Can we be Christians without ever Partaking of Lord's Meal Emblems?

[W2L]

I think your comment is interesting, given this thread and this forum. You say you are on your "own walk." What I see here are numerous people who are all "on their own walk." Yet God gave us one walk, one set of instructions, one Church, not hundreds or thousands.

What I see in a lot of threads are constant arguings among all kinds of folks who are all on their own walk, with the only real common denominator being that they aren't and don't like Catholicism.

It seems to me that any rational pagan looking at "Christianity" and the fragmentation, multiple ways of being a Christian, and the disagreements therein over one God and one faith, would have to conclude that Christianity is a religion of the mentally deficient.

I don't like any ism. Its not my fault y'all like to make things complicated. I figured if we took away all the stuff people disagreed over, we would be closer to pure doctrine.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, it's not as if Paganism is a monolithic belief system either...

 

[Dave-W]

You are assuming a biblical ignorance on my part that doesn't exist.
Why?

For that I apologize. As to my assumption, it was based on what you were taught and I did not see where you said that you had renounced that teaching and had taken on more orthodox doctrines.

This is also off topic but I am extremely surprised that you speak of the Pentecostals as a mainline, acceptable denomination when their voodoo-like behavior should terrify you while behaving utterly terrified of JWs who don't behave in that voodoo-like manner.

I was raised Pentecostal and have seen the best and the worst of that world. While there are some serious problems both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy in classical pentecostalism, much of that has been addressed in the less flamboyant world of charismatic churches.

I do not know what you are specifically calling "voodo;" could you please describe what you are and are NOT referring to?
AFAIK JWs are cessationist.

Yet you seem so extremely sensitive in reference to a JWs doctrinal issue?

My main problem with them is their rejection of the divinity of Jesus. To me that is worse than any "voodoo."

 

[Dave-W]

I found this comment interesting, knowing a couple of JW's personally and finding them to be lovely people.

Indeed. I have met some rather decent JWs as well.

OTOH, when I think of Pentecostalism, I think of a honky-tonk nightclub rather than voodoo. Jimmy Swaggart pounding on the ivories, right?

Not sure Swaggart pounded the ivories. (wasn't he a guitar player?) But 2 of his cousins certainly did: Jerry Lee Lewis and Mickey Gilly.

But to me, this is the face of Classical Pentecostalism: Derek Prince. A double Kings Scholar from Eaton College in England (first double to graduate in over 500 years) He also taught the Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, et al) at the graduate level in Cambridge before being drafted for WW2. He came to faith in a British Army hospital in north Africa.

Here is good PROPER pentecostalism:

 

[toLiJC]

Is it necessary or is baptism enough?

the very baptism is to learn to practice faith in the true Lord God right/perfectly, while the ceremonial baptism has a formal character

1 Corinthians 1:17 "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

Blessings

 

[Radrook]

For that I apologize. As to my assumption, it was based on what you were taught and I did not see where you said that you had renounced that teaching and had taken on more orthodox doctrines.

I was raised Pentecostal and have seen the best and the worst of that world. While there are some serious problems both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy in classical pentecostalism, much of that has been addressed in the less flamboyant world of charismatic churches.

I do not know what you are specifically calling "voodo;" could you please describe what you are and are NOT referring to?
AFAIK JWs are cessationist.


My main problem with them is their rejection of the divinity of Jesus. To me that is worse than any "voodoo."

Which goes to show the abysmal ignorance of your concept concerning Jehovah's Witnesses . You see, in order to become a JWs I was forced to recognize Christ as my Lord and Savior. I was also required not just MINDLESSLY to accept him as my savior, as many Pentecostals seem to do in their boisterous meetings, I was also required to understand exactly why he had to die for our sins and what was expected of me as a Christian once I accepted him as my savior. Otherwise they would not have admitted me in their ranks. So when you glibly and presumptuously utter such nonsense, it only serves to demonstrate your abysmal ignorance concerning what JWs really believe.

Yes, I have my criticisms concerning JWs. But my criticisms are founded on FACT and not the drivel that I might read or hear on the Internet nor the nonsense that I might just conclude is true because of my laziness or fanatical reluctance to do research.

If indeed JWs had been anti Christ then I would have NEVER joined their ranks. So your imagination is getting the best of you. Are you sure you aren't inhaling secondhand smoke from peyote?

As for Pentecostals? Thanks but no thanks. Just recently I passed by one of their meetings and something like an evil presence seemed to emerge from their direction and began coming my way. That happened as soon as I briefly considered attending their meeting. For a few seemingly endless, horrifying moments as the darkness approached and intensified around me and the nearby vegetation began to be disturbed, I truly thought I was going to be killed.

