Are Protestants dead?

[Daniel R. Hamilton]

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.

As in my previous answers, I will expand. Romans used to call Christians, Christians to make fun of them. Roman soldiers used to also think that the church were having orgies, drinking blood, and practicing cannibalism. The problem is Catholics quote the 1st Vatican and ignore it, and then move on. The fact that your listening to a Catholic, might mean you are swaying in your faith, and you should re-examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. Some Protestant's were teetertotalers but not drinking actual wine in communion, one cannot loose salvation by abstaining for conscious' sake or for not offending their brother in Christ. Jesus often spoke in hyperbole, so don't go cutting off your hands or plucking out eyes my Muslim friends. The symbolicness of Jesus talking about blood is when he is references his sacrifice that pays for sin ((transubstantial propetuation) or penal substitutional atonement is the legal term)). It would be like saying that the Jews ate humans in place of the lamb sacrifice, but they lamb was a symbol for Jesus in the old testament. The Catholics actually practice a blasphemious tradition, and they believe that the communion actually turns into the blood and flesh of Christ Jesus. It doesn't, and even if it did, it shouldn't, because that is not how Christ Jesus meant that. Just like Grace is not transfused or infused over and over again, like for instance if I didn't confess my sins before I died in a car wreck, then I would go to Hell. It is a work righteousness system. There is no purgatory. Anyways I wrote this and hope that it will help, if not I have wasted my time and that means that, I didn't know if it would help or not, but God does

 

[Eloy Craft]

The Lord's Supper is dispensed by a priest. Although true, it is not dispensed in terms of authoring of the spiritual act. The act is of the Holy Spirit within the gathered body. After all it is his spiritual presence. It does not mean physical presence as pertaining to flesh and blood being offered multipe number of times by human authorship.

Not sure if I'm understanding your meaning. Do you believe that, when Consecrated, the bread has changed and is at that moment one and the same Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven?

 

[W2L]

Not according to apostolic teaching.

Read ignatius to smyrneans ( he and polycarp taught by John the apostle who should know, since he wrote the gospel and knew what Christ intended,

Read that letter, that describes the true doctrine handed down.
A valid Eucharist is only possible if performed by an appointed succession bishop or his nominee, and that of course also omits all who renounced their succession by breaking with the church.( or by expressing allegiance elsewhere) so excommunicated by their own decision or the church.

He declares as heretic those who " confess not the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Jesus" or as Justin Martyr says even more clearly " the flesh of Jesus" which is stated in orthodox liturgy. None except a few heretics even disputed this till mid second millennium.

Which leaves many churches without even a possible justification for validity in the terms iraneus defines, since they have no clergy or succession.

Indeed any who regard it as just symbolic, i.e. Other than flesh.

Protestants should study the early church, before judge.

Would care to answer the question in the OP? Thank you.

 

[W2L]

Y

Who betrayed John, imprisoned him on the Island of Patmos and assumed the headship of the Church of Christ as vicarely?

The first Protestant maybe?

I mean protestor.

How about the question in the OP?

 

[Eloy Craft]

Clement 1 was not assigned sonship to Mary. So for my Catholic brothers and sisters, who is the head of the Church from Saint Peter to 100 AD?

The son of Mary? Yes/No
Or
Clement 1? Yes/No

Jesus didn't say to Peter, what I bind in heaven is bound on earth. It's the other way around. Peter did not make John his successor. Jesus did not make John the head of the Church He gave John a vision to give hope to the Church. The revelation of John was subject to the authority of the Church. Jesus didn't tell John to feed His sheep. John always submitted to Peter. Peter asked John to ask the Lord 'who is it" John did it without hesitation. As would anyone of the Apostles who understood that Jesus had given Peter the keys. It in no way reveals John as a successor to Peter.

Son of Mary, John had a special bond with Jesus. An exclusive bond. A bond that wouldn't allow him to be away from who he loved. John followed Jesus all the way to the foot of the cross. Faith in Jesus made visible by Love was entire at the foot of the cross. This wasn't an image of authority but an image of human love being returned to God. That being so it is an image of every Christian who ever died to themselves for the love of Jesus until He returns. I think if you make the passage about authority you take away it's true message.

 

[BrRichSFO]

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.

If one looks at the Early Church history you clearly see that Christians gathered around an Apostle or someone who had the hands of an Apostle laid on them. Later on from the second century on we see the number of men Sacramentally Ordained grow as the Church did. The Eucharist or Holy Communion was always lead by one of them and did not as St Ignatius said do not celebrate the Eucharist apart from your Bishop. Because someone not validly, Sacramentally Ordained cannot celebrate the Eucharist. In that case you do NOT receive the Body and Blood of Christ, but only bread and wine.

Most protestants want to receive the Flesh and Blood of Christ but are not doing so because their clergy do not have the ability to celebrate a valid Eucharist. The ONLY two churches that have valid Sacramantal Ordination are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[W2L]

If one looks at the Early Church history you clearly see that Christians gathered around an Apostle or someone who had the hands of an Apostle laid on them. Later on from the second century on we see the number of men Sacramentally Ordained grow as the Church did. The Eucharist or Holy Communion was always lead by one of them and did not as St Ignatius said do not celebrate the Eucharist apart from your Bishop. Because someone not validly, Sacramentally Ordained cannot celebrate the Eucharist. In that case you do NOT receive the Body and Blood of Christ, but only bread and wine.

