Questions for any Protestants

[dcana]

May I ask, benhur, what church you belong to?

Thank you

 

[dcana]

Why ? Does it need to be re-encated, re-presented for it to be once and for all, to be eternal, continual ?

The Sacrifice is not re-enacted. It is re-presented. No, it need not be re-presented to be once-for-all, eternal, or continual. It is those things because of the one who offered it. Because of the one who offered it, it enables that Sacrifice to take away the sins of men and makes it eternal and continual, such that we are able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion. If we were not able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion now, then neither would you, benhur, be enabled to have your sins forgiven by it now. The Sacrifice is before the Father, who is outside of time, in eternity, now and always.

Reminds me of Fury, the new tank movie. The foot soldiers would follow behind the protection and power of the Tank. That is OK for fighting the enemy of our souls but not for approaching the Father (for the battle has already been won, and we are already seated in heavenly places).

Huh? So you say.

This is what holy Scripture says:
"But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. "

We can approach the Father because of the Son’s Sacrifice, and we unite ourselves to Him in all things, including in His Sacrifice. Are we not the Body of Christ? Does the Body not share in the sufferings of the Head?

As an early Father writes ,“He is in need of nothing, even from us, save the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”. Eucharist =Thanksgiving, for what He offered for us, and not vice versa.

Nothing follows from this. He is indeed in need of nothing. He is perfect and complete within Himself as God, We are in need of Him. And, according to holy Scripture, there is a sense in which His sufferings are incomplete. What they are lacking is our participation in them:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

That’s what “God-breathed” Scripture says. Take it or leave it. Notice Paul says his sufferings are for “your sake” (the Colossians) and, moreover, for the “sake of his body, the church.” (every baptised person on the face of the earth). They are not for Christ’s sake.

They ate manna in the wilderness and died. If you eat Christ’s flesh in any fashion you shall die also. Those who spiritually believe in the eating for remembrance, in the Giver ( of manna or the Christ), shall live forever in the hereafter.

Where did you get this? Can you please quote the chapter and verse of the Bible in which this is found? Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, you must be able to tell me where that is found in the Bible, else it is nothing but a man-made tradition.

That’s what you say. Here’s what the God-man says about partaking of His flesh and blood which He has given for the LIFE of the world:

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Notice there are no references to eating this way or that way. the like of which you have come up with (quite unbiblically), but simply eating.

I try not to define your doctrine apart from what you say it is, please don’t define ours.
It is not “common” as so said by early fathers, we eat "not as common bread".

The Holy Eucharist is not “common bread” because it is not bread at all, only in appearance. Otherwise, bread is bread.

Then why do you add these words, ala OT, “Pray that our sacrifice be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father,… May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…and so we bring you these gifts, we ask that you make them holy”?

Because the re-presentation is happening at the hands of a man, an ordained man who is a priest of God, acting in persona Christi, but still a man. The gifts are made “holy” through the working and power of the Holy Spirit, as He changes them into the Body and Blood of Christ. They become not only holy, but the Holy of Holy of Holies. I’d say that qualifies as being “holy”.

Exactly . It is His sacrifice not ours. It is His gift to give to us, not ours to give to Him. Eucharist means we cease from these OT paradigms and give wondrous praise and thanksgiving. That is the closest it comes to “sacrifice”, **of praise **, for which we need not ask permission to give, or to sanctify, or accept, for in faith we confess jubilantly that it already is, beyond a shadow of doubt.

Agreed, it is His Sacrifice and gift to us. And there is no greater gift to us that He can give us, nor gift that can be given, since it is He Himself. Jesus’s self-sacrifice was the culmination and fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices. It was the ultimate (in both senses of the word) OT sacrifice. Although, of course, it is not in fact an OT Sacrifice. It is the one and only NT Sacrifice which is the “New Covenant” (= “New Testament”) in His Blood." It has not “ceased” nor ever will. It is eternal. In John’s vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation, he sees “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.”

con’t

 

[dcana]

The Sacrifice is not re-enacted. It is re-presented. No, it need not be re-presented to be once-for-all, eternal, or continual. It is those things because of the one who offered it. Because of the one who offered it, it enables that Sacrifice to take away the sins of men and makes it eternal and continual, such that we are able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion. If we were not able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion now, then neither would you, benhur, be enabled to have your sins forgiven by it now. The Sacrifice is before the Father, who is outside of time, in eternity, now and always.

