ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Communion Only From Priest

A Catholic friend is in the hospital. She refused communion from me because I am born again, spirit filled and NOT Catholic. Her Catholic friend gave it to her and said, "ours is blessed by the Priest." Why won't they take communion from a spirit-filled, born again believer?

Moderator - Because the more traditional believe it must come from the Priest.

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Christian Living Quiz
 ---anon on 12/7/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



Strongaxe, sorry for the delay. the blog is coming to an end.
Concerning what you said, is very true. But the Bible as we have it is exactly the way God wanted it to be. Even when man revise it, it is allowed and permitted by God all for a reason. He knew what would happen when the word was going to be translated to other languages. The word "inspiration" calls attention to the process by which the Holy Spirit superintended the production of Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided the human authors and translators so that their words would be nothing less than the word of God. Christians affirm the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible because God is ultimately the Author of the Bible.
---Mark_V. on 12/31/11


Mark_V.:

However, we don't have access to the original manuscripts. All we have now are copies of copies of copies, which are mostly the same, but not entirely. Given that, exactly what IS the "right interpretation"? What criteria do you use to determine this? And WHICH church is "closer to the truth" than any others, and how can you determine that?
---StrongAxe on 12/28/11


Strongaxe, I was talking about the original manuscripts not all the revisions. Also the elect cannot be deceived. Many people are deceived. Everyone's interpretations do not count, only the right interpretation counts as far as God is concern. He makes sure there is always a remnant who has it right. The Truth does not change. The question man has is, who has the Truth? The one who is right is the one God has guided to the Truth. Denominations are made by man. Yet the man of God, follow the one Church which is closer to the Truth. That's why we should make our assurance sure.
---Mark_V. on 12/28/11


Mark_V.:

The reason we have so many different denominations it that there are many different groups who are "sure" that their interpretations of the scriptures are "the right ones".

If the Bible we have were 100% unambiguous (i.e. not having ambiguous language, not being passed down through manuscripts that sometimes have copying errors, being agreed upon by a concensus of church councils, etc.) this would not be the case.
---StrongAxe on 12/26/11


Strongaxe, my point, Trust in the Word of God. That is how God speaks to us. There is many things not explained in detail, but enough passages that speak of the same topic can give us a better understanding on those we cannot make clear. Thank you for this debate. Peace I leave you.
---Mark_V. on 12/27/11




Strongaxe 2: Yes, it is all a matter of faith. If we begin with the idea that Scripture might not have the right books from the start, we can never trust the Word of God. When extra books were added by the church, new traditions and interpretation begin to contradict other books, and the Word of God cannot contradict, it can have parodoxes but no contradictions. That is why Scripture interpret's Scripture. God made sure that by faith, we would learn what He wanted to convey. Words in Scripture have some times many meanings, and it is our duty to find the right one for the context of the message. But the simple Truth anyone can understand if they are born of the Spirit. The hard parts need to be researched more then the simple ones.
---Mark_V. on 12/26/11


Strongaxe, believers have the privilege to receive the reveal word of God and understand it. Jesus spoke in parables because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear, for assuredly, I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it." And the reason for that, because when someone reads the word and does not understand it, Jesus says, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. That's a design plan. That's why many read it, don't understand it. But we receive it by faith. Spiritual matters belong to believers only.
---Mark_V. on 12/23/11


Mark_V.:

I didn't say scripture is imperfect, only that our belief on just WHICH books comprise scripture is a matter of faith and tradition. So it all comes down to faith. But doesn't it do that anyway?

