Communion and Catholics

[stovebolts]

Joe,

With all due respect. And yes, I do respect you. But what we are talking about is a matter of interpretation of scripture in regard to the sacraments becoming "Flesh and Blood" of Jesus. We are not in disagreement on who our savior is or what he's done. If you wish to argue this point then we can move this portion of the discussion to the one on one debate forum which I am prepared to do only because I know you, and I know that even in disagreement, you know how to show respect.

If you and I were to go over the Lord's Supper point by point, there would only be two areas where we disagree. First point that it's a closed communion and second point is the RCC's stance on transubstantiation.

From my point of view, the RCC's stance on closed communion to other Christians smacks Jesus in the face for what he's done. When Jesus instituted the new covenant he said, "Do this in remembrance of me" and yet when the Church comes together, your church denies it's brother this commandment.

What are the two greatest commandments? Are they not to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and strength and the second to love your neighbor as yourself? But what are we? Are we not much more than simply your neighbor? Are we not your Brother in Christ?

The early church was plagued by division and I know you are well aware of what the church in Corinth went through. But by way of the letter Paul wrote to Rome, he urged Rome to accept their brothers in Christ even though they had known differences in interpretation of the scriptures.

I am not trying to be mean Joe when I say this. But when I look at how the RCC treats its brothers in certain area's, such as communion, it looks pretty pious to me lacking humility or love. (In all fairness Joe, I also see this behavior in the protestant churches, even within the churches of Christ. ) The RCC can be as right as they want, but to dwell in on the doctrine of transubstantiation to he point where it becomes a requirement for a believer in Christ to participates takes the focus of of "Do this in remembrance of me" and places the focus on the church, and the priest who administers it. And to think, in the first century they gathered at each others homes, with no priest to administer the sacraments.... I'm sure it was much less complex back then... What in the world happened Joe?

 

[stovebolts]

Joe,

Even in some Catholic commentary that I've read on John 6 states that John 6 should not be used to affirm transubstantiation.

That being said, there are two passages in John 6 that need to be looked at.

First one is motive: John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

The second being: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Only those who were unable to see what Jesus was truly about left...

But I digress, we can take this to the debate forum if you will. As a moderator, I don't want to violate the TOS, that wouldn't be a very good example would it?

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Joe, I don't believe that the ECF's were quite as unified in their beliefs as your posts suggest.

I believe you are mistaken.

"We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His body and saving blood according to the laws of the new covenant." Eusebius of Caesarea--Demonstratio Evangelica

The above quote, I believe, would substantiate the Protestant point of view.

Not at all. We also believe that the bread and wine act as symbols - in appearance. In reality, they are indeed His Body and Blood, utilizing what appears as bread and wine.

If the above quote LIMITED the idea of bread and wine to a symbol, you would have something in that quotation. However, it is not mutually exclusive of what would later be called "transubstantiation". There are a number of Fathers who speak this way, and in other citations, make it clear that they also believe in the Real Presence - thus, further expounding on the depths of their belief.

To substantiate the Protestant view, you would have to point to a Church Father that stated that the Eucharist was ONLY a symbol, and NOT the actual flesh and blood of Christ. Agreed?

I am a Baptist who adheres to the Lutheran's views on consubstantiation and can supply numerous citations from the first 5 centuries, which upon a quick glance, you would think came from one of Luther's catechisms. I believe that the early church was as divided as we are today.

I could go into the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and there are very profound differences, however, for the purposes of this thread, I will consider consubstantiation to be a viewpoint that is "similar enough" - and so, I apologize for lumping Lutherans and Anglicans into the "non-catholic" mix, as they certainly do have a higher and more correct view of what the Eucharist is...

As you know, I did lots of study on the Church Fathers, and I have not found any disagreement from ANY of them on what the elements were. Yes, some refer to them as a symbol, and in other spiritual ways, but none of them state that the flesh and blood are not really there - that it is only an imaginary feast, a pretend celebration, a metaphor, or a spiritual-only sacrifice. They verify this in other citations. It was THIS PARTICULARLY that led me to believe in the Eucharist and become Catholic, the unanimous belief by the Church for so many years.