Huh? So you say.

This is what holy Scripture says:
"But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. "

We can approach the Father because of the Son’s Sacrifice, and we unite ourselves to Him in all things, including in His Sacrifice. Are we not the Body of Christ? Does the Body not share in the sufferings of the Head?

Nothing follows from this. He is indeed in need of nothing. He is perfect and complete within Himself as God, We are in need of Him. And, according to holy Scripture, there is a sense in which His sufferings are incomplete. What they are lacking is our participation in them:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

That’s what “God-breathed” Scripture says. Take it or leave it. Notice Paul says his sufferings are for “your sake” (the Colossians) and, moreover, for the “sake of his body, the church.” (every baptised person on the face of the earth). They are not for Christ’s sake.

Where did you get this? Can you please quote the chapter and verse of the Bible in which this is found? Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, you must be able to tell me where that is found in the Bible, else it is nothing but a man-made tradition.

That’s what you say. Here’s what the God-man says about partaking of His flesh and blood which He has given for the LIFE of the world:

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Notice there are no references to eating this way or that way. the like of which you have come up with (quite unbiblically), but simply eating.

The Holy Eucharist is not “common bread” because it is not bread at all, only in appearance. Otherwise, bread is bread.

Because the re-presentation is happening at the hands of a man, an ordained man who is a priest of God, acting in persona Christi, but still a man. The gifts are made “holy” through the working and power of the Holy Spirit, as He changes them into the Body and Blood of Christ. They become not only holy, but the Holy of Holy of Holies. I’d say that qualifies as being “holy”.

Agreed, it is His Sacrifice and gift to us. And there is no greater gift to us that He can give us, nor gift that can be given, since it is He Himself. Jesus’s self-sacrifice was the culmination and fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices. It was the ultimate (in both senses of the word) OT sacrifice. Although, of course, it is not in fact an OT Sacrifice. It is the one and only NT Sacrifice which is the “New Covenant” (= “New Testament”) in His Blood." It has not “ceased” nor ever will. It is eternal. In John’s vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation, he sees “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.”

con’t

 

[dcana]

Some by consubstantiation, some by transubstantiation, some by spiritual, some by symbolic, and some without definition, all universally Eucharisting, giving thanks for Calvary in remembrance and expectation for His coming again.

God bless

No, it should be quite clear from what I’ve written that by “we do what they did” I meant Catholics (and Orthodox) do what Jesus and the Apostles did. No Protestant on earth does what they did and what Christ commands us to do.

Peace of Christ to you

come on in! the water’s fine!

 

[dcana]

I guess I should apologize for asking what church you belonged to, since after asking, you seem to have skedaddled. Sorry. I was just curious as to the particular way your church celebrates communion.

And also for my rather abrupt tone. I can’t help it - it’s the way I think and consequently, the way I write. Can you believe I’ve been accused - by my own family, no less! - for being too much of a black-and-white kind of thinker? Oh well. Maybe it’s not always the best way to solve problems or think about things, but in my opinion, it usually is.

 

[joe371]

The Sacrifice is not re-enacted. It is re-presented. No, it need not be re-presented to be once-for-all, eternal, or continual. It is those things because of the one who offered it. Because of the one who offered it, it enables that Sacrifice to take away the sins of men and makes it eternal and continual, such that we are able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion. If we were not able to enter into it in receiving Holy Communion now, then neither would you, benhur, be enabled to have your sins forgiven by it now. The Sacrifice is before the Father, who is outside of time, in eternity, now and always.

Huh? So you say.

This is what holy Scripture says:
"But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. "

We can approach the Father because of the Son’s Sacrifice, and we unite ourselves to Him in all things, including in His Sacrifice. Are we not the Body of Christ? Does the Body not share in the sufferings of the Head?

