Significance of the Last Supper

[arunangelo]

At the Last Supper Jesus made an offering, to the Father, of His body and blood, which was sacrificed on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This offering was the most perfect offering to the Father because it was an act of love that was complete, selfless and unconditional. Furthermore, at this meal He gave us His sacrificial body and blood as real food (John 6:55). In doing this He established an eternal covenant with us in which He gives us His sacrificial body and blood (Matthew 26:26-28), and we accept His sacrificial life by eating His body and drinking His blood (John 6:53-57). In addition, by receiving Him into our being we establish an intimate friendship with Him which is very precious to Jesus. He therefore asks us to do this (re-enter His sacrificial meal) as often as possible so that we will keep His love (spirit) alive in our heart (memory) (Luke 22:19).

 

[childeye]

At the Last Supper Jesus made an offering, to the Father, of His body and blood, which was sacrificed on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This offering was the most perfect offering to the Father because it was an act of love that was complete, selfless and unconditional. Furthermore, at this meal He gave us His sacrificial body and blood as real food (John 6:55). In doing this He established an eternal covenant with us in which He gives us His sacrificial body and blood (Matthew 26:26-28), and we accept His sacrificial life by eating His body and drinking His blood (John 6:53-57). In addition, by receiving Him into our being we establish an intimate friendship with Him which is very precious to Jesus. He therefore asks us to do this (re-enter His sacrificial meal) as often as possible so that we will keep His love (spirit) alive in our heart (memory) (Luke 22:19).

Are you perchance Catholic?

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

Doesn’t matter if he’s a Catholic or not. The Lord’s Supper is significant enough to be mentioned in a significant way in the all four Gospels and 1 Corinthians. And it’s intimated in other letters such as Ephesians, Hebrews and Revelation. It has a close relationship with Justification. The Lord’s Table is a very important part of the life in Christ experientially.

The Catholics claim that the Lord’s Table is a change in the physical nature of the bread and the wine into the physical body and blood of Christ. Though it has been my experience that when it comes down to it, the common Catholic doesn’t actually takes it as physical as their Church does. The Protestants influenced by Calvinism claim that the Lord’s Table is merely symbolic. I’m sure they experience according to their faith. Which would be an experience of the mind alone.

What is intended to be a Spiritual experience of unity in Christ among those who are in Christ, is experienced as division in Christianity. Down to the practice of closed communion in one form or another by every denomination of Christianity.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

Doesn’t matter if he’s a Catholic or not. The Lord’s Supper is significant enough to be mentioned in a significant way in the all four Gospels and 1 Corinthians. And it’s intimated in other letters such as Ephesians, Hebrews and Revelation. It has a close relationship with Justification. The Lord’s Table is a very important part of the life in Christ experientially.

The Catholics claim that the Lord’s Table is a change in the physical nature of the bread and the wine into the physical body and blood of Christ. Though it has been my experience that when it comes down to it, the common Catholic doesn’t actually takes it as physical as their Church does. The Protestants influenced by Calvinism claim that the Lord’s Table is merely symbolic. I’m sure they experience according to their faith. Which would be an experience of the mind alone.

What is intended to be a Spiritual experience of unity in Christ among those who are in Christ, is experienced as division in Christianity. Down to the practice of closed communion in one form or another by every denomination of Christianity.

FC

I agree with your assessment FC . But this division is mostly in semantics over how you apply the term symbolic. Even the Catholics acknowledge the mysterium or the deeper symbolism of the bread and wine, as the bread and wine are a sacrament, a sign or symbol of something sacred.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

“I agree with your assessment FC . But this division is mostly in semantics over how you apply the term symbolic. Even the Catholics acknowledge the mysterium or the deeper symbolism of the bread and wine, as the bread and wine are a sacrament, a sign or symbol of something sacred.â€

In Catholicism, a sacrament is an functional sign of grace through which Divine Life is supplied to us. To the Lutherans, a sacrament is joined to a promise, “by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ†(Luther). Some Protestant denominations call Baptism and the Lord’s Table “ordinances†or observations by commandment. Generally, Protestants who understand the Lord’s Table in the sense of symbolic memorialism will not also add to the symbolism any kind of sacramental idea.


