I have a friend asking questions about the Office of the Keys...

[Lupinus]

cerette-

I would say that it is because the sacraments are more complicated then baptism. Firstly, the elements have to be properly blessed, unlike water used for baptism. Also, great harm can come from receiving communion when one should not, no harm comes from baptism.

So while it may be possible for a lay person to bless and administrate, it is certainly a very bad idea that should not be done. Also keep in mind being saved involves (outside of circumstances where there was no time) baptism. No where in the bible does it say one must partake communion to be saved. It helps save us, but is it not required as part of salvation.

So short of a literal absolute no way for an ordained properly trained Pastor to administer the sacrament, it shouldn't be done (in which case, I'd guess there would be no wine and bread handy either so it's a moot point I suppose).

 

[DaRev]

DaRev.. Seems to me that you are only repeating yourself. We have already seen that yes, God has instituted the Public office and the pastor should minister the sacraments and preach. This is true. However:
From the two statements

(1) God has instituted the public office, and
(2) God has called the holder of the public office to administer the sacraments,

it DOES NOT FOLLOW that:

(3) it is not possible for a layperson to administer the sacraments.

But clearly you are assuming this, i.e. that (3) follows from (1) and (2). But (3) doesn't follow. Hence you haven't made a convincing case for your claim. I accept (1) and (2) just like you, but this does not commit me to (3). What is needed is additional Biblical grounds for (3), and this you haven't provided.

Note: I know and agree that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, but if they do it anyway, it is still valid. It isn't invalid just because they are laypeople and not pastors.

Well, if you believe that the pastoral office is divinely instituted and is Scriptural, there shouldn't be a problem. If you are asking me to prove that the pastoral is divinely instituted and Scriptural, it would take more time trhan I have to post every passage of Scripture for you.

In any case, like I said, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the Divine Service which the pastor is called and ordained to do. It is not a function of the laity. If it were, why would the pastoral office even exist?

Besides, you said you accept number 2 above. Why then is number 3 so difficult for you? Is a lay person called by God to administer the Sacraments in the Divine Service, or is that what the pastoral office is for?

 

[DaRev]

Are you speaking of administering communion to a single person who desires it for some reason outside of a service (illness, shut it, etc). Or just a Pastor who wishes to take communion when the mood strikes him?

The latter.

 

[cerette]

cerette-

I would say that it is because the sacraments are more complicated then baptism. Firstly, the elements have to be properly blessed, unlike water used for baptism. Also, great harm can come from receiving communion when one should not, no harm comes from baptism.

So while it may be possible for a lay person to bless and administrate, it is certainly a very bad idea that should not be done. Also keep in mind being saved involves (outside of circumstances where there was no time) baptism. No where in the bible does it say one must partake communion to be saved. It helps save us, but is it not required as part of salvation.

So short of a literal absolute no way for an ordained properly trained Pastor to administer the sacrament, it shouldn't be done (in which case, I'd guess there would be no wine and bread handy either so it's a moot point I suppose).

Lupinus, thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, baptism and communion are two different sacraments. But keep in mind that baptism requires God's Word as well as the water. Water alone doesn't make baptism. It is the spoken Word (of God) and the water that make baptism.

In emergencies, any Christian may speak this word of God and apply water, in order to baptize. When done, it is a valid baptism.

So my question (to DaRev) remains...What Biblical ground is there for saying that the spoken word +water in baptism administered by a layperson is valid, but the spoken words of institution + bread & wine administered by a layperson is not valid?

NOTE: I do not think that any Christian should administer communion whenever he or she feels like doing it. I am just saying, that IF they do, the communion is a valid communion. Has it been done in a God pleasing and orderly manner? Nope. But is the communion still a valid communion?.... Why would it not be?
Let us keep in mind that the pastor in himself does not have any magical or divine power. He is the instrument God wants to use when administering the sacraments. But he in himself [the pastor] does not make the sacraments valid.

 

[cerette]

Well, if you believe that the pastoral office is divinely instituted and is Scriptural, there shouldn't be a problem. If you are asking me to prove that the pastoral is divinely instituted and Scriptural, it would take more time trhan I have to post every passage of Scripture for you.

In any case, like I said, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the Divine Service which the pastor is called and ordained to do. It is not a function of the laity. If it were, why would the pastoral office even exist?

