Would I be welcome at the communion table?

[contriteheart]

Hello friends,

My husband and I are currently members of a United Methodist church. We feel strongly that this church is where God would have us right now.

However, many Methodist churches unfortunately stopped having weekly communion 'way back when,' due to a shortage of ordained ministers who could preside. In our church (and most Methodist churches I've attended), the practice is often to only commune once a month. I hear that this may change across the denomination, however, I think it will be awhile.

I was wondering if I would be welcome to commune at an LCMS or WELS church on the Sundays when we do not have communion at our church. My thought was that I could attend the early service at the Lutheran Church, and then go back over to our church for the late service.

Would this be acceptable, or would you find this offensive in any way? I don't want to take advantage of my Lutheran brothers and sisters, but I really strongly desire to have an opportunity to receive communion more frequently than once a month.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for your help.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[contriteheart]

By the way, I am aware that the ELCA practices open communion, but I don't know about the LCMS and WELS. The reason I asked in this subforum is that I'm definitely of a more conservative bent, and would feel much more comfortable communing in an LCMS or WELS church than an ELCA.

[LutherNut]

Hello friends,

My husband and I are currently members of a United Methodist church. We feel strongly that this church is where God would have us right now.

However, many Methodist churches unfortunately stopped having weekly communion 'way back when,' due to a shortage of ordained ministers who could preside. In our church (and most Methodist churches I've attended), the practice is often to only commune once a month. I hear that this may change across the denomination, however, I think it will be awhile.

I was wondering if I would be welcome to commune at an LCMS or WELS church on the Sundays when we do not have communion at our church. My thought was that I could attend the early service at the Lutheran Church, and then pop over to our church for the late service.

Would this be acceptable, or would you find this offensive in any way? I don't want to take advantage of my Lutheran brothers and sisters, but I really strongly desire to have an opportunity to receive communion more frequently than once a month.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for your help.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

The Scriptures teach that Christ's true body and blood is received in our mouths at the Lord's Supper. It also teaches us that anyone who does not recognize the body, who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Supper, would be receiving His body and blood to their judgement, it would not be in your best interest to receive Communion.
It's not because the LCMS doesn't want you to commune, but the LCMS does not want you to do spiritual harm to yourself by receiving God's wrath and condemnation. The United Methodist Church does not confess the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. If you are a confessing member of a UMC congregation, then you would not be able to receive communion at an LCMS church. The Missouri Synod loves and cares for God's people and does not want anyone to do such harm to themsleves.




Jay

[contriteheart]

Thanks for your answer, LutherNut. FYI, I do believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. And so does the United Methodist Church.

The following was taken from "This Holy Mystery - A United Methodist Understanding of Communion," which was adopted by the 2004 General Conference of The United Methodist Church as an official interpretive statement of theology and practice in The United Methodist Church.


"United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. "


EDIT: See post below for further clarification on the issue of the body and blood of Christ.


I'm saddened to know that I would not be welcome at the Lord's table in your church, but I appreciate your honesty.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[contriteheart]

Oops, I should add a bit more from "This Holy Mystery" to make the Methodist position a bit more clear:

"Article XVIII describes the Lord's Supper as "a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ" (Book of Discipline, page 64).



I'm not posting these statements to argue with you. I would just like to know this - if I believe in the real body and blood of Christ as articulated above, would I still be unwelcome at the Lord's table in your church?


Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[Jim47]

Hi Grace

It is ourely wonderful that you wnat to partake in Holy Communion more often, but I doubt that you would not be able to in a WELS church, however I encourage you to contact your local WELS Lutheran Pastor to discuss this. I understand fully your wanting to remain in your congregation, as church is just like family, maybe even better, but don't at least afford yourself the opportunity to talk with one of our Pastors.

You can go to our web site if need be to locate all of the churches in your area, just follow the link on the right side near the top.

God's Blessings to you.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?

[contriteheart]

Hi Grace

It is ourely wonderful that you wnat to partake in Holy Communion more often, but I doubt that you would not be able to in a WELS church, however I encourage you to contact your local WELS Lutheran Pastor to discuss this. I understand fully your wanting to remain in your congregation, as church is just like family, maybe even better, but don't at least afford yourself the opportunity to talk with one of our Pastors.

You can go to our web site if need be to locate all of the churches in your area, just follow the link on the right side near the top.

God's Blessings to you.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?
Thanks, Jim!

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[LutherNut]

Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth,

Here lies the difference. Where the UMC states that they confess the "real, personal, living presence" of Jesus, it does not mean the physical presence of His very body and blood given into our mouths to eat and to drink. This is what Jesus tells us He is giving us. This is what St. Paul tells us we must believe and confess if we are to partake the sacrament worthily.

If you truly hold to the position of the real physical body and blood of Jesus given into our mouths to eat and drink, I would strongly suggest that you consider joining a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation, or a WELS congregation.


I'm saddened to know that I would not be welcome at the Lord's table in your church, but I appreciate your honesty.

Do not be saddened. It is because the LCMS takes very seriously the words of our Lord that we do not want any spiritual harm to befall you. It is a very loving and caring practice that the LCMS and WELS and other confessional Lutheran bodies hold. You are certainly more than welcome in any LCMS church to hear His word of forgiveness and grace.

We all pray that the Lord will guide you in your faith walk, and lead you in His will.


Jay

[contriteheart]

Here lies the difference. Where the UMC states that they confess the "real, personal, living presence" of Jesus, it does not mean the physical presence of His very body and blood given into our mouths to eat and to drink.

Dear Jay,

You keep attempting to tell me what Methodists do and do not believe, even when I've provided you with evidence to the contrary. You quoted my first post, but did you read my second post (the clarification) about what we believe? Is there some part of the following with which the LCMS would disagree?

Article XVIII describes the Lord's Supper as "a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ" (Book of Discipline, page 64)."

