The Lord's supper
- Thread starter Pamelav
- Start date
You talk a good game but your tone speaks of careless divisiveness. Churches that practice closed communion see this as lack of concern for those who may well be communing to their determent. Yes, there are those in our own communion that likely should not be communing, but they have been instructed, and they know the difference so by free will, it is on them. Those who may be led into sin through their ignorance of scripture by an open invitation to commune are on the members of the Church that led them there. The Bible is clear about the consequences of leading others to fall.
Upvote
0
I guess you concede being able to refute my arguments.
But, you persist promoting your opinion/tradition.
My tone is logical arguments that challenge what you opine along with a more expansive reading of scripture than one verse that you rely on. No one has argued against my reading of 1 Cor 11:17-34 in post 14. As to the accusation of careless, I assure you my thoughts and arguments are well thought out and with great concern from a long time Lutheran. Divisiveness, funny from one who quotes Luther the big divider who at one time argued for doctrine to be Sola Scriptura. Irony anybody, that Lutherans here quote their traditions over scripture.
I am concerned about when a church's "concern", which is really just doctrine, prevents one from obeying a command from Jesus. The Bible is clear about the consequences of leading others to disobey Jesus' commands.
One church says this before the sacrament of communion. If you believe what we say you have to believe about communion, and you are a confirmed member of our belief, than you may participate in communion.
Another church says, if you desire to do what Jesus commands and feel comfortable to join in with us, then do commune with us.
Please tell me which church is the divisive one.
It is not a sin to do what Jesus commanded. If one participates that is truly unworthy, scripture says God will judge him. Notice that Paul's corrective action was not to forbid one from communion. He did not detail doctrine that was lacking in Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper. His solution to the problem was to tell the church to "eat at home" before you commune.
If you had any understanding of what "eat at home" meant, you would see how lacking your reason for closed communion is.
Upvote
0
Having chosen to take from Scripture what pleases you, and ignoring the admonitions that were given to the Church (and heeded in the Church since the first century, and still maintained in Catholic, Orthodox and Confessional Lutheran Churches to this day) is symptomatic of the false ecumenism that has resulted from the world becoming more liberal in all things. The anything goes attitude that we see in all things (gender/sexual orientation, the right to life, the right to death, abortion etc...) are the result of (as I see it) the radical protestant reformation and mankind's sinful free will to rebel against the Holy Spirit by ignoring God's Holy Word; doing a complete 360 against the legalism that came out of the radical reformation, to the secular humanism that has permeated most churches and now passes for liberal theology.
Scripture is clear, "anything goes" is not part of it; following Scripture is!
Upvote
0
If you did get sick, would you believe in transubstantiation, as is shown in Matthew 26:26-28, John 6:53-57, 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, and Galatians 3:1?
*******
Why was Jesus Christ resurrected in the flesh (Luke 24:39)?
Also, why did God call His creation of the flesh "very good" (Genesis 1:31)?
*******
Note that the apostle Paul allowed congregations to even expel Christians from any fellowship (1 Corinthians 5:11-13).
See also Titus 3:10-11 and Matthew 7:6.
Upvote
0
Every thing you write only confirms what a good decision it was to leave the Lutheran Church. Again, you instead of defending your doctrine with scripture or even arguments, you resort to slanderous associations against myself.
Learn that all who promote universal communion,
are NOT "any thing goes" liberals.
Lastly, if you were in touch with your fellow Lutherans,
and they felt they could be honest with you without judgement,
you would find plenty Lutherans that are unhappy with
Closed Communion.
Upvote
0
If churches have taught and practiced "unworthy" communion for hundreds of years without dying off, would you believe your understanding to be incorrect?
You quote only a small part of what scripture speaks on the subject. Read more of the Bible for a full understanding. If you desire to argue such a fuller meaning, respond to my post 14.
"The flesh counts for nothing"
You argue against Jesus' words that you ignore after quoting verses just right before in John 6. Context.
So according to your logic, because Jesus arose in flesh, all spiritual concepts have fleshy meanings. The Lord's Supper is the New Covenant. The resurrection is a source of hope and guarantee of our resurrection. We can't just blindly apply every physical miracle to every spiritual miracle. You employ diversion to ignore that Jesus in John 6, the full text, not just 5 verses you quote teaches a spiritual meaning of eating his body, not a physical one. In that context, the flesh counts for nothing. In other contexts, the flesh does count, like poking out an eye.
What does creation have to do with communion? You stretch to defend your doctrine. Did God tell Adam to eat people? Did God even tell people to eat any flesh? No, not even of animals.
