Christ did not practice closed communion?

[ILoveYeshua]

Ok, personally I'm a fan of closed communion to a point, because if people don't know what they're doing when they take communion, it can be bad for them. My question relates directly to the First last supper.

Christ knew good and well that his betrayer, whom satan himself would possess, would dip the sop with him and his brethren, yet he did allow him to do that. On one hand I think it was so that he could fill up the measure of his wickedness, does that sound reasonable?

Anyway, if Christ allowed that awful man to commune in the very first last supper, should any person who claims to believe in Christ be forbidden from taking part in communion? I mean, the fact that Judas Iscariot took communion with Cephas and John and the rest, did not defile the others who took the communion, only the betrayer himself.

Any thoughts on this, was Christ practicing closed or open communion, and how can we relate what we learn about that to our current practices?

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Iloveyeshua.

Well, in Matthew and Mark Jesus tells Judas that he is the traitor and then begins the communion part of the meal. In Luke Jesus did the communion part first, then there was the thing with Judas. All the gospel narratives have this, don't put much importance on the time order, could have gone either way and doesn't change any teachings.

If Jesus and Judas interacted before the communion part perhaps Judas left and did not participate in the communion. If the interaction came after the communion part then Judas illustrates that those who do commune improperly do it to their own damnation.

Either way we have no cause to go against what God has told us in His Word. Closed communion is the only godly way to do the sacrament of communion.

PAX

[alabaster jar]

Yes, I have thought of this also. Interesting: in other words the LCMS church is concerned about damnation for non-members? And ELCA trusts the individual to be a believer and leaves judgement up to God? I have wondered about all this?

[LutherNut]

Yes, I have thought of this also. Interesting: in other words the LCMS church is concerned about damnation for non-members? And ELCA trusts the individual to be a believer and leaves judgement up to God? I have wondered about all this?

The LCMS does not want anyone to committ a sin by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily and without recognizing the body of Christ in the Sacrament.

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

[SPALATIN]

The LCMS does not want anyone to committ a sin by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily and without recognizing the body of Christ in the Sacrament.

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

So the question remains: Which Synod cares more about you? The one who is looking out for your Spiritual well-being or the one who makes you feel welcome?



I would say that it was closed communion. I don't recall anyone outside of the disciples being asked to partake that night. As for Judas, If he partook in the last supper he still had a choice to resist the temptation at that point. It wasn't until after he committed the sin and was remorseful but was not willing to repent and as a result took his life and took it to his judgement.

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

[SPALATIN]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

Angelus,

I think this may be one of those things that was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit at pentecost which was only a scant 50 days later.

Scott

[Protoevangel]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?
They may very well not have fully understood. But they most certianly believed.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
...
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
(in context: John 6:25...)

Understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite to belief.

[LutherNut]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

They were the ones who stuck around after His discourse in John 6 about the Bread of Life and "the bread I give is My flesh" and "My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink." I think it's safe to say that the got it later when He instituted the Sacrament.

[AngelusSax]

Understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite to belief.

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.

[Protoevangel]

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.
;) You, me, and I would suppose, everyone! :D

[eladoni]

Ok, personally I'm a fan of closed communion to a point, because if people don't know what they're doing when they take communion, it can be bad for them. My question relates directly to the First last supper.

Christ knew good and well that his betrayer, whom satan himself would possess, would dip the sop with him and his brethren, yet he did allow him to do that. On one hand I think it was so that he could fill up the measure of his wickedness, does that sound reasonable?

Anyway, if Christ allowed that awful man to commune in the very first last supper, should any person who claims to believe in Christ be forbidden from taking part in communion? I mean, the fact that Judas Iscariot took communion with Cephas and John and the rest, did not defile the others who took the communion, only the betrayer himself.

Any thoughts on this, was Christ practicing closed or open communion, and how can we relate what we learn about that to our current practices?

I do not believe that the LCMS practices closed communion. I believe the official policy, is "close" communion, meaning if their belief's are close to our, they are admitted. Infact, I believe there are some denominations that are in altar fellowship with us, not sure which ones though.

