Protestant Denominational Differences (I want to hear from YOU!)

[Meowzltov]

Infant baptism is not Biblical.

Baptizing whole households is Biblical. That's exactly what Catholics do.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Bible tells us that Israel is Israel and the church is the churchch.

I agree. See my tagline.

 

[Meowzltov]

A child/infant does not have the ability to BELIEVE.

Which is why their parents and God-parents take their baptismal vows for them, agreeing to raise them in the Church, until the child is of the age of accountability and can believe for themselves.

 

[Mediaeval]

Lutherans affirm infant faith. One may point to John the Baptist, who rejoiced in his mother’s womb when the mother of his Lord came visiting. Again, our Lord made little children exemplars of saving faith, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” All baptism therefore is infant baptism, so to speak, since all must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. At the same time, unbelief is active rebellion against God. Christian parents have no right to assume the worst of their children when they bring them to Jesus for blessing. Again, if infants cannot believe, they cannot be saved (Mark 16:16).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Which is why their parents and God-parents take their baptismal vows for them, agreeing to raise them in the Church, until the child is of the age of accountability and can believe for themselves.

I keep hearing this "age of accountability" tossed around by various denominations. Can you tell me when the age of accountability is in the Catholic Church?

Thanks.

 

[Meowzltov]

I keep hearing this "age of accountability" tossed around by various denominations. Can you tell me when the age of accountability is in the Catholic Church?

Thanks.

It is a general rule of thumb that children under age 7 are not accountable, BUT this does NOT automatically mean that children age 7 and older are accountable. It depends on the child and their unique development. Some of us simply mature at a slower rate than others. Some, because they are severely developmentally disabled, never reach accountability.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is a general rule of thumb that children under age 7 are not accountable, BUT this does NOT automatically mean that children age 7 and older are accountable. It depends on the child and their unique development. Some of us simply mature at a slower rate than others. Some, because they are severely developmentally disabled, never reach accountability.

It is a general rule of thumb that children under age 7 are not accountable, BUT this does NOT automatically mean that children age 7 and older are accountable. It depends on the child and their unique development. Some of us simply mature at a slower rate than others. Some, because they are severely developmentally disabled, never reach accountability.

Thanks. That seems reasonable. Do you have some Catholic source for this?

 

[Meowzltov]

Thanks. That seems reasonable. Do you have some Catholic source for this?

Catholic Answers
How did the Church decided that seven is the age of reason and the age for First Communion?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-age-of-reason-and-the-age-for-first-comm

 

[bbbbbbb]

Catholic Answers
How did the Church decided that seven is the age of reason and the age for First Communion?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-age-of-reason-and-the-age-for-first-comm

Thanks! That answered my question quite well. Now I am curious about "ecclesiastical laws" which he mentioned as binding on people lacking reason. Can you tell me about them?

Thanks again.

 

[Meowzltov]

Thanks! That answered my question quite well. Now I am curious about "ecclesiastical laws" which he mentioned as binding on people lacking reason. Can you tell me about them?

Thanks again.

I believe that "ecclesiastical law" is another term for Canon Law. Now that is a huge bear of a topic, because it basically includes the entire governing of the Catholic Church. An example would be that a person lacking the ability to reason cannot enter into matrimony (and if one has been "married," such a marriage can be granted an annulment).

 

[bbbbbbb]

I believe that "ecclesiastical law" is another term for Canon Law. Now that is a huge bear of a topic, because it basically includes the entire governing of the Catholic Church. An example would be that a person lacking the ability to reason cannot enter into matrimony (and if one has been "married," such a marriage can be granted an annulment).

Thanks again. That is what I was thinking. I suppose there is a set of particular laws within the larger body which address people lacking reason, as you suggested. As I am not a lawyer by any means I think I will leave it at that.

Thanks again.

 

[1watchman]

Hello bbbbbbb,etc. The age of accountability is only man's reasoning, for the Bible does not address that ---right? I think a study of God's "foreknowledge", "election", "predestination", "chosen", etc. might well address the subject of children, mental deficiency, etc. God knows the end of everything from the beginning, and that includes when and if and who will receive God's "...so great salvation". Look up always!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hello bbbbbbb,etc. The age of accountability is only man's reasoning, for the Bible does not address that ---right? I think a study of God's "foreknowledge", "election", "predestination", "chosen", etc. might well address the subject of children, mental deficiency, etc. God knows the end of everything from the beginning, and that includes when and if and who will receive God's "...so great salvation". Look up always!

Yes, the Bible says absolutely nothing about an "age of accountability". It does, however, explicitly state that we are sinners from birth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe that the fact is that what the Lutheran's believe and teach it is very close to Transubstantiation. However, there still exists the question of whether it (Bread/wine) really DOES become the Body and Blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation" is the belief that the wine & bread is actually the body and blood of Christ.

