Before you can take communion do you have to be baptist first.

Most protestants don't do the communion thing... but Catholics do weekly.

Are you asking specifically about taking communion in a Baptist Church? It depends. Some Baptist churches require that you be a member of that particular congregation. Others are more open - either simply requiring that you be "christian" (which to a Baptist means something very specific), and still others are open to anyone who wants to come forward. I suggest you ask what the particular custom is at the church you are attending.

Most protestants don't do the communion thing......but Catholics do weekly.

Not true - many protestant denominations include the Eucharist either every week, or close to it. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists come to mind.

I think you are asking if you must be baptized before you can take communion. Is that correct? Yes, you do.

Usually baptism comes first, even for adults, to show they are serious about becoming a Christian and want to be dedicated to the Lord. In Catholic and Protestant churches, Baptism is first, then First Communion and/or Confirmation (or in reverse order). Confirmation is the renewal of Baptismal vows. Being able to take Communion shows that you are a member of God's family and honor the sacrifice Jesus made for you.

Not true - many protestant denominatoins include the Eucharist either every week, or close to it. Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, and Methodists come to mind.

Um... I disagree with you there... I grew up as a Methodist, and attended weekly... and I only ever saw it once a year... ever and never at certain churches, like the one I attended... in fact I never saw a communion outside of a Methodist religious retreat during the winter I attended annually growing... and never outside of there. And I have also attended Baptist churches as well as a couple others over the years... never saw a weekly communion there either... ever.

Not true - many protestant denominatoins include the Eucharist either every week, or close to it. Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, and Methodists come to mind.
Lutheran churches that have more than one Sunday service offer communion in one service one week, and in the other service the next week. Some congregations have a mid-week service for those who missed church on Sunday or who will be out of town on the coming Sunday. Very small congregations with only one service might offer Communion only once a month.

Yes, if you do a head count, more Protestants do communion every week ( or at least every other) than don't, only a handful don't do it on a regular basis.

Episcopalians, Anglicans, most Lutherans, Presbyterians, and some Methodists have it every week. Other Lutherans, Methodists have it twice a month.

Most Baptist have it a couple times a year but there are 100 's of types of Baptists and 1000's of independent ones
The best way is to ask prior to the service if they don't say at the service.

Some Lutherans have a "closed" communion, others don't, most Anglican and Episcopalians have open communion, all methodists have open that I know of.

All of the Baptist churches I have been to ( limited number) have all had open communion . But there is always an exception I am sure.

*** In open I mean that you have to be a professed baptised Christian,

So if you count the number of members in Anglican, Episcopalians, Lutheran, Presbyterians and other churches, my guess is more Protestants do it every week ( or at least every other) than don't

Um.....I disagree with you there.....I grew up as a Methodist, and attended weekly....and I only ever saw it once a year......

Yes - I guess I should have said "United Methodist." There are Methodists and then there are Methodists.

Fr_Chuck - nice summary. I tried to give you a greenie but the system says I've been too generous to you!

Yes - I guess I should have said "United Methodist." There are Methodists and then there are Methodists.

Fr_Chuck - nice summary. I tried to give you a greenie but the system says I've been too generous to you!

Incidentally... I was a United Methodist. And yes... there is a major rift within the methodist church. Most of which occurred after the period I commented on... as I haven't attended regularly in recent years but did in my youth.

One very disturbing fact that all the other answerers are not aware of is that The Church Age ended in 1988. At that time God's spirit permanently left ALL the churches because of two reasons. It was God's plan that The Great Tribulation should begin. And the churches had become so apostate that ALL of them were not following the truth of the Bible, particularly in regard to salvation. There were, however, still SOME members who actually are true children of God. Now God commands all believers to come out of the churches because Satan is installed there, ruling officially. The scaraments that are performed there have no spiritual value of any kind. So the question of baptism and communion is totally moot. Except that those two CEREMONIES have some value as teaching tools to help us understand what God was doing during The Church Age.

Exactly what (self edited original comment) and where did you pull that one from HeadStrongBoy? And what cult believes that? The protestant Church (any of the branches I know anyway) doesn't teach that nor does the Catholic Church.

I found it. Harold Camping, of the-end-of-the-world-is-May 21, 2011 fame, "teaches that all churches have become apostate and thus must be abandoned. In the place of church he encourages personal Bible study and listening to his Family Radio broadcasts."

Harold Camping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping)

HSB must be a Camping follower.

Quoting smoothy:
Exactly what (self edited original comment) and where did you pull that one from HeadStrongBoy?

Bravo, did you actually READ what I wrote ? Careful, don't let it contaminate your thinking.

Wondergirls is correct, this time. I do follow Mr. Camping. Pretty obvious if one does just a little research. I never did try to hide it. I just did not make a BIG POINT of it. Ha ha.

Wondergirls is correct, this time. I do follow Mr. Camping. Pretty obvious if one does just a little research. I never did try to hide it. I just did not make a BIG POINT of it. Ha ha.
If I remember correctly, in one of these threads, you had agreed with his reckoning about May 21, 2011. After that, my conclusion was easy. Plus, it helps to be a librarian with an excellent memory.

If I remember correctly, in one of these threads, you had agreed with his reckoning about May 21, 2011. After that, my conclusion was easy. Plus, it helps to be a librarian with an excellent memory.

But you can bet we won't be getting any apologies from HSB on May 22...

Got to go with WG here, HSB. After all, we librarians have to stick together ;)

It'll be interesting to visit this board on May 22nd... if it's still here. (har-har)

Quoting smoothy:
Exactly what (self edited original comment) and where did you pull that one from HeadStrongBoy?

Bravo, did you actually READ what I wrote ? Careful, don't let it contaminate your thinking.

Wondergirls is correct, this time. I do follow Mr. Camping. Pretty obvious if one does just a little research. I never did try to hide it. I just did not make a BIG POINT of it. Ha ha.

I read what you said... and while I make no claims about being the most religious person here... (and I even have Jehovahs witnesses as relatives so I know its not from there) that is clearly not a doctrine preached at any church or group I have been exposed to. And I have spent as much time in Catholic chruches as I have protestant wones the last 20 years (wifes catholic). Not once have I heard a Preacher, reverand or Priest say any of what you said in that post...

Never heard it elsewhere either... thats why I wanted to know exactly where that came from... not that I believe it at all (I don't)... just curious of the source.


Incidentally... I'm direct, sometimes ssarcastic... sometimes blunt... its just my style. No personal offense intended. I'm a slow and poor typist... its easier for me to be direct. I'm far more verbose in person than online.

