Protestants and John chapter 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7_Sorrows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kainosktisis said:
I used to be Baptist, & I recall that in my Baptist church of long ago, only the baptized were allowed to partake of communion - Baptist baptized, mind you.
Click to expand...
Yes. Some Baptists practic closed communion (literally only the members of their congregation since they don’t recognize “alien immersion”) other Baptists will permit people who were baptized by immersion in other churches. And then other Baptist churches will practice open communion.
kainosktisis said:
I recently had a discussion of sorts with my husband over this matter because we have a grown daughter who was never baptized who wants to get baptized (non-Catholic), & the subject had come up of partaking of communion. His nondenominational church teaches that you only need to believe (baptism not required) to partake of communion. I told him that’s not the practice of my Baptist church long ago. He said there were different views on the matter, & he went with the view his church teaches & my daughter took communion unbaptized. I was overruled & dismissed that way.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe baptism is “required” before you can take communion–in the sense of its a sin; however, it does make logical sense for a church to say baptism is the outward sign of inward regeneration so you need to be baptized before you go deeper. In Acts, the first thing Peter did was not to offer new converts communion but baptism. Logically and biblically speaking, baptism precedes communion. Wouldn’t the solution to this problem be to just go ahead and get her baptized?
 
Last edited:
She hasn’t been able to get it coordinated with that church. Either she’s on the road with my husband on business, or the monthly cycle gets in the way. Am starting to think my husband won’t remain with this church much longer.
 
The house of Annas was notorious even among the Jewish priests for their corruption. These so-called high priests were robbers, and it is not strange to believe that they even robbed God, as indeed they conspired against His Son.
 
ltwin said:
however, it does make logical sense for a church to say baptism is the outward sign of inward regeneration so you need to be baptized before you go deeper.
Click to expand...
I think this is the issue at hand. When reading John 6, this arguemet is no longer logical.
 
To enter into full communion with the Living God, one not only has to be clean and purified, but cleaned by the blood of Jesus in order to enter into a Marriage Covenant with God.

In every Covenant with God, a meal is shared, when the shedding of blood and eating of the sacrificial Lamb of God makes the eternal Covenant valid. Jesus Incarnate God made the eternal Covenant with God possible, between our humanity and God for all ages until He returns in His sacrificial body, blood, soul and divinity (Eucharist).

As Jesus divinely revealed; “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life”.

Thus in order to eat at the Lord’s table. You must be baptized.

Here is a note to ponder on about the Baptist. Although they baptize in the Blessed Trinity ( Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The Catholic Church recognizes their baptism falls under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. Although, their baptism may need to be con-validated in certain circumstances, never the less these are free to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church provided they are free to learn the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith and how God instituted the Sacrament of Baptism (through RCIA) in order to consider what God has made clean remain’s clean.
 
ltwin said:
These the virtue did convey
Click to expand...
7_Sorrows said:
As Catholics, we would be “starving” if we could only receive the Eucharist once or
twice a year.
Click to expand...
It’s not just Catholics. As a Protestant, I remember a time when I felt starved for communion, to the point of specifically praying for it (I think the church I was attending at the time did it quarterly or less). As soon as I was able to find a church on my own, I made a point of finding a liturgical one that had the Eucharist every week. I believe it is more than just a symbol but I’ve never been quite sure how to articulate it. In its most basic form, it boils down to, “I don’t know how or why, but something special happens and it’s different.” I also believe in a form of the real presence, although that’s a little more difficult to explain and I’m not sure it’s representative of any denomination.
 
Protestants are taught to interpret scripture with scripture. We hold verses like John 6:53 in tension with John 6:40 (and 6:35 - which is similar to his living water discussion with the woman at the well in John 4 (we’re believers but we still get physically thirsty and hungry, no?)).

That said, in general I think we celebrate our Lord’s supper far to infrequently, and in general, I believe that we do not treat it with the appropriate reverence and respect as accorded his table by our Catholic brothers and sisters.

God bless.
 
TULIPed said:
Protestants are taught to interpret scripture with scripture. We hold verses like John 6:53 in tension with John 6:40 (and 6:35 - which is similar to his living water discussion with the woman at the well in John 4 (we’re believers but we still get physically thirsty and hungry, no?)).
Click to expand...
Most of my life I was Lutheran, which I think counts as “Protestant”. We were taught to view John 6 in light of the Last Supper accounts, where Jesus clearly says “this is my body”.
Is is is.
 
Right you are. And we Protestants are nothing if not…dedicated…to what the Bible actually says.

I was just trying to use this point as an example that there are different ways of seeing the same thing. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”, we learn and interpret things differently - and still believe Christ is Lord and love him.
 
I converted from an evangelical protestant church and I don’t remember much study or examination of John 6, it was glossed over and presented as allegory. It’s funny looking back on it that our church stressed reading the Bible so much but preacher was free to pick whatever he wanted to study on Sunday, he could focus on the things he wanted and ignore what he didn’t. He could pluck a verse out to make a point without giving thought to the context in the text. That’s why we never heard the full bread of life discourse, or had Jesus’s language explained.
 
Both parts are equally important eat my flesh and drink my blood. Yet most Catholics don’t partake in the wine. Just the bread because someone said they didn’t have too.
 
Dhc8_Type said:
Yet most Catholics don’t partake in the wine. Just the bread because someone said they didn’t have too.
Click to expand...
For me, I started receiving (when I was younger) only the bread because I thought the wine was disgusting (I receive both now), but I don’t think we can say that “most” only receive the bread. In my own parish, for example, where I serve as an EMHC, most receive the Eucharist under both forms.
 
Last edited:
When I go to church with my wife about 90% of them skip the wine.
 
Dhc8_Type said:
Yet most Catholics don’t partake in the wine. Just the bread because someone said they didn’t have too.
Click to expand...
No Catholic partakes in ‘wine’ or ‘bread’. We partake in the Body and Blood.
 
AugustTherese said:
40.png
JonNC:
where Jesus clearly says “this is my body”
Click to expand...
…In, with, and under the bread…😉
Click to expand...
Exactly. The common vernacular that even St Paul used, “the bread we break…”, etc.
 
ACrosSticks said:
40.png
7_Sorrows:
The next several weeks our homilies will focus on John chapter 6 and the Eucharist and Jesus being the Bread of Life.

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?
Click to expand...
Since I visit multiple forums, and interact with many persons, I saw a protestant response in another forum, here if interested in it (warning it isn’t short) - Link

Would be interested in thoughts on the things therein.
Click to expand...
You are right. It is not short. Any way to sum it up?
 
AugustTherese said:
40.png
Dhc8_Type:
When I go to church with my wife about 90% of them skip the wine.
Click to expand...
You mean the Blood. And, Our Blessed Lord’s resurrected Body contains His Blood.
Click to expand...
Concommitance is, I believe, a valid belief. So, the person who cannot eat gluten, for example, receives all of the blessings of the Eucharist. Withholding the chalice from the laity contrary to Christ’s institution, not so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top