Protestants: What do you believe happens when you take communion?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Apostolic Churches teach that The Holy Eucharist is The Church's primary method of dispensing grace. Bread and wine are not capable or doing that.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Albion]

Apostolic Churches teach that The Holy Eucharist is The Church's primary method of dispensing grace. Bread and wine are not capable or doing that.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Is water capable of doing that (in Baptism)?

Or oil in Chrismation?

If not, why not. And how do bread and wine differ from the other physical elements that are required for any other sacrament?

 

[MJohn7]

Apostolic Churches teach that The Holy Eucharist is The Church's primary method of dispensing grace. Bread and wine are not capable or doing that.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

The bible says that a contrite heart of repentance and confessing the Lord with our heart is the only method. At least that's how i read it anyway.

 

[Albion]

The bible says that a contrite heart of repentance and confessing the Lord with our heart is the only method. At least that's how i read it anyway.

That's a different point, however. The question about the sacrament/ordinance of the Lord's Supper is whether or not a spiritual benefit (grace, forgiveness of sins, whatever) is possible if the physical elements used are exactly what they are--physical objects. The answer is, of course, yes.

In fact, the churches that teach that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine DO NOT claim that they become purely spiritual matter. The claim of transubstantiation is that they become different physical objects (Christ's very flesh and blood), so the point was mistaken from the beginning anyway.

 

[Willie T]

I find it so interesting to see the way many people say, "The church teaches", while other people say, instead, "The Bible says."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The bible says that a contrite heart of repentance and confessing the Lord with our heart is the only method. At least that's how i read it anyway.

We read that every night at Vespers. It's speaking of how to approach.

Got be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I find it so interesting to see the way many people say, "The church teaches", while other people say, instead, "The Bible says."

In my case they are related as a subset (the bible) is to the universal set (the Catholic Church).

What Christ teaches is what the Catholic Church teaches and the Church teaches sacred scripture and sacred tradition.

 

[MJohn7]

In my case they are related as a subset (the bible) is to the universal set (the Catholic Church).

What Christ teaches is what the Catholic Church teaches and the Church teaches sacred scripture and sacred tradition.

I dont agree. They teach their own traditions and sometimes they conflict with scripture.

 

[Willie T]

I dont agree. They teach their own traditions and sometimes they conflict with scripture.

I think that is a "given". Sometimes they don't just conflict with Scripture, they aren't even IN Scripture. And this goes for all denominations.

 

[MJohn7]

I think that is a "given". Sometimes they don't just conflict with Scripture, they aren't even IN Scripture. And this goes for all denominations.

Those things that are conflicting with scripture are all we should be concerned with.

 

[Albion]

Those things that are conflicting with scripture are all we should be concerned with.

Hmmm. No.

The invention of new doctrines -- along with the excuse that "the Bible doesn't refute this, so it's OK for the church to impose it"-- is equally dangerous.

 

[MJohn7]

Hmmm. No.

The invention of new doctrines -- along with the excuse that "the Bible doesn't refute this, so it's OK for the church to impose it"-- is equally dangerous.

If it doesnt conflict with sound doctrine in some way then its not worth fighting over. For example, does it conflict with the truth about grace? If not then its not worth fighting over. Does it contradict NT doctrine? If not then why argue about it? Argument itself isnt good. We are instructed to maintain peace.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There's lots about Christianity that is not in the bible.

For instance... how to use the Psalms.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[MJohn7]

If it doesnt conflict with sound doctrine in some way then its not worth fighting over. For example, does it conflict with the truth about grace? If not then its not worth fighting over. Does it contradict NT doctrine? If not then why argue about it? Argument itself isnt good. We are instructed to maintain peace.

But most of the time if its not in scripture then it usually ends up conflicting with it in some way, in my opinion

 

[MJohn7]

There's lots about Christianity that is not in the bible.

For instance... how to use the Psalms.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

How should they be used?

 

[Albion]

But most of the time if its not in scripture then it usually ends up conflicting with it in some way, in my opinion

MOST of the time, that's probably so. But we also have such items as the Assumption (of Mary) that has absolutely no basis in either history or scripture, and doesn't refute anything that is in Scripture, but has been made a must-believe doctrine (in that particular denomination). This certainly is as wrong as misusing Scripture.

 

[MJohn7]

But most of the time if its not in scripture then it usually ends up conflicting with it in some way, in my opinion

And if its not in scripture it shouldn't be "required".

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But most of the time if its not in scripture then it usually ends up conflicting with it in some way, in my opinion

It might also conflict with what we 'think' the scripture is trying to teach when in reality we are operating with an incomplete data set.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[MJohn7]

MOST of the time, that's probably so. But we also have such items as the Assumption (of Mary) that has absolutely no basis in other history or scripture, and doesn't refute anything that is in Scripture, but has been made a must-believe doctrine (in that particular denomination). This certainly is as wrong as misusing Scripture.

Amen, i agree.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

And if its not in scripture it shouldn't be "required".

That would be shooting for the minimum requirements though wouldn't it?

What if the goal is to know the fullness of Christianity?

God be gracious to me a sinner.