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

[Studeclunker]

I have a friend asking questions about the Office of the Keys. So that I don't stray (through ignorance) too far in my explanations, I'd like to reproduce the conversations here.

Please let me preface this with an explanation; I haven't taken communion in several years. This is due to being unable to attend an LCMS church. The cost of travelling to Redding is just too much for me on my own and I'm rarely able to get there Sundays for church. On the rare occasion I've made it, they have'nt been serving. I mentioned this to my friend and she was concerned and began to ask questions:

Another thing I have been thinking of is the Communion. I know the Lutherans do things differently for their reasons. When Gail and I were not able to have Communion at the church, we would do it at home or with leadership who would be in our home. Gail, being the head and priest of our home would do communion with me when we felt we needed to do so. What is your take on this? Have you ever done this for yourself? Or could you and I do it together? I do not know how the Lutheran's feel about this when a person cannot have the communion in the Church he or she belong to as in your case. I have no objection to it and have none if wine is used as well.

I responded:

In the Lutheran church, the Sacrament of Communion falls into the Office of the keys. This office is the perview of an ordained Minister of the Word only. IE: if one's pastor is not available, a congregation goes without till one is. I suppose it would be possible for me to contact the Pastor at the Lutheran church in Redding and request communion. He can do so at any time. There's a process involved that requires Pastoral care, and a statement of faith first, still it would be possible.

You have talked about the office of the Keys before. What exactly is it and why do you have it and it is not mentioned in the Bible as far as I know. Also, I am a true believer and am committed to the Lord. Do you recognize that? Or, since I am not a Lutheran, does that mean I am not in your eyes or your churches belief?

Do you have a book on Lutheran teaching? I am sure you have a set of doctrines you adhere to and are required by the members of your church.

Ah, that e-mail message... Office Of The Keys are the functions of the Church reserved for the Clergy only. For instance, Communion, Baptism, Marriage, Counseling, etc... The book you are looking for is the Book of Concord. As they're expensive, I don't have one. However, I can ask one of the posters on the Lutheran forum.

As to this: " Also, I am a true believer and am committed to the Lord. Do you recognize that? Or, since I am not a Lutheran, does that mean I am not in your eyes or your churches belief?" The only answer I can give is that Luther once said he didn't have all the answers. Yours is recognized as a valid Christian belief. However, yours is an incorrect practice, according to our church's belief. Otherwise, the Lutheran church would cease to exist. After all, if yours is a correct practice, we (Lutherans) would be obligated to join your congregation.

As to the term, "Office of the Keys," no, the term isn't Biblical. Neither is the term, "Trinity," in referrence to the 'Triune' God. They fall under the term adiaphora, or Church tradition. These terms are a shorthand used to describe a Biblical concept. Some of this (Office of the Keys) also is a way of the Church to avoid the excessess that were described in I & II Cor. They date back to the first century. Like the current Sacrament of Communion. Far back before the Roman Catholic or even Eastern Orthidox, or even any really organized Christian church.

Gail was ordained as a minister and I was his wife, and trained in the Bible and well equiped in ministry as well. Does that count at all that Gail could do communion? And he preached, taught Bible classes and baptized people. I was his right hand.

Yes, as Gail was an Ordained Minister, he had the Office of the Keys. He could sanctify the elements (the key) and administer the sacrament. You could administer the elements, if he had already blessed them, to him. Otherwise, an Ordained Minister could never take Communion. The operative working here is that the Officer of the Keys was presiding over the Sacrament. However, and this is very important, had Gail not been Ordained as a Minister, there would have been a problem. As Gail was Ordained into the service of the Lord, his actions were sanctified in a way that an ordinary man's wouldn't be. He was one of the sheep chosen to lead the flock. A sort of deputy of the Shepherd (Christ). The fact that he wasn't in charge of a congregation was beside the point. Gail was used in other ways.

Does any of this make sense? I hope it helped.

If I have erred in my responses, I would greatly appreciate it if one of the pastors here would be so kind as to correct me. I am after all, just an ignorant layman.

