Protestant Communion



  • Seriously, the things I have to deal with...unbelievable J.

    See thats your think you have some divine mandate to criticise and berate everyone with whom you disagree.You dont have to deal with anything .Just let it go.
  • Guys please nock it off , seriously in all honesty you are both acting like 12 year old childern , knok it off, have some repesct for each other allright, and knok of the male ego seriously what is, someone asked a question, and the question was not answered in a manner that is fair, cause j and iqbal, thought to have thier littel war on the forum how is that fair to us HUh?? have ur war somewhere else, and yes this a coptic webiste, and it projects coptic views, and we are willing to listen to other view points, okay no one is attacking anybody, and the amount of sarcasm used its discusting! frankly neither of u are showing any attempt wahtsover at christian behaviour so KKOCK IT OFF BOTH OF U GROW Up!
    okay that was my little thing, now going back to the subject at hand, protestent , communiteis pracitce open communion, which communion, that alows members of other denomonations and churchs share in the blesses sacrament, i dunt know if they concider communion a sacrament of not any info on that would be nice alright ...with no anger, and all that other stuff! :) :D

  • LOL...I dont consider*** a bad word really.It just another word for "rear end".

    Nice one J, try and save face, im sure Jesus agrees with you, you hypocrite. This is not the first time you've actually said things like this, you've gone off into a childish rant in a previous post where you personally threatened me as well. The truth only upsets if you let satan to do so J, humble yourself and admit your errors, you dont vindicate your heterodox Protestant beliefs by threatining to kick your opponents rear end. God help you.

    Constantly harrassing people with whom you disagree.

    *yawns* J, some people such as yourself, dont take being corrected very well, theyre too stubborn and chilidsh to admit fault. This is their problem, not mine. I dont beat around the bush - if someone speaks carelessly in confidence about something, I will firmly correct them. If someone seems to have made an innocent error, my approach is different, and this is evidenced in my posts. But I dont need to defend myself against your childish rant, I just want to keep exposing you, so the next time you start crying, people are aware of your tactics and true person.

    Ill let my posts and christian conduct stand next to yours anyday.

    Again, this self-righteousness - I never started a competition as to who is more Christian J - dont they teach you humility in Protestantism. I simply say as Christ did, woe to you hypocrites - you cannot accuse me of character assassination, when you have resorted to foul language and racism in the past, and especially when you are the one began with the ad hominems, due to your incapabilities of dealing with my very plain and straightforward responses which had nothing to do with your person, and everything to do with the theological invalidity of your post.

    If its not arguing with me about every topic under the sun your jumping on your own people{take ILOVESAINTMARK as an example}.

    I dont care who makes the careless statement, I will correct it if I need it to be. I never "jumped" on Ilovestmark - he said something false, and I corrected him. He continued to pursue his confidence on the issue, I continued to emphasise that he was ignorant on the issue of Islamic polemics, and that he should listen to what im saying because I have experience in that arena.

    Its just unbelievable how the administrators here allow you to engage in such conduct.

    Again with the hypocricy, you dont learn do you? You make racist comments against Egyptians, you use foul language, you promote heterodox beliefs, and have a cry whenever your refuted, and you want to tell me that the administators (who are Egyptian and administer an Orthodox website) should ban me? ME?

    Oh J..*sighs* i know you will grow up one day. Im sure of it.
  • my spelling is bad sorry and i think i skiped words :-[ jeezz thats sad !

  • you think you have some divine mandate to criticise and berate everyone with whom you disagree

    J, are you dyslexic or blind - i mean have you actually been reading our dialogue? YOU are the one who berated me, for disagreeing and correcting YOUR heteredox and careless comment. Again the format of our dialogue:

    - J speaks falsehood concerning the altar and priesthood
    - Iqbal responds to J's comments, challenging his comments, not his person.
    - Hos Erof provides Biblical proof
    - Iqbal provides Patristic proof
    - J cries
    - Iqbal tell J to stop crying
    - J resorts to ad hominem

    Are you so delusional that you cannot see this? YOU are the one who cried simply because I challenged and corrected your statement concerning the altar and priesthood - YOU are the one who brought up my person and character and resorted to ad hominem because you couldnt deal with the arguments, not me.

    Keep it up J, you're doing well. Ive never seen someone so persistent in humiliating themselves.
  • J, keep responding brother, you're making it too easy to expose you.

