Protestants, it says so in the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Egg4christ]

in answer to the original question, i belong to a non denominational church and they actually have annointed people with oil. It’s not neccisarily a sacrament, and i don’t think it’s ever been done in front of a group of people, but they anointed my sister with oil while she was in the hospital.

 

[Wisdom]

Well protestants pick and choose what they want to focus on the Bible anyway. SO the Lutheran doesn’t want to annoint people with oil so he doesn’t emphasize James. The Pentacostal sees a pretty neat thing here and maybe overemphasizes the passage and gets out buckets of oil after every service. ITs pick and choose from the Bible and without tradition every denomination is free to do what they want to do with certain passages.

And of course a sacrament requires holy orders anyway only a presbyter ie priests in communion with an apostolic bishop or the bishop himself has the power to confer the sacrament of annointing of the sick, what the pentacostal does even with good intention is just smear oil.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Egg4christ:

in answer to the original question, i belong to a non denominational church and they actually have annointed people with oil. It’s not neccisarily a sacrament, and i don’t think it’s ever been done in front of a group of people, but they anointed my sister with oil while she was in the hospital.

They may not want to call it a “Sacrament” but that is exactly what it is. Definition of Sacrament in the plain sense: A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning. As the act of Matrimony in your church is a Sacrament whether you want to call it that. A Rose is a Rose is a Rose, call it by any other name, it is still a Rose…

 

[O.S.Luke]

Paris Blues:

In James 5:14-15, it says:

• 14 ** Is anyone among you sick? 6* He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,* 15 ** and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven

*It mentions oil in there and that’s exactly what the CC does, the Anointing of the Sick as a Sacrament.

So my question to you Protestants is, where’s your oil??? Why don’t you use oil to do that since you do and believe whatever it says in the Bible?

Or do many Protestants overlook the word oil or something?

Anyone want to take a stand at this?

I am United Methodist, and the Service of Healing/Anointing with Oil is a standard rite in the church.

I don’t understand the question. (?)

O+

 

[sunnygirl807]

This thread reminds me of the day my fiance’s mother and two aunts tried to anoint me with oil. They said I needed it to purge me of the demon that lead me to Catholicism. Mind you all three quit their jobs because the devil had taken over everyone working there. One is afraid to touch people because “the devil can just jump of them and take over you”. Amazing! I don’t know exactly what type of religion they are because I have never heard of them actually going to church.

 

[Contarini]

Paris Blues:

In James 5:14-15, it says:

• 14 ** Is anyone among you sick? 6* He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,* 15 ** and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven

*It mentions oil in there and that’s exactly what the CC does, the Anointing of the Sick as a Sacrament.

So my question to you Protestants is, where’s your oil??? Why don’t you use oil to do that since you do and believe whatever it says in the Bible?

Or do many Protestants overlook the word oil or something?

Anyone want to take a stand at this?

Paris,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but lots of Protestants do anointing with oil. When my mother was a missionary in Africa, she even anointed a dog that had been bitten by a cobra. And it got better. . . .

You may have been so unfortunate as to grow up among Protestants who didn’t practice this rite. But I assure you that many do. (Obviously Episcopalians do, but plenty of others do as well. My mother was/is not an Episcopalian–she was nondenominational at the time she anointed the dog, and she’s now Methodist.)

Edwin

 

[JoeyWarren]

sunnygirl807:

This thread reminds me of the day my fiance’s mother and two aunts tried to anoint me with oil. They said I needed it to purge me of the demon that lead me to Catholicism. Mind you all three quit their jobs because the devil had taken over everyone working there. One is afraid to touch people because “the devil can just jump of them and take over you”. Amazing! I don’t know exactly what type of religion they are because I have never heard of them actually going to church.

that is almost funny

 

[JoeyWarren]

My Dad and Stepmom annointed the KJV bible they gave me for graduation hoping the annointing would convert me back to Protestantism…You should’ve seen her face when I told her I use that bible to debate Protestants with…SACRILEGE was most evident…I might as well as said I was God. would not have gotten a more shocked look.

 

[Shibboleth]

Wisdom:

Well protestants pick and choose what they want to focus on the Bible anyway. SO the Lutheran doesn’t want to annoint people with oil so he doesn’t emphasize James. The Pentacostal sees a pretty neat thing here and maybe overemphasizes the passage and gets out buckets of oil after every service. ITs pick and choose from the Bible and without tradition every denomination is free to do what they want to do with certain passages.

And of course a sacrament requires holy orders anyway only a presbyter ie priests in communion with an apostolic bishop or the bishop himself has the power to confer the sacrament of annointing of the sick, what the pentacostal does even with good intention is just smear oil.

