Common Cup, Indiv cup, or Intincture?

[MDIVGRAD]

The pastor should counsel the person towards repentance and therefore towards partaking worthily. It is not the pastor's duty to withhold it. Unworthy taking is faithlessness (as seen in our confessions), it is not what goes into a man but comes out of a man that makes a man sinful. Paul is clear that the warning is not towards those who administer but those who receive, they are to examine themselves.

If the issue is open, unrepentant sin, then we are discussing church discipline., which is not about preventing unworthy eating (as if the person is not already to their own damnation) but about severing fellowship with wickedness, after all, 1 Cor 5 shows that what concerns Paul most is the pride of the community in the man's sin. And for Luther, this was really more the grounds for not having fellowship with the Zwinglians, not to prevent them from unworthy eating but to prevent erroneous teaching to enter into the evangelical faith.

Those who receive are sheep who need to be directed by the Shepherd (pastor). Sheep are dumb and don't know better. They must be led to the water and grass and be led away. If they are not led properly they will stray. They must depend on the shepherd to keep them safe. It is the Shepherds responsibility to make sure that all the sheep are together in the herd and that none of them have strayed. If one strays, he must go out and find it and bring it back.

If we put the onus of responsibility on the sheep to receive something worthily, they don't always understand what is worthy. They must depend on the Shepherd to protect them from trouble, hence judgment.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Those who receive are sheep who need to be directed by the Shepherd (pastor). Sheep are dumb and don't know better. They must be led to the water and grass and be led away. If they are not led properly they will stray. They must depend on the shepherd to keep them safe. It is the Shepherds responsibility to make sure that all the sheep are together in the herd and that none of them have strayed. If one strays, he must go out and find it and bring it back.

If we put the onus of responsibility on the sheep to receive something worthily, they don't always understand what is worthy. They must depend on the Shepherd to protect them from trouble, hence judgment.

1) if I may say, I think the metaphor was taken a bit far
2) A good shepherd directs, but that does not mean he decides who takes and who does not.
3) Paul makes it clear it is not the shepherd's responsibility but the individual's regarding worthy reception, after all worthy reception is only based on faith/unfaith as our confessions tell us, and the individual would ponder such things.

 

[MDIVGRAD]

1) if I may say, I think the metaphor was taken a bit far
2) A good shepherd directs, but that does not mean he decides who takes and who does not.
3) Paul makes it clear it is not the shepherd's responsibility but the individual's regarding worthy reception, after all worthy reception is only based on faith/unfaith as our confessions tell us, and the individual would ponder such things.

The metaphor is an exaggeration of the Pastor's responsibility to the sheep. Paul said we are to examine ourselves, but none of us are worthy to go up and take communion. We receive his body and blood because HE WAS WORTHY. However, there is a vertical and horizontal relationship in receiving the body and blood. There is the vertical between you and Christ and there is the horizontal between you and the others at the table. If you have one difference among you which is not adiaphoron, you should not partake of Christ's body and blood. Baptists who do not see Baptism as a means of grace, should not be partaking with those who do see it as a means of grace. .

This is a matter of denominationalism and why we are a fractured church.

This was part of a discussion on another forum but it is relevant to this discussion.

Open communion is a function of denominationalism. It really destroys the whole concept of church by allowing anyone and everyone to be their own church. Closed communion takes division seriously; open communion does not. The NALC and LCMC will have to decide if they are in full communion with the ELCA. If so, their leaving was an exercise in pointlessness; why make a point of disassociating in some outward way if you’re going to insist that the only unity that matters remains unchanged? But if not, why not? Open communion simply means that nothing beyond individual opinion ultimately matters; the church cannot confess anything, because it cannot separate itself from contrary confessions.

 

[DaRev]

1) if I may say, I think the metaphor was taken a bit far
2) A good shepherd directs, but that does not mean he decides who takes and who does not.
3) Paul makes it clear it is not the shepherd's responsibility but the individual's regarding worthy reception, after all worthy reception is only based on faith/unfaith as our confessions tell us, and the individual would ponder such things.

The pastor most certainly decides who is to be admitted to the table as the steward. While it is true that he cannot see what is in a person's heart, what he does know must be the basis of admission.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

The pastor most certainly decides who is to be admitted to the table as the steward. While it is true that he cannot see what is in a person's heart, what he does know must be the basis of admission.

