Common Cup, Indiv cup, or Intincture?

[Zecryphon]

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.

Not on this board it isn't, as demonstrated by the experience I told you about.

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

That doesn't answer my question as to why one who is unrepentant would want to partake of a Sacrament that forgives sins.

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.

Let's remember that what Judas did, he was supposed to do, to fulfill Scripture. Jesus even says this in John 13:18. Since Judas at the time he actually betrayed Jesus had Satan inside of him, he was not acting according to his own freewill.

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.

Yes, because Judas was doing what he was supposed to do to fulfill the Scriptures. But what you've written still doesn't make a case for open Communion or not denying an unrepentant sinner. If a person won't exercise good judgment in partaking of this Sacrament and is in a position where they will drink judgment upon themselves, then the pastor has a duty to step in and prevent this to protect the sheep that have been entrusted to him by Christ. That is the loving thing to do.

If you saw someone who was soon to be hit by an oncoming vehicle. Would you just sit there and watch them be hit since they've obviously made the decision to do this, or would you prevent it, if you could? If you would prevent another person from receiving serious physical injury, even though it's obviously their own choice to do so, why are you mad that a pastor would exercise the same type of concern for another human being who is about to do serious spiritual damage to themselves?

 

[Zecryphon]

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.

Did you read DaRev's post? He gave you plenty of justification from the Scriptures as to why a pastor should deny Communion to an unrepentant sinner.

 

[mdseverin]

Did you read DaRev's post? He gave you plenty of justification from the Scriptures as to why a pastor should deny Communion to an unrepentant sinner.

Did you read my post? I am talking about individual ELCA members? How are they an unrepentant sinner? I am an ELCA member that repents my sins daily. I don't understand why I would be denied and other ELCA members like me. As far as the Lords Supper is concerned our views are identical (except for the belief it should be open/closed)

 

[Luther073082]

Did you read my post? I am talking about individual ELCA members? How are they an unrepentant sinner? I am an ELCA member that repents my sins daily. I don't understand why I would be denied and other ELCA members like me. As far as the Lords Supper is concerned our views are identical (except for the belief it should be open/closed)

Views as to it being completely open are a good reason enough to deny communion. Because as part of that you have a differing view in regards to fellowship.

But there is a long and laundry list of other views not directly related to communion that we do not share. Communion is about unity, and that unity is doctrinal. . . when we have unity on Christian doctrine then we are united and communing together is a show of that unity.

But communing with someone whom we have fundamental disagreements with in terms of doctrine is pretending that the differences don't exist.

 

[mdseverin]

That doesn't answer my question as to why one who is unrepentant would want to partake of a Sacrament that forgives sins.

The probably wouldn't, so why worry about it? And if for whatever reason they did, then the judgment is on them.

Let's remember that what Judas did, he was supposed to do, to fulfill Scripture. Jesus even says this in John 13:18. Since Judas at the time he actually betrayed Jesus had Satan inside of him, he was not acting according to his own freewill.

Yes, because Judas was doing what he was supposed to do to fulfill the Scriptures. But what you've written still doesn't make a case for open Communion or not denying an unrepentant sinner. If a person won't exercise good judgment in partaking of this Sacrament and is in a position where they will drink judgment upon themselves, then the pastor has a duty to step in and prevent this to protect the sheep that have been entrusted to him by Christ. That is the loving thing to do.

If you saw someone who was soon to be hit by an oncoming vehicle. Would you just sit there and watch them be hit since they've obviously made the decision to do this, or would you prevent it, if you could? If you would prevent another person from receiving serious physical injury, even though it's obviously their own choice to do so, why are you mad that a pastor would exercise the same type of concern for another human being who is about to do serious spiritual damage to themselves?[/quote]

It seems naive to think that a pastor knows who is living in unrepentant sin or not. If the pastor knew a person was gay, I guess I could see them denying communion. But there is no way to know every individuals story. For example, in court, you are innocent until proven guilty. I look at communion the same way. It is open to all baptized Christians unless the pastor is confident an individual is living in unrepentant sin.

 

[mdseverin]

Views as to it being completely open are a good reason enough to deny communion. Because as part of that you have a differing view in regards to fellowship.