I don’t care how much you emphasize or de-emphasize James. There is nothing in that verse that talks about the anointing of oil dispensing any sort of Grace and certainly nothing that links it to Christ other than it is Scripture and Christ is the Word.

The writings of the Church Fathers are where we get the major supporting documentation on the fact that anointing of the sick is a Sacrament.

I believe that the Anointing of the Sick is a Sacrament also but we need to be fair when looking at this issue. James 5:14 doesn’t give us enough information to formulate an argument. I suppose you can get upset at the fact that they disregard the Church Fathers on this but to take a stand on this in this context is kind of like getting mad at ostriches because they cannot fly.

Protestants should take far more heed of the writings of the early Church but I would start in other areas when trying convince them of this fact.

 

[Wisdom]

Shibboleth:

I don’t care how much you emphasize or de-emphasize James. There is nothing in that verse that talks about the anointing of oil dispensing any sort of Grace and certainly nothing that links it to Christ other than it is Scripture and Christ is the Word.

The writings of the Church Fathers are where we get the major supporting documentation on the fact that anointing of the sick is a Sacrament.

I believe that the Anointing of the Sick is a Sacrament also but we need to be fair when looking at this issue. James 5:14 doesn’t give us enough information to formulate an argument. I suppose you can get upset at the fact that they disregard the Church Fathers on this but to take a stand on this in this context is kind of like getting mad at ostriches because they cannot fly.

Protestants should take far more heed of the writings of the early Church but I would start in other areas when trying convince them of this fact.

Gee I didn’t know you were the magesterium.
CHeck the cathechism is directly refers to this passage in the BIble. It is the major scriptural passage supporint the sacrament. Of course the church fathers are a key tool in understanding the passage. Geez we are in agreement here what crawled up your underwear?

 

[Shibboleth]

Wisdom:

Gee I didn’t know you were the magesterium.
CHeck the cathechism is directly refers to this passage in the BIble. It is the major scriptural passage supporint the sacrament. Of course the church fathers are a key tool in understanding the passage. Geez we are in agreement here what crawled up your underwear?

I am practicing bodily mortification and consequently I am wearing wool underwear — just kidding.

First off I am Eastern Orthodox so depending on what you mean by the Magisterium it isn’t much of an argument in my eyes – although I do respect the opinions of the western Bishops.

Yes James does speak of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick… and in any defense of that Sacrament it would be foolish not to include this writing but there just isn’t enough in the Scriptures to convince a Protestant that Anointing of the sick constitutes a Sacrament.

Wow I just looked up the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and look what I found…

The genuine sacraments, therefore, are Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, **and absolution (which is the sacrament of penitence), ** for these rites have the commandment of God and the promise of grace, which is the heart of the New Testament."

For some reason I didn’t think that Lutherans thought absolution was a sacrament… we learn something new every day.

 

[bengal_fan]

Many protestant churches do believe in annointing the sick with oil (yes, even the mainline ones). My friend who is a presbyterian minister keeps a little bottle of oil with him at all times. For those of you who never experienced it in a protestant church, perhaps that’s because you weren’t sick (if you were and never experienced it, then I think you might be in the minority).
There are no protestant churches who discount the book of James and “uninspired”. Not one. Luther did not want to include the book of James (which he referred to as the “epistle of straw”) but was “shot down” by every other thinking protestant.
Protestants (as was said before, and I believe they are wrong in this belief) don’t see John 6 as literal. They do believe in the passage but they see it as imagery. Again, I believe they are wrong in this interpretation, but you can’t say they don’t believe it.

 

[mike182d]

Paris Blues:

In James 5:14-15, it says:
*14 *Is anyone among you sick? 6 He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord…

You may want to take it a step further, Paris, and emphasize how James specifically mentions “presbyters” as performing this function. He doesn’t say “any of the faithful” or “pastors” or what not. He calls upon the office of “presbyter” or “presbyteros” in the Greek which is where the word “priest” comes from - its an abbreviated English form of the word.

The New Testament also lays out the duties and functions of the presbyters in the Bible and wouldn’t you know? Its a lot like the functions of a priest.

 

[JoeyWarren]

mike182d:

You may want to take it a step further, Paris, and emphasize how James specifically mentions “presbyters” as performing this function. He doesn’t say “any of the faithful” or “pastors” or what not. He calls upon the office of “presbyter” or “presbyteros” in the Greek which is where the word “priest” comes from - its an abbreviated English form of the word.

The New Testament also lays out the duties and functions of the presbyters in the Bible and wouldn’t you know? Its a lot like the functions of a priest.

I am looking at my Greek and the primary definition is a senior

pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

 

[Wisdom]

Shibboleth:

I am practicing bodily mortification and consequently I am wearing wool underwear — just kidding.

