Do Evangelicals Believe in Any Sacraments?

[Tomyris]

So, since Saul had already heard this from Samuel before, why did God allow him to appear and say it again? Especially since Saul was using a forbidden method?

Could it have happened for our instruction? So that we can know that God allows the saints who have gone on before us to be aware of what is happening here, and to communicate with us about it?

It’s strange that you are defending an occult practice.

 

[ltwin]

So, since Saul had already heard this from Samuel before, why did God allow him to appear and say it again? Especially since Saul was using a forbidden method?

Could it have happened for our instruction? So that we can know that God allows the saints who have gone on before us to be aware of what is happening here, and to communicate with us about it?

Or to teach us not to pursue through witchcraft and necromancy what we cannot attain through prayer and the spiritual gift of prophecy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Or to teach us not to pursue through witchcraft and necromancy what we cannot attain through prayer and the spiritual gift of prophecy.

Yes, I think the opposite of the communion of saints is demonstrated with Samuel. Especially since during Old Testament time, the righteous were not yet in heaven.

What do you believe is the point of Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus at the Transfiguration?

Why is this world any concern of theirs?

 

[Jon_S_1]

What GOOD reason do you have for denying the ancient practice of asking saints to pray for us? It was taught since the pre Nicene, Pre Constantine era?

“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 – 80 AD)

Clement of Alexandria

“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 – 208 AD)

Origen

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 – 233 AD)

Cyprian of Carthage

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 – 253 AD)

 

[guanophore]

It’s strange that you are defending an occult practice.

Indeed, it would be, if I were. But I believe that the Saints can only appear within our space/time continuum by the grace of God. Those who have gone on before us in the faith are “kept forever” in Him.

So the appearance of Samuel to Saul occurred only because God ignored the medium, and allowed Samuel to be manifested to Saul. In the same way Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus before his crucifixion. In both cases, the saints were aware of events here on earth, able to converse about them, and knew what was about to happen.

Those who have received the Apostolic faith recognize this condition as “the communion of saints” as written in the creed. It is one of the doctrines of the faith that was lost during the Refomation.

 

[guanophore]

Or to teach us not to pursue through witchcraft and necromancy what we cannot attain through prayer and the spiritual gift of prophecy.

I think this lesson has been clearly taught, but actually this text would seem to indicate the opposite. In fact, Saul seeks out guidance using a wrong method. But Samuel appears anyway. The sins he pays for occurred before this incident. God had already left him because of his disobedience. What purpose was there to reveal to him that he and his sons would die on the morrow?

It is not like one does not pray and receive prophesies that give us answers we would really rather not hear!

God allowed Samuel to appear and tell things to Saul, despite the fact that Saul sought guidance through witchcraft. God has a purpose.

Necromancy is conjuring the “dead”, and we all know that those who die in the Lord are “alive forever more” because “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living”. Samuel was very much alive, and aware.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Indeed, it would be, if I were. But I believe that the Saints can only appear within our space/time continuum by the grace of God. Those who have gone on before us in the faith are “kept forever” in Him.

So the appearance of Samuel to Saul occurred only because God ignored the medium, and allowed Samuel to be manifested to Saul. In the same way Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus before his crucifixion. In both cases, the saints were aware of events here on earth, able to converse about them, and knew what was about to happen.

Those who have received the Apostolic faith recognize this condition as “the communion of saints” as written in the creed. It is one of the doctrines of the faith that was lost during the Refomation.

I think you make a mistake here Guanaphore.

A couple thoughts,

First, most apologists use this passage to show what not to do. They consider it wrong for conjuring the dead and asking them for revelation as opposed to asking for prayers or joining our prayers to theirs.

Second, the Old Testament figures were not in heaven, but in hades awaiting Christ. In Abrahams bosom. The only exception we know of was Elijah who was taken directly to heaven body and soul. Extra Biblical sources also suggest Moses was taken to heaven a similar way. So Elijah and Moses would be the only saints at the time of Saul as we know it.