Not quite. Transubstantiation refers to a very specific view of the Real Presence. The doctrine of the Real Presence is what says the bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is a particular way of explaining that; namely that there is a change in the substance (hence trans + substantiation) while the accidents remain unchanged. To understand this requires a little knowledge of Aristotle.

Aristotle, contrary to his teacher Plato, regarded the substance of a thing to be intrinsic to it; thus a tree is a tree because it has what we might call "tree-ness". Trees come in many different shapes and sizes, trees might be tall, short, rough, or smooth--these external qualities are called "accidents".

In the high middle ages the writings of antiquity had been reintroduced to Europe from Arabs, largely through Muslim Spain; while the writings of Aristotle and other classical philosophers had been lost in Western Europe, they had been preserved by Arabs and Persians and is a major reason for the Golden Age of Islam, the birth of algebra, the decimal system, and modern astronomy. Many of the Scholastic teachers in Europe's universities--most notably Thomas Aquinas--took full advantage of this wealth of knowledge; and as such Aristotelian ideas became an important framework for Scholastic philosophy and theology. Transubstantiation is an example of theology expressed through philosophy.

But Transubstantiation is only one way of approaching the Real Presence.

Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence. The bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist is, in fact, the true body and blood of Christ "in and under" the material elements of bread and wine. Lutherans don't, however, subscribe to Transubstantiation. Chiefly, Lutheranism tries to avoid explaining these particular mysteries, regarding it sufficient to believe God's word about them. The closest Lutheranism ever gets to an official explanation of how bread and wine can be the body and blood of Jesus is what Luther termed the "Sacramental Union" which largely is nothing more than an analogy based on the Hypostatic Union. The Eucharist is at once both bread and wine as well as Christ's body and blood. Some have wrongly called this Consubstantiation, but Lutherans reject Consubstantiation as well.

The Lutheran rejection for both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation isn't because they are necessarily wrong, but because we consider it inappropriate to speak on the matter further than what Scripture teaches and what has been always believed and confessed since the Apostles.

From my readings and studies, it appeared that Martin Luther went back and forth about Transubstantiation and in the end of his life, felt it WAS true.

Luther remained a fervent believer in the Real Presence, and it was one of the areas where he was willing to fall on his sword over. It was the basis for the the animosity and contention with the Zwinglians who taught Memorialism. And was arguably the single largest disagreement between Luther and Calvin. Calvin did believe in a kind of Real Presence, but said it was spiritual rather than corporeal; this Luther could not accept. And this largely stems from different Christological perspectives: Calvin argued that Christ could not be corporeally present in the Eucharist because Christ is, in His glorified body, seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven; Luther argued that because Christ is glorified He can be present wherever He wishes to be--His body is not constrained or limited. Indeed, this was reflected in how they read the episode of Christ's post-resurrection appearances. Luther believed Christ was, in His glorified body, able to simply appear in front of the disciples; Calvin argued that Christ didn't appear, but rather surprised them by coming in through a window or coming in through the back door.

But on this point, the when we receive the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist we are receiving the very, actual, and true body and blood of Jesus Christ; the very body which was pierced, and the very blood that ran from His veins; the very One conceived in Mary's womb, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, dead, descended into Hades, and who rose on the third day, and who ascended into the heavens and is now seated at the right hand of the Father with all glory, authority, and power--this is what and who we receive, really and actually, in and under the bread and the wine.

This isn't merely a symbol of Jesus. This is Jesus. This is the God-Man, living and incarnate, reigning and sitting at the right hand of the Father until the day He comes as judge of the quick and the dead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Major1]

Not quite. Transubstantiation refers to a very specific view of the Real Presence. The doctrine of the Real Presence is what says the bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is a particular way of explaining that; namely that there is a change in the substance (hence trans + substantiation) while the accidents remain unchanged. To understand this requires a little knowledge of Aristotle.

Aristotle, contrary to his teacher Plato, regarded the substance of a thing to be intrinsic to it; thus a tree is a tree because it has what we might call "tree-ness". Trees come in many different shapes and sizes, trees might be tall, short, rough, or smooth--these external qualities are called "accidents".

In the high middle ages the writings of antiquity had been reintroduced to Europe from Arabs, largely through Muslim Spain; while the writings of Aristotle and other classical philosophers had been lost in Western Europe, they had been preserved by Arabs and Persians and is a major reason for the Golden Age of Islam, the birth of algebra, the decimal system, and modern astronomy. Many of the Scholastic teachers in Europe's universities--most notably Thomas Aquinas--took full advantage of this wealth of knowledge; and as such Aristotelian ideas became an important framework for Scholastic philosophy and theology. Transubstantiation is an example of theology expressed through philosophy.