Hardly, Paul's attack is in fact that the people of Corinth have decided to commune before everyone is present. He speaks against selective communing. Taking 4.1 to mean such is a stretch of both the meaning of the verse and an afront to his claim that the individual is the one who does such examining. Paul's words speak more to teaching, properly proclaiming, not discerning who will partake.

Jesus in fact communes Judas, if Christ who looks into the hearts communes even Judas then how can we say there is basis to withold from those who come to partake?

And as we look at it systematically, we must conclude that faith receives forgiveness of sins and consists of proper reception. Thus Paul's words are not words of partaking sinfully but of not receiving grace from it. Hence, it speaks to not being justified ex opera operato. That is to say, those without faith (which as we have seen confessionally is those who take without faith) are not condemning but are already condemned (since we know ourselves to be justified by faith alone, and as Christ says "those who do not believe will be condemned"), a faithless person will receive nothing from it, and therefore eating to their own damnation.

I'm ranting now...it's getting late.
Blessings on your sermon tomorrow BTW.

 

[MDIVGRAD]

Hardly, Paul's attack is in fact that the people of Corinth have decided to commune before everyone is present. He speaks against selective communing. Taking 4.1 to mean such is a stretch of both the meaning of the verse and an afront to his claim that the individual is the one who does such examining. Paul's words speak more to teaching, properly proclaiming, not discerning who will partake.

Jesus in fact communes Judas, if Christ who looks into the hearts communes even Judas then how can we say there is basis to withold from those who come to partake?

And as we look at it systematically, we must conclude that faith receives forgiveness of sins and consists of proper reception. Thus Paul's words are not words of partaking sinfully but of not receiving grace from it. Hence, it speaks to not being justified ex opera operato. That is to say, those without faith (which as we have seen confessionally is those who take without faith) are not condemning but are already condemned (since we know ourselves to be justified by faith alone, and as Christ says "those who do not believe will be condemned"), a faithless person will receive nothing from it, and therefore eating to their own damnation.

I'm ranting now...it's getting late.
Blessings on your sermon tomorrow BTW.

Systematically? Read Pieper on this. His dogmatics books are what we follow. Where do we receive faith from? Do we have faith before we receive Jesus? We receive Communion with those who have the SAME faith as we and therefore if there is any disagreement in our faith we should not receive it there. If I go to a ELCA church, I may have agreement on some things there, but not everything. I should not partake of communion in that church body, not because my faith receives Christ because it does, but I do not believe in open communion with everyone and therefore I would not want the people of the ELCA to believe that I did by receiving Christ body and blood with them.

It has much to do with confession of one's faith.. Is it cherry picking between the two, very much so.

The reverse is also true. If a Pastor is unaware of a particular believers confession of faith, he should for the time being, not give communion to that person. They are not going to suffer in their faith if they do not receive it one time. The Pastor should also be prepared to discuss such a thing with the person in love and help them to understand that it was for their good that he denied them until such a time as they can be examined in their faith. Communion is for the membership of the church and not for outsiders.

 

[DaRev]

Hardly, Paul's attack is in fact that the people of Corinth have decided to commune before everyone is present. He speaks against selective communing. Taking 4.1 to mean such is a stretch of both the meaning of the verse and an afront to his claim that the individual is the one who does such examining. Paul's words speak more to teaching, properly proclaiming, not discerning who will partake.

Jesus in fact communes Judas, if Christ who looks into the hearts communes even Judas then how can we say there is basis to withold from those who come to partake?

That depends on which Gospel account you read.

And as we look at it systematically, we must conclude that faith receives forgiveness of sins and consists of proper reception. Thus Paul's words are not words of partaking sinfully but of not receiving grace from it.

1 Corinthians 11:27 speaks directly of the sin of receiving unworthily. A pastor who knows that one is unrepentant and thus cannot receive worthily has the duty to withhold reception from that person, lest he sin against the body and blood and bring condemnation upon himself. It's as plain as day.

Hence, it speaks to not being justified ex opera operato. That is to say, those without faith (which as we have seen confessionally is those who take without faith) are not condemning but are already condemned (since we know ourselves to be justified by faith alone, and as Christ says "those who do not believe will be condemned"), a faithless person will receive nothing from it, and therefore eating to their own damnation.

