Questions About Communion.......

A Church that doesn't offer Communion isn't following Christ. After all Christ commanded it. I would find me another church. If we wait till all members are perfect we'll have to wait till the Marriage Supper!

 

While I understand that the word "sacrament" has a dictionary definition that allows it to be used to refer both to the Roman Catholic heresy of transubstantiation AND the scriptural ordinance of the Lord's Supper,

I always refrain from calling the Lord's Supper a "sacrament".
I don't want to do anything that might make a lost person think there is any saving grace in taking communion.

I think there is certainly plenty of latitude in the I Cor 11 passage on the Lord's Supper to permit one to observe the Lord's Supper at home.

We are not given ANY schedule in scripture for observing the Lord's Supper.

We ARE told "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I Cor 11:26

"as often" seems to leave the frequency of the observance up to the individual church, pastor and believer.

 

rbrent
For future reference. The word sacrament covers a number of 'rites' enacted in church. Including Baptism, Marriage and yes the Lord's Supper.
Transubstantion is not only a heresy, it is a WIDESPREAD heresy. The whole Catholic church believes in it (not just the Roman branch) and that believe is shared throughout all Eastern-Orthodox and Oriental-Orthodox churches.

 

The difference between a sacrament and an ordinance is that a sacrament conveys grace. That's why some groups ("it's only symbolic") refer to communion as an ordinance, and others ("it literally is/contains the body and blood") refer to it as a sacrament.

I disagree that transubstantiation is a heresy. If it is, was not the *entire* Church heretical until the Reformation, when Zwlingli raised the issue (against other Protestants, no less)?

 

First of all, not only is transubtantiation a heresy, it's blasphemous. Secondly, the Catholic Church has never been a part of the body of Christ. They are not Christian, never has been. God has never accepted self-righteousness as a means of salvation(Jer.17:5). God always had a small reminant of His people, but never in the Catholic Church. Communion is not the mass, and has nothing to do with salvation. Communion is a symbol of the broken body of the Lord and the spilled blood of the Lord and we should do this often to remind ourselves what Christ did to show His love toward us and to offer us eternal life with Him. It is also to remind ourselves how we should walk in the newness of life.

 

The Lord's Supper is not a sacrament but a biblical ritual practiced regularly by a local church. The interval is not given in Scripture but "never or almost never" does not seem to fit the idea of the Word of God. After the founding of the church, the Lord's Supper is only identified under the authority of the local church. The church can authorize leadership other than a pastor to administer it, and times and places other than a regular church service in a church building. There is not a single indication or passage in Scripture that would authorize "self administration" of the Lord's Supper. It sounds like your "interdenominational friends" are leading you astray.

 

Wouldn't this go against pastoral leadership and his authority? I don't agree with his ignoring the command to "Do this in remebrance of me", but I definitely wouldn't advise against his authority

I preach against "interdenominational" denominations, but I fail to see where "self observance", not "administration", is either denied or authorized, except the Lord said to do it.

Does one have to be a member in attendence in their local assembly to observe communion? Don't think so, it relates back to the priesthood of the believer/ a Baptist "distinctive", which many no nothing about.(Thanks to the SBC)

As far as having some one to administer communion, that sounds too "catholocized" to me, afterall, the "administrator" has absolutely no control over my conscience to God.

 

First of all, not only is transubtantiation a heresy, it's blasphemous. Secondly, the Catholic Church has never been a part of the body of Christ. They are not Christian, never has been. God has never accepted self-righteousness as a means of salvation(Jer.17:5). God always had a small reminant of His people, but never in the Catholic Church. Communion is not the mass, and has nothing to do with salvation. Communion is a symbol of the broken body of the Lord and the spilled blood of the Lord and we should do this often to remind ourselves what Christ did to show His love toward us and to offer us eternal life with Him. It is also to remind ourselves how we should walk in the newness of life. </font>[/QUOTE]Lighthouse,
I disagree with you. How can you say the Catholic church was never a Church of Christ and not Christian? Was there no Christian churches or bible founded until the Reformation in the mid 1500's? (This is coming from a person who was Roman Catholic but has converted to Southern Baptist)

 

I think that if I were present at the time of the Last Supper, I would have thought Jesus meant once a year, when you celebrate Passover (THIS bread, THIS cup). In fact, some believe that the modern Seder includes elements of Hebrew-Christian observance, like the three matzos of which the second is broken, hidden, "resurrected", and shared. Most Jews follow the practice, yet they have no idea of its true meaning, and have invented other explanations for it.

Now I don't think we Baptists should only have communion once a year, but I do think that could be the original inference taken. My church does it on the first Sunday of each month, and on Holy Thursday evening. Perhaps when Christians began thinking there was some magical benefit to it (transubstantiation), they decided that more often was better, and that became every service, many times a day.

