-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Communion, is Christ truly present?
- Thread starter riverm
- Start date
We, so-called Plymouth Brethren (because the sectarianism is not right according to 1 Cor 1:12-17)who conduct the Lord Supper every week, don't believe the magic show of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation by the clergy system, but remember the Lord by it.
In Remembrance of Lord who loved us so much that He gave Himself for us, we celebrate it and preach the fact of His death and resurrection until He comes again.
Many things claimed by reformers should be reviewed again. But I thought Wesley was almost the Memorial and Remembrance influenced by Moravian Brethren, Peter Boehler.
In Remembrance of Lord who loved us so much that He gave Himself for us, we celebrate it and preach the fact of His death and resurrection until He comes again.
Many things claimed by reformers should be reviewed again. But I thought Wesley was almost the Memorial and Remembrance influenced by Moravian Brethren, Peter Boehler.
Are you in an Exclusive or Open Brethren Meeting?
[ETA - Wesley's theological influences were very eclectic. He could come across most of the time as very 'low church' (which ties in with the Pietist influences you cite) but don't forget he lived and died an Anglican and was also heavily influenced by the Early Church Fathers and other Catholic scholars and writers]
[ETA - Wesley's theological influences were very eclectic. He could come across most of the time as very 'low church' (which ties in with the Pietist influences you cite) but don't forget he lived and died an Anglican and was also heavily influenced by the Early Church Fathers and other Catholic scholars and writers]
Just a short kibbitz: The only differences between Henry VIII's religious legacy and the holy see is that the "pope" resides in Buckingham Palace and the administration is through Canterbury.
The man-made doctrines continue to be basically the same--as amended regularly.
Selah,
Bro. James
[ December 21, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
The man-made doctrines continue to be basically the same--as amended regularly.
Selah,
Bro. James
[ December 21, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
Forgot one other difference: Episcopal and Anglican priests are allowed sanctioned conjugal visits and cohabitation.
Legalism comes in many forms.
Bro. James
Legalism comes in many forms.
Bro. James
Er...not quite...in fact far from it. And Anglicanism has far more to do with his daughter's religious legacy. Have you ever read the 39 Articles?
You mean they're allowed to marry? Why can't you just say that instead in couching it in those terms? And there are quite a few other differences too; I ask again - have you ever read the 39 Articles?
I noticed Anglicans and RCC are conveniently denying or agreeing that they are the same or different each other in Orthodox doctrines etc.
But in my view the basic frame is that Anglicans were started in order for the divorce and re-marry of Heny 8, but they bacame quite different influenced by many reformers and protestants.
I attend so-called Open Brethren but have many friends in Closed Brethren too, and the difference means nothing to me.
But in my view the basic frame is that Anglicans were started in order for the divorce and re-marry of Heny 8, but they bacame quite different influenced by many reformers and protestants.
I attend so-called Open Brethren but have many friends in Closed Brethren too, and the difference means nothing to me.
You're basically correct in your understanding of the prigins of the Church of England: initially, it was just about authority and land (or at least as far as Henry was concerned) in that Henry just wanted to replace the Pope as Supreme Governor. But right from the start there were those in the CofE who wanted to import the theology of the continental Magisterial Reformation (Luther and especially Calvin), and these came to the fore temporarily in the reign of Henry's son Edward and permanently in the reign of his daughter Elizabeth, with the result that the CofE was essentially a continuation of the Catholic Church of the Early Middle Ages but with Magisterial Reformation bolt-ons and without the errors and abuses of late medieval scholasticism which had crept into the Catholic Church.
Conjugal visits and cohabitation: good Roman legal terms for those into legalism. The key word to the meaning of the quasi-comparison is: sanctioned. i.e. Compare the definitions of celibacy and chastity. It is not possible to be celibate and not chaste? Real legalistic dilemmas, almost like the annulment of a consummated marriage. If you got enough cash, it can happen.
Peace,
Bro. James
Peace,
Bro. James
Now you've lost me completely!Some more important point is whether the praise and thanks are limited to so-called Clergy only or every believer can participate there or not. In my church usually 10-20 people stand up to choose a song, or read the scripture and give thanks, or pray with praise and thanks as there is no classification between clergy and laymen and everybody is the priests in the Lord.
