Lord's supper

[daveleau]

Our church is pretty lax on the once a quarter, even, despite that being the intent. And, then, the importance is not stressed. The last time, we rushed through it, and nothing was talked about regarding the significance because the sermon went "long."

I do think 1x per month or ever 6 weeks would be good, provided the correct attention is paid. I know there is no specific timeframe prescribed, and I do agree that having it each service can decrease its significance. I have been to churches that observed the Lord's Supper every service and those that offered it as little as once a year. I think both have drawbacks.

 

[DeaconDean]

I agree with you daveleau. Our Pastor use to use the communion passage in Matthew for the service. But another deacon and myself went to the Pastor and urged him to change the scripture he used. We talked him into using the communion passages in 1 Cor. 11:24-29 because of the passages in which Paul talks about eating and drinking unworthily, plus it gives the participant time (in slient prayer) to examine themselves and confess any sin before they partake. Every other month seems about right to me. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[mlqurgw]

Our church offers communion once per quarter, we used to do this once per month but changed it. How often do you think communion should be offered? I like the idea of offering it once per quarter because if you offer it too often it has the potential of losing its meaning. It becomes just a ceremony that you do, it loses it significance. What I mean is that you wouldn't want to offer it at every service because it would lose its significance, maybe once per month, or every other month maybe. What do you think?

We have communion every Sunday evening. We do it because we wish to remember Him every time we meet. In the 13 years I have been there it has never become commonplace or just a ceremony. It is all in how you approach it. Most often nothing is said but occasionally the pastor will say some thing concerning it. If you make Christ the focus of the entire ministry of the church it doesn't become a ceremony. If He has been the message of the sermon it easily leads into the ordinance.

 

[Danfrey]

I grew up in a Church that taught that to take communion was idolatry. It was some over reaction to the teaching transsubstantiation. Later I was taught that it was just a symbolic thing, kind of like Baptism. As I am learning how the primitive church looked at this subject, I am having to open my mind up abit. Their teachings were quite different from both points of view that I listed above.

It appears that the Eucharist (communion) was another issue that was overcorrected after the time of the reformation. If anyone is interested I can provide a few quotes. There are many on this subject from the first and second century. Basically, take all scriptures that relate to communion, read them simply and literally trying to set aside any preconceived notions and you will end up with the teachings of the early christians.

 

[tulc]

If anyone is interested I can provide a few quotes.

ME! ME! I'd like to hear them!
tulc(loves quotes and early church history!)

 

[Robinsegg]

I agree with you daveleau. Our Pastor use to use the communion passage in Matthew for the service. But another deacon and myself went to the Pastor and urged him to change the scripture he used. We talked him into using the communion passages in 1 Cor. 11:24-29 because of the passages in which Paul talks about eating and drinking unworthily, plus it gives the participant time (in slient prayer) to examine themselves and confess any sin before they partake. Every other month seems about right to me. Thanks for your opinion.

This is how I see it, too. I don't see a biblical principle for closed communion, but there is one for examining yourself and refusing for cause yourself. If I don't think I'm sufficiently prepared for communion, I shouldn't/won't partake. But I don't see a biblical precedent for refusing someone communion, esp. based on what local body they belong to. I am beginning to understand the reasons why some churches practice closed communion (though for some, it's just legalism, as where I grew up).

As for the need to be baptized, I see it as the first act of obedience. Should you take communion if you've not been obedient (not talking of those who haven't had opportunity, but those who choose not to do so)? I think not.

Rachel

 

[Danfrey]

ME! ME! I'd like to hear them!
tulc(loves quotes and early church history!)

Blame Tulc

Let me open by saying that I would consider myself an Anabaptist of sorts. This post confronts a
teaching of Anabaptism and Protestantism that may offend most of you. When I read it I had to reread
the scriptures and rethink my views on things. As often happens in Christianity, one unorthodox view
is created to counteract another. If you look at the scriptures reguarding the Eucharist, they all
refer to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. There is no reference to them just being a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. The early church accepted this as written.
I know this will send most into theological backflips. It didn't give me warm fuzzies when I first
heard it, but I always want to be willing to learn and remain open minded.

Ignatius
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with
the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according
to [the will of] God.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,1016 because they confess not the Eucharist to
be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His
goodness, raised up again.