There is no forgiveness without repentance. The unrepentant should not receive. If the pastor knows of an unrepentant sin, it is his duty to withhold it so the unrepentant does not eat and drink judgement upon himself. Again, no pastor worth his salt would knowingly lead someone into sin.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

That depends on which Gospel account you read.

1 Corinthians 11:27 speaks directly of the sin of receiving unworthily. A pastor who knows that one is unrepentant and thus cannot receive worthily has the duty to withhold reception from that person, lest he sin against the body and blood and bring condemnation upon himself. It's as plain as day.

There is no forgiveness without repentance. The unrepentant should not receive. If the pastor knows of an unrepentant sin, it is his duty to withhold it so the unrepentant does not eat and drink judgement upon himself. Again, no pastor worth his salt would knowingly lead someone into sin.

All accounts tell of Judas at the last Supper, only in John, which does not account the actual distribution of communion (and therefore cannot give clue towards timetable) does Judas leave. And if ANY of them record it, we must reckon it to be acceptable that Jesus did so, otherwise, we nonetheless contradict the voice of scripture.

1 Cor 11 is absolutely clear of who makes the determination regarding communion, it is the individual. "So a man should examine himself", and Paul goes at lengths about others making judgments for others. It is not leading one into sin, a proper pastor does his duty, to proclaim the meaning of the words. Paul does not in 1 Cor. 11 forbid them to partake in the Lord's Supper, he does his job, he proclaims and teaches the evangelical meaning of the supper. If Christ can say "Woe to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed" and then commune Judas, and Paul can instruct the Corinthians on proper reception but not give them any instruction regarding refusing one another, then how can we say that is wrongful? The duty of a pastor is to proclaim, for how can they know if they have not heard? A good pastor does not lead one into sin by proclaiming proper reception, by teaching and admonishing, but withholding is not his to choose, scripture is clear that is only for extreme circumstances after efforts of reconciliation and is done for the sake of the community.

Repentance flows from faith, our confessions are clear on that as well. The sin of unworthy eating is faithlessness, the confessions are clear on this. To withold communion and declare one unworthy is therefore to declare them faithless and condemned.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Systematically? Read Pieper on this. His dogmatics books are what we follow. Where do we receive faith from? Do we have faith before we receive Jesus? We receive Communion with those who have the SAME faith as we and therefore if there is any disagreement in our faith we should not receive it there. If I go to a ELCA church, I may have agreement on some things there, but not everything. I should not partake of communion in that church body, not because my faith receives Christ because it does, but I do not believe in open communion with everyone and therefore I would not want the people of the ELCA to believe that I did by receiving Christ body and blood with them.

It has much to do with confession of one's faith.. Is it cherry picking between the two, very much so.

The reverse is also true. If a Pastor is unaware of a particular believers confession of faith, he should for the time being, not give communion to that person. They are not going to suffer in their faith if they do not receive it one time. The Pastor should also be prepared to discuss such a thing with the person in love and help them to understand that it was for their good that he denied them until such a time as they can be examined in their faith. Communion is for the membership of the church and not for outsiders.

But this is stretching communion beyond its bounds. Or perhaps better put, it is giving priority where it does not belong. Communion is for forgiveness and remembrance as we are told by Christ himself, this meal is his not our confession of faith. It is not how we unite ourselves but how he unites beyond sinful bounds. Since our confessions tell us that Christ's church is everywhere the Gospel is preached and sacraments administered according to scripture (which our confessions tell us is done by the proclaiming of the verba). Therefore by doing so one breaks the confession of Christ's church for one's insistence on complete doctrinal unity (but "it is enough for true unity...").
The sacrament must first be used for proclaiming Christ for you and for offering grace and forgiveness to sinners who desire it. To withhold these purposes for the sake of outward unity in fact goes directly against Paul's words in 1 Cor 11 which say it is not our meal which we dictate, it is God's in his house for his purposes.
Furthermore, we should stop and ponder truly Pieper's claim, because in truth do people assume you are in "complete agreement" with the ELCA when you commune there? And if they do, is that insurmountable? No, for one can clarify the ignorance of others by explanation. Christians used to be accused of cannibalism because of communion, should we stop taking because people wrongly perceive its meaning? Let it never be so. It appears this argument only counts where we want it to. Should we not say the Lord's Prayer with a baptist at Thanksgiving meal because Uncle Joe might not realize that there are differences between us who pray the same prayer together at the same time?
Furthermore, we should consider again if Pieper's claim takes priority to Christ's intent for the meal. Should the perception by others outweigh our need for forgiveness? Since we know it will be Christ's meal when the words are spoken and we will always receive in faith no matter the worthiness of those around us or distributing, then should we not heed Christ's command to "Take, eat" which if nothing else should bid us beyond the wisdom of this world?
Finally, if we decide to accept Pieper's claim, we must then consider the reverse, what does it say to refuse to commune some or refuse to take communion with them? Especially when we consider the confessional claim that unworthiness is based on lack of faith, then by saying we will not take are we not either intentionally or unintentionally declaring them exekklasia, outside the church and the faith and salvation in Christ? Or what if people interpret that to mean you think you do not need forgiveness when you refuse to go up? Does that perception (which would misinterpret the heart of your faith that you do in fact need Christ and his forgiveness and rest all your trust in him) matter? How can that perception not matter yet the perception of agreement matter when both are assumptions heaped on you?