Christianity by nature is denominational. The denominations practice closed communion. And that division “mostly in semantics†is my point (if by semantics you mean interpretation). Denominationalism is based on doctrinal differences. The practice of closed communion is according to doctrinal agreement and differences.

Some denominations, like the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Churches, like most Protestant Evangelical Churches, consider members of other Churches to be brethren by virtue of their baptism. Which means they are practicing closed communion against their own brethren, simply for doctrinal reasons.

Some denominations claim that they practice open communion. They are so open that they knowingly let the openly homosexual Christians, and even non-Christians, participate. By their acknowledgment of such, they are declaring that their own doctrinal limitations go beyond the Bible. Unless one agrees with the Biblical interpretations of the homosexual Christians. And in their “opennessâ€, they deny communion to those who know that communion isn’t meant for either. Something I’ve experienced myself.

The experience of communion is only for those who are in Christ. Anyone else who takes communion will receive no benefit, will experience nothing. Doesn’t mean we should open communion indiscriminately deceiving certain ones in the process.

Communion in Christianity is not a communion of unity, but of division. Instead of keeping the unity of the Spirit, they are keeping the unity of their own doctrines. That’s what’s significant.

Should those who are in Christ take communion in Churches that plainly practice a communion of unity in their own division? Depends on our realization of the reality of Christianity. I realize that Christianity is denominational in nature, and can’t take communion in a denomination according to that realization.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

“I agree with your assessment FC . But this division is mostly in semantics over how you apply the term symbolic. Even the Catholics acknowledge the mysterium or the deeper symbolism of the bread and wine, as the bread and wine are a sacrament, a sign or symbol of something sacred.”

In Catholicism, a sacrament is an functional sign of grace through which Divine Life is supplied to us. To the Lutherans, a sacrament is joined to a promise, “by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ” (Luther). Some Protestant denominations call Baptism and the Lord’s Table “ordinances” or observations by commandment. Generally, Protestants who understand the Lord’s Table in the sense of symbolic memorialism will not also add to the symbolism any kind of sacramental idea.


Christianity by nature is denominational. The denominations practice closed communion. And that division “mostly in semantics” is my point (if by semantics you mean interpretation). Denominationalism is based on doctrinal differences. The practice of closed communion is according to doctrinal agreement and differences.

Some denominations, like the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Churches, like most Protestant Evangelical Churches, consider members of other Churches to be brethren by virtue of their baptism. Which means they are practicing closed communion against their own brethren, simply for doctrinal reasons.

Some denominations claim that they practice open communion. They are so open that they knowingly let the openly homosexual Christians, and even non-Christians, participate. By their acknowledgment of such, they are declaring that their own doctrinal limitations go beyond the Bible. Unless one agrees with the Biblical interpretations of the homosexual Christians. And in their “openness”, they deny communion to those who know that communion isn’t meant for either. Something I’ve experienced myself.

The experience of communion is only for those who are in Christ. Anyone else who takes communion will receive no benefit, will experience nothing. Doesn’t mean we should open communion indiscriminately deceiving certain ones in the process.

Communion in Christianity is not a communion of unity, but of division. Instead of keeping the unity of the Spirit, they are keeping the unity of their own doctrines. That’s what’s significant.

Should those who are in Christ take communion in Churches that plainly practice a communion of unity in their own division? Depends on our realization of the reality of Christianity. I realize that Christianity is denominational in nature, and can’t take communion in a denomination according to that realization.

FC

FC, God sees all despite any doctrinal differences. He knows who partakes worthily and unworthily despite differing interpretations of what worthy or unworthy pertains to. Despite what anyone thinks, there is a body of believers that are not divided by doctrine for they are united in Love. Forgive those who hurt you and quit letting anyone dictate to you what your personal walk with God is supposed to be like. That includes me. The New Testament is about each man knowing God for himself without any other person telling him.