Now as to self-administration, I believe Dr. Bob has made the point elsewhere that communion was meant for the entire church family, and that to do it at home is a poor substitute. Of course, if your family were living somewhere where there was no church, then your family would be your church family. It's not forbidden, just not seen as appropriate and beneficial when a church family is available to share it with.

 

Jill2778,
There has always been a remnent of God's people on this earth. You need to get a book called, "The Faithful Baptist Witness", by Dr. Phil Stringer. There is what is called the Baptist distictives. If this is what you believed, then you were considered Baptist. They are:
1. The Bible as sole authority of faith and practice.

2. Independent, autonomous churches.

3. Regenerated church membership.

4. Baptism by immersion of believers only, and the Lord's Supper as the ordinances of the church.

5. Priesthood of all believers and soul liberty.

6. Separation of Church and State.

Polycarp, one of The Apostle John's disciples was clearly Baptist, or at least having Baptist beliefs. Some of these are: The Cathari, Celtic Christians, Montanists, Novatians, Sonatists, and Paulicians. These groups were successors of the first century fathers of faith. These groups led to other groups called: Waldenses, Lollards, Albigenses, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Berengarians, Taborites, and Bogomils. These led into other groups called Anabaptists, and now called Baptists.

You must always keep in mind, that salvation is always by faith and faith alone in something, NEVER works of any kind added to it. The Catholic Church is based on a work salvation, along with a lot of other churches, which makes them false. Now, that does not mean that everybody that goes to a Catholic Church is lost, but anybody who believes in the doctrine of the Catholic Church is lost(2Jn.9-11)

 

lighthouse, your understanding of history is very, well, "interesting".

 

Lighthouse,

Where does the bible say it is the sole authority? What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

Well, as much as I believe we should examine ourselves prior to partaking in communion, it is beyond me for a pastor to withold doing it because he is afraid people will eat nto death.

Somehow it sounds like he has made himsel f

 

"Lord's Supper is an ordinance (rule, law) NOT a sacrament (means of receiving grace)."
Under your definition, most post-Reformation churches don't have sacraments.
Now THAT would raise some eyebrows.
Last time I checked my church still had 3. Huwelijk, Doop , Gedachtnismaal/Avondmaal.
For those not fluent in Dutch, that is Marriage, Baptism, Communion. Now my church doesn't believe in transubstantiation or even consubstantiation. But the 'right' word used ordinance, that would be in Dutch richtlijn has connotations that make it completely unsuitable in that language.

"There were always small groups, faithful to the NT and totally separate from the apostate Catholic/Orthodox tradition."
Ofcourse we never see anything resembling any kind of real evidence for that notion. I must have wandered onto the Christian faery tale thread by mistake once again. So sorry.

Before I forget. Go Zwingli!
Thanks to that guy, we aren't all going around thinking we are members of a 'religious cannibal cult'.

Lighthouse
"Polycarp, one of The Apostle John's disciples was clearly Baptist, or at least having Baptist beliefs. Some of these are: The Cathari, Celtic Christians, Montanists, Novatians, Sonatists, and Paulicians. These groups were successors of the first century fathers of faith. These groups led to other groups called: Waldenses, Lollards, Albigenses, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Berengarians, Taborites, and Bogomils. "
All those groups you mention would be considered heretical by the standards of the SBC. Some aren't even Christians (the Albigenses for example).

 

As well as the IBF church I go to, but they will then claim them as proof of Baptist succession all the way back to Jesus and John the Baptist.

 

We recently held a rather long debate over the issue of whether or not communion can be done apart from the local church: Link here.

Somebody needs to talk to this pastor who is not holding communion services based upon his fear that some of his congregation may not be right with God! First, God is not a God on fear or confusion. Second, this pastor has set himself up as the arbiter of who is worthy and who is not! His congregation is to be convicted by the preaching and reading of the Word of God, not by his withholding communion from them!

 

"The pastor for his congregartion hasn't offered Communion since he has been the pastor there - some years hence. The reason the pastor gives for not giving Communion is that he thinks that many in attendance at the service might be taking it to their own destruction, as scripturally the ritual dictates that we should search our own hearts, and he thinks that many either won't consider these words or apparently don't have the wisdom to discern."
" this pastor has set himself up as the arbiter of who is worthy and who is not!"
Stuff like this is the reason that my church has rather strained relations with the local hypercalvinists. If it's communion time at my church I simply break out the bread and the fermented grape juice. But things like the pastor refusing to hold a communion service because the congregation is to sinfull is occasionally all the rage among groups like the Oudgereformeerden.

And I almost forgot to mention it, since when are the Cathari a distinct group from the Novatians in the early church?