It is unfortunate that the focus of Christian debates is always on the bread and wine, and has became so divisive, and that the focus is not on the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which we all are united.

God bless, Westtexas

Well, I attempted to explain the concept of closed unity and what Catholics believe that the elements really are. I suppose one should ask why they believe that God does not become present to us in physical form during the Eucharist. What is preventing that belief, when Jesus makes it perfectly clear what His intent is AND that unanimous witness of what that Eucharist is... What is at the heart of this disagreement? Authority?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Please be careful not to lump all non-Catholics in the same group. Those of us that follow the teachings of Martin Luther do believe that the bread and wine are in fact Jesus' body and blood and not just symbolic representation. A symbol means nothing but the "true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" means everything - forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

Yes, you are correct and I apologize again to any Lutherans and Anglicans out there who have a higher view of the Eucharist... Mea culpa

I am not able to argue with anyone on a theological level as I am not as learned as others but what I can do is tell you what I feel and believe. When I am kneeling before the altar to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion I take a moment to pray to God, thanking Jesus for His willing and loving sacrifice on my behalf, and remembering the humiliation, scoffing, spitting, mocking, indignation, beating, flogging, torture, separation, and finally the resurrection that he endured for me. I am eating His body and drinking His blood in remembrance of Him with a grateful heart, knowing that I am not worthy to receive it.

We are on the same page, brother. I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was not my intent.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

With all due respect. And yes, I do respect you. But what we are talking about is a matter of interpretation of scripture in regard to the sacraments becoming "Flesh and Blood" of Jesus. We are not in disagreement on who our savior is or what he's done. If you wish to argue this point then we can move this portion of the discussion to the one on one debate forum which I am prepared to do only because I know you, and I know that even in disagreement, you know how to show respect.

No, Jeff, we are not in disagreement over what the Christ did - only what He continues to do in the Eucharist for His Bride... I think many believe that Christ's work on this earth is done, while Scriptures speak of that continued intercession for our sake, the continuous offering to the Father of that sacrifice that is represented during the Mass, and we are enabled, as part of the Body, to share in that sacrifice by offering our own spiritual sacrifices. God allows us to participate in His work, just as a loving mother allows her daughter to participate in doing chores or baking - even though the mother could do it alone. The Eucharist says so much about our faith, it is not just merely over a semantic on whether the bread is flesh or not...

If you and I were to go over the Lord's Supper point by point, there would only be two areas where we disagree. First point that it's a closed communion and second point is the RCC's stance on transubstantiation.

From my point of view, the RCC's stance on closed communion to other Christians smacks Jesus in the face for what he's done.

Smacks Jesus in the face??? I wouldn't be that hard on you guys... ;)

Again, closed communion is a sign of the importance of Christ's real presence. Would you have open communion with Mormons since they don't believe in OUR idea of Trinity, even though they use the word??? No, because it is an important belief that defines us as Christians. Same with the Eucharist.

God is truth and the Church has been given the mandate to spread truth. As I said, false ecumenism is not truth, it is a sacrifice of truth for the sake of "feeling good". God desires that we ACTUALLY are in communion, with one baptism, one Lord, one faith and one loaf...

Closed communion is seen in the New Testament, so you would be hard pressed to explain that biblical idea away for 21st century "politically correct" ideals...

When Jesus instituted the new covenant he said, "Do this in remembrance of me" and yet when the Church comes together, your church denies it's brother this commandment.

I think that Jesus also prayed that "they all be one". We aren't one, Jeff. There are OTHER issues where we disagree strongly on...

Were the Judaizers accepted into the Pauline communities, Jeff? Didn't they also believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Why couldn't they come to the table with the Galatians or the Colossians? Why did people like Ignatius as I cited before tell us NOT to share in communion with people who do not share in our beliefs??? What is the reason for people not believing as the Church believes, Jeff? Remember, we are speaking of Ignatius, a man going to his death to the lions for the sake of Christ. You can't discount that witness and that relationship with Christ.

