Are the Reformation churches drifting into ecumenical extinction.

[Yeshua1]

This is laughable! You offer absolutely no proof, just wearing your Baptist blinders at looking to the book of Acts and reading your own preconceived theology into it. Study the early church something that you absolutely refuse to do because the early church looked very, very Catholic

{practiced Baptist doctrines and practices for first 2 centuries, then Apostasy started to creep in!

 

[Adonia]

Would you know a symbol if it knocked you on the head?

You whose church has created mythical relics where pilgrims come for magic moments and you cannot recognize that Jesus never sliced a piece of meat off his body nor gave up a pint of his blood for drinking.

Instead, you insist that the disciples openly accepted a breaking of the law by Jesus in drinking blood. You do this despite the Council of Jerusalem explicitly declaring that the churches should refrain from drinking blood.

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Your church has twisted the Lord's supper and turned it into chains by which they control and manipulate members into following their rules lest the members die and go to hell for disobeying their rules.

I find the legalism of your church very grievous in its cunning deceitfulness.

You can't come up with a more coherant retort than that? You have no credibility on he Lords Supper with your grape juice and crackers, none whatsoever!

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't come up with a more coherant retort than that? You have no credibility on he Lords Supper with your grape juice and crackers, none whatsoever!

We hold to the real Gospel!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You can't come up with a more coherant [sic] retort than that? You have no credibility on he Lords Supper with your grape juice and crackers, none whatsoever!

Do you really think that our Lord and His disciples used wafers? Were they worried that some of the Lord's body might drop on the floor and be eaten by a mouse, when His body was right there in front of them? Come on! Get real!

 

[Adonia]

Do you really think that our Lord and His disciples used wafers? Were they worried that some of the Lord's body might drop on the floor and be eaten by a mouse, when His body was right there in front of them? Come on! Get real!

No, wafers were not used at the Last Supper, but unleavened bread was and our wafers of today are made of unleavened wheat. We also use wine which was used back then. So come on, get real!

Like I said earlier, you can believe in every other thing that is described as having happened in the Scriptres that are completely improbable, but somehow this is the one thing that you just can't believe, even though Jesus was very clear as to what Holy Communion really is.

 

[Adonia]

We hold to the real Gospel!

Balderdash! Your fake Communion is not the real gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, wafers were not used at the Last Supper, but unleavened bread was and our wafers of today are made of unleavened wheat. We also use wine which was used back then. So come on, get real!

Like I said earlier, you can believe in every other thing that is described as having happened in the Scriptres that are completely improbable, but somehow this is the one thing that you just can't believe, even though Jesus was very clear as to what Holy Communion really is.

The New Covenat wa instituted when he died upon that Cross, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Balderdash! Your fake Communion is not the real gospel.

Nope, but it is a memorial ans testimonial to the real Gospel itself!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, wafers were not used at the Last Supper, but unleavened bread was and our wafers of today are made of unleavened wheat. We also use wine which was used back then. So come on, get real!

There is no instruction whatsoever to use unleavened bread at communion. Invariably, the word used is <i>artos</i>, which simply means 'bread.' See Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 14:30, 35; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:26-28. Azumos, which means unleavened bread, is never used in connection with the Lord's Supper. Do not confuse Jewish ordinances with Christian ones.
My church uses real bread (which we can break, as our Lord did) and wine. Being British, I don't even know what 'kool-aid' is. But actually, crackers would probably come under the heading of artos, so long as they were made of wheat.

 

[Adonia]

The New Covenat wa instituted when he died upon that Cross, correct?

That would be correct, the New Covenant which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Adonia]

There is no instruction whatsoever to use unleavened bread at communion. Invariably, the word used is <i>artos</i>, which simply means 'bread.' See Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 14:30, 35; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:26-28. Azumos, which means unleavened bread, is never used in connection with the Lord's Supper. Do not confuse Jewish ordinances with Christian ones.
My church uses real bread (which we can break, as our Lord did) and wine. Being British, I don't even know what 'kool-aid' is. But actually, crackers would probably come under the heading of artos, so long as they were made of wheat.

