Thoughts on this interaction. I found it very interesting.
Discussion on Eucharist between Protestant and Orthodox viral video
- Thread starter tikkasakko
- Start date
Thoughts on this interaction. I found it very interesting.
These quibbles over substance, transubstantiation, etc, are all so tiresome because they miss the greater question: is the Eucharist the cause of our salvation? Though the Sacerdotalist model would say that the Eucharist is efficacious, when you peel back the layers you find out this isn't the case at all, not even in a Sacerdotalist system.
Classical Reformed theology places the efficacy of salvation in the Atonement itself: When Christ died, He did actually atone for the sins of His people. The Lord's Supper then is everything that the Bible says it is, a remembrance, a proclamation, a participation, a thanksgiving offering, pointing as a symbol back to that reality.
In the Sacerdotalist model, the Atonement does nothing to actually save, but enables the Eucharist to save, so then comes all the non-Biblical language of application, propitiatory sacrifice, re-presentation, perpetuation, transubstantiaton, bloodless sacrifice, etc. In effect, the Atonement is turned into a symbol that points forward to the Eucharist. This is backwards and undermines the finished nature of Christ's work on the cross. This is why even Catholics have said that you can attend Mass thousands of times and still die in mortal sin/go to Hell. Whereas the Reformed would say that if you have faith in Christ, then it is impossible for you to not be saved.
One of the key points of Hebrews is that Christ died once for all time and actually perfected His people in so doing. It explicitly refutes the idea that Christ needs to suffer often, since His death on the cross is sufficient to save. If Christ's sacrificial work is not sufficient, then you would need another priest to give you a finished work.
The Sacerdotalist model leads to endless squabbles over "valid sacraments," who is the true church, all as a way to prop up each church's own specific authority and to keep people in that communion.
Classical Reformed theology places the efficacy of salvation in the Atonement itself: When Christ died, He did actually atone for the sins of His people. The Lord's Supper then is everything that the Bible says it is, a remembrance, a proclamation, a participation, a thanksgiving offering, pointing as a symbol back to that reality.
In the Sacerdotalist model, the Atonement does nothing to actually save, but enables the Eucharist to save, so then comes all the non-Biblical language of application, propitiatory sacrifice, re-presentation, perpetuation, transubstantiaton, bloodless sacrifice, etc. In effect, the Atonement is turned into a symbol that points forward to the Eucharist. This is backwards and undermines the finished nature of Christ's work on the cross. This is why even Catholics have said that you can attend Mass thousands of times and still die in mortal sin/go to Hell. Whereas the Reformed would say that if you have faith in Christ, then it is impossible for you to not be saved.
One of the key points of Hebrews is that Christ died once for all time and actually perfected His people in so doing. It explicitly refutes the idea that Christ needs to suffer often, since His death on the cross is sufficient to save. If Christ's sacrificial work is not sufficient, then you would need another priest to give you a finished work.
The Sacerdotalist model leads to endless squabbles over "valid sacraments," who is the true church, all as a way to prop up each church's own specific authority and to keep people in that communion.
Last edited:
This is all anti-Roman Church stuff, has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. We believe the body and blood of Christ appears at indeterminate points of time during Divine Liturgy. There is no squibbling over anything. It's a mystery, we don't know how it works and never will.
You either take the body and blood of Christ, or chances are extremely high that one will not be saved. That is what Christ taught and anything else is just heresy. Which is why 100% of the early Church fathers participated in the "breaking of the bread" which is listed numerous times in Paul's journeys in the Book of Acts.
Christ isn't suffering with the Eucharist, His body and His blood was given up once for all time on the cross. His body is infinitely divisible, just as how Christ fed the thousands with bread, yet always one.
You're either descended from the Apostles and have the gift of the Holy Spirit inside the Body of Christ (his Church), or you don't.
It was well done on the students part. I also liked how the other guy said there has been 3 Vatican councils.
It's funny how Prots love to quote Paul yet completely ignore the Eucharist, when Paul is some of the earliest writings we have on the Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 11
When Paul speaks of "by faith you shall be saved," this is what faith looks like. Faith is not merely saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ," those who believe shall eat of His body and drink His blood.
The thief on the cross would have done the same, except, Christ had not yet perished (the sacrifice of the lamb was not yet complete) and the thief was nailed to a cross, making it physically impossible. Thus the thief, and all those saved while Christ was alive, did not need the Eucharist as the savior was physically present. For us, we the only way we can physically connect with Christ is to drink His blood and eat His body. And the only ones who can transform blood and wine into genuine articles of Christ are those who carry the Holy Spirit as descended from the Apostilles, which is why the Orthodox Church is the only way to have true faith in Christ.
Paul was taught by other early Christians, because Christ himself taught this as recounted in the Book of John, so these teachings predate Paul and go back to the very first years of Apostolic Ministry.
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 11
When Paul speaks of "by faith you shall be saved," this is what faith looks like. Faith is not merely saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ," those who believe shall eat of His body and drink His blood.