Time and time again, God goes out of his way to NOT make things easy for us. He does not live visibly floating in the sky for all to see. He does not speak to us through a megaphone for all to hear. He went to great lengths to make a world with God indistinguishable from a world without God, so the only way we can perceive him is through faith, so it is through choice and not compulsion.
---StrongAxe on 12/22/11


Strongaxe, I know because the Christian life is by faith in God. Everything we believe of God is by faith. There is many reasons why the inerrancy issue is important to evangelicals. First, if the Bible errs when it speaks on matters not essential to salvation, then it may be in error whenever it speaks about the nature of man, interpersonal and family matters, the will and emotions, and many more related to Christian living.
Second, as church history has repeatedly proved, when groups who begin by questioning the validity of small details eventually they question larger doctrines as well. If we begin with a presupposition that Scripture "does contain errors," and then find an apparent discrepancy between two or more texts,
---Mark_V. on 12/22/11


Strongaxe Part 2: Mod. please print.
continue, we may decide that one or both contain errors. But if we begin with the presupposition that Scripture "does not contain errors" we are motivated to find an exegetically justifiable way of resolving any seeming discrepancy. Theological analysis' as it is called which consists essentially of comparing a given text with all other texts on the same subject. Our approach to the analysis will differ, according to whether we assume that the teaching of the various texts may represent a diversity of though occasioned by the inclusion of errors. Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives of the Old Testament as straightforward records of fact. I do as well.
---Mark_V. on 12/22/11




Mark_V.:

How do you know (say) that Ecclesiastes is scripture, while Ecclesiasticus is not? How do you know which fo these was God-breathed, and which was not?
---StrongAxe on 12/21/11


Strongaxe, we don't know who is born of the Spirit. What we know is that we believe that the word of God is inspired by God, put together and received as truth by the church, guided by the Spirit to bring us the Truth. If we question even the writers of Scripture, we might as well throw out as many books as we want, and we become the bar of what Truth is. We could question Luke and say, it was only his opinion, for he was not an eye witness. We could question Moses, for we know he didn't write all five first books. What we do know is that God spoke and it was written. We believe that by faith. Otherwise why have a Bible in the first place.
---Mark_V. on 12/21/11


Mark_V.

Yes. But how do we know if somebody ELSE is born of the spirit, and is a reliable conduit of non-biblical tradition? Either God has to speak to our OWN spirits in that matter (in which case we don't really need the tradition at all, since God is telling us directly), or we must take their word for it, or the words of others, passed down through tradition.
---StrongAxe on 12/21/11


Strongaxe, of course God does not appear from the sky for He is Spirit, but you forget that the Holy Spirit of God is working through those who are born again of the Spirit. He guides them to all Truth. Remember Mulder from exfiles, we are not alone. His renment has always been around to make sure others come to know the Truth.
---Mark_V. on 12/21/11


Mark_V.:

I didn't say that God is not there. However, God does not see fit to appear in the sky and tell us which books are in the Bible. Rather, that information is passed down to us from others - by tradition, and we have to take their word for it.

Of course, the alternative is to use our own source of divince inspiration (which is hard to distinguish from "a gut feeling") to know whether any books are divinely inspired or not. In fact, this is very thing tha Mormons tell you to do do see whether or not the Book of Mormon is inspired, and they will tell you that they "feel" that it is.
---StrongAxe on 12/21/11


Strongaxe, my goodness, where is God in all this? You seem to be indicating all the man are working on their own ideas and their own truth. God has alway kept a remnant for Himself all through history. If this came from man and not God, we would all be in trouble. Sorry strongaxe, my faith is in the Lord and not man or his traditions. God guided these individuals to put together His truth. None of it would have been possible without God, for anything without faith is sin. We would have a book full of sin.
---Mark_V. on 12/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Mark_V.:

1+2+3. These are laudable criteria. However, the Bible does not actually say that these are the criteria for scripture anywhere. These criteria are traditional.
1. How do we know a book has apostolic authorship? We can't ask the apostles - we must rely on tradition (since some books falsely claim apostolic authorship).
2. How do we know what the church accepted? Tradition.
3. Which are those books about which we have no doubt? Again, by using similar logic, tradition.
How do we know which members of the council were moved by the Holy Spirit? God didn't tell us, so we have only their word for it. I.e. tradition.
---StrongAxe on 12/20/11


Strongaxe, you said,

" how do WE distingush what is divinely inspired scipture from other writings that appear to be divine?"

