Lord's supper

[MikeDeanRN]

I participated in the Lord's supper tonight and just want to know people's feelings on this particular ordinance and its purpose and who you believe should participate. thanks for any opinions.

mike

[DeaconDean]

I hate to be the first to post but since this is your first communion here goes. Being as since you posted and asked in the Baptist/Anabaptist area, I'll attempt to show what we believe. The Baptist/Anabaptist believe that the communion, or Lord's Supper if you will, is a memorial service we do in accordance to Jesus' commandmant.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -Lk. 22:19

Further weight is added by Paul's testimony to the Corinthian church when he was trying to show why there should not be disharmony at the Lord's Supper:

"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." -1 Cor. 11:24-26

Did you see that? We observe this ordinance to show the Lord's death until He returns. And as for who should participate? The Baptist, I'm not 100% sure about the Anabaptist, practice a "closed communion." And by that I mean that anyone of the Baptist faith who believes in the same thing as we do are free to partake of the cup and the bread. It is closed to other denominations for the simple reason that their beliefs in communion is vastly different than ours. For example: the Baptist believe that communion is just like a memorial service (for lack of better words), while, (do not bash me for my opinions people) the Catholic church believe that after the priest says prayer over the cup and the bread, it is changed to the cup actually containing the blood of Christ and the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. Now the reason I said that is purely for illustration sake, I'm not putting down anybody of the Catholic faith, so don't bash me or say I'm bashing them, because I'm not. That is why we call it a "closed communion." I would not go to a Catholic church and partake simply because our beliefs are so different. Likewise, they probably feel the same way. Here is the "official" position of the Southern Baptist Convention on Baptism and the Lord's Supper:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

[ZiSunka]

It's purpose is to remind us of what Christ did for us and to remind us of the coming Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

All baptized Believers should participate. The unbelievers and the unbaptized should not partake; the unbelievers because they don't know or accept what Christ did for us and they have no hope of being at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and the unbaptized because they need to be obedient to Christ's ordinance of baptism first.

[mlqurgw]

It's purpose is to remind us of what Christ did for us and to remind us of the coming Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

All baptized Believers should participate. The unbelievers and the unbaptized should not partake; the unbelievers because they don't know or accept what Christ did for us and they have no hope of being at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and the unbaptized because they need to be obedient to Christ's ordinance of baptism first.Could you give Scriptural reasons for not allowing those who are unbaptized to partake? Not because I want to debate it but I just have not seen it.

[ZiSunka]

Nope. But why should a person who refuses to be baptized be allowed to partake in the other ordinances?

Are there any Biblical reasons for allowing a person who lives in disobedience to join in communion?

I'm not talking about people who are newly saved and haven't been able to schedule a baptism yet, nor of people who are physically unable to be baptized because of disability or location or some other circumstance, I'm talking about people who say, "I refuse to be baptized."

[mlqurgw]

Nope. But why should a person who refuses to be baptized be allowed to partake in the other ordinances?

Are there any Biblical reasons for allowing a person who lives in disobedience to join in communion?

I'm not talking about people who are newly saved and haven't been able to schedule a baptism yet, nor of people who are physically unable to be baptized because of disability or location or some other circumstance, I'm talking about people who say, "I refuse to be baptized."Thos would be unbelievers though, would they not?

[ZiSunka]

Thos would be unbelievers though, would they not?

Too bad we don't have the smilie that rolls its eyes anymore.

[JPPT1974]

Yeah I hope that we can find smilies like that
Too bad that we can't seem to find them though!

[holyrokker]

.... And as for who should participate? The Baptist, I'm not 100% sure about the Anabaptist, practice a "closed communion." And by that I mean that anyone of the Baptist faith who believes in the same thing as we do are free to partake of the cup and the bread. It is closed to other denominations for the simple reason that their beliefs in communion is vastly different than ours.....

I'm part of an American Baptist Church. We do not practice a "closed" communion.

Communion is open for all who are present.

[DeaconDean]

I'm part of an American Baptist Church. We do not practice a "closed" communion.

