Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

In an earlier discussion which I began, titled "Was The Thief On The Cross A Christian - Or An Old Testament Jew?" -- I wrote: "Yes, we are told to 'Repent, and each of you be baptized' -- for that is the order of obedience Jesus Christ gave us -- that we repent, believe in Him, follow Him -- and profess to the world through baptism that we are Christ Followers."

And, BeterNu challenges, "All I ask, Bill, is that you supply scripture to prove that Jesus specified this as the "order of obedience." Show me from the Gospels or elsewhere in the New Testament where baptism is characterized as ordained by Jesus for the purpose of "showing the world that we are Christ Followers."

Where is it, Bill? You have claimed that this is a thing taught by Jesus. Where did He teach this -- book, chapter, and verse? After all, Bill, as you have said, "Any theology or doctrine we build upon the Bible -- MUST agree with all the Bible -- or it is false doctrine."

Now, show us where the Bible agrees with what you claim about "the order of obedience Jesus Christ gave us -- that we repent, believe in Him, follow Him -- and profess to the world through baptism that we are Christ Followers." Just where in scripture did Christ give us this "order of obedience" as it relates to the purpose of baptism?"


Gee, Beter, I am glad you asked. Did Jesus teach, or leave us, an "order of obedience" leading to salvation? Yes.

Matthew 28:19-20, "Go (be an evangelist, share the Gospel) therefore and make disciples (bring them to belief or faith in Christ) of all the nations, (then) baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (and, then) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Did Jesus leave us two ordinances to follow in obedience and remembrance of Him? Yes.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, i.e, Communion, are done in obedience and remembrance of Him. We normally use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the communion. But, even if the term “sacraments” is used -- it is never intended to imply that either of these two is necessary for a person to be saved.

Most Conservative Christian churches and believers consistently teach that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbolic and are not necessary for salvation. However, both hold significant importance in Conservative Christian practice and worship.

Throughout the New Testament, we are told to repent. In Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

In Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike."

In Acts 8:37-38, "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him."

And, in Acts 16:31, "They said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

Do you notice the order? First a person believes. At this point the person is saved, he/she is a child of God (John 1:12), he/she is indwelled, i.e., sealed, with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)

We are told in Ephesians 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

In Mark 1:8, John tells his followers, speaking of Jesus Christ, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." In other words, when you believe in Him, He will seal you with the Holy Spirit -- at that time.

Is there an order of salvation? Yes.

We read in Romans 10:9-10, "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." And, then, you follow Jesus Christ symbolically in death and resurrection through baptism.

And, regarding the ordinance of Communion, in Luke 22:19 we read, "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

So, Beter, my Friend -- I do believe that Scripture, the Bible, the Written Word of God -- most certainly tells us about salvation, how to attain salvation -- and the steps we must take to gain salvation in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ -- and, what we must do to be obedient to Him.

Beter, thank you for initiating this dialogue and giving me this opportunity to share the Word of God with our Forum Friends.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Did Jesus leave us two ordinances to follow in obedience and remembrance of Him? Yes.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, i.e, Communion, are done in obedience and remembrance of Him. We normally use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the communion. But, even if the term “sacraments” is used -- it is never intended to imply that either of these two is necessary for a person to be saved.


No, Bill. Baptism and Communion (THE HOLY EUCHARIST) are sacraments.
Always have been, always will be.
One what basis do you decide that "THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD" is symbolic? If that were the case, wouldn't Jesus have made that clear? He would have said "This cup represents my blood...". But, Our Lord says "THIS IS MY BLOOD".
And there were certainly more than two "ordinances" that Jesus left. His entire life was an ordinance, that we must follow to remain in His friendship.
"Feed My Sheep"
"Do this in rememberance of me"
"whatsoever you do to the least of my people,that you do unto me"
"repent and be baptized"
"confess your sins"

and 10 more biggies, that we call "Commandments".
So, my point is, we don't just repent, be baptized, and take communion once in a while, and call it a day.
Being a Christian is just not that easy, Bill, sorry to burst your bubble. How about fasting? Almsgiving? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? Hope for the hopeless, Tithing? etc etc etc. SO many more ordinances than these 2....

Bill Says.."Most Conservative Christian churches and believers consistently teach that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbolic and are not necessary for salvation"
And this is untrue. The Catholic Church is among the most conservative, and we don't believe the Lord's supper to be symbolic.
You need to get your conservative and liberals straightened out. You are just so wrong on this.
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
Being a Christian is just not that easy, Bill, sorry to burst your bubble. How about fasting? Almsgiving? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? Hope for the hopeless, Tithing? etc etc etc. SO many more ordinances than these 2.