I don't really see how we're disgreeing here, based on the above. The only thing I can presume from what you've posted is that non-LCMS are simply not welcome at the communion table in an LCMS church, regardless of our beliefs about the real presence. If that's the case, it's okay just to say so.



Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[LilLamb219]

Do Methodists believe that when they receive the bread that they also receive in, with and under, the very body of our Lord? And do they also believe that the wine is wine but also the very blood of our Lord poured out for us for the forgiveness of our sins?

[LilLamb219]

OK I did my own homework and went to the official Methodist website to search out their beliefs on Communion and found this:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline:


“The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

In another part, I read that they only believe in the "real presence" as being spiritual only. That is totally different from what Lutherans believe as we believe that the bread is bread and is the body and the wine is wine and is the Lord's blood; not just spiritually but truly present.

Since your beliefs according to the website do not coincide with Lutheran beliefs, then you should not expect to take Holy Communion at a Lutheran Congregation. Now, I know that some ELCA churches will communion anyone baptized, but I don't agree with their practice, but that should be for a different thread.

[contriteheart]

Do Methodists believe that when they receive the bread that they also receive in, with and under, the very body of our Lord? And do they also believe that the wine is wine but also the very blood of our Lord poured out for us for the forgiveness of our sins?

Hi LilLamb219,

I don't think we define things to the level of "in, with, and under." However, that does not mean that we don't believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of the Lord. (See statement from the The Book of Discipline in above post.) How God does this is simply a mystery.

If I am not mistaken, the Lutheran idea of "in, with, and under" was a reaction against the Catholic idea of transubstantiation. Methodists don't believe in transubstantiation, i.e., we do not believe that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine and are completely transformed into the body and blood of Christ, with no hint of the presence of bread or wine left. However, we do believe that the bread and wine, are for us, the body and blood of Christ. Again, it's a mystery just how this is so.

Does this help?

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[contriteheart]

Since your beliefs according to the website do not coincide with Lutheran beliefs, then you should not expect to take Holy Communion at a Lutheran Congregation.

Hi again LilLamb219,

Don't worry. It's been made clear to me in this thread that I would not be welcome at the Lord's table in an LCMS or WELS church. Based on the responses I have received, I have no intention of attempting to do so.

Thanks to all who have done their part to help me find the answer to my question.

PS: I left Christian Forums about a month ago, and primarily came back to post this question and answer one other post in a different forum. CF is not really a very good place for me right now, and I think with this post I will be signing off again. Please know that if you try to respond to me and I don't answer, I'm not ignoring you. I'm probably simply not around anymore.

Thanks again for answering my question! :)

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

[LilLamb219]

Hi Grace,

It's not a matter of the LCMS or WELS being snobs, but that you do not believe the same concerning Communion. The Methodist website is very clear that the belief of the real presence is "spiritual only" and is not the same as what the Lutherans believe.

[LutherNut]

Dear Jay,

You keep attempting to tell me what Methodists do and do not believe, even when I've provided you with evidence to the contrary. You quoted my first post, but did you read my second post (the clarification) about what we believe? Is there some part of the following with which the LCMS would disagree?

Article XVIII describes the Lord's Supper as "a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ" (Book of Discipline, page 64)."

"Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes" (Book of Discipline, page 68).

"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." (Book of Discipline, page 64)

This clearly states that the UMC does not believe in the body and blood of Jesus given into our mouths to eat and drink physically. This is the Lutheran teaching based upon Christ's own words. "Take, eat, This is My body." He doesn't say "This is My body in a spiritual manner," or "Take, eat, by faith."

The UMC teaching on the Lord's Supper is very different from the Lutheran teaching which is based upon the words of Christ.

I don't really see how we're disgreeing here, based on the above. The only thing I can presume from what you've posted is that non-LCMS are simply not welcome at the communion table in an LCMS church, regardless of our beliefs about the real presence. If that's the case, it's okay just to say so.

If that's all you "can presume" then you haven't read anything that I have posted.
What I have told you is the truth regarding the practice of the LCMS. You can certainly choose not to believe me. So don't take my word for it. Read this (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_communion.pdf)from the LCMS web site. I'm not making this up or lying to you.

The Missouri Synod does not want people to eat and drink the very body and blood of Jesus in a sinful, spiritually harmful way. It's not that we don't want to welcome you to the Lord's Table. We want to make sure you do so to your benefit, not to your detriment. What kind of Church would we be if we allowed you to bring judgement upon yourself? What kind of Church would we be if we didn't care if people were profaning the very body and blood of Jesus?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of MY thoughts and experineces....


1. I am not an official member of any Lutheran church. When I attended a Lutheran church with a friend (an ELCA congregation), my friend and his family assured me I was welcomed to participate in the Sacrament, BUT I insisted in speaking with the pastor. Fortunately, there was time for that. I don't recall the entire conversation but I answered all questions asked of me - fully and honestly. And I was told I was welcome to attend.

2. At the church I'm attending now (LCMS), my girlfriend (ELCA) and I did the same - abstaining from praticipating until we had a chance to talk with the pastor. We were both told we were both "welcome" We've participated ever since.


3. This emphasis on what denomination a Christian belongs to seem inapproprate to me. Not only because of the ecclesiology it implies, but because probably most guests don't consider themselves to be a part of ANY denomination - and those that do likely don't even know (or care) what their denomination teaches about stuff - even if the denomination actually does (and most don't, at least in any binding sense). Having spent 5 years actively involved in the Catholic Church, I always smile when someone says, "Catholic beleive...." It's a HUGE assumption - and quite possiblity very wrong. We can say "The Latin Rome Rite Catholic Church officially teaches" but that has little to do with what a particulare Catholic believes. My best buddy (responsible for my years in Catholicism) is VERY Catholic. He attended Catholic schools since preschool (he's now at a Catholic university), he has an uncle who is a priest, his parents went to Catholic schools through college (where they met) and are VERY active in their parish, both as teachers and his dad is active in administrative things in the parish. Anyway, after LOTS of talks with them, I'm MUCH more Catholic than Mark - and probably more than his dad (his mom is another story). IMO, it's foolish to assume that a Catholic or Presbyterian or Methodist or UCC or the participant in ANY denominaiton knows what that denominaiton teaches regarding a certain issue (even if they do) - or that they agree with it. Those are HUGE assumptions.
All this needs to be handled on an individual level.