We do not distinqush what is divinely inspired, the cannon is complete already.
Criteria used,
1. They must have apostolic authorship or endorsement.
2. They must be received as authoritative by the early church.
3. They must be in harmony with the books about which there is no doubt. This criteria was made possible on as the members of council were moved by the Holy Spirit. Once for all. The Roman Catholic Church later include the Apocrypha, but they were not in harmony with many of the books there was no doubt on.
---Mark_V. on 12/20/11


Mark_V.:

You said: The one you see today. The whole of Scripture

The question is NOT whether or not scripture is inspired. The question is rather, how do WE distingush what is divinely inspired scipture from other writings that appear to be divinely inspired, but are not?

By a convention passed down by tradition since scripture itself has no table of contents.

Thus, we recognize that there is nevertheless sometimes Truth in traditions that are not written down. Traditions that we must take other people's word for on faith.
---StrongAxe on 12/19/11


Yes. But the question still remains: Just what IS this "scripture" that is given? How do we know what it is? We have to rely on tradition to tell us this, .....
---StrongAxe on 12/16/11

Tradition teaches only evolved tradition.
Scriptures, two or more pointing or confirming one another release us from traditions/doctrines and self elect preachers. All that do not pertain to truth.
The only deception is what we accept/change or modify.....in opposition or ignorance of what GOD's messengers collectively say.

Christ for example is substansiated by the messengers before him. His miracles confirmed yet again, to others physically/spiritually blind.
---Trav on 12/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Strongaxe, You now say,
"Yes. But the question still remains: Just what IS this "scripture" that is given?"
The one you see today. The whole of Scripture. And of course what that passage says was not yet written down in paper but when it was spoken it was Truth. For it too came from God. For the Truth is from God not man. All Scripture is God-breath. Had Scripture originated with man, then cultural conditioning and man error would certainly be a factor to be reckoned with, however, Scripture affirms that "prophecy never had it origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" 2 Peter 1:21), (God is not a man, that He should lie) Num. 23:19.
---Mark_V. on 12/19/11


The doctrine of the eucharist also known as transubstantiation, is "in which bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ"

No where in the Scripture are we taught of such a perverted ritual where, "the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ".

Paul said, "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 1 Corinthians 11:25-26

Paul never said the "bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ"!
---christan on 12/17/11


Mark_V.:

Yes. But the question still remains: Just what IS this "scripture" that is given? How do we know what it is? We have to rely on tradition to tell us this, because God doesn't appear in the sky and tell everyone "Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" etc.

Also, remember that at the time those very words that you quoted were written, they were NOT yet "scripture", yet they WERE still profitable.
---StrongAxe on 12/16/11


Strongaxe, You said,
"No, God is NOT absent. However, God doesn't magically "teach us religion". "Faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God".
The Word of God was been proclaimed all through the New Testament before it was written. God alone is infallible. The question was, "is the Bible the only infallible source of special revelation? Scripture was given under Divine inspiration. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, throughly equipped for every good work" ( 2 Tim. 3:16,17).
---Mark_V. on 12/16/11


Send a Free Inspirational Ecard


Mark_V.:

Yes, I do.

No, God is NOT absent. However, God doesn't magically "teach us religion". "Faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God". We only way we know the Bible IS the Word of God is by taking other people's word for it.

Cults have a failing - a desire for total certainty, relieving one of the responsiblity of discernment. Evangelicals share this weakness - a black-and-white attitude towards authority and perfection of scripture vs. anything else.