I haven't read any of the follow-up links or posts yet... having one of those days at the office you never wish to repeat. Should by tonight however.

One very disturbing fact that all the other answerers are not aware of is that The Church Age ended in 1988. At that time God's spirit permanently left ALL the churches because of two reasons. It was God's plan that The Great Tribulation should begin. And the churches had become so apostate that ALL of them were not following the truth of the Bible, particularly in regard to salvation. There were, however, still SOME members who actually are true children of God. Now God commands all believers to come out of the churches because Satan is installed there, ruling officially. The scaraments that are performed there have no spiritual value of any kind. So the question of baptism and communion is totally moot. Except that those two CEREMONIES have some value as teaching tools to help us understand what God was doing during The Church Age.

The church age ended in 1988?? Ha ha ha... well this has been one heck of a long 7 year tribulation. Too funny.

To the OP-

According to my Bible you do NOT have to be baptist ( there were no baptist back in the first century church.) AND.. you do not have to be baptized in order to take communion I think it is a good idea though because the Lord asked us to. But I see NO verse that says you must be.

the church age ended in 1988??? ha ha ha...well this has been one heck of a long 7 year tribulation. too funny.

To the OP-

according to my Bible you do NOT have to be baptist ( there were no baptist back in the first century church.) AND..you do not have to be baptized in order to take communion I think it is a good idea though because the Lord asked us to. But I see NO verse that says you must be.

Agreed. That said, many churches have traditions or standards of their own regarding things like communion, so it's a good idea to find out what they are for the church you're going to and respect them accordingly. For example, when I was doing music ministry in a Catholic church several years ago, I wouldn't have dreamed of receiving communion because it's something extremely important to them, and they believe that only a full-fellowship Catholic can take it. Out of respect for that tradition, even though I don't agree with it, I abstained.

As with so many other areas of life, it's all about balance.

Dave,

Yes. There are demonimations that have different rules and out of respect for them I would agree with what you said. But according to the bible that is just a man made rule... there is no such stipulation.

Dave,

Yes. There are demonimations that have different rules and out of respect for them I would agree with what you said. But according to the bible that is just a man made rule...there is no such stipulation.

Agreed. (Good grief, we've got to stop doing that!! )

Quoting classyT:
"ha ha ha...well this has been one heck of a long 7 year tribulation."

It is true that the number 7 features heavily in scriptures referring to the end times, of which The Great Tribulation is an important part. However, until very recently it has not been possible to understand the details of the end time very accurately. And many people continue to hold a variety of often conflicting points of view. But because of God's great mercy some have been able to learn, from the Bible, that The Church Age has ended. Thus baptism and communion are no longer to be practiced.

P.S. The actual length of The Great Tribulation will be 23 years.

When the church age ends I'm going to be raptured. I will be in heaven arguing with Dwashbur and he will be eating crow.. whilest I feast at the marriage supper of the lamb. That's my story and I'm sticking to it because that is what the bible says.. ( well it doesn't save dave will eat crow... I threw that in for grins.)

P.S. the actual length of The Great Tribulation will be 3 1/2 years according to the bible.. but the first 3 1/2 won't be a picnic.

Quoting classyT:
"P.S. the actual length of The Great Tribulation will be 3 1/2 years"

I know that many people read it that way. But the fact is that the 3 1/2 years are metaphorical (symbolic). They symbolize the first 2300 days. Though the information is available in more precise form, the 2300 days began in May of 1988 and went until about Sept. 1994. During that time virtually no one was becoming saved. THAT is the very difficult time you've referred to as "no picnic." The Bible refers to that time as "unless those days were shortened, there would no flesh be saved alive." Therefore in 1994 God once again began to pour out His holy spirit and to save many people OUTSIDE THE CHURCHES. 1994 was a biblical Jubilee Year. The next 6100 days of The Great Tribulation are the next 3 1/2 symbolic years that you've referred to. It will all end with the catching up May 21, 2011. Exactly 8400 days (23 years) after May 1988.

The preceding information has been worked out in great detail and is available FREE. No books for sale.

Well at least on May 22 we will be rid of HeadStrong, either he is right and poof, or he will have to come and admit all of his beleifs were wrong.

When the church age ends i'm gonna be raptured. I will be in heaven arguing with Dwashbur and he will be eating crow..whilest I feast at the marriage supper of the lamb. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it because that is what the bible says..( well it doesn't save dave will eat crow...i threw that in for grins.)

P.S. the actual length of The Great Tribulation will be 3 1/2 years according to the bible..but the first 3 1/2 wont be a picnic.

If it actually does happen that way, I will happily eat the black-feathered carrion-loving bird!

If it actually does happen that way, I will happily eat the black-feathered carrion-loving bird!
I'll bring the recipes whipped up in the Texas mission that was reduced to eating them when the supply wagons hadn't come through yet.

I'll bring chocolate cupcakes too (to kill the taste left in our mouths).

I'll bring the recipes whipped up in the Texas mission that was reduced to eating them when the supply wagons hadn't come through yet.

I'll bring chocolate cupcakes too (to kill the taste let in our mouths).

It's a date!

Quoting classyT:
"P.S. the actual length of The Great Tribulation will be 3 1/2 years"

I know that many people read it that way. But the fact is that the 3 1/2 years are metaphorical (symbolic). They symbolize the first 2300 days. Though the information is available in more precise form, the 2300 days began in May of 1988 and went until about Sept. 1994. During that time virtually no one was becoming saved. THAT is the very difficult time you've referred to as "no picnic." The Bible refers to that time as "unless those days were shortened, there would no flesh be saved alive." Therefore in 1994 God once again began to pour out His holy spirit and to save many people OUTSIDE THE CHURCHES. 1994 was a biblical Jubilee Year. The next 6100 days of The Great Tribulation are the next 3 1/2 symbolic years that you've referred to. It will all end with the catching up May 21, 2011. Exactly 8400 days (23 years) after May 1988.

The preceding information has been worked out in great detail and is available FREE. No books for sale.

Okie dokie Headstrong... and if you are still here on May 22 will you just say you weren't predestinated? I'm cool with it myself.. I'm ready to go any time any day. And heck these last 23 years haven't been so horrible.. I don't know what God was talking about... (pouring out His Wrath on this earth what a jokester he can be)... geeze World World 1 and World World 11 were a far worse and it wasn't even the great trib. WHEW! :rolleyes:

I guess that no man knows the day or hour thing just didn't apply here. Gotcha. ;)

So then we can expect the Lord to set up his earthy Kingdom... right? Starting May 22?

i'll bring the recipes whipped up in the texas mission that was reduced to eating them when the supply wagons hadn't come through yet.