    You dont have to expose me.My words stand for themselves.Just as yours do.You keep stating that I need to "save face".I'm not interested in doing that.If people like me here on this forum then they like me.If they dont,then so be it.I'm a man and I stand by my words and conduct.Im not like you trying to hide and shift the focus{"can anyone show me what Ive said wrong in this thread",etc}.You know perfectly well what Im upset about.As your instant message made perfectly clear.Be a man,not a coward.Stand by your words.

    This is the last Im going to say to you.I tried to be a christian towards you and not resort to the same type of tactics in which you engage.But I see thats impossible.Youll always be there ready to pounce{thats what you live for}on every word I speak.Your a constant thorn in my side and it seems that the administrators approve of your continuous animosity and poor behavior.Its rubbing off on me.So to avoid this in the future Ill leave this forum to you.

    May God bless all the people here and to all my friends I wish you God's best in everything.I really appreaciate all of your kindness and warm christian love which you so graciously shared with me.I'll always have fond memories.God bless you. ;D
  • iqbal seriously if u are gunna pst , answer my question and stop saying stuff! God, just ignore it seriously, now he is gunna respond with something along the same lines of what u said (not that i read it cause its a waste of my time) and it will never end, so please stick tot he topic fight ur war somewhere else, or this thread is gunna get locked! i dunt want that to happen!

  • stop! just STOP

  • Im not like you trying to hide and shift the focus{"can anyone show me what Ive said wrong in this thread",etc}.

    I shifted the focus? LOL <--- now that was a time for LOL.

    Lets see:

    Thread concerns the heteredox views of the Eucharist:

    1) J speaks falsehood about the altar and priesthood.
    2) Iqbal challenges his response
    3) J cries
    4) Iqbal tells J to stop crying
    5) J makes unwarranted assertion
    6) Iqbal asks the people and J where the justification for his assertion is.

    Your telling me i shifted the focus at 6)? LOL You shifted the focus at 3), and 6) was simply showing, that once again, you need to lie to save face, for not once in my response to you on the relevant issue of this thread, did i mention you, or your person, or your character.

    Another strike for J.

    Youll always be there ready to pounce{thats what you live for}on every word I speak.

    J, I dont comrpomise the truth for the sake of some kid who cannot handle criticism of his heteredox comments. Its clear for everyone to see - that my initial response to you in this thread, which has lead to you being a drama queen once again, was blunt, dispassionate, and straightforward - I was addressing your comments, and said nothing to attack you, I never mocked you, or anything of the sort. I will continue to answer you in the same manner, in dispassionate firmness, whenever you confidently assert and promote a heteredox belief, and yes I will continue to allow yourself to humiliate youself everytime you decide to be a drama queen about it.

    Your a constant thorn in my side and it seems that the administrators approve of your continuous animosity and poor behavior.

    *yawns* - J, grow up man, if you cant deal with being firmly corrected, then dont comment at all. After bringing up the fact you use foul language and resort to racism, almost 3 times now, you still think you are justified to make the above comments. Its really pathetic.

    Its rubbing off on me.

    Ah more hypocricy - of the oh so Holy J. Just like Adam and Eve, he is unable to accept responsibility for his own behaviour.

    So to avoid this in the future Ill leave this forum to you.

    No worries Pal, if everytime your heteredox doctrines are corrected, your going to turn into a big drama, and have huge cry and start attacking my person and resorting to ad hominem, then I think thats the best option. Im not going to feel sorry for you, because once again, all you have done is unjustifiably shifted the discussion from your heteredox beliefs to my person and character, and this thread isnt about me J, its about the blessed the Eucharist, and the holy altar of the Lord upon which the Eucharist is offered, which you tried to demean, and the authority of the priest to enact the sacrafice, which you tried to deny. If you're going to keep turning threads into a discussion about me, trying to prove to everyone that your the righeous one and im the bad unchristian guy, then get lost.