God uses imperfect humans and writings (variant Bible manuscripts, Bible citing books we no longer possess, etc.) God never said the Word (or world) would be perfect - only that it would be good enough for us.
---StrongAxe on 12/16/11


Strongaxe, do you not believe the Bible? you keep speaking for man and his traditions, I keep speaking for God and His works. You say,
"Furthermore, the tradition that tells us which books are in the Bible itself, is more important than the Bible, because without it, we would have no Bible"
Where is God in all this? Absent? God kept a remnant for Himself for that very purpose. The people put the Bible together by the direction of God. What you are saying is that people without the Holy Spirit put together certain books that became truth. You have seen what the RCC has done through history, added and added more traditions. Are we to understand they are also Truths? Just nonesense.
---Mark_V. on 12/16/11


Mark_V.:

Yes, but before we can know just what God's word tells us, we must FIRST know just, exactly what God's word IS in the first place. And the determination of what comprises God's word is tradition that is not, itself, recorded in the Bible. (Tou can say the Holy Spirit inspired certain books, but THAT belief is also tradition).

Furthermore, the tradition that tells us which books are in the Bible itself, is more important than the Bible, because without it, we would have no Bible (in the same way that the U.S. constitution supercedes any laws).

Now, if one tradition must be on an equal footing with scripture, it means the premise "no tradition can be on the same footing as scripture" is self-contradictory.
---StrongAxe on 12/15/11


Strongaxe, it is not about who is right between Catholics and protestants. It is about what God's Word tells us. That is the only Truth. That is my point. That's why Sola Scriptura was introduced by the reformers. Scripture interprets Scripture. But when tradition not found in Scripture is introduced on an equal footing with the Word of God, it corrupts the real truth. Only God's Word reveals God's will for His people. All Scripture is God-breathed" ( 2 Tim. 3:16). Man's traditions are not God-breathed.
The New Testament was authoritive, having been produced by the Holy Spirit, the were accepted by the church and they enjoyed the same status as the Old Testament books.
---Mark_V. on 12/15/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Who is right? There is no easy objective way to decide. At least with scripture, it is easy to say whether or not scripture commands or forbids something - just look it up.
---StrongAxe on 12/15/11

Amen. By the scriptures 2 or more, we may substantiate the errors of all denominations....and my personal own which are found.
But, mine are my own. Not a collusion or adaptation with an unscriptural rule making party of men.

We have a High Priest in Christ. i have no need to go through my sanctioned neighbor to him.... even if Rome approves it. Who is Rome?
Or any denomination of "men".
i don't need any of them to seek our Teacher and Priest.
---Trav on 12/15/11


StrongAxe, the Holy Spirit will guide followers in line with Scripture. He will not guide people away from Scripture, nor guide them to live contrary to God's commands.

Likewise if a tradition is established in a church it must also be in line with Scripture, not contrary to it.

How would you react if a visiting speaker at your church advised the congregation to do something you know is forbidden by or contrary to Scripture?
---Warwick on 12/15/11


Mark_V.:

Yes, but how can one objectively determine just what the "work of the Spirit" is? Catholics will say that the Holy Spirit has guided the church and its practices throughout history, while Protestants will disagree. Who is right? There is no easy objective way to decide. At least with scripture, it is easy to say whether or not scripture commands or forbids something - just look it up. This is easy when two dissenting parties agree on just what scripture is. It becomes more muddied when they can't.
---StrongAxe on 12/15/11


Strongaxe, human tradition and the Word of God are two different things. You leave out the work of the Holy Spirit altogether. Man's traditions are not the Truth of Scripture. For many years the Apostles taught the church all that God was revealing to them, and the church accepted their teachings. The church had every confidence that what the apostles taught them was indeed the will of God. Not the traditions of man. Like the prophets before them, they too would die, but God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to record God's will in the Scriptures and the church accepted their writings.
---Mark_V. on 12/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Mark_V.:

Precisely! These are traditions that are NOT written down in scripture, YET they are STILL authoritative!

Also, I did not say that the New Testament was man's tradition, merely that the list of which books are, in fact, the word of God, is not itself mentioned in the word of God, so we must rely on human tradition to determine that list.