 

[MDIVGRAD]

But this is stretching communion beyond its bounds. Or perhaps better put, it is giving priority where it does not belong.

Communion is for forgiveness and remembrance as we are told by Christ himself, this meal is his not our confession of faith. It is not how we unite ourselves but how he unites beyond sinful bounds. Since our confessions tell us that Christ's church is everywhere the Gospel is preached and sacraments administered according to scripture (which our confessions tell us is done by the proclaiming of the verba). Therefore by doing so one breaks the confession of Christ's church for one's insistence on complete doctrinal unity (but "it is enough for true unity...").
The sacrament must first be used for proclaiming Christ for you and for offering grace and forgiveness to sinners who desire it. To withhold these purposes for the sake of outward unity in fact goes directly against Paul's words in 1 Cor 11 which say it is not our meal which we dictate, it is God's in his house for his purposes.
Furthermore, we should stop and ponder truly Pieper's claim, because in truth do people assume you are in "complete agreement" with the ELCA when you commune there?

I would NEVER commune with anyone in an ELCA church therefore the point is moot. I would stand against their confession by abstaining from communion on the basis of disagreements on Abortion, woman and Gay clergy as well as Gay marriage, not to mention the CCM with the Episcopalians. So in my confession of faith, scripture clearly against such things.

Yes, there is a matter of confession at the altar which ties you in unity to those who you commune with. If you are reformed you do not believe that Christ's body and blood are present physically as well as spiritually in the bread and wine. If you are Roman Catholic, you believe that the bread and wine are mystically turned into the body and blood (transubtantiation) of Christ. Having communion with these groups is a no no according to Luther at the Marburg colloquy.

In order to commune with other Christians and be one with them, there must be a unity of understanding and agreement in all things concerning Christ.

And if they do, is that insurmountable? No, for one can clarify the ignorance of others by explanation. Christians used to be accused of cannibalism because of communion, should we stop taking because people wrongly perceive its meaning? Let it never be so. It appears this argument only counts where we want it to. Should we not say the Lord's Prayer with a baptist at Thanksgiving meal because Uncle Joe might not realize that there are differences between us who pray the same prayer together at the same time?
Furthermore, we should consider again if Pieper's claim takes priority to Christ's intent for the meal. Should the perception by others outweigh our need for forgiveness? Since we know it will be Christ's meal when the words are spoken and we will always receive in faith no matter the worthiness of those around us or distributing, then should we not heed Christ's command to "Take, eat" which if nothing else should bid us beyond the wisdom of this world?
Finally, if we decide to accept Pieper's claim, we must then consider the reverse, what does it say to refuse to commune some or refuse to take communion with them? Especially when we consider the confessional claim that unworthiness is based on lack of faith, then by saying we will not take are we not either intentionally or unintentionally declaring them exekklasia, outside the church and the faith and salvation in Christ? Or what if people interpret that to mean you think you do not need forgiveness when you refuse to go up? Does that perception (which would misinterpret the heart of your faith that you do in fact need Christ and his forgiveness and rest all your trust in him) matter? How can that perception not matter yet the perception of agreement matter when both are assumptions heaped on you?