As to Gail, he was an Ordained Minister of the Pentacostal Church. He has gone to be with the Lord, lucky fellow. His wife, a dear friend of mine, is the one I'm speaking to in these messages. She was a Missionary's daughter and performed missionary work herself. Later, after she and Gail had been married, they returned for a few years and took over her father's mission after he had died. She may not be a Lutheran, but the woman practices what she preaches in a way I've rarely seen in any church.

 

[RadMan]

Well it is Biblical as in this passage which is the Keys of the Kingdom or the Office of the Keys.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-20 (in Context)

There are differences of opinion even in the LCMS as who the Keys were given to but I'm not getting into that.

 

[DaRev]

Here's the issue I have:

Yes, as Gail was an Ordained Minister, he had the Office of the Keys. He could sanctify the elements (the key) and administer the sacrament. You could administer the elements, if he had already blessed them, to him. Otherwise, an Ordained Minister could never take Communion.

If the person you are talking to is a woman, she cannot administer the sacrament. That is reserved to men.

Also, an ordianed minister, in the context of the service of the scarament, can commune himself (although it is discouraged for some reason). It is private, personal communion that is taught against.

Also, keep in mind that since the Pentecostals reject the Real Presence (many also reject the Trinity), they do not have the sacrament.

 

[cerette]

This is from Luther's small catechism:

THE KEYS

First: What is the use of the Keys?
The use of the Keys is that special power and right which Christ gave to his church on earth, to forgive the sins of penitent sinners but to refuse forgiveness to the impenitent as long as they do not repent.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelist John writes in chapter 20, "Jesus breathed on his disciples and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


THE PUBLIC USE OF THE KEYS



Second: How does a Christian congregation use the Keys?
A Christian congregation with its called servant of Christ uses the Keys in accordance with Christ's command by forgiving those who repent of their sin and are willing to amend, and by excluding from the congregation those who are plainly impenitent that they may repent. I believe that, when this is done, it is as valid and certain in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us himself.
Where is this written?
Jesus says in Matthew, chapter 1 8, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Let's not forget that all believers have received the keys, and can use them when needed. (Let's not confuse this with the public ministry in the congregation.)

 

[DaRev]

This from the Explanation of the Small Catechism:

How does the Church publicly exercise the Office of the Keys?
The Christian congregation by the command of Christ calls pastors to carry out the Office of the Keys publicly in His name and on behalf of the congregation. The pastoral office is of divine institution.

 

[Studeclunker]

Thank you Cerette for that quotation from the Small Catechism. I'd forgotten it was in there. However, my focus was on the Sacrament of Communion.

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?

 

[Edial]

...

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?

It is my understanding that the Lord is sovereign in dispensing His grace. (No, I did not turn Fundamentalist. )

When there is no system in place, such as having a church to go to for Communion, the Lord provides.

There definitely is a huge difference in participating in Lutheran Communion and the Reformed one.

It is theologically different, of course.

But I am not talking about theological differences in themselves.

Theology attempts to explain, but it cannot "explain" one's preference of heart. A leaning of heart.

I lean towards the Communion that is "more" than just a rememberance.
It certainly is a rememberance, but, it is ... more than that.

That "more than that" is important to me personally.

Whether I am correct or not is not a point of contention to me personally.

The Lord saves and maintains the Reformed as well as Lutherans.
He looks at the heart, not the practices.

I do not undertand the Communion in the Lutheran sense. It is beyong my understanding.
Oh, I can recite the theology of it "in and under", but I do not understand it.

All the other communions one "understands".
The Reformed - one "understands" that it is symbolic.
The Catholic - one "understands" that bread and wine cease becoming bread and wine.

But ours - it is a mystery. That "in and under" does not help one to "understand"

And I believe it is appropriate not to understand it.
A do not plan wrapping my mind around it.

How can a "natural" mind understand "This is My body?".
So I leave it at that.