Catholic and a few Protestant congregations that put all the emphasis on what denomination you belong to rather than what you believe seems inadequate to me and assumes MUCH. I found it ironic that Mark participated in the Eucharist (while rejecting Real Presense) while I was barred (and I accept it). Because he is a member of the RCC and I of a Protestant denominaiton. Silly. Inappropriate. Lazy.



Sorry.


- Josiah

[DaRev]

All this needs to be handled on an individual level.

Catholic and a few Protestant congregations that put all the emphasis on what denomination you belong to rather than what you believe seems very inappropriate to me and assumes MUCH. I found it ironic that Mark participated in the Eucharist (while rejecting Real Presense) while I was barred (and I accept it). Because he is a member of the RCC and I of a Protestant denominaiton. Silly. Inappropriate. Lazy.

It is to be handled on an individual level. That's whay at my church our bulletin asks that tho who are not instructed, are in doubt, or hold a different confession than that of the LCMS to speak with me before coming to the altar.
There are some who believe exactly what the LCMS confesses, but do not belong to an LCMS congregation for a variety of reasons. There are some who believe what the LCMS confesses, but do not know what the church they belong to actually confesses (as I suspect the OP poster does). There are some who flat out deny what the LCMS confesses, but insist that they should be allowed to commune ("Why are you denying me Jesus?").

It would be appropriate to discuss the Missouri Synod confession regarding the Lord's Supper (it is His supper, BTW), see where the individual stands regarding that confession, and if they are in agreement with it to follow up and encourage them to join the church since their confession most likely differes from that of the church they are a member of.

If the OP poster truly believes in what she is saying, then she is not in agreement with the confession of the United Methodist Church. She says that she feels the Lord wants her to be there, yet the Holy Spirit seems to be moving her to investigate the LCMS over the ELCA or any other denomination. That is the way it should be approached in this case, not simply "the Methodists don't believe in the physical real presense so you can't commune here."

I pray that ContriteHeart would return just to read the responses if nothing else.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is to be handled on an individual level. That's whay at my church our bulletin asks that tho who are not instructed, are in doubt, or hold a different confession than that of the LCMS to speak with me before coming to the altar.


My father (a pastor) taught me to do this. Since I had a LOT of friends that went to a wide variety of churches, I went to a lot of different church. Most of them automatically welcomed everyone. Anyway, the guideline I used - and suggest to others - is to ignore what your freind says and whatever vague thing is in the annoucments, and talk to the pastor. If you don't have time to do that, RESPECTFULLY abstain.


There are some who believe exactly what the LCMS confesses, but do not belong to an LCMS congregation for a variety of reasons. There are some who believe what the LCMS confesses, but do not know what the church they belong to actually confesses (as I suspect the OP poster does). There are some who flat out deny what the LCMS confesses, but insist that they should be allowed to commune ("Why are you denying me Jesus?").
(emphasis is mine and not that of the original poster)



What the LCMS believes about Communion OR what the LCMS teaches about EVERYTHING?


I understand this is a long (and very unhappy) issue within the LCMS and gets "cranked out" differently in different LCMS congregations. The pastor of the church I'm going to seemed focused on my faith in Christ and my affirmation of Real Presense - the comments all had to do with the Sacrament.

Am I REQUIRED to belong to a congregation assoicated with a congregation with which the LCMS has official altar fellowship? If so, I fail. Am I REQUIRED to accept all the LCMS has officially stated - including that the Papacy is the Antichrist in the Brief Statement? If so, I fail (and I suspect 99% of LCMS members do too).


"EXACTLY what the LCMS teaches..."
About what?
The Sacrament or everything?
What does "EXACTLY" mean?



For the record, the pastor of the church I'm going to (LMCS) never asked me about my views on the papacy as the Anti-Christ or even my views on the Doctrine of Election or the Communication of Attributes within the two natures of Christ (I learned my theology from F. Pieper's "Christian Dogmatics", BTW). Our emails talked about Christ, repentance/forgiveness, His presense in the Holy Sacrament.

My girlfriend is welcomed to the altar too. She's ELCA (the LCMS does not consider themselves to be in fellowship with them). The LCMS pastor did not ask her about female ordaination (which she supports).

What do you think?
Is it possible to agree with the LCMS on a Sacrament but perhaps disagree with the LCMS on some issue and still not be barred from the Sacrament?



You can read about my beliefs by clicking on the link in the signature line of my post. It will take you to my thread in the Testimony forum. I have about 2 pages of posts there (some others have posted there, too - so you need to keep reading through to get to all the one's I wrote there). IF you have the will and time, I'd be curious if I'd be welcomed to commune with you?


Share the love...


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

Catholic and a few Protestant congregations that put all the emphasis on what denomination you belong to rather than what you believe seems very inappropriate to me and assumes MUCH.

Actually, if you do belong to some denomination, you are claiming that you are in fellowship with those of that denomination and what they hold as their beliefs (usually found in some sort of belief statement somewhere). If someone believes outside of what their denomination teaches then he/she should really question why they choose to remain in fellowship with that particular group instead of giving a false representation of who they are and what they believe.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, if you do belong to some denomination, you are claiming that you are in fellowship with those of that denomination and what they hold as their beliefs (usually found in some sort of belief statement somewhere). If someone believes outside of what their denomination teaches then he/she should really question why they choose to remain in fellowship with that particular group instead of giving a false representation of who they are and what they believe.


I respectfully disagree...


OFF TOPIC ALERT (sorry mods!)



