Can you be forgiven for "eating to your harm"?

[DiscipleEthan]

Hey guys. I'm getting an official membership at my Lutheran church so I can take communion. but a few weeks ago I was too excited so I took communion prematurely without permission to. they have closed communion so no one eats to their harm. so did I eat to my harm? If so, is it a forgivable sin? I'm anxious.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? No ... so yes, it's forgiveable.

 

[-57]

Hey guys. I'm getting an official membership at my Lutheran church so I can take communion. but a few weeks ago I was too excited so I took communion prematurely without permission to. they have closed communion so no one eats to their harm. so did I eat to my harm? If so, is it a forgivable sin? I'm anxious.

Are you seriously worried about that? Where does the bible say you must be a member of a church to take communion?

From Got Questions
All those who are true believers in God through personal faith in Jesus Christ, His Son, are worthy to partake of the Lord’s Supper by virtue of the fact they have accepted the death of Christ as payment for their sins

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hey guys. I'm getting an official membership at my Lutheran church so I can take communion. but a few weeks ago I was too excited so I took communion prematurely without permission to. they have closed communion so no one eats to their harm. so did I eat to my harm? If so, is it a forgivable sin? I'm anxious.

Who said you need anyone's permission to take communion? Jesus said as often as we eat the bread and drink the wine we remember His death until He comes. He didn't say that we needed permission from any church leaders before we remembered the Lord's death. There was no sin here. You did not eat to your harm. In fact it was for your good because you were doing it before the Lord, not before those religious folk who demand their permission before you do something that the Lord, and not them, instituted for all believers. He did not limit the taking of communion in any church, but any believer can remember the Lord's death anywhere. If there was any sin committed, it was the formalism of those who demand their permission before anyone can remember the Lord's death in this way.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? No ... so yes, it's forgiveable.

There's no forgiveness needed where there is no sin. It is not a sin to do something that does not need permission from formalistic church leaders.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There's no forgiveness needed where there is no sin. It is not a sin to do something that does not need permission from formalistic church leaders.

With all due respect ... if one places oneself under an authority, government, Church, employment, what have you ... then to go against it willfully is rebellion, if nothing else. In some cases rebellion is necessary, such as if a person were ordered to do something that goes against God's law.

But, and I REALLY don't want to get into arguing here, although I know that every group has their own ideas about what Communion is, and how it should be handled, and who can receive it, there are reasonable prescendents and history that go back to the earliest Church that form the foundation and reasons for what the Traditional churches do in this respect. Suffice it to say that going to a particular church and DELIBERATELY flouting their ways of doing things, would in fact be a sin. I don't think the OP did so deliberately.

For that matter, the definition of "sin" has become changed. The western view tends to consider "sin" as only "breaking God's law" But in fact, the widest and oldest definition of sin/hamartia is that of an archer who has aimed at something, and missed his mark. He might miss it by only a very little, or a great deal, but he still misses. Hamartia is that which falls short of the goal, and the goal ought to be Christ Himself. So in fact, we all sin constantly. God in His graciousness only makes us aware of how far we fall short to the degree that we can handle the knowledge, responding by confessing and trying to become more like Christ, rather than falling into despair if we saw ALL of our shortcomings.

But I'm not looking to argue.

Being that this was placed in denomination-specific theology, though, it's not helpful to criticize one's chosen denomination and overlay another understanding upon their question.

And by the way, I respect you very much sir. I only see a portion of your posts on CF, but you have written things I have found helpful and inspiring. This reply is by no means a criticism of you personally.

God be with you!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

With all due respect ... if one places oneself under an authority, government, Church, employment, what have you ... then to go against it willfully is rebellion, if nothing else. In some cases rebellion is necessary, such as if a person were ordered to do something that goes against God's law.

But, and I REALLY don't want to get into arguing here, although I know that every group has their own ideas about what Communion is, and how it should be handled, and who can receive it, there are reasonable prescendents and history that go back to the earliest Church that form the foundation and reasons for what the Traditional churches do in this respect. Suffice it to say that going to a particular church and DELIBERATELY flouting their ways of doing things, would in fact be a sin. I don't think the OP did so deliberately.

For that matter, the definition of "sin" has become changed. The western view tends to consider "sin" as only "breaking God's law" But in fact, the widest and oldest definition of sin/hamartia is that of an archer who has aimed at something, and missed his mark. He might miss it by only a very little, or a great deal, but he still misses. Hamartia is that which falls short of the goal, and the goal ought to be Christ Himself. So in fact, we all sin constantly. God in His graciousness only makes us aware of how far we fall short to the degree that we can handle the knowledge, responding by confessing and trying to become more like Christ, rather than falling into despair if we saw ALL of our shortcomings.