Regardless of if you agree, i think it best to step back from this line of argumentation. When I was Protestant, if I had read your posts on this matter, it would have done nothing but cement my belief that Catholics conjur the dead

 

[dronald]

I’m gonna have to agree with the Catholics here. It is my belief that Paul was pretty torn between living and dying because he wanted to be with Christ already; not just wait in the ground.

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.

23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m gonna have to agree with the Catholics here. It is my belief that Paul was pretty torn between living and dying because he wanted to be with Christ already; not just wait in the ground.

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.

23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,

Is there a soul sleep discussion I missed somewhere! I definitely agree with you here!

 

[ltwin]

What do you believe is the point of Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus at the Transfiguration?

Why is this world any concern of theirs?

Obviously, this is a sign that Jesus is who he says he is. Two of the greatest figures in the Old Testament are seen with Jesus, obviously, the lends credibility to whatever Jesus claims about himself.

What GOOD reason do you have for denying the ancient practice of asking saints to pray for us? It was taught since the pre Nicene, Pre Constantine era?

Simply, it cannot be shown from Scripture that a person should call upon the saints or seek help from them. Rather, the whole of Scripture tends toward the opposite conclusion. As 1 Timothy 2:5-6 declares, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” He is our savior, our high priest,and our intercessor before God (Romans 8:34).

Is there a soul sleep discussion I missed somewhere! I definitely agree with you here!

For the record, I do not believe in soul sleep. I believe the righteous dead are in the presence of Christ and that they are the great cloud of witnesses spoken of in Hebrews.

 

[dronald]

Sorry, I guess I read something wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I think you make a mistake here Guanaphore.

A couple thoughts,

First, most apologists use this passage to show what not to do. They consider it wrong for conjuring the dead and asking them for revelation as opposed to asking for prayers or joining our prayers to theirs.

It is certainly an example of Saul’s disobedience, and why he suffered his loss of favor with God, and the ultimate consequences as told him by Samuel.

Second, the Old Testament figures were not in heaven, but in hades awaiting Christ. In Abrahams bosom. The only exception we know of was Elijah who was taken directly to heaven body and soul. Extra Biblical sources also suggest Moses was taken to heaven a similar way. So Elijah and Moses would be the only saints at the time of Saul as we know it.

Yes, and don’t forget Enoch! Indeed in the teaching of Jesus, those in Abraham’s bosom were aware of events on earth. Even more so now that the gates of heaven are open!

Are you suggesting that Samuel appeared outside of God’s grace?! That he gave prophetic words to Saul apart from what God had revealed?

Regardless of if you agree, i think it best to step back from this line of argumentation.  When I was Protestant, if I had read your posts on this matter, it would have done nothing but cement my belief that Catholics conjur the dead

LOL well, I can understand that. There is a great deal of ignorance out there.

But Samuel did not appear as the result of any “conjuring”. In fact the conjurer was the one who was most shocked! Those who belong to God are animated by God, and such appearances can only happen when He empowers them to happen.

 

[hn160]

As Catholics we believe in the seven tradition sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, anointing, orders, and matrimony). “Mainline” Protestants believe in only 2 (baptism & “the Lord’s Supper”). Do other Protestants (e.g. Non-Denominational Evangelicals, Baptists, & Fundamentalists) believe in NO sacraments?

The more important question is what they believe in what happens in the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans believe that we receive Christ’s Body in the host and His Blood in the wine and we receive the forgiveness of sins. Most Evangelicals are some form of Calvinist as are Baptist. Calvinist believe that Christ Body is confined to heaven and only His spiritual presence is on earth. When they partake of the Holy Supper, some believe that their souls ascend to heaven. We believe in the Two Natures of Christ that He is both God and man and those Natures can not be separated. The Concordia Publishing House has a very good book on difference in Churches. “The Lutheran Difference”

 

[Kliska]

The more important question is what they believe in what happens in the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans believe that we receive Christ’s Body in the host and His Blood in the wine and we receive the forgiveness of sins. Most Evangelicals are some form of Calvinist as are Baptist. Calvinist believe that Christ Body is confined to heaven and only His spiritual presence is on earth. When they partake of the Holy Supper, some believe that their souls ascend to heaven. We believe in the Two Natures of Christ that He is both God and man and those Natures can not be separated. The Concordia Publishing House has a very good book on difference in Churches. “The Lutheran Difference”