I'll bring chocolate cupcakes too (to kill the taste left in our mouths).

Lol!

Well at least on May 22 we will be rid of HeadStrong, either he is right and poof, or he will have to come and admit all of his beleifs were wrong.

LOL! Nice try.. but he calls himself headstrong for a REASON. :D

The church age ended and I missed it? And what's this about May 22?

Back to the OP, scripture laid out the rules in 1 Corinthians 11... it's between you and God.


27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

Yes, I know churches all have their own rules, but basically it's between you and God. Being baptized or Baptist has nothing to do with it.

Oh yes, by the way lost in here somewhere, did the OP ever come back and give us any more info

oh yes, by the way lost in here somewhere, did the OP ever come back and give us any more info

With one post showing for the OP... I can assume they haven't.

Quoting classyT and dwashbur (double-teaming):
Thanks for the verses..i shall be looking them up and putting them in context and I will help you out on why you are all screwy in ur thinking....ha ha You go, girl!!!!!

This quote is from another posting. But my point is that there is much "dancing around" and "good natured" kidding going on, but very little serious Bible research and effort to answer valid points of view, other than the ones held by CONSENSUS.

I am still waiting to be shown, FROM ACTUAL SCRIPTURES, exactly where my thinking is "all screwy."

And we're still waiting for you to prove your point in scripture. It's not up to us to refute something you haven't offered any evidence for.

Quoting speechlesstx:
prove your point in scripture

Please refresh my memory as to your exact question (point). I have been posting on several different threads. Thanks.

Quoting speechlesstx:
The church age ended and I missed it? And what's this about May 22

Are these the questions you're waiting for me to address ?

Headstrong,

You didn't prove your point. The scriptures you posted were totally out of context.. you don't go to Thess. To find out how to be saved and how salvation works. Hit up the book of Romans.

Also you never answered my question that Paul specifically answered to the guard when he asked what must I do to be saved? Paul point blank tells us how to be saved and how salvation works... and you go Thess. A book that is talking to the believer not at ALL about how salvation works or how to know you are to prove your point. Which I forget what it was anyway. You told me until I understood your point you wouldn't go further. So I dropped it. I am NOT side steppin you.

Speech,

Don't feel bad. We all missed the end of the church age. But on the upside we are almost done with the last part of the great tribulation period. Course I figured I wouldn't go through any of it but hey, it ain't been all that bad. :D

Quoting speechlesstx:
The church age ended and I missed it? And what's this about May 22

Are these the questions you're waiting for me to address ?

Since that was what you were referring to on this thread that would be a start.

Yeah Tessy my friend, the Tribulation wasn't nearly as bad as I'd heard it would be. Has the anti-Christ stepped into the temple yet?

Quoting classyT:
"You told me until I understood your point you wouldn't go further. So I dropped it. I am NOT side steppin ya."

I've repeated my quotes below to show HOW they relate to "ALL about how salvation works."
...First I will give verses that show that our human faith is work.1 Thessalonians 1:3 says "Remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love..."
2 Thessalonians 1:11 says "... the good pleasure of [his] goodness and the work of faith with power."
James 2:20 says "... faith without works is dead."
James 2:26 says "... So faith without works is dead also."
James 2:18 says "Yea a man may say Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew the my faith by my works."

All those references indicate to me absolutely clearly that faith is work by the Bible's own DEFINITION. In my opinion there can be NO DEBATE ON THIS POINT.


I'm not giving in on this point ! FAITH IS WORK. AS SUCH IT CAN MAKE NO CONTRIBUTION TO MY BECOMING SAVED. Do you see that or not ?

Quoting speechlesstx:
"Since that was what you were referring to on this thread that would be a start."

I'd like to give you all the information about those two subjects I can. The problem is that I also am only a student, and I'm following a teacher who has quite a bit more knowledge than I do. To make it easy on myself, I can refer you to Mr. Harold Camping's publications, all of which are available FREE, postpaid. One book is entiltled "THE END OF THE CHURCH AGE AND AFTER." Another is called "WE ARE ALMOST THERE."

HSB, we're all still students. But if you want to make the assertion that the church age has ended you should be better prepared than to refer us to some other dude's writings... especially while challenging us to prove things via scripture. Don't you think?

I answered all of these some time ago and you dodged, which shows how much you're actually listening to any view other than your own.


Quoting classyT:
"You told me until I understood your point you wouldn't go further. So I dropped it. I am NOT side steppin ya."

I've repeated my quotes below to show HOW they relate to "ALL about how salvation works."
...First I will give verses that show that our human faith is work.1 Thessalonians 1:3 says "Remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love..."
2 Thessalonians 1:11 says "...the good pleasure of [his] goodness and the work of faith with power."
James 2:20 says "...faith without works is dead."
James 2:26 says "...So faith without works is dead also."
James 2:18 says "Yea a man may say Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew the my faith by my works."

All those references indicate to me absolutely clearly that faith is work by the Bible's own DEFINITION. In my opinion there can be NO DEBATE ON THIS POINT.


I'm not giving in on this point ! FAITH IS WORK. AS SUCH IT CAN MAKE NO CONTRIBUTION TO MY BECOMING SAVED. Do you see that or not ?

Quoting speechlesstx:
"especially while challenging us"

What is this "US" ? If you, personally, feel challenged how is that my responsibility ? I've given you information that will answer your questions. If that is not exactly the form you would have preferred, too bad.

Quoting dwashbur:
"I answered all of these some time ago."

I did not post them (originally or otherwise) just for you personally. You are free to answer them or not. Likewise, I am free to deal with your response or not.

What is this "US" ?


"but very little serious Bible research and effort to answer valid points of view, other than the ones held by CONSENSUS."

Sounds like a challenge to "us" to me, but you just keep "dancing around" instead of answering anything. And if you can't see the irony of offering us someone else's opinion while criticizing the "consensus" then you need a new hobby.

Quoting speechlesstx

criticizing the "consensus" then you need a new hobby

My aim is to teach what I have learned from the Bible, and from other teachers of the Bible. Others who show interest in my views are welcome to share my knowledge.