I doubt very many lay people (or even clergy for that matter) even KNOW everything that denomination has - as some point - officially stated and what may or may not still be on the books. Much less agree with all of it. Many of these things come up to a vote at a Convention - perhaps nearly 50% vote no on it - but the minority does not immediately resign from the denomination, they remain, even though they are in disagreement! I doubt too many LCMS members know that that denomination officially teaches that the Pope is the Antichrist (Brief Statement of 1932) or agree with that; should they all resign? I don't think so. I think most people end up being Lutherans (for example) because they joined a Lutheran church - and when they joined that church, they automatically got counted in the statistical report sent to the synodical office - bingo - LCMS (or whatever).

My strong suspicion is that nearly all people join a congregation. They join the congregation because they like it. The people are warm and embracing and caring, the sermons are biblical and helpful, the worship inspiring and helpful, they have a good Sunday school for their kids, a good youth group for their teens. Very few Americans could tell you the theological differnces between the United Presbyterian Church and the ELCA, or could list a dozen theological disagreements between the LCMS and WELS. Or care. My strong suspicion is that most LCMS members don't know all the official stands of that denomination, and most wouldn't agree with ALL of them if they did. That doesn't keep them from being a part of their congregation.


But, the issue here is:
Does a person need to be in complete agreement with everything in that denomination in order to not be barred from the Holy Sacrament? Is that the rule?


:scratch:

[LilLamb219]

Californiajosiah,

This is from the LCMS website (bold emphasis mine to answer your questions):

1. Question: How can we possibly say that all those Christians
from other church bodies are unworthy to receive the Lord’s Supper?
Isn’t that what we are saying?
Answer: Absolutely not! There are two reasons why people can
be refused admission to the Lord’s Supper. The first has to do with
faith and discerning the body. Those who do not have such faith and discernment would commune in an unworthy manner and thereby receive God’s judgment. But the second reason has to do with the need for a fitting confessional unity among those who commune together. Roman Catholic Christians, for example, may be perfectly prepared to receive the Lord’s Supper in their own churches in a worthy manner and so to their own great blessing. But it would be unfitting for them, as confessors of their church body’s error, to receive the Sacrament in our churches.

7. Question: Well, how much correct doctrine does a person
have to know in order to be able to commune “worthily”?
Answer: The question confuses the two ways of looking at a communicant.
As individuals, we do not receive the Sacrament worthily
because we know a certain “laundry list” of correct doctrines.
Repentance, faith in Christ’s words in and about the Sacrament, and
the desire for repentant living in unity with one’s fellow communicant are the components of communing in a worthy fashion.
But communicants are also confessors and members of church
bodies. As such, it is not merely what the individual knows that is in
view. It is the doctrine confessed by his or her church body that is the important thing. We ask those who join our church if they accept the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions even though they may have only studied the Small Catechism. In a similar manner, members of other churches who are heterodox in their confession have bound themselves to a confession, even though they may not know all of its content.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Californiajosiah,

This is from the LCMS website (bold emphasis mine to answer your questions):

1. Question: How can we possibly say that all those Christians
from other church bodies are unworthy to receive the Lord’s Supper?
Isn’t that what we are saying?
Answer: Absolutely not! There are two reasons why people can
be refused admission to the Lord’s Supper. The first has to do with
faith and discerning the body. Those who do not have such faith and discernment would commune in an unworthy manner and thereby receive God’s judgment. But the second reason has to do with the need for a fitting confessional unity among those who commune together. Roman Catholic Christians, for example, may be perfectly prepared to receive the Lord’s Supper in their own churches in a worthy manner and so to their own great blessing. But it would be unfitting for them, as confessors of their church body’s error, to receive the Sacrament in our churches.

I TOTALLY respect that any denomination or congregation can establish whatever policies they so choose - and guests should respect that. My purpose here is not to debate it. But IF I correctly understand it, I disagree with it.

It's also obvious to me that the pastor of the particular LCMS church I'm attending doesn't following this principle - at least as I'm understanding it.

What does "fitting confessional unity" mean? What does "fitting" mean? Whose confession, as determined by what? Unity in what?



7. Question: Well, how much correct doctrine does a person
have to know in order to be able to commune “worthily”?
Answer: The question confuses the two ways of looking at a communicant.
As individuals, we do not receive the Sacrament worthily
because we know a certain “laundry list” of correct doctrines.
Repentance, faith in Christ’s words in and about the Sacrament, and
the desire for repentant living in unity with one’s fellow communicant are the components of communing in a worthy fashion.


Why is that not sufficient?

My denomination isn't being invited or barred from the Sacrament. Denominations can't receive Communion - only people can. So, wouldn't the key point be what the particicipant believes - their repentance and faith? Since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament, why does it matter what a denomination may or may not state?


But communicants are also confessors and members of church
bodies. As such, it is not merely what the individual knows that is in
view. It is the doctrine confessed by his or her church body that is the important thing. We ask those who join our church if they accept the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions even though they may have only studied the Small Catechism. In a similar manner, members of other churches who are heterodox in their confession have bound themselves to a confession, even though they may not know all of its content.


Very few of my Christian friends are officially members of any congregation - much less denomination. What does this policy say to them?

Who determines what their confession is - if it's not them?


Is this policy assuming that when I joined my congregation, I stated that I agree with everything that denomination teaches and does? IF so, the assumption is completely wrong. If the this policy presumes that a Christian's beliefs are indentical with the denomination to which their congregation belongs then, IMO, they are making a HUGE assumption. And what if the person doesn't belong to any denomination? And what if that denominaiton doesn't have any confessions (at least of any binding nature)?


Has the LCMS limited what we need to agree with to the Lutheran Confessions? Not all the other things Lutherans teach or do, just what's in the official Confessions? If we agree on the Lutheran Confessions, then we can all communion? So, all Lutherans are accepted but one has to say "I agree with the Lutheran Confessions" first? How can a person say they agree with the Lutheran Confessions if they have never studied them? How many Lutherans have? How do you know that everyone at the communion rail has studied and completely agrees with everything in the Lutheran Confessions?