Question then; wouldn’t every single time this sacrament occurs be a second coming… We are told He is coming back a certain way for a second time, but if He is coming back to earth every single Eucharist, does that not contradict?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Question then; wouldn’t every single time this sacrament occurs be a second coming… We are told He is coming back a certain way for a second time, but if He is coming back to earth every single Eucharist, does that not contradict?

No not at all

Every time he is “accepted in someone’s heart” does that contradict the second coming?

 

[Kliska]

No not at all

Every time he is “accepted in someone’s heart” does that contradict the second coming?

The difference would be that we don’t believe that He is physically in someone’s heart. Meaning His literal physical body is not inside one’s heart. Is He really present? Yes. This is one reason why I can accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but I don’t see through the lens of Aristotelian Transubstantiation. In the case of Lutherans they don’t believe in “consubstantiation” but in effect it would be the same question to them; if Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, then if the Eucharist is dropped on the floor, His body would be touching the earth once more. Hence the (at least seeming) contradiction with the Second Coming.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The difference would be that we don’t believe that He is physically in someone’s heart. Meaning His literal physical body is not inside one’s heart. Is He really present? Yes. This is one reason why I can accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but I don’t see through the lens of Aristotelian Transubstantiation. In the case of Lutherans they don’t believe in “consubstantiation” but in effect it would be the same question to them; if Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, then if the Eucharist is dropped on the floor, His body would be touching the earth once more. Hence the (at least seeming) contradiction with the Second Coming.

And we don’t believe that he triumphantly comes in his human form to judge the living and the dead in the Eucharist!

This is the most bizarre objection I have ever heard.

 

[Kliska]

And we don’t believe that he triumphantly comes in his human form to judge the living and the dead in the Eucharist!

This is the most bizarre objection I have ever heard.

I never contended that is a belief, but we are talking about literal flesh and blood. The defining moment of the second coming is when Jesus literally sets His foot on earth. He tells us that when He comes back, we shall see Him arrive as He left. If Jesus literally inhabits the Eucharist in the sense of Transubstantiation (or Consub.) how is that not a contradiction?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I never contended that is a belief, but we are talking about literal flesh and blood. The defining moment of the second coming is when Jesus literally sets His foot on earth. He tells us that when He comes back, we shall see Him arrive as He left. If Jesus literally inhabits the Eucharist in the sense of Transubstantiation (or Consub.) how is that not a contradiction?

The real presence is a mystical gift from God. The host does not walk around teaching, judging, eating, drinking.

That is the Jesus that will come again, as you said .

To compare the Eucharist to the second coming involves so many incredible errors of understanding, I sm not even sure where to start.

I guess I can say,

Paul understood it in 1 Corinthians when he said we could profane the body and blood of Christ by taking communion unworthily .

Ignatius of Antioch had no problem talking of it in 107AD

JUSTIN MARTYR had no problem with it in 120AD.

COUNTLESS THEOLOGIANS from that time on have discussed it. ALL apostolic churches and even many Protestants believe this real presence.

Do you think we just ignore the texts on the second coming? Or perhaps, you just misunderstand something.

 

[Kliska]

The real presence is a mystical gift from God. The host does not walk around teaching, judging, eating, drinking.

That is the Jesus that will come again, as you said .

To compare the Eucharist to the second coming involves so many incredible errors of understanding, I sm not even sure where to start.

It’s not error when the specific teaching, such as Transubstantiation, is very specific about the type of Real Presence. If the wafer literally becomes Jesus; body, blood, soul and divinity, then He touches the altar and the earth physically. But He did not describe any such form of His coming to earth.

Practices such as Eucharistic Adoration underscores what I am saying; Jesus is literally and physically present in the Monstrance. He would be here on Earth, according to the specific Aristotelian idea; Jesus come to earth again.