But I'm not looking to argue.

Being that this was placed in denomination-specific theology, though, it's not helpful to criticize one's chosen denomination and overlay another understanding upon their question.

And by the way, I respect you very much sir. I only see a portion of your posts on CF, but you have written things I have found helpful and inspiring. This reply is by no means a criticism of you personally.

God be with you!

I'm not criticising the Lutheran Church. It has its rules and regulations. I am just making the point that taking communion is not denomination-specific. It was not designed just to take place within the formal service of a church. One can do it at every mealtime and it would still be as appropriate. But I understand what you are saying. It depends on the motivation for taking communion at that time. Was it because he wanted to remember the Lord's death, or did he have the attitude, "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] their rules, I'm going to do it anyway". In this way, taking communion in itself isn't wrong, but his attitude when he did it.

There is the same principle in the environment that I am sometimes involved. Pentecostals believe in the use of tongues and prophecy. This is also not denomination-specific. But no one can walk into a Pentecostal or Charismatic church just start prophesying and speaking loudly in tongues at any time they like. To the outsider, things may seem at bit chaotic at times, but there are strict structures, and leaderships are very strict concerning who can contribute in the prophetic who cannot. So, even though prophecy in itself is good, using it without permission and at the wrong time can bring disciplinary action from the leadershp. (I'm talking about good, sound churches, not the "lunatic fringe" ones where there is open slather).

So, yes. Your point is quite valid. Doing the right thing at the right time is good, but doing the right thing at the wrong time can result is negative consequences. I am thinking about the guys in Moses's time who offered strange fire. They were not the right people to offer sacrifices and they paid with their lives. Saul offered sacrifices in spite of Samuel telling him to wait for him to arrive. Both did the right thing in offering sacrifices, but did it with the wrong motivation and at the wrong time.

So, I do stand corrected.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Hey guys. I'm getting an official membership at my Lutheran church so I can take communion. but a few weeks ago I was too excited so I took communion prematurely without permission to. they have closed communion so no one eats to their harm. so did I eat to my harm? If so, is it a forgivable sin? I'm anxious.

I feel like everyone is focusing on the permission issue.
But there is a more serious issue that Paul was actually addressing.

what you are concerned about is found in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

specifically from 23, but 17 begins the full context

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenantin my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Consider this:
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.
32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

It's not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? No ... so yes, it's forgiveable.

It can be. I think it was in the case of the Corinthian church. And the judgment for that was that they were all getting sick and dying.

But I think in his case, given his attitude. I do not believe he falls into that category. It seems he took in ignorance rather than disobedience to what Paul wrote in this chapter.

Repent, and don't take it again unless you can read these verses and honestly say you are worthy. If you don't understand what that means, I can go into more detail.

 

[Grandpa2390]

But no one can walk into a Pentecostal or Charismatic church just start prophesying and speaking loudly in tongues at any time they like. To the outsider, things may seem at bit chaotic at times, but there are strict structures, and leaderships are very strict concerning who can contribute in the prophetic who cannot.

Just want to interject here that, as someone who was once Pentecostal, you are mistaken. There are charismatic churches that order themselves according to 1 Corinthians 14, (that is assuming they have the true gift. Though in my experience they don't. Paul is addressing two groups here, those who had the real gift and misused it to look spiritually superior, and those who faked the true gift so they would look spiritual too. My experience is that the majority (if not all) of those who claim to speak in tongues fall into the second camp)

but from my many years of experience... most of the churches I had been to (and I had been to many because Pentecostal churches have many functions), are completely in error. There are not strict structures etc. If the Holy Ghost "moves" on you to start speaking in tongues. it is encouraged. Even in the middle of the preaching.

It is chaos.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Luke 27:19 "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Jesus didn't say, "...do this in remembrance of me only if you're in a fancy building on Sunday morning and a pastor gives you the thumbs up."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Just want to interject here that, as someone who was once Pentecostal, you are mistaken. There are charismatic churches that order themselves according to 1 Corinthians 14, (that is assuming they have the true gift. Though in my experience they don't. Paul is addressing two groups here, those who had the real gift and misused it to look spiritually superior, and those who faked the true gift so they would look spiritual too. My experience is that the majority (if not all) of those who claim to speak in tongues fall into the second camp)

but from my many years of experience... most of the churches I had been to (and I had been to many because Pentecostal churches have many functions), are completely in error. There are not strict structures etc. If the Holy Ghost "moves" on you to start speaking in tongues. it is encouraged. Even in the middle of the preaching.

It is chaos.