But Transubstantiation is only one way of approaching the Real Presence.

Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence. The bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist is, in fact, the true body and blood of Christ "in and under" the material elements of bread and wine. Lutherans don't, however, subscribe to Transubstantiation. Chiefly, Lutheranism tries to avoid explaining these particular mysteries, regarding it sufficient to believe God's word about them. The closest Lutheranism ever gets to an official explanation of how bread and wine can be the body and blood of Jesus is what Luther termed the "Sacramental Union" which largely is nothing more than an analogy based on the Hypostatic Union. The Eucharist is at once both bread and wine as well as Christ's body and blood. Some have wrongly called this Consubstantiation, but Lutherans reject Consubstantiation as well.

The Lutheran rejection for both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation isn't because they are necessarily wrong, but because we consider it inappropriate to speak on the matter further than what Scripture teaches and what has been always believed and confessed since the Apostles.



Luther remained a fervent believer in the Real Presence, and it was one of the areas where he was willing to fall on his sword over. It was the basis for the the animosity and contention with the Zwinglians who taught Memorialism. And was arguably the single largest disagreement between Luther and Calvin. Calvin did believe in a kind of Real Presence, but said it was spiritual rather than corporeal; this Luther could not accept. And this largely stems from different Christological perspectives: Calvin argued that Christ could not be corporeally present in the Eucharist because Christ is, in His glorified body, seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven; Luther argued that because Christ is glorified He can be present wherever He wishes to be--His body is not constrained or limited. Indeed, this was reflected in how they read the episode of Christ's post-resurrection appearances. Luther believed Christ was, in His glorified body, able to simply appear in front of the disciples; Calvin argued that Christ didn't appear, but rather surprised them by coming in through a window or coming in through the back door.

But on this point, the when we receive the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist we are receiving the very, actual, and true body and blood of Jesus Christ; the very body which was pierced, and the very blood that ran from His veins; the very One conceived in Mary's womb, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, dead, descended into Hades, and who rose on the third day, and who ascended into the heavens and is now seated at the right hand of the Father with all glory, authority, and power--this is what and who we receive, really and actually, in and under the bread and the wine.

This isn't merely a symbol of Jesus. This is Jesus. This is the God-Man, living and incarnate, reigning and sitting at the right hand of the Father until the day He comes as judge of the quick and the dead.

-CryptoLutheran

I mean no disrespect to you, but isn't that a lot to say just to disagree with the Scriptures and to support a denominational teaching over the Word of God???

NOWHERE in The Bible does it say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather it says that they are symbols of His sacrifice. Just as the Old Testament Passover sacrifice eaten with unleavened bread was a symbol that looked forward to Christ's sacrifice, the unleavened bread and wine of the New Testament observance look back to Christ's sacrifice in memorial. It's important to understand that the New Testament symbols are not themselves a sacrifice, as the Catholic celebration of the mass and Eucharist imagine. Rather, the bread and wine commemorate Christ's once-for-all sacrifice.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I mean no disrespect to you, but isn't that a lot to say just to disagree with the Scriptures and to support a denominational teaching over the Word of God???

We believe it because it's what Scripture says. Christ took bread and wine saying they were His body and blood, "This is My body" and "This is My blood".

NOWHERE in The Bible does it say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather it says that they are symbols of His sacrifice. Just as the Old Testament Passover sacrifice eaten with unleavened bread was a symbol that looked forward to Christ's sacrifice, the unleavened bread and wine of the New Testament observance look back to Christ's sacrifice in memorial. It's important to understand that the New Testament symbols are not themselves a sacrifice, as the Catholic celebration of the mass and Eucharist imagine. Rather, the bread and wine commemorate Christ's once-for-all sacrifice.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that the Eucharist is a symbol.

The Eucharist is an anamnesis of Christ's sacrifice, not a "memorial" or "commemoration".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus is not a piece of wood with metal hardware attached. Thus, when He said, "I am the door. . ." we must take Him at His word and understand Him to mean that He is a piece of wood with metal fastenings. Note that He never said, "I am like the door. . ." but He said, "I am the door. . ."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus is not a piece of wood with metal hardware attached. Thus, when He said, "I am the door. . ." we must take Him at His word and understand Him to mean that He is a piece of wood with metal fastenings. Note that He never said, "I am like the door. . ." but He said, "I am the door. . ."

If He had taken a door and said, "This is Me" that would be a better comparison. He didn't say, "I am the bread and the wine", He took bread and said, "This is My body broken for you" and then He took the cup of wine and said, "This is My blood of the new covenant poured out for many".