:scratch:


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

How can I say I agree with the Lutheran Confessions if I've never studied them?

I'm genuinely shocked that a LCMS pastor would allow you to join the congregation without first having you go through an Adult Inquirers Catechism class for you to learn what the people believe AND CONFESS.

You have a great deal of questions. Perhaps you should take them to your pastor?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm genuinely shocked that a LCMS pastor would allow you to join the congregation without first having you go through an Adult Inquirers Catechism class for you to learn what the people believe AND CONFESS.

You have a great deal of questions. Perhaps you should take them to your pastor?


I haven't joined a Lutheran church. I just participate in one. But, as I understand it, this thread is about not being barred from the Holy Sacrament - not joining a congregation.

I DID take the issue of my participating in His Supper, and in spite of the little thing in the worship announcments, I took it directly to the pastor (via an email exchange), as did my girlfriend (who is the daughter an ELCA pastor). I told him my background, that I've been baptized, my basic beliefs, and very specifically, what I believe about the Sacrament. He emailed me back to say I was welcomed to participate (he did the same to Jennifer). He didn't make any notation of the denomination to which my home congregation belongs, nor did he ask me if I had carefully studied the Lutheran Confessions and agreed with everything in them, nor did he ask if I agree with everything the LCMS thinks, says or does. None of that seemed to be an issue for him.

Your post seems to suggest that he may not be in complete compliance with LCMS policy in my regard. He probably isn't with Jennifer either since I doubt she's ever even studied the Lutheran Confessions - I suspect she never got past the ELCA's version of Luther's Small Catechism (I have the LCMS version of it) - which is actually about 90% denomination stuff and only about 10% what's actually in that singular book in the much, much larger Lutheran Confessions. I suspect very few Lutheran laity have studied the Lutheran Confessions - much less understand them and can state that they completely agree with everything in them. But at least the ELCA and LCMS embrace the same Confessions, so maybe that's moot.

BTW, I have studied Lutheran theology - taking a 3 year study using F.Pieper's "Christian Dogmatics" which, I understand, is the usual theology text used in LCMS and WELS seminaries. But, YES, before I would even consider joining this congregation, I would attend a class with the pastor. I did that in the Catholic Church (but didn't join) and in my own church (and did).

In my post, I'm sorry if it seemed I was debating with you. I just had questions about this policy, that strikes me as a tad odd and unworkable. I'm of the opinion that since it's the person taking Communion, not a denomination, that it's the person's heart, faith and beliefs that matters - not the denomination's. And I wouldn't disallow someone just because they don't belong to a denomination or don't know what that denomination officially teaches about everything or even if they do, or agree with everything if they do. But I may be in disagreement with the LCMS on this policy.


Just MY feelings and opinions and questions...
No disrespect intended.


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

Your post seems to suggest that he may not be in complete compliance with LCMS policy in my regard.

My post? Or the copy and paste from the LCMS website posting?

[LutherNut]

Josiah,

What would benefit you the most would be to take some membership classes with a confessional Lutheran pastor. Obviously the one at the church you attend is not in line with the official practice and teaching of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod if he allows you communion without inquiring about your refusal to join the congregation. (He sounds like a very good example as to why the LCMS is in the mess its in.)

People join churches because they believe in what that church teaches. If they don't believe it, they don't join. Anyone who joins an LCMS congregation takes such a class where they learn the teachings of the Christian faith from Luther's Small Catechism (there is no "ELCA" or "LCMS" versions - it was written by Luther 500 years ago). All lifeling members of the LCMS have taken catechism classes in their youth and were confirmed before they were able to worthily commune.

Communion is not about what we want or what we feel, but rather what Christ gives to those who are worthy, repentant, and believe in His words. You are all tied up in your own personal reasons for not joining the congregation, but still demand to be communed. (It was you who first approached the pastor with your inquiry, was it not?)

My concern is why don't you join the church if you agree with its confession enough to join with everyone else at the altar and by doing so making a public statement that you do agree with their beliefs? Why would your girlfriend want to commune with the LCMS when she supports the unBiblical ordination of women? If you believe with their beliefs, why don't you join the church? There has to be a reason. If you don't agree with the beliefs of the church, then why are you making a hypocritic statement that you do agree with them by joining them at the altar to commune with them?

[Qoheleth]

I'm genuinely shocked that a LCMS pastor would allow you to join the congregation without first having you go through an Adult Inquirers Catechism class for you to learn what the people believe AND CONFESS.

Im not. LC-MS pastors bust the rules frequently and there is no accountability within the districts or at the synodical level.

Its all getting very untenable.


Q

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, What would benefit you the most would be to take some membership classes with a confessional Lutheran pastor.



1. I'm not joining any congregation. Thus, I don't have any intentions of taking a membership class. The discussion here is not what is proper for someone who seeks to be Confirmed in a congregation or to officially join a congregation. The discussion is about a guest being barred from His Sacrament.


2. I have studied, at great length, Dr. Pieper's "Christian Dogmatics." It's a 3 volumn series which is used to teach pastor's theology in LCMS and I believe still WELS seminaries. He was a long time professor of theology at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis back in the 1930's I think. I spent 3 full years studying these 3 books. Partly with the help of my father (who has a doctorate in theology) and my grandfather (a now retired WELS pastor). Does that count? What level of doctrinal training is necessary before a person is not barred from the Sacrament?



Obviously the one at the church you attend is not in line with the official practice and teaching of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod if he allows you communion without inquiring about your refusal to join the congregation.

1. Perhaps. IF the policy is what I understand it is, I'm glad.

2. The discussion here is not whether I want to officially join this particular Lutheran congregation. I don't. I'm a college student, I'm not going to be around for long. My girlfriend and I are guests - warmly embraced guests. This congregation welcomes guests - even college students - and I think that's good. We've been asked to help with the youth group and I spoke with the minister of music about the praise band, but I'm not sure what will happen there, but we have no intentions of officially joining the congregation. Jennifer is a member of her father's church, and I'm a member of my father's church (we're both PK's). No one has asked us to offically join the congregation. But again, the issue of this thread is not about church membership, it's about being barred from His Sacrament.