Besides, you said you accept number 2 above. Why then is number 3 so difficult for you? Is a lay person called by God to administer the Sacraments in the Divine Service, or is that what the pastoral office is for?

Dear DaRev,
It seems to me that either you do not understand my question, or you don't understand what I mean by 'valid'.

When I say valid I mean: If a layperson administers Communion, it is a true Lord's supper which is taking place. It is for real Jesus's Body and Blood and bread and wine.

(I do not mean, that it is "valid" in the sense that "it is okay to do it this way"/ "no problem, laypeople can do it whenever they feel like it"/ "it doesn't matter if the pastor does it or if a layperson does it".)

Yes, I believe that the pastoral office is scriptural and divinely instituted. I am not asking you to post all scripture verses proving this.

What I am asking though, is what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (in the sense I explained above)?

I agree that communion is not a function of the laity. But from this it does not follow that IF laity would administer communion anyway, it isn't valid.

Yes, the pastoral office is called by God to administer the sacraments. I have no problem with that. I believe it is true and Biblical. But from this it does not follow that communion isn't communion if it is a layperson and not a pastor who administers it.
Nowhere am I saying that this means that all laypeople should administer communion. I am saying that pastors should administer commnunion, but IF a layperson does it, the communion is still a real communion. Was it then done according to how God wants it to be done? No. Was it done in orderly manner? Not really.

It is not the pastoral office that makes communion, it is God's promise and word and elements that make communion.

(Let me give a little example to show what I am saying:
God instituted sex to be within marriage. Is fornication not real sex then??)

 

[DaRev]

Dear DaRev,
It seems to me that either you do not understand my question, or you don't understand what I mean by 'valid'.

When I say valid I mean: If a layperson administers Communion, it is a true Lord's supper which is taking place. It is for real Jesus's Body and Blood and bread and wine.

But the lay person does not have the call into the pastoral office and thus does not have the authority to administer the sacrament. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. If someone simply takes a piece of bread and a glass of wine and says the Verba over them at their kitchen table, it is not the sacrament because 1) they are not called into the office of the ministry and thus do not have the authority to administer the sacrament according to Christ's command, and 2) simply reciting the Verba at the kitchen table is not the Divine Service and the sacrament does not exist outside the Divine Service. So, no, it is not valid. It is not the sacrament.

As I said, I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

 

[cerette]

But the lay person does not have the call into the pastoral office and thus does not have the authority to administer the sacrament. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. If someone simply takes a piece of bread and a glass of wine and says the Verba over them at their kitchen table, it is not the sacrament because 1) they are not called into the office of the ministry and thus do not have the authority to administer the sacrament according to Christ's command, and 2) simply reciting the Verba at the kitchen table is not the Divine Service and the sacrament does not exist outside the Divine Service. So, no, it is not valid. It is not the sacrament.

As I said, I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

Baptism is a sacrament also, given to the church just like communion is. The layperson does not have the call into the pastoral office, yet baptisms administered by laypeople are valid. So, what Biblical grounds do you have for saying that the one sacrament (baptism) is valid when administered by laypeople, but the other sacrament (communion) is not valid when administered by laypeople? Both sacraments are given to the church, and should be administered in an orderly manner by the called servant (the pastor).

When having communion, it is a divine service. Communion doesn’t become communion because it takes place during a liturgical service in a church. (If so, communion brought to sick people in hospital beds wouldn’t be real communion.) Perhaps I could word it like this: Communion is a divine service.

It is true that simply saying the words doesn’t make it real. (Mormons for example baptize & use the words, but it isn’t a true Christian baptism.The words lack their true meaning when said in a Mormon context.) If a Christian layperson, in a communion context, says the words of institution, the words have the same meaning as when a pastor says them in the same context.

Luther writes in his The Babylonian captivity of the church:
“ Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.)” [Page 248 in the book Martin Luther: Three Treatises From the American edition of Luther’s Works. Fortress Press]

Francis Pieper writes about this, explaining the very view I have, but unfortunately my copy of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics is a non-English translation, so I cannot quote anything from it on here. I do strongly encourage you to look up what Pieper says though in the section about Communion.