    Have a good one J, you take care of yourself okay buddy.
  • FOUR YEAR OLDS, if anyone reads this they will see what four year olds we have on here sad sad sad!
  • hey jfranklin and iqbal

    i apologize ahead of time for saying this, especially if it causes any offence to anyone.

    now, i know i'm in no position to say this because i'm not a model Christian myself, but perhaps this ongoing debate between you guys should be held at a more personal level away from this post, because it is not exactly protraying the greatest Christian behaviour.
    i know, again, i'm not the person to be telling you this because i do have my many faults, but guys please try to keep this argument away from this post so we can focus on the question at hand.

    you guys are both great and have ur own opinions, so please share your wisdom with us as much as you want, without throwing yourselves at each others throats.

    its understandable that we all have our differences, but i'm sure there's another way to address this without trampling on the commandments of the Bible regarding love, humility, respect, obedience, etc.
    yes, i'm sorry for saying this because i first and formost break all those commandments, but please try and talk about the question at hand now.

    forgive me...

    take care and God bless
  • but perhaps this ongoing debate between you guys should be held at a more personal level away from this post

    I agree. If J want to discuss my Christianity or person or character, he is free to PM me, we can talk all day long about how unchristian i am, and how holy he is, no problem. I responded to his comments on the Eucharist - my first post was challenging his response, i made some brief comments on tradition, and the nature of Protestantism in general, my second post was full of early patristic quotes, again relevant to the issue at hand - If he wanted to respond to those relevant issues I would have been more than happy to objectively discuss them, but I dont appreciate him trying to save face by discussing me, and our previous encounters etc. etc. Simple.

    Im not here to be anyone's role model - thats not my job. My attitude or character however warply its may be distorted in the eyes of others, is not of anyone's concern. I discuss doctrine, and I dont compromise the truth period, if people like J cant handle it, then thats their problem. Period.
  • I think another significant point needs to be made with regards to the issue of nature of the divine presence - which was briefly spoken of in the enyclopedia excerpt pasted by SaviourOfMySoul.

    It says:

    Like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, Lutherans subscribe to the doctrine of the Eucharistic Real Presence, believing that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. They do not endorse any particular view of how this takes place, and regard attempts to explain how the Eucharist "works" in terms of philosophical metaphysics as disrespectful of the Sacrament's miraculous and mysterious character

    Suprisingly, this sounds exactly like the Orthodox understanding of the divine presence. The Catholics use the term "transubstantiation" to define the process of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ, whereby they employ metaphysical terms such as "substance" and "accident" - saying that whilst the whole substance changes, the accidents remain the same - essentially what they are saying, putting aside all the jargon, is that the bread and wine, still look, feel like, and taste like bread and wine, but in actuality and reality it is the blood and body of our Lord Christ.

    The Orthodox response to this however, is that we too believe that the bread and wine being consumed is in actuality and reality the body and blood of our Lord, we do not try and explain it using such metaphysical and philosophical terms. We know the transformation occurs, yet we dont seek to know how - that part is the mystery.

    The next part of Maria's excerpt reads:

    Lutherans sometimes say that the body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread and wine. Non-Lutherans sometimes describe the Lutheran doctrine as consubstantiation, but this is incorrect because, like transubstantiation, consubstantiation is rejected by Lutherans as a misguided attempt to philosophically categorize a divine mystery.

    This however, seems contradictory. The definition of consubstantiation itself, basically entails that after the consecration of the Eucharist - the "substance" of the body and blood of Christ mutuallycoexists with the substance of the bread and wine. Now whats the difference? Its very simple - It does not equate the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine - it simply says they "co-exist". As affirmed by the above encyclopedia, Lutherans say that Christ is "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but what they dont say is that Christ "is" the bread and wine. Hence, Lutherans, as well as high order Anglicans and other minority protestants, do in fact hold to a belief of consubstantiation, which again is another heresy.

    So here's a quick very basic overview again of the various beliefs:

    1) Orthodox view: The body is the bread and the blood is the wine, through a mysterious process that cannot be explained.

    2) Catholic view: transubstantiation: The body is the bread and the blood is the wine - substance changes, accidents remain the same.

    3) Minority protestant view: Consubtantiation: The body coexists with the bread, and the blood co-exists with the wine.
  • J, I apologise brother. Your right, im arrogant, im rude, and I have received numerous PM's from people telling me so too. Please forgive me, and please dont leave the forum, your one of the best contributers, and your posts are great to read. I'll try be more careful of what i type next time i respond to you.
  • Thanks for going back to the issue, so from what i gathered protastants do celebraate communion, but its obviously different then the way we celelberate or precive the great mystery of the eucharist, so simply they do but not like us , i still dunno weather or not they consider it a sacrament! :) anybody have anythoughts on that ???
  • but its obviously different then the way we celelberate or precive the great mystery

    As has been mentioned - Prostantism covers quite a broad range of sects which believe in various different beliefs and doctrines. With regards to the Eucharist, the majority do not believe in any sort of divine presence (as your Enyclopedia rightfully said), the bread and wine are mere symbols used to commemorate the Lord's crucifixion.

