The View is Wide
I was asked here what my position on communion is. It has only been in recent years that I heard about the "other" side...the real Presence, so I am currently walking through a valley of opinions and contemplation. But with what 40,000 Christian denominations world-wide (give or take) most people are not agreeing on this topic or baptism or other main doctrines, actually the views are probably swinging wider and wider. Shameful, huh? Us Christians can't agree.
It is just like end time views, there are so many views, and all are obtaining their views from the Bible...who is correct? Well, they are all getting their views from the BIBLE!!! So there is mystery.
Regarding communion, everyone knows that the stickler is John 6...what did Jesus mean when HE said eat my flesh and drink my blood?
And then we have 5:23. This gift, what did that mean and does it still apply??? Some billion plus people still believe it applies...for they believe even that there is no other gift to give the Father than the Blood/Body of Jesus.
Yet the price has been paid, and so we can go around and around and around hashing it out.
Some churches that I know of basically have communion once a year maybe twice...talk about taking a stand to sweep it away basically.
My stand is that communion, at least, should bring us to accountability.
For without communion, then, at what point do we bring ourselves to accountability, at least?
To bottom line all this, could we not just agree that communion is spiritual?
Does someone have to consecrate it and pray over it that it does become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus? I do not find that in the Scriptures, but I do find where Catholics obtain that Disciples of Jesus have to pass it out, because this could very well be a picture of when Jesus fed the thousands.
But then we are back to square one, where Jesus has given believers His new Spirit, we are reborn, and He empowers that new temple with His Holy Spirit Baptism. So what is left to do? He has done it all; does communion give us something more? That probably is the question.
Is it a reminder that HE fed His Life to us with His Body and Blood?
Or even more?
Or perhaps it is not about what it does for us, but perhaps it pleases the Father in an eternity sense, outside of time, we are partaking in a spiritual rememberance of something like the passover...perhaps that sounds corny but I meant pertaining to something that pleases the Father...and not so much what it does for us, but our belief in God...and obeying what Jesus asked us to do.
Furthermore, thinking of Jesus feeding the thousands, I don't recall Him turning anyone away. Those that came got fed.
I don't believe in closed communion because I believe it should be up to the individual; if he/she eats it unworthily that is on the individual, but not on the distributor...for I believe then things get a little nutty, and there is no forgiveness, etc., when one is denied even after having repented and all that.
If someone is making up the rules who can partake or not, then it invites a whole lot of favortism or whatever you would call that.
For I don't believe Jesus turned anyone away who came to Him.
Communion/Eucharist
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Elk, Aug 20, 2008.
Page 2 of 4
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Here is a quote from Justin Martyrs 1st apology writen about 156 AD pretty close to the apostles!
-
Same with the cup.
Jesus also described himself as the Vine and the Door. No one suggests that this should be regarded as literal, not symbolic.
I fear that you have been caught up in all the mystical gobbledegood, which obscures a fairly simple observance of the Lord's Supper. It is to help us remember Jesus' death on the cross, to reflect on his resurrection, and look forward to his return. Nothing mystical or obsucre about that. -
that may be
We are ex Catholics and highly endorse this dvd.
An an ex Catholic, I would never refer to the Lord's Supper as the eucharist. I believe this would be incredibly offensive to many exCatholics who are now saved and fellowshipping in Bible believing churches. Why stumble your brother?
Your sis in Christ,
Beth -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
does no one have any comments about these quotes? -
Thinkingstuff said:does no one have any comments about these quotes?Click to expand...
-
superwoman8977 said:Okay..well 1st of all it is called the Sacrament of Holy Communion in my bible. There are several sacraments listed--sacrament of marriage, sacrament of baptism.Click to expand...
Secondly I believe communion should be open to anyone who feels so led to take it.Click to expand...
I went to a church where its like you must be a member and lets just say that was the last sunday I went to that church.Click to expand...