Hi VP,

Yes, all of those things are Christian and morally right -- but, none of them bring us salvation. Until one is a Christian -- they may, or may not, mean a thing.

Everything you mentioned is "fruit" or proof of our salvation -- the "fruit" -- not the cause.

Otherwise, we would have a "works oriented" salvation. And, we know from Ephesians 2:8-9 that this is not true.

Yes, my Friend, salvation is just that easy: "He who believes HAS eternal life." In case you do not recognize those words -- Jesus said them, in John 6:47.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Sorry, doesn't cut it in my book. That was ONE statement He made. He made Oh, so many more. WHy do you always fall back on the one?

Jesus said "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT".
By this, He means we are to follow the example that He left. To strive to live a life as He did. He did so many works, Bill, so many good deeds, so many acts of mercy.He taught love, forgiveness, and how to live without judging.
And that is what He CALLS us to do.
Bill Gray, you have not even begun to answer the challenge I have been posing to you. What you have done, in the lengthy post with which you began this string, is something akin to what a student does on a test when he can not come up with the right answer to a question. That student just churns out a lot of material that skirts the edges of the question and that might--he hopes--deceive the teacher into believing that he (the student)has given a correct answer.

Well, Bill, that devious strategem doen't usually work, because most teachers see right through it and conclude that the student is just blowing out a bunch of verbiage that does not really address the question.

Just so,Bill, you have not answered the challenge I posed to you. Instead, you have mis-stated the issue I raised. You frame a question that I did not ask and then, in answering that question, you act as though you have answered my question, when in fact you have only answered your own question.

Here is the question you asked and then answered:

"Did Jesus leave us two ordinances to follow in obedience and remembrance of Him? Yes."

But, Bill, here is the question, the issue, that I actually posed to you:

"Show me from the Gospels or elsewhere in the New Testament where baptism is characterized as ordained by Jesus for the purpose of "showing the world that we are Christ Followers."

Nothing in your answer to yourself comes even close to addressing the issue I raised. Nothing in your answer finds any support in scripture for your claim that baptism was ordained by Jesus "for the purpose of showing the world that we are Christ followers."

Bill, your answer smacks of the same kind of peripheral verbiage that struggling student submitted in his misbegotten attempt to con his teacher into believing he knew the answer. And your non-answer to me will receive the same kind of credit that a savvy teacher gives to such a conniving student--namely NONE.

You have not provided any scriptural justification for what you have contended as the purpose for which baptism was ordained.

Once more, Bill, it is a simple issue:

You say that as part of the order of obedience that Jesus gave us, we are to be baptized for the purpose of "showing the world that we are Christ followers."

I have repeatedly asked for only one simple thing--that you provide scripture to show that either Jesus or any of the apostolic writers have taught anywhere that we are baptized for the purpose of "showing the world that we are Christ followers."

Your little discourse goes on and on about the sequence of the responses you say that a sinner is to make in order to be saved. My question was not about the sequence of these things, Bill. It boiled down to this simple question, which you continue to ignore:

WHERE, Bill, is there ANY scripture that establishes that baptism is for the purpose of "showing the world that we are Christ followers"?

In closing your un-responsive and evasive post, Bill, you say, "Beter, thank you for initiating this dialogue and giving me this opportunity to share the Word of God with our Forum Friends."

What you need to do, Bill, is either (1)show our Forum Friends the scripture that validates what you claim as the purpose of baptism or (2) apologize to our Forum Friends for claiming that the scriptures teach something that they simply do not teach!
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
Sorry, doesn't cut it in my book. That was ONE statement He made. He made Oh, so many more. WHy do you always fall back on the one?

Jesus said "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT".

Hi VP,

Actually, He said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the LIFE; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
We normally use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the communion.



Who is this "we?" Do you mean your small chapel? Hardcore Protestants? Grayites?

Please clarify. "We" does not mean much, but then you can define and/or redefine anything to suit your needs, much as Satan could quote scripture.

"Communion" is normally capitalized since it refers to the Body and Blood of Our Lord. It is not incorrect to capitalize any sacrament's name, but Eucharist, Communion, Lord's Supper, oh yeah, they get the respect of the capital letter in English. Well, most people do it, as convention. I guess that Grayites have their own rules.
OOps my water broke......."lest a man be born of the water AND the Spirit he shall in no ways enter the Kingdom of God...."
The water birth is a woman's labor.
A spiritual birth is asking the Holy Spirit to fill you..

