Different Views of the Lord's Supper

twin.spin said:

Maybe the slavery counter reply is a red herring for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a red herring. The issues about gender and sexuality in churches are really nothing like the debates about slavery in terms of the levels of passion and anger they stirred up.

All4Christ said:

Based on past visits when I was looking for a church home, I thought the LCMS was closed communion and that the ELCA only allowed baptized Christians to partake. Its true that I didn’t know what the WELS / ELS practices. I’m sure many non-Lutheran know even less.

That said, debates about splits, validity of synods, etc are the off topic portions I was referencing.

Click to expand...

I don't know if "validity of synods" should concluded from this when it is pointed out how Luther would have react to ELCA in a similar way when he replied to his contemporaries then by saying "Those people are of a different spirit from us".

Luther did not concede one point of Biblical doctrine for the sake of unity … it's 16 of 16 or nothing.
Closed Communion is also an affirmation of unity of beliefs on other Biblical doctrines as well by fellow communicants as Matthew 10:32 speaks of Christians acknowledging Jesus before others, and Jesus acknowledging those people before his heavenly Father.

twin.spin said:

I don't know if "validity of synods" should concluded from this when it is pointed out how Luther would have react to ELCA in a similar way when he replied to his contemporaries then by saying "Those people are of a different spirit from us".

Click to expand...

Not only is Luther passed on and unable to speak to us today (short of consorting with mediums, perhaps), but he was also a man of his time and it's simply nonsense to think his opinions should dictate our actions today. After all, Luther wrote some highly embarrassing stuff in his time, too.

Closed Communion is also an affirmation of unity of beliefs on other Biblical doctrines as well by fellow communicants as Matthew 10:32 speaks of Christians acknowledging Jesus before others, and Jesus acknowledging those people before his heavenly Father.

Click to expand...

This seems to be more of the "grace for me, but not for thee", type of thinking.

twin.spin said:

<snip>Closed Communion is also an affirmation of unity of beliefs on other Biblical doctrines as well by fellow communicants as Matthew 10:32 speaks of Christians acknowledging Jesus before others, and Jesus acknowledging those people before his heavenly Father.

Click to expand...

Considering that I’m Orthodox (we have closed communion), I am in agreement that one reason for closed communion is an affirmation of unity of beliefs.

Jonathan Mathews said:

Here's my view... Jesus said "This is my body" about the bread. When we eat it, it becomes part of our physically body, which is a member of the Body of Christ so in that way, bread is literally transformed into flesh, and that of Christ Jesus (for those in whom the Spirit dwells).

Click to expand...

Always look at the context of any quote. In John 6, Jesus feeds the large crowd with a few fish and loaves. Then, he compares himself with the miraculous manna with which God fed the 2 million Israelites for forty years. Then, he said, "I am the bread of life" and tells everyone to eat him, a test of their faith, which the disciples pass. When he pointed at the bread as his body, he was being similarly figurative. Another example in the Gospel of John is chap. 4, where the Samaritan woman takes Jesus literally when he says that he can give her living water. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to his divinity figuratively in all his "I am" statements. We believe that just as the bread and juice nourish our bodies, so also they are a sign to Jesus' spiritual nourishing of our faith (a Reformed view).

FireDragon76 said:

Not only is Luther passed on and unable to speak to us today (short of consorting with mediums, perhaps), but he was also a man of his time and it's simply nonsense to think his opinions should dictate our actions today. After all, Luther wrote some highly embarrassing stuff in his time, too.



This seems to be more of the "grace for me, but not for thee", type of thinking.

Click to expand...

Scripture however is not unable to speak today.
Scripture speaks about "closed" Communion among other doctrines that ELCA finds objectionable. That's not being smug … it's "Sanctify them through the truth, your Word is truth."

twin.spin said:

Scripture however is not unable to speak today.
Scripture speaks about "closed" Communion among other doctrines that ELCA finds objectionable. That's not being smug … it's "Sanctify them through the truth, your Word is truth."

Click to expand...

The ELCA doesn't find "closed communion" objectionable, necessarily. We just don't view it as our place to exclude people from other confessions who share the same baptism with us.

Keep in mind the Nicene Creed is a sufficient statement of the Christian faith, as per this forum's rules. Why should we exclude anyone who confesses that faith?

Yes, I guess it looks like the Zwingli definition, but we don't even 'do' communion. It's not part of our service.

W2L said:

Tradition causes factions.

Click to expand...

Other people's traditions cause factions.

Llleopard said:

Yes, I guess it looks like the Zwingli definition, but we don't even 'do' communion. It's not part of our service.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Same for me.

Jipsah said:

Other people's traditions cause factions.

Click to expand...

The less tradition one has the less there is to argue about, and the less chance of having divisions as well.

W2L said:

The less tradition one has the less there is to argue about, and the less chance of having divisions as well.

Click to expand...

Everybody has traditions. Like the whole "we don't do communion as part of the service" thing. That could be very divisive for folks like me.

FireDragon76 said:

Everybody has traditions. Like the whole "we don't do communion as part of the service" thing. That could be very divisive for folks like me.

Click to expand...

Yes but nobody is making divisive threads about it. So how is it divisive?

W2L said:

Yes but nobody is making divisive threads about it. So how is it divisive?

Click to expand...

It's inherently divisive because it's an opinion about how to do church. I wouldn't be interested in going to a church that doesn't have communion as part of the actual liturgy of the People of God, because I believe that is the proper context for it, as evidence by the traditions of the Church going back to the earliest times.

FireDragon76 said:

It's inherently divisive because it's on opinion about how to do church. I wouldn't be interested in going to a church that doesn't have communion as part of the actual liturgy of the People of God, because I believe that is the proper context for it, as evidence by the traditions of the Church going back to the earliest times.

Click to expand...

But nobody is promoting it. You wont find any threads on it. Less tradition means less divisive debate

W2L said:

But nobody is promoting it. You wont find any threads on it. Less tradition means less divisive debate

Click to expand...

Just because it's not on CF doesn't mean it's not dividing Christians, you know...?

FireDragon76 said:

Just because it's not on CF doesn't mean it's not dividing Christians, you know...?

Click to expand...

Still, the man with less tradition has less to argue over.

W2L said:

Still, the man with less tradition has less to argue over.

Click to expand...

I don't think tradition can be parsed out in exactly that manner. For one thing, that assumes things about tradition that not everyone shares.

FireDragon76 said:

I don't think tradition can be parsed out in exactly that manner. For one thing, that assumes things about tradition that not everyone shares.

Click to expand...

Such as?

W2L said:

Such as?

Click to expand...

The modern western idea of tradition is that the less is believed, the better. But that's not how people typically approached the issue throughout history. That's really an assumption that comes from the Enlightenment, especially the influence of Hume and his skepticism.