The church we have been trying opens communion to anyone who has a relationship with Christ and still pretty much everyone takes it--we also have it offered every Sunday as well as Wednesday as part of the worship experience. Which is like just when you feel so led during praise and worship you can stop and on Wednesdays go to the stage where the elements are there and take it back to your seat and then on weekends you pick up a communion cup and wafer wrapped in cellophane as you go into the sanctuary and then partake of it as you feel led. The more and more I see where I like how this is part of the whole worship experience.Click to expand...
Being baptized has nothing to do with communion.Click to expand...
I dont know why people make that a pre-requisite so to speak of a relationship with Christ.Click to expand...
My sis wont be immersed and therefore has never been "baptized" at least how some of you think but she still loves the Lord and serves Him.Click to expand...
Its more about a relationship with Him rather than oh you have to do this and do that and you cant be this way or that.Click to expand...
You would be surprised how many people know and love the Lord and you cannot tell any outward signs unless you were to come right out and ask them. The numbers are staggering.Click to expand... -
Goldie said:And I take it that it's a Roman Catholic Bible? Can you please tell me where it can be found? (Scripture and verse please).
Communion is a church ordinance and should only be practised by Believers, because if you take it with the wrong motive and wrong way, you actually eat and drink judgment to yourself - that's what was happening in the Corinthian Church. That's why I can't get my mind around Churches who allow EVERYONE in the congregation to partake of communion.
The Lord's Supper doesn't have any magical powers, it is just a time of remembering what Jesus did for us on the cross. So it isn't a sacrament.
Definition of a sacrament:
A formal religious ceremony conferring a specific grace on those who receive it.
That simply isn't true.Click to expand...
However, I don't have a problem with calling it a sacrament. Although I don't believe there is any salvific grace in partaking, I do take the view that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. I see it as more than just a memorial. It is of benefit for us to partake.
Also, it isn't just catholics that call it a "sacrament". Although they have different beliefs regarding communion than catholics, there are several protestant denominations that refer to it as a sacrament. -
jcjordan said:Goldie, I do agree with you that it should only be practiced by believers and I'm very concerned about churches that don't give proper warnings about who should take communion.
However, I don't have a problem with calling it a sacrament. Although I don't believe there is any salvific grace in partaking, I do take the view that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. I see it as more than just a memorial. It is of benefit for us to partake.
Also, it isn't just catholics that call it a "sacrament". Although they have different beliefs regarding communion than catholics, there are several protestant denominations that refer to it as a sacrament.Click to expand...
Your use of the term "means of grace" presents a problem. It is exactly the term used by Catholics to refer to salvific grace. Your use of it to mean something else leads to confusion, I fear.
Catholics use the term to refer to something they do to earn grace. I doubt if that's what you mean by its use. If you mean that the Lord's Supper is an observance through which God bestows blessings, I can agree. I certainly am blessed each time our congregation observes it.
If you and I were talking, and you used "sacrament' and "means of grace" I would assume you were applying the Catholic meaning.
Confusion and impecision--two good reasons for Baptists not to use Catholic language when referring to the Lord's Supper. -
John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. If it did, it would mean we would have to do something to have eternal life, but we know that salvation is through faith, not through an act such as the Eucharist. This is a good refutation of the misuse of John 6 by the Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.afcministry.com/Roman_Catholicism_and_the_eucharist_and_John_6_verses_53_through_57.htm
Excerpt___According to Jesus in verse 35, coming to Him is how we satisfy our hunger, but how do we as human beings satisfy our hunger?...by eating. Believing in Jesus is how we satisfy our thirst, but how do we as human beings satisfy our thirst?...by drinking. With that understanding, let's go back to the verses that the Roman Catholics bring up. When Jesus tells us that we cannot have eternal life unless we eat His flesh or drink His blood, He is not talking in a literal sense, but in a spiritual sense. Eating His flesh (coming to Jesus) will satisfy our hunger. Drinking His blood (believing in Jesus) will satisfy our thirst. Coming to Jesus and believing in Him is what gives us eternal life, not eating a wafer and drinking some wine. Jesus was applying a human aspect to a spiritual understanding. This is the meaning behind eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, but unfortunately the Roman Catholic doesn't get it.