And Jesus said , "take, eat in remberance of me


Also women should wear head coverings, and no cars were driven....SO NO CARS SHOLUD BE DRIVEN TO CHURCH AND NO MUSIC AND NO ELECTRICTY...


whatever...

whosoever....
it's a big word, but if God loved me enuff to 3:16 I aint worried about man's divisions.
I deplor religion, but love God
quote:
Originally posted by Reflecting One of the voices i:
OOps my water broke......."lest a man be born of the water AND the Spirit he shall in no ways enter the Kingdom of God...."

The water birth is a woman's labor.

A spiritual birth is asking the Holy Spirit to fill you.

Hi One,

Some do view the "water" as being the earthly birth because of the liquid in which the baby spends those nine months.

However, I prefer to look at it as the Word of God. Jesus, in Scripture spoke of the Word of God as being "Living Water" when talking with the woman of Samaria.

So, this fits that we are born again by the workings of the Word of God, i.e, Living Water -- and the Holy Spirit.

Just my thoughts. Welcome to the Religion Forum.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
WHATEVER, BETER! YOU ARE DETERMINED TO ARGUE -- EVEN IF YOUR ONLY OPPONENT IS A STONE WALL. SO, TIME TO MOVE ON TO MORE PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUES.


I can only take that as unconditional surrender, Bill Gray. I asked you to back up your position with scripture--if you can find it. Obviously, you could not find scripture to substantiate what you have falsely claimed as a purpose for baptism. Productive dialogue should lead to truth, but thus far, you have slid around the subject and avoided the truth, because the truth is that YOU ARE JUST FLAT WRONG in what you posted on this subject.

And you can take those ALL CAPS to be shouting, since it needs to be shouted to the Forum that BILL GRAY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE AND BILL GRAY STUBBORNLY REFUSES TO ADMIT THAT HE WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! BILL GRAY NOW THINKS HE CAN WIGGLE OUT OF HIS DILEMMA WITH THE EVASIVE, DECEPTIVE NON-ANSWER HE HAS POSTED ABOVE. IT WON'T WORK, BILL, I AM A FISHERY BIOLOGIST OF LONG EXPERIENCE AND I KNOW A RED HERRING WHEN I SEE ONE.

BILL GRAY, YOU ARE IN FACT, BEING DISHONEST WITH YOURSELF, WITH ME, AND WITH THIS FORUM. YOU HAVE SURRENDERED ANY CLAIM TO CREDIBILITY. SHAME ON YOU, BILL GRAY! YOU SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED FOR YOUR STUBBORN, DECEITFUL AND HYPOCRITICAL WAYS. YES. BILL--H Y P O C R I T I C A L!! YOU SET STANDARDS FOR OTHERS THAT YOU YOURSELF WILL NOT HONOR. YOU DEMAND THAT OTHERS PROVE THAT THEIR BELIEFS ARE SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE, BUT YOU WILL NOT DEFEND YOUR POSITON ON THE ALLEGED PURPOSE OF BAPTISM WITH SCRIPTURE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE FOR IT. YOU KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE, BILL, BUT YOUR STUBBORN PRIDE KEEPS YOU FROM BEING HONEST AND ACKNOWLEDGING IT.

YOU NEED TO REPENT, BILL, AND APOLOGIZE TO THIS FORUM FOR YOUR DUPLICITOUS, PRIDEFUL ATTITUDE!!
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the LIFE

Yes, Thank you so much for pointing out my error.

Hi VP,

What are Friend for? I am sure that IF I made a mistake, you would tell me. Just joking!

Actually, that is why I go to http://www.BlueLetterBible.org and copy/paste Scripture verses -- it prevents me from having so many typos. I began doing this years ago when I was creating our church bulletins and needed to copy Scripture verses for Responsive Reading.

It was so embarrassing to be in the middle of Responsive Reading in church -- and see a glaring typo caused by my fuddle-fingers. So, I began to copy/paste from this web site. Works great and gives me many translations to better fit the point I am explaining.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
quote:
Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
quote:
We normally use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the communion.



Who is this "we?" Do you mean your small chapel? Hardcore Protestants? Grayites?

Please clarify. "We" does not mean much, but then you can define and/or redefine anything to suit your needs, much as Satan could quote scripture.

"Communion" is normally capitalized since it refers to the Body and Blood of Our Lord. It is not incorrect to capitalize any sacrament's name, but Eucharist, Communion, Lord's Supper, oh yeah, they get the respect of the capital letter in English. Well, most people do it, as convention. I guess that Grayites have their own rules.


