Christ did not practice closed communion?

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. (Edit) So where's the difference? Or is that a difference in who may come to the table also denies an ELCA member the right to communion at an LCMS?

 

[SPALATIN]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. For one Lutheran to deny another Lutheran communion is a heresy worthy of anathema in my opinion. And the BoC, to my knowledge, says for a believer to not allow another human (aka the pastor) to deny them the communion they rightly deserve in their belief.

Angelus,

You have a right to your opinion. I wouldn't take that away from you. I don't happen to agree with your opinion and that is my right.

God Bless

 

[AngelusSax]

I wish to apologize for my previous post, which before was in it's unaltered state. I forgot this was the LCMS subforum, and not the main forum which allows more debate. Please forgive my insolencocity (insolence).

 

[SPALATIN]

Forgiven!

 

[LutherNut]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. For one Lutheran to deny another Lutheran communion is a heresy worthy of anathema in my opinion. And the BoC, to my knowledge, says for a believer to not allow another human (aka the pastor) to deny them the communion they rightly deserve in their belief.

The difference is that the ELCA doesn't require belief in the Real Presence in order to receive the sacrament worthily, as the Scriptures clearly state. Thus their altar/pulpit fellowship with heterodox church bodies that outright reject the Real Presence. If the ELCA truly held to the teaching of 1 Corinthians along with the Confessions (see FC VII), they would not knowingly allow people to commune to their "judgement and damnation" (FC Ep. VII 16, Kolb-Wengert).

Jay

 

[eladoni]

Actually, they would not be. The ELCA holds a completely different view on Scripture, the Confessions, homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, ecumenism, the Real Presence in the Sacrament, etc. They do not have the same views at all.

I was under the impression that the ELCS has the same exact view on teh sacrament of the altar. Or at least my friends who are ELCS hold the LCMS position.

 

[Protoevangel]

I was under the impression that the ELCS has the same exact view on teh sacrament of the altar. Or at least my friends who are ELCS hold the LCMS position.

You mean ELCA?

The ELCA are in full communion with a number of churches who do not hold to the Real Presence. This would not be possible if they held the same view on the Sacrament as the LCMS.

That is not to say individual members are heterodox in their view of the Sacrament.

 

[SPALATIN]

You mean ELCA?

The ELCA are in full communion with a number of churches who do not hold to the Real Presence. This would not be possible if they held the same view on the Sacrament as the LCMS.

That is not to say individual members are heterodox in their view of the Sacrament.

Dan,

You would be correct in that we can't hold individual church laity to this view. Not all agree with everthing the ELCA is doing, but like you are staying to try to get some of them back on course with what Lutheranism is supposed to be.

The views you are speaking of belong to the Synod and its leaders.

 

[Marguerite]

Actually the original term is "close" communion (communing with those with the same beliefs) , as opposed to "closed" communion (not allowing those with different beliefs to commune) , however, in recent years it has become interchangeable with "closed" communion.

Here is a portion of a very interesting article found on the WELS site and while it is germain to the the WELS, I believe it can be applied to other denominations which practice close communion.

What separates us is not different denominational names--it is a very different view of the Bible. Luther's brief explanation to Zwingli as to why Luther could not have communion with Zwingli explains quite simply why we can't have communion with your church, "You have a different spirit."

I obviously did not copy the entire article, but it is an article well worth reading as it does a nice job of explaining "a different spirit". http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=57&cuItem_itemID=11218

 

[Protoevangel]

Yes, and the one Doctrnal difference that Luther and Zwingli were arguing about was the Real Presense of Christ in Holy Communion. Those who deny the Real Presense, are certianly of "a different spirit". There is, and can be only one spirit guiding the Church. To put Luther's comment to Zwingli in context, Luther also told Zwingli , "If you talk like this, you're not a Christian—and I regret to have wasted my time with you".

 

[Marguerite]

Yes, and the one Doctrnal difference that Luther and Zwingli were arguing about was the Real Presense of Christ in Holy Communion. Those who deny the Real Presense, are certianly of "a different spirit". There is, and can be only one spirit guiding the Church. To put Luther's comment to Zwingli in context, Luther also told Zwingli , "If you talk like this, you're not a Christian—and I regret to have wasted my time with you".

And Luther was never one to mince words either, was he.

 

[SPALATIN]

And Luther was never one to mince words either, was he.

Maybe once with Katherine Von Bora, but to other so-called reformers never.

 

[Marguerite]

Maybe once with Katherine Von Bora, but to other so-called reformers never.

LOL! Excellent point!!! I believe he met his match with her!

 

[ILoveYeshua]

All this arguing, just cuz Jesus had a last meal.

 

[walloffire]

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.

Another great reason why salvation should, must, and is by faith, not by reason or understanding or works or such... salvation is by faith because faith is so easy a child can do it. Salvation had to be by something that would bring in the little ones and keep out the vipers, and what thing better than faith?

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[Tofferer]

I'm going to look this up in the Book of Concord so can get a confessional teaching on this. I will add to this post.....

 

[rockytrails]

we call it closed communion but remember

We do whats right by warning of the danger of not believing in every thing Jesus has said .
If some insist on taking the lords supper in unbelief A Lutheran pastor wont wrestle the body and blood of Jesus away from them.

 

[rockytrails]

All this arguing, just cuz Jesus had a last meal.

do you understand how to love Yeshua?
why not read how to love Yeshua (JOHN 14:23

NOW DOES Jesus teach this is just a last meal?
Mathew 26:26-29

 

[Tofferer]

I looked up the Book of Corcord as found at http://www.bookofconcord.org :



There was only one thing there that is absolutely obvious to me with regards to the Lord's Suppper and closed communion versus open communion. Communion is open to believers and closed to nonbelievers. Likewise, nonbelievers take the sacrament to thier damnation. Outside of that, I don't know. Perhaps DaRev can explain this better.