I participated and participate when the Reformed do communion. (I travel in Christendom).
To me, it is NOT the body and blood when they do communion, but exactly what they say it is - just a rememberance.

And, it is noble to rememeber the Lord.

But my heart yearns for more than just rememberance.

Christ said "This is My body" (Yes, I do realize I capitalize it against the rules of Greek).

I simply cannot prove that it is not so.
And I like it that way. It is the leaning of my heart.

Am I right, wrong? It does not matter in the context of eternity. It really does not.

Will I see that Penthecostal fellow in Heaven?
Why not?

Will I be better off than that Penthecostal fellow in Heaven because of my beliefs?
I do not think so.

Will I be happier here, on Earth with my belief?
I am.

To me, a matter of mystery is not a matter of theology.
And theology in itself, is not a mystery at all, but the reasoning of brain.

Without mystery one is secular. A liberal theologian.

We were given this small portion of mystery, just to keep us sane. So our brain does not explode from all this processing.

This is My body keeps one sane. Brain gives up. Belief takes over.

Why did I write all this? Oh, I don't know.
Just a holy rant.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[BigNorsk]

Let me start by saying of course we recognize that there are Christians in many denominations, one is not saved by going to a particular church, it is not that doctrine is unimportant, indeed some doctrines, the fundamental ones directly affect your salvation. For instance take a Mormon, he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ but what he means when he says Jesus Christ is very different that what we mean. Since, even though he uses the name Jesus Christ, his god is a false god, it is difficult indeed to see how he can be saved.

This is why we do not recognize a Mormon baptism as a Christian baptism. Though they use the same words, they words as they use them mean entirely different things. Thus a person is not really receiving a Christian baptism.

Now we come to the office of the keys. Now I don't think it's really right to say it's exclusive to people in the ministry, the keys are held by the church, and they call someone to exercise the keys on behalf of the congregation.

We are all priests, any believer could institute and it would be a valid sacrament, but, we don't do that because of maintaining order in the church. Communion is by nature a corporate thing, indeed we are told we are one body because we partake of the one bread. Having Communion by yourself is a bit of an oxymoron.

Ideally, you would be able to get to that congregation on a time when they do have Communion. Check with the pastor, it's possible someone might even be driving from close to you and you can carpool.

Or maybe he would be so gracious as to visit you that you might have Communion. It's done all the time for elderly and sick, I don't know if he would do it for you, I think a lot would depend on the pastor. 30 miles isn't that far around here. Maybe it's just the fact of life out here on the open prairie but a lot of pastors travel a couple of hundred miles sometimes to visit parishioners, with the first hundred miles being pretty common. Maybe he says what's wrong with you you lazy Lutheran, I don't know. Hard for me to understand Germans sometimes.

Now as far as her departed husband instituting. I don't think that would have worked. It gets back to the meaning of the words. When he would say "This is my body" What he's actually saying is "This is not my body, but a piece of bread only." That's why many would conclude that many churches do not have Communion. Just like the Mormons do not have baptism. While they often speak the words, they have so changed the meaning that they do not really institute anything.

As for references. The Book of Concord is pretty good and you can read it online like at www.bookofconcord.org but it's not very systematic. And she's likely to not understand due to terminology. Like when it speaks of the Enthusiasts, it's unlikely she would even realize that it's probably talking about her.

I would say a systematics book would be better.

"The Christian Faith, a Lutheran Exposition" by Robert Kolb is a pretty good book, written at laymen's level. It would in my opinion be a good choice.

"A Summary of Christian Doctrine" by Ed Koehler is also very good. Which one of the two is better changes in my mind all the time so I really can't recommend one over the other.

But either of them would do a good job of explaining the Lutheran understanding. Koehler is a bit more overtly Lutheran.

I really like Mueller's "Christian Dogmatics" but there's enough Latin and such thrown in that most people's eyes just seem to roll back in their head when they try to read him. I wouldn't really recommend him for that reason, though he's great for someone who is seriously exploring Lutheranism.

Marv

 

[Edial]

Marv - off topic qustion.