Nothing follows from this. He is indeed in need of nothing. He is perfect and complete within Himself as God, We are in need of Him. And, according to holy Scripture, there is a sense in which His sufferings are incomplete. What they are lacking is our participation in them:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

That’s what “God-breathed” Scripture says. Take it or leave it. Notice Paul says his sufferings are for “your sake” (the Colossians) and, moreover, for the “sake of his body, the church.” (every baptised person on the face of the earth). They are not for Christ’s sake.

Where did you get this? Can you please quote the chapter and verse of the Bible in which this is found? Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, you must be able to tell me where that is found in the Bible, else it is nothing but a man-made tradition.

That’s what you say. Here’s what the God-man says about partaking of His flesh and blood which He has given for the LIFE of the world:

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Notice there are no references to eating this way or that way. the like of which you have come up with (quite unbiblically), but simply eating.

The Holy Eucharist is not “common bread” because it is not bread at all, only in appearance. Otherwise, bread is bread.

Because the re-presentation is happening at the hands of a man, an ordained man who is a priest of God, acting in persona Christi, but still a man. The gifts are made “holy” through the working and power of the Holy Spirit, as He changes them into the Body and Blood of Christ. They become not only holy, but the Holy of Holy of Holies. I’d say that qualifies as being “holy”.

Agreed, it is His Sacrifice and gift to us. And there is no greater gift to us that He can give us, nor gift that can be given, since it is He Himself. Jesus’s self-sacrifice was the culmination and fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices. It was the ultimate (in both senses of the word) OT sacrifice. Although, of course, it is not in fact an OT Sacrifice. It is the one and only NT Sacrifice which is the “New Covenant” (= “New Testament”) in His Blood." It has not “ceased” nor ever will. It is eternal. In John’s vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation, he sees “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.”

con’t

 

[joe371]

No, it should be quite clear from what I’ve written that by “we do what they did” I meant Catholics (and Orthodox) do what Jesus and the Apostles did. No Protestant on earth does what they did and what Christ commands us to do.

Peace of Christ to you

come on in! the water’s fine!

And they (not all Protestant churches) don’t believe what Paul said about discerning Jesus’ body in the Eucharist…

 

[MaryT777]

May I ask, benhur, what church you belong to?

Thank you

It seems easier for some people to discuss what is wrong with Catholicism than discuss what their PARTICULAR denomination or belief system is.

 

[joe371]

It seems easier for some people to discuss what is wrong with Catholicism than discuss what their PARTICULAR denomination or belief system is.

True, but it does seem like a harmless question…:shrug:and sort of relevant because he claims we all (Protestants and Catholics) belong to the catholic church.

 

[benhur]

Jesus’ work on the cross: Nope. it does it need to be re-encated, re-presented for it to be once and for all. However, it is a command of Jesus.

To remember by re encactment but not re-presenting, re-propitiating.

Who said that? (Benhur- “They ate manna in the wilderness and died. If you eat Christ’s flesh in any fashion you shall die also.”)

“It is given unto man to die once…” AS the eating is spiritual so is the reward. It is not a literal eating as it is not a literal “not dying”.

Which verse says: Those who spiritually believe in the eating for remembrance **shall live forever in the hereafter? **

You are right. It says those who believe shall live forever.

:yup:The sacrifice of the Mass is Jesus’ body and blood.

For you it is a sacrifice. For all of us it is a remembrance of His sacrifice thru the “ceremony and its representative elements”. The changing of the elements is where many differ.

Not a genuine sacrifice for your church? OK. : )

Only of praise and thanksgiving=Eucharist.

So, in your opinion, Jesus is offering up wine to the Father while telling his disciples, visa-vis the cup of wine: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins? OK.

Shall be poured out . The Last Supper is representative of what was about to happen. His Blood had not been shed yet.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves

Yes, they did not discern the Body of Christ, the One Loaf of Unity, and had factions, and one ate while the other went hungry, right there whilst “Remembering”.

 

[benhur]

May I ask, benhur, what church you belong to?