I repeat, The Church Age ended in 1988. At the same time The Great Tribulation began, and Satan was officially installed by God in all the churches on Earth as the de-facto ruler. The tribulation is scheduled to last 23 years. Then The Day of Judgment will begin. 153 days later the whole creation will be annihilated by fire. As of this moment there is still time to plead with God for mercy (salvation).

I can only laugh that people are caught up in these cults, but then the bigger the lie, the easier it is often for people to accept.

Challenge is not the word I would use, amuse, even humor since it is not possible for me to even take such silly and completely non Christian teachings serious.

Quoting speechlesstx

I repeat, The Church Age ended in 1988. At the same time The Great Tribulation began, and Satan was officially installed by God in all the churches on Earth as the de-facto ruler. The tribulation is scheduled to last 23 years. Then The Day of Judgment will begin. 153 days later the whole creation will be annihilated by fire. As of this moment there is still time to plead with God for mercy (salvation).

WOW that is a stretch. Please quote chapter and verse for your statements here.

Dwashbur:

I answered all of these some time ago and you dodged

No you DID NOT!! In fact you're the one who dodged!

What you did offer was mere ridicule. You did not address the individual Bible references POINT BY POINT.

450donn

WOW that is a stretch. Please quote chapter and verse for your statements here.

You are correct, it is quite a stretch. And obviously the Bible does not spell any of this out verbatim. Using your kind of simple-minded logic, therefore, I cannot just like that, INSTANTLY give you all the references from the Bible that tend to SUPPORT the conclusions I've declared.

Rather the whole scenario needs to be CAREFULLY ANALYZED to see EXACTLY where, and exactly how the Bible does, or does not support the time-line under discussion.


Challenge is not the word I would use, amuse, even humor since it is not possible for me to even take such silly and completely non Christian teachings serious. As you can see from this quote, the atmosphere here, on this site, is somewhat "hostile" to any serious consideration of the material I've presented. Therefore, I make no "blanket" promises or claims. But if you would address your specific questions to this thread, I'll do my best (worst) to answer them.

What's the significance of October 20th, 2011, according to Mr. Camping?

Wondergirl:

What's the significance of October 20th, 2011, according to Mr. Camping?

The correct date is Oct. 21, 2011. It comes exactly 153 days after May 21, 2011. There are at least two specific references to this five month period. (Revelation 9:5 and Rev.9:10) One reference to 153 comes from John 21:11. But these references are only the tip of the "ice-berg." It remains to be shown exactly HOW all of the other information fits together with these pieces.

Oct. 21 itself is the vey last day of the five month period known as THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. On that day "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The Earth also and the works therein shall be burnt up." 2 Peter 3:10

What happens if it doesn't happen as predicted?

Wondergirl

What happens if it doesn't happen as predicted?

Mr. Camping himself takes offense at that question. He says that he gimself does not even entertain such a thought because it is equivalent to saying "I don't trust the Bible."

Me ? I'm not quite that emphatic. I would say that somewhere in ALL the studying, praying, and writing we misunderstood something important. In that case we would clearly need to go back to the "drawing board" so to speak and ask some more very serious questions.

P.S. That's why I'm hoping some other people, besides myself, who are perhaps somewhat skeptical will approach this with an open mind (at least) and seriously look at the DETAILS of what Mr. Camping has published. Using their critical and analytic skills, with prayer, any errors or fallacies in reasoning may be exposed BEFORE we get to May. 21. When it will be too late.

Mr. Camping himself takes offense at that question. He says that he gimself does not even entertain such a thought because it is equivalent to saying "I don't trust the Bible."
Mr. Camping, along with hordes of others, have messed up before with a prediction. It's not the Bible I don't trust.

BEFORE we get to May. 21. When it will be too late.
My money is on the belief that May 22nd will dawn, and all will be as usual. Why will it be too late? You're assuming he's correct?

Wondergirl:

Why will it be too late? You're assuming he's correct?

Yes. I'm assuming. Let's call it an "educated" assumption.

So, I take it you're not about to dive into a very thorough personal investigation of the published material. And it's all available free of charge, at the risk of repeating myself. And if you can think of any more questions, I'd be happy to answer, to the best of my ability.

So, I take it you're not about to dive into a very thorough personal investigation of the published material.
Why should I bother? He's wrong. And if he's wrong on that, I'm betting he's wrong about a few other details.

Here's another thought you may have overlooked. There definitely will be a Judgment Day... one day. And if past history is any indication, the example you've given of all the others who have tried to predict accurately and failed, eventually someone is BOUND to hit it exactly and be right.

Why couldn't it be Camping ? In my opinion the material he's offering is true to the Bible. It DESERVES AT LEAST VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

Here's another thought you may have overlooked. There definitely will be a Judgment Day... one day. And if past history is any indication, the example you've given of all the others who have tried to predict accurately and failed, eventually someone is BOUND to hit it exactly and be right.
It might be tomorrow... or the next day. I'm ready. I don't need a prediction.

Will Camping get points or special favors in heaven if he turns out to be right?

Why couldn't it be Camping ? In my opinion the material he's offering is true to the Bible. It DESERVES AT LEAST VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.[
His opinion. Your opinion. I wouldn't even give my own mother's opinion any credit.

Wondergirl:


The correct date is Oct. 21, 2011. It comes exactly 153 days after May 21, 2011. There are at least two specific references to this five month period. (Revelation 9:5 and Rev.9:10) One reference to 153 comes from John 21:11. But these references are only the tip of the "ice-berg." It remains to be shown exactly HOW all of the other information fits together with these pieces.

Oct. 21 itself is the vey last day of the five month period known as THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. On that day "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The Earth also and the works therein shall be burnt up." 2 Peter 3:10

Gee, I beg to differ with you on Rev9:5. It is referring to one of the plagues that God unleashes on the earth. Taken literally there will be creatures let loose on the earth to torment people for a period of five months. This is the fifth trumpet, the fifth plague if you will.
Cannot fathom how you get any more out of John 21 than a man fishing and God blessing his catch.
Like I said before please explain yourself or refrain from making such brash and outlandish statements. It is only fair to the rest of us that you substantiate your claims with scriptures. Not merely conjecture or the claims you read in some book. Unless that book is the Bible it is only the thoughts of man. Heck I could take the fictional thoughts out of the Left Behind series and spout them here, but I know they are a work of fiction from two men's minds.

Wondergirl

His opinion. Your opinion. I wouldn't even give my own mother's opinion any credit.

I agree totally. It's definitely NOT a matter of opinion. Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date.

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets."