I too have been involved in the Charismatic movement for many years (50 in fact), and I have never witnessed any chaos that you have. Maybe in New Zealand we have a different attitude to things. It is true that people of British extraction seem to be a little more circumspect and sober about how they worship God. In all the Charismatic churches I have been in, I have never seen the preaching interrupted by people speaking out in tongues, and I have never heard anyone speaking out in tongues without an interpretation. I have witnessed one or two giving loud prophecies, and the leader getting up and saying, "That's not of God, so we can safely ignore that one." It may be true that there are some off the wall churches that are chaotic, but in my country (maybe not in yours) they are the exception rather than the rule.

I believe the only fault in the taking of communion in the case of the OP is a lack of respect for authority in his church. That would not mean that he is taking communion unworthily. Paul observed that the Corinthians were overeating the food and getting drunk on the wine (their communion was a fellowship meal instead of the religious "snack" that we call the eucharist today). It was a lack of respect for poorer people in the fellowship who missed out because there were gluttons who used the occasion to "chow down". It's like the children in one church at a fellowship meal rushing in and gobbling up the goodies before the adults had a chance to get near the table. Also, cessationists are taking communion unworthily because they do not believe that the broken body of Jesus on the cross represents physical wholeness for us when we eat the bread at communion. The wine stands for the cleansing blood of Jesus, and the bread stands for the broken body that brings physical healing. Because cessationists refused to believe that God divinely heals today, they are taking communion unworthily, and it is no surprise in their churches there are more sick and dying people.

However, my comments, i hope, will fire up some to keep this thread from sinking down into boring regularity!

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not criticising the Lutheran Church. It has its rules and regulations. I am just making the point that taking communion is not denomination-specific.

But it is denomination-specific.

It was not designed just to take place within the formal service of a church. One can do it at every mealtime and it would still be as appropriate.

This is an example of a statement that is accepted by Pentecostals and rejected by Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans. Pentecostals may welcome anyone they consider a Christian to partake in their communion service, but this is simply not true of all denominations.

But I understand what you are saying. It depends on the motivation for taking communion at that time. Was it because he wanted to remember the Lord's death, or did he have the attitude, "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] their rules, I'm going to do it anyway". In this way, taking communion in itself isn't wrong, but his attitude when he did it.

It is not only a matter of attitude, but also of belief. According to the older churches, 1 Corinthians 11:29 refers to the idea that the consecrated elements of bread and wine are holy--in fact are the very body and blood of Christ--and to eat them without believing that they are such is a sin. That is why the OP said his church has a "closed communion so no one eats to their harm."

You may not believe this, but that is largely because you are a Pentecostal. I do believe it because I am a Catholic. The matter is inevitably denomination-specific.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But it is denomination-specific.

This is an example of a statement that is accepted by Pentecostals and rejected by Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans. Pentecostals may welcome anyone they consider a Christian to partake in their communion service, but this is simply not true of all denominations.

It is not only a matter of attitude, but also of belief. According to the older churches, 1 Corinthians 11:29 refers to the idea that the consecrated elements of bread and wine are holy--in fact are the very body and blood of Christ--and to eat them without believing that they are such is a sin. That is why the OP said his church has a "closed communion so no one eats to their harm."

You may not believe this, but that is largely because you are a Pentecostal. I do believe it because I am a Catholic. The matter is inevitably denomination-specific.

There is no scripture that supports the consecration of the bread and wine. The concept was unknown in the Early Church. It only appeared when the Christian Church became formalised and the bread and wine changed from a fellowship meal to a formal ritual called the Eucharist. It is true that the Eucharist is denomination-specific because it is a religious ritual. The Church, for many centuries, believed that the bread changed into the actual body of Jesus and the wine changed into His literal blood. Some denominations still believe that.

But at the last supper, which was a fellowship meal, Jesus was referring to the food they were eating when He said as often as we meet together like that to remember His death until He comes. This means that whenever the church comes together for a communal meal we are to remember His death. It is just as significant and valuable to God as the formal ritual undertaken by those who worship from their hearts.

So it is not whether it is ritualised or not, when those who meet together to remember His death from their hearts, they are communing worthily.

So, if Pentecostals use Ribena and bits of cracker for their communion, without going through a ceremonial consecration of it, then there is no scripture that says that they doing it correctly or incorrectly. Another group may do it over a fellowship meal together, and another group may do it as a formal Eucharist ritual. Who's to say that any of these groups are doing it the scriptural way? No one, because there is no actual scriptural guidance about the manner in terms of process in which it is done. The scripture explains more of what we should remember and the attitude of doing it.

 

[Grandpa2390]

I too have been involved in the Charismatic movement for many years (50 in fact), and I have never witnessed any chaos that you have. Maybe in New Zealand we have a different attitude to things.