Being the Passover Seder meal, it was unleavened bread that was used then, so that is what the Latin Rite uses. I have heard of leavened bread being used by some and our Eastern Orthodox brothers use leavened bread I believe. Kool-Aid is a fruit tasting powder that is mixed with water.

 

[Particular]

You can't come up with a more coherant retort than that? You have no credibility on he Lords Supper with your grape juice and crackers, none whatsoever!

You failed to answer. You know full well that Jesus disciples never once thought the bread was his Jesus human flesh and never once thought the wine was his human blood.
The ungodly legalism in your church is profoundly deceptive as it says grace, yet lives out law.
Truly Jesus words fall hard on the Roman Catholic Church.

And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
~ Mark 7:6-13

 

[Adonia]

ou know full well that Jesus disciples never once thought the bread was his Jesus human flesh and never once thought the wine was his human blood.

I know full well what Jesus said several times in the Gospels, that that the wine was indeed his blood and that the bread was indeed his body. I know full well what St. Paul said to the Corinthians, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. I know full well what the leaders (the Bishops) of the newly emerging Christian Church believed and taught, that Christ was indeed truly present in Holy Eucharist. I know full well that all of Christendom believed this truth right up to the time a man name Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) decided all by himself that this was no longer true. How you can believe this one man over all the teachings from the Christian leaders down through the centuries is beyond my comprehension.

As for Jesus's words, it seems that they really fall hard on the Baptist faith tradition much more than on us. "Take and eat; this is my body" and "....this is my blood of the covenant...…" (Matt 26:26-27). Jesus said those words and he meant them and it is a sad thing that you do not believe him.

 

[Particular]

I know full well what Jesus said several times in the Gospels, that that the wine was indeed his blood and that the bread was indeed his body. I know full well what St. Paul said to the Corinthians, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. I know full well what the leaders (the Bishops) of the newly emerging Christian Church believed and taught, that Christ was indeed truly present in Holy Eucharist. I know full well that all of Christendom believed this truth right up to the time a man name Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) decided all by himself that this was no longer true. How you can believe this one man over all the teachings from the Christian leaders down through the centuries is beyond my comprehension.

As for Jesus's words, it seems that they really fall hard on the Baptist faith tradition much more than on us. "Take and eat; this is my body" and "....this is my blood of the covenant...…" (Matt 26:26-27). Jesus said those words and he meant them and it is a sad thing that you do not believe him.

Of course Jesus said "this is my body, which is given for you" and "this is my blood", both referring to the bread and wine. However, no one in the upper room actually believed the bread was physically his human flesh. No one believed the wine was physically his human blood.
They all understood the symbolism he was invoking as it corresponded to the Passover.
Unfortunately, however, your church twisted this so it is a legalistic ceremony whereby if a member fails to partake, they become in danger of damnation because their present sins lie unforgiven and unpaid for. Partaking in communion becomes a means of upkeep in order to remain in God's grace.
Such a teaching rejects grace and emphasizes legalism and works in order to maintain salvation.
This is precisely why some of your peers cannot and will not declare that they are saved. They can only say..."I am being saved" as I continue to keep the sacraments designated by the Roman Catholic Church.
Adonia, it is grievous legalism, the kind that Paul condemned in the Galatian church, that Rome preaches. Why you are blind to this legalism is baffling to me.

 

[Adonia]

However, no one in the upper room actually believed the bread was physically his human flesh. No one believed the wine was physically his human blood.

Pure supposition on your part.

They all understood the symbolism he was invoking as it corresponded to the Passover.

More supposition on your part. How do you know this? Have you had extensive conversations with those who were in the upper room? We believe the Apostles believed as we believe about this. No symbolism, just the real deal!

Jesus Christ did not lie when he said those words, no, not right before the most momentous moment in all of human history. He meant what he said, and said exactly what he meant. No, not symbolism - that was something made up sometime around the 16th century.