Communion is open for all who are present.

Thank you for the info, did not know that. That is why I did not speak with authority (knowledge) for the Anabaptist.

[ZiSunka]

Most anabaptist groups practice a semi-closed or closed communion, but the MC churches tend to practice open communion for all baptized believers. Some practice totally open communion, but those are very rare.

[tulc]

Too bad we don't have the smilie that rolls its eyes anymore.

I like this little guy! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-024.gif
tulc(loves smilies!) ;)

[JPPT1974]

So do I my friend
So do I!
:thumbsup: :wave:

[SonOfThunder]

the church I am going to attend again practices closed communion for the purpose of being sure that only those they know will partake.

Even if a visiting Missionary attends the meetings they may not partake.

I am not a member so cannot join in.

My thoughts on this is that the pastor does not know the heart of the believer partaking, He also doesn't know if they are in good standing, or fully repented.

I have never taken communion. It was reserved for the 144,000 only and I never saw anyone take it on Memorial day all my life.

Since then I have been convicted that it is for all believers in good standing.

James

[tamtam92]

I'm not sure about what 'close communion' is, but in my church the Lord's Supper doesn't take place during the 'normal' service, but just before. Any baptized (in the etymological sense) believer can partake.
We ask them to be baptized because baptism is the decision to make the conversion known to all. So it involves a commitment to Christ greater than just conversion. Besides, in the Bible, all the disciples were baptized before they had the Lord's Supper.

[Imblessed]

Technically, a person who "refuses' to be baptised could be a christian....see Quakers....but, quakers also refuse to take communion, so I guess that's a mute point! :)

Although I do know a few Quaker churches who will do communion occationally, and some quakers who will participate in communion if they are at another church, but they are being inconsistant......

I was raised Quaker, and as such, never did take communion until the time I was a member at a quaker church when I was an adult. I wondered why they were doing it---but i think it was around Easter and the communion tied into the easter story or something.

When my husband and I changed churches, we ended up at a community church(basically baptist without the name) and I took communion with them once a month before I was baptised. I was baptised summer of 2004, but had been going to the church since the end of 2002. It took a year and a half before I was convinced of the need for baptism....but I never felt I was doing wrong by partaking of communion.

Just a different perspective....

our church is part of the GBC, and does open communion, but strongly emphesises the need for being not just a believer, but a believer in "right standing".....

[Joykins]

Communion is for all believers.

I will not regularly attend a church which practices closed communion.

[thepianist]

I participated in the Lord's supper tonight and just want to know people's feelings on this particular ordinance and its purpose and who you believe should participate. thanks for any opinions.

mike

:wave: Hello Mike. I believe that to participate in the Lord's Supper, a person must have done the following: 1. Accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour; and 2. followed the Lord in believer's baptism.

As long as those two requirements are met....then there should be no reason for a person not to partake of the Lord's Supper.

[daveleau]

I participated in the Lord's supper tonight and just want to know people's feelings on this particular ordinance and its purpose and who you believe should participate. thanks for any opinions.

mike

Hi Mike,

My belief is that the Lord's Supper should be available to all Christians. I do not think that Christ becomes anything in the objects, but instead that we do this in remembrance of Him.

One thing I wish my church did was offer the Lord's Supper more often. We also sing songs while waiting for everyone to be served. This, IMO, should be a time for remembrance and be solemn. I do not think church on a whole should be solemn, but celebratory. But, I do think the Lord's Supper should be solemn.

God bless you,
Dave

[DeaconDean]

One thing I wish my church did was offer the Lord's Supper more often.



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?

[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! :wave: 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! :wave: I'd like to hear them!
tulc(loves quotes and early church history!) ;)

Blame Tulc :thumbsup:

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 :thumbsup:

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! :wave: 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......:blush:

[tulc]

Truthfully I tend to look more like:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:2T6Xb2IxR9xovM:www.svatebnidorty.cz/images/original/Dimg/shrek%2520kul%25201.JPG
then like:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:0ILX3cvN7WEJ:images.zap2it.com/ltvimages/images/240/eddiemurphy_shrek2_240_001.jpg
But I do sound more like Donkey! :sorry:
tulc(picture Shrek with dreadlocks on the back of his head...that's me!)