 

[for_his_glory]

The significance of the Last Supper was and is for all of us to keep in remembrance the selfless act of one person (Christ Jesus) who bore the pain of our sins so we through repentance by Gods grace can also take part of Jesus life, death and Resurrection as we come into a new covenant through Spiritual cleansing that renews our inner Spiritual man, John 3:3.

It does not matter what denomination or nondenominational Church you belong to or even if you are not affiliated with any particular Church and take communion in the privacy of your own home it's all done in remembrance as it does not matter how often you partake as there is no set timeline for doing so and it is a personal partaking even in a group setting as we come sinless to His table.

There is also a warning about taking of the cup and bread as if you are unworthy, which means you have unrepentant sin, you are also guilty of the Crucifixion of Christ as when we carry sin inside us we are then not worthy of the blood of Christ as we are none of His.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

That’s what I like about Christianity. Real issues mean nothing and non-issues mean everything. Every time I think that Christianity may actually be more than what I think it is, along comes someone to set me straight. That’s what keeps me a

Former Christian.

 

[Former Christian]

For his glory

All quotes from the KJV

“The significance of the Last Supper was and is for all of us to keep in remembrance the selfless act of one person (Christ Jesus) who bore the pain of our sins so we through repentance by Gods grace can also take part of Jesus life, death and Resurrection as we come into a new covenant through Spiritual cleansing that renews our inner Spiritual man, John 3:3.â€

The Symbolism Theory. If your receiving anything, you’re receiving according to your faith. A symbol without any other reality.

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.†(John 6:53-56)

Catholicism has taken this to be literal and their ritual of physically changing the bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ through a special Priesthood ordained for the purpose, reflects their belief. Granted not all Catholics agree that the change is from the physical into the physical. But it is the common consensus. And this common consensus reflects what the Jews thought of what Jesus said.

“These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?†(John 6:59-60)

Why was it a hard saying? Because they were taking Jesus’ words literally, like the Catholics do today. And so it happened that:

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.†(John 6:66)

Why? Because they didn’t understand Jesus’ explanation of the reality. Jesus mentions several times in the Gospels that the Jews were blinded by their own man-made doctrines and hardened by God as a judgment upon that generation. They left AFTER hearing:

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

Contrary to what many believe, even the Apostles didn’t understand.

“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.†(John 6:67-69)

Peter spoke for all. They didn’t understand, but they trusted in Jesus. Why? He had the words, THE WORDS, of eternal life. And they were sure he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That was sufficient for them at that point. And Jesus didn’t disagree. He only said:

“Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.â€

He revealed that only one, the one specifically chosen for the purpose of betraying Jesus for crucifixion, would be lost. The rest would eventually understand, not only about Judas, but about everything.

The Lord’s Table is much more than simply a symbolic memorial. And even though it has to do with our faith, it has nothing to do with our faith alone. It is a true eating of the Body of Christ and a drinking of the blood of Christ. Through the Spirit of God. It is a true communion with Jesus Christ in the unity of his Body and in the New Covenant in his blood.

This is not possible in Christianity because of its denominational nature. There is no unity in Christianity except the unity within denominations. This is far worse than the situation in Corinth. In Corinth there was division, but not to the point of distinct denominations.


“It does not matter what denomination or nondenominational Church you belong to or even if you are not affiliated with any particular Church and take communion in the privacy of your own home it's all done in remembrance as it does not matter how often you partake as there is no set timeline for doing so and it is a personal partaking even in a group setting as we come sinless to His table.â€

“The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.†(1 Cor 10:16-17)

The Lord’s Table is a community expression, not an individual expression. And who among us is without sin? Do you believe in sinless perfection? Are you one of those who believe that the only ones who are saved are those who believe this verse taken out of context?