The Baptist church calls them ordinances.

vplee -- let me ask a question because I don't know -- can anyone just walk into the Catholic church and take communion --saved or not? Or do they have to be saved first? In the Baptist church, the preacher will hold the communion service and will tell the people to judge themselves -- if they have been saved they can partake of the communion but if they have not been baptised typically they don't. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming between you and Bill. The Lord told us to do many things, but 2 things are required and that is baptism and communion as ordinances/sacraments -- we also must follow the 10 commandments and show others how to be saved etc. but part of me reading this thinks it is truly just a question of semantics or how someone words it. An unsaved person shouldn't take communion until they are saved - that is a sacrament that is saved for Christians to have fellowship with God. So until a person is saved -- communion is not an option. So they will be saved and they will be baptized (1st ordinance) and then they will take communion (2nd ordinance). Right?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the LIFE

Yes, Thank you so much for pointing out my error.

Hi VP,

What are Friend for? I am sure that IF I made a mistake, you would tell me. Just joking!

Actually, that is why I go to http://www.BlueLetterBible.org and copy/paste Scripture verses -- it prevents me from having so many typos. I began doing this years ago when I was creating our church bulletins and needed to copy Scripture verses for Responsive Reading.

It was so embarrassing to be in the middle of Responsive Reading in church -- and see a glaring typo caused by my fuddle-fingers. So, I began to copy/paste from this web site. Works great and gives me many translations to better fit the point I am explaining.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
Bill Gray--Maybe you should go to
www.BlueLetterBible.org and see if that source can help you out of the deep and embarrassing hole you have dug for yourself with your very imaginative assertion about the purpose of baptism. On second thought, never mind. You won't find any help for that in a Blue Letter Bible, a Red Letter Bible or in any other Bible of any color whatsoever, because what you will be looking for will not be there! And, Bill, it really is about time you admitted that, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
typical, Bill Gray.
He tried to divert attention away from his "oops" by pointing out my error. Sorry that I inadvertently gave him an "out"...

So Bill- back to the question at hand- we are all waiting for your response with proof, or retraction.

Hi VP,

Actually, I extended a hand of "friendship." But, it appears to have been bitten. The Lord only told us to extend -- not force.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy_Bear-1
Nope, not bitten. But it is very difficult to be patient with someone who, as I have said, "teaches" with a presumed authority, yet won't retract when called in error.
It all comes back to the pride thing.

If Sofa is wrong, just show us the scripture to which you are referring,and we can put this topic to rest! Smiler
True Christianity is about being Christlike, John the Baptist baptized Jesus so we are to follow his example that's good enough for me.

Jesus instituted the ritual of Bread and Wine(Body and Blood),as an addition to the Killing of an feasting on the Passover Lamb at the beginning of the seven days of unleavened bread.I think that is when we as Christians are supposed to take part in it .Are we not in-grafted into his chosen People ?
quote:
Originally posted by ka-0-hub:
True Christianity is about being Christlike, John the Baptist baptized Jesus so we are to follow his example that's good enough for me.

Jesus instituted the ritual of Bread and Wine(Body and Blood),as an addition to the Killing of an feasting on the Passover Lamb at the beginning of the seven days of unleavened bread.I think that is when we as Christians are supposed to take part in it .Are we not in-grafted into his chosen People ?


Simple answer: NO

Christians were never grafted in in the sense of conforming to the Jewish feasts, ceremonial rituals, Levitical dietary practices or other customs or observances of the Law of Moses. If you doubt this, I suggest you set aside some time and read through the New Testament Book of Hebrews.

As to the Lord's Supper, the scriptures, at Acts 20:7, show that the Christians of the First Century came together on "the first day of the week to break bread. The ancient secular historical records of that era document that in the primitive church it was the practice to observe the Lord's Supper wach week, on the first day of the week. These days, churches often observe the supper at much less frequency, failing to follow the scriptural model for whatever reasons they might deem, in human "wisdom," to be appropriate. That should surprise no one, since many, many churches of our day have many, many practices and doctrines in conflict with the teaching of the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
typical, Bill Gray.
He tried to divert attention away from his "oops" by pointing out my error. Sorry that I inadvertently gave him an "out"...

So Bill- back to the question at hand- we are all waiting for your response with proof, or retraction.


vplee, we are fast closing on a week since I posed by challenge to Bill the Evader concerning his assertion about the purpose of baptism. He has dodged, deflected, diverted, and red herringed around the issue, using a number of patently dishonest contrivances to avoid giving an answer. At this time, I see no reason to expect him to suddenly sprout the integrity it will require of him to acknowledge the obvious, glaring error he has made.

Bill has extracted from thin air a concept that is nowhere to be found in scripture. He has even attributed the origins of his bogus assertion to Jesus, who never anywhere said anything that would substantiate what Bill has invented on the matter.

