/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Only Cathodoxs view the Eucharist is a continued sacrifice for the mass, while Protestants and baptism see the Lord's supper (regardless if it's phyical or spiritual manifestation of Christ) as means of unity & Christian memorial as a continuation of all our relationships with God.

>>735793

Thanks for your reply. I'm thinking about joining the Lutheran church but I've heard that they believe that mass takes away sin. They wouldn't go so far as saying it is a propitiatory sacrifice but it still does take away sins.

Baptist here, we have the Lord's supper once a month in remembrance of his sacrifice for us.

The bread doesn't become his flesh.

The wine (grape juice for us) doesn't become his blood.

It's the least we can do to remember and honor how God came to earth in the flesh and gave up his broken body so we may have remission of sins.

While anyone can partake of it we only ask that Christians do so as for an unsaved person the act holds little to no meaning.

Hope this helps!

Remember that in Corinthians 1 and 2 document a man who was excommunicated for pedophilia and who's eventual readmittence back into the Church was contingent on his own repentance. Paul in general, along with James, treats extensively on the dangers of sin, particularly in regards to his own flock. He considers salvation something to be worked out with fear and trembling, and least of all like one and done deal accomplished on the cross, because Christ respects the choices of those who accept the cross with all it's gravity AND those who reject it.

>>735815

Salvation is not contingent on membership in the church at Corinth

>>735815

>least of all like a one and done deal accomplished on the cross, because Christ respects the choices of those who accept the cross with all it's gravity AND those who reject it.

This kind of language is why Protestants get uneasy when Cathodox start talking about the sacraments. Forgive me for saying so, but no matter how hard I look at this I just can't escape the thought that this would demote Christ's role from being "the author of eternal salvation" to simply supplying paper and pen to Church members. Why can't Christ simply finish the work of salvation at the cross as OP said?

>Why can't Christ simply finish the work of salvation at the cross as OP said?

He did, of course, but, as Christ said, salvation is contingent on the repentance of the individual sinner. It helps to take the concept of sin as presented in the grand scale of the Gospel and to place it in a smaller, more tangible context. Let us say that you assassinated a princess; by even the loosest standards of morality that is a crime worthy of death. The prince of the kingdom firmly insists on taking the place of you on the execution block, and as bizarre and unprecedented as this seems to everyone else the King, who's came up with the idea in the first place, is only too happy to oblige. Do you:

A.) Conclude that no matter how many princesses you murder the King will instantly pardon you, and as such you don't even need to apologize for him to pardon you.

B.) Do the only thing you can and pour out your gratefulness and repentance to the King in a letter because, for some reason, the King, who lives too far away to meet you in person, did not establish a court system for criminals to be pardoned at all, or any centralized government at all for that matter.

C.) Show up to court, confess to the royal judge, and receive pardon.

Both B and C are perfectly viable ways of apologizing to the King. But if we live in the world where the King always relied on B in order to deal with criminals and never ever established C, the superior option, then his status as the only truly loving king in the world contrasts with the evidence that his kingdom is actually a splintered confederation that dosen't even have a judiciary system. If we live in the world where the judges weren't just corrupt, as government officials tend to be, but a false government entirely, which the King allowed to reign in his stead since the establishment of the kingdom (confederation), then the contrast is twice as stark.

Christ didn't establish confession as a sacrament because repentance as a concept is contingent on it; it isn't, and the OT shows that clearly. He established it, as John 20 shows, because if the when the King who is spirit decided to come in the flesh, he decided, like any good King would, to set up a proper government.

>>735860

Oh and yeah I forgot it was a different kind of incest. Also nice, uh… shitposting style, Tom. It's… unique.