And look at the examples of the great flood of Noah's day, the city of Nineveh in Jonah's day, and the cities of Sodom in Lot's day. In EVERY case God gave SPECIFIC warning and SPECIFIC TIME to His prophets. Will He do it any differently this time ? Yes, "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." But for whom?? Only for those who remain "in the night" (spiritual darkness). Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:4. "But ye brethren are NOT in darkness that that day should overtake YOU as a thief. Clearly there are some who WILL KNOW. And what about Ezekiel 33:6 ? "But if the watchman see the sword come and blow not the trumpet... " Clearly the watchmen, the prophets (true believers), MUST know the precise time. Otherwise HOW COULD THEY GIVE CLEAR WARNING ? Want more scriptures ? It's NOT anyone's opinion. It's the Bible.

450donn

Taken literally

On what basis do you take it literally ? There are other methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Is it a matter of personal preference ?

I agree totally. It's definitely NOT a matter of opinion.
You had used the phrase "in my opinion," so I was working off that.

Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date.
But God's not telling anyone when. It's a secret.

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets."
Different secret.

Will He do it any differently this time ? Yes, "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." But for whom?? Only for those who remain "in the night" (spiritual darkness).
You're twisting the meaning of "night."

the prophets (true believers), MUST know the precise time.
The true believers are not prophets. And they don't know the precise time.

It's NOT anyone's opinion. It's the Bible.
It's Mr. Camping's opinion and his interpretation of some passages.

450donn


On what basis do you take it literally ? There are other methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Is it a matter of personal preference ?
I take what the Bible says to be the truth. Not some mans opinion of what the Bible says. You on the other hand seem to want to twist and bend what the Bible says to match your notion of the truth. So, again I will ask you. Please quote chapter and verse to substantiate your outlandish claims of the world being in the tribulation.

Wondergirl

Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date. But God's not telling anyone when. It's a secret.
Quoting :

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets." Different secret.

Ecclesiastes 8:5"... and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."

450donn, these quotations are for you also. And I agree that they are outlandish. Name calling, however, does not change anything.

Ecclesiastes 8:5"...and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."
Outlandish? That's putting it mildly. They have nothing to do with the Last Judgment. Read the above verse in context.

Wondergirl


Ecclesiastes 8:5"...and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."

450donn, these quotations are for you also. And I agree that they are outlandish. Name calling, however, does not change anything.

Totally out of context.
Acts 17:31 is telling us that Jesus is the appointed one who will sit in judgment. You really need to stop taking things out of context and start reading the whole passage.

Amos 3:7?

Wondergirl, 450donn, et al...

That's putting it mildly.

I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.

I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.
Why do you continue to hedge? Those verses were taken out of context completely. They have NOTHING to do with what you had hoped and do NOT support your "cherished" beliefs.

Wondergirl, 450donn, et al...


I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.

A long time ago, I read a commentary on Romans that quite literally never mentioned eternal life once. When it got to 6:23, it said "When Paul says the wages of sin is death, what he means is that a life lived in sin is a life that's not really worth living." Now, this commentator never even touched the second half of the verse. Are you claiming that, because he found a way to make such an interpretation, it should cause me to rethink everything I actually know about that verse? Anybody can come up with any interpretation of any word, phrase or sentence in the Bible. That doesn't mean people who know better should give every potential interpretation equal credence. Here's a classic example for you:

Judas... went out and hanged himself. Matt 27:5

Go thou and do likewise. Luke 10:37

That thou doest, do quickly. John 13:27

It's clear what the Bible is telling you to do, because some guy you've never met and really know nothing about says he's had a revelation and this is what God really expects of you. Are you going to do it?

*DISCLAIMER*
This is satire. I am NOT telling you to kill yourself. If you decide to do so, it's your fault, not mine.

The idea that some interpretation, however out of context, anachronistic or manipulative, COULD have validity is not just a poor way to approach the Bible, it's potentially dangerous.

Dwashbur


The idea that some interpretation, however out of context, anachronistic or manipulative, COULD have validity is not just a poor way to approach the Bible, it's potentially dangerous.

I agree with the above statement. And I have been aware of it for many years. Your sentence explains precisely how it's possible for the great variety of Christian denominations and their often conflicting interpretations to exist. Even though all of them claim to follow the inerrant Bible.

Clearly the "classic" example you've presented is nothing more than a clever game with words. Ha, ha.

The fact remains that we (Camping-ites) do follow a particular method (hermeneutic). It is not just a game designed to bring about a particular man-made result.(May 21, 2011) And that method has affected virtually every major Christian doctrine. For example:
[1] The availability of justification to all Old Testament believers BY THE SAME SALVATION that is available to the New Testament believers. A critical doctrine.
[2] Many other details of God's salvation and judgment that are misunderstood by those who follow the man-made hermeneutics.(grammatical-historical, etc.)

dwashbur


I agree with the above statement. And I have been aware of it for many years. Your sentence explains precisely how it's possible for the great variety of Christian denominations and their often conflicting interpretations to exist. Even though all of them claim to follow the inerrant Bible.

Clearly the "classic" example you've presented is nothing more than a clever game with words. Ha, ha.

The fact remains that we (Camping-ites) do follow a particular method (hermeneutic). It is not just a game designed to bring about a particular man-made result.(May 21, 2011) And that method has affected virtually every major Christian doctrine. For example:
[1] The availability of justification to all Old Testament believers BY THE SAME SALVATION that is available to the New Testament believers. A critical doctrine.


I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind. Sometimes that faith is forward-looking (Old Testament) and sometimes it's backward-looking (New Testament). And I have never heard any major Christian theologian, minister or anyone else try to say that there were two different methods of salvation in the Bible. So what you have there is a cure for which there is no known disease.


[2] Many other details of God's salvation and judgment that are misunderstood by those who follow the man-made hermeneutics.(grammatical-historical, etc.)

Um, grammatical - what the words, sentences and paragraphs actually say - and historical - what the writer meant to say, its context of its time, culture and language, is the only reliable hermeneutic there is. It is not man-made, it is common sense. What did Paul or Jeremiah or whoever write and what did he mean to say? The only way to really determine that is to get inside the writer's head, and that means in terms of language, culture, setting, and intention. If you're trying to say that's a bad hermeneutic, you're totally wrong.

Dwashbur

I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind.

Your statement is irrelevant because I'm not diputing you, or your personal beliefs. What I am harping on is the very definition of the word faith as it applies to salvation.