Bill, as demonstrated in other discussions on this forum, is apparently allergic to making any apologies, concessions, retractions, or acknowledgements that would indicate theological error on his part. Thus, when cornered and shown to be a false prophet, teaching false doctrine, Bill resorts to the most transparent forms of evasion and circumlocution in his desperate attempts to salvage some vestige of credibility.

It won't work, Bill. You have run out your string. Your only hope of re-gaining any credibility is to limp out, hat in hand, admit error and pledge to be more careful in handling the Word of God that you allege to rely upon.

Bill, Spirit-filled people do not act in the way you have been acting in this matter. Spirit-filled people are humble people who know they are not perfect, but who strive in everything to do the RIGHT THING. You, Bill, are merely striving to cover up your own error and you are doing so in a manner that is dishonest and specious.

It is time to R E P E N T and do the RIGHT thing, Bill!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ka-0-hub:
True Christianity is about being Christlike, John the Baptist baptized Jesus so we are to follow his example that's good enough for me.

Jesus instituted the ritual of Bread and Wine(Body and Blood),as an addition to the Killing of an feasting on the Passover Lamb at the beginning of the seven days of unleavened bread.I think that is when we as Christians are supposed to take part in it .Are we not in-grafted into his chosen People ?


Simple answer: NO

Christians were never grafted in in the sense of conforming to the Jewish feasts, ceremonial rituals, Levitical dietary practices or other customs or observances of the Law of Moses. If you doubt this, I suggest you set aside some time and read through the New Testament Book of Hebrews.

As to the Lord's Supper, the scriptures, at Acts 20:7, show that the Christians of the First Century came together on "the first day of the week to break bread. The ancient secular historical records of that era document that in the primitive church it was the practice to observe the Lord's Supper wach week, on the first day of the week. These days, churches often observe the supper at much less frequency, failing to follow the scriptural model for whatever reasons they might deem, in human "wisdom," to be appropriate. That should surprise no one, since many, many churches of our day have many, many practices and doctrines in conflict with the teaching of the Bible.




Not so simple!


Matthew 5:17 and following;

. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil .
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled .
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heave
Fulfill is the key word. The law is not "destroyed," it is fulfilled and we are given a new law: to love one another and to love the Lord with all our hearts.

The writers in the epistles make it clear that the old law is fulfilled, that Christ is the Temple and last sacrifice, that circumcision is of the heart and not the male member, that nothing is ritually unclean, for we live under grace and not the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Oral Law.

Indeed, not one jot nor tittle has changed in the true law: love one another, judge not lest we be judged, and to follow the example of Our Lord's commandments and parables.
quote:
The Baptist church calls them ordinances.

vplee -- let me ask a question because I don't know -- can anyone just walk into the Catholic church and take communion --saved or not? Or do they have to be saved first? In the Baptist church, the preacher will hold the communion service and will tell the people to judge themselves -- if they have been saved they can partake of the communion but if they have not been baptised typically they don't. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming between you and Bill


Eastside, I am so sorry I did not see this comment earlier.
No, in order to take Communion in the Catholic Church, one must believe that Christ is present in the Communion- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
When the Eucharistic Minister gives an individual Communion, he/she says "Body of Christ". or "Blood of Christ". We say "AMEN" to proclaim our belief that Christ is indeed present in the Eucharist.
Hope that answers your question. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
Fulfill is the key word. The law is not "destroyed," it is fulfilled and we are given a new law: to love one another and to love the Lord with all our hearts.

The writers in the epistles make it clear that the old law is fulfilled, that Christ is the Temple and last sacrifice, that circumcision is of the heart and not the male member, that nothing is ritually unclean, for we live under grace and not the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Oral Law.

Indeed, not one jot nor tittle has changed in the true law: love one another, judge not lest we be judged, and to follow the example of Our Lord's commandments and parables.

Hi Neal,

Very true! And, very well explained. The only thing I would add is that, to truly follow His commandments -- we must first become a Christ Follower. We do this by following God's teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Amen_Animated
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
Fulfill is the key word. The law is not "destroyed," it is fulfilled and we are given a new law: to love one another and to love the Lord with all our hearts.

The writers in the epistles make it clear that the old law is fulfilled, that Christ is the Temple and last sacrifice, that circumcision is of the heart and not the male member, that nothing is ritually unclean, for we live under grace and not the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Oral Law.

Indeed, not one jot nor tittle has changed in the true law: love one another, judge not lest we be judged, and to follow the example of Our Lord's commandments and parables.

Hi Neal,

Very true! And, very well explained. The only thing I would add is that, to truly follow His commandments -- we must first become a Christ Follower. We do this by following God's teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Hey there, Bill. I am still waiting for my answer, and you are still hiding and dodging.