The other problem here is that while the Church never took to regarding doors as the Sacramental presence of Christ in our midst, that is precisely what the Church did do in regard to the Eucharist. We see it as early as St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians where he says, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ?" and "the bread which we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ?" and later he warns that those who abuse the Lord's Table are guilty not against mere bread and wine, but of Christ's own body and blood, and warns against not "discerning the body and blood of the Lord".

To say that it is mere bread and wine and not the body and blood of Christ is not merely a matter of interpreting Christ's words figuratively rather than literally, it is to reject the explicit and consistent teaching of Christianity since the very beginning.

If it wasn't for the fact that the universal consensus and confession of the Christian Church for the last two millennia, then maybe we could just chuck this up to difference of interpretation of the text--but seeing as this is one of those things which was always taught, without exception, throughout the long history of our religion then I don't think we can do that. This isn't a matter of difference of interpretation regarding vague meanings of the text, because the historic belief of Christianity is clear: this wasn't vague, it means what it says and says what it means, and this has been believed since the very beginning.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

If He had taken a door and said, "This is Me" that would be a better comparison. He didn't say, "I am the bread and the wine", He took bread and said, "This is My body broken for you" and then He took the cup of wine and said, "This is My blood of the new covenant poured out for many".

The other problem here is that while the Church never took to regarding doors as the Sacramental presence of Christ in our midst, that is precisely what the Church did do in regard to the Eucharist. We see it as early as St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians where he says, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ?" and "the bread which we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ?" and later he warns that those who abuse the Lord's Table are guilty not against mere bread and wine, but of Christ's own body and blood, and warns against not "discerning the body and blood of the Lord".

To say that it is mere bread and wine and not the body and blood of Christ is not merely a matter of interpreting Christ's words figuratively rather than literally, it is to reject the explicit and consistent teaching of Christianity since the very beginning.

If it wasn't for the fact that the universal consensus and confession of the Christian Church for the last two millennia, then maybe we could just chuck this up to difference of interpretation of the text--but seeing as this is one of those things which was always taught, without exception, throughout the long history of our religion then I don't think we can do that. This isn't a matter of difference of interpretation regarding vague meanings of the text, because the historic belief of Christianity is clear: this wasn't vague, it means what it says and says what it means, and this has been believed since the very beginning.

-CryptoLutheran

Paul does not warn anyone against "not discerning the body and blood of the Lord". You are mistaken. The verse to which you refer is I Corinthians 11:29 "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." Within the context of that chapter and the following chapter Paul is talking about the body with many members, the church, not the physical flesh of Jesus Christ, which he never mentions, much anything about blood. Instead, does refer to the cup.

Now, the Catholic Church has had a lengthy history of persecution of various dissenters, including your own church because they did not see eye-to-eye on this doctrine and your own church has its particular history of persecution of dissenters. Beware that you may be attacked by others for your own views on the matter.

As for Jesus being a piece of wood with metal fastenings, it is just as hermeneutically valid as asserting that He is a piece of bread and a cup of wine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Paul does not warn anyone against "not discerning the body and blood of the Lord". You are mistaken. The verse to which you refer is I Corinthians 11:29 "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." Within the context of that chapter and the following chapter Paul is talking about the body with many members, the church, not the physical flesh of Jesus Christ, which he never mentions, much anything about blood. Instead, does refer to the cup.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves."

There is precisely no reason to believe that Paul has in mind anything other than Christ's body based on the context of the passage.

Now, the Catholic Church has had a lengthy history of persecution of various dissenters, including your own church because they did not see eye-to-eye on this doctrine and your own church has its particular history of persecution of dissenters. Beware that you may be attacked by others for your own views on the matter.

I've come to expect hostility when defending basic orthodox Christian teaching. There's very little someone could say to me that I haven't already heard. I've been accuse of being a devil worshiper, a secret Vatican spy, a false Christian, an idolator, a servant of Satan.

As for Jesus being a piece of wood with metal fastenings, it is just as hermeneutically valid as asserting that He is a piece of bread and a cup of wine.

Only if the two were in any way comparable. Did Jesus take a door and say, "This is Me"? If He didn't then there is a clear difference between Jesus saying, "I am the door" or "I am the vine". But at His Last Supper He took bread, broke it, and declared, "This is My body". He wasn't referring to bread, generically, but that specific bread; and concerning the cup said, "This is My blood", He wasn't referring to wine generically, but the cup of wine at that Supper. He took these things, handled them, and declared they were His flesh and blood.

When Christians took bread and wine together as the Sacrament of the Eucharist they considered Jesus' statement on this to be of such importance that they spoke of these as His body and blood.

The Church never declared doors to be Christ. The Church never declared vines to be Christ. But the Church has, for two thousand years, declared the bread and wine of the Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Christ.

I'm going to need a very good reason to believe that every Christian for the first 1,500 years was wrong, and the first Christian to be correct on this--ever--lived in the 16th century.

-CryptoLutheran