But there is a long and laundry list of other views not directly related to communion that we do not share. Communion is about unity, and that unity is doctrinal. . . when we have unity on Christian doctrine then we are united and communing together is a show of that unity.

But communing with someone whom we have fundamental disagreements with in terms of doctrine is pretending that the differences don't exist.

The Lords Supper was not Gods gift to just Lutherans, it was a gift to all Christians.

I agree that communion is about unity, unity of Christianity. The body and blood were given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. I don't recall reading anything about any other doctrine.

We can have our disagreements on doctrine, but communion is a time for us to come to the table together as fellow Christians.

 

[Zecryphon]

Did you read my post? I am talking about individual ELCA members? How are they an unrepentant sinner? I am an ELCA member that repents my sins daily. I don't understand why I would be denied and other ELCA members like me. As far as the Lords Supper is concerned our views are identical (except for the belief it should be open/closed)

Are you asking why you would be denied in an LCMS or a WELS or ELS church? One reason is you're not in fellowship with us. Another reason is that in the area of Communion, you directly violate what the Confessions teach on the matter. The Lutheran Confessions state that you are to turn away those who reject the real presence of Christ in the Supper, you are in fellowship with churches that teach that very thing and you allow members of these churches to partake of Communion with you. Instead of doing as the Confessions teach, you (the ELCA) do the exact opposite.

From Article X of the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.


The ELCA does not reject those who teach otherwise. You do the opposite and welcome those who teach otherwise to the Communion rail.

 

[alexnbethmom]

Are you asking why you would be denied in an LCMS or a WELS or ELS church? One reason is you're not in fellowship with us. Another reason is that in the area of Communion, you directly violate what the Confessions teach on the matter. The Lutheran Confessions state that you are to turn away those who reject the real presence of Christ in the Supper, you are in fellowship with churches that teach that very thing and you allow members of these churches to partake of Communion with you. Instead of doing as the Confessions teach, you (the ELCA) do the exact opposite.

From Article X of the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.


The ELCA does not reject those who teach otherwise. You do the opposite and welcome those who teach otherwise to the Communion rail.

i just don't understand why this is so ding-blasted hard to understand???

 

[Zecryphon]

The probably wouldn't, so why worry about it? And if for whatever reason they did, then the judgment is on them.

Let's remember that what Judas did, he was supposed to do, to fulfill Scripture. Jesus even says this in John 13:18. Since Judas at the time he actually betrayed Jesus had Satan inside of him, he was not acting according to his own freewill.

Yes, because Judas was doing what he was supposed to do to fulfill the Scriptures. But what you've written still doesn't make a case for open Communion or not denying an unrepentant sinner. If a person won't exercise good judgment in partaking of this Sacrament and is in a position where they will drink judgment upon themselves, then the pastor has a duty to step in and prevent this to protect the sheep that have been entrusted to him by Christ. That is the loving thing to do.

If you saw someone who was soon to be hit by an oncoming vehicle. Would you just sit there and watch them be hit since they've obviously made the decision to do this, or would you prevent it, if you could? If you would prevent another person from receiving serious physical injury, even though it's obviously their own choice to do so, why are you mad that a pastor would exercise the same type of concern for another human being who is about to do serious spiritual damage to themselves?

It seems naive to think that a pastor knows who is living in unrepentant sin or not. If the pastor knew a person was gay, I guess I could see them denying communion. But there is no way to know every individuals story. For example, in court, you are innocent until proven guilty. I look at communion the same way. It is open to all baptized Christians unless the pastor is confident an individual is living in unrepentant sin.[/quote]

"Why worry about it?"

Such an ELCA response to one who is sinning. I worry about it because I don't want anyone in my church to drink judgment upon themselves. I care about other people and wish no harm to befall anyone.

A pastor may deny someone Communion based upon a talk he has had with that person. This talk could have happened because the person is a visitor to the church and not a member and was asking about whether or not they could receive Communion at that church. It could've happened because the pastor was alerted to a particular member's sin by another church member who has direct knowledge of this sin from a conversation with the denied member. There's a few scenarios I could post.

But if a pastor has knowledge that a person is unrepentant of a sin, or that a person believes differently than the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions teach, then he certainly does have a right to deny that person Communion. At my church the pastor tells people before each Communion service that if they are a visitor and not a member of the WELS or the ELS to please refrain from approaching the Communion rail.

