The Lord's supper / Holy Communion

[TruelightUK]

A question primarily for the protestants here: Which interpretion of the nature of communion do you favour?

 

[Andrew]

The Bible says this "IS" my body...this "IS" my blood. so i'll leave it as that and take it by faith.

It's not just purely symbols, but neither is it literal in the sense that Jesus comes down and dwells inside the elements or something.

 

[Martin]

I am firmly of the opinion (so you can throw this out if you like) that the physical aspects of our faith should not be divorced from the spiritual aspects of our faith - that's Greek thinking.

The most obvious example is that Jesus had to come and endure a physical death not just a spritual one. The physical and the spiritual are intimately entwinned.

So as to the question, I believe that the bread and the wine are just that (bread and wine), but that we are called to do it as an act of rememberance (as Jesus called us to do) but it also has a spritual dimension in close communion with God - that's why I believe that it shouldn't be undertaken lightly as Paul warns.

In similar manner, getting baptised in water is not just getting wet, and is more than an outward sign of an inward change. It is identification with Christ's death but there is also a spiritual dimension in that there is also a washing away that takes place. Personally (and this is NOT in scripture, just a personal view), I believe that it seals the ownership of God over your life. Are you saved without being baptised? - yes, but it's none the less an imporatant part of our faith. A very weak comparison, but one that might give a clue to what I'm talking about, is to be a member of a political party is different to purly voting for the party.

Love and blessings....

 

[Thunderchild]

My vote was "other."

Somewhere, I read (by one of the Early Church Fathers, I believe - but I have been doing a lot of reading of late) the following:

"In partaking of the bread and wine we are brought into the real presence of the Christ." (or words to that effect, anyway).

For personal reasons, I am inclined to believe that this is in fact the purpose of the Lord's Supper. However, I would not go so far as to state this as doctrine.

 

[TruelightUK]

My personal vote was also for 'other': as someone has already said, I basically beleive that the bread and wine, blessed and consecrated and received by faith are the Body and Blood of Christ. Not in some semi-magical transformationalist kind of way. Not just in a vague spiritualised way. But in a very real and powerful way - they take on the full significance of what they represent, and convey a real impartation of grace to the believer, making Christ really present, allowing us to 'feed on Him in our hearts by faith'. (I beleive in the Catholic Church this idea is known as 'transsignification'). Conversely, to treat them lightly and dishonourably is to risk bringing a 'curse' upon ourselves, as we effectually trample underfoot the blood which purchased us.

It is certainly something very special - as the Chruch has recognised from its earliest days:

For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by God's Word, took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (Justin Martyr, 'Apology' c.140AD)

Anthony

 

[ZiSunka]

"And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, "This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19

This is the only communion passage that explains the PURPOSE of communion--remembrance.

If Christ was/is actually in the bread, why did Judas betray Christ AFTER eating the bread???

 

[TruelightUK]

Presumably because, to use Paul's phraseology, he ate it unworthily!

Anthony

 

[eldermike]

Lk 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

We are called to "remember" several things. The love Jesus shows in His desire to be with us. (v15) The suffering (v15). The work of the cross ("it" in verse 16). And, our relationship with Him (v28)

28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials.

I enjoy very much having the Lord's Supper in a small group setting. Our small group does this on occasion and we have different people lead. It's interesting to see and hear what comes out as an important remembrance to people. Personal Opinion; I believe we miss out when we make this a ritual, always reading and moving and doing in the same manner. Have you ever thought about the range of emotions that must have been in this room, on that night?

Remembrance is the reason given, I accept it that way.

Blessings

 

[filosofer]

they take on the full significance of what they represent, and convey a real impartation of grace to the believer, making Christ really present, allowing us to 'feed on Him in our hearts by faith'.

For clarity, this is a classic re-statement of Calvin's position. The Reformed would say that Real presence of Christ means "Christ is present in the sacrament, but not his body and blood."

The Roman Catholic position is: transubstantiation (bread changed into body, wine changed into blood). RCC would say that Real presence of Christ means "the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament."