What are the two greatest commandments? Are they not to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and strength and the second to love your neighbor as yourself? But what are we? Are we not much more than simply your neighbor? Are we not your Brother in Christ?

I do love you, Jeff.

But we are not in total communion because our beliefs differ on this critical subject. I can confidently call you my brother in Christ. I wish I could take that to a deeper level, but there is that matter of your disbelief.

Jeff, this is not an easy subject to discuss. I wish we could celebrate together - but it seems fake to pretend that we are in total communion with Christ and each other when I KNOW that you do not believe that the bread you receive is anything other than a piece of bread, while I bow to the Almighty God when I receive the Lord of the Universe into my weak, sinful body.

It seems that you want to receive the Eucharist to make yourself feel good and part of a community of men while lying to yourself on what you are receiving. We receive the Eucharist to receive God's ENTIRE SELF into our bodies, our minds, our souls... We say "AMEN", yes it is, when the minister says "THE BODY OF CHRIST". HOW could you say "amen" when you are lying and you don't believe, WHILE CLAIMING to desire to receive God into your heart?????

It just doesn't make sense, Jeff, when we break it down.

The early church was plagued by division and I know you are well aware of what the church in Corinth went through. But by way of the letter Paul wrote to Rome, he urged Rome to accept their brothers in Christ even though they had known differences in interpretation of the scriptures.

He also wrote to separate from other "Christians" on certain issues. Judaizers, remember them? Those Christians who wanted Gentile Christians to become Jewish? I think it would be John who you would consult on this matter of closed communion.

I am not trying to be mean Joe when I say this. But when I look at how the RCC treats its brothers in certain area's, such as communion, it looks pretty pious to me lacking humility or love.

That's ridiculous, for anyone who knows Catholics can attest to the fact that they are usually not any holier than anyone else. As I said, it is a gift that is available to people - but the soil must be "good", we must be open to receiving it, and many Catholics receive in a bad disposition - or perhaps they hadn't gone to Confession, or they are just going through the motions, or whatever distraction is keeping them from a good reception. The Eucharist is not a magic pill. It is a gift that also depends upon the interior disposition of the recipient. Those who DO receive it in such a matter are anything but proud or lacking in love. Quite the opposite.

Can't people respect our beliefs? Why must people in America or wherever be so politically correct? We are who we are. We believe what we believe. We aren't going to change something that WE believe God commanded us to do for 2000 years for the sake of other people's sensibilities who have lost touch with WHY they are receiving in the first place. The Eucharist is PRIMARILY about receiving God, not making each other feel good about being "part of the crowd who can go up and get their wafer"...

Remember, Jeff, it is about God, communion with God. You are indeed allowed to sit in Mass and participate. The doors are not locked to members who are not part of the "club".

(In all fairness Joe, I also see this behavior in the protestant churches, even within the churches of Christ. ) The RCC can be as right as they want, but to dwell in on the doctrine of transubstantiation to he point where it becomes a requirement for a believer in Christ to participates takes the focus of of "Do this in remembrance of me" and places the focus on the church, and the priest who administers it. And to think, in the first century they gathered at each others homes, with no priest to administer the sacraments.... I'm sure it was much less complex back then... What in the world happened Joe?

I think the call to allow anyone to receive the Eucharist, whether they believe what it is or not, is in actuality taking the focus off GOD and putting it on human sensibilities.

Jeff, God challenges us throughout our lives. He challenged you to look at your past life of sin and to conversion. Did God do this without challenging you? Did you have to humble yourself and realize you were wrong or that your ways were wrong? I know I did. Those who are open to being humbled and see God's hand in it are able to change.

Consider closed communion as a challenge to non-Catholics (we would like to share communion with Lutherans and Anglicans, as well), another step in conversion that requires a challenging self-examination.

"Why don't I believe in Christ's words"? "Why am I like the Jew who 'went away' from the Christ in disbelief"?