In conclusion, it is my contention that John chapter 6:53-57 is not talking about the Lord’s Supper at all, but is a spiritual example given by Jesus Christ on how we are to come to and believe in Him for eternal life. The Lord’s Supper was not established in John chapter 6, but was established much later in Jesus' ministry (see Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:17-19). _____End excerptClick to expand...
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a11.htm
http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_eating_the_flesh_of_the_son_of_man.htm
All say the same thing as below:
http://www.loveintruth.com/amf-docs/flesh1.htm
So, believing in Christ and eating His flesh and drinking His blood are both things that lead to everlasting life. We can put them together. Whatever He means by eating and drinking, it is the same kind of thing as believing because both of them lead to everlasting life. -
Tom Butler said:Goldie may answer for herself, but I'd like to respond, too.
Your use of the term "means of grace" presents a problem. It is exactly the term used by Catholics to refer to salvific grace. Your use of it to mean something else leads to confusion, I fear.
Catholics use the term to refer to something they do to earn grace. I doubt if that's what you mean by its use. If you mean that the Lord's Supper is an observance through which God bestows blessings, I can agree. I certainly am blessed each time our congregation observes it.
If you and I were talking, and you used "sacrament' and "means of grace" I would assume you were applying the Catholic meaning.
Confusion and impecision--two good reasons for Baptists not to use Catholic language when referring to the Lord's Supper.Click to expand... -
jcjordan said:Tom, I understand what you are saying, but I think the average baptist just needs to learn a little more. The terms "means of grace" and "sacraments" aren't just Roman Catholic Church terms. Those terms are used in quite a few protestant denominations. It's also like the term "catholic". That word doesn't mean the "RCC" but the universal church of all believers.Click to expand...
All Protestant Churches came out of the RC church and it's not surprising that they retained bits and pieces of RCC tradition, most of which are error. Baptists historically have appealed to scripture, not other denominations, for their doctrine and practice.
The terms "means of grace" and "sacrament" have no part in Baptist nomenclature, for they are unbiblical. -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberZenas said:"[T]he eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier." J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 196 (rev. ed. 1978). The fact is that the concept of the Lord's Supper as merely a memorial meal--no sacrifice, no real presence, no sacrament--came into being for the first time during the Reformation.Click to expand...
Well if that is the case then why the strong emphasis on symbolism? If JND Kelly is correct then it seems that there is a strong disconnect with the modern churches from the teaching of the apostles themselves. The Quotes form Justin and Ignatius so early in christian history points to a differing perspective. Scriptures (especially with John 6 seems to hold up these early chruch leaders thoughts. Especially when considering that Jesus didn't hold back many of his disciples who left because it was a "hard teaching". He doesn't explain his speach to the 12 either. It would be consistent with other passages that Jesus would explain the error of people leaving his fellowship, however, in this case he did not. So, it seems that those who left; left for the very reason that what Jesus was speaking about offended them. All he says to the 12 was "will you also leave?". Also I wonder about the Liturgy. The Didache indicates an early liturgy with communion established. So why so anti liturgy? Many protestant denominations have not done away with this such as Lutherians, Anglicans, etc.... As I venture through Christian History many of these questions come up. I don't seem to be getting adiquate answers. It seems that we end up with emotional appeals rather than actual reasoned thought at times. I enjoy watching Strobles case for Christ. Yet all the historical evidence he points to are the same evidence that the traditional churches use and the modern churches abhore saying that they were in error. I find that strange since in any court case the closer to the incident is the better information about it. Thought upon thoughts. -