[AngelusSax]

It has come to my attention that "close" communion and "closed" communion are, in practice, the same thing, as it's never close enough for most people unless it's exact.

[eladoni]

It has come to my attention that "close" communion and "closed" communion are, in practice, the same thing, as it's never close enough for most people unless it's exact.

Well, here is the synod's position on it.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion"). A number of resources are available and touch on this subject, including the Commission on Theology and Church Relation's (CTCR) 1983 and 1999 reports on Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf) and Admission to the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf).

you can get more information from their faqs page: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2591

[SPALATIN]

Well, here is the synod's position on it.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion"). A number of resources are available and touch on this subject, including the Commission on Theology and Church Relation's (CTCR) 1983 and 1999 reports on Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf) and Admission to the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf).

you can get more information from their faqs page: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2591

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper, (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf)" and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf)."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

[LutherNut]

I do not believe that the LCMS practices closed communion. I believe the official policy, is "close" communion, meaning if their belief's are close to our, they are admitted. Infact, I believe there are some denominations that are in altar fellowship with us, not sure which ones though.

Here is the list of church bodies in which the LCMS is in full altar/pulpit fellowship.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6268

[LutherNut]

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper, (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf)" and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf)."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

I don't see any real difference between the two.
Please expand on your confusion.

[eladoni]

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper, (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf)" and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf)."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

[SPALATIN]

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

Actually,

I know quite a few churches where the ELCA would NOT be allowed to commune among us because they are considered heterodox by that LC-MS congregation. I could not myself go to an ELCA church and partake there anymore. Though my stance would be In statu confessionis when I go to the ELCA. Their positions on ordaining women and their weak stand on homosexuality are just two issues that would prevent me from communion at their churches.

There is no agreement at this time between ELCA and LCMS on Altar and Pulpit fellowship. And as long as the ELCA continues in their agreements with the ECUSA and PCUSA there will not be an agreement.

[LutherNut]

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

Actually, they would not be. The ELCA holds a completely different view on Scripture, the Confessions, homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, ecumenism, the Real Presence in the Sacrament, etc. They do not have the same views at all.

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. (Edit) So where's the difference? Or is that a difference in who may come to the table also denies an ELCA member the right to communion at an LCMS?

[SPALATIN]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. For one Lutheran to deny another Lutheran communion is a heresy worthy of anathema in my opinion. And the BoC, to my knowledge, says for a believer to not allow another human (aka the pastor) to deny them the communion they rightly deserve in their belief.

Angelus,

You have a right to your opinion. I wouldn't take that away from you. I don't happen to agree with your opinion and that is my right.

God Bless

[AngelusSax]

I wish to apologize for my previous post, which before was in it's unaltered state. I forgot this was the LCMS subforum, and not the main forum which allows more debate. Please forgive my insolencocity (insolence).

[SPALATIN]

Forgiven!

[LutherNut]

The ELCA holds that Christ is present with, in, and under the bread and wine. For one Lutheran to deny another Lutheran communion is a heresy worthy of anathema in my opinion. And the BoC, to my knowledge, says for a believer to not allow another human (aka the pastor) to deny them the communion they rightly deserve in their belief.

The difference is that the ELCA doesn't require belief in the Real Presence in order to receive the sacrament worthily, as the Scriptures clearly state. Thus their altar/pulpit fellowship with heterodox church bodies that outright reject the Real Presence. If the ELCA truly held to the teaching of 1 Corinthians along with the Confessions (see FC VII), they would not knowingly allow people to commune to their "judgement and damnation" (FC Ep. VII 16, Kolb-Wengert).

Jay:)

[eladoni]

Actually, they would not be. The ELCA holds a completely different view on Scripture, the Confessions, homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, ecumenism, the Real Presence in the Sacrament, etc. They do not have the same views at all.

I was under the impression that the ELCS has the same exact view on teh sacrament of the altar. Or at least my friends who are ELCS hold the LCMS position.