For example Christ is called (named) "faithful and true." Therefore those specific verses that say "Abraham believed, and God counted it for righteousness unto him," should more properly be understood if we substitute "Christ" (or Him - referring to God Himself) for "it." In other words the true meaning to those confusing verses is found when we read it thusly: "Abraham believed, and God counted Him (Christ) for righteousness unto him (Abraham)."

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation. It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation.
Huh?

It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.
The work of Justification was done by Jesus on the cross. The work of Sanctification ("brings me to faith and keeps me in that faith") is done by the Spirit with our cooperation.

dwashbur


Your statement is irrelevant because I'm not diputing you, or your personal beliefs. What I am harping on is the very definition of the word faith as it applies to salvation.

For example Christ is called (named) "faithful and true." Therefore those specific verses that say "Abraham believed, and God counted it for righteousness unto him," should more properly be understood if we substitute "Christ" (or Him - referring to God Himself) for "it." In other words the true meaning to those confusing verses is found when we read it thusly: "Abraham believed, and God counted Him (Christ) for righteousness unto him (Abraham)."

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation. It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.

Sorry, but the Hebrew of Gen 15:6 won't support your interpretation. It reads literally "He believed [or, trusted] YHWH, and he treated it as righteousness for him." Hebrew just doesn't work the way you're trying to read it. It says what the major translations say, and your guy is wrong. Jesus being called "faithful," which incidentally is a completely different word in the original, has nothing to do with it.

Dwashbur

I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind. Sometimes that faith is forward-looking (Old Testament) and sometimes it's backward-looking (New Testament).

Your quoted sentence exactly illustrates my point. The atonement made by Christ was, at the time of Adam and Eve, already a done deal. And Mr. Camping has been able to verify that from scriptures. Here are two of the plainest verses (there are others) to support that contention. "Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." (Hebrews 4:3) "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Hebrews 9:22 indicates that atonement (shedding of blood) had to be made before any sins could be forgiven.

Your sentence shows that "looking forward" and "looking back" are two different methods of atonement that are not supported by scriptures. The Bible I read teaches that all believers, both Old Testament and New Testament must look back to the atoning work of Christ that was completed before the creation of the world. The cross in 33 AD serving a different function, other than atonement.

Athos does not find this helpful : Not factual re protestants. (Catholic comment close enough - Catholics offer Communion at daily Mass).

Um (explicative deleted)... did you actually read the site rules... My comment is 100% factual... I'm 49 and have been a protestant my entire life... and I have yet to attend a church that takes communion every week and in fact... I can't remember a protestant church I have actually attended every doing it IN the church.. (no I don't live where I grew up, I've lived in 3 states and two Countries and I've only seen it at at a certain protestant Church Retreat in all those years) Most people don't attend a daily Catholic mass but go weekly. And yeah... THEY do.

Try and read the damn rules next time... that is IF you are capable of reading. You are a full member.. you should know what they are.

Yeah this is REALLY late in the discussion but I really hate people that improperly use the feedback to express their opinion when it disagrees with someone's facts. Do that in the body of the post.

Lutherans, depending on the size of the congregation and the presence of an ordained pastor, offer Communion every week, usually in alternate services -- in the early service one week and in the late service another week. Small congregations offer Communion at least once a month. Some congregations offer Communion also during the week at a week-night service for those who were out of town on the weekend. Private Communion is given by the pastor or an elder at the request of a member in his home or in a hospital/nursing home.

dwashbur


Your quoted sentence exactly illustrates my point. The atonement made by Christ was, at the time of Adam and Eve, already a done deal. And Mr. Camping has been able to verify that from scriptures. Here are two of the plainest verses (there are others) to support that contention. "Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." (Hebrews 4:3) "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Hebrews 9:22 indicates that atonement (shedding of blood) had to be made before any sins could be forgiven.

Your sentence shows that "looking forward" and "looking back" are two different methods of atonement that are not supported by scriptures. The Bible I read teaches that all believers, both Old Testament and New Testament must look back to the atoning work of Christ that was completed before the creation of the world. The cross in 33 AD serving a different function, other than atonement.

No, they are not two different methods of atonement. They are merely two different ways of viewing the same atonement. Once again you're developing a cure for which there is no known disease. And the idea that the cross didn't serve an atonement function is directly at odds with everything Paul said about it. The two verses you cite don't really prove your point. The Hebrews 4:3 verse simply means that the Fall didn't catch God by surprise; he already had a plan in place, a plan that would unfold "in the fullness of time" as Paul puts it. And of course there has to be shedding of blood; that's why Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's wasn't. That's why, when Abraham took Isaac up the mountain, Isaac asked where the lamb was, because blood was a normal part of a sacrifice to YHWH. Paul says that all these things were foreshadowings of the ultimate sacrifice that was still to come, i.e. Christ.

Incidentally, and just to be pedantic, the King James' translation "finished" in Heb 4:3 is wrong. It's also unclear just whose "works" - the word is plural in the Greek - are being referred to, God's or the people who rejected him. So it's as clear as mud.

Dwashbur

because blood was a normal part of a sacrifice to YHWH

Surely you're not suggesting that the blood of sacrifices (other than Christ Himself) could make atonement for sins !


the King James' translation "finished" in Heb 4:3 is wrong
I did check the word "finished" in a Greek interlinear Bible, and you're right. The word finished does not appear in the Greek. But that detail does not derail the contention, since there is other evidence.

Surely you're not suggesting that the blood of sacrifices (other than Christ Himself) could make atonement for sins !
In Leviticus 4, the Lord told Moses how the Israelites had to atone for their sin. God required specific methods and specific items for a sin offering, always requiring blood to cover sin.

A bullock would be brought to the priest who would perform all the necessary steps required by God. The Bible tells us in Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, and 35, "And it shall be forgiven."

That was a promise to the Israelites. If God's requirements were met, they would be forgiven of their sin.

This prefigured Jesus' one-time sacrifice, so that we no longer have to bring bullocks to a priest as sin offerings.

dwashbur

The fact remains that we (Camping-ites) do follow a particular method (hermeneutic). It is not just a game designed to bring about a particular man-made result.(May 21, 2011) And that method has affected virtually every major Christian doctrine. For example:
[1] The availability of justification to all Old Testament believers BY THE SAME SALVATION that is available to the New Testament believers. A critical doctrine.
[2] Many other details of God's salvation and judgment that are misunderstood by those who follow the man-made hermeneutics.(grammatical-historical, etc.)

Hi HSB,

It is pretty much the case that anyone how reads the bible is doing some sort of hermeneutics. I was wondering how your system works?