    Those that do believe in the divine presence, such as the Lutherans, and high order Anglicans, hold to a concept known as consubstantiation - this is basically where they say that Christ is with the bread and wine ("under, in, and above" as your enyclopedia excerpot says), in contrast to Orthdox and Catholic who say that Christ is the bread and wine.

    still dunno weather or not they consider it a sacrament!

    Yes it is considered a sacrament, regardless of how they view it.
  • Getting back to the issue of the altar and priestgood - Hos Erof referred us to a great book written by his H.H. which brings up a number of valid points, in addition, I would like to further discuss the validity of the Orthodox Liturgy itself and its function and the function of the priest with rgeards to the offering of the Eucharist.

    I will be arguing that the sacrament of the Eucharist which Christ Himself instituted, is in fact a memorial sacrifice (as those depicted in the Old Testament), as it has been understood since the inception of Christianity and throughout the ages, and hence there is relevance for the New Testament church, and the liturgy which is essentially the combination of the function of the Old Testament temple – upon which the sacrifice is offered upon the altar, with the function of the Old Testament synagogue – where the people are taught. It follows from this, that those who preside over the church incorporate the functions of both the Old Testament priest and the Old Testament elder.

    The priesthood:

    In both the Old and New Testament, we find three classes of “priests”: High priests, ministerial priests, and universal priests.

    During the time of the Exodus, we have Aaron as the first established high priest (Exodus 31:30), his 4 sons as ministerial priests (Exodus 28:21), and the nation of Israel acting as universal priests (Exodus 19:6). Prior to this time, only ministerial priesthood existed, and these ministerial priests were distinguished from the people in general, and they were the firstborn sons of each family (Exodus 19:22-24).

    In the New Testament we see this three-fold model also, with Christ as our high priest (Hebrews 3:1), Christ's ordained ministers of the Gospel as ministerial priests (Romans 15:16) and the Christian believers are the universal priests (1 Peter 2:5,9).

    The office of the priest is synonymous to that of the elder - “priest” being a shortened version of the Greek word for elder “Presbyteros.” The New testament testifies to this when it fuses the function of both the Old Testament priest (who serves in the temple) and the Old Testament elder (who serves in the synagogue) into one:

    Romans 15:15-16 "I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

    Revelation 5:8, where we read: "And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." - Here we have the twenty-four elders depicted as offering incense to God in bowls, in like manner as the Old Testament priests (Num. 7:84-86).

    The very Biblical emphasis of the fact that ministerial priests functions are unique to him alone, and cannot be enacted by we the universal priests, is clearly laid down in the story of Korah's rebellion as depicted in Numbers 16:1-11. In their attempt to usurp the ministerial role of priesthood, they offered incense to God, but God did not accept it and ultimately destroyed them. This incident is referenced in the New Testament in Jude 11 – indicating that we cannot restrict the warning against Korah's rebellion to the age of Old Testament. There is a clear distinction between ministerial priests and the laity – and the fact the elders of Revelations were acceptably performing priestly functions indicates a fusion of roles in the New Testament..

    Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were essentially saying in their rebellion: "In Exodus 19 God said we are all priests, thus we don't need ministerial priests since we can perform that function ourselves." Likewise, Proetstants today come along and say, "In 1 Peter 2, God said we are all priests, thus we don't need ministerial priests since we can perform that function ourselves.”

    The Eucharist as a memorial sacrifice offered before the Lord - just as the sacrafices of old - and the liturgy's taking on the temple service function, presenting the altar upon which the sacrafice is offered:

    The sacrificial dimension to the Eucharist is clearly established in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, in which it is shown to be the equivalent of the Old Testament passover feast, and hence a sacrificial meal to be consumed. Since elders have the duty of performing the sacraments, they thus have the duty also of performing the sacrifice, which again indicates the priestly nature of their office.