Paul did not himself hand down the canon of scripture either.
---StrongAxe on 12/14/11


Strongaxe, you said,
"this was TRADITION and was NOT written in scripture"
The New Testament did not come out of man's traditions. The instructions given to Paul, whether by letter or word of mouth, is authoritive and binding upon the believers. What Paul made known to them by "word of mouth" was not his opinion or well-intentioned veiws, but what God had revealed to him. When Paul came to Thessalonica and spoke, he was making known to the people what God had made known to him.
"When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe" ( 1 Thess. 2:13). And I could go more.
---Mark_V. on 12/14/11


Mark_V.:

How do you know it was already truth? While there was a concensus before that time, it was not universal. Regardless of WHO put together the canon (a corrupted Catholic church, an uncorrupted Catholic church, early Church fathers, or the apostles themselves), this was TRADITION and was NOT written in scripture. So if one rejects ALL non-scriptural as not authoritative, one must necessarily reject scripture itself.

Samuel: While scripture is authoritative, that does not exclude everything else that is not in conflict with it.

Warwick: Scripture neither requires nor forbids priests.

Peter: I am not of the "old church". I just point out the logical inconsistency in "sola scriptura".
---StrongAxe on 12/14/11


1Cor11:23,...he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
Where is the priest even hinted at here?
---Warwick on 12/8/11

No hint was needed. High Priest is Christ. An only Christ. The Twelve gathered were representative of Israel, the entire body/house of.

The "remembrance" is in honor of two specific houses/sticks separated becoming one body again through Christ.

The wine/blood the price paid in death releasing both houses from their original marriage covenant entering a new covenant.
---Trav on 12/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Strongaxe, you guys are implying since people from the Catholic Church put the Bible together, man created what was Truth. All They did was accept what was already Truth. They did not create the Truth. In this, the Church is a servant and not a mistress, a depository and not a judge. The Church exercises the office of a minister, not a magistrate. She delivers a testimony, not a judicial sentence. The Church really discerns the canon of the Scriptures, she does not make it. In reality, the authority of the Scriptures is not founded, then on the authority of the Church, it is the Church that is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. Peter in his epistles gave a generous hint that this process was happening even while he was alive.
---Mark_V. on 12/14/11


\\All believers are priests according to scripture.
---Samuel on 12/13/11\\

But not all are deacons, presbyters, or bishops, who are ordained for ministry unto the priestly people of God.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 12/13/11


Sola Scriptora is not contridictory.

The books chosen of the Bible are part of a church tradtion. Which we can accept.

But all church tradtions must not contridict what the Bible and the prophets wrote.

Sola Scriptora is the doctrine that all teaching must agree with the words of Scripture. Traditons which do not contridict it can be useful but must never take the place of scripture.

All believers are priests according to scripture.
---Samuel on 12/13/11


StrongAxe: 'Also, "sola scriptura" is self-contradictory. etc'

You bring a very good point, about what books are Scriptural.

Could I ask (mostly out of interest): As you are of the 'old Church' I take it you accept the OT Apocrypha? Do you have any more books in the NT, though?
---Peter on 12/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Warwick, Cluny: You seem to be arguing too much. The question of how much can be used as well as scripture is complex, but it's clear that some things can be:

For example, if you discuss the actions of the Father and the Holy Spirit, then simple math will make me know that 'you missed out' one person of the Trinity

So some extra actions can be used.

Your real dispute is how much more can be used - simple common sense MUST be used (Warwick)

But too much addition (Cluny) can lead us to a place where we end up assuming things contradictory to scripture (because our ability to infer is not good enough)
---Peter on 12/13/11


StrongAxe and Cluny, what you have written is not convincing argument against what I have written.

The idea that remembering Jesus via eating bread and drinking wine was intended as a priest-controlled religious ceremony is not from Scripture, and is contradicted by Scripture. Therefore it cannot justly be claimed to have been instituted by God.

That "it was separated from the meal VERY early as a liturgical action performed by the CHURCH, and not a piece of mere domestic piety" does not support its veracity. This is an argument from silence.