[JPPT1974]

You always are very funny tulc!:D

[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 (http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html) I tend to believe that Christ is spiritually present, but His presence is a mystery. All are welcome at the Lord's Table.

DIANE
:wave:

[Danfrey]

Mike

Well, I definately do not believe that Jesus is physically present, however; as a Methodist (http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html) I tend to believe that Christ is spiritually present, but His presence is a mystery. All are welcome at the Lord's Table.

DIANE
:wave:

Well said.

[JPPT1974]

Yeah well said in my book too my friend!!:thumbsup:

[Mary of Bethany]

When I was growing up in the SBC, in the dark ages :P
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

[Mary of Bethany]

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

Correct. We definitely believe in the Real Presence, but we don't try to define the "how". We leave it at Mystery. We even call the sacrament the "Holy Mysteries".

I think some people think that belief in the Real Presence = transubstantiation, but it doesn't. :wave:

Mary

[Schroeder]

i am quaker and we do not teach either communion or water baptism. for one neither are commanded by Christ or the apostles. Both were done for a time for one reason or another. water baptism was used because it was common to do such in ther day to show association with a group or teaching of a person. 1 Cor. 1:10-17 shows this. communion was done most likely but is never really shown in scripture. the closest is in 1 cor 10, 11. in chapter 100 he is speaking of how we are to live. the Cup is the lords sacrifice. it is when we believed in his sacrifice and received the Spirit. the bread is our being within the Church or body of christ. If you read in verse 21-22 it shows this sympolism well. The cup(our salvation) can not be shared with our passed life in sin. we cant be saved and act like we are not. as is the same with the bread. Christ is the bread and is our body. so we can not be partakers of the cup( chrsit blood for our salvation) and the bread (his spirit and our being in the Church) and also still be who we was before our salvation. it is sympolism. in 1 cor 11:20 shows they did not understand this sympolism mentioned in chapter 10. verse 27 says any who eats the bread and drinks the cup in a unworthy manner will bring judgement unto himself. but have you seen anyone get hysically sick when they do this. no BUT you will see someone get ill mentally and physical if he tries to say he is saved and received the blessings of the cup and bread(his blood and spirit, our salvaion) and still live in the old self of sin. And in verse 33 does it say how to do this ordanance proberly, no. he doesnt even make it sound like it is a command or ever was one. Also read john 6:25-59 it shows this sympolism as well. COmmunion is how you spen time with christ how you live your life for him. it is not a ordanance at all in the since it has turned into. Read these verses then read john 6:60-63. "The words i have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life. then read the account of the passover meal. you might get why Christ spoke about the bread and wine. It wasnt new he spoke of it here and explains what they mean, And why he would bring it up again right before his sacrifice and ressurection. So they would understand his death and ressurrection and belief and the Spirit baptism. i might add i do not teach against them being used. just that it is not done or explained correctly most of the time.

[mlqurgw]

Correct. We definitely believe in the Real Presence, but we don't try to define the "how". We leave it at Mystery. We even call the sacrament the "Holy Mysteries".

I think some people think that belief in the Real Presence = transubstantiation, but it doesn't. :wave:

MaryTransubstantiation and transmutation are different htings. I actually believe in neither.

[Danfrey]

Transubstantiation and transmutation are different htings. I actually believe in neither.

Why?

[mlqurgw]

Why?I may have this wrong because I haven't actually studied it in years so...
Transubstantiation, I believe, is the view that Christ is in the elements and transmutation is that the elements actually become the body and blood. I believe the Roman Catholics hold to transmutation and the Presbyterians transubstantiation. They both, IIRC, hold that it is a sacrament by which grace is imparted. I believe the elements are just bread and wine and are symbols of Christ's death. I do not believe grace is imparted in the ordinance. I also think this has been the historical Baptist view.