Most protestants want to receive the Flesh and Blood of Christ but are not doing so because their clergy do not have the ability to celebrate a valid Eucharist. The ONLY two churches that have valid Sacramantal Ordination are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

So if Protestants dont take communion in your opinion, are they not dead according to the scripture in OP?

 

[Eloy Craft]

Would care to answer the question in the OP? Thank you.

I think anyone sincerely seeking God in truth and spirit will not be abandoned by Him and to Him are alive.

 

[W2L]

I think anyone sincerely seeking God in truth and spirit will not be abandoned by Him and to Him are alive.

Amen.

 

[meconstant3402]

I'm not adequately informed about this, however, it isn't maybe just a matter of believing in transubstantiation, which is Catholic and Orthodox. But a matter of eating and drinking of the Lord's Body and Blood in soul. Since we all believe in the immortality of the soul--how does this come about? And how do we know that eating and drinking of the elements physically brings it about inside our souls?

 

[Mountainmike]

Would care to answer the question in the OP? Thank you.

With respect, I am entitled to challenge relevant dogmatic statements made on the thread
My comment was valid 3/ in my list below - some seem surprised that any version of eucharist will not do. I urge them to study early church. Few protestant churches can even mount a relevant argument they have a valid eucharist in the terms the apostolic succession defined.

The answer to the bigger question is complex. Not yes/no

Both aquinas and augustine have clarified this at considerable length, as have magisterial statements been made as well.

To summarise a long theological debate.
Dogma is...
1/ Baptism is necessary
2/ To be effective a eucharist needs to be valid - the point I addressed
3/ The eucharist can be as effective in condemning as it is in saving. "eat and drink judgement" - it is not enough just to partake.
4/ That the reason eucharist is centre of our faith is that Jesus is centre of our faith, and Jesus truly present in the eucharist.
5/ Knowing that and failing to act on it or indeed profaning it is therefore a serious sin and sin does endanger salvation
6/ Not being aware of it does not carry the risk that knowingly avoiding it does. But nobody on this thread can say they "did not know" if they fail to take this opportuity to see what the fathers say.

7/ In the end it is an ordinance of our Lord that you must do so. And since none of us merit salvation, it is therefore by Grace alone we are saved, disobeying a direct ordinance , indeed disobeying a direct call by Christ to meet him in the eucharist clearly demonstrates lack of faith. And it is grace through formed faith which therefore requires the best attempt you can muster to meet the ordinances.

8/ But it is by grace we are saved , the decision is by Christ alone. But clearly failing to do what he asks you to do in any regard (eg sheep and goats) can have CONSEQUENCES!.

9/He cannot make it clearer. If you eat my body, drink my blood you will have eternal life. If you do not you have no life in you. Why would you ignore such a statement?

So in summary you definitely harm your chances. Badly.

10/ Let me turn the question on its head.

If you are given an invitation to meet Christ, in heaven meets earth. Why as a christian would you not accept the invitiation? and what does it say of the formation of your faith if you do not?
We accept the invitation, as often as we can.

 

[W2L]

With respect, I am entitled to challenge relevant dogmatic statements made on the thread
My comment was valid 3/ in my list below - some seem surprised that any version of eucharist will not do. I urge them to study early church. Few protestant churches can even mount a relevant argument they have a valid eucharist in the terms the apostolic succession defined.

The answer to the bigger question is complex. Not yes/no

Both aquinas and augustine have clarified this at considerable length, as have magisterial statements been made as well.

To summarise a long theological debate.
Dogma is...
1/ Baptism is necessary
2/ To be effective a eucharist needs to be valid - the point I addressed
3/ The eucharist can be as effective in condemning as it is in saving. "eat and drink judgement" - it is not enough just to partake.
4/ That the reason eucharist is centre of our faith is that Jesus is centre of our faith, and Jesus truly present in the eucharist.
5/ Knowing that and failing to act on it or indeed profaning it is therefore a serious sin and sin does endanger salvation
6/ Not being aware of it does not carry the risk that knowingly avoiding it does. But nobody on this thread can say they "did not know" if they fail to take this opportuity to see what the fathers say.

7/ In the end it is an ordinance of our Lord that you must do so. And since none of us merit salvation, it is therefore by Grace alone we are saved, disobeying a direct ordinance , indeed disobeying a direct call by Christ to meet him in the eucharist clearly demonstrates lack of faith. And it is grace through formed faith which therefore requires the best attempt you can muster to meet the ordinances.

8/ But it is by grace we are saved , the decision is by Christ alone. But clearly failing to do what he asks you to do in any regard (eg sheep and goats) can have CONSEQUENCES!.

9/He cannot make it clearer. If you eat my body, drink my blood you will have eternal life. If you do not you have no life in you. Why would you ignore such a statement?


10/ Let me turn the question on its head.