People join churches because they believe in what that church teaches. If they don't believe it, they don't join.

We may just respectfully disagree on this point. Most of my Christian friends don't belong to any church - and I see nothing in Scriptures that say we must officially register with a congregation or if such membership does not exist, then a church should forbid people from His Sacrament, that people who aren't officially a member of that congregation are to be barred from His Sacrament. We may disagree on that.

In my experience, people attend a church they like. They feel at home, welcomed, embraced. They conclude they can serve Him and His people via this ministry. They are helped by the sermons, inspired by the worship. In my experience, most worshippers in a congregation have little knowledge or commitement to the official Confessions of the denomination to which that congregation belongs (in several cases, there are no binding Confessions to know or agree with). I wonder what percentage of Lutherans have carefully studied the Book of Concord? And what about all the other official teachings, for example, The Brief Statement of 1932?


But again, the issue here is being barred from His Sacrament, not church membership.



Anyone who joins an LCMS congregation takes such a class where they learn the teachings of the Christian faith from Luther's Small Catechism (there is no "ELCA" or "LCMS" versions - it was written by Luther 500 years ago).

I have the LCMS version of Luther's Small Catechism (WITH EXPLAINATION). I've had it for longer than I can remember. I actually brought it to college with me. Jennifer has the ELCA version of it. Ahha, they are different. The reason is simple: VERY LITTLE of what's in either book is actually Luther's Small Catechism (nothing more than a pamphet) - 90% of it is the EXPLANATION that have been given and stuff that has been added. By whom, I don't know, neither book says.

Luther's Small Catchism is probably 1% of the Lutheran Confessions. While I know his Catechism very well, I would, by no means, suggests that that means I know the Confessions! Certainly not! Actually, the only other part I've read is the Augsburg Confession - I've read that. I haven't even read the great majority of the Lutheran Confessions or carefully studied them (I wonder how many Lutheran laity have).



All lifeling members of the LCMS have taken catechism classes in their youth and were confirmed before they were able to worthily commune.

Since the 1960's, the LCMS has welcomed instructed children in the 5th grade and up to commune - BEFORE they even begin Confirmation Classes. CPH publishes booklets for this instruction. It is not the policy of the LCMS that one must be Confirmed before they can Commune.

But the issue here is not Confirmation. The issue is being forbidden from His Sacrament.



Communion is not about what we want or what we feel, but rather what Christ gives to those who are worthy, repentant, and believe in His words.

I agree.

So, if I'm repentant and believe His words, that's not enough? And believing His words, is that in reference to His Sacrament - or does that include the Brief Statement of 1932? I suppose that's the issue here.



You are all tied up in your own personal reasons for not joining the congregation, but still demand to be communed. (It was you who first approached the pastor with your inquiry, was it not?)


This thread is not about joining a congregation. The opening poster revealed no intention of such. I have no desire to officially join the congregation Jennifer and I are attending - nor have we been asked to. The issue here is forbidding from the Sacrament repentant Christians who are in complete agreement with the LCMS on Real Presence.


No, I never said or implied that I DEMANDED to participate in His gift. When we first attended, we did NOT participate in His Sacrament. Both of us respectfully emailed the pastor. This is the policy my father (a pastor) taught me - always speak with the Celebrant first, privately if possible, and respect and follow his counsel. That's what both Jennfier and I did. Neither of us DEMANDED anything, I have no idea why you conclude that we did (??!!). I revealed my background, my basic beliefs, and in some detail, what I believe about His Sacrament. He wrote a wonderful email back to me, and expressed that I'm welcome to participate. I was invited to participate. I have. That's a very different situation than what you are posting about me...



My concern is why don't you join the church if you agree with its confession enough to join with everyone else at the altar and by doing so making a public statement that you do agree with their beliefs? Why would your girlfriend want to commune with the LCMS when she supports the unBiblical ordination of women? If you believe with their beliefs, why don't you join the church? There has to be a reason.


1. This thread is not about joining a particular congregation. My reasons for not joining this congregation has much more to do with me being a temporary college student than any doctrinal issues. But that's an entirely different topic. In most congregations (especially growing ones), most of the worshippers are not official members. I'm kinda at a loss to know what official membership has to do with anything, unless your point is that people who are not official members of that congregation must be forbidden from His Sacrament.


2. What does female ordination have to do with His Sacrament? Is it your opinion that the teaching of Real Presence requires that the pastor of the church be a male? Christ is not present in His Sacrament if the pastor is female? I can think of nothing in the texts about the Sacrament that remotely suggests that.


3. The reason I'm not joining this congregation is mostly because I'm not going to be here for long. And what that has to do with accepting Real Presence or Christ as my Savior or being repentant - well, I'm really lost there.


f you don't agree with the beliefs of the church, then why are you making a hypocritic statement that you do agree with them by joining them at the altar to commune with them?


1. Who said I don't agree with Real Presence?

2. I'm a "hypocrite" for not being barred from His Sacrament?

3. I suspect part of this discussion is BIBLICALLY, why can a repentant Christian be barred from His Sacrament? Is it because he/she hasn't read, studied and agrees to ALL the official Confessions of a denomination (in this case, the Book of Concord)? They aren't officially members of the congregation? They don't agree with all the positions of that denomination (for example, The Brief Statement of 1932)? Is it your position that a guest needs to be in 100% agreement with everything the LCMS embraces or does in order to take communion there? So if you attend the next Synodical Convention, and not all votes go your way, you must be barred from His Sacrament?


When those 13 year olds take Communion in your congregation, are you convinced that they know more Lutheran theology than I do? That they have studied the Book of Concord and agree with it more than I? That they are more repentant, have more faith in Jesus and I? That they agree with all the articles of The Brief Statement more than I do? Convinced enough to bar me from His Sacrament? Enough to call me a "hypocrite?"