    Second of all, we must take careful note of the linguistical, and religious context of Christ's command to “Do this in remembrance of me.”, and the implications this has to how we carry out this command:


    The word poiein , translated "do", has sacrificial overtones in the scriptures. By examining the its usage in the Septuagint (Greek version of the OT), we find the verb being used frequently in a cult or sacrificial sense, such as in Exodus 29:38 for example, where the same Greek word is actually translated as “offer”: "This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . "


    The word anamnesis, translated “remebrance”, also has sacraficial overtones, where in fact all occurances of this word are employed in a sacraficial context, such as in Hebrews 10:3: "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder (anamnesis) of sins." An anamnesis is thus a memorial offering which one brings before the Lord, in order to prompt his remembrance. This thought is evidenced also in Numbers 10:10 - we read, "Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial (anamnesis) for you before your God."

    Therefore in the Orthodox liturgy that we have received and maintained from the first century, the church first celebrates what is synonymous to the synagogue serveice- Liturgy of the Word, proceeded by what is synoymous to the temple service - the Liturgy of the Eucharist – where the ministerial priest who is also the elder, offers the memorial sacrifice upon the altar.
  • Hello all - I came to this website after hearing about the murder of the "Coptic Christian" family, and wanted to find out what exacty was a "Coptic" Christian! I am about as Protestant as it gets, so felt compelled to answer some of the questions raised in this discussion. 1) We do celebrate communion, and it is often from an altar (it is in our church). If there is no altar, it is not for theological reasons. 2) The presence of Christ theology ranges from purely symbolic (most Baptist type) to a real but spiritual presence of Christ (Reformed Christian, Lutheran). These beliefs may vary within a given body of believers. 3) The Liturgical Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican) hold baptism and communion as Sacraments. The non-liturgical (Baptist, Evangelical) do not consider these sacraments, as means of grace. We consider them to be issues of obedience to God's Word.

    I hope this helps clear up some questions!
  • J, I apologise brother. Your right, im arrogant, im rude, and I have received numerous PM's from people telling me so too. Please forgive me, and please dont leave the forum, your one of the best contributers, and your posts are great to read. I'll try be more careful of what i type next time i respond to you.

    I apologise to you as well.I'm sorry for losing my temper and lashing out at you.It was very wrong and I feel quite ashamed.Please forgive me.If I have offended anyone else with my sinful behavior I apologise and ask your forgiveness as well.It was never my intent to cause such a firestorm with my comment on "alters".I did not realize it would cause such offence and produce such strife,anger,etc.Please forgive me my ignorance.

    Since some of you sent me PM's asking me to stay and continue being a part of this forum I will humbly try my best to be of some service for the sake of the great God and Lord Jesus Christ, sharing any wisdom or insight that God may give me, though in truth, I feel very unworthy and ashamed. If asked about protestantism or my evangelical faith I will try to be more mindful of others and seek to speak in as unoffensive a manner as possible.If I do cause offence please pardon me,for I do not do it intentionally.

    God bless all here on this forum.The LORD is great!
  • Hello all - I came to this website after hearing about the murder of the "Coptic Christian" family, and wanted to find out what exacty was a "Coptic" Christian!


    Even in death you are still touching people,your witness for Christ still shines brightly, bearing much fruit.Rest in peace,enjoy the sweet presence of Christ.
  • [quote author=jfranklin link=board=1;threadid=1154;start=45#msg19660 date=1107293816]
    Even in death you are still touching people,your witness for Christ still shines brightly, bearing much fruit.Rest in peace,enjoy the sweet presence of Christ.

  • Hello all

    Welcome CLawrence! I hope you visit this forum often and share the great things God has done in your life.The forum here is truly blessed with an abundance of christian believers who are gifted by God with much wisdom.The beauty of Christ is manifested mightily by many here.I hope you will enjoy the fellowship found here.I also hope you will not be put off by my little display of un-christ like behavior.Sad to say,the Old Serpent constantly seeks a place in my heart,a foothold from which he can wreak havoc and destruction.Please do not let my recent conduct and poor testimony hinder you from enjoying the benefits of this great forum.

    God bless you.Again I say welcome. :)

    P.S. There is a thread where you can introduce yourself if you so desire.
  • [quote author=CLawrence link=board=1;threadid=1154;start=45#msg19641 date=1107277629]
    I am about as Protestant as it gets, so felt compelled to answer some of the questions raised in this discussion. 1) We do celebrate communion, and it is often from an altar (it is in our church).

