Seems pretty clear and absolutely not protestant.. I mean, where’s your bishop?
This read with Trallians chapter 3 makes your argument absurd.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let also the multitude be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
- Smyrnaeans, chapter 8
@farmingandJesus lol.. the problem with using AI to quote mine the Fathers and not actually reading or understanding their theology is… it makes you look silly.
@grok do any of the quoted Fathers have a Protestant view of the Eucharist as mere symbol or share in their theology.
Neither statement is true. St Ignatius requires the bishop or his authorized delegate (Smyrnaeans 8)… he never specifies a lay celebrant. St Paul calls the Eucharist participation in Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16) and warns that unworthy reception brings judgment (11:27–30). Your “priest-less potluck” is an assertion, not something either text establishes.
The heretics are at it again. This is disgusting behavior.
“And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them thither; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God.”
- St John Chrysostom
In my reading of Hebrews, St Paul writes to converted Jews under pressure to retreat into the Mosaic system. Animal sacrifices could never take away sin (10:1–4), Christ’s single offering did what the Old Covenant never could.
Being once enlightened and tasting the heavenly gift (6:4–5), and having bodies washed with pure water (10:22), points to baptism into the New Covenant… an effective, soul cleansing sacrament that brings a person into real participation with Christ and into the Church.
The warnings in chapters 6 and 10 address deliberate repudiation of Christ, whether by returning to the temple’s obsolete sacrifices or by persistent, unrepentant rebellion. “It is impossible to renew them again to repentance” (6:4) and “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (10:26) say the same thing… there is no second baptism or second Cross. Grace genuinely received can be genuinely repudiated. Restoration comes only through broken repentance that returns to the same once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
Exodus 21:16 prohibits kidnapping and possessing a kidnapped person… both are capital crimes. Leviticus 25 distinguishes permanent foreign servitude from the temporary release rules for Hebrew debt servants. War captives and people sold for debt were common sources in that world. The systems are not the same, but both are different from modern ideas of slavery.
I didn’t switch topics… ebed/doulos cover debt-servants and other regulated household labor with legal release rules, not modern chattel trade.
Asking “who created God” is a category error. The universe is made of contingent things that need a cause. God is the uncaused, necessary Being that grounds existence. You don’t ask what created an uncreated cause.
@RobChristisKing@PressResetEarth@needGod_net Hebrews 10:26 directly challenges your view of “once saved always saved”. I have studied the context and thought extensively on the topic. I disagree with your interpretation. Which brings us back to the original point. You believe your view, not the text.
@Drewdy210716@Bob74168283@Apgunna@athiestboi lol.. you do not understand the context of slavery in the Bible, but you’re making the point. Why should anyone care what you think? In your world view, we are all just floating on a rock, that formed out of nothing, with no teleological purpose.
Luther in his own words…
"Since then, as far as I have been able to see and hear, the Anabaptists have no argument but high-sounding words of sacrilege... everyone ought properly to shun and avoid them as messengers of none other than the devil, sent out into the world to blaspheme the word and ordinance of God so that people might not believe it and be saved."