Thank you

non- denominational. Otherwise I like baptists and wish they were penetcostal also. Sorry have not been on this thread for awhile.Usually then follow up in the order that posts were received.

 

[benhur]

The Sacrifice is not re-enacted. It is re-presented. No, it need not be re-presented to be once-for-all, eternal, or continual.

Why is it re-presented to the Father ? it is like He gives you a gift and you continually give it back??? You even asked/pray that He be pleased with it ???
What should and is continually offered to the Father is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and we already know Calvary is pleasing and acceptable to Him, as is praise and thanksgiving for it. Hence Eucharist.
.

Are we not the Body of Christ? Does the Body not share in the sufferings of the Head?

Yes, we are the Body, and what hurts one (sin or persecution) part hurts all . Calvary does not “hurt” anyone anymore.

Nothing follows from this. He is indeed in need of nothing. He is perfect and complete within Himself as God, We are in need of Him. And, according to holy Scripture, there is a sense in which His sufferings are incomplete. What they are lacking is our participation in them:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete **what is lacking **in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

I prefer this translation, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church” KJV. I prefer not to even come close to say Christ’s afflictions are “lacking” in any fashion. Christs’ **mediatorial **sufferings are usually referred to as the" cross" ,“death”, “blood” and not sufferings(per Pulpit commentary). If you mean His and Paul’s and our **ministerial **sufferings , yes, that is continually being filled by present day believers. I (and Paul) would differentiate Christ’s atoning “suffering-Calvary” form ours. We are however, are brothers in affliction for the gospel sake , as was Christ.

• Another words Christ suffered on the Cross for our sins (we do not share this but receive it in faith and thanksgiving)* but He also suffered due to His ministry, which is what Paul talks of us "sharing’’ and we also suffer (not for merit but for others/church).

Can you please quote the chapter and verse of the Bible in which this is found?

"Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died".
But here is the* bread that comes down from heaven*, which anyone may eat and not die." John 6:49,50 "Just as people are destined to die once,.Heb9:27

OT Jews ate manna and died. We (Christians) eat Him and we die. John is not literal like manna eating or His flesh eating. It is a spiritual eating as the reward is spiritual(not having the second death).

This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Jesus is differentiating literal eating from spiritual eating. Do you really think those that ate manna are all in hell? None of them have eternal life thru the Abrahamic, Mosaic covenant? It is not only eating something different (manna is now flesh and blood) but eating differently(teeth and belly is now spiritual eating hence figurative thru literal elements).

Notice there are no references to eating this way or that way. the like of which you have come up with (quite unbiblically), but simply eating.

I simply eat the elements also. Transubstantiation is not “simple”, nor foreshadowed in OT. He simply asked me to believe in His incarnation, death and resurrection and soon return, not that I am really eating flesh.

The Holy Eucharist is not “common bread” because it is not bread at all, only in appearance. Otherwise, bread is bread.

I do not get that (transubstantiation) from the early father I quoted. Ceremonial bread can never be common.

Because the re-presentation is happening at the hands of a man, an ordained man who is a priest of God, acting in persona Christi, but still a man. The gifts are made “holy” through the working and power of the Holy Spirit, as He changes them into the Body and Blood of Christ. They become not only holy, but the Holy of Holy of Holies. I’d say that qualifies as being “holy”.

Consecrating is consecrating, by any of our means (Trans…, consub…, spiritual, symbolic) It is a holy remembrance ceremony done in thanksgiving. There should be no such thing as a re-propitiatory sacrifice.

Agreed, it is His Sacrifice and gift to us. And there is no greater gift to us that He can give us, nor gift that can be given, since it is He Himself. Jesus’s self-sacrifice was the culmination and fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices. It was the ultimate (in both senses of the word) OT sacrifice. Although, of course, it is not in fact an OT Sacrifice. It is the one and only NT Sacrifice which is the “New Covenant” (= “New Testament”) in His Blood."

Cool . This is mentioned in your Mass. Unfortunately, just after this Remembrance and Thanksgiving is a re-offereing up to God which I find unscriptural. They are only a few added words, but they have meaning , and change the whole tenor of the ceremony.