It is a challenge to you Jeff. Reflect on why you disbelieve.

Is it because of the Church itself is not "good enough" for you, not 'holy' enough, with the scandals and poor participating Catholic examples that you may know? Or is it the doctrine and interpretation that is called into question, despite its universal belief by men who sat at John's feet???

I probably won't be able to respond much more, I am going out of country for two weeks tommorrow, so I need to start getting ready. If I have time, I'll look one more time and respond later...

Yes, I remain your brother in Christ,

Joe

 

[Adullam]

This thread is very interesting. We have here two respected members of the forum, Jeff and Joe, who clearly love and respect each other...but such a gulf between them in this (and other) area!

Can both be right?

Could there be as aspect of each that is right?

What is the criteria among brothers in Christ to worship in intimacy together. What are these differences! How important are they?

On the one hand we have an open hand of fellowship offered in unfeigned love. On the other an allegiance to a deep held understanding of a truth.

So which trumps which?

Maybe we need to loook at what constitutes the fellowship of Christ. Maybe we need to step back a little!

Here John says!

1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. God Is Light

5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Those who walk in fellowship with the risen Christ share an eternal life together. The Apostles sought out men to have fellowship with them. Not just any fellowship....but fellowship in the light!

Now is this light only expressed through a sacrament at a given time? Or is this light meant to be lived in and walked in?

So then we partake of a meal (communion) based on a life... a common life lived together....an eternal life. A life that is in communion with God.

I say again, does this communion ONLY take place AT what we call communion?

That is the question.

Or is this life, which is the light of men, meant to be lived in all the time?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Joe,

I only skimmed your response (I'm on break) and I appreciate the grace you've shown me.

I do look forward to your return and wish you a safe trip.

I had thought that through the years of our discussing communion you would have known my views a bit better than "it seems", and perhaps later in the week I'll clarify just so we can get the junk out of the way.

And yes, I do believe I understand where you're coming from, but part of that may just be how it seems from your perspective, and not actually what it is. We can all read our own misconceptions in on others at times, ... we're only human.

As far as communion, I do believe it's a bit more than a piece of bread and a sip of juice. Actually, if anything it is Jesus who is host of the meal and is very much present in the bread and wine.

Anyway, I need to crawl back in the attic and finish putting in new electrical, and perhaps next week I'll get to do more than skim what you've wrote and reply in a more proper manner.

Do have a safe trip

 

[Brother Lawrence]

This thread is very interesting. We have here two respected members of the forum, Jeff and Joe, who clearly love and respect each other...but such a gulf between them in this (and other) area!

Can both be right?

Could there be as aspect of each that is right?

What is the criteria among brothers in Christ to worship in intimacy together. What are these differences! How important are they?

On the one hand we have an open hand of fellowship offered in unfeigned love. On the other an allegiance to a deep held understanding of a truth.

So which trumps which?

Maybe we need to loook at what constitutes the fellowship of Christ. Maybe we need to step back a little!

Here John says!

1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. God Is Light

5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Those who walk in fellowship with the risen Christ share an eternal life together. The Apostles sought out men to have fellowship with them. Not just any fellowship....but fellowship in the light!

Now is this light only expressed through a sacrament at a given time? Or is this light meant to be lived in and walked in?

So then we partake of a meal (communion) based on a life... a common life lived together....an eternal life. A life that is in communion with God.

I say again, does this communion ONLY take place AT what we call communion?

That is the question.

Or is this life, which is the light of men, meant to be lived in all the time?

Neither trumps the other, they are different levels of understanding.

Communion expressed in the Eucharist is fellowship with God, and with each other.

I personally believe that the sacraments convey what they represent - that in the Eucharist you are actually getting the body and blood of Christ. I think calling it a "symbol" or a "memorial" does not do it justice, and trying to explain just how the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ by saying "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation" is unnecessary. What did Jesus say? "This is my body, take and eat it, all of you."

That's all I need to know.

To me, receiving the body and blood of Christ renews His spirit within me when I am weary, when I am sick, and when I am weak.