If you are given an invitation to meet Christ, in heaven meets earth. Why as a christian would you not accept the invitiation? and what does it say of the formation of your faith if you do not?
We accept the invitation, as often as we can.

Thank you. I was hoping for a yes or no answer.

 

[Archivist]

To be fair, what I, at least, said was that Protestants don't partake of the Eucharist. Catholics know that, most Protestants know that and so there shouldn't be a problem there. The commemoration of the Lord's Supper which many Protestants observe is fine in its place, however.

You are painting Protestants with a rather broad brush.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus is notorious for speaking in parables but He gives us a clue that I believe is the very meat and potatoes of the bread of life discourse.

“As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:45‬

Unfortunately Catholics pick and choose which verses to take literally in the bread of life discourse. They don’t take all that he said literally and even the parts they do take literally have flaws. For example Jesus said

““I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:47‬

“Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:35‬

This is a pretty clear indication that Jesus is not speaking literally because everyone who receives the Eucharist/ Holy communion still gets hungry and thirsty.

Now let’s see if we can take this next verse literally.

“So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:53-54

If this is to be taken literally then anyone who receives Holy Communion. Judas ate the bread and drank the wine.

“As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.” And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, “Each of you drink from it, for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:26-28‬

This is proof that Jesus was not speaking literally. If Jesus was speaking literally then Judas would be saved.

What Jesus was trying to explain is we must receive Him within us. We must consume Him. Like food becomes a part of us when we eat Jesus becomes a part of us when we receive Him within us.

 

[The Times]

Not sure if I'm understanding your meaning. Do you believe that, when Consecrated, the bread has changed and is at that moment one and the same Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven?

The King yes, absolutely. But it is not a present tense act to sacrifice in the Holy of Holies by a priest. The trans-substantiation is happening in the human altar, by the hands of the Holy Spirit present, through the partaking of the King. The act in itself is presenting the believers in communion with Christ, as the living sacrifices, sanctified for martyrdom, according to St. Augustine of Antioch.

 

[The Times]

How about the question in the OP?

John like Jesus faced the last supper. What do you think the call it is the last hour was for.

I presented my response in post #204

Are Protestants dead?

 

[W2L]

John like Jesus faced the last supper. What do you think the call it is the last hour was for.

I presented my response in post #204

Are Protestants dead?

I didnt see the answer to the OP question.

 

[Naalderiis]

i had a catholic friend that came to the baptist church i attended quite a while ago because he was hanging out with some of our other friends beforehand. it happened to be on a night that we were having the Lord's supper. he was surprised that we did that and apparently it wasn't very different from what they did at his church.

you don't put a bread wafer in your mouth and end up chewing on meat even in the catholic church with a proper priest. so even catholics have a limit to how literally they take the verses.

also, if some of what i've read is true the catholic church (likely plenty of protestant churches as well) has a problem of certain priests that don't exactly use the bible as their core belief rather than just being a part of the church because they see it as a good means to help people rather than a belief structured thing. from some of the things i've read there are an alarming number of priests that don't even read the bible.

can the people having the lord's supper in places with priests like that be considered partaking in the "true" lord's supper if a faithless but "good" person is their priest who is just going through the religious motions?

 

[thecolorsblend]

You are painting Protestants with a rather broad brush.

Am I?

 

[Mountainmike]

You cannot cherry pick verses. You are proof texting again.

It is clearly not symbolic. How can you profane a symbol? Why were they horrified .. because he used the word that means "gnaw" as of flesh, not consume. Why did the romans think they were cannibals? If they did not to quote ignatius "profess the eucharist to be the body and blood of our lord" "real flesh" as Justin martyr said.

You cannot interpret scripture without authority and tradition handed by the apostles. It is why protestants schism on every matter including eucharist.

The entire church, believed it was the "flesh of jesus"until renegades in the reformation, and most of it still does. Athough there is a philosophical distinction between us and orthodox.

The bible also makes it quite clear you can profane the eucharist and "eat and drink judgement" on yourself. How so if itis just a symbol. So your reference to Judas disregards scripture.

One day, people like you might just study early fathers, and find out what the apostles taught the early church! It is clear what John taught...you see it in ignatius.

Jesus is notorious for speaking in parables but He gives us a clue that I believe is the very meat and potatoes of the bread of life discourse.

“As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:45‬

Unfortunately Catholics pick and choose which verses to take literally in the bread of life discourse. They don’t take all that he said literally and even the parts they do take literally have flaws. For example Jesus said

““I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:47‬

“Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:35‬

This is a pretty clear indication that Jesus is not speaking literally because everyone who receives the Eucharist/ Holy communion still gets hungry and thirsty.

Now let’s see if we can take this next verse literally.

“So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:53-54

If this is to be taken literally then anyone who receives Holy Communion. Judas ate the bread and drank the wine.

“As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.” And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, “Each of you drink from it, for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:26-28‬

This is proof that Jesus was not speaking literally. If Jesus was speaking literally then Judas would be saved.

What Jesus was trying to explain is we must receive Him within us. We must consume Him. Like food becomes a part of us when we eat Jesus becomes a part of us when we receive Him within us.