 

[mdseverin]

Are you asking why you would be denied in an LCMS or a WELS or ELS church? One reason is you're not in fellowship with us. Another reason is that in the area of Communion, you directly violate what the Confessions teach on the matter. The Lutheran Confessions state that you are to turn away those who reject the real presence of Christ in the Supper, you are in fellowship with churches that teach that very thing and you allow members of these churches to partake of Communion with you. Instead of doing as the Confessions teach, you (the ELCA) do the exact opposite.

From Article X of the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.


The ELCA does not reject those who teach otherwise. You do the opposite and welcome those who teach otherwise to the Communion rail.

You are basing your prejudice on the ELCA body and not the individuals that attend. I am a member of the ELCA because there is no better alternative where I live. There is a LCMS near me, but I refuse to go if my family and I will not receive communion.

There is no biblical reason to turn someone away from communion in a Lutheran church if they believe in the true presence. The bible only point to living in unrepentant sin as being cause to deny. It was Martin Luther that stipulated we should reject others that don't believe in the real presence. That's just church doctrine. I can have respect for that tradition. What I can't accept is denying individuals that believe but are a member of the ELCA. The ELCA teach the true presence. We do allow others to commune, and I can see why you take issue with that as Lutheran, but I don't see that as justification to deny an individual member of the ELCA or anyone else that has the same beliefs, just a different denomination.

 

[Zecryphon]

You are basing your prejudice on the ELCA body and not the individuals that attend. I am a member of the ELCA because there is no better alternative where I live. There is a LCMS near me, but I refuse to go if my family and I will not receive communion.

There is no biblical reason to turn someone away from communion in a Lutheran church if they believe in the true presence. The bible only point to living in unrepentant sin as being cause to deny. It was Martin Luther that stipulated we should reject others that don't believe in the real presence. That's just church doctrine. I can have respect for that tradition. What I can't accept is denying individuals that believe but are a member of the ELCA. The ELCA teach the true presence. We do allow others to commune, and I can see why you take issue with that as Lutheran, but I don't see that as justification to deny an individual member of the ELCA or anyone else that has the same beliefs, just a different denomination.

There is no prejudice, just cold hard facts. The ELCA, which includes you, engages in a practice forbidden by the Lutheran Confessions. It is in the Lutheran Confessions that we are to turn away those who teach contrary to the Confessions. You belong to a church that denies Confessional teaching on Communion. Your church communes people who teach contrary to the real presence. If you would like to receive Communion in an LCMS church, take the new members class at that church and join it. It isn't gonna happen any other way. The two churches, ELCA and LCMS are not in either altar or pulpit fellowship with each other, and no true Lutheran church is going to commune someone they are not in fellowship with. Welcome to Lutheranism.

 

[DaRev]

Did you read my post? I am talking about individual ELCA members? How are they an unrepentant sinner? I am an ELCA member that repents my sins daily. I don't understand why I would be denied and other ELCA members like me.

Those who are members of the ELCA are in agreement with the ELCA's doctrines. Why else be a member of that church body? Members are in agreement with the ELCA's teachings on ordination of women, homosexual activity, acceptance of those who reject the real presence of the body and blood of Christ. All of these are clearly contrary to Scripture. Members of the ELCA reject the clear teachings of our Lord. The Bible tells us regarding to those who adhere to false teachings that we are to have nothing to do with them.

As far as the Lords Supper is concerned our views are identical (except for the belief it should be open/closed)

Not true. You as a member of the ELCA accept those who reject the clear teachings of Jesus regarding the nature of the Sacrament, thus your views on the Lord's Supper are not identical. I showed in my previous post where Scripture teaches an agreement on teachings that is necessary for unity.

 

[DaRev]

i just don't understand why this is so ding-blasted hard to understand???

What amazes me is that the ELCA seems to think they have it right and the historic Christian Church, which the gates of hell shall not prevail against, has been wrong for the last 2000 years.

 

[lux et lex]

I just don't understand where "take and eat ALL OF YOU" turned into "take and eat if you have gone to some classes and joined the elite". I have been to several Lutheran Churches in varied synods and I have never *not* taken communion. Communion is a very personal thing, a time for reflection, renewal, and the forgiveness of sins. If you feel as though I, or someone else like me with the same mindset, is coming in and tainting your communion experience, perhaps you need armed guards and synod ID cards to make sure only the "worthy" commune.