In our church we reverence the altar when we approach it, especially when there is consecrated host in the tabernacle. That's how seriously we take it.

 

[WIP]

We are on the same page, brother. I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was not my intent.

None taken and I knew you did not intend on offending anyone. I have a lot of respect for what you have to say and enjoy reading your opinions and I agree with much of what you say.

 

[Adullam]

Neither trumps the other, they are different levels of understanding.

Communion expressed in the Eucharist is fellowship with God, and with each other.

I personally believe that the sacraments convey what they represent - that in the Eucharist you are actually getting the body and blood of Christ. I think calling it a "symbol" or a "memorial" does not do it justice, and trying to explain just how the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ by saying "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation" is unnecessary. What did Jesus say? "This is my body, take and eat it, all of you."

That's all I need to know.

To me, receiving the body and blood of Christ renews His spirit within me when I am weary, when I am sick, and when I am weak.

In our church we reverence the altar when we approach it, especially when there is consecrated host in the tabernacle. That's how seriously we take it.

But certainly the life of Christ that continually abides within us is grounds enough to partake in the celebration of this life among us!

I come from a Catholic background. When I came to Christ, I naturally went back to the church I was raised in. But as I grew in the Lord I came to see a bigger picture. No one church or boundary can limit the scope of fellowship in Christ. All those who share that life are to be in unity.

Some can say...come over to our group....and another can say, no you come over to us!

But ultimately, this is not about a proper procedure or even a proper understanding but an abiding in love.

We who are not in the Catholic tradition, commemorate Christ in a deep way....but this is something that is shared among the brothers...not a personal thing so much. We share this meal as we share this life. It is communal!

So it is natural for us (If I can include Jeff as well as others) to desire to expand that fellowship into the fullness of they who love the Lord!

That is the motivation!

 

[francisdesales]

This thread is very interesting. We have here two respected members of the forum, Jeff and Joe, who clearly love and respect each other...but such a gulf between them in this (and other) area!

Can both be right?

Could there be as aspect of each that is right?

What is the criteria among brothers in Christ to worship in intimacy together. What are these differences! How important are they?

On the one hand we have an open hand of fellowship offered in unfeigned love. On the other an allegiance to a deep held understanding of a truth.

So which trumps which?

Adullum, Brother Lawrence, WestTexas, WIP, and Stovebolts,

I wish I could devote more time to this thread. I enjoy it because we are discussing this issue in love. Despite our disagreements, I am hoping that those who disagree can at least understand why we do what we do, even if their is that disagreement.

Brother Lawrence, it seems like we are in total agreement on this subject.

WIP, I am glad to hear of your appreciation of the presence of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

WestTexas, I am also happy to see your movement towards the Lutheran position. Mr. Luther had a strong appreciation for the presence of Christ in the elements and often found himself at odds with his brother Protestants and siding with Catholics! It seems he sensed that the Church Fathers would not allow him to deviate from that path and am happy to see that you also have turned to appreciate Christ in the Eucharist.

Jeff, I am certain that it appears I am mis-stating your position. However, when we focus on areas where we disagree, we sometimes forget the areas where we do agree. Thus, if we step back, yes, there is much to celebrate, for I do realize you have a greater appreciation for the Eucharist than I am crediting you in my latest comments. I apologize for the generalizations - upon further thought, I do remember you stating that you were not entirely "protestant" (say, like Calvinism) regarding the sacramental idea prominent in Catholicism...

Adullum, I also enjoy your posts and feel we are also very close brothers. On a number of occasions, I have written to you and told you so. At the "bigger picture", you are correct. I agree with Brother Lawrence, though, that we don't necessarily have to set your two standards as opposed to each other. The physical aspect of the Eucharist does NOT lessen the spiritual value. Augustine wrote that we don't partake in the flesh of the Christ merely for food for the stomach, reminding people that it is the spiritual aspect that is truly the importance of the Eucharist. Just the same, he does stress the Real Presence and the reverenance that comes with that realization. As a former Catholic, I would imagine you may remember our reverance and appreciation for Christ as seen through our treatment of the host and the wine.