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.†(1 John 3:9)


“There is also a warning about taking of the cup and bread as if you are unworthy, which means you have unrepentant sin, you are also guilty of the Crucifixion of Christ as when we carry sin inside us we are then not worthy of the blood of Christ as we are none of His.â€

The meaning of the Greek word is “unworthily†or in “an unworthy mannerâ€; not “unworthyâ€

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Have you heard of anyone getting sick or dying because of the taking the Lord’s Table even unworthily, let alone because they are unworthy? No. That’s because the Lord’s Table doesn’t exist in Christianity. There’s are only rituals that imitate the Lord’s Table.

“But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.†(1 Cor 11:32)

There isn’t any such judgment because there is nothing to judge. It’s one of the evidences that Christianity is a man-made religion.

In Corinth, they weren’t being judged because they were unworthy. There would have been no need of a second letter if they were. They would have all died. They were being judged because they knew and understood the reality of the Lord’s Table. He used their knowledge and understanding to show that idols are of no consequence, but we must deal with them according to the faith of the Gentiles

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.†(1 Cor 10:16-21, and Paul continues in that vein)

But they didn’t esteem it in the appropriate manner:

“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not..... Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.†(1 Cor 11:20-22, 33-34)


“1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.â€

It’s going to take a lot more than individual judgment of our sins and sinfulness to make the situation right. It’s going to take a judgment by those who are in Christ of Christianity itself. Christianity, a religion that considers itself to deserve the name of Christ. Christianity, a religion that is divided into, not just simple divisions, but distinct denominations based on doctrinal differences. Christianity, the nature of which is denominational. Denominations of Christianity each communing in its own distinctiveness, not in the unity of Christ or the Holy Spirit.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

That’s what I like about Christianity. Real issues mean nothing and non-issues mean everything. Every time I think that Christianity may actually be more than what I think it is, along comes someone to set me straight. That’s what keeps me a

Former Christian.

I can't tell if you are being facetious FC. Please elaborate forthrightly so one can respond forthrightly.

 

[Former Christian]

Ekklesia exist wherever there are believers. But instead of gathering as the ekklesia, believers have chosen to gather in Christian denominations, in Christian Churches. Leaving one such as myself, who can’t relate to any Christian denomination, with the choice to attend some Christian Church or leave it all behind. If there were gatherings of the ekklesia, that’s where I would attend. But there is not. At least none that I’m aware of. And though there are a few who use the term ekklesia instead of Church, I’m not aware of any who think there’s a difference between an ekklesia and a Church, let alone understand what the difference might be.

I only attend a Christian Church for one reason. Not because I need to hear the Bible read or interpreted. Not because I need a sacred place to pray or feel a need to pray physically with others. Not because I need to sing hymns. Those are things I could do on my own. The only reason I attend a Christian Church is because I feel compelled to participate in something that both Jesus and Paul considered very important. The Lord’s Table.

The Lord’s Table isn’t something that can be done individually. Though some people try. By definition (share the body and blood), the Lord’s Table is a communal experience. The only Spiritual experience that requires a communal physical sharing. Baptism only requires the presence of one other person, the one who baptizes. If it weren’t for the necessary relationship between water baptism and Spirit baptism, even one additional person wouldn’t be necessary.

Upon realizing the human nature of Christianity, and that it is a denominational expression as a consequence, I questioned whether it was possible, let alone valid, to participate in the Lord’s Table in a denomination. It seemed a contradiction. First reconcile with your brother then offer the gift. Denominationalism, the extreme form of division.

But I finally realized that the Lord’s Table has nothing to do with denominationalism. Even though Christianity tries to make it so. Because denominationalism is related to an experience of doctrinal unity, denominational doctrinal unity, a unity within a denomination.