Unfortunately, however, your church twisted this so it is a legalistic ceremony whereby if a member fails to partake, they become in danger of damnation because their present sins lie unforgiven and unpaid for.

Not so. There is no danger of damnation for the individual Catholic who fails to receive Holy Communion. It is recommended that the individual Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist at least once per year, but there is no damnation penalty if this is not done. The faithful are encouraged however to partake of Holy Communion frequently, as it is to the individuals personal benefit to do so.

Partaking in communion becomes a means of upkeep in order to remain in God's grace.

Again, such a thing is not required to "remain in God's grace". God pours his grace upon the Catholic in a general manner just as you believe, it is a free gift from God. Grace is also inherent in the particular sacrament we are discussing, it is given freely upon the reception of it.

Such a teaching rejects grace and emphasizes legalism and works in order to maintain salvation.

No, we do not reject the concept of God's grace being given freely in a general manner - it is the gift to all Christians. We believe however that in the reception of the sacraments, grace is inherent in all of them - freely given as a gift from God. You misunderstand how we see grace.

They can only say..."I am being saved" as I continue to keep the sacraments designated by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Christian life and the salvation it offers is a continuing lifelong journey - that is how we see it. You see it differently with your "I am saved" proclamation. The fact is that neither our nor your outlook on this is either better or more true than the other. We are both trying to live holy and pleasing lives for God.

Adonia, it is grievous legalism, the kind that Paul condemned in the Galatian church, that Rome preaches. Why you are blind to this legalism is baffling to me.

Legalism? Isn't the whole way of Christ based on that concept? You know, like following God's law as taught to us by Jesus Christ? Yes, by that measure we Catholics are guilty of the charge, as you should also be.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That would be correct, the New Covenant which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

“Many?” Not all? Could you explain that?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pure supposition on your part.



More supposition on your part. How do you know this? Have you had extensive conversations with those who were in the upper room? We believe the Apostles believed as we believe about this. No symbolism, just the real deal!

Jesus Christ did not lie when he said those words, no, not right before the most momentous moment in all of human history. He meant what he said, and said exactly what he meant. No, not symbolism - that was something made up sometime around the 16th century.



Not so. There is no danger of damnation for the individual Catholic who fails to receive Holy Communion. It is recommended that the individual Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist at least once per year, but there is no damnation penalty if this is not done. The faithful are encouraged however to partake of Holy Communion frequently, as it is to the individuals personal benefit to do so.



Again, such a thing is not required to "remain in God's grace". God pours his grace upon the Catholic in a general manner just as you believe, it is a free gift from God. Grace is also inherent in the particular sacrament we are discussing, it is given freely upon the reception of it.



No, we do not reject the concept of God's grace being given freely in a general manner - it is the gift to all Christians. We believe however that in the reception of the sacraments, grace is inherent in all of them - freely given as a gift from God. You misunderstand how we see grace.



The Christian life and the salvation it offers is a continuing lifelong journey - that is how we see it. You see it differently with your "I am saved" proclamation. The fact is that neither our nor your outlook on this is either better or more true than the other. We are both trying to live holy and pleasing lives for God.



Legalism? Isn't the whole way of Christ based on that concept? You know, like following God's law as taught to us by Jesus Christ? Yes, by that measure we Catholics are guilty of the charge, as you should also be.

Your head is firmly planted in the Old Testament and that is evident by your “Legalism” testimony.

 

[Hobie]

You can't come up with a more coherant retort than that? You have no credibility on he Lords Supper with your grape juice and crackers, none whatsoever!

The rites and rituals brought in by the Roman Catholic Church was not from Christ or the Apostles, but from another origin.

 

[JonC]

And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Again - here is your answer.

 

[Adonia]

“Many?” Not all? Could you explain that?

You would have to talk to the author of the following for his explanation of why he reported Christ's words that way. Matthew 26:28 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.