It is a contradiction in terms to refer to anything as "authentic church tradition." What makes it authentic?
---Warwick on 12/13/11


Warwick:

God is not the author of confusion, so "authentic" church tradition cannot supportably contradict scripture. However, there are many things about which scripture is silent, yet we still believe them.

As both Cluny and I have pointed out, the very list of which books are in scripture are not mentioned anywhere in scripture itself. The fact that a book is mentioned is not enough, because not all books are mentioned, and some are mentioned that are not scripture (e.g. Paul quoted pagan Greek philosphers). The list of canonical books is, itself, extra-biblical tradtion, and if you reject all non-biblical revelation, you must also reject most of the Bible, since you can't know which parts of it are authentic.
---StrongAxe on 12/13/11


\\Nowhere does Scripture say eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Jesus is a priest-controlled religious ceremony. This rips it out of its meal of believers context, as described in Scripture.\\

But you yourself are making an assumption that Scripture does not support--namely, you are assuming that Scripture is the last word on Christian and liturgical practice.

Nowhere does the Bible say this.

OTOH, history of the Eucharistic rite shows that it was separated from the meal VERY early as a liturgical action performed by the CHURCH, and not a piece of mere domestic piety.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


StrongAxe I understand his point.

We call Jesus Creator, Saviour, and Lord, and believe in eternity, heaven, hell, forgiveness and are called Christians because of His word. Anything not confirmed by, or contrary to Scripture is therefore outside of God's explicit revelation.

What Cluny proposes is both unsupported by, and contrary to Scripture and is therefore man-made religious ceremony.

Nowhere does Scripture say eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Jesus is a priest-controlled religious ceremony. This rips it out of its meal of believers context, as described in Scripture.

We may remember Jesus via communion in a church service also. But it is something we do, not the domain of priest.
---Warwick on 12/12/11


Warwick:

I think you missed Cluny's point.

Anyone who believes God's truth is found ONLY in the scriptures, must, according to his own stated beliefs, prove anything he says from scriptures alone. He may dismiss what others say if it isn't in scripture, but he can't force that belief on others.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians (like Cluny) believe God's truth is in both scripture and church tradition, so when they prove something, they refer to both.

(Also, "sola scriptura" is self-contradictory. How do we know which books are scripture and which ones are not? The Bible contains no table of contents. The list of which books to include was made by church councils - i.e. extra-biblical church tradition.)
---StrongAxe on 12/12/11


Cluny, we follow God, not any man. As Scripture says all men are sinners. We are told "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" Colossians 2:8. This clearly says don't follow human tradition but Christ.

You wrote "Remember--this is what you believe, so you have to be able to prove it by the Bible." I say the same to you. If you cannot support your view from Scripture then it is but vain human tradition.
---Warwick on 12/12/11


\\Nowhere in Scripture are we called to live out our Christian lives following the dictates of man.\\

Show me in the Scripture where it says that it itself is the final rule of faith and practice.

Remember--this is what you believe, so you have to be able to prove it by the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 12/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Cluny, responding to the preaching of the Gospel is not incorrect, nor a religious ceremony whether as recorded in Acts ch. 2, or in a church, or football field.
---Warwick on 12/10/11


Cluny, you wrote""Show me from the Bible" is your rule, not mine,..." which demonstrates the root cause of your problem. Nowhere in Scripture are we called to live out our Christian lives following the dictates of man. In reality we are told to avoid such behaviour.
---Warwick on 12/10/11


\\From long experience I know humans are passionately religious and love ceremonies. I suppose that is how communion was taken out of its Biblical context.
---Warwick on 12/10/11\\

Like walking down the aisle to an invitation hymn or altar call is NOT a religious ceremony mentioned nowhere in the Bible?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/11


Cluny, the Bullinger Lexicon of the NT defines 'remembrance' (1 Corinthians 11:24,25) as meaning "A calling up to mind, a causing to remember, remembrance." Also in Hebrews 10:3. The Concise Dictionary of the Geeek Kohlenberger and Swanson defines it "reminder remembrance."

I cannot see any reason to consider it otherwise.