A friend of mine asked concerning Luther's points of objections to the papacy ... besides the 95.

Once you posted something like 400 points of so.
I thought I saved it, but cannot find it.

Do you still have it?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?

The pastor is the one who is called and ordained through the congregation to serve in the Office of the Public Ministry and to perform the sacramental functions of the Office under the authority of Christ. St. Paul in reference to the Apostles, the serevants of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 4, refers to the public ministers as "stewards of the mysteries", in other words, the keepers and administrators of the Sacraments ("musterion" in Greek). Those who are called and ordained to perform the functions of the Keys are given authority by Christ to speak and act on His behalf in the administration of the Keys, and specifically the Sacraments.

The Lord's Supper is a communal act to be done in the fellowship of the Church and in the context of the Divine Service (except in the cases of the sick and/or shut-ins, whereby the Divine Service is brought to them). It is not appropriate for someone who considers him or herself the "priest of the house" to administer the Sacrament as that would be outside the instituted office of the Public Ministry and outside the instituted practice of the Sacrament.

We are all priests, any believer could institute and it would be a valid sacrament, but, we don't do that because of maintaining order in the church.

Not really. The "priesthood of believers" is one of the most misunderstood doctrines. It refers to the ability of the laity to approach God directly without the need of an earthly mediator. as was the case in the OT Tabernacle/Temple. It does not, however, carry any authority to speak and act for the Church on behalf of Christ regarding His instituted Sacrament. This is why the Office of the Public Ministry was instituted by Christ. The one who is called and ordained to hold that office has the authority of the office to perform the Sacramental aspects of the office of the keys.

 

[cerette]

The pastor is the one who is called and ordained through the congregation to serve in the Office of the Public Ministry and to perform the sacramental functions of the Office under the authority of Christ. St. Paul in reference to the Apostles, the serevants of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 4, refers to the public ministers as "stewards of the mysteries", in other words, the keepers and administrators of the Sacraments ("musterion" in Greek). Those who are called and ordained to perform the functions of the Keys are given authority by Christ to speak and act on His behalf in the administration of the Keys, and specifically the Sacraments.

The Lord's Supper is a communal act to be done in the fellowship of the Church and in the context of the Divine Service (except in the cases of the sick and/or shut-ins, whereby the Divine Service is brought to them). It is not appropriate for someone who considers him or herself the "priest of the house" to administer the Sacrament as that would be outside the instituted office of the Public Ministry and outside the instituted practice of the Sacrament.



Not really. The "priesthood of believers" is one of the most misunderstood doctrines. It refers to the ability of the laity to approach God directly without the need of an earthly mediator. as was the case in the OT Tabernacle/Temple. It does not, however, carry any authority to speak and act for the Church on behalf of Christ regarding His instituted Sacrament. This is why the Office of the Public Ministry was instituted by Christ. The one who is called and ordained to hold that office has the authority of the office to perform the Sacramental aspects of the office of the keys.

DaRev.......... Would you say that emergency baptisms are valid? (When someone is baptized by a christian who isn't a pastor.)

If you say they are valid: How come one sacrament is valid but another one is not?

 

[DaRev]

DaRev.......... Would you say that emergency baptisms are valid? (When someone is baptized by a christian who isn't a pastor.)

Absolutely. In fact, there is a Rite of the Church to bless an emergency baptism in the church.

If you say they are valid: How come one sacrament is valid but another one is not?

Because the two sacraments are distinctly different. The simple answer is that while the element (water) used in baptism requires no special consecration, the elements of communion (bread and wine) do. Also, communion requires a special preparation for worthy reception, otherwise the unprepared recipient will be spiritually harmed. The two are distinctly different.

 

[cerette]

Absolutely. In fact, there is a Rite of the Church to bless an emergency baptism in the church.



Because the two sacraments are distinctly different. The simple answer is that while the element (water) used in baptism requires no special consecration, the elements of communion (bread and wine) do. Also, communion requires a special preparation for worthy reception, otherwise the unprepared recipient will be spiritually harmed. The two are distinctly different.