Justin Martyr
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to
partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed
with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like
manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh
and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh
and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Irenaeus
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to
Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.4052 For as
the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer
common bread,4053 but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our
bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection
to eternity.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God,
and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,4462 from which things the substance
of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving
the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the
Lord, and is a member of Him?

Clement of Alexandria
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water,1361 so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the
mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.
And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and
glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man,

 

[Chris Norwood]

At my local church (which is SBC) we allow any believer to participate. Of course, no one really checks, but we use the word "believer" or "Christian" without adding "baptized" to it when we talk about who can partake. This is also what I think personally.

 

[Robinsegg]

Blame Tulc

Let me open by saying that I would consider myself an Anabaptist of sorts. This post confronts a
teaching of Anabaptism and Protestantism that may offend most of you. When I read it I had to reread
the scriptures and rethink my views on things. As often happens in Christianity, one unorthodox view
is created to counteract another. If you look at the scriptures reguarding the Eucharist, they all
refer to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. There is no reference to them just being a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. The early church accepted this as written.
I know this will send most into theological backflips. It didn't give me warm fuzzies when I first
heard it, but I always want to be willing to learn and remain open minded.

I, too, want to remain teachable. I also have a respect for that which the early church taught, and think it's a good reference. However, I also try to view what they taught in light of Scripture.

Ignatius
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with
the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according
to [the will of] God.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,1016 because they confess not the Eucharist to
be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His
goodness, raised up again.

Justin Martyr
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to
partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed
with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like
manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh
and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh
and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Irenaeus
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to
Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.4052 For as
the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer
common bread,4053 but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our
bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection
to eternity.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God,
and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,4462 from which things the substance
of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving
the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the
Lord, and is a member of Him?

Clement of Alexandria
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water,1361 so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the
mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.
And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and
glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man,

This is something I've not researched, the early church's teaching on transsubstantiation. Therefore, I feel unqualified to answer any of this without having done my own study. Thanks for the resources!

Rachel

 

[Joykins]

This is something I've not researched, the early church's teaching on transsubstantiation. Therefore, I feel unqualified to answer any of this without having done my own study. Thanks for the resources!

I don't think the early church precisely taught transubstantiation. Even the Orthodox today don't believe precisely that.

 

[JPPT1974]

Well the Lord's supper is precious as well as sacred
No matter how you all put it!

 

[ZiSunka]

The belief in transubstantiation is an ancient belief only for one branch of Christianity. I don't feel obligated to believe in it just because that one branch teaches it as an ancient and irrefutable custom.

 

[Imblessed]

ME! ME! I'd like to hear them!
tulc(loves quotes and early church history!)

absurdly enough, I got this image of Donkey jumping up and down in Shrek......

 

[tulc]

Truthfully I tend to look more like:

then like:

But I do sound more like Donkey!
tulc(picture Shrek with dreadlocks on the back of his head...that's me!)

 

[JPPT1974]

You always are very funny tulc!

 

[Danfrey]

The belief in transubstantiation is an ancient belief only for one branch of Christianity. I don't feel obligated to believe in it just because that one branch teaches it as an ancient and irrefutable custom.

Ok Lambslove,

Do you really think I would be here trying to be an apologist for Catholicism? If you read all of the New Testament scriptures concerning the Eurcharist, you will not find it referred to as a symbol. I can't explain the mechanics of it all, but the early church, (before there were branches) accepted the scriptures as they are written. We have a hard time doing that because we have been indoctrinated by all sorts of sources. I am a strong advocate of Anabaptism as a great restoration movement, but I try to look at the early church consistantly, even when it confronts my understanding of scripture. Mainly, they help point out my preconceived notions.

One important note, when I quote the early church, Roman Catholicism did not exist as we know it.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Mike

Well, I definately do not believe that Jesus is physically present, however; as a Methodist I tend to believe that Christ is spiritually present, but His presence is a mystery. All are welcome at the Lord's Table.

DIANE

 

[Danfrey]

Mike

Well, I definately do not believe that Jesus is physically present, however; as a Methodist I tend to believe that Christ is spiritually present, but His presence is a mystery. All are welcome at the Lord's Table.

DIANE

Well said.

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah well said in my book too my friend!!

 

[Mary of Bethany]

When I was growing up in the SBC, in the dark ages
most Baptist churches would only commune Baptists, and some only members of that particular congregation. We never had it (that I remember) on a Sunday morning, only on a Sunday evening, because that was usually just "home folks".

Do most Baptist churches open it up for any baptized Christian now?

Mary