Maybe that's what it is

It is true that people of British extraction seem to be a little more circumspect and sober about how they worship God. In all the Charismatic churches I have been in, I have never seen the preaching interrupted by people speaking out in tongues, and I have never heard anyone speaking out in tongues without an interpretation. I have witnessed one or two giving loud prophecies, and the leader getting up and saying, "That's not of God, so we can safely ignore that one." It may be true that there are some off the wall churches that are chaotic, but in my country (maybe not in yours) they are the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah probably so. Ever see Benny Hinn? lol.

I believe the only fault in the taking of communion in the case of the OP is a lack of respect for authority in his church.

I agree. Based on what he said, I thought it was only that and not blasphemy against Christ. But not knowing his heart, I cannot say, so I let him answer that question himself

 

[Meowzltov]

Hey guys. I'm getting an official membership at my Lutheran church so I can take communion. but a few weeks ago I was too excited so I took communion prematurely without permission to. they have closed communion so no one eats to their harm. so did I eat to my harm? If so, is it a forgivable sin? I'm anxious.

Yes, it's forgivable. Talk to the pastor about it. It could be that if you already accept Real Presence and are not in a state of serious sin, that maybe you only committed a technical error, but please don't take it from me since I'm not a Lutheran.

We had an unusual circumstance in the Catholic Church where the founder of the Taize movement had come to accept Transubstantiation and other tenets of Catholicism but had never officially become a Catholic. Somewhere along the way he simply started receiving Eucharist and the Bishop was fine with it. But maybe they were just hoping for him to come.

I'm glad that you are concerned about this. It shows your great respect for the Sacrament, which I wish I saw more of in these forums.

 

[Meowzltov]

I am just making the point that taking communion is not denomination-specific

It depends on what you mean. Denominations are watchdogs to make sure people are receiving communion worthily, as it can be otherwise harmful. One of the things specifically stated by Paul is that partaking without discerning the Body of Christ is to eat and drink judgment on one's self. There are whole denominations that teach that communion is not the Body of Christ. Therefore other denominations like he Lutherans can't assume that just because you are a Christian you discern the Body. Thus, closed communion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It depends on what you mean. Denominations are watchdogs to make sure people are receiving communion worthily, as it can be otherwise harmful. One of the things specifically stated by Paul is that partaking without discerning the Body of Christ is to eat and drink judgment on one's self. There are whole denominations that teach that communion is not the Body of Christ. Therefore other denominations like he Lutherans can't assume that just because you are a Christian you discern the Body. Thus, closed communion.

There are whole denominations which teach that the Body of Church is the Church (cf. I Corinthians 12, which follows directly from the passage in question).

 

[Meowzltov]

There are whole denominations which teach that the Body of Church is the Church (cf. I Corinthians 12, which follows directly from the passage in question).

So does the Catholic Church. That's not the point. The point is, what does the Body of Christ refer to IN THIS PASSAGE. The subject of the passage is NOT THE CHURCH. It's communion.

 

[Ron Gurley]

I believe in the doctrine of: "Scriptura Suprema"...if any doctrine/dogma of any denomination is in direct conflict with the God-breathed Scripture, the spiritual "litmus test", then the Bible WINS...it is supreme and over-rules ALL.

Let's start with the RCC requirement of "confession" to a RCC "father" as a pre-requisite to receiving "communion". 5 of the 7 "graces" granted by the RCC deal with the issue of SIN...the barrier between God and Man.

True spiritually born again from above Christ-followers continue to sin, fall short of the perfect glory of God.
They do not lose their salvation when they sin, to whatever degree. They are FORGIVEN because of the Holy Blood of Jesus the God-Man shed FOR them...."substitutionary atonement".

1 John 1...God Is Light
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have FELLOWSHIP (no sin barrier!) with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not PRACTICE the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light (FOLLOW Jesus' example) as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we (Believers after salvation) say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we CONFESS (agree with God about) our sins, He is faithful and righteous to FORGIVE us our sins and to CLEANSE us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

1 John 2:2
and He (Jesus) Himself is the propitiation (satisfaction before God) FOR our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation FOR our sins.

Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins BY His blood—

 

[Ron Gurley]

Another example: The John 6 analogy: Jesus was the allegorical "Bread of Life".

John 6 (NASB)
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying,
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 For My flesh is (LIKE) true food, and My blood is (LIKE) true drink.
56 He who (symbolism, not carna-bolism) eats My flesh and drinks My blood ABIDES (dwells) in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father SENT Me (Divine), and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven;
not as the fathers ate and died (manna);
he who eats this bread will live forever.”

35 Jesus said to them,
“I am the "bread of life";
he who comes to Me will not hunger, and
he who believes in Me will never thirst....
40 For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”