The thief on the cross would have done the same, except, Christ had not yet perished (the sacrifice of the lamb was not yet complete) and the thief was nailed to a cross, making it physically impossible. Thus the thief, and all those saved while Christ was alive, did not need the Eucharist as the savior was physically present. For us, we the only way we can physically connect with Christ is to drink His blood and eat His body. And the only ones who can transform blood and wine into genuine articles of Christ are those who carry the Holy Spirit as descended from the Apostilles, which is why the Orthodox Church is the only way to have true faith in Christ.
Paul was taught by other early Christians, because Christ himself taught this as recounted in the Book of John, so these teachings predate Paul and go back to the very first years of Apostolic Ministry.
I can't speak for the Quakers, but we don't ignore the Eucharist. We receive the Eucharist every Sunday in my church.
The thief on the cross would have done the same, yes, because he had faith in Christ. No one is arguing against receiving the Eucharist.
This is why Sacerdotalism is rejected by Protestants. The idea that the "validity" of the Eucharist depends upon Apostolic Succession is not taught by the Apostles in Scripture, and it's anachronistic to believe it is. It leads to endless fragmentation over which church has the true sacrament. If you are going to be consistent with this, then you would have to say that everyone who hasn't received the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have true faith in Christ and are thus not saved.
Not true. Paul is an Apostle because he received His teaching directly from Christ, not from men.
Last edited:
As Shamoun said, the guy and his son are evangelists, not theologians or scholars. They got pwned here, but of course they did, because they can't come clean about history, the actual Church, what it means, and their own "Rome-a-phobia"
Funny enough, as someone Orthodox once said, all protestants are crypto papists. It's a good one, as they (rightfully or not) hate their parent (mother) Church, but are always linked to them. History is not without irony.
Funny enough, as someone Orthodox once said, all protestants are crypto papists. It's a good one, as they (rightfully or not) hate their parent (mother) Church, but are always linked to them. History is not without irony.
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
It’s “funny” how you use the word “funny” when talking about salvation. No on should be laughing about the potential of someone burning in hell.
Salvation seems clear in my mind as a Protestant, but for some reason reason God made it vague (hence the disagreements on this forum).
Indeed, that's why I converted. Orthodoxy fixes all those dead-ends, contradictions and mental labyrinths the heterodox churches keep their members hostage with. It really was a cleansing stepping out of that baptismal font. The fog of confusion was lifted and I could finally focus on my salvation.
Orthodoxy is just another denomination out of many. I'm not sure why converts talk about it as if it somehow "transcends" these issues. It even had its own controversy over baptism a few years ago. The rest of us non-EO had to read about it on RVF.
I've just heard the exact opposite from our priest as in that Orthodoxy is the truest form of Christianity and that Catholicism is not. Jay Dyer said recently that Catholicism is an obvious scism but he's on YouTube so I'd rather go by priests or people in the know. Please correct me if I'm wrong you guys who are Orthodox.
Everyone will say that their church is the "truest" form of Christianity. If I go to an LDS church, then they will tell me that the LDS church is the one true church. So it's not enough to simply claim that your church "fixes all the issues." But to be able to back it up, with some history, but ultimately with Scripture. My problem is that all the "issues" that EOism "corrects" are not even Scriptural issues at all, so I properly recognize them as legalists who strain at a gnat and build hedges around the Law.
For example: does the Bible say anything about triple immersion baptism? Nope. But that won't stop the Palamists from rebaptizing you if you convert to their church.
Of course, not all EOs are like that. I've met a few offline who are graceful.
Last edited:
It's basic history on the Church timeline that there were 5 patriarchates, or centers: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome and they were all the same Church without a central authority, but operated on a consensus of Bishops, who met in councils from about the 4th century until the 11th.
To make a long story short, which is all the detail I know anyway, and there were many ups and downs during those 1000 years where heresies and schisms occurred on various sides and were corrected by various sides, Rome began to break away from the other patriarchates in the 8th century when some Bishops in Spain made a change to the Nicene Creed by adding "and the son" (in Latin filioque) to the part that says the Holy Spirit proceeded from The Father.
It took about 200 years for the separation to increase to the point where Rome actually broke away in 1054. This is called The Great Schism and of course both sides have a lot of historical context to support their claim that it's the other guy who is wrong.
As a catechumen, or even a member of the EO, you don't have to have an opinion on this or many other controversial topics that require a lot of study to properly understand, and most people in either church do not.
The Nicene Creed in the EO is what we believe and it's fine to ignore Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc., because your faith is more connected to your heart, intuition (innate connection to God), and experiences than to your intellect.
But yes, ask your priest if you want to know more. There are a lot of good resources from priests online as well as books that are better than watching highly charged online debates.
The Roman Church actually fabricated history with fake letters from older Popes to support their claims of supremacy. Once they went lawless they exerted their fake tales to control Europe, and even sacked Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. They got so rich off Constantinople they remained the one of the richest forces in the world for nearly 600 years afterwards.
Before they started power tripping they were a poor Church well below the others, before 600 AD they were on the small side. Their biggest claim was being located in Rome, which was a famous city.
But only one Church has existed for 2000 years. Pretty obvious to see the real one.
If it's so obvious then there wouldn't be so many different sects. The historical truth is far more nuanced than the easy, pick one, anachronistic answer.
Men enjoy power and control more than they do Truth, which is the central message of Christ's ministry. The appearance of sects is hardly a surprise.