Tut

I'm 49 and have been a protestant my entire life....and I have yet to attend a church that takes communion every week and in fact....I can't remember a protestant church I have actually attended every doing it IN the church


Lutherans, depending on the size of the congregation and the presence of an ordained pastor, offer Communion every week, usually in alternate services .

Smoothy - you need to get out more! As has been already noted in previoius posts: in the US Episcopalians have communion at almost every service every Sunday. Twenty years ago it was common to offer communion "only" 2 or 3 times a month and have a prayer service on the other Sundays, but from what I've seen over the past 20 years this has changed so that it is common to have communion virtually every Sunday. So indeed there are plenty of Protestant denominations that celebrate communion quite regularly.

dwashbur


Surely you're not suggesting that the blood of sacrifices (other than Christ Himself) could make atonement for sins !

As WG already pointed out, that's exactly what the Bible says. They brought the sacrifices as atonement for their sins. We, who come after "the fullness of time," understand that these sacrifices prefigured the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, but that doesn't negate the efficacy of the Levitical and other sacrifices that were offered in faith.



I did check the word "finished" in a Greek interlinear Bible, and you're right. The word finished does not appear in the Greek. But that detail does not derail the contention, since there is other evidence.

It's easy to say there's other evidence; it's harder to prove. But thank you for admitting as much as you did.

Dwashbur

It's easy to say there's other evidence; it's harder to prove.

Definitely ! That's precisely why I used the word evidence rather than proof. So much for semantics.


They brought the sacrifices as atonement for their sins. We, who come after "the fullness of time," understand that these sacrifices prefigured the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, but that doesn't negate the efficacy of the Levitical and other sacrifices that were offered in faith.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at that statement. Let's assume, just for a moment, that animal sacrifices actually did make atonement for sins. And, mind you, I'm not for one minute actually saying that they did. Then, since that METHOD is no longer in use in the New Testament "era," it is obvious as the nose on my face that the Old Testament method of atonement (salvation) is CLEARLY OTHER THAN THE ONE used in the New Testament. Somebody pinch me to prove that I'm not just dreaming. DUH!!

OT atonement for sin = blood sacrifices of animals (many offerings)
NT and after atonement for sin = Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (one-time offering)

Hi HSB,

It is pretty much the case that anyone how reads the bible is doing some sort of hermeneutics. I was wondering how your system works?

Tut

Hi, and thanks for asking. I'll jump right in and give you the most basic ones.

[1] Every word in the original languages (mostly Hebrew and Greek) of the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God. It is not merely inspired. The words are dictated by God word for word. I'll leave the sciptural verses that support all theses rules for a later time.
[2] God spoke in parables throughout the whole Bible. Historical events themselves sometimes serve as parables.
[3] Those who study the Bible to find spiritual truth are commanded to "compare spiritual things with spiritual." (1Corinthians 2:13) In practice that means we can compare the writings of Paul with the writings of Moses, etc.

Those are the foundation of the method. And there are additional verses, here and there, that help us understand God's message even better.

Wondergirl

OT atonement for sin = blood sacrifices of animals (many offerings)
NT and after atonement for sin = Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (one-time offering)

Saying or writing a thing, even concisely, does not make it so.

dwashbur


Definitely ! That's precisely why I used the word evidence rather than proof. So much for semantics.



What I said was, it's easy to claim there's more evidence, and you do that a lot. What I have not seen out of you is any actual proof that there is further evidence. If you had read what I wrote, you might have caught that.


I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at that statement. Let's assume, just for a moment, that animal sacrifices actually did make atonement for sins. And, mind you, I'm not for one minute actually saying that they did. Then, since that METHOD is no longer in use in the New Testament "era," it is obvious as the nose on my face that the Old Testament method of atonement (salvation) is CLEARLY OTHER THAN THE ONE used in the New Testament. Somebody pinch me to prove that I'm not just dreaming. DUH!!

Read the Old Testament. WG gave you verses straight out of Leviticus that said the sacrifices did indeed atone for sins. What do you do with that fact? As usual, nothing; you blow right past it because it doesn't support your little house of cards. According to you, those words were dictated directly by God, and there's no way it's any kind of "parable." It's a commandment and the stated result of keeping said commandment. It's also clear that the obvious idea of the Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowing or prefiguring Jesus' final sacrifice is beyond your comprehension, so there's not much I or anybody else can do about it. Hebrews tells us in so many words that this is what they were, but once again you choose to ignore actual biblical evidence that doesn't match your preconceived notions. That is not my problem or anyone else's but yours. And I have no intention of pinching you, because if you really believe that your view is truly biblical, then in fact you are dreaming.

Hi, and thanks for asking. I'll jump right in and give you the most basic ones.

[1] Every word in the original languages (mostly Hebrew and Greek) of the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God. It is not merely inspired. The words are dictated by God word for word. I'll leave the sciptural verses that support all theses rules for a later time.
.

Hi HSB,

Yes, you first [1] postulate is the most important. It needs to be true. Some people are of the opinion the Bible is both "from the mouth of God" and authoritative( inspired).

Tut

Lutherans, depending on the size of the congregation and the presence of an ordained pastor, offer Communion every week, usually in alternate services -- in the early service one week and in the late service another week. Small congregations offer Communion at least once a month. Some congregations offer Communion also during the week at a week-night service for those who were out of town on the weekend. Private Communion is given by the pastor or an elder at the request of a member in his home or in a hospital/nursing home.

Nobody is arguing that SOME might, certainly not me... I've never attended a Lutheran or Prespiterian Service to know what their typical service consists of. And in those I have been to the Preacher, Pastor or Reverand may do the wine and waffer thing during the service... but it generally wasn't extended to the congregation (which is the point I was stressing). I'm Not going to comment on what takes place between A pastor and someone seriously ill or bedridden pertaining to Protestants... I've only been privey to what Catholic Priests do in that situation thus far.

And there is a world of difference between the American Catholic church and the Catholic Churches in Italy. I am a Protestant that was married to a Catholic woman in an Italian Catholic Church, by a Catholic Priest. Without having to join the Catholic Church. Which did take me getting the permission of the Bishop for that area to be allowed to be married there 20 years ago. Wife's catholic... I'm not.

I'm my case that Bishop who granted the permission passed away about 6 months ago. THe priest retired long ago and is still doing well... I usually run into him every couple years.

I've attended services in 4 or 5 different Protestant churches (factions not congregations)... and my experience was consistent more or less in relation to the topic of the op. Big variances in how the services tend to be carried out... and yes... there are a LOT more than 4 or 5 different Protestant factions. It was only a small cross section sample.