Your arguments have some good element, but also quite a bit of straw. Where do we receive faith? is it innate or is it a gift of God. My receiving communion is based only on the matter that I have confessed along with all of these MEMBERS of the church body my sins for forgiveness and my faith in the same God and understanding of Christ's body and blood. I would not partake of the sacrament in a church with whom I am in disagreement on the sacrament or other issues such as the ones I mentioned above. By abstaining, I am saying that the ELCA is apostate of the faith in the bible by allowing Homosexuals to marry and be ordained as well as having open communion with other church bodies of whom I disagree.

The Holy Eucharist or Communion is a sacrament of confirmation not initiation. I certainly would not advocate communing an unbaptized person. It is also not a "necessary" sacrament to partake, but a desired one because it receives Christ in the faith he has given us through the Holy Spirit received in Baptism.

I'll continue this later.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I would NEVER commune with anyone in an ELCA church therefore the point is moot. I would stand against their confession by abstaining from communion on the basis of disagreements on Abortion, woman and Gay clergy as well as Gay marriage, not to mention the CCM with the Episcopalians. So in my confession of faith, scripture clearly against such things.

Yes, there is a matter of confession at the altar which ties you in unity to those who you commune with. If you are reformed you do not believe that Christ's body and blood are present physically as well as spiritually in the bread and wine. If you are Roman Catholic, you believe that the bread and wine are mystically turned into the body and blood (transubtantiation) of Christ. Having communion with these groups is a no no according to Luther at the Marburg colloquy.

In order to commune with other Christians and be one with them, there must be a unity of understanding and agreement in all things concerning Christ.



Your arguments have some good element, but also quite a bit of straw. Where do we receive faith? is it innate or is it a gift of God. My receiving communion is based only on the matter that I have confessed along with all of these MEMBERS of the church body my sins for forgiveness and my faith in the same God and understanding of Christ's body and blood. I would not partake of the sacrament in a church with whom I am in disagreement on the sacrament or other issues such as the ones I mentioned above. By abstaining, I am saying that the ELCA is apostate of the faith in the bible by allowing Homosexuals to marry and be ordained as well as having open communion with other church bodies of whom I disagree.

The Holy Eucharist or Communion is a sacrament of confirmation not initiation. I certainly would not advocate communing an unbaptized person. It is also not a "necessary" sacrament to partake, but a desired one because it receives Christ in the faith he has given us through the Holy Spirit received in Baptism.

I'll continue this later.

Confessionally we say unity is not by full doctrinal agreement. As our confessions say "It is enough for true unity", thus you are incorrect in believing that you can only be one by sharing in all beliefs. Either that or you state they are not the church.
I would be curious as to what you consider straw?
Faith is obviously a gift from God. Receiving is not based on common confession with all those around you, our confessions are clear that it is not the faith of others that make the validity of the sacrament but the verba, and your faith alone that receives. Hence why Paul is clear the emphasis must be on oneself in examination prior to reception. Were we to base it off the faithfulness of others we should abstain eternally or rest in a troubled conscience each time we partake. And it is not in confession prior to but confession within that is also of what our confessions tell us, for Luther is clear that one who desires forgiveness in communion is prepared, not one who has undergone confession prior to.
Luther's refusal to fellowship with Zwingli at Marburg should be looked at Luther's concerns: the first was about not allowing false teachings into the evangelical churches, the second as our confessions note was that the verba were not even spoken properly.
I never called communion a sacrament of initiation, I have always advocated faith as the means to proper reception. But my point is to exclude you do as Paul was warning against. Furthermore, I challenge the claim that Communion is an optional sacrament. Luther was clear that by evangelical command if by nothing else we should be compelled to receive it. And to say it is merely optional is a vexing statement of the means of grace, for it suggests you only sometimes need Christ's forgiveness. Such statements fall in the Reformed camp, not needing the sacrament for forgiveness and strengthening of faith. God forbid I ever reach the day where I think my faith needs no strength and I need no forgiveness. Forgiveness is an active event in Lutheran theology, not merely a past moment.

I'm getting lost in my Sunday ramblings. Sometimes writing helps gather thoughts, sometimes it lets me get lost in them. I think I'm beginning to lean towards the latter.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

While there is a specific command of baptism, there is no specific command for communion as necessary to salvation. That's not to say it's optional, but nor do I agree with your term of "compelled". Communion, for me, isn't a way for me to get into heaven, but it's a way of reminding me of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and what that sacrifice meant for my salvation. In that same vein, it IS a statement of unity with the people with whom I am communing with. What is the root of the word communion if not community?