    Welcome to CLawrence

    Maybe you can answer my other question CLawrence. I don't know how the Eucharist is administered to the people in the Protestant sect (maybe you or some1 can explain it in terms of how Lutherens do it, how Baptists do it and so on...) Is it given out by the Pastor/Reverend
    or what?

    THank You
  • okay so i asked one of my friends today and she said that protastants believe that the divinity is in the bread and blood, i dunno if thats true or not ! and welcom clwarance ( i hope i spelt that right...most of the members already know my spelling is really bad!) u are gunna love it here!

  • CLawrence,

    Welcome to the site,

    If there is no altar, it is not for theological reasons

    Well I know that there is a form of liberal protestant scholarship out there that believes that Christ instituted the Eucharist to be some sort of memorial meal to commemorate a loved one (such as was common in the various pagan traditions of that time), rather than a memorial sacrafice to be offered to God, as a "gift", and as such there is no need for an altar or priest. This is a very important distinction which has lots of implications (please read my previous post as to the support for the Eucharist being a memorial sacrafice/offering).

    In the offering prayer of the Orthodox liturgy, the priest reads, whilst holding up the loaf of bread: "Glory and honour, honour and glory to the All-Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God Amen. Reemember oh Lord those who have brought unto you these gifts" - i.e. emphasising that it is a gift to God to be sacraficed upon the alter as done during the liturgy - and as we know from the Old Testament, not all sacrafices necessarily involved "killing". The deacons then follow the priest around the altar - one deacon holding the flask of wine and the other the flask of water, saying "Pray for these holy and precious gifts, our sacrafices/offerings..."

    Due to its being a memorial sacrafice, it thus has to be offered on a temple altar, by the temple priest as was done in the Old Testament - and as i also discussed in my previous post, that the Orthodox liturgy combines the function of the Old Testament syngagogue and temple service, and the one who presides over the liturgy performs the function of both elder and priest.

    They also have theological reasons for rejecting the priesthood, such as the use of 1 Peter 2 which declares the universal priesthood of Christians. But as I explained in my previous post, though we acknowledge the unievrsal priesthood, we also recogniose the distinct ministerial priesthood, who has unique functions which cannot be taken upon by a universal priest.

  • don't know how the Eucharist is administered to the people in the Protestant sect (maybe you or some1 can explain it in terms of how Lutherens do it, how Baptists do it and so on...) Is it given out by the Pastor/Reverend
    or what?

    In some churches it is administered by the clergy{pastor,etc} with the church going forward and partaking of both elements i.e.the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.This is more in common with the Lutherans,Anglicans,etc.The people drink from one common cup depending on the size of the church.In many Baptists churches{I grew up attending a southern Baptist church}the elements are passed in trays{one holds the precious Blood,the other the blessed Body}by the deacons of the church.Each member takes a tiny cup{very tiny}and the unleavened bread{a tiny chip}.When all members of the church have both elements there then commences a time of prayer,reflection{repentance},a reading of scripture pertaining to the Lords supper,etc.After this all members partake at the same time,as one body,first one element,then the other.After a brief time of private prayer and reflection the church usually sings a hymn in praise of God.That usually concludes the observance of the Lords supper.Many churches{most baptists but not all}who observe the Holy Communion in this fashion view the Lords supper in a symbolic way,in obedience to Christs command,"For as often as you do this you proclaim the Lords death.Do this then in rememberence of me".While others believe that the grace of God is being conferred upon them by the partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.They believe they are made partakers of Christs atonement by the operation of the Holy Spirit through faith.

    Hope this helps. :)
  • It was never my intent to cause such a firestorm with my comment on "alters".I did not realize it would cause such offence and produce such strife,anger,etc.

    J, just for clarification. If you read my first couple of posts which responded to that specific comment, there was no "anger" or "offence" - it was simply a firm refutation. I just didnt like the way you responded to me simply for challenging ur comment - you're on an Orthodox forum, so if you're going to say things like "alters and priests are not in God's word" (and you have every right to express your opinion), to a people who partake in the liturgy at least once every week, as an essential aspect of their lives, and who received the blessed communion from the holy alter, than you should naturally expect to find someone correcting you, and you shouldnt blow it out of propotion and miscontrue it as an attempt to argue, thats all. If your comment was never miscontrued as an attack, than neither should my refutation of it.