Brothers, I wish I could continue, but we are off to Spain on vacation. I thank you for your well wishing and prayers for our safe journey and hope to visit this thread again about June 11.

Thanks again for your discussions and the respect that you offer in your disagreements. I appreciate this and prefer it to the heated jousting that sometimes occurs when an "anti-catholic" decides to stir the pot with me.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

 

[Nick]

You hear it pretty much everywhere here in America. It's been a long time, but I think even the ultra low Espicopal Church used to say that but these days I wouldn't be surprised if they served communion to everybody BUT baptised believers, that's how far they have strayed.

I am not surprised. When I go out of Sydney I try and stay away from Anglican churches. It's a shame.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

But certainly the life of Christ that continually abides within us is grounds enough to partake in the celebration of this life among us!

My wife had a conversation with some reformed Protestants a while back (don't ask me what that means - here everybody calls themselves "reformed"). They were telling her that the last time they took communion the "crackers" were disgusting and that they intended to spit them out the next time. Yet, they will tell you they are as Spirit filled as anybody.

As a Word and sacrament guy, I was horrified, and I could certainly understand why some denominations would have a closed table at that point. Although we have an open table we almost always know who is partaking - otherwise I, too, would feel feel better knowing that those partaking in the Lord's Supper truly understand what it is they are doing, lest by doing so they bring judgment on themselves. 1 Cor. 11:27.

 

[Mike]

The sad thing is, whether we are in churches that see communion as being the very real presence of Christ or not, I'm sure we can all agree that there are those who aren't as mindful of the significance as they should be. While I can't see the condition of someone's heart, sometimes their body language (their disinterest) speaks volumes.

Having grown up Catholic and moved to the Lutheran church 20 years ago, I saw this much too often: a person approaching the altar to receive communion with the mundane attitude as though they are in line to get their token for the subway. If it is seen as a symbol of His Body and Blood, it still calls for reverence. I've served as elder for our church, and we distributed the Eucharist. Some may have been going through some things I was unaware of, but sadly, some had nothing more going through their minds than their plans for the rest of the day.

I tell my kids, and I try to convey to the kids who are preparing to receive it for the first time in 8th grade, never to fall in the trap of taking this for granted. As with all aspects of our faith, it never should be.

It might seem rather trivial to post a video, but my personal favorite band, "Third Day" has a song that is deeply meaningful to me which speaks to this. Enjoy, if you are interested.

[video=youtube;5x6khRQFlOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x6khRQFlOc[/video]

 

[westtexas]

It might seem rather trivial to post a video, but my personal favorite band, "Third Day" has a song that is deeply meaningful to me which speaks to this. Enjoy, if you are interested.

Thank you Mike!

Westtexas

 

[Bonairos]

Now, many churches as well as many fine pastor's such as Brother Bonairos, view communion to be a time when we set aside our differences and join in what we have in common and leave the issue of taking it in a worthy manner the individual communicant.

True, but there's more to it than that.

Communion. A time to acknowledge and declare what Christ did for us. Beaten, Murdered, Buried, and Risen. How awesome is that?! If that's not the Gospel in one event (ordinance), it's close. What a witness! What an opportunity to call to mind our beliefs.

It reminds me of another ordinance (for lack of better word). Water baptism.

Remember Philip? With the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.

So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?†Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?â€

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.â€
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.â€

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.



An opportunity to preach Jesus to someone. Having grasp it's truth, they immediately acting upon it (water baptism).

Imagine. An unbeliever (or non church member), voluntarily comes to our church service for the first tiime. We're taking communion. We proclaim our belief of the message behind the ordinance in the service.

Then we tell them (through exclusion), "Though this may be the first time you heard this message, and tough you might even believe it, you cannot take part in it because you have not taken the appropriate classes in our church instructing on same."

Seriously? Perhaps some may think I compromise the "sacredness" of communion by having opened it up to all. But God forbid I ever forget that Christ came to seek and to save all that are lost and look for opportunities to relay that message!