Of course we want EVERYONE to be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. This isn't exclusion because we don't like the way someone looks, it's exclusion for the love of that person's soul. And it goes more deep than just denying them communion. It's about explaining to them and teaching them and leading them.

As DaRev pointed out, no pastor worth his salt is going to knowingly commune someone in unrepentant sin, or someone who does not believe as the church in which he is attending. That's sorta like saying "well, it doesn't really matter what you believe as long you're here at church" and THAT, dear sir, is something I take to be more from the reformed camp.

 

[QuiltAngel]

While there is a specific command of baptism, there is no specific command for communion as necessary to salvation. That's not to say it's optional, but nor do I agree with your term of "compelled". Communion, for me, isn't a way for me to get into heaven, but it's a way of reminding me of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and what that sacrifice meant for my salvation. In that same vein, it IS a statement of unity with the people with whom I am communing with. What is the root of the word communion if not community?

Of course we want EVERYONE to be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. This isn't exclusion because we don't like the way someone looks, it's exclusion for the love of that person's soul. And it goes more deep than just denying them communion. It's about explaining to them and teaching them and leading them.

As DaRev pointed out, no pastor worth his salt is going to knowingly commune someone in unrepentant sin, or someone who does not believe as the church in which he is attending. That's sorta like saying "well, it doesn't really matter what you believe as long you're here at church" and THAT, dear sir, is something I take to be more from the reformed camp.

An example of this is a situation that my husband had in the past. A woman was taking the new member instruction and wanted to join the church that the man she was living with was a member of. They had not intention of getting married (and haven't). Should he have allowed her to become a member and to receive communion?

I think not. She/they are living in unrepentant sin and not intention of correcting that. Therefore, they would both be receiving communion in an unworthy manner.

He has also had to tell former members that they would be communed in the LCMS due to the fact that they have joined a church not in altar/pulpit fellowship with us. That would send the message that it is okay to admit those who attend a heterodox church to our table.

When you admit one, where do you stop? Today it is those who attend other Christian churches who do not believe in the real presence. Tomorrow it could be those who are not even Christian. Don't want to get on that slippery slope.

 

[mdseverin]

I find this debate very interesting. I think we all agree that we should interpret scripture from scripture. So let’s look at what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 11:27 “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.”

2 Timothy 4: 1-5 “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Supporters for closed communion are looking at these verses as justification for the practice. 1 Corinthians clearly says that the Lords Supper should not be taken in an “unworthy manner.” They then use the role of a pastor, outlined in 1 & 2 Timothy, to be the person that “shepherds” their congregation and decides what is “unworthy.” In this case, it’s anyone that does not believe in their church doctrine or lives in unrepentant sin.

Biblical, that is all I could find to support closed communion.

Now let’s look at what else the bible says.

1 Corinthians (11:28-29), “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

1 Corinthians 11:33-34, “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

Matthew 26:14-28 For the sake of space I will paraphrase. Judas agrees to betray Jesus before the Passover meal. Judas then partakes in the Lord’s Supper, administered by Jesus. Verse 27-28, “Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

John 10: 14-15, “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The verses in 1 Corinthians show that it is up to the individual to make good judgment. Corinthians was a letter to the church body, not an individual priest. In Matthew, Jesus did commune Judas even though Jesus knew that Judas had already betrayed him and had not repent. In John, Jesus says that he is the “good shepherd.” Not the human office of pastor. If Jesus did not deny a person that lived in unrepentant sin, then what human has the authority to deny under the cloak of being a “shepherd.”

When the Bible was written there were not all these denominations. To deny communion because you do not agree or know their church membership is not founded in the Bible. All denominations and followers of Christ believe in the Nicene and Apostles Creed. That belief is all that seems to be required by the Bible. Anything beyond that is just church doctrine.

 

[Zecryphon]

I find this debate very interesting. I think we all agree that we should interpret scripture from scripture. So let’s look at what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 11:27

“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.”

2 Timothy 4: 1-5 “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Supporters for closed communion are looking at these verses as justification for the practice. 1 Corinthians clearly says that the Lords Supper should not be taken in an “unworthy manner.” They then use the role of a pastor, outlined in 1 & 2 Timothy, to be the person that “shepherds” their congregation and decides what is “unworthy.” In this case, it’s anyone that does not believe in their church doctrine or lives in unrepentant sin.