    Hope all is clear. :)
  • What im saying is, please continue expressing your Protestant beliefs on any issue you wish - its good to hear how others believe, and i think you should also hear out why it is we disagree with you also. Maybe express yourself better such as saying "we believe God's Word doesnt support the use of the alter", rather than the confident "its not in God's word" - or if you're like me and dont want to compromise what you hold to be the truth for the sake of the feelings of others, than you can express yourself in the latter form as you did, i dont mind at all - just dont misinterpret a refutation as an attack on you personally, and try respond concerning the issue at hand and the substance of the argument, rather than making it personal.
  • I would also like to know from a Protestant, whether the other minority sects that believe in the divine presence, agree with the high order Anglican and Lutheran concept of consubstantiation? It seems we have in common with these minority Protestant sects that do believe in consubstantiation, against the Catholics, the notion that we cannot attribute philosophical terms in explaining "how" the "transformation" comes about, yet in explaining "what" the Eucharist is, there is that minor difference, where Orthodox say Christ *IS* the bread and wine, and not simply *Under, above, inside* i.e. co-existent.
  • :)

    Here is a pretty good article that explains the three main protestant views on Holy Communion.I realize it is rather long but it contains a wealth of information and is well worth reading for anyone interested in the subject.Nearly all evangelical,pentecostal,etc. theological understanding concerning the meaning of Holy Communion falls within these three strands of thought:that of Luther,Zwingli,and John Calvin{perhaps Thomas Cramner should be included as well}. These men are the true protestants.

    The debate over the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper has its roots deeply embedded in the Reformation where it was a primary source of division among the Protestant churches. Without digging too deeply into the historical details, it is sufficient to say that in response to the gross errors of the Roman Catholic mass--the propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, and the "reservation" of Christ's body and blood in the unconsumed elements--the Reformation left the Protestant church with three basic views of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. These are generally accredited to their supposed authors: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin [1].

    The Lutheran view, while repudiating the Roman mass is most like it, maintaining that the sacrament is efficacious for salvation and as such Christ is truly present. The actual body and blood of Christ are physically, though invisibly, located in, with and under the elements while they remain fully bread and wine. According to the Zwinglian view, the sacrament is not efficacious for salvation and Christ is not any more present in it that he is at any other time in any other place. It is maintained that the Lord's Supper has value only as a reminder of the true means of grace--Christ's sacrifice on the cross--and is to be taken as a memorial of the benefits of His once-for-all sacrifice for us [2]. The Calvinist view strikes a fine balance between the Lutheran and Zwinglian. It rejects Zwinglian rationalism by maintaining that the physical body and blood of Christ are really and truly present in the sacrament making it efficacious for salvation. It also rejects the Lutheran idea that Christ's body and blood are carnally present in, with and under the elements, favoring instead a "spiritual" understanding of Christ's presence.

    Unlike the Zwinglian and Lutheran perspectives, which are more rigidly defined and concrete, there is much more confusion, ambiguity and disagreement within the Calvinist view concerning what is meant by Christ's "spiritual" presence. In our modern rationalistic age it is becoming increasingly easy to find sympathy for the Zwinglian perspective within Reformed churches. In fact, the confessional statements concerning this sacrament, while purely Calvinistic, are more frequently receiving a Zwinglian interpretation. This change in interpretation is subtle, but is revealed by asking What is special about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper? This is illustrated by William Barclay's answer when posing the question to himself in the context of supposedly rejecting the Zwinglian notion of "a mere memorial:"

    The Risen Lord is universally present. He is not present in the sacrament any more than he is present anywhere else. . . . He is not specially present, but we are made specially aware of his presence. . . . The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not so much the place where we realize the real presence of our Lord, as the place where we realize the reality of the real presence of our Lord. The presence is not specially located in the bread and wine, nor in the Church. It is a presence which is present always, everywhere. But the sacrament is the place where memory, realization [and] appropriation end in encounter, because we are compelled to become aware of him there [3].

    Although this view is more radical than most in the Presbyterian tradition, it is indicative of a common misconception of what is meant by the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. This paper will attempt to correct this mistaken interpretation of the Lord's Supper by examining the Westminster Confession's statements concerning it, in light of Calvin's teaching on it and the scriptural proofs for it. This will hopefully reorient us to the intended meaning of both Calvin and his theological heirs, the framers of our Confession.