[DeaconDean]

"Transubstantiation (from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance) of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), the change that according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) occurs in the Eucharist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Lutheranism

Lutherans believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord)). They place great stress on Jesus' instructions to "take and eat", and "take and drink", holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. However, Luther explicitly rejected transsubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the Real Presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence). This is sometimes mischaracterized as consubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation), which Luther also rejected.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transubstantiation&action=edit&section=8)]
[/URL]
Other Protestants

Many Protestant denominations hold that Holy Communion merely symbolically commemorates or memorializes Jesus' Last Supper with the disciples; this belief is known as "symbolism", "commemoration", or "transignification". Some fundamentalist Protestants see any doctrine of the real presence as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry"]idolatry (http://www.christianforums.com/), worshipping mere bread and wine as if it were God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).
Others, such as some Presbyterian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) denominations, profess belief in the Real Presence, but offer explanations other than transubstantiation. Classical Presbyterianism held the Calvinist view of "pneumatic" presence or "spiritual feeding." However, when the Presbyterian Church (USA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_%28USA%29) signed the Formula of Agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America), both affirmed belief in the Real Presence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

"An overview of The Lord's Supper - Charles Hodge

In the Lord's Supper we are said to receive Christ and the benefits of His redemption to our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. As our natural food imparts life and strength to our bodies, so this sacrament is one of the divinely appointed means to strengthen the principle of life in the soul of the believer and to confirm his faith in the promises of the gospel. By partaking of the bread and wine, the symbols of Christ's body and blood given for us, we are united to Him as our head, our life. He then works in us to will and to do of His own good pleasure. He works in us according to the laws of our nature in the production of everything that is good, so that it is from Him that all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works proceed. It is not, therefore, we that live, but Christ that liveth in us.

What our Lord said to the apostles He says in the most impressive manner in this ordinance to every believing communicant: "This is my body, broken for you... this is my blood shed for you." These words when received by faith fill the heart with joy, confidence, gratitude, love, and devotion, so that the believer rises from the Lord's table refreshed by the infusion of a new life.

The efficacy of this sacrament, according to the Reformed doctrine, is not to be referred to any virtue in the ordinance itself, whether in its elements or actions; much less to any virtue in the administrator; nor to the mere power of the truths which it signifies; nor to the inherent divine power in the word or promise by which it is attended; nor to the real presence of the material body and blood of Christ (i.e., of the body born of the Virgin), whether by the way of transubstatination, consubstantiaition. or impanation; but only to the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that receive the sacrament of His body and blood.

To summarize the Reformed position: The Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ as a memorial of His death wherein, under the symbols of bread and wine, His body as broken and His blood as shed for the remission of sins are signified and, by the power of the Holy Ghost. sealed and applied to believers. Thereby their union with Christ and their mutual fellowship are set forth and confirmed, their faith strengthened, and their souls nourished unto eternal life.

In this sacrament Christ is present not bodily, but spiritually - not in the sense of local nearness, but of efficacious operation. His people receive Him not with the mouth, but by faith; they do not receive His flesh and blood as material particles, but His body as broken and His blood as shed. The union thus signified and effected is not a corporeal union, not a mixture of substances, but a spiritual and mystical union due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of this sacrament as a means of grace is not in the signs, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy Ghost."

http://www.glenwoodhills.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=367

[mlqurgw]

Thank you my friend. :)

[DeaconDean]

np, glad to help.

[Schroeder]