Biblical, that is all I could find to support closed communion.

Now let’s look at what else the bible says.

1 Corinthians (11:28-29) , “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

1 Corinthians 11:33-34 , “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

Matthew 26:14-28 For the sake of space I will paraphrase. Judas agrees to betray Jesus before the Passover meal. Judas then partakes in the Lord’s Supper, administered by Jesus. Verse 27-28, “Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

John 10: 14-15 , “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The verses in 1 Corinthians show that it is up to the individual to make good judgment. Corinthians was a letter to the church body, not an individual priest. In Matthew, Jesus did commune Judas even though Jesus knew that Judas had already betrayed him and had not repent. In John, Jesus says that he is the “good shepherd.” Not the human office of pastor. If Jesus did not deny a person that lived in unrepentant sin, then what human has the authority to deny under the cloak of being a “shepherd.”

When the Bible was written there were not all these denominations. To deny communion because you do not agree or know their church membership is not founded in the Bible. All denominations and followers of Christ believe in the Nicene and Apostles Creed. That belief is all that seems to be required by the Bible. Anything beyond that is just church doctrine.

Where does the Bible say that belief in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are all that is required? Chapter and verse please. Also, couldn't the denial of Communion be a form of church discipline?

 

[mdseverin]

Where does the Bible say that belief in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are all that is required? Chapter and verse please. Also, couldn't the denial of Communion be a form of church discipline?

My point is that the bible shows you only need to be a follower of Christ using good judgment to receive communion. Since all Christian denominations believe in the creeds, that would be my definition of a follower of Christ.

You could try to justify denial of communion as a form of church discipline, but as I pointed out with the verses above, it would go against what the bible says and practices.

 

[Zecryphon]

My point is that the bible shows you only need to be a follower of Christ using good judgment to receive communion. Since all Christian denominations believe in the creeds, that would be my definition of a follower of Christ.

You could try to justify denial of communion as a form of church discipline, but as I pointed out with the verses above, it would go against what the bible says and practices.

You need to have faith in Christ, otherwise why even go to the rail to receive Christ's body and blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins? Anyone can be a follower of Jesus, that doesn't mean you're a Christian. I've talked to people on CF who are followers of Christ, but do not regard him as their Savior, they just think he was a good human, because he taught good moral lessons on how to treat others.

Open Communion is not advocated anywhere in Scripture. Jesus knew the people who were at the Passover meal, He had taught them for three years. He knew who they were and what they believed and didn't believe. There wasn't a single stranger at that table, not one single outsider. Close or Closed Communion is practiced because we choose to err on the side of caution, if we are even erring at all.

If someone is unrepentant in their sin, why would that person even want to take Communion in the first place? Why would that person have ANY interest in a Sacrament that forgives sins? That person is unrepentant, they don't want forgiveness of sins, because they don't believe they've doing anything wrong.

You make an assumption in your post that are NOT supported by Scripture. You say Judas was unrepentant. Let's look at some verses. First John 13:27, which says:

(27) "And after Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are about to do, do quickly."

So Judas wasn't acting of his own free will was he? Satan had entered Judas, so wasn't Judas technically possessed? Also, Scripture shows that Judas was repentant, Matthew 27:3-5 is one place. There it is written:

(3) "Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, (4) saying "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!" But they said, "What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!" (5) So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.

Judas doesn't strike me as an unrepentant sinner based upon these actions.

 

[mdseverin]

You need to have faith in Christ, otherwise why even go to the rail to receive Christ's body and blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins? Anyone can be a follower of Jesus, that doesn't mean you're a Christian. I've talked to people on CF who are followers of Christ, but do not regard him as their Savior, they just think he was a good human, because he taught good moral lessons on how to treat others.

You take everything I say way too literal. "Follower of Christ" is another way of saying Christian. If you believe and confess the words of the Creeds you obviously have faith in Christ.

If someone is unrepentant in their sin, why would that person even want to take Communion in the first place? Why would that person have ANY interest in a Sacrament that forgives sins? That person is unrepentant, they don't want forgiveness of sins, because they don't believe they've doing anything wrong.

That is up to the individual to make the judgment as it is stated in 1 Corinthians 11:28

You make an assumption in your post that are NOT supported by Scripture. You say Judas was unrepentant. Let's look at some verses. First John 13:27, which says:

(27) "And after Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are about to do, do quickly."