Ad to that recent macabre experience the one I had as a child with my aunt who approached me with clawing extended hands after having dropped to the floor, rolling around and uttering garbled sounds, and then claiming she was Jesus in a supernaturally deep voice, and I was stupid even to have briefly considered such a thing.

In stark contrast, my recent visit to the local Catholic Church proved a true blessing.

 

[Light of the East]

I don't like any ism. Its not my fault y'all like to make things complicated. I figured if we took away all the stuff people disagreed over, we would be closer to pure doctrine.

But that's exactly the problem, sir, which you are not seeing. Our Lord did give us "pure doctrine." He entrusted it to the Apostles, who in turn not only died for it, but gave it to others who for 300 years died rather than give Caesar his pinch of incense. They protected it with their lives, yet when someone posts the writings of the first thru third centuries, instead of joyfully saying "There's the truth!" people resort to their own thinking, what they have been taught, how they read and understand the Scriptures, and what makes sense to them.

People don't even want to read the Bible and take what is there literally. When we Catholics and Orthodox post excerpts from John 6 and the Early Fathers regarding the Eucharist, we get all kinds of interpretive gymnastics (some of the, quite frankly, worth a "10") desperately trying to disprove what the Early Church taught and believed.

Why would anyone want to throw out the earliest beliefs of the Apostles for doctrines and additions added 1500 years later is beyond my understanding.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes, I have my criticisms concerning JWs. But my criticisms are founded on FACT and nor the drivel that I hear o0n the Internet nor the drivel that I might just conclude is true because of my laziness or reluctance to do research.

Do you accept or deny that Jesus is the Divine Son of God, part of the Trinity?

 

[W2L]

But that's exactly the problem, sir, which you are not seeing. Our Lord did give us "pure doctrine." He entrusted it to the Apostles, who in turn not only died for it, but gave it to others who for 300 years died rather than give Caesar his pinch of incense. They protected it with their lives, yet when someone posts the writings of the first thru third centuries, instead of joyfully saying "There's the truth!" people resort to their own thinking, what they have been taught, how they read and understand the Scriptures, and what makes sense to them.

People don't even want to read the Bible and take what is there literally. When we Catholics and Orthodox post excerpts from John 6 and the Early Fathers regarding the Eucharist, we get all kinds of interpretive gymnastics (some of the, quite frankly, worth a "10") desperately trying to disprove what the Early Church taught and believed.

Why would anyone want to throw out the earliest beliefs of the Apostles for doctrines and additions added 1500 years later is beyond my understanding.

Sure, you Catholics and Orthodox that cant even agree with each other. I'm not really seeing the Authority there.

 

[Radrook]

Do you accept or deny that Jesus is the Divine Son of God, part of the Trinity?

Sir, I am not on some type of inquisitional trial here.
The Catholic Church did away with that sort of thing ages ago.
Neither are you assigned to be my judge.
Stay within the assigned parameters that the Lord Jesus tells you too.
Anything beyond that is hubris.

 

[Dave-W]

Answer given.

Thank you.

 

[W2L]

Sir, I am not on some type of inquisitional trial here.
The Catholic Church did away with that sort of thing ages ago.
Neither are you assigned to be my judge.
Stay within the assigned parameters that the Lord Jesus tells you too.
Anything beyond that is hubris.

Oh no, not the trinity quiz.

 

[Radrook]

Oh no, not the trinity quiz.

I don't recognize your preferred criterion (Acceptance of Trinitarian Dogma) as being the criterion which the Bible uses in order to determine who is and who isn't a Christian.

 

[Radrook]

Answer given.

Thank you.

During my visit to my Aunt's house after I became a JWs, I had her Pentecostal husband shouting at me that I was doomed unless I accepted his Trinitarian ideas.
Simultaneously he was approving of his wife's dropping to the floor, rolling around and claiming that she was Jesus Christ.

 

[W2L]

I don't recognize your preferred criterion (Acceptance of Trinitarian Dogma) as being the criterion which the Bible uses in order to determine who is and who isn't a Christian.

I don't involve myself with trinity doctrine at all. I go with what scripture says, and I don't use it as a test of anyone. I don't believe anyone actually understands trinity as much as they may think they do.

 

[Radrook]

I don't involve myself with trinity doctrine at all. I go with what scripture says, and I don't use it as a test of anyone. I don't believe anyone actually understands trinity as much as they may think they do.

Sorry! I misunderstood your comment.

 

[W2L]

Sorry! I misunderstood your comment.

No problem, I wasn't very specific so I understand.

 

[Radrook]

No problem, I wasn't very specific so I understand.

Peace! : )