i am quaker and we do not teach either communion or water baptism. for one neither are commanded by Christ or the apostles. Both were done for a time for one reason or another. water baptism was used because it was common to do such in ther day to show association with a group or teaching of a person. 1 Cor. 1:10-17 shows this. communion was done most likely but is never really shown in scripture. the closest is in 1 cor 10, 11. in chapter 100 he is speaking of how we are to live. the Cup is the lords sacrifice. it is when we believed in his sacrifice and received the Spirit. the bread is our being within the Church or body of christ. If you read in verse 21-22 it shows this sympolism well. The cup(our salvation) can not be shared with our passed life in sin. we cant be saved and act like we are not. as is the same with the bread. Christ is the bread and is our body. so we can not be partakers of the cup( chrsit blood for our salvation) and the bread (his spirit and our being in the Church) and also still be who we was before our salvation. it is sympolism. in 1 cor 11:20 shows they did not understand this sympolism mentioned in chapter 10. verse 27 says any who eats the bread and drinks the cup in a unworthy manner will bring judgement unto himself. but have you seen anyone get hysically sick when they do this. no BUT you will see someone get ill mentally and physical if he tries to say he is saved and received the blessings of the cup and bread(his blood and spirit, our salvaion) and still live in the old self of sin. And in verse 33 does it say how to do this ordanance proberly, no. he doesnt even make it sound like it is a command or ever was one. Also read john 6:25-59 it shows this sympolism as well. COmmunion is how you spen time with christ how you live your life for him. it is not a ordanance at all in the since it has turned into. Read these verses then read john 6:60-63. "The words i have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life. then read the account of the passover meal. you might get why Christ spoke about the bread and wine. It wasnt new he spoke of it here and explains what they mean, And why he would bring it up again right before his sacrifice and ressurection. So they would understand his death and ressurrection and belief and the Spirit baptism. i might add i do not teach against them being used. just that it is not done or explained correctly most of the time. SO AM I WRONG IN MY VIEW. I CANT SEEM TO GET ANYONE TO RESPOND TO THIS VIEWPOINT.

[Danfrey]

SO AM I WRONG IN MY VIEW. I CANT SEEM TO GET ANYONE TO RESPOND TO THIS VIEWPOINT.

I love the Peace stand of the Quaker Church, but I am afraid that the Early Christians would have disagreed with the Quaker view of Baptism and Communion.

[tulc]

SO AM I WRONG IN MY VIEW. I CANT SEEM TO GET ANYONE TO RESPOND TO THIS VIEWPOINT

You do know using all caps is like shouting right? :sorry:
tulc(just thought he'd point that out)

[tulc]

that is a pretty thick paragrah there, lets see if I can spread it out a little:

I am Quaker and we do not teach either communion or water baptism.
for one neither are commanded by Christ or the apostles.
Both were done for a time for one reason or another.
water baptism was used because it was common to do such in their day to show association with a group or teaching of a person.
1 Cor. 1:10-17 shows this.
communion was done most likely but is never really shown in scripture.
the closest is in 1 cor 10, 11. in chapter 10 he is speaking of how we are to live.
the Cup is the lords sacrifice.
it is when we believed in his sacrifice and received the Spirit. the bread is our being within the Church or body of Christ.
If you read in verse 21-22 it shows this symbolism well.
The cup (our salvation) can not be shared with our passed life in sin.
we cant be saved and act like we are not.
as is the same with the bread.
Christ is the bread and is our body.
so we can not be partakers of the cup (Christ blood for our salvation) and the bread (his spirit and our being in the Church) and also still be who we was before our salvation.
it is symbolism.
in 1 cor 11:20 shows they did not understand this symbolism mentioned in chapter 10. verse 27 says any who eats the bread and drinks the cup in a unworthy manner will bring judgment unto himself.
but have you seen anyone get physically sick when they do this?
no BUT you will see someone get ill mentally and physical if he tries to say he is saved and received the blessings of the cup and bread (his blood and spirit, our salvation) and still live in the old self of sin.
And in verse 33 does it say how to do this ordinance properly?
no.
he doesn't even make it sound like it is a command or ever was one.
Also read john 6:25-59 it shows this symbolism as well.
Communion is how you spend time with Christ how you live your life for him.
it is not a ordinance at all in the since it has turned into.
Read these verses then read john 6:60-63.
"The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.
then read the account of the Passover meal.
you might get why Christ spoke about the bread and wine.
It wasn't new he spoke of it here and explains what they mean, And why he would bring it up again right before his sacrifice and resurrection.
So they would understand his death and resurrection and belief and the Spirit baptism.
I might add I do not teach against them being used.
just that it is not done or explained correctly most of the time.
is this right?
tulc(just wondering) :)