So Judas wasn't acting of his own free will was he? Satan had entered Judas, so wasn't Judas technically possessed?

Exactly! He was not using good judgment, as stated in 1 Corinthians. Judas was knowingly plotting against Jesus and took the sacrament anyway. That didn't stop Jesus from administering the body and blood to him.

Also, Scripture shows that Judas was repentant, Matthew 27:3-5 is one place. There it is written:

(3) "Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, (4) saying "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!" But they said, "What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!" (5) So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.

Judas doesn't strike me as an unrepentant sinner based upon these actions.

Yes, but this all happened AFTER he was given the bread and wine. He still knowingly took the sacrament and it was administered by Jesus, whom knew Judas was plotting against him.

 

[DaRev]

I find this debate very interesting. I think we all agree that we should interpret scripture from scripture. So let’s look at what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 11:27 “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.”

2 Timothy 4: 1-5 “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Supporters for closed communion are looking at these verses as justification for the practice. 1 Corinthians clearly says that the Lords Supper should not be taken in an “unworthy manner.” They then use the role of a pastor, outlined in 1 & 2 Timothy, to be the person that “shepherds” their congregation and decides what is “unworthy.” In this case, it’s anyone that does not believe in their church doctrine or lives in unrepentant sin.

Biblical, that is all I could find to support closed communion.

You obviously didn't look good enough.
Let's look at what else Scripture says:


Acts 2:44 And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common.

1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

This speaks to the unity of belief. Do those who deny the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, thus rejecting the clear teaching of Jesus in the Scriptures, truly believe in Jesus and His word? Their very confession says No.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

This speaks to the authority of leaders which includes leaders in the Church and the authority granted them through Christ.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

The Latin "mysterium" speaks of the Sacraments. The servants of Christ in the Church, meaning pastors, are to keep the Sacraments sacred. This includes that their reception is for the edification of the recipients, not to their judgement. Pastors are to be the caretakers of souls. A pastor has the duty to protect the flock that he has been placed over.

Now let’s look at what else the bible says.

1 Corinthians (11:28-29), “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

This is speaking to the individual recipient, who is to consider their sinfuless and their personal repentance. Those who are unrepentant should not partake, lest they bring judgement upon themselves. If a pastor, as a steward of the mysteries and the guardian of souls, knows that one is unrepentant, it is his duty to prevent that person from bringing judgement upon himself

1 Corinthians 11:33-34, “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

This is an admonishment against those who were misusing the Lord's Supper. Paul is instructing them on the importance of keeping the sacrament sacred and not turning into a free-for-all or a party.

Matthew 26:14-28 For the sake of space I will paraphrase. Judas agrees to betray Jesus before the Passover meal. Judas then partakes in the Lord’s Supper, administered by Jesus. Verse 27-28, “Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

John 10: 14-15, “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The verses in 1 Corinthians show that it is up to the individual to make good judgment. Corinthians was a letter to the church body, not an individual priest. In Matthew, Jesus did commune Judas even though Jesus knew that Judas had already betrayed him and had not repent. In John, Jesus says that he is the “good shepherd.” Not the human office of pastor. If Jesus did not deny a person that lived in unrepentant sin, then what human has the authority to deny under the cloak of being a “shepherd.”

And Judas ate and drank to his judgement. This serves as the perfect example of one who ate and drank unworthily.
As to the office of pastor, it was instituted by Christ and given the authority to take such action.

Matthew 18:18 Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

When the Bible was written there were not all these denominations. To deny communion because you do not agree or know their church membership is not founded in the Bible. All denominations and followers of Christ believe in the Nicene and Apostles Creed. That belief is all that seems to be required by the Bible. Anything beyond that is just church doctrine.

What is required in Scripture is belief in Christ. How can one who rejects His clear teachings, especially regarding the very nature of His Supper, be deemed worthy to receive it? Biblically, they can't.

 

[mdseverin]

I can take this in several different directions. I'll start with baby steps. The ELCA believes in the real presence. We affirm our faith in the Creeds. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What justification is there in the Bible that we should be denied communion? Because you disagree with the ELCA church body does not have anything to do with the individual members. I'm sure that if you did a survey you would find that a great majority of ELCA members are not gay or had an abortion. These issues have nothing to do with the Lords Supper.