[Protoevangel]

I was under the impression that the ELCS has the same exact view on teh sacrament of the altar. Or at least my friends who are ELCS hold the LCMS position.
You mean ELCA?

The ELCA are in full communion with a number of churches who do not hold to the Real Presence. This would not be possible if they held the same view on the Sacrament as the LCMS.

That is not to say individual members are heterodox in their view of the Sacrament.

[SPALATIN]

You mean ELCA?

The ELCA are in full communion with a number of churches who do not hold to the Real Presence. This would not be possible if they held the same view on the Sacrament as the LCMS.

That is not to say individual members are heterodox in their view of the Sacrament.

Dan,

You would be correct in that we can't hold individual church laity to this view. Not all agree with everthing the ELCA is doing, but like you are staying to try to get some of them back on course with what Lutheranism is supposed to be.

The views you are speaking of belong to the Synod and its leaders.

[Marguerite]

Actually the original term is "close" communion (communing with those with the same beliefs) , as opposed to "closed" communion (not allowing those with different beliefs to commune) , however, in recent years it has become interchangeable with "closed" communion.

Here is a portion of a very interesting article found on the WELS site and while it is germain to the the WELS, I believe it can be applied to other denominations which practice close communion.

What separates us is not different denominational names--it is a very different view of the Bible. Luther's brief explanation to Zwingli as to why Luther could not have communion with Zwingli explains quite simply why we can't have communion with your church, "You have a different spirit."

I obviously did not copy the entire article, but it is an article well worth reading as it does a nice job of explaining "a different spirit". http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=57&cuItem_itemID=11218

[Protoevangel]

Yes, and the one Doctrnal difference that Luther and Zwingli were arguing about was the Real Presense of Christ in Holy Communion. Those who deny the Real Presense, are certianly of "a different spirit". There is, and can be only one spirit guiding the Church. To put Luther's comment to Zwingli in context, Luther also told Zwingli , "If you talk like this, you're not a Christian—and I regret to have wasted my time with you".

[Marguerite]

Yes, and the one Doctrnal difference that Luther and Zwingli were arguing about was the Real Presense of Christ in Holy Communion. Those who deny the Real Presense, are certianly of "a different spirit". There is, and can be only one spirit guiding the Church. To put Luther's comment to Zwingli in context, Luther also told Zwingli , "If you talk like this, you're not a Christian—and I regret to have wasted my time with you".
And Luther was never one to mince words either, was he. :)

[SPALATIN]

And Luther was never one to mince words either, was he. :)

Maybe once with Katherine Von Bora, but to other so-called reformers never. ;)

[Marguerite]

Maybe once with Katherine Von Bora, but to other so-called reformers never. ;)


LOL! Excellent point!!! I believe he met his match with her!

[ILoveYeshua]

All this arguing, just cuz Jesus had a last meal.

[walloffire]

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.


Another great reason why salvation should, must, and is by faith, not by reason or understanding or works or such... salvation is by faith because faith is so easy a child can do it. Salvation had to be by something that would bring in the little ones and keep out the vipers, and what thing better than faith?

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

[Tofferer]

I'm going to look this up in the Book of Concord so can get a confessional teaching on this. I will add to this post.....

[rockytrails]

we call it closed communion but remember

We do whats right by warning of the danger of not believing in every thing Jesus has said .
If some insist on taking the lords supper in unbelief A Lutheran pastor wont wrestle the body and blood of Jesus away from them.

[rockytrails]

All this arguing, just cuz Jesus had a last meal.

do you understand how to love Yeshua?
why not read how to love Yeshua (JOHN 14:23

NOW DOES Jesus teach this is just a last meal?
Mathew 26:26-29

[Tofferer]

I looked up the Book of Corcord as found at http://www.bookofconcord.org :



There was only one thing there that is absolutely obvious to me with regards to the Lord's Suppper and closed communion versus open communion. Communion is open to believers and closed to nonbelievers. Likewise, nonbelievers take the sacrament to thier damnation. Outside of that, I don't know. Perhaps DaRev can explain this better.