and Samaritans, and any traditionalist who might follow in their footsteps. In one stroke He lays the ax to the root of formalism, to establish a new kind of worship, one that is not dependent on time or place or protocol. This new worship is dependent only on spirit and truth, and it is available to all at any time or place. You can worship in church, you can worship while you're cleaning toilets. Worship is now a matter of the heart that has been circumcised by the Holy Spirit through the love of God in Christ Jesus.

This comports with the writer of Hebrews, who says the outer veil had to be destroyed before the inner Holy of Holies could be established, and with the statement that got our first martyr killed, that God does not abide in houses built by man.

But still we cling to our traditions. I have seen charismatic churches hardly less liturgical than the high church. There is a certain time to be prayed for, at which you are expected to be slain in the spirit, etc. So I'm not singling out one group or the other. It is the human condition that we like religious structures and strictures around us. But that is not what Jesus is saying here.

edit: typo

 

[StephenDiscipleofYHWH]

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!

I don't see any violation as far as giving in secret goes. They gave directly to the Church elders. Nowhere does it say they gave in front of the whole church so that all could see what they gave. In fact in the story of Ananias and Sapphira it is said that the men were outside the door and had to come inside the room, next we are told that they found the body of Sapphira. Before that we are told that the men who carried out Ananias only heard these things, then they rose up to go and get the body.
Acts 5:
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

So we can plainly see from scripture that no commands were being broken by the Apostles in the way they accepted gifts to the Church. Nowhere do we see the whole congregation present during the account of Ananias and Sapphira, instead we see them having to come inside the room and through the door to find their bodies after hearing what occurred.

I hope this helps brother.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes, yes 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!

Your splitting hairs here that are very unnecessary. They offered the Apostles the proceeds for distribution to the poor. It was a celebration of Christ and love to all. After all, most denominations pass around a basket to collect for their congregation and everyone see's that as well.
Blessings

 

[DamianWarS]

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!

it would seem to me Ananias and Sapphira did violate it. this text immediately follows the Barnabus account and is meant to contrast it but I don't think in the sense that the method of Barnabus should be copied, I just get from it he was a passionate man and that's just how he did things but had a pure heart which of course is the key.

A & S were different, the text juxtaposes these account together as if A & S saw what Barnabus did and tried to copy him but for their own glory. So while both laid it at the apostle's feet both did it out of different intentions. So the method here is really not the crux of the account but rather the heart (and I think that's what Jesus was getting at too)

How this is related to sacraments I don't know. Must be one of those Orthodox back stories that no one else knows about.

 

[DamianWarS]

And to that I would respond with the story of how the Ukraine and Russia weres evangelized.

Shopping for a Church
Vladimir apparently wanted to unite the people under one religion, so around 988 he sent envoys to examine the major religions. The options? Islam, Judaism, the Catholic Christianity of Western Europe, and the Orthodox Christianity of Eastern Europe (though as yet, there was no official break between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians).

The story of Vladimir’s choosing Orthodox Christianity is part legend, part fact. According to the tradition, Vladimir didn’t like the dietary restrictions of Islam and Judaism. Catholic Christianity was all right, but what impressed the grand prince was the dazzling worship his ambassadors described seeing in the great Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. ...

How Christianity Came to Ukraine and Russia


You know Protestant evangelists give glowing "praise reports", for successes that are much, much, smaller than evangelizing an entire enormous geographical region.

Vladimir’s ultimate choice was based out of vanity. it is the glory and spender that fit his agenda but not God's glory, instead, a glory that he wanted to carpet his country with. He didn't like the others not because of their correct/incorrect theology but because of their lack of greatness and his choice would seem more political than of faith. Had he lived in the 13th century and sent his envoys he would have been Catholic, had he lived in the 15th century and sent his envoys he would have been Muslim.

 

[DamianWarS]

The man who signed off on building the Poseidon nuke?

likely not, since Nuclear fission wasn't discovered yet. This is, of course, Vladimir the Great 958 - 1015, not Vladimir Putin. Perhaps Vladimir is like John in Russia.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Do you trust in Christ directly?