If you are knowledgeable enough of scripture to know what Paul instructed in other places, than you should understand what it means that Paul did NOT teach the same thing when correcting the church in regards to correcting abuse of the Lord's Supper.
You have no understanding of why Paul corrected the abuse of the Lord's Supper with these simple words.
"Eat at home."
Upvote
0
Agreed, I would affirm that your leaving the Lutheran Church was very good for confessional Lutheranism. Thank you.
No, not slander, and the quotes have been given from the start of this thread; you have chosen, as most protestants do, to disregard what has been provided by the inspired word of God, and reinforced by tradition, for emotions. Your choice; as we do have free will. As you have found, there are lots of places for those who reject closed communion; please extend a cordial invitation to them who also reject it, as, according to you, there is nothing to compel them to stay in our communion.
Upvote
0
The sickness that Scripture talks about is not only physical, but spiritual as well. Physical death is not compelling to faith, but spiritual death certainly is.
Upvote
0
You don't agree with me. I left the Lutheran Church because so many Lutherans profess Sola Scriptura but really just repeat what they have been taught down from Martin Luther. I understand you wishing to judge me, for I have judged the Lutheran Church which you defend. I only wish you could defend what you believe with scripture as I have. And yet you say, you "follow scripture".
In this whole thread you have not quoted a single verse of scripture.
You have quoted extensively Martin Luther.
You are emotionally attached to the Lutheran Church, I get it. Not me.
You act like the Catholics with their traditions that can't be argued,
you forget, you are a Protestant which you slander.
Oh, how you twist Jesus' message. He told us to do this in remembrance of me. He did not institute stumbling blocks to following his command as you hold. It is not I that reject closed communion, it is you who reject the open grace that God promises to all Christians. You put conditions on God's grace and you are proud of it. That is what I reject.
I find it amusing when Lutherans try to counter their noninclusive doctrine and instead of calling it closed communion, call it close communion. In so doing they admit their wrong and try to change it into a right. It only promotes the unity of man's word over God's word, for they place higher importance to professing the beliefs of Martin Luther over Jesus' command.
You put words in my mouth. I never promoted the idea that there "is nothing to compel them to stay in" the Lutheran Church. There are things I miss in my old church. And, closed communion is not the only reason I left the Lutheran Church. Their are pluses and minuses in every church. No church is perfect. The one that believes so is delusional.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
How do you define "universal communion"? Do you mean that even non-Christians should be able to partake of Communion? If so, what do you do with Matthew 7:6?
Or, if by universal communion you mean that any Christian should be able to partake of Communion, then how do you define a Christian?
For example, would you offer Communion to a Christian who believes in Christ, but denies that He is in the flesh? If so, note 2 John 1:7-11.
And if you wouldn't offer Communion to a Christian who denies that Christ is in the flesh, then why would you lambaste Christians who deny Communion to Christians who deny that Christ is in the flesh in Communion, as is shown in Matthew 26:26-28, John 6:53-57, 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, and Galatians 3:1?
*******
Note that nothing in the Bible says that Christian congregations who deny transubstantiation will die off. The Bible simply says that some Christians can become sick, or even die, due to their not discerning that the bread and wine of Communion are the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30; cf. John 6:53-57, Matthew 26:26-28, Galatians 3:1).
Rather, spiritual concepts can include fleshly manifestations.
For example, obedient Christians can be called "spiritual" even while they are in fleshly bodies (Galatians 6:1).
Upvote
0
Both involve the flesh as something "very good" (Genesis 1:31, cf. John 6:53-57).
This is crucial for Christians to hold onto, especially as we approach the future Antichrist's worldwide revival of Gnosticism.
For Gnosticism is an ancient religious movement which says that everything material is inherently evil, while only that which is purely spirit can be good. Gnosticism teaches that all humans used to be purely spirit and dwelling in bliss from all eternity in a purely-spiritual heaven called the "Pleroma", until by some mishap humanity fell into the material universe and became trapped within fleshly bodies. Gnosticism reviles YHWH, the God of Biblical Christians, and the Creator of the material universe and of all fleshly bodies, as an evil, subordinate deity, a "Demiurge", who is keeping humans imprisoned and suffering within fleshly bodies and in the material universe.
Gnosticism became one of the main enemies of the early Church, and it will become the greatest enemy of the Church during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. For the future Antichrist will be a Gnostic. He will teach the Gnostic/antichrist lie that Christ is not in the flesh (1 John 4:3). And the Antichrist, like the Gnostics, will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). The Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") will instead bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (Satan, the dragon), and himself (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 12:9).
Gnosticism has some core teachings in common with Buddhism and Hinduism:
1. The material realm is unreal and evil. (Both Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Maya", from Hinduism.)
