Should women receive Communion?

as there are no passages forbidding women from taking communion and one from implying demons teach to forbid people from eating certain types of foods. However, on the supernatural level born again citizens of heaven are no longer jew or greek, male or female, no longer barbarian, scythian, slave or free, it is not known what we will be .. but when we see God will will be exactly like . Since communion is real food and real drink for the born again person, I don't understand why the carnal order of appearance would be a factor. We could then ask if transgendered people should take communion because it is not written, communion is not taken by the body, it is taken by the inner person who has been transformed to be like Jesus Christ.

Hawkiz said:

I certainly believe 'YES', but since there are zero instances in Scripture...I'm asking: How does a 'Bible Only' Christian right themselves with this tradition?

Peace in Christ

Click to expand...

There is nothing specifically saying in scripture that you get to take communion. You name isn't in there anywhere.

If there were something wrong with women taking communion, Paul would have told the Corinthians (who certainly would have gotten that as wrong as they got so many other things). Yet it was Paul who said that as far as Christ is concerned, there is no male or female.

This is a pretty weak and transparent swipe at Sola Scriptura. You should probably learn what Sola Scriptura actually means before making such posts if you want to be taken seriously.

Hawkiz said:

Thank you your prayerful and reasoned reply. I agree with you whole-heartedly. I will reveal my reason for posing the question in the way that I did: in another 'discussion' regarding infant baptism, a staunch 'Bible only' person claimed that since it wasn't strictly in Scripture, it shouldn't be done, and this was his only reason against; to which I replied, there are many things that are not strictly written in Scripture that we hold in common belief, the Holy Trinity being one, and communion for all being another. My point being that just because it isn't written down in the exact words that you or I might want them to say doesn't make it 'anti-biblical' as this person claimed.

That is full disclosure . Thank you again.

Peace in Christ

Click to expand...

You were dealing with a fringe theology that people often wrongly associate with Sola Scriptura. It's impossible on its face, so the best approach is not to entertain it in debate.

Hawkiz said:

I certainly believe 'YES', but since there are zero instances in Scripture...I'm asking: How does a 'Bible Only' Christian right themselves with this tradition?

Peace in Christ

Click to expand...

Hmmm, given it (communion) is a memorial of Pascha, and given that women observed Pashca, what example are you looking for?

Are you thinking only the apostles were there for the Last Supper (Pascha)? If so, then no one is eligible.

Hawkiz said:

I am very well aware of what Sola Scriptura means, and actually this isn't a 'swipe' at that at all. I even provided full disclosure as to why I was asking the question, because the point was made by a person who believes 'if it ain't in the Bible, it can't happen', which is very different from Sola Scriptura, which is why I didn't use the term in my question, and instead used 'Bible only'. Is there even a term for 'if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true'? I will admit ignorance of a proper pronoun for that camp, so my full apologies if I phrased it incorrectly.

Peace in Christ

Click to expand...

I think the term you're looking for may be Solo Scriptura, as opposed to Sola Scriptura, but Solo Scriptura's advocates have some other twists on the subject that I'm not clear on.

Hawkiz said:

I certainly believe 'YES', but since there are zero instances in Scripture...I'm asking: How does a 'Bible Only' Christian right themselves with this tradition?

Peace in Christ

Click to expand...

The Bible pertains itself to 'men' because the writers only wrote to men. They made it personal as to convince them, though they were not speaking, in most cases, of only men.
Women in those times just followed along. Even in early Christianity, mankind was fundamentally patriarchal.

Women should not only receive Holy Communion, they should preside at the eucharistic celebration as well.

except that those are not parallel situations (in case that was what you meant). There is no record of women communing in the New Testament, but of course, there is also no record of almost anyone in particular communing--blondes, Christians with cleft lips, members of certain professions, etc. --so that this makes a poor argument for excluding any believer. But when it comes to the ranks of the ordained clergy, there not only are specific qualifications given, but also the identifies of the first Christian priests (the Apostles), and much more by which we CAN reach a conclusion about who is supposed to be who.

Apostles including Junia, yes!

revanneosl said:

Women should not only receive Holy Communion, they should preside at the eucharistic celebration as well.

Click to expand...

presiding over the communion service as a female would not only be a stretch but a direct contradiction to the teachings of scripture

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1 Timothy 2


Being the WHOLE church met together for the lords table it is assumed men, women, children, Jew, gentile all partook.. But from Paul's teaching it is evident that women never were to preside over the meal in a position of any authority

And yet I've been doing it for going on 30 years now. So strange.

revanneosl said:

Apostles including Junia, yes!

Click to expand...

We all know that Junia was not one of The Twelve (who are named in several places in Scripture).

The original 12 must have thought pretty highly of her to add her to their number. Or perhaps, as with Matthias, it was the Holy Spirit who thought so highly of her.

revanneosl said:

The original 12 must have thought pretty highly of her to add her to their number.

Click to expand...

They didn't add her to their number, but I'm confident that they thought well of her.

revanneosl said:

And yet I've been doing it for going on 30 years now. So strange.

Click to expand...

Yes. Very strange indeed. Unscriptural even. But then, those who insist on doing things their own way are quite happy to set aside scripture they do not like if it means that they get to do whatever they want, especially if it furthers their personal ambitions and agendas.

Very few men are called to be ministers of the Mysteries of God, yet of those that are called, God has made it perfectly clear in his word that they are all male.