The Lutheran position is: Real presence of Christ means that Christ's body and blood are present, but are not changed in substance (as in RCC teaching). Lutheran teaching on this point is based on the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - "by participating in the bread the person participates in the body, by participating in the wine, the person participates in the blood." Lutherans also believe that forgiveness is conveyed through the words of institution - "given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins."

 

[TruelightUK]

Originally posted by filosofer

For clarity, this is a classic re-statement of Calvin's position. The Reformed would say that Real presence of Christ means "Christ is present in the sacrament, but not his body and blood."

I always knew there had to be something I could agree with Calvin on !  Actually, I know Calvin did have a very 'high' opinion of Communion, believing the means of grace were two-fold - Word and Sacrament. He strongly advocated that the Lord's Supper be celebrated weekly at the very least (in keeping with NT example), but was overruled by the civil magistrates, who stuck with the (then) Catholic opinion that to make one's communion annually was quite enough, limiting celebrations to four times a year - much to Calvin's chagrin! - which, I believe, remains the general practice in many, if not most, reformed churches to this day.

Much evangelical thinking on the eucharist today owes far more to the much more rationalistic Zwinglian tradition, which viewed Communion very much more as a simple memorial, rejecting any idea of the sacrament as a means of grace (yet strangely insisting that we 'receive Christ' in the eucharist).  Thus churches influenced by him tended to separate the Lord's Supper from the main stream of worship, and discourage frequent communion.

 

As for my own view; I think I come slightly closer to the Lutheran and Catholic views than Calvin, as I do beleive that, when we pray 'Send your Holy spirit on these gifts of bread and wine that they may be to us the Body and Bllod of your precious Son Jesus Christ' something 'happens' whereby the consecrated Bread then is the Body of Christ, and the Wine is His Blood - more than just a vague spiritual presence of Christ in and around the sacrament, yet without the 'magical' business of incidence and accidence.  The term 'trans-signification' was termed by a French Catholic theologian in the early seventies, and, from what I remember of his writings, sums up my own thinking quite exactly - I will try to re-locate the relevant book!

 

Anthony

 

[Caedmon]

 

[goodnewsinc]

Hello, ALL!

The "sacrament" of Jesus is not eating unleaven bread, or a wafer, or cracker and drinking wine or grape juice.  That is not what Jesus meant.  When he said, "Take and eat of my body which is broken for you, and drink of my blood which is shed for you", the carnal and natural mind sees no more than a piece of unleaven bread and a small glass of grape juice.  Jesus himself was a living parable and what he did was allegorical and prophetic.  You must LOOK for a spiritual objective!  The very Words Jesus spoke are spirit and life.  They have a true Spiritual meaning. 

1. Jesus is the Word made flesh.  Therefore you must look for WORDS! John 1:1,14, Psalm 40:7-1.

2. The bread I give is my flesh:

John 6:48. I am that bread of life. 49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

3. My blood is drink indeed"

John 6: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

4. The flesh profits nothing!  The Words I speak are Spirit and LIFE!

John 6: 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Since he is Father's Word-volume record of all God's writings, some Words are "bloody" and some Words are Lamb-chops!

So... you can eat and drink the wafer and wine all you want to, and it you will not have partaken of what Jesus meant.  You are eating an allegory which has as much significance as killing a lamb or kid as a sacrifice for pardon of sin.  Here is the TRUE SACRAMENT:

Just as a person may get many Krispy Kreme Doughnuts inside him and wash them down with many Budweiser beers or coffee, that will have a dramatic and telling effect on his waistline and belly, that men will certainly notice!  Some of you readers get the picture!

Get the Words Jesus taught and take THEM INSIDE of you so that they become your new nature and part of your new character.  When Jesus takes over your thoughts and actions ..... then you have eaten his flesh and blood and IT HAS CREATED A NEW MAN!

You can do this without being inside a church or going near a preacher on first Sunday or Saturday as the case may be.  The spirutual is the "real thing", and the natural is only an allegorical directive pointing to the real deal!

GOOD NEWS, Inc.