Come on out, Bill. Man up! Squeeze out a little integrity and face the music. You know, there are only two ways to answer my challenge. You must either come up with scripture to prove your point or admit that there is no scripture that can do that and that you are therefore wrong.

Running, hiding, dodging, equivocating, deflecting, diverting and dissimulating do not get the job done!

Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
The Baptist church calls them ordinances.

vplee -- let me ask a question because I don't know -- can anyone just walk into the Catholic church and take communion --saved or not? Or do they have to be saved first? In the Baptist church, the preacher will hold the communion service and will tell the people to judge themselves -- if they have been saved they can partake of the communion but if they have not been baptised typically they don't. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming between you and Bill


Eastside, I am so sorry I did not see this comment earlier.
No, in order to take Communion in the Catholic Church, one must believe that Christ is present in the Communion- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
When the Eucharistic Minister gives an individual Communion, he/she says "Body of Christ". or "Blood of Christ". We say "AMEN" to proclaim our belief that Christ is indeed present in the Eucharist.
Hope that answers your question. Smiler


Thanks vplee -- in my church, the preacher quotes the scripture "take eat this is my body...etc" when communion is taken -- off hand I can't remember the exact scripture, but even the grape juice and crackers are "symbolic" since we don't drink wine etc. it is very much a ordinance or sacrament or whatever one wants to call it. I think in many ways, churches are the same -- there are just many different "leaders" that word it differently and that just causes drama. Big Grin Thanks for helping me learn something new today.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

I have answered you. But, since my answers do not agree with what you believe -- you ignore them. Not a problem. Let's just move on to more productive dialogues.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Your so-called "answers" are defective in a particularly fatal way, Bill. They are "answers" to questions that I did not ask. That makes them non-answers, and you are intelligent enough to understand that, but you are not honest enough to admit it. You, Bill, in a word, are a PHONY! You are a dodge-and-weave poseur.

When you answer the actual question that I posed instead of casting up straw man answers to questions that were not asked, then you can legitimately claim to have answered me. Merely asserting that you have answered, when it is plain that you have not, does not get you off the hook.

During your tenure on this forum, Bill, you have been insistent to others that they should not act in matters of faith and doctrine unless they can find authority for their actions and beliefs in the Word of God. I have repeatedly asked you to back up WITH SCRIPTURE--what you have posted on the purpose of baptism. You have repeatedly evaded the question. Thus, you expect of others what you will not require of yourself. Your performance reminds me of the lawyers whom Jesus rebuked, with these words:

Luke 11:46: "And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers."

Yes, Bill, you expect of others what you will not demand of yourself. Dealing with you in matters of scriptural explication thus becomes an assymetrical exercise. Your credibility melts away when you are clearly shown not to have Biblical authority for what you have written on the purpose of baptism, but will not either admit it or defend yourself with scripture that substantiates your position. In our ongoing discussion, you have done neither. Instead, you have hopscotched around the issue, posting irrelevant material and then claiming that you have answered my challenge. If our discussion had been in the form of a formal debate, Bill, I can assure you that the judges would have readily recognized your transparent evasions and would have given you no credit for the "answers" you have put up on here. I believe that there are intelligent forum participants who have no trouble seeing through your specious, spurious "answers."

I might or might not continue to call you out for your hypocrisy, Bill. I suspect that whatever reputaton you had on this forum for truth, honesty, and integrity has suffered substantially because of your weaselly performance on the issue at hand.

But, Bill, I will be carefully watching your future contributions, and I assure you that if any when you post false doctrine, you can not defend from scripture, I will raise a challenge and expect a bona fide reply!
Well, Bill is almost making sense once in a while in trying to defend the New Law over the Old.

As for not knowing the Words of Institution, that someone mangled, I am quite shocked. "Therefore with angels and archangels and all the heavenly host we proclaim the never ending hymn of praise, "holy, holy, holy Lord, God of Power and might" . . . "Blessed is he comes in the name of the Lord, Hosannah in the highest." Then comes the Eucharistic Prayer. The key words are "This is MY body" and "This is my Blood."

Simply too many forms to go into detail, but that is the essence of the prayers, while touching the paten and the chalice and saying the words.