 

[lux et lex]

In fact, the more I think about this, with the exception of Catholic Mass, where I do not take communion because my dad requests I don't and I respect him (Honor thy father you know) I have taken communion at other denominations as well. When my ex-boyfriend and I used to go to an Evangelical Free church, we both would take communion, (neither of us members, he is Presbyterian and I, of course, am Lutheran) but I eventually stopped because I thought it was totally weird. Little shot glasses of grape juice were set in a holster on the chair and a basket of bread squares was passed around and you'd wait until everyone got theirs and everyone would commune together. I remember the first time taking communion there and I was so shocked that it was Welch's grape juice and not wine. I said something about it to my ex and he looked at me like I had a third eye...because he had never received actual wine at communion. The Baptist church I went to for a bit also used grape juice, which didn't feel like *real* communion to me.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I just don't understand where "take and eat ALL OF YOU" turned into "take and eat if you have gone to some classes and joined the elite". I have been to several Lutheran Churches in varied synods and I have never *not* taken communion. Communion is a very personal thing, a time for reflection, renewal, and the forgiveness of sins. If you feel as though I, or someone else like me with the same mindset, is coming in and tainting your communion experience, perhaps you need armed guards and synod ID cards to make sure only the "worthy" commune.

AGAIN, closed communion is not about excluding people we don't like. It's about caring for the souls in the congregation. Since you don't believe in communion the same way our church does, we believe you would be eating and drinking to your own condemnation. Why on earth would we then allow that?

 

[Luther073082]

The Lords Supper was not Gods gift to just Lutherans, it was a gift to all Christians.

I agree that communion is about unity, unity of Christianity. The body and blood were given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. I don't recall reading anything about any other doctrine.

We can have our disagreements on doctrine, but communion is a time for us to come to the table together as fellow Christians.

And Paul tells us not to associate ourselves closely those who belive in and teach false doctrine.

This isn't about different worship preferences or something shallow. Its about orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy, truth vs lies, apostolic doctrine vs. false doctrine.

Communion is a gift of unity, one that we should not give to those who are not truely united with the church. Historically anyone taking communion at a Christian church had to confess the doctrine of the church. And thats because the early church was not in the practice of supporting or condoning heresy.

We don't want to do the same. Giving you communion would be accepting you in unity with our church, a statement that we are essentially united in belief.

 

[DaRev]

Communion is a very personal thing, a time for reflection, renewal, and the forgiveness of sins.

It is also a communal thing, the coming together of those who have all things in common as the Scripture says. This was the main reason that Luther was so opposed to private communion. In fact, it is part of the Confessional definition of the Church. The Church is found where the Gospel is preached in it's purity (not infused with false teaching) and where the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command (Take, eat. This is My body, My blood; not Take, eat, this symbolizes my body and blood or is merely a memorial of my death). When one communes at a heterodox church, they are making a public statement that they "have all things in common" with those they are communing with. It's rather hypocritical to do so.

 

[mdseverin]

It is also a communal thing, the coming together of those who have all things in common as the Scripture says. This was the main reason that Luther was so opposed to private communion. In fact, it is part of the Confessional definition of the Church. The Church is found where the Gospel is preached in it's purity (not infused with false teaching) and where the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command (Take, eat. This is My body, My blood; not Take, eat, this symbolizes my body and blood or is merely a memorial of my death). When one communes at a heterodox church, they are making a public statement that they "have all things in common" with those they are communing with. It's rather hypocritical to do so.

But honestly, does every church member "have all things in common?" In every organization there are going to be people that disagree, have a different view, or interpret things differently.

 

[Luther073082]

But honestly, does every church member "have all things in common?" In every organization there are going to be people that disagree, have a different view, or interpret things differently.

Secular things or theological things?

Churchs can and do exist where all of the members belive the same essential doctrines theologically speaking.

Your experience in the ELCA has led you to belive that all churchs are going to have a bunch of people with radically different beliefs.

In the LCMS there really isn't much variation in theological views. Most of any variation comes from disagreements over specific practices. I would say the biggest disagreement in the LCMS is over what constitutes unionism.