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

[filosofer]

So, does a Christian have the right to preach the Gospel, baptize, and administer the Lord's Supper? Yes. For instance, "emergency Baptism" is not made valid by the fact of the emergency. Rather it is valid. And in the case of "emergency Baptism" the pastor does not baptize the person again in Church. Why? Because it is a valid (and acceptable) Baptism.

 

[cerette]

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?

1. Christ has given Communion to the church, not just to the pastors.
2. Since Christ has given communion to the church, the church has the power to administer the communion.
3. Hence, since the church is all believers, all believers have the power to administer communion. [Power is not the same as responsibility to, or right to..]

The Luther quote is only one of many quotations from Luther to support my view. Pieper is very clear also in his Christian Dogmatics.

I am surprised to see that the LCMS has the view you have, if that is the official LCMS view, I did not know that was a difference between us.

Blessed Easter to you.

 

[DaRev]

 

[cerette]

Well, I guess we don't need to call pastors, then. We could just pick someone (male or female since both can be Christian) from the congregation to preach and administer the sacraments. I mean, according to you, that is the WELS position. Seems that the WELS are hypocritical in not allowing women to administer the sacraments, huh?

I'm done here.

What?! Ridiculous! .

I really cannot see how you, from what I have written, can come to the conclusion that WELS teaches the stuff you accuse me of saying. Ridiculous!

Of course we will call pastors. That is what God wants us to do. He even wants us to call men (and not women!) to be pastors, so not 'just any Christian' can be a pastor. There is a long list of requirements in the Bible which a pastor must meet.
The called servants, the pastors, are to be responsible for and administer the sacraments. God wants things to be done in an orderly manner. For this reason, I suggest we do not allow just any Christian to administer the sacraments whenever they feel like it.

 

[DaRev]

 

[BreadAlone]

Why not? According to the WELS it's valid, right?

For the sake of order, according to my trusty WELS Q&A book.

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

 

[DaRev]

For the sake of order, according to my trusty WELS Q&A book.

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

What makes it the sacrament is Christ's command. If it is not done according to Christ's command it is not the sacrament. The Lutheran Confessions support this. This is why the Reformed churches who reject the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood do not have the sacrament either, even though they say the Verba over the elements as we do. They do not do it according to Christ's command and thus they do not have the body and blood of Christ, as per the FoC article VII.

 

[BreadAlone]

What makes it the sacrament is Christ's command. If it is not done according to Christ's command it is not the sacrament. The Lutheran Confessions support this. This is why the Reformed churches who reject the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood do not have the sacrament either, even though they say the Verba over the elements as we do. They do not do it according to Christ's command and thus they do not have the body and blood of Christ, as per the FoC article VII.

I tend to look at I Cor. which states that even those who don't recognize the body/blood recieve the sacrament..but to their own destruction.

 

[DaRev]

I tend to look at I Cor. which states that even those who don't recognize the body/blood recieve the sacrament..but to their own destruction.

But they aren't receiving to their destruction when the Sacrament isn't present.

 

[seajoy]

Good grief.....what's all this fighting about? Who's ever heard of an emergency communion anyway. Knock it off everybody.

 

[cerette]

Read the whole post and you will get the answer. I don't know where that smiley came from because I replied to a post of yours which was a question and not a smiley..

 

[cerette]

Good grief.....what's all this fighting about? Who's ever heard of an emergency communion anyway. Knock it off everybody.

It's not fighting, at least not from my side.
Do you not think it is important to discuss theological matters if there seems to be a misunderstanding, a false teaching or something else going on?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

That is EXACTLY the implication being made here - that a sacrament is only valid because of WHO is presiding over it. It is the WORDS that have the power of the Holy Spirit in them.

Liturgies and allowing only pastors to administer sacraments is part of good order. It does not mean that one could not do communion or a baptism using the WORDS of the Holy Spirit. It is not recommended, but it is not wrong, either.

My first son was baptized by my dad in the hospital. His baptism was no less than the baptism I received in the church 34 years ago. My other sons were baptized by their dad, a minister, in the hospital as well, with a service held at church to affirm the baptisms.