 

[DaRev]

Baptism is a sacrament also, given to the church just like communion is. The layperson does not have the call into the pastoral office, yet baptisms administered by laypeople are valid. So, what Biblical grounds do you have for saying that the one sacrament (baptism) is valid when administered by laypeople, but the other sacrament (communion) is not valid when administered by laypeople? Both sacraments are given to the church, and should be administered in an orderly manner by the called servant (the pastor).

When having communion, it is a divine service. Communion doesn’t become communion because it takes place during a liturgical service in a church. (If so, communion brought to sick people in hospital beds wouldn’t be real communion.) Perhaps I could word it like this: Communion is a divine service.

It is true that simply saying the words doesn’t make it real. (Mormons for example baptize & use the words, but it isn’t a true Christian baptism.The words lack their true meaning when said in a Mormon context.) If a Christian layperson, in a communion context, says the words of institution, the words have the same meaning as when a pastor says them in the same context.

Luther writes in his The Babylonian captivity of the church:
“ Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.)” [Page 248 in the book Martin Luther: Three Treatises From the American edition of Luther’s Works. Fortress Press]

Francis Pieper writes about this, explaining the very view I have, but unfortunately my copy of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics is a non-English translation, so I cannot quote anything from it on here. I do strongly encourage you to look up what Pieper says though in the section about Communion.

First, you forget that I'm a pastor and the study of Pieper and Luther and the Bible and the Confessions is required to be such.

Second, I've already addressed your question regarding the difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper and the requirements of each. I have also explained the role of the pastor as the steward of the mysteries, the keeper of the sacraments. I have already told you about the divine institution of the pastoral office and the authority to preach and administer the sacraments. You either are not reading what I'm saying or you simply want to perpetuate an argument, and I'm not going to do that. It has become very apparent to me that the WELS and the LCMS have vastly different views of the sacraments and the ministry. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

As to the Lord's Supper to shut-in and the hospitalized, there is indeed a version of the Divine Service that is part of home communion which is done by the ordained pastor duing the visitation. So, yes, the Divine Service is indeed present and thus, so is the Sacrament.

 

[cerette]

First, you forget that I'm a pastor and the study of Pieper and Luther and the Bible and the Confessions is required to be such.

Second, I've already addressed your question regarding the difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper and the requirements of each. I have also explained the role of the pastor as the steward of the mysteries, the keeper of the sacraments. I have already told you about the divine institution of the pastoral office and the authority to preach and administer the sacraments. You either are not reading what I'm saying or you simply want to perpetuate an argument, and I'm not going to do that. It has become very apparent to me that the WELS and the LCMS have vastly different views of the sacraments and the ministry. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

As to the Lord's Supper to shut-in and the hospitalized, there is indeed a version of the Divine Service that is part of home communion which is done by the ordained pastor duing the visitation. So, yes, the Divine Service is indeed present and thus, so is the Sacrament.

Dear DaRev,

First, I do not forget that you are a pastor. In fact, I remember it very well, and that is one reason why I have taken this discussion this far. I am surprised to see a pastor having the view you have in this matter.

I do not want to argue. That is not what i am here for. But I am here to discuss, and I thought that is what we were doing all along?

I think you are right when saying we seem to have different beliefs in this matter. I would be interested in hearing your comments on the Luther quotation in my last post.

I cannot see that you have showed me Biblical grounds for making the difference you do between the requirements of what makes baptism valid and what makes communion valid.

Thanks for your responses and taking the time to discuss this with me. Not all discussions end with all questions being answered, and I would say this is such a discussion. I have yet to see the Biblical grounds for your position.

(Do you disagree with Luther & Pieper when they claim the same thing I claim?)

 

[DaRev]

Dear DaRev,

First, I do not forget that you are a pastor. In fact, I remember it very well, and that is one reason why I have taken this discussion this far. I am surprised to see a pastor having the view you have in this matter.

I do not want to argue. That is not what i am here for. But I am here to discuss, and I thought that is what we were doing all along?

I think you are right when saying we seem to have different beliefs in this matter. I would be interested in hearing your comments on the Luther quotation in my last post.

I cannot see that you have showed me Biblical grounds for making the difference you do between the requirements of what makes baptism valid and what makes communion valid.

Thanks for your responses and taking the time to discuss this with me. Not all discussions end with all questions being answered, and I would say this is such a discussion. I have yet to see the Biblical grounds for your position.