[tulc]

I don't understand why you say it's not supposed to be done now? Why shouldn't we practice baptism or communion? I have no problem with you forgoing it but why should we?
tulc(who's been baptised at least 6 different ways and taken lots of communion!) ;)

[Schroeder]

I don't understand why you say it's not supposed to be done now? Why shouldn't we practice baptism or communion? I have no problem with you forgoing it but why should we?
tulc(who's been baptised at least 6 different ways and taken lots of communion!) ;) i didnt say it shouldnt i said that it is taught incorrectly. it is not commanded to be done especially as a sacrament or ordanance. the fact that you have been baptised that many timnes should explain why. the only reason it was used in scripture was to show your commitment or association with this group or teaching. had nothing to do with salvation or sins or joining the Church or representing his sacrifice. in a since it may have turned into that but i dont think it was at the begging. there is no reference or describtion of its use or purpose in any of the letters to the Churches. Seeing how important it is seems to be now why nor much then. and the very idea of PAul saying he was not sent to do such a thing. he wrote most of the new testement. And he ONLY spoke of it as a association process. 1cor 1:12-15, you see he is saying they did it to associate themselves with the teacher NOT who they were teaching about. They were to be water baptised to show they associated with CHRIST not the teacher. it is the same idea in chpt. 10-11 with communion, they didnt get the idea right at all. being what i explained in the above post. Read 1 cor 10-11 and then Rom 14:13-18. compare them and post me back on what you think.

[RED that's ME]

I hate to be the first to post but since this is your first communion here goes. Being as since you posted and asked in the Baptist/Anabaptist area, I'll attempt to show what we believe. The Baptist/Anabaptist believe that the communion, or Lord's Supper if you will, is a memorial service we do in accordance to Jesus' commandmant.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -Lk. 22:19

Further weight is added by Paul's testimony to the Corinthian church when he was trying to show why there should be disharmony at the Lord's Supper:

"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." -1 Cor. 11:24-26

Did you see that? We observe this ordinance to show the Lord's death until He returns. And as for who should participate? The Baptist, I'm not 100% sure about the Anabaptist, practice a "closed communion." And by that I mean that anyone of the Baptist faith who believes in the same thing as we do are free to partake of the cup and the bread. It is closed to other denominations for the simple reason that their beliefs in communion is vastly different than ours. For example: the Baptist believe that communion is just like a memorial service (for lack of better words), while, (do not bash me for my opinions people) the Catholic church believe that after the priest says prayer over the cup and the bread, it is changed to the cup actually containing the blood of Christ and the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. Now the reason I said that is purely for illustration sake, I'm not putting down anybody of the Catholic faith, so don't bash me or say I'm bashing them, because I'm not. That is why we call it a "closed communion." I would not go to a Catholic church and partake simply because our beliefs are so different. Likewise, they probably feel the same way. Here is the "official" position of the Southern Baptist Convention on Baptism and the Lord's Supper:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)

Awesome post and explains well Biblically about communion. :)

My church has an open communion to all believers. My pastor does use 1 Corinthians while reminding and giving members time to pray and reflect to see if their life is right spiritually at that moment and if not to repent of any unrepented sins BEFORE taking communion if they choose to do so. It is a quiet respectful time that we have once a month on Sunday nights. We have a time of songs, prayers and sometimes testimonies. :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Wow! This is such a sensitive issue for so many Christians, it's great to see everyone has kept a level head. What a wonderful example of kindness! I don't agree exactly with several of the positions posted about, but they were all posted in charity and respect.

[constance]

Hi Mike,

Anyone who is "Right with God" and their brethren should participate.


1 Corinthians 11 26-33
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.


Our church has communion every week - it makes it a lot easier to "think about it".

In addition, my husband's seminary has dinner every Monday, and we usually end up having communion there too!

Constance

[JPPT1974]

You are right with God
Only through accepting Christ
As Savior & Lord
Repenting of sins and asking for forgiveness