One Eucharist

[Riff]

.

 

[Aibrean]

Uhh...I'm not sure how that turns into sacrificing to idols. The sacrifice already took place - Christ doesn't sacrifice himself again and again.

Does the Bible teach that the physical elements wine and bread disappear? That is what the Catholics do belief (they don't teach that the body and blood are in it, but that the body and blood ARE it - the bread and wine no longer exist). It makes less sense that a material would lose it's physical nature but keep it's physical appearance.

I would say, yes - if the words of institution are said correctly and the elements have been blessed, then to not recognize them for what they truly are would be partaking in an unworthy manner (which is why we don't commune those who don't share the same beliefs).

 

[DaRev]

Read 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. After the words of institution Paul refers to the Sacrament as BOTH bread and body of the Lord. And while the word wine is not mentioned, we know by the context of the Last Supper where the Sacrament was instituted that grape wine is what was used. Paul refers to it as "the cup" which is the cup of wine, but also the blood of Christ. Also, in 1 Corinthians 10:16 it states "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" So Biblically, the Eucharist is both bread and body of Christ, and wine and blood of Christ.

And yes, the Lutherans are basically the only ones who have it right according to Scripture.

 

[Riff]

.

 

[Aibrean]

The one true church is the body of believers. That's what is defined in the creeds.

"The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6. " (Augsburg Confession).

I do see what you are getting at (the sacraments being rightly administered). However, they might be truly and rightly administered but not properly taught.

 

[Luther073082]

Would that make the Lutheran Church the one true church? I mean, according to you, your church is the only one that has the right theology about the Lord's Supper.

When you are discussing the "one true church" one has to consider how the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox are using it.

Much of this is wrapped up more in the theology of apostolic succession then in the theology of the Eucharist.

The Roman Catholics, EO, and OO belive that the apostles laid their hands on some bishops, who then laid their hands on other and so on and so forth until the modern day. So for them a church is only defined by if one has bishops who they consider to go all the way back to the apostles. (A claim which I find highly suspect because they have no documentation showing how it goes back to the apostles, not even just a list of names. Apparently its true because they say its true.)

So therefore while they disagree with eachother, the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider eachother to be true churchs and most other churchs save for a few (Old Catholics) they consider to be just "faith communities" and not real churchs.

As a Lutheran I belive that there is one true Eucharist and that Lutherans have the closest understanding of what it is from what can be understood of it. Ultimatly it is still a mystery of our faith. But that doesn't mean that Lutherans are the only ones with a valid Eucharist. (As in it being the body and blood of the Lord.) I believe Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churchs have a Eucharist which is certainly the body and blood of the Lord, they just have some assumptions and misunderstandings about it that arn't what I consider to be true. But that doesn't mean its not the body and blood of Christ. That having been said I wouldnt' commune with these churchs because communion being a close fellowship with not only Christ but also the people around us, being in such a fellowship would testify that I agree with their doctrines, which I do not.

Perhaps if I was on the verge of death and all that was available to me was a priest, I would take communion from him, but thats about it.

Now with protestant's who don't belive in the real presence, to if they have the body and blood of the Lord, that is certainly something that is questionable and hard to answer sufficently from scripture.

 

[Riff]

.

 

[DaRev]

Would that make the Lutheran Church the one true church? I mean, according to you, your church is the only one that has the right theology about the Lord's Supper.

The "true Church" is made up of only true believers in Christ, and thus is present in some form throughout Christendom. The Church is found where the Gospel is preached in it's purity and the Sacraments administered according to Christ's institution. It is my firm belief that the Confessional Lutheran Church is the closest on earth today to the true teachings and practices of the Christian Church built by the Apostles.

The Church is about more than the Lord's Supper. The main doctrine, the one upon which the Church stands or falls, is the doctrine of justification. Scripture clearly teaches us that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone by the merits of Christ alone. The RCC teaches a semi-Pelagianistic form of justification that requires the sinner to cooperate with their justification through works of obligation. This was one of the reasons I left the RCC to join the Confessional Lutheran Church.

Now with protestant's who don't belive in the real presence, to if they have the body and blood of the Lord, that is certainly something that is questionable and hard to answer sufficently from scripture.

One of the things that the Lutheran Confessions teach is that those churches that have changed the meaning of Christ's words of institution no longer have the word of God combined with the elements in the Sacrament, so they basically have no Sacrament, just a cracker and a sip of juice.

 

[Tangible]

Perhaps if I was on the verge of death and all that was available to me was a priest, I would take communion from him, but thats about it.

Now with protestant's who don't belive in the real presence, to if they have the body and blood of the Lord, that is certainly something that is questionable and hard to answer sufficently from scripture.

I believe Luther once quipped that he would rather drink blood with the Pope than wine with Calvin.

 

[filosofer]

One problem of RCC teaching on the Lord’s Supper is how it contradicts what 1 Cor. 10:16 teaches.

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Note that both the body and bread are received, and so also the wine (cup) and blood are received. There is no change of substance.

But overall we are much closer to the RCC regarding the Lord’s Supper than we are to any Protestant church. When our members ask why they shouldn’t receive communion at the Evangelical Free/Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian/non-denominational, etc. I ask them if they wanted to receive the Supper at the Roman Catholic Church, they are so surprised and exclaim, “Absolutely not! Who would even consider something like that? We left the RCC 500 years, I’ll never go there!” Of course that illustrates the lack of understanding of what we believe, teach, and confess, and what generic Protestants teach.

One of the best sermons I have ever heard on the Lord’s Supper was at a cutting edge charismatic church (1300 in attendance). Then they moved the small portable table to the center, and an elder spoke the words of institution sort of... “This bread represents the body of Christ... This cup (of grape juice) represents the blood of Christ. So the fantastic sermon was undercut in less than a minute. <sigh>

 

[filosofer]

Here is one way to view the teachings of the Sacraments.

 

[Bryne]

One of the best sermons I have ever heard on the Lord’s Supper was at a cutting edge charismatic church (1300 in attendance). Then they moved the small portable table to the center, and an elder spoke the words of institution sort of... “This bread represents the body of Christ... This cup (of grape juice) represents the blood of Christ. So the fantastic sermon was undercut in less than a minute. <sigh>

This type of thing is exactly why I became Lutheran. Every time communion was served, the pastor of my old church would stress that the bread and grape juice was "merely a symbol". I would just cringe inside because I knew that wasn't right. Same with baptisms...it was "just a confession of faith"...and "act of obedience" ...nothing more.

 

[Luther073082]

This type of thing is exactly why I became Lutheran. Every time communion was served, the pastor of my old church would stress that the bread and grape juice was "merely a symbol". I would just cringe inside because I knew that wasn't right. Same with baptisms...it was "just a confession of faith"...and "act of obedience" ...nothing more.

Also and when you take away baptisms importance to salvation you get people who have been "believers" for a decade or more and they still havn't been baptised.

 

[Bryne]

My grandfather is a perfect example of that. He got saved when my mom was in high school, but didn't feel worthy enough to get baptized because he still smoked. When he quit smoking, he had been a Christian for so many years without getting baptized that he didn't see the point in doing it at that late date. He died without ever getting baptized.

 

[filosofer]

My grandfather is a perfect example of that. He got saved when my mom was in high school, but didn't feel worthy enough to get baptized because he still smoked. When he quit smoking, he had been a Christian for so many years without getting baptized that he didn't see the point in doing it at that late date. He died without ever getting baptized.

I have heard similar stories. Sad that there was lack of teaching for him.

BTW, I’m not sure I have seen you around. Welcome from one of the old timers.

 

[Bryne]

Yep...I am new. Thanks for the welcome.