We are the honorable guests invited by the Host our Lord Jesus who is the owner and host of the party.
It is very much enjoyable to listen to the prayers and thanks and the songs chosen by various people and we feel a lot of blessings.
I usually stand up once a month and give thanks and praise, and pray because our church is a little too big for each one to have it once a week. This is why Plymouth Brethren pursue rather small size churches like 100-200 born-again believers. If the numbers grow, then we separate and form a new assembly.
We are the honorable guests invited by the Host our Lord Jesus who is the owner and host of the party.
It is very much enjoyable to listen to the prayers and thanks and the songs chosen by various people and we feel a lot of blessings.
I usually stand up once a month and give thanks and praise, and pray because our church is a little too big for each one to have it once a week. This is why Plymouth Brethren pursue rather small size churches like 100-200 born-again believers. If the numbers grow, then we separate and form a new assembly.
Matt, You are not alone..I get completely lost with the language used...Why not just speak plain English?
Most don't understand the Anglican Church, and fail to appreciate that evangelical theology was greatly preached by the Anglican Church down through the ages. Think of all the Anglican ministers whose books have become maintstays in the so-called fundamentalist world of theology.
Cheers,
Jim
Most don't understand the Anglican Church, and fail to appreciate that evangelical theology was greatly preached by the Anglican Church down through the ages. Think of all the Anglican ministers whose books have become maintstays in the so-called fundamentalist world of theology.
Cheers,
Jim
Have any of you noted the anger and biting sarcasm in your replies? That attitude is unbecoming a Christian, whether dealing with a fellow believer or a non-believer. I urge you to examine the tone of your replies and heed the words of our Lord and the teaching of His Apostles regarding the spirit with which we conduct ourselves in the world.
Anyone care to remain on topic regarding the purpose of this thread?
Alexander
Anyone care to remain on topic regarding the purpose of this thread?
Alexander
No anger here - just asking for clarifciation of what Bro James means.
Unlike the Catholics who believe that the wine spiritually becomes the blood of Christ and the bread spiritually becomes His flesh, I believe it's just as Jesus said - "Do this in rememberance of Me." His intention was to get us to remember His sacrifice on our behalfs.
The communion elements do have a spiritual aspect. Christ is described as the Bread of Life. He is also called the Word and the Word made flesh. When we take the bread element in communion, we're supposed to be reminded that we're to study and immerse ourselves in His Word - scripture.
Wine represents life in scripture. When we drink the wine, we're reminded of His life living inside us in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Alone, the Word will not save us. The Spirit alone cannot help us to understand God's plan for our lives. But combined, God's Word and His Spirit are everything we need to live a life honorable and pleasing to God.
So the next time we observe communion, let's not only remember Christ's sacrifice on our behalfs, let's remember the promises of God's Word and the presence of His Spirit and the awesome power available to us as followers of Christ and children of God.
The communion elements do have a spiritual aspect. Christ is described as the Bread of Life. He is also called the Word and the Word made flesh. When we take the bread element in communion, we're supposed to be reminded that we're to study and immerse ourselves in His Word - scripture.
Wine represents life in scripture. When we drink the wine, we're reminded of His life living inside us in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Alone, the Word will not save us. The Spirit alone cannot help us to understand God's plan for our lives. But combined, God's Word and His Spirit are everything we need to live a life honorable and pleasing to God.
So the next time we observe communion, let's not only remember Christ's sacrifice on our behalfs, let's remember the promises of God's Word and the presence of His Spirit and the awesome power available to us as followers of Christ and children of God.
Anger? No. Sarcasm? Yes, and not without reason.
Sarcasm can be an effective form of communication. I make no apology for saying what I think--even if it offends the ecumenical evangelicals. Most of my rhetoric is at religious systems, not individuals. Matthew and I could be friends in spite of our religious convictions.
My basic point is: if your communion takes its authority from Rome or Constantinople or anything else re-reformed this side of the 4th century, you have no authority at all.