As a baptist I must tell you the only communion we have is in Christ Jesus spiritually,in the fellowship of the Lord's Church. If you are inquiring about the bread and wine ordinance,we call it the Lord's supper,because this ordinance is to remind us the sacrifice Jesus made,and the way he described the meaning of it to his Church. One must be a born again believer,fully immersed in baptism as a member of the Lord's local new testament church before fellowshipping in this ordinance.

Yes, all of the Baptists churches I know require immersion baptism. They normally only do communion ( bread and grape juice) about 1 or 2 times a year.
But remember the term "Baptist" can mean many things, there are several types of Baptist, freewill, southern, independent and more.

As for as Lutheran, same issue, my current denomination is Lutheran, we broke away from the Missouri Synod Lutheran a few years ago. We do communion every week, at almost every service. Most of the MO Synod groups I knew of, had communion about 2 times a month, once with individual cups and once with a common cup. But various local churches have their own rules as to how it is done and when.

The difference between some of the Lutheran churches as as much as day and night in some teachings and beliefs.

They normally only do communion ( bread and grape juice) about 1 or 2 times a year.

There is no 'normally' for Baptists, we believe there is no set schedule for taking communion, but to examine yourself and partake in the right spirit "for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup."

RE: Do you have to be "baptized" to take communion? What Christian denomination are you asking about?

Communion or the sacrament is considered by many denominations as the act of renewing ones covenants that were made at baptism that you will be a devout follower of Jesus Christ in all places and in all things. If you have no covenant with God to renew (baptism) why would taking the sacrament interest you?

LDS Perspective: In the LDS church the sacrament without a previous baptism (and faith in Jesus Christ & repentance) does not provide any forgiveness of sin. LDS Church leaders have suggested that non-members not take the sacrament until after baptism but leave it up to individuals and families to choose. In the LDS Church you cannot get baptized until you are over 8-years old (which they consider the age of accountability and the age where you would know right from wrong). Most Mormon children that are under age 8 that attend Sunday church services and whose parent(s) has/have been baptized take the sacrament (which is water and broken slices of bread). In the LDS church it is a commandment to be worthy to take the sacrament and be in a repentant mind-frame so that the Holy Ghost can be your companion... those that take the sacrament in the wrong "spirit" (e.g. not in the spirit of repentance) harm themselves spiritually. The sacrament in the LDS Church is symbolic of the blood and body of Jesus Christ.

Good luck!

NO, you do NOT have to be baptized to participate in communion.

hauntinghelper does not find this helpful : I have attended many denominations and churches in my life...I have never known a protestant church to NOT take communion...



I INVITE you to read the site rules before you break MORE rules. And its not the first one you have either.

First off, the ONLY time you are allowed to give a not helpful is for factually incorrect advice... and the fact I have been attending protestant churches for most of my 49 years and I have YET to see a weekly communion in any of them shows YOUR statement is the one that lacks credibility.

I'm reporting it to a site ADMIN.

It was not helpful because your answer WAS factually incorrect. Maybe you're a Unitarian, I don't know... But, I know for a fact... the protestant (almost all) denominations take communion.

Comment on smoothy's post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not helpful because your answer WAS factually incorrect. Maybe you're a Unitarian, I don't know...But, I know for a fact...the protestant (almost all) denominations take communion.

My comment was NOT innaccurate.
I'm not a Unitarian, I don't even know where a Unitarian church is, and have never attended one of those.

I've attended SEVERAL different denominations and several different Congregations, some for YEARS... NONE of them held a weekly Communiuon. My answer was accurate. SOME might, and I won't argue that point, there are many Protestant denominations... but they ALL don't. I was raised a Methodist and never saw a communion outside of a movie until I was at a Catholic Wedding. I've seen ONE protestant Communion in my life and that was at a church retreat before easter. I have attended services at 4 or 5 other different denominations over the years. Including the Catholic Church in two countries.

"Most protestants don't do the communion thing......but Catholics do weekly."

Your original answer had nothing to do with protestants taking it weekly... which, THAT they do not. I cannot explain how you could go your whole "christian" walk without attending a church that does not partake of it. But factually speaking... it is one of just TWO commands of Jesus to a believer. The majority, if not all, of the protestant churches believe in it. The majority DO partake. That is a fact.

But factually speaking... it is one of just TWO commands of Jesus to a believer.

How is that factually correct?

Aren't the two commands of Jesus the following?

- Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind.
- Love your neighbour as yourself.

Additionally, your experience doesn't forcibly mean that ALL protestant churches do take communion.

"Most protestants don't do the communion thing......but Catholics do weekly."

Your original answer had nothing to do with protestants taking it weekly...which, THAT they do not. I cannot explain how you could go your whole "christian" walk without attending a church that does not partake of it. But factually speaking...it is one of just TWO commands of Jesus to a believer. The majority, if not all, of the protestant churches believe in it. The majority DO partake. That is a fact.

Really... Ghost expert and now a theology expert. I don't claim to be an expert in Theology and freely admit it. Heck, I might not even be the most religious person here.
I'm not going to debate scripture.. I do know what I have experienced personally however.

This thread in case you didn't notice... is about Protestants... and specifically Baptists.

I HAVE attended three different Baptist congregations over the years... under three different Pastors... None of those three Pastors had a communion on Sunday services. THe ONE time I did see it in a Protestant church was at a United Methodist Church Camp. But never at the Methodist Church I attended regularly for years growing up.

But since this has deviated beyond Baptists... the Catholic Church does specify "Baptised" for taking communion. And you have to be Catholic for Confession(specifically having had catechism), something that most Protestants wouldn't do anyway. Communion is however an integral part of every catholic mass.

Since in my 49 years (rapidly approaching 50) I am not going to venture a guess what on the protestant congregations that might have communion require, because I've seen it once in all that time in a regular church (only at a church retreat).

And yes... I was married in a Catholic Church... by a Priest, and no I am not a Catholic. I did have to have a nice long talk with the Bishop for that region (I knew 4 different Bishops personally, 2 are since retired, one deceased as of this year, the one that granted me permission to marry) and I met their rather strict requirements as a protestant to be married there. This was in Italy.


As such SOME might... I won't be going to argue if they might or not. But they ALL don't, personally I have no problems with Communion either way. And I never sought out those that didn't specifically. Every one I attended by chance didn't.

And statistically... I could not have randomly picked the only ones that don't.