YES!

Or in the sacrament and your manipulation of it to save you?

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.).

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.

 

[Dave L]

YES!




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.).

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.

But it has no saving power. It is something saved people do.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well the text doesn't tell us that the apostles were actually the ones who "set up" or desired to make Anise and Sapphira's offering public. They very well may have done that on their own. The story reminds me of the one Jesus told about the religious leaders who make a public spectacle of their offerings to purposefully be seen of the people. So not only was this a display of pride, it was a dishonest display of pride besides.

So in that sense, I don't see this story as being directly contradictory to the Scripture.

I see it as something that happened organically.spontaneously.


The question itself is a bit of a rhetorical question for proof texters. A good example those that might bust the chops of Catholics and Orthodox on such things as "Call No Man Father" verse, while ignoring the two times saint Paul refers to himself as a father of the faith, spiritual father, and of course that they probably have used that term with their own natural father, or have done something parallel on using the term teacher/rabbi/ instructor for other related verses in the synoptic gospels.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

But it has no saving power. It is something saved people do.

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.

 

[Dave L]

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.

Just sayin' the sacraments commemorate Christ's sacrifice. If they distribute it, you become your own self medicating savior.

 

[Albion]

First it is necessary to understand what the churches which believe in the sacraments (that's the great majority of them) actually do believe about the sacraments!

 

[The Righterzpen]

I see it as something that happened organically.spontaneously.


The question itself is a bit of a rhetorical question for proof texters. A good example those that might bust the chops of Catholics and Orthodox on such things as "Call No Man Father" verse, while ignoring the two times saint Paul refers to himself as a father of the faith, spiritual father, and of course that they probably have used that term with their own natural father, or have done something parallel on using the term teacher/rabbi/ instructor for other related verses in the synoptic gospels.

I agree with you, it probably is something that happened "organically" and not as a "prescribed sacrament".

As far as Paul using the concept of "father of the faith" or "spiritual father"; I don't think he's using that as an "apostolic title". I only see one reference to it, in relation to Timothy. But I'm using the wording of the King James; which may make a difference?

As per Timothy, Paul is using it more as a term of endearment toward those who he's personally connected to. Paul also uses the term "Abraham our father"; which I think is a term in reference to the nation of the flesh.

And this is what I think the objection coming from most Protestant churches is. Could you argue that not calling a protestant preacher "father" is a Protestant tradition? Yeah probably, but it also appears to me to have application as a title. We don't call people "Rabbi" either. I don't think any Christian tradition calls a teacher Rabbi (except maybe Messianic Jews?) but my understanding of Jewish "requirements" for the title of Rabbi is that it requires a formal education. Like we use the term doctor. You're not a doctor unless you have a doctorate in something.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

And this is what I think the objection coming from most Protestant churches is. Could you argue that not calling a protestant preacher "father" is a Protestant tradition? Yeah probably, but it also appears to me to have application as a title. We don't call people "Rabbi" either. I don't think any Christian tradition calls a teacher Rabbi (except maybe Messianic Jews?) but my understanding of Jewish "requirements" for the title of Rabbi is that it requires a formal education. Like we use the term doctor. You're not a doctor unless you have a doctorate in something.

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

 

[Calvin_1985]

Yes, yes 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!

I don't understand why you are even making an issue of this. You are spending way too much time trying to find something wrong. Relax and enjoy Jesus. Eat His words and drink his life.

 

[Justified112]

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?

The point behind what Jesus said was that giving was not to be done for the purpose of vainglory, that we are not to do it for the praise of men.

We don't know the exact method, but it is likely that there was a location, a place where they would bring the money to the apostles or whoever was in charge of accounting. I don't think the apostles were standing outside on the temple steps and people were just laying money at their feet in that manner. That would have been irresponsible and it would have been rather unwieldly to haul that money around town.

It was not done for show, and it was probably done in a manner that was discreet and responsible.

 

[PaulCyp1]

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.