2. People must strive to escape the material realm completely, and enter a state which is wholly non-physical (Parinirvana in Buddhism, the Pleroma in Gnosticism). Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Brahman", from Hinduism.
3. The way for people to get free from their imprisonment within the material realm is through their minds attaining a certain level of enlightenment (Nirvana in Buddhism, Gnosis in Gnosticism). Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Moksha", from Hinduism.
4. The way for their minds to attain this certain level of enlightenment is through following the way of the Serpent (one legend of Buddhism says that the Buddha was given the true Buddhism by the King of the Serpents; and in Gnosticism, Gnosis comes from the Christ/the Serpent). Both Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea of the enlightening serpent, originally called "Kundalini", from Hinduism. (Regarding the serpent in Genesis 3, Gnostics see him as the good guy, while they see YHWH as the bad guy.)
The Bible contradicts each of the four points above:
1. The material realm is real, and was created by YHWH God as something very good (Genesis 1:31). God Himself is in the flesh (John 1:1,14, Luke 24:39), and He remains wholly without sin (Hebrews 4:15). So there is nothing evil about matter in itself.
2. People must strive to attain to a resurrection (Philippians 3:11) into an immortal human body of flesh and bones like the immortal human body of flesh and bones which Jesus Christ obtained at His resurrection on the third day after His death (Luke 24:39,46; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,21-23,51-53, Philippians 3:21, Romans 8:23-25), and in which He will remain forever as Christians' fully-human mediator/high priest (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 2:16-17, Hebrews 7:24-26). His tomb is empty (Matthew 28:6), and at His Second Coming He will show the scars of the Crucifixion on His body (Zechariah 13:6, Zechariah 12:10-14).
3. Resurrected people who have been truly enlightened/illuminated (Ephesians 1:18, Hebrews 10:32) by Jesus Christ (John 14:6-7, John 8:32, John 3:36) will remain in the material realm (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), ultimately living on a New Earth, in the sense of a new surface for the earth, with God (Revelation 21:1-4).
4. The Serpent, Satan/Lucifer, is the deceiver of the whole world (Revelation 12:9).
Upvote
0
In the earliest days of mankind described in the Bible, God allowed man to eat only plants (Genesis 1:29). It was only after Noah's Flood that God allowed Noah and his family to start eating animals as well as plants. And they could eat any animal that moved (Genesis 9:3).
Also, on the future, New Earth, as in a new surface for the earth, God will miraculously make it so that all animals will be herbivores (Isaiah 65:17,25).
But beware of the idea (which is sometimes put forth) that Christians must be vegetarians:
1 Timothy 4:1 ¶Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6 ¶If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
Here the enforced vegetarianism, like the enforced non-marriage ("Forbidding to marry" in 1 Timothy 4:3), refers to what the future Antichrist will bring upon the world. For he will be a Gnostic (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). And Gnosticism forbids eating animals, and forbids marriage.
Note that eating at home related to only one way of abusing the Lord's Supper, through gluttony and selfishness (1 Corinthians 11:21).
For the Lord's Supper can also be abused by not discerning that the bread and wine of Communion are the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30; cf. John 6:53-57, Matthew 26:26-28, Galatians 3:1).
Also, regarding "Eat at home", note that Christians who deny that Christ is in the flesh are not even to be brought into our homes:
2 John 1:7 ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 ¶If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Upvote
0
First, many others have quoted Scripture; my replies were in the context of the whole thread, just as our theology is in the context of the whole of scripture.
Second, while being lumped in with "protestants", the innovations you are promoting only occurred long after the Augsburg Confession. Truth be known, it is an insult for us to be lumped in with protestants who discount both the validity, efficacy and sacred nature of the sacraments, and devalue the sanctity of life and the family, and often promote stricter legalism than the pharisees.
It is threads like this where the disregard for parts of God's Word and those things instituted by my Lord make me even more steadfast and resolute in my faith.
If you want quotes from the Bible, go back and read every post in this thread, then look at my repliess in that context.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
1 Corinthians 11:27 - 29 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
The context of the chapter is about the Lord's body. The church. Discerning the brother and sister.
1 Cor. 11:22 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.
The shame was in selfishness, failing to recognize the Body.
It had nothing to do with the bread/wine the symbols of the One Body of which you are part. Unworthy refers to eat/drink while brother/sister want/lack.
The context of the chapter is about the Lord's body. The church. Discerning the brother and sister.
1 Cor. 11:22 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.
The shame was in selfishness, failing to recognize the Body.
It had nothing to do with the bread/wine the symbols of the One Body of which you are part. Unworthy refers to eat/drink while brother/sister want/lack.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