:scratch:


- Josiah


.

[LilLamb219]

Lutherans don't just view Communion as being between only us and Jesus. There is also the understanding of the fellowship amongst the congregation as well. Since you don't agree with the points of Lutheranism to want to join any congregation, you are giving a false appearance to everyone in that congregation saying that you believe what they believe. The people who commune with you assume that you are in agreement with their beliefs and you are deceiving them by partaking at the same table. You may believe in a Real Presence, but you are not in true altar and pulpit fellowship with them, nor do you care enough to look into being in true altar and pulpit fellowship with them. For you, from what you've written, communion is just between you and God and nothing else matters. Lutherans believe in not only a vertical view but also a horizontal view of Communion and automatically assume that others at the "table" agree with them as well. These things are important to us even though you don't think they are of importance.

[LilLamb219]

3. The reason I'm not joining this congregation is mostly because I'm not going to be here for long. And what that has to do with accepting Real Presence or Christ as my Savior or being repentant - well, I'm really lost there.

So, you ARE intending to join a Lutheran congregation after you move (Edited...I just read someplace where you state you are a college student. Are you attending a church on campus or something?)

[LilLamb219]

I've also noticed that you've said you are a member of your father's congregation...which one is that?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If the rule is that we read, study, know and agree with the Small Catechism regarding the Sacrament, here it is, in the good Doctor's words, in the Book of Concord.

I agree with every single word.


VI. The Sacrament of the Altar,
as the Head of a Family Should Teach It in a Simple Way to His Household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer.
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Where is this written? Answer.
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? Answer.
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins. Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily? Answer.
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is what the Catechism says is what makes one "worthy" of the Gift: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

I believe those words and my heart altogether believes them.


Share the love!


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

I noticed you ignored everything else I've written. Oh well.

[DaRev]

This is what the Catechism says is what makes one "worthy" of the Gift: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

I believe those words and my heart altogether believes them.


Share the love!


- Josiah


The words "altogether believing hearts" is pluralindicating a fellowship of belief with those with whom you are communing.

[C.F.W. Walther]

This is what the Catechism says is what makes one "worthy" of the Gift: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

I believe those words and my heart altogether believes them.


Share the love!


- Josiah

Are you a confessed Lutheran that holds a membership in any Lutheran church within the LCMS/WELS community? I'm not asking if you attend a Lutheran church, I'm asking explicitly what denom are you? From what I see you confess no denom. This subforum is just for LCMS/WELS.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is what the Catechism says is what makes one "worthy" of the Gift: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

I believe those words and my heart altogether believes them.


Share the love!


- Josiah


The words "altogether believing hearts" is pluralindicating a fellowship of belief with those with whom you are communing.


I was directed to Luther's Small Catechism regarding His Sacrament. I quoted it verbatum.

While I don't know the German, it seems to me Luther is referring to those at the Communion table, not to denominations. IMO, denominations can't receive the Sacrament, have believing hearts or be worthy - only people can.

There was discussion about what Christian is "worthy" of the gift (worthy of a gift?). Luther seems to answer that clearly in the very place to which I was directed.


- Josiah

[svdbygrace]

United Methodists do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We state however that it is a "Holy Mystery" as to how Christ becomes present in the actual bread and wine (in, with and under... as you believe, or actually becomes the bread and wine as the Catholic Church believes).

It is not only a spiritual presence, but a true and real presence of Christ.

You can see this most clearly in the early Methodist hymns (which is basically our Eucharistic theology) that were wrote by Charles Wesley.

Come and partake the gospel feast,
be saved from sin, in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of our God,
and eat his flesh and drink his blood.

See him set forth before your eyes;
behold the bleeding sacrifice;
his offered love make haste to embrace,
and freely now be saved by grace.

also in our liturgy during the Great Thanksgiving (the prayer of Consecration) you can see our believe in the true (Real) presence of Christ in the Eucharist...

Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.

As was already mentioned you can also read a more contemporary statement published by the UMC called "This Holy Mystery" another good source is John Wesley's sermon "the Duty of Constant Communion".


I just wanted to clarify what we do believe.

[LutherNut]

United Methodists do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We state however that it is a "Holy Mystery" as to how Christ becomes present in the actual bread and wine (in, with and under... as you believe, or actually becomes the bread and wine as the Catholic Church believes).

It is not only a spiritual presence, but a true and real presence of Christ.

You can see this most clearly in the early Methodist hymns (which is basically our Eucharistic theology) that were wrote by Charles Wesley.



also in our liturgy during the Great Thanksgiving (the prayer of Consecration) you can see our believe in the true (Real) presence of Christ in the Eucharist...



As was already mentioned you can also read a more contemporary statement published by the UMC called "This Holy Mystery" another good source is John Wesley's sermon "the Duty of Constant Communion".


I just wanted to clarify what we do believe.

Could you then explain the following passages from the UMC Book of Discipline? It contradicts what you just posted:

"Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes" (Book of Discipline, page 68).

"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." (Book of Discipline, page 64)


The Reformed also use the words "Real Presence" but are only talking about a spiritual presence at the altar. That's not what Scripture teaches, nor is it what the Lutheran Church confesses.

[LutherNut]

I've also noticed that you've said you are a member of your father's congregation...which one is that?

Forget it, LilLamb. He's been asked several times and ignores it every time. Apparently he's ashamed.

[BigNorsk]

I know of incidents where people have taken messages from places such as this and tried to get minsters removed. Maybe it is immaterial to these discussions who or where his father is and he doesn't want to subject his father to the attacks that really are pretty likely to come if Josiah tells where his father is.

It's quite unfair and if I may say so diminishes you in my eyes to say such a thing as he is ashamed of his father when in all likelihood he is simply trying to protect his father from hurtful people.