As for communion, I tend to say (after much thought-provoking discussion here on CF) that it is better for you to refrain from receiving communion than taking it from someone who is not a pastor. Communion, unlike baptism, isn't necessary for our salvation. It is a wonderful reminder of what Christ sacrificed for us, to be sure. Therefore, it is better to wait until a pastor can commune you.

 

[seajoy]

It's not fighting, at least not from my side.
Do you not think it is important to discuss theological matters if there seems to be a misunderstanding, a false teaching or something else going on?

It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.

 

[DaRev]

I have become quite frustrated at this discussion, fueled in part by some flu-like symptoms. If I've offended anyone (and I'm sure I have), I apologize.

But this whole matter has caused me to do a little digging and reading, and I have concluded the following:

As to baptism, it is wholly the work of God to and for the recipient. Since it is wholly the work of God there is no real preparation necessary. The only thing necessary in baptism on the part of the recipient is the faith necessary to receive it, which is given by God. Baptism creates the faith necessary to receive it. No one can be harmed by baptism, thus it is possible for any baptized Christian to baptize, and it would be a valid baptism in the eyes of God (since it's His work) and of the Church.

The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, does require certain preparation on the part of the recipient, namely the recognition of the body and blood of Christ within the Sacrament, and acknowledgment of their sinfulness and their need of forgiveness given in the Sacrament (as per 1 Corithians 11). Because it is possible for someone to receive the Lord's Supper to their harm, more pastoral care must be exercised in order to assure that no one receive the Sacrament to their spiritual detriment. This is why God gave the stewardship of the Sacrament to those who are called and ordained by the congregation to carry out the functions of the Keys, so that all things are done in a good and orderly way.

The Confessions tell us plainly that the faith of the administrator of the Sacrament nor the recipient effects the presence of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. Even if an athiest were to administer the Sacrament according to Christ's command, it would be a vaild Sacrament. The Confessions also tell us that the Sacrament entails not just the consecration of the elements but the whole act of consecration, absolution, and distribution/receiving. These are contained within the Divine Service. Thus, in order for there to be good order and to assure the efficacy of the Sacrament to all who receive, it should be done within the context of the Divine Service (this can even be done with shut-ins and the sick).

Now, the question that was raised is if lay person, in their home or at the church or wherever, were to recite the Verba over the elements and distribute, would they be receiving the true body and blood of Christ. There are a number of variables to consider, such as the context of the act. If some children were playing "church" and they had the elements and recited the Verba over them as part of their game, would they in fact be receiving the body and blood of Christ? I would have to say no because the context of the Divine Service is not present. It is merely a game, so no Sacrament is present. But if it were done within a context of the Divine Service by the head of a household in their home (for whatever reason) it is possible that the Sacrament would indeed be valid, since it is the words of Christ that hold the power of the Sacrament. But there are some concerns that must be considered. What type of pastoral care is being taken to assure (as much as possible) that those who receive are doing so worthily? Is the service being conducted within the Confession of the Church (as per FoC VII)? With such variables, it isn't wise to attempt the Sacrament outside the setting of the Divine Service in the Church administered by a rightly called and ordained steward of the Sacraments.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.

I say that we aren't fighting for the sake of fighting. And I bet there's a couple of WELS and LCMS people that would agree with me.

Think of how poor Luther felt...he took on the whole Catholic church and cried foul. What if someone had told him to stop "fighting"?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I have become quite frustrated at this discussion, fueled in part by some flu-like symptoms. If I've offended anyone (and I'm sure I have), I apologize.

But this whole matter has caused me to do a little digging and reading, and I have concluded the following: (snipped for brevity

Now THIS I can be on board with.

Hope ya feel better soon, Rev. The flu during holy week - how convenient!

 

[DaRev]

Now THIS I can be on board with.

Hope ya feel better soon, Rev. The flu during holy week - how convenient!

It's become a tradition with me I think. Although I'm not so bad this time around, last year I was miserable to the point that I couldn't even read during the Good Friday service. I barely had the strength to stand in the pulpit for the homily.

 

[cerette]

It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.

I agree. We shouldn't fight at all, and I never did, I was just discussing.

 

[seajoy]

I say that we aren't fighting for the sake of fighting. And I bet there's a couple of WELS and LCMS people that would agree with me.

Think of how poor Luther felt...he took on the whole Catholic church and cried foul. What if someone had told him to stop "fighting"?

Hey, go ahead...have at it.