And just as that chariot was stopped so that the eunuch could express his newfound faith, I see communion as another opportunity for new(?) believers to also immediately express their newfound faith.

The eunuch had knowledge to act upon. And he did. Perhaps baptizing babies with water without knowledge is best suited for discussion in another thread.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Free]

Imagine. An unbeliever (or non church member), voluntarily comes to our church service for the first tiime. We're taking communion. We proclaim our belief of the message behind the ordinance in the service.

Then we tell them (through exclusion), "Though this may be the first time you heard this message, and tough you might even believe it, you cannot take part in it because you have not taken the appropriate classes in our church instructing on same."

Seriously? Perhaps some may think I compromise the "sacredness" of communion by having opened it up to all. But God forbid I ever forget that Christ came to seek and to save all that are lost and look for opportunities to relay that message!

Certainly you are not suggesting that unbelievers be allowed to eat from the Lord's Table, are you?

 

[handy]

Bonairos,

I do believe that the Scriptures teach a fundamental difference between water baptism and communion.

Baptism is and should be open to all who believe.

But, the Lord didn't serve communion to all who believe, it was just served to those at that Last Supper, those in that upper room. Baptism is for all sinners, communion is only for believers and even they are exhorted to examine themselves that they might take it in a worthy manner.

Re: communion being only for believers:
Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (many, not all)

Re: believers exhorted to examine themselves that they might take it in a worthy manner.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

 

[Nick]

Bonairos,

I do believe that the Scriptures teach a fundamental difference between water baptism and communion.

Baptism is and should be open to all who believe.

But, the Lord didn't serve communion to all who believe, it was just served to those at that Last Supper, those in that upper room. Baptism is for all sinners, communion is only for believers and even they are exhorted to examine themselves that they might take it in a worthy manner.

Re: communion being only for believers:
Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (many, not all)

Re: believers exhorted to examine themselves that they might take it in a worthy manner.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Dora, I agree on the point you made in the quoted post. Definately, communion should only be for believers, and ones who have examined themselves. But, there is a difference between "examining onself" and being excluded becasue I am a different denomination.

 

[handy]

I don't disagree with you, Nick.

For me, the bottom line is always...what do the Scriptures teach.

And, although I do see that the Scriptures teach that we are exhorted to seriously examine ourselves prior to taking in communion...

...I don't see anything in the Scriptures that tell us that we must be in full agreement before we can commune.

Then again, there is nothing against it in the Scriptures either.

I still come down on the side of open communion.

However, since I'm a girl...the rules apply a bit differently. My husband desires to go to the LCMS...and don't get me wrong, I love it as well. Since both my hubby and my pastor are in agreement about closed communion...it's sort of a non-issue for me.

I don't necessarily have to be in agreement in regards to closed communion, just agree to follow the church's teaching on it, which I do. I do agree with them on what communion is (the true body and blood) and why we partake in it (forgiveness of sins).

But no, I don't find the practice of closed communion in the Scriptures.

Though as the church moves through the last days and the growing apostasies within the Body of Christ...I do believe that closed communion will increasingly offer an advantage.

For instance, last summer when I went the Evangelical Lutheran Church's Ladies Retreat. The speaker, who was the one who gave the sermon during the Sunday morning "worship" service wasn't even a Christian. She was very much a New Age blend of Buddhist, Feminist, whoo-doo guru type. After calling upon us ladies to go against Christian principles several times during the weekend (times I took walks in the woods) I wasn't about to join in communion at the same table with her. A table where several openly lesbian women were being served as well.

These kinds of situations will become more and more common in our post-Christian society. If a church doesn't have a policy of limiting communion to Christians who are in good standing before the Lord (and I doubt if any of these women would say they weren't) those serving communion are going to face serving to folks who are clearly not "worthy". And, I do know that my pastor, and not only him but the many pastors, priests and elders who do serve communion would that they would be held to account for serving a New Agey/Buddhist/Guru or active homosexual communion.