    In chapter XXIX, article 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith we find the definitive Reformed treatment of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. It reads:

    Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves to their outward senses.

    This paragraph, in order to be properly understood, must be read in the context in which it was written. This article is simultaneously and intermittently avoiding two fallacies: first (the Zwinglian), ignoring Christ's real, bodily, supernatural presence in the Lord's Supper; and second (the Lutheran), confusing the manner in which his body and its benefits are communicated to us in the Lord's Supper. This article then affirms completely that Christ is really, bodily present in the Lord's Supper and that when we receive it worthily, we truly feed on his physical, glorified body and blood. It also affirms that the manner in which the body and blood of Christ and its benefits are communicated to us is not through some physical means as the Lutherans claim (that in the elements, that which is symbolized is actually contained: the universally present, but localized, invisible body of Christ) but through the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit.

    The key to unlocking the meaning of this doctrine as presented in this article is the proper understanding of the word "spiritually." Often this word is either passed over and never dealt with or it is taken to be ambiguous. It too frequently is taken as being in opposition to the Lutheran idea of the physical, bodily presence of Christ. In such a case Christ is thought to be present in Spirit, but not in his true body. However, this is a terrible misunderstanding of the word, and clearly is not what the article means to indicate. This is demonstrated by Calvin's discussion of the presence of Christ in his Institutes. In Book IV, 17, 7 he writes,

    I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth.

    Such an unwarranted understanding of this word also butchers the plain meaning of scripture when Paul admonishes us through the Corinthians that the cup is "a participation in the blood of Christ," the bread is "a participation in the body of Christ," and that we must be careful to discern the body and blood of Christ, lest we fall under his judgement. (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-29)

    However, Calvin does clarify what is meant by this word "spiritually." In Institutes IV, 17, 12 Calvin compares the Reformed understanding of how Christ's actual body and blood are communicated to us in this sacrament with the Lutheran and Roman views. He begins his argument by affirming that Christ's body is in heaven at the right hand of God. However, this does not negate the fact that believers, through this sacrament, actually eat the very flesh and drink the very blood of that same body. It simply determines the manner in which Christ's body and blood are communicated to us. Not "as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat," but "the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him, and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us." Calvin continues at length:

    For if we see that the sun, in sending forth its rays upon the earth, to generate, cherish, and invigorate its offspring, in a manner transfuses its substance into it, why should the radiance of the Spirit do less in conveying to us the communion of his flesh and blood? Wherefore the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the Spirit. Instead of many, one passage will suffice. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 8:9-11), shows that the only way in which Christ dwells in us is by his Spirit. By this, however, he does not take away that communion of flesh and blood of which we now speak, but shows me it is owing to the Spirit alone that we possess Christ wholly, and have him abiding in us.

    So we conclude that when we read the adverb "spiritually" in this passage it is not to be taken as in some way opposed to the real, physical or material body and blood of Christ, but as an indication of how that body and blood are communicated to us, through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. The Confession does not object to the notion that we really feast on the true body and blood of Christ, but that his body is located anywhere but in heaven. His body is not located in the elements themselves, nor in thousands of churches at the same time, as Luther understood, but rather his body remains in heaven where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Nevertheless, we understand that the true, physical, glorified body and blood of our savior, while located in heaven at the Father's right hand, are truly distributed to us and we feed on them to our spiritual nourishment by the mysterious and powerful working of the Holy Spirit.

    We end this brief discussion by paraphrasing this article which we have briefly examined:

    Whenever someone worthily comes to the Lord's Table, as they receive the visible elements of bread and wine (which represent Christ's true body and blood), by faith they also really and truly receive and feed upon the actual body and blood of Christ along with all of its benefits. However, his body and blood are not in any way contained in the elements themselves. Rather by the mysterious and powerful working of the Holy Spirit they are communicated directly to them from Christ's present location in heaven at the right hand of God. Therefore the actual body and blood of Christ are as really present to the faith of that worthy recipient, as the bread and wine that they are about to consume. But again, the body and blood of Christ are not in any way contained in the elements that symbolize them (for Christ's body is in heaven), yet because of the supernatural mediation of the Holy Spirit his body and blood are as surely received as the symbols themselves.

Sign In or Register to comment.