[smoothy]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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]

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.

[HeadStrongBoy]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[ebaines]

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]

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.

[HeadStrongBoy]

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!!

[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)

[HeadStrongBoy]

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.

[HeadStrongBoy]

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]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[smoothy]

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.

[belovedgift]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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."

[Ilike]

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!

[hauntinghelper]

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