It is true that baptism and communion are two different sacraments.

You affirm that a person can validly pronounce the words of baptism (both the words and the water are required!) without being a pastor, but deny that a person can validly consecrate the elements of communion without being a pastor. What Biblical basis is there for this distinction?

 

[DaRev]

It is true that baptism and communion are two different sacraments.

You affirm that a person can validly pronounce the words of baptism (both the words and the water are required!) without being a pastor, but deny that a person can validly consecrate the elements of communion without being a pastor. What Biblical basis is there for this distinction?

It is true that anyone can baptize in an emergency situation, however, it should be by the called and ordained pastor. The Verba (words of institution) of the Lord's Supper are reserved for the ordained pastor because he, in the service of the sacrament, is speaking on behalf of Christ. The pastor is the one who is responsible for the administration of the sacrament and for determining who should and should not be admitted to the table. St. Paul refers to the ordained pastor as the "steward of the mysteries" (1 Cor 4:1) The Greek word "musterion" refers to the Sacraments. Because the Lord's Supper requires one to be worthy and prepared in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (otherwise they sin and bring judgement upon themselves) (1 Cor 11:27-29), it is the responsibility of the ordained pastor, the one who is called by God through the congregation, to administer the Sacrament to God's people. The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."

 

[Edial]

... The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."

Now, this is something new to me.

By "called", they mean "called" to be a pastor, or just a believer?

 

[DaRev]

Now, this is something new to me.

By "called", they mean "called" to be a pastor, or just a believer?

The term "publically teach" refers to preaching. The "regular call" refers to the one who is called and ordained through the congregation into the office of the public ministry.

 

[cerette]

It is true that anyone can baptize in an emergency situation, however, it should be by the called and ordained pastor. The Verba (words of institution) of the Lord's Supper are reserved for the ordained pastor because he, in the service of the sacrament, is speaking on behalf of Christ. The pastor is the one who is responsible for the administration of the sacrament and for determining who should and should not be admitted to the table. St. Paul refers to the ordained pastor as the "steward of the mysteries" (1 Cor 4:1) The Greek word "musterion" refers to the Sacraments. Because the Lord's Supper requires one to be worthy and prepared in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (otherwise they sin and bring judgement upon themselves) (1 Cor 11:27-29), it is the responsibility of the ordained pastor, the one who is called by God through the congregation, to administer the Sacrament to God's people. The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."

DaRev...

What you are saying is that pastors are called to, responsible for, and under obligation to administer the sacrament. I completely agree.
However, the question wasn't about that. The question was: What Biblical ground do you have for saying that the administration of communion by a layperson is non-valid in the sense that there will then be no real communion?

(The fact that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, does not mean that if they do it anyway, the sacrament isn't valid. [Laypeople shouldn't baptize either, but in an emergency they may and the baptism would be valid])

 

[DaRev]

DaRev...

What you are saying is that pastors are called to, responsible for, and under obligation to administer the sacrament. I completely agree.
However, the question wasn't about that. The question was: What Biblical ground do you have for saying that the administration of communion by a layperson is non-valid in the sense that there will then be no real communion?

(The fact that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, does not mean that if they do it anyway, the sacrament isn't valid. [Laypeople shouldn't baptize either, but in an emergency they may and the baptism would be valid])

The Biblical basis lies in the divine insitiution of the Office of the Public Ministry and the one who holds that office in the congregation is called to preach and administer the sacrament. Also, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the context of the Divine Service which is what the pastor is called to do (preach and administer the sacraments).

 

[cerette]

The Biblical basis lies in the divine insitiution of the Office of the Public Ministry and the one who holds that office in the congregation is called to preach and administer the sacrament. Also, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the context of the Divine Service which is what the pastor is called to do (preach and administer the sacraments).

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.

 

[Lupinus]

Also, an ordianed minister, in the context of the service of the scarament, can commune himself (although it is discouraged for some reason). It is private, personal communion that is taught against.

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?