Here is one example:

The Celebrant now praises God for the salvation of the world through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Prayer continues with these words
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. Sanctify them by
your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ our Lord.
At the following words concerning the bread, the Celebrant is to hold it,
or lay a hand upon it; and at the words concerning the cup, to hold or
place a hand upon the cup and any other vessel containing wine to be
consecrated.
On the night he was betrayed he took bread, said the
blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his friends, and
said, “Take, eat: This is my Body, which is given for you.
Do this for the remembrance of me.”
After supper, he took the cup of wine, gave thanks, and
said, “Drink this, all of you; This is my Blood of the new
Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the
forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this for the
remembrance of me.”
Father, we now celebrate the memorial of your Son. By
means of this holy bread and cup, we show forth the sacrifice
of his death, and proclaim his resurrection, until he comes
again.
Gather us by this Holy Communion into one body in your
Son Jesus Christ. Make us a living sacrifice of praise.
By him, and with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy
Spirit all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, now and
for ever. AMEN.
"Words of Institution"?

I have been a participant in the Lord's Supper for over 50 years and I have never heard that term.

I looked it up. In Wikipedia, I found this:

"Almost all existing ancient Christian Churches (such as the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Coptic, Mar Thoma and other churches of Oriental Orthodoxy) explicitly include the Words of Institution in their Eucharistic celebrations, and consider them necessary for the validity of the sacrament (as well as a valid sacramental priesthood)."

How is it that some churches now consider these "Words of Institution" to be "...necessary for the validity of the sacrament (as well as a valid sacramental priesthood)"

I do not find those words in Scripture. By whose edict and by what authority are they to be regarded as "...necessary for the validity of the sacrament (as well as a valid sacramental priesthood)"??? I have read ancient accounts of the observance of the Lord's Supper and I have not seen these formulaic words reported in the accounts I have read. Were those ancient Christians, by not using those allegedly mandatory "magic words," carrying out an invalid observance?

I personally believe, and I believe the Scriptures teach, that the Lord's Supper (Eucharist if you prefer) can be observed in a very informal manner, and that there is no Scriptural requirement for a priest to preside. From what is taught in my Bible, I am confident that on the approximately 2700 occasions in which I have participated in the Lord's Supper, it has been conducted in an entirely Biblical manner, notwithstanding the absence of either priest or "Words of Institution."
That is because it is not a sacrament to you, no prayer to the Holy Spirit to come upon the elements and become the living Body and Blood of Christ. To us it is not a memorial rite, rather a means of gaining grace and forgiveness of sins, we are assured that "He lives in us and we in Him." Not just figuratively, but literally and spiritually. A sacrament is not just an ordinance to us. It is the outward and visible sign of a inner and spiritual grace.

The bishops long ago decided what was to be in the formulae and their assistants, the priests alongside their assistants and lay assistants have either licenses or in the case of deacons ordained to preach and marry and proclaim the
Gospel, and priests are given a share of the Holy Spirit's power by laying on of hands by the Bishop who is a latter day apostle. They are under the bishop's rule and allowed to share their sacerdotal power in pronouncing of forgiveness of sins in the name of the Holy Trinity, and of calling down the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy, the continuation of the Last Sacrifice of Our Lord. It is a sacrifice of praise and faith, but He becomes present and we do consume him, unworthy as we are. By that we are assured we are free of all sin we have confessed and for which we are truly sorry and do repent and resolve to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit to avoid further sin.

It is a reenactment of the first Holy Communion which was on Maundy Thursday, just before He was betrayed and given over to suffering and death.
Aude,you say:

"To us it is not a memorial rite, rather a means of gaining grace and forgiveness of sins, we are assured that 'He lives in us and we in Him.'"

What about:

Luke 22:19:"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying 'This is my body which was given for you: this do in remembrance of me.'"

No memorial there??

Paul seems also to have seen some memorial significance in the Lord's Supper:

7.1 Corinthians 11:24, 25:

"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

Don't these passages seem to attach something of a memorial character to the matter, irrespective of whatever other significance the Supper has?
It is right there in the Eucharistic Prayer I quoted. I found it redundant to repeat the Lord's own words with my own feeble attempt to explain why the bread and wine had to be touched and certain words said. They have to because that is what the Church says Apostolic Tradition teaches. Obviously it is a memorial. It is a ritualized Passover feast, with only two elements being of significance: the bread and the wine. Together they would make the sacrificial Lamb, the flesh and blood.

The rules are unbroken from the earliest Christian times: touch, repeat His words, invoke the Holy Spirit.

It is by faith we receive Communion. If by faith you want a thimble of Welch's and a saltine, then knock yourself out. For the overwhelming majority of the world, it is a lot more than that.
We are discussing 2 very different things here. They are not in the same realm, thus not comparable.
1. Communion- celebrated occasionally. Grape juice and cracker. Used as a symbol, in rememberance of the Last Supper. No transubstantiation.
2. The Most Blessed Sacrament- Celebrated at every Mass. The consecrated Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist, by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

You either believe it, or you don't. I don't think it's something that can be understood if you don't believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit, particularily in transubstantiation.