Thinkingstuff said:Well if that is the case then why the strong emphasis on symbolism? If JND Kelly is correct then it seems that there is a strong disconnect with the modern churches from the teaching of the apostles themselves. The Quotes form Justin and Ignatius so early in christian history points to a differing perspective. Scriptures (especially with John 6 seems to hold up these early chruch leaders thoughts. Especially when considering that Jesus didn't hold back many of his disciples who left because it was a "hard teaching". He doesn't explain his speach to the 12 either. It would be consistent with other passages that Jesus would explain the error of people leaving his fellowship, however, in this case he did not. So, it seems that those who left; left for the very reason that what Jesus was speaking about offended them. All he says to the 12 was "will you also leave?". Also I wonder about the Liturgy. The Didache indicates an early liturgy with communion established. So why so anti liturgy? Many protestant denominations have not done away with this such as Lutherians, Anglicans, etc.... As I venture through Christian History many of these questions come up. I don't seem to be getting adiquate answers. It seems that we end up with emotional appeals rather than actual reasoned thought at times. I enjoy watching Strobles case for Christ. Yet all the historical evidence he points to are the same evidence that the traditional churches use and the modern churches abhore saying that they were in error. I find that strange since in any court case the closer to the incident is the better information about it. Thought upon thoughts.Click to expand...For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down,
My name shall be great among the Gentiles;
In every place incense shall be offered to My name,
And a pure offering;
For My name shall be great among the nations,”
Says the LORD of hosts.Click to expand... -
Thinkingstuff said:Well if that is the case then why the strong emphasis on symbolism? If JND Kelly is correct then it seems that there is a strong disconnect with the modern churches from the teaching of the apostles themselves. The Quotes form Justin and Ignatius so early in christian history points to a differing perspective. Scriptures (especially with John 6 seems to hold up these early chruch leaders thoughts. Especially when considering that Jesus didn't hold back many of his disciples who left because it was a "hard teaching". He doesn't explain his speach to the 12 either. It would be consistent with other passages that Jesus would explain the error of people leaving his fellowship, however, in this case he did not. So, it seems that those who left; left for the very reason that what Jesus was speaking about offended them. All he says to the 12 was "will you also leave?". Also I wonder about the Liturgy. The Didache indicates an early liturgy with communion established. So why so anti liturgy? Many protestant denominations have not done away with this such as Lutherians, Anglicans, etc.... As I venture through Christian History many of these questions come up. I don't seem to be getting adiquate answers. It seems that we end up with emotional appeals rather than actual reasoned thought at times. I enjoy watching Strobles case for Christ. Yet all the historical evidence he points to are the same evidence that the traditional churches use and the modern churches abhore saying that they were in error. I find that strange since in any court case the closer to the incident is the better information about it. Thought upon thoughts.Click to expand...
No matter what any church father may have said, I have to search the scriptures and see what they say. In fact, I did research this because I was in discussion with a friend who became Roman Catholic, and also was talking to another person considering the RC church.
John 6 does not give support to the RC view of transubstantiation at all. RCs use it because it's all they can find for their view and they don't take it in context at all. -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberMarcia said:You must not have read the links I posted above that give very reasoned responses to the (mis)use of John 6 for transubstantiation.
No matter what any church father may have said, I have to search the scriptures and see what they say. In fact, I did research this because I was in discussion with a friend who became Roman Catholic, and also was talking to another person considering the RC church.
John 6 does not give support to the RC view of transubstantiation at all. RCs use it because it's all they can find for their view and they don't take it in context at all.Click to expand... -
annsni said:I think you're saying that at the beginning of the Bible - not in the text but before all of that. Like where you list births, deaths and such, right?
Since Scripture says that it's for believers, we know that it's not for just those who feel led to take it.
That's fine - that's your choice. However, this is a way that the church can be sure that they are not mishandling Communion. In our church, you do not need to be a member but you DO need to be a baptized believer. It is stated in a gentle way before communion and at times, we've even gone over the idea of taking "unworthily" - and challenging those who have an unconfessed sin to clear that before they take communion. We've had people even get up during communion (quietly) and gone to a person that they have offended and asked forgiveness. This is what the spirit of the "closed" communion is about.