(Do you disagree with Luther & Pieper when they claim the same thing I claim?)

The Luther quote you gave from the Babylonian Captivity supports exactly what I have been saying all along. It is the one who is called who is responsible for the administration of the Sacraments. "For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called."

As for the Biblical basis, I have explained that. You said you agreed that the pastoral office is divinely instituted. Thus, there is a clear difference between the pastoral office (which is responisble for the function of the keys) and the priesthood of believers. Being a member of the priesthood of believers does not make everyone a called and ordained pastor. There are things reserved for the one who is called in order to keep things orderly in the Church.
As I've said before, the pastor according to 1 Corinthians 4:1 is the "steward of the mysteries", the keeper of the sacraments. As the keeper of the sacraments and the holder of the office of the keys, it is the pastor who is responsible for the administration of the sacraments. A lay person who "consecrates" elements at their home may or may not be prepared or worthy to receive the sacrament, nor do they have the authority to admit or bar someone from the sacrament, which is the function of the keys (bind and loose).
This is also supported by the Lutheran Confessions in the Augustana article XIV which says "no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called," and this from the Solid Declaration article VII, "If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament." These statements are based upon the Scriptural basis of the pastoral office and the authority it posseses (the function of the keys) given it by Christ.

 

[Studeclunker]

Thank you all! Your responses have been very helpful.

Cerette, you seem to have acceptable and valid mixed up. However, if something is done in a manner not perscribed in scripture, it is un-acceptable to the Lord. Therefore, if communion is taken in an un-perscribed way, then it isn't acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Then taking it one step further; if communion is taken in an unscripturally perscribed way than it is un-acceptable in the eyes of the Lord and is therefore invalid. Communion is just a memorial service to many other denominations. There is nothing going on, nothing in the elements. In that case (memorial service) I could see your point. However, and this is cruical to my original post and question, there is more going on (we as Lutherans believe) in our communion. Therefore, Communion must be approaced in a more careful manner. The precident was set in the early church by the Corinthians. People were sickening and dying from taking Communion. Paul cautioned them that the 'meal' must be taken with self-examination and due reverance. Therefore taking communion whenever one feels like it, without clergy, proper form, and outside the Church, seems risky to me.

 

[cerette]

The Luther quote you gave from the Babylonian Captivity supports exactly what I have been saying all along. It is the one who is called who is responsible for the administration of the Sacraments. "For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called."

As for the Biblical basis, I have explained that. You said you agreed that the pastoral office is divinely instituted. Thus, there is a clear difference between the pastoral office (which is responisble for the function of the keys) and the priesthood of believers. Being a member of the priesthood of believers does not make everyone a called and ordained pastor. There are things reserved for the one who is called in order to keep things orderly in the Church.
As I've said before, the pastor according to 1 Corinthians 4:1 is the "steward of the mysteries", the keeper of the sacraments. As the keeper of the sacraments and the holder of the office of the keys, it is the pastor who is responsible for the administration of the sacraments. A lay person who "consecrates" elements at their home may or may not be prepared or worthy to receive the sacrament, nor do they have the authority to admit or bar someone from the sacrament, which is the function of the keys (bind and loose).
This is also supported by the Lutheran Confessions in the Augustana article XIV which says "no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called," and this from the Solid Declaration article VII, "If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament." These statements are based upon the Scriptural basis of the pastoral office and the authority it posseses (the function of the keys) given it by Christ.

I do not know how to express myself because you don't seem to understand what I am saying! Is my English that bad??!!!! *soon pulling her own hair*

DaRev, this discussion was never about "who is responsible for administering the sacrament" because we both agree on and know that it is the pastor's responsibility because he is the called servant of the church.

The question is and was about what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (meaning "it is a real /true communion")?

We both agree that the pastor is RESPONSIBLE for and CALLED TO administer and SHOULD administer the sacraments (both baptism and communion).
But you say more than this: You also say that if a layperson administers communion (eventhough he shouldn't because he hasn't received a calling, and is not a pastor) it is not a valid communion in the sense that it is a real/true communion simply because this person is a layperson and not a called servant (pastor).
When saying this, it sounds to me like you are claiming that the "being a pastor" makes Communion valid. But communion isn't valid because of the pastoral office, but because of the promise of Christ & God's Word & the elements.