If you simply wanted to know out of interest in getting to know about Josiah, I can't imagine why you would say such a hurtful thing, and I don't know why you would intentionally say something that can only be intended to hurt Josiah.

Marv

[svdbygrace]

.

[DaRev]

This does not mean a "Spiritual" presence of Christ in the Eucharist as the Reformed believe. If so that would contradict our own Methodist theology of the "Holy Mystery". This is speaking of the Eucharist being taken in a "Spiritual" manner, it is a spiritual manner to us, not to Christ who is truly Present.

We do not believe the actual bread and wine become Christ's body and blood. Christ is present in the bread and wine (no transubstantiation in other words). We do not say exactly how Christ becomes present (ie: in, with, and under or even a "spiritual" presence). The only type of presence that is rejected is transubstantiation.

Christ is truly present in the Eucharist that is what we believe. No, we do not confess how he becomes present, except that he is truly present. Read "This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist understanding of Holy Communion", and also read some of Wesley's Eucharistic hymns...

This is my last post in this thread. I am not trying to debate. I am sorry if it has appeared as such, I was just making sure our beliefs are no mis-represented.

Christ's Peace,

Svdbygrace

I guess the question being asked, and yet to be answered, is whether or not the United Methodist Church teaches that we receive the actualy body and blood of jesus Christ in our mouths to eat and drink. Do they make this confession or not? I don't believe that they do, and thus do not believe what either the Lutheran Chruch confesses nor what the Scriptures teach.

[LilLamb219]

I guess the question being asked, and yet to be answered, is whether or not the United Methodist Church teaches that we receive the actualy body and blood of jesus Christ in our mouths to eat and drink. Do they make this confession or not?

According to their official website, they only believe in the body as being spiritual. There are some individuals who believe differently, but as a whole, the denomination confesses that it is spiritual and when referring to the group of "Methodists" we need to base our reference on what they confess as a group...which has been posted here on this board by links of their official website(spiritual).

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IN MY OPINION ...

Since it's impossible for the United Methodist denomination to receive Communion, their position is moot. It, of course, IS possible for a Christian person to receive Communion, and so their position would be relevant.

This is my own personal opinion. I do not claim to be the official, authorized spokesperson for any Lutheran denomination.


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

Since it's impossible for the United Methodist denomination to receive Communion, their position is moot. It, of course, IS possible for a Christian person to receive Communion, and so their position would be relevant.

The point is that if you are saying you belong to a certain denomination that you agree to what the denomination as a whole believes.

[LutherNut]

IN MY OPINION ...

Since it's impossible for the United Methodist denomination to receive Communion, their position is moot. It, of course, IS possible for a Christian person to receive Communion, and so their position would be relevant.

This is my own personal opinion. I do not claim to be the official, authorized spokesperson for any Lutheran denomination.


- Josiah

People belong to a church becasue they agree with what it teaches. The United Methodist Church teaches a "spiritual manner" reception of the Lord's Supper. This is clear from their official confessions. People who are confessing members of a United Methodist congregation do, by their membership, hold and believe what that church body teaches.

[LutherNut]

I know of incidents where people have taken messages from places such as this and tried to get minsters removed. Maybe it is immaterial to these discussions who or where his father is and he doesn't want to subject his father to the attacks that really are pretty likely to come if Josiah tells where his father is.

It's quite unfair and if I may say so diminishes you in my eyes to say such a thing as he is ashamed of his father when in all likelihood he is simply trying to protect his father from hurtful people.

If you simply wanted to know out of interest in getting to know about Josiah, I can't imagine why you would say such a hurtful thing, and I don't know why you would intentionally say something that can only be intended to hurt Josiah.

Marv

If your comments are directed at me, you have no idea what you are talking about. Read what I said. I said NOTHING about his father. I don't really care about his father (in terms of this discussion or any other). He has been asked repeatedly about his denominational background in an attempt to get a handle on where he's coming from, and to try and understand his desire to speak for the Lutherans here but his utter refusal to ever join a Lutheran church.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

People belong to a church becasue they agree with what it teaches.

Could you quote from the studies that reveal that?
Could you show the evidence for this claim?


The United Methodist Church teaches a "spiritual manner" reception of the Lord's Supper. This is clear from their official confessions.

A Methodist presented official evidence to the contrary.

But my question would be: Do ALL of the 12,000,000 Methodists in the USA know and completely agree with these "official" UMC statements about the Lord's Supper? Are they required to study and subscribe to them in order to be a member of the United Methodist Church? Are they binding on all laity?


People who are confessing members of a United Methodist congregation do, by their membership, hold and believe what that church body teaches.

Would you please provide some official current statement of the United Methodist Church that so states?


Thanks.


- Josiah


.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I don't think anyone is trying to be hurtfull here but if people from the outside come in here looking for answers and they find that they are being answered by some who at the best is a Lutheran wannabe then all are credibilty goes out the window becaused we allowed someone to educate outsiders on Lutheran position that isn't even Lutheran.

As LN said to me, then CF can't stop us from going into other denom forums and missrepresenting ourselves as one of them. Even though some of us have gone to their churches and know more about them than they know about thereselves. That would be blatant missrepresentation and so is this. :sigh:

[LilLamb219]

A Methodist presented official evidence to the contrary.

The Methodist official website states spiritual. What more proof do you want? Spiritual is NOT the Lutheran stance.

Whether or not all the Methodists agree with the official stance or not is their own personal problem. They claim to be Methodist and the Methodist have a set of detailed beliefs just like Lutherans do. When someone comes to our board and claims something that is outside of what we believe, we correct that person on what Lutherans believe.

What confuses others is when someone goes someplace and says, well, I'm Lutheran and I believe this and tries to make others believe that's what Lutherans believe...when it might not be true. We have our Confessions and hold ourselves to them as being scripturally true. When someone wants to KNOW what Lutherans believe, they don't have to take Joe Schmo's opinion but can go to the Confessions and know what the real truth is and maybe even find out