 

[Jenna]

I personally believe that in most Protestant and Reformed churches, communion is not offered frequently enough(quarterly to monthly). And when it IS held, there is next to no preparation by church members.

This is one of the reasons why I decided that when I was going to return to Church, I was going to go back to where I had begun attending through my childhood. We have communion every week (every service) during our worship service. I was going to try going to a WELS (?) Lutheran Church, but then found out that they only offered communion quarterly. I don't know about everyone else, maybe it is just how I was raised, but I don't know HOW to worship without including communion. I mean, if you don't do it every week, then on what basis do you decide when you will have communion? *shrugs* I would also agree that there are some times and situations where I don't think that people take enough time to prepare themselves and reflect on what is taking place and what HAS taken place before they take communion. Then again, doesn't that happen in many areas of Christian faith, and how we live it?

 

[filosofer]

Jenna,

you are right about the importance of communion. Throughout mos tof the history of the Christian Church, the twin towers of worship have been Word and Sacrament. The Lutheran Confessions reflect this approach when it is stated that "we celebrate the Mass [meaning order of service with communion] every Sunday and every festival." That amounts to at least twice a week. Luther had commented that if Christians didn't recevie communion at least once every three months they should examine themselves to see whether they, in fact, were Christians.

The change from that position came about with the Reformed view that the Lord's Supper is symbolic only, not conveying forgiveness of sins. Therefore, the move to most often quarterly celebration. That affected most Lutheran churches in the 1700- mid 1900's era, so that Luther's outside "limit" of every three months became the norm!

Growing up, communion was once a month in LCMS congregation. When I became a pastor (~20 years ago), most churches celebrated once a month or twice a month. As I taught in Biblical class over a period of 2-3 years, many would ask why we couldn't celebrate it every Sunday. What a blessing. In every church I have served, within three years, the congregation has asked to move to every Sunday communion. I have never pushed for it. It has always come about when people study the Scriptures.

As for preparation, I really like the (extended) Exhortation to Confession and Forgiveness that is used our churches. If someone desires I will post it.

 

[Andrew]

Jenna, you can have communion everyday if your heart so desires.

I have some unleavened bread and red wine at home. I take communion when I feel led to, in addition to my church and care grp communion times, which is like twice a month.

you dont have to wait for the church to do it.

 

[aggie03]

Do this in remembrance of Me - I'm with Lambslove on this one.

 

[aggie03]

On the way to Dallas right now, so I don't have a lot of time to respond on here - but I believe that we have to take communion every week on the first day of the week - I'll cite the scriptures where this comes from when I get on here in Dallas - sorry about the delay, but it is necessary.

 

[TruelightUK]

Originally posted by Andrew
I have some unleavened bread and red wine at home. I take communion when I feel led to, in addition to my church and care grp communion times, which is like twice a month.

you dont have to wait for the church to do it.

Point of order, Andrew;  how is it possible to have 'communion' on your own? (Tho' perhaps you mean you take it with your family?) 

The celebration of the Lord's Supper is pretty much by definition a corporate event, to be celebrated 'when you come together', when Christ is in our midst.  Thus 'we who are many are one Body because we all share in one bread', 'take this all of you and eat...', '..my blood shed for you (plural)..', and all the instructions about respecting others at table with us etc.   Essentially, like the Passover and Kiddush which it echoes, Communion is a fellowship meal, sharing bread and wine, not only in memory of our Lord's death for us as individuals, but as a celebration of our Oneness in Him.  To break bread and wine in isolation from the Body is not communion in its true sense - an act of remembrance, perhaps, but the Sacrament, no!

 

Anthony

 

[Phoebe]

Consubstantiation. Given for you. Poured out for you.( For the forgiveness of sins.) I believe the Word is combined with the element.

 

filosifer, I wish our ongregation offered Communion every Sunday.We had people that thought it took away from the "specialness" of it to have it every week.

 

[shout2thelord]

Originally posted by lambslove
"And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, "This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19

This is the only communion passage that explains the PURPOSE of communion--remembrance. 

I agree with this