Both are "memorials". One is just that, a symbolic memorial, the other is an ever-living sacrifice. Apples and oranges, Folks. Smiler
First you say:

"To us it is not a memorial rite, rather a means of gaining grace and forgiveness of sins, we are assured that 'He lives in us and we in Him.'"

Then you say:

"Obviously it is a memorial."

Which is it?

As you ponder your answer, consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church at 1356, below the heading, "The Sacramental Sacrifice: Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence"

Also 1537: "We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. (italics in original)

And 1362:

"In all the Euchsaristic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

"anamnesis" is the Greek word that is translated "remembrance" in the scriptures I posted earlier in this string.

I am still interested in what you might have to say about the quote I posted earlier, namely:

"Almost all existing ancient Christian Churches (such as the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Coptic, Mar Thoma and other churches of Oriental Orthodoxy) explicitly include the Words of Institution in their Eucharistic celebrations, and consider them necessary for the validity of the sacrament...."

On what grounds is it it that some churches now consider these "Words of Institution" to be "...necessary for the validity of the sacrament (as well as a valid sacramental priesthood)"?

Do YOU believe that the extra-Biblical "Words of Institution" are so essential to the observance of the Lord's Supper that to omit them would "invalidate the sacrament" ?

As to your demeaning comment on a "thimble of Welch's and a saltine," I can only say that neither you nor anyone else is in a position to judge what goes on between me and my God and my Christian brethren when I am observing the Supper. There was a simplicity in the observance of the Supper in New Testament times that is not, I submit, very closely reflected in the sacerdotal, formalistic administration of it in the Catholic, Orthodox, and "High Church" communities.
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
We are discussing 2 very different things here. They are not in the same realm, thus not comparable.
1. Communion- celebrated occasionally. Grape juice and cracker. Used as a symbol, in rememberance of the Last Supper. No transubstantiation.
2. The Most Blessed Sacrament- Celebrated at every Mass. The consecrated Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist, by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

You either believe it, or you don't. I don't think it's something that can be understood if you don't believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit, particularily in transubstantiation.

Both are "memorials". One is just that, a symbolic memorial, the other is an ever-living sacrifice. Apples and oranges, Folks. Smiler


I think you need to restudy your church history in light of what the Scriptures teach--and don't teach--on "communion" and "The Most Blessed Sacrament." If these things are two different things for you and your church, well that is your preference, but that is all it is. There is NO WAY that there is any scriptural basis for making a such a distinction. Read all that is said in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper and you will find absolutely no basis for the bifurcation you have described. Or--if you think you can, then give me your rationale.

And I have to doubt that the division you have described is even consistent with Catholic teaching. I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I have found nothing there that validates the "Communion"/"Most Blessed Sacrament" devision that you describe. Maybe I missed it somehow. Perhaps you could cite to me the portions of the Catechism that set forth this two-pronged concept.
Hey, Beter,
What I am saying, is that some churches take Communion as "a symbol" of Christ's body and blood. The Catholic (et al) Churches take Communion in the belief that they (we) are actually receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. They are 2 different "acts". ONe is a Sacrament, one is a symbol. That's all I'm sayin'. Smiler
And you are right-there is no scriptural basis for the distinction. I would say its safe to say any given church partakes in one, or the other. The distinction comes with some churches taking the Eucharist literally, while others reject that, and take Communion as a symbol!
Actually, the Eastern Church and Ancient Church of the East teach that only the Amnenesis suffices, the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts to become the Body and Blood in a bloodless sacrifice of praise and ongoing memorial of the Sacrifice of Our Lord. The Anglican and Roman Curia have agreed that they are indeed valid, since the anamnesis is implicit. The East and the West, along with Africa, do however, from time immemorial repeat the words of institution and then the Invoking of the Holy Spirit.

You were wrong when you say I attack or mock your grape juice and cracker. You brought up the topic of "informal" Eucharist services with no words of institution. I never said they were invalid, I was being droll, since I can think of nothing more informal than that. I judge not the validity of your faith nor how you by faith receive the Holy Communion.

But do not claim things that are not true, as liturgies go back to the Apostolic Constitutions and the Church Fathers which preserve liturgies that were in use by the 300s. I find it hard to believe that in 270 years such a form was formed out of thin air. It was to satisfy the scriptural requirements of Memorial of the Lord's Last Supper.

Polycarp argued for order services in the Church in Smyrna by the 150s and he knew John the Apostle who taught him and who in turn taught Ignacius of Lyon, founder of the French Church.

By His own words He spake it when He took the bread and brake it, and so by faith I take it. -- Attributed to Elizabeth Tudor.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×