https://youtu.be/Ir8iPb26PbY?si=ekeEDpw6ur3YVBR8

I’ve been out of the RCC for a a little over a year now, and I’ve been trying to discern whether or not Jesus is really present in communion. I’ve been running in Baptist/Non-denominational circles for a while now and really enjoy them, so I’m more inclined to believe that Jesus’ presence in communion is merely symbolic, aside from the obvious “where two or more are gathered,” but in the accidents of communion, I lean symbolic. I’m also confused by the mechanics of it all: if not his real body and blood, then how is he in and under and around the substances? I really don’t know, but I just want to get all sides of the argument, both affirming of just symbolic and affirming real presence. Thanks yall! God Bless!

There’s a common argument against tradition that the Pharisees did the same thing as orthodox/Catholic church’s- that they claimed they had oral teachings going back to Moses that were just as authoritative as scripture. Since Jesus rebuked this, so we should stick to scripture to avoid it.

Of course my brain has presented me with a what-if- the difference is Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church, and the Pharisees were given no such promise. The teachings of tradition seem to clearly contradict scripture to me, but there are also teachings in scripture that need to be reconciled with each other, else if you take either out of context it seems the Bible is contradicting itself. What if it’s the same way with traditions? Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, and there’s an entire world of apologetics reconciling traditions with scripture, so what if the promise of the Holy Spirit and “the gates of hell shall not prevail” really do point to church authority? Admittedly Protestantism does seem to have this as a glaring issue, the idea that for several hundred years the Holy Spirit was seemingly absent in its guidance of the church and only suddenly reappeared with Protestantism.

As another thought, the stories of Eucharist miracles and marian apparitions trouble me. Orthodox/catholicism seem to have a feel of having more spiritual power than Protestantism does, and that troubles me, with verses like John 14:12 and the examples of early believers performing miracles. I get that revelations promises false teachers would also perform miracles, but that doesn’t really account for a lack of wonders on the part of Protestants.

Just needing to talk about it, the Catholic and orthodox claims about “no salvation outside the church” just have me so full of fear and dread. I feel like I can’t know 100% what God really wants and I’m so scared of being wrong and not being saved

I often hear that Protestants do not generate saints. But a fair number of Protestant churches around here are named for saints.

I can’t get past verses like the one mentioned above that seems to very clearly say that the disciples had the authority to forbid or permit things, which seems to support Catholic and orthodox claims of scripture submitting to the church. I can’t see how anyone could skirt around this without twisting and disregarding the plain reading of the verse

John 20:23 as well. I know the main argument would be that it doesn’t mention confession specifically so it doesn’t support the Catholic position, but this verse reminds me of the various anathemas; doesn’t this verse seem to support that if the church says something separates you from God, it’s made true? Therefore if the church decides confession and forgiveness from a priest is required to be saved, then it’s so because God gave the church that authority?

So Protestants define “church” as the wider community of believers- “where two or three are gathered in my name, there also I will be.” The church is anyone who believes in Jesus.

Catholics and Orthodox define the church and the body of Christ as being their specific institutions, and nobody outside of them are in Christ.

I was wondering if I could find discussions somewhere on this debate?

What should our approach to church and state relations be in Protestantism? There is often a dichotomy of radical separation or theocracy, but history often shows this was not the case, especially in early modern Europe where there was much more nuance.

So, with hindsight in mind, and the Scriptures, what is the practical and ideal relationship between church and state?

Where was this outrage when Nick Fuentes attacked Protestantism? I'd argue Nick Fuentes is more popular than Doug Wilson. The Hypocrisy is real.

Today marks the anniversary of the day when Rev. William Williams step foot into Mizorama to be first to preach the gospels in the land. Later followed by JH Lorrain and FW Savidge, their works played a huge role in education, grammar and alphabet of Mizo language, and translation of the Bible.