The Lord’s Table is an experience of Spiritual unity, not doctrinal unity. It has nothing to do with the doctrinal unity of those who are in Christ. Otherwise the babe in Christ couldn’t participate in the Lord’s Table. Only the fully matured in the faith, the fully indoctrinated into the understanding and belief of doctrines could participate. I realized that the practice of closed communion in relation to doctrinal differences is a denominational practice that has nothing to do with the actual experience of the Lord’s Table at all. I realized that if there are in the denomination those who are truly in Christ, it’s their presence that justifies the experience of the Lord’s Table, not the ritual, not the presence of a Priest or Pastor, not the denomination itself.

So I attend a Christian Church that opens its doors to the public and is thus in the public domain. I don’t disrupt the service. I participate in it. I don’t reveal what I believe because, being practitioners of closed communion, they wouldn’t allow me to participate in the Lord’s Table, which is the whole point of my attendance. The denomination esteems doctrinal unity more than Spiritual unity. As far as the membership of this Church is concerned, I’m one of them in the sense of denominational identity. But there are those in the denomination who are in Christ, transcending denominational identity, so that Spiritual unity exists. And that’s what the Lord’s Table is all about. The ultimate experience of Spiritual unity. The true experience of the unity of the Body and of the Redemption, experienced with Christ through the Spirit. A unity that already exists between all who are in Christ.

FC

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Childeye

Doesn’t matter if he’s a Catholic or not. The Lord’s Supper is significant enough to be mentioned in a significant way in the all four Gospels and 1 Corinthians. And it’s intimated in other letters such as Ephesians, Hebrews and Revelation. It has a close relationship with Justification. The Lord’s Table is a very important part of the life in Christ experientially.

The Catholics claim that the Lord’s Table is a change in the physical nature of the bread and the wine into the physical body and blood of Christ. Though it has been my experience that when it comes down to it, the common Catholic doesn’t actually takes it as physical as their Church does. The Protestants influenced by Calvinism claim that the Lord’s Table is merely symbolic. I’m sure they experience according to their faith. Which would be an experience of the mind alone.

What is intended to be a Spiritual experience of unity in Christ among those who are in Christ, is experienced as division in Christianity. Down to the practice of closed communion in one form or another by every denomination of Christianity.

FC

Prehaps it has escaped your notice that Jesus has said that God has prepared a table before him in the presence of his enemies. You also need to note that that 1 Cor. 11:27-30 says that a person can and does become guilty of the Lord's body and blood by participation in this ceremony. Anyone who thinks or proposes that the crucifixion of Jesus is not a unilateral accountable sin gives approval of the death of one of God's prophets caused by bloodshed and becomes just as guilty of taking that man's life by bloodshed as the participants who crucified him. Which is why it is written "may their table be a snare and a trap for them."
"For God is not slack concerning his promise, The guilty shall not go unpunished, as men count (view) slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" in regard to Jesus' life having been lost by bloodshed when he was crucified.

 

[Former Christian]

Theodore A. Jones

I’m afraid I haven’t a clue as to what you’re getting at. Apparently I’m thinking or doing something wrong in your eyes. But I don’t know what. Your response is apparently to a former post, not the last one. It’s my policy not to search into the past to find out what I actually said. Takes too much time. Perhaps if you respond to the last post, I’ll understand what your saying. It’s a little closer to where I am now.

FC

 

[stranger]

Prehaps it has escaped your notice that Jesus has said that God has prepared a table before him in the presence of his enemies. You also need to note that that 1 Cor. 11:27-30 says that a person can and does become guilty of the Lord's body and blood by participation in this ceremony. Anyone who thinks or proposes that the crucifixion of Jesus is not a unilateral accountable sin gives approval of the death of one of God's prophets caused by bloodshed and becomes just as guilty of taking that man's life by bloodshed as the participants who crucified him. Which is why it is written "may their table be a snare and a trap for them."
"For God is not slack concerning his promise, The guilty shall not go unpunished, as men count (view) slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" in regard to Jesus' life having been lost by bloodshed when he was crucified.