You still haven't answered the challenge.
---Warwick on 12/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


"Show me from the Bible" is your rule, not mine, and I don't have to play by it.

Walking down the aisle to an invitation hymn or altar call is nowhere in the Bible, so if you're going to play your own game fairly, you must show where it's there.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/11


Peter, I only know what Scripture says and Jesus command was given in the context of a meal and did not refer to a priest controlled religious ceremony.

From long experience I know humans are passionately religious and love ceremonies. I suppose that is how communion was taken out of its Biblical context.
---Warwick on 12/10/11


\\Cluny you have not answered the challenge. \\

When you answer my challenges, I'll answer yours. Fair enough?

\\ I am not bothered if you wish to remember Jesus by eating bread and drinking wine in church\\

The Green word "anamnesis" in 1 Cor 11 does not mean a mere mental remembrance, but an actual making present of that (or in this case, WHO) is being commemorated.

You didn't think it WAS a mere mental remembrance, did you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/11


Warwick: 'Cluny the events recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23,24 occurred at a meal, and were meant to be part of a meal, in future.'

In 1 Cor, it was a meal, indeed.

But Paul writes about some things going on (some getting drunk, some going hungry) in a rather bad way.

Is it possible that the communion was slowly changed because when it was simply a meal, things did not work in the holy way that God wanted, and thus now we have communion as a ceremony in church?

Just an idea!
---Peter on 12/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Cluny you have not answered the challenge. We both know it is because nothing in Scripture supports your contention. I am not bothered if you wish to remember Jesus by eating bread and drinking wine in church. However His command is wider than that, concerning everyday meals and no priest need be involved.


"And where do you think Christ's command to preach or to baptize were intended to be parts of a Church service?" I am not sure what this means.
---Warwick on 12/9/11


\\If you believe these instructions were given to be part of a formal religious ceremony goverened by the priesthood, then you need to show where Scripture explicitly says this.\\

And where do you think Christ's command to preach or to baptize were intended to be parts of a Church service?

Where does the Scripture explicitly say so?

And while we're at it, where does Scripture EXPLICITLY say it is the sole rule of faith and practice for the Church, or even give a list of what is to be considered Scripture?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/9/11


Cluny, you sure do have a way of mixing words, thoughts and theologies. Who said antying about Protestants?

I gave the example of living in fornication because Born Again Spirit filled believers are REPENTENT Sinners, we don't continually live in sin, we abstain from every form of evil lust. We avoid all appearance of evil. We follow God's word..that was my point. She isn't following God's word, doesn't walk with him yet wouldn't take communion from me, just her friend who got it from the Priest. It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with Warwick on this topic. He has raised some very TRUTHFUL points.
---anon on 12/9/11


\\Cluny the events recorded in ...\\

Wrong, Warwick.

The "separation of the Mass from the Meal" is something that books have been written on, and cannot be handled in 125 words, and I'm not even going to try.

But consider the oldest Eucharistic prayers in the Didache, which is a first century writing. It is obvious that the Communion was a Church Service, and NOT done in context of a meal.

**This Catholic friend lived in fornication for 7 years...**

Of course, anon, Protestants NEVER live in forncation, nor do they get mad at God.

As for the rest, look to your own soul, not someone else's.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Cluny the events recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23,24 occurred at a meal, and were meant to be part of a meal, in future.

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26.

If you believe these instructions were given to be part of a formal religious ceremony goverened by the priesthood, then you need to show where Scripture explicitly says this.
---Warwick on 12/8/11


In Judaism every meal is a religious ceremony, with set prayers from the Siddur. All the more was the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples at Pesach a religious ceremony.
---John.usa on 12/8/11


\\1 Corinthians 11:23,4.. He did this as part or a meal, not a church service.//

Your posting has several ahistorical assumptions and homemade dogmas behind it.

These words were addressed to a CHUCH precisely about their conduct at the Lord's Supper AS A CHURCH SERVICE. Why else did the full passage end, "And the rest I will set in order when I come?"