 

[cerette]

Thank you all! Your responses have been very helpful.

Cerette, you seem to have acceptable and valid mixed up. However, if something is done in a manner not perscribed in scripture, it is un-acceptable to the Lord. Therefore, if communion is taken in an un-perscribed way, then it isn't acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Then taking it one step further; if communion is taken in an unscripturally perscribed way than it is un-acceptable in the eyes of the Lord and is therefore invalid. Communion is just a memorial service to many other denominations. There is nothing going on, nothing in the elements. In that case (memorial service) I could see your point. However, and this is cruical to my original post and question, there is more going on (we as Lutherans believe) in our communion. Therefore, Communion must be approaced in a more careful manner. The precident was set in the early church by the Corinthians. People were sickening and dying from taking Communion. Paul cautioned them that the 'meal' must be taken with self-examination and due reverance. Therefore taking communion whenever one feels like it, without clergy, proper form, and outside the Church, seems risky to me.

Hello and thanks for your comments on what I have written!
I have tried several times to explain exactly what I mean when I say 'valid'. I do not say that just becuse something is valid it is also acceptable.

Example: If layperson John Jones invites some folks to church, and they decide to have a service, and then John administers communion to the other folks, it is a real & true communion, it is Christ's blood and body. BUT...just because it is a real communion, it isn't acceptable! I would say it was done in a very very un-orderly manner, and it was wrong of John to do what he did, yet..the communion was a communion.

 

[DaRev]

I do not know how to express myself because you don't seem to understand what I am saying! Is my English that bad??!!!! *soon pulling her own hair*

DaRev, this discussion was never about "who is responsible for administering the sacrament" because we both agree on and know that it is the pastor's responsibility because he is the called servant of the church.

The question is and was about what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (meaning "it is a real /true communion")?

We both agree that the pastor is RESPONSIBLE for and CALLED TO administer and SHOULD administer the sacraments (both baptism and communion).
But you say more than this: You also say that if a layperson administers communion (eventhough he shouldn't because he hasn't received a calling, and is not a pastor) it is not a valid communion in the sense that it is a real/true communion simply because this person is a layperson and not a called servant (pastor).
When saying this, it sounds to me like you are claiming that the "being a pastor" makes Communion valid. But communion isn't valid because of the pastoral office, but because of the promise of Christ & God's Word & the elements.

Then we both must be speaking in different languages becaue it's a plain as the nose on your face. The pastor is the one called by Scripture to be the keeper of the sacraments. Therefore, the pastor is the one who has Christ's authority to administer the sacrament, to speak His words of the Verba, and to admit or deny someone to the table of the Lord, not a layperson. Thus, the lay person "doing communion" is not having a valid sacrament. This is both Scriptural and Confessional.

 

[Studeclunker]

Hello and thanks for your comments on what I have written!
I have tried several times to explain exactly what I mean when I say 'valid'. I do not say that just becuse something is valid it is also acceptable.

Example: If layperson John Jones invites some folks to church, and they decide to have a service, and then John administers communion to the other folks, it is a real & true communion, it is Christ's blood and body. BUT...just because it is a real communion, it isn't acceptable! I would say it was done in a very very un-orderly manner, and it was wrong of John to do what he did, yet..the communion was a communion.

Actually Cerette, you could'nt have illustrated my point better. My point is that you have it backwards (in regards to being Lutheran). If something is un-acceptable it is in-valid. In your example the communion is not real (by Lutheran standards) nor true. The Old Testament is very clear on this. If one approached God in any manner except how he prescribed, their sacrifice or petition were invalidated and unacceptable. Take for instance the situation Saul got himself into when Samuel didn't appear in time to officiate over the sacrifice (I Sam 13:8-14). This not only invalidated the sacrifice, but cost Saul his crown eventually. A layman administering the sacrament of Communion is like Saul attempting that sacrafice without Samuel, God's only servant and paraclete of the time. In the case of Communion, Sammuel, is a type of the Pastor of current times, and Saul is a type of the Layman overstepping his authority to administer the sacrament.
Have I got this right Reverand?


You know sometimes it amazes me. I just opened my Bible to find the appropriate verse and it practically fell open to the right page. Spooky.