That sounds like a nice way to do it.
Well it does. If we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and He's our Savior, we will be baptized in obedience to Him. If we do not get baptized, then we are in DISOBEDIENCE to Him - and therefore are unworthy to take communion.
It's not a pre-requisite but a post-requisite.
Do you see what you've said? She's disobedient to the Lord's command but she "loves Him and serves Him"? Why will she not be immersed? Is it embarassment? Is it pride? There is an issue deeper than getting wet here from what I read into that.
A relationship with the living God is one where we are obedient to Him. If we say "I am not going to obey that command" says that there is not a change of heart and I would seriously tell the person to search their heart and see who's lord of it - God or them.
And that is completely against Scripture. If there are no outward signs, then there is no fruit. If there is no fruit, the tree is dead and will be cast into the fire.Click to expand...
Okay my sis will not be immersed because she has never been immersed and never for that matter been in a pool, etc...that doesnt mean that God loves her any less. She still loves the Lord and still has an awesome relationship with the Lord..
You would not believe the number of soldiers I run into on a daily basis that you would never know have an awesome relationship with the Lord because of their positions, etc. Its not all about outward. There was a soldier we ran into yesterday in the office that I knew was just having a bad day and he commented on my necklace and we launched into a 15 minute conversation about how he has to hide his love for the Lord because of his position and his job, not everyone has the opoortunity to shout it from the rooftops. I am not a huge one at sharing my faith either, somehow people just know and well thats when I am placed in a person's path at the Lord's prompting.
Also I grew up hearing communion called a sacrament and I am not Catholic. The 3 churches I have been to this summer on my travels have called it a sacrament. I never said everyone should get to partake but the idea of certain people participating isnt correct either. In all 3 of those churches I felt the welcoming spirit to participate.
We are not all going to agree no matter what but to sit there and nit pick at people and tell them they are wrong for what they believe isnt right either. Yeah I dont beleive as you Ann I have been raised in a different background as you and probably undergone different teaching than you. You believe forgiveness is a public thing I believe it is something between you and God in your private time with Him. Just like you have your beliefs about communion I have mine. Thats why there are different denominations not one of us is going to think alike. -
Thinkingstuff said:That is not entirely true. (the part about it's all they can find) they find it every discussion about communion, manna, the presense of the Lord in the feast Moses had with the elders on mount Sinai when they went part way up. Eating of the lamb for passover etc.... I'll read your links to see what they say. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain what was considered a mystery up to that point primarily because of the reformation.Click to expand...
I don't see how manna or the passover lamb cause one to say that we need to eat Jesus every week. That is what Transubstantiation is - and it is Jesus sacrificing himself over and over, when the Bible says he was sacrificed "once for all."
I understand that the elements are put into a monstrance and worshiped because they believe this really is Jesus there.
A good book I've been reading parts of is Far From Rome, Near to God, edited by Richard Bennett and Martin Buckingham. It's a book of testimonies of former Roman Catholic priests who became believers and left the RC church. Bennett himself was a Roman Catholic priest for over 20 years. There's also a book of testimonies by former nuns but I don't have that one and can't recall the name of it. -
Marcia said:Thanks for reading the links. I hope they are benficial.
I don't see how manna or the passover lamb cause one to say that we need to eat Jesus every week. That is what Transubstantiation is - and it is Jesus sacrificing himself over and over, when the Bible says he was sacrificed "once for all."
I understand that the elements are put into a monstrance and worshiped because they believe this really is Jesus there.
A good book I've been reading parts of is Far From Rome, Near to God, edited by Richard Bennett and Martin Buckingham. It's a book of testimonies of former Roman Catholic priests who became believers and left the RC church. Bennett himself was a Roman Catholic priest for over 20 years. There's also a book of testimonies by former nuns but I don't have that one and can't recall the name of it.Click to expand...
Page 2 of 4