It has not “ceased” nor ever will. It is eternal. In John’s vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation, he sees “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.”

Yes, its efficaciousness (atoning power) is forever, as are it’s Remembrance and Thanksgiving for it.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

No, it should be quite clear from what I’ve written that by “we do what they did” I meant Catholics (and Orthodox) do what Jesus and the Apostles did. No Protestant on earth does what they did and what Christ commands us to do.

The earliest church was more simple both in universality of “just do it” and allowing varied deeper speculation from con…to spiritual to symbolic, even a mixture of all.

come on in! the water’s fine!

only if it a hot tub-remember summer ?

 

[benhur]

I guess I should apologize for asking what church you belonged to, since after asking, you seem to have skedaddled. Sorry. I was just curious as to the particular way your church celebrates communion.

And also for my rather abrupt tone. I can’t help it - it’s the way I think and consequently, the way I write. Can you believe I’ve been accused - by my own family, no less! - for being too much of a black-and-white kind of thinker? Oh well. Maybe it’s not always the best way to solve problems or think about things, but in my opinion, it usually is.

WE are alike in this. I don’t like it either when posters "disappear’’. From my responses I hope you see there is much value to your sharing.

 

[benhur]

And they (not all Protestant churches) don’t believe what Paul said about discerning Jesus’ body in the Eucharist…

Come on Joe, be fair , if even to your sister. I think you know we also cherish that specific scripture. We both believe Paul. Charity would lead to say we just have a different understanding of the verse. We do not disbelieve Paul, just your understanding of him.

 

[rinnie]

All can** teach**, discern, and settle, just that some are gifted at it, even given of God for our benefit. There isn’t one parent that doesn’t display this. Again our "makeup’ is basic and from there God matures and gifts for the edifying of the body. It is not all or nothing, this gifting, this authority.

I don’t think so, although we have authority over our kids are you saying we have never been wrong in using this authority? That we as parents have authority and since we have it over our kids we are perfect? Boy you should meet my kids!

And the bible disagrees with you, it says God gives us all different gifts, some to teach, etc. We all have different gifts that God calls us to use.

For some yes being parents is a gift given to us by God, for some being unmarried and a Priest, Nun, or unmarried and just that.

And the Authority God gave to the Church is ALL, All authority comes from Jesus Christ.

The Authority God gives a Priest to retain sin in his name is authority from God, Loose sin is authority to God. How? Simple God gave it to Priests from the laying of hands, which we call Holy Orders.

 

[rinnie]

Come on Joe, be fair , if even to your sister. I think you know we also cherish that specific scripture. We both believe Paul. Charity would lead to say we just have a different understanding of the verse. We do not disbelieve Paul, just your understanding of him.

Correct, but God does not want us to have different understandings of his scripture, that’s why he left us the Catholic Church. ONE teaching.

 

[benhur]

Correct, but God does not want us to have different understandings of his scripture, that’s why he left us the Catholic Church. ONE teaching.

The very nature of guidance (into all truth) suggests it is conditional guidance.

 

[benhur]

I don’t think so, although we have authority over our kids are you saying we have never been wrong in using this authority?

Are you saying the Church has never been wrong in using its authority ?

And the bible disagrees with you, it says God gives us all different gifts, some to teach, etc. We all have different gifts that God calls us to use.

Pretty much what I said. If your display good use of authority in your home you just might be gifted to be a deacon/elder. No one has no authority/discernment, if even over one self. From there God gives gifts to bigger and better things.

 

[ericc]

They you are saying St Paul denied the power given to him by Christ, and refused to forgive sin in the name of God?

Then why did he state in 2 Cor 5:18 that Christ gave US the ministry of Reconciliation.

You are saying he states he had a mission from God to forgive sin, but refused to do so? How do you figure?

The same way that some Protestants refuse to eat the Body of Christ and try all sorts of word games to justify why they didn’t do what was commanded by Christ. Listening to the Church being another. One word, make that two - disobedience and excuses.