This verse was not addressed to all and sundry to make the Eucharist an act of private devotion. You didn't think it was, did you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/11


Cluny-easy to settle. Consult Scripture and see if you can find support for remembering Jesus via bread and wine, as being a formal religious ceremony goverened by the priesthood. You will find no support there because your view is not Biblcal but man-made church dogma.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Colossians 2:8

You cannot reasobably deny that Jesus commanded them to remember Him via bread and wine (two everyday parts of a meal)at a meal, commanding them "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
---Warwick on 12/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


\\Cluny leaving aside the dogma created by religious folk can you quote Scripture which says it is a religious event rather than a with meals remembrance of Jesus? \\

Prove YOUR assumptions (giving scripture) that lie behind your question first, which clearly differ from the understanding of the vast majority of Christians (pre- and post-Reformation) throughout the centuries.

Be sure to leave aside your homemade dogma while you're at it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/11


Birds of a feather flock together: the dead with the dead, and the living with the living. Therefore catholics are superstitiously bound to their dead religion, and they are ignorant to the freedom obtained in The Truth.
---Eloy on 12/8/11


I agree with Warwick's comments...where is it mentioned in the bible that ONLY a Priest from the Roman Catholic Church can minister communion?

AND...WHICH IS RIGHT? The Roman Catholic Church OR believers in Christ Jesus, Obeying His Word, loving Him with all of their heart and soul, those who are born again and "see" the Kingdom of God?"

This Catholic friend lived in fornication for 7 years and now is angry at God that her boyfriend died suddenly and he's gone now. Shouldn't she repent of the anger before she takes communion SO FREELY???? I think so, don't you?
---anon on 12/8/11


Cluny leaving aside the dogma created by religious folk can you quote Scripture which says it is a religious event rather than a with meals remembrance of Jesus?

1 Corinthians 11:23,4The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." He did this as part or a meal, not a church service.

Where is the priest even hinted at here?
---Warwick on 12/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


\\I see nothing in Scripture to support communion being a church-based, priest-only religious ceremony.\\

I see nothing in Scripture to support communion being celebrated by just anybody and everybody, even by those who consider themselves to be born-again and spirit filled.

May I add that most churches have a similar rule--that only ordained ministers of the word and sacrament may do so?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/11


An ordained Roman Catholic Priest is the ONLY person who can prepare the Last Supper or Holy communion.

However, the Eucharist may be served by: the Priest, other Church officials, even lay people.

There simply are not enough Roman Catholic Priests to have ONLY them as the communion servers. Really!

Yet, there are some people, like your Catholic friend, who feel that a Priest-served communion has more of a "Spiritual" blessing or something. That's just how they Think, Believe, and Insist on it being done.
---Sag on 12/8/11


I see nothing in Scripture to support communion being a church-based, priest-only religious ceremony. As decreed by Jesus it is remembering Him via two common things, wine, and bread which were regularly consumed, with normal meals.

For example see 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
---Warwick on 12/7/11


Let's turn the question around. Would you as a spirit-filled believes accept communion from a Catholic priest if he offered it to you?
---John.usa on 12/7/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Roman Catholics have a defined polity as to who can consecrate and serve communion and unless you are in that polity A Roman Catholic to stay in good church standing cannot accept communion from you.
---Blogger9211 on 12/7/11


Because you are not ordained as a presbyter or bishop in the Aposotlc Succession, hence do not have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/7/11


An officially Roman Catholic person believes the Catholic communion is the actual body of Jesus, and that a Catholic priest is needed to do the Mass in which the bread is changed into Jesus' body, then called the "Eucharist". They do not believe a Spirit-filled person's communion can be changed into the body of Jesus, and so the person won't take it from you. But the real reason why each individual holds to and practices that is for you to find out, by really getting to know the person (c: I was a social misfit who would believe whatever Catholic authorities told me, was stubborn and in denial, and did not even know how to love.
---Bill_willa6989 on 12/7/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.