First off I am Eastern Orthodox so depending on what you mean by the Magisterium it isn’t much of an argument in my eyes – although I do respect the opinions of the western Bishops.

Yes James does speak of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick… and in any defense of that Sacrament it would be foolish not to include this writing but there just isn’t enough in the Scriptures to convince a Protestant that Anointing of the sick constitutes a Sacrament.

Wow I just looked up the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and look what I found…

For some reason I didn’t think that Lutherans thought absolution was a sacrament… we learn something new every day.

Yes Luther did beleive in absoultion bad news is Lutheran church’s in the 1800’s took out thier confessionals and promoted 2 sacraments as the norm.

 

[Wisdom]

bengal_fan:

Many protestant churches do believe in annointing the sick with oil (yes, even the mainline ones). My friend who is a presbyterian minister keeps a little bottle of oil with him at all times. For those of you who never experienced it in a protestant church, perhaps that’s because you weren’t sick (if you were and never experienced it, then I think you might be in the minority).
There are no protestant churches who discount the book of James and “uninspired”. Not one. Luther did not want to include the book of James (which he referred to as the “epistle of straw”) but was “shot down” by every other thinking protestant.
Protestants (as was said before, and I believe they are wrong in this belief) don’t see John 6 as literal. They do believe in the passage but they see it as imagery. Again, I believe they are wrong in this interpretation, but you can’t say they don’t believe it.

That is interesting because Calvin denied the annointing of the sick had any value and denied it as a sacrament. Of course he denied the usefullness of Ash Wedneday but many Presbyterians and Calvinist also pracitce that as well. Calvin is probably spinning in his grave as his descendents have become err more Roman all the time.

 

[bengal_fan]

Wisdom:

That is interesting because Calvin denied the annointing of the sick had any value and denied it as a sacrament. Of course he denied the usefullness of Ash Wedneday but many Presbyterians and Calvinist also pracitce that as well. Calvin is probably spinning in his grave as his descendents have become err more Roman all the time.

Well, presbyterians don’t view Calvin as though he is the pope speaking ex cathedra either. Calvin denied it as a sacrament (just as he denied holy orders, eucharist, confession, matrimony as sacraments as well for he didn’t see them as being instituted by Christ… I don’t agree with Calvin, but those were his beliefs). He denied the anointing as having any medical healing powers (medicinal as the oil was thought of in Old Testament and New Testament times). But most reformers agreed that it was a spiritual act that had spiritual benefits. The other reason it was denied as a sacrament was because many were anointed with oil but not healed (in the worldly sense, although they did go to the Great Physician hopefully). And I doubt he is spinning in his grave since he is now able to know all of the truth.

 

[Kevan]

JoeyWarren:

I am looking at my Greek and the primary definition is a senior

pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

You are correct, Joey. The presbyter-priest connection is commonly misunderstood by some writers in these forums.

Although the English word “priest” is derived from the English word “presbyter,” the two words are not related in meaning.

A presbyter is an elder, and elders are mentioned often in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments. We know what elders were and what roles they fulfilled in the Israelite community.

A priest was someone who stood as a liason between man and God (or the gods). Priests are mentioned often in the Old and New Testaments. We know who they were and what they did.

Elders and priests were two distinct classes of men. When the Old Testament or the New Testament mentions elders, it is not referring to priests.

The only connection between the two groups is in the the way the English language evolved.

 

[Shibboleth]

Although you are close this is not exactly true. The meanings behind the word presbuteros is not limited to the English language. Very early in Church history we see the evolution of the word within the Greek language itself.

In the Bible one could be a presbuteros, diakonos, and episkopos at the same time because of the loose meaning but… I would say, and this is just a guess, by 120 A.D. the titles had become fully established as the Deacon, Priest, and Bishop that we know today.

We need to be careful though when taking to stringent of a stand on literal definitions the word apostolos by which we get the word Apostle simply means delegate or ambassador but of course apostolos means much more than that…

Even in NT Greek or the Koine Greek of the day presbuteros meant far more than just elder – they were an overseer of a group of people within an area so in that sense we already see the connection to the priestly class.

 

[Kevan]

Indeed, an elder was also a pastor and a bishop. In the New Testament those are three terms for the same office. But I did not say that an elder was not also one of those; I said that an elder and a priest were not the same in the Bible, and that is categorically true.

The priests were a distinct, identifiable group of men in both the Old and the New Testaments. There is a Greek word for priest and it has not relation to the word for elder (or pastor or bishop, for that matter). And in the OT, elders were a distinct, identifiable gropu of men with no priestly functions. Offhand, I cannot recall any priestly roles for elder, bishop, or pastor in the NT, either. But then, I’m a Fundamentalist, so what do you expect?