Theodore,

Interesting point. Reformed theology argues that Christ died for the elect only. They reason that if Christ died for everyone then they would be universalist in believing all men would be saved. Even while I was Reformed myself I suspected that this reasoning was flawed because rejecting Christ does have consequences. The Reformed assumption is that the death of Christ is only salvific.

I would also say that if someone shares in the guilt of a prophet they are guilty of the blood of all prophets. Having said all this I am not assuming that 'man' is neutral but under the dominion of sin before he hears the gospel.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore,

Interesting point. Reformed theology argues that Christ died for the elect only. They reason that if Christ died for everyone then they would be universalist in believing all men would be saved. Even while I was Reformed myself I suspected that this reasoning was flawed because rejecting Christ does have consequences. The Reformed assumption is that the death of Christ is only salvific.

I would also say that if someone shares in the guilt of a prophet they are guilty of the blood of all prophets. Having said all this I am not assuming that 'man' is neutral but under the dominion of sin before he hears the gospel.

I'll stipulate that I am very well aware of the flawed reasoning of Reformed theology. But in this contemporary setting all salvific proposals relative to Jesus' crucifixion are articulations that assume that it is only his death that is salvific. The error is not the resident of only Reformed theology. Maybe it should be recalled that it only takes one little pinch of a particular form of leaven to corrupt the whole lump.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore A. Jones

I’m afraid I haven’t a clue as to what you’re getting at. Apparently I’m thinking or doing something wrong in your eyes. But I don’t know what. Your response is apparently to a former post, not the last one. It’s my policy not to search into the past to find out what I actually said. Takes too much time. Perhaps if you respond to the last post, I’ll understand what your saying. It’s a little closer to where I am now.

FC

The Lord's table only serves the actual purpose of individualizing incrimination. Therefore participation in the ceremony cannot result in an exoneration of sin since the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed in the first place. Participation at this table based on the false assumption that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct postive benefit is incriminatory by disregarding the fact that it is actually a unilatterally accountable sin.

 

[Former Christian]

Theodore A. Jones

So you’re saying that we shouldn’t even participate in the Lord’s Table?

FC

 

[childeye]

Mr. Theodore Jones, it seems you are saying the supper is each man's personal examination of guilt. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore A. Jones

So you’re saying that we shouldn’t even participate in the Lord’s Table?

FC

Participation is as often as you like. But NOT discerning, comprehending, that the crucifixion of Lord's body is a sin is incriminatory for that individual. It is not possible for anyone to be exonerated of being guilty of a sin(s) whenever it is a sin that the claimant claims to have exonerated himself. This type of reasoning is always incriminatory. Understand?

 

[stovebolts]

The Lord’s Table is an experience of Spiritual unity, not doctrinal unity. It has nothing to do with the doctrinal unity of those who are in Christ. Otherwise the babe in Christ couldn’t participate in the Lord’s Table. Only the fully matured in the faith, the fully indoctrinated into the understanding and belief of doctrines could participate. I realized that the practice of closed communion in relation to doctrinal differences is a denominational practice that has nothing to do with the actual experience of the Lord’s Table at all. I realized that if there are in the denomination those who are truly in Christ, it’s their presence that justifies the experience of the Lord’s Table, not the ritual, not the presence of a Priest or Pastor, not the denomination itself.

So I attend a Christian Church that opens its doors to the public and is thus in the public domain. I don’t disrupt the service. I participate in it. I don’t reveal what I believe because, being practitioners of closed communion, they wouldn’t allow me to participate in the Lord’s Table, which is the whole point of my attendance. The denomination esteems doctrinal unity more than Spiritual unity. As far as the membership of this Church is concerned, I’m one of them in the sense of denominational identity. But there are those in the denomination who are in Christ, transcending denominational identity, so that Spiritual unity exists. And that’s what the Lord’s Table is all about. The ultimate experience of Spiritual unity. The true experience of the unity of the Body and of the Redemption, experienced with Christ through the Spirit. A unity that already exists between all who are in Christ.

FC

Very well articulated.