How many times can zero be divided?
The communion found in Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:20, Eph. 3:21 and Jude 3 has survived the gates of hell--just like Jesus said. She is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, anxiously awaiting the return of the Groom.
Selah,
Bro. James
Sarcasm can be an effective form of communication. I make no apology for saying what I think--even if it offends the ecumenical evangelicals. Most of my rhetoric is at religious systems, not individuals. Matthew and I could be friends in spite of our religious convictions.
My basic point is: if your communion takes its authority from Rome or Constantinople or anything else re-reformed this side of the 4th century, you have no authority at all.
How many times can zero be divided?
The communion found in Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:20, Eph. 3:21 and Jude 3 has survived the gates of hell--just like Jesus said. She is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, anxiously awaiting the return of the Groom.
Selah,
Bro. James
On what grounds do you make that assertion, namely that what survived from the 4th century wasn't the church described in Matt 16:18?
Pedobaptism and baptismal regeneration are doctrines not found in scripture. It is the same old war: works vs grace. It goes all the way back to Cain and Able.
Most "Christian" denominations practice infant baptism, contrary to the original pattern in every regard.
Does it matter? See I Cor. Ch. 3, the part about our works being tried in the fire.
Selah,
Bro. James
Most "Christian" denominations practice infant baptism, contrary to the original pattern in every regard.
Does it matter? See I Cor. Ch. 3, the part about our works being tried in the fire.
Selah,
Bro. James
Hi Bob:
I’d like to discuss John 6, and I’ll have to admit that just as Jesus disciples stated about the disclosure of John 6, this is a hard saying. Here are a few points that I have had difficulty in coming to grips with.
1. We know from scripture that Jesus was often called a Rabbi or Teacher, so obviously Jesus taught as well as preached and He was regarded highly as a teacher.
2. When Jesus was speaking of His body being bread, He was obviously offending a lot of His disciples, even His inner circle were quite disturbed by this language. Jesus does nothing to clear up the matter, but continues to add that even His blood is drink. Now the Jews are really upset, obviously the Jews know that eating flesh and drinking blood goes against exactly what Moses taught their fathers.
3. Now Jesus defiantly makes matters worse by stating that in John 6:54 that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. I looked up the Greek word for eat and it’s the same Greek word that Jesus uses when he told His disciples that the one who will betray Him will eat the bread He gives him, meaning Judas in the Upper Room.
4. Now in John 6:55, Jesus states yet again, but this time more forcefully that His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed.
5. Next we see many of his disciples walk away and follow Him no more. Here is my problem with this whole disclosure of John 6. Jesus lets them go! Why would Jesus, who was often referred to as a Rabbi or Teacher, let those that have followed Him, seen Him perform many miracles, just walk away over a misunderstanding?
6. There’s instances were Jesus always cleared up any doubts in His disciples minds or at least attempted to anyway, when He saw they were having difficultly understanding, but not in the case of John 6.
7. Jesus was even willing to let His own inner circle simply walk away. Jesus even asks them if they were going to leave as well. Finally Peter speaks up and says that Jesus has the words of eternal life. My take on Peter’s response is that; Hey Lord, it’s a tough saying and I can’t understand it, but I’ll trust you and when the time comes, we’ll all understand.
8. I feel that all misunderstandings of John 6 in regard to His disciples, was cleared up at the Last Supper, when Christ again, referred the bread as His Body and the drink as His Blood and told them to eat (the same Greek word) and drink of it.
For as long as I can remember as a fundamentalist, we never studied John 6 or never heard a sermon on John 6. I would always hand wave John 6 off, but back in January of ’05 I was re-reading John and I wasn’t able to hand wave John 6 off any longer, and to this day I still haven’t been able to. I’ve talked to Pastors from Southern Baptist, to Fundies, and none have been able to satisfy my questions.
All the arguments I’ve heard has been Romaphobic (if that’s a word) arguments. And it always turns into Catholic bashing about hocus pocus.
So instead of focusing on the Catholic aspect, lets discuss how John 6 can not possibly be a forethought of communion of today.