 

[cerette]

Then we both must be speaking in different languages becaue it's a plain as the nose on your face. The pastor is the one called by Scripture to be the keeper of the sacraments. Therefore, the pastor is the one who has Christ's authority to administer the sacrament, to speak His words of the Verba, and to admit or deny someone to the table of the Lord, not a layperson. Thus, the lay person "doing communion" is not having a valid sacrament. This is both Scriptural and Confessional.

Do you use the word "valid" in the same sense as I have explained I use it in this discussion?

Also, how come laypeople can "do baptism" and it's OK? Baptism too was given by God to the church and in the church to the pastor.

The Luther quote I posted earlier... What are your comments regarding him saying all believers have the same power in respect to the Word and sacraments? (Earlier you only commented on the second half of the Luther quote, which is the half we agreed on all along.)

 

[cerette]

Actually Cerette, you could'nt have illustrated my point better. My point is that you have it backwards (in regards to being Lutheran). If something is un-acceptable it is in-valid. In your example the communion is not real (by Lutheran standards) nor true. The Old Testament is very clear on this. If one approached God in any manner except how he prescribed, their sacrifice or petition were invalidated and unacceptable. Take for instance the situation Saul got himself into when Samuel didn't appear in time to officiate over the sacrifice (I Sam 13:8-14). This not only invalidated the sacrifice, but cost Saul his crown eventually. A layman administering the sacrament of Communion is like Saul attempting that sacrafice without Samuel, God's only servant and paraclete of the time. In the case of Communion, Sammuel, is a type of the Pastor of current times, and Saul is a type of the Layman overstepping his authority to administer the sacrament.
Have I got this right Reverand?


You know sometimes it amazes me. I just opened my Bible to find the appropriate verse and it practically fell open to the right page. Spooky.

Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it?
I say it does have it. I also say it is in no way okay for a layperson to administer communion.
Sort of like this: God instituted sex for marriage.Sex within marriage is real sex. Fornication is not the situation in which sex should take place, however, fornication is just as real sex as the acceptable sex within marriage is. Sexual acts are sexual acts no matter what situation they happen in, but not all sex acts in all situations are acceptable and OK and God pleasing.

 

[DaRev]

Do you use the word "valid" in the same sense as I have explained I use it in this discussion?

Also, how come laypeople can "do baptism" and it's OK? Baptism too was given by God to the church and in the church to the pastor.

The Luther quote I posted earlier... What are your comments regarding him saying all believers have the same power in respect to the Word and sacraments? (Earlier you only commented on the second half of the Luther quote, which is the half we agreed on all along.)

First, the second part qualifies the first.
Second, it isn't saying that all have the authority to administer the sacraments.

Third, you seem to have some problem with my explanation that baptism and the Lord's Supper are two distinctlt different sacraments. I know of no one who has been spiritually harmed by baptism, but many are spiritually harmed by unworthy reception of the Lord's Supper. Also, since baptism is required for salvation, emergency baptism can be done by a lay person in those situations. The Lord's Supper is a different situation entirely.

 

[DaRev]

Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it?
I say it does have it. I also say it is in no way okay for a layperson to administer communion.
Sort of like this: God instituted sex for marriage.Sex within marriage is real sex. Fornication is not the situation in which sex should take place, however, fornication is just as real sex as the acceptable sex within marriage is. Sexual acts are sexual acts no matter what situation they happen in, but not all sex acts in all situations are acceptable and OK and God pleasing.

First off, sex is not a sacrament that was institued by Christ for the forgiveness of sins. You analogy is pointless.

As for this statement: "Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it? I say it does have it." I have shown you the Biblical and Confessional basis as to why it's not. So now I ask you, where do you get this from and what is your Biblical basis for such an assumption?

 

[cerette]

First, the second part qualifies the first.
Second, it isn't saying that all have the authority to administer the sacraments.

Third, you seem to have some problem with my explanation that baptism and the Lord's Supper are two distinctlt different sacraments. I know of no one who has been spiritually harmed by baptism, but many are spiritually harmed by unworthy reception of the Lord's Supper. Also, since baptism is required for salvation, emergency baptism can be done by a lay person in those situations. The Lord's Supper is a different situation entirely.

I do not see that what you say about the Luther quote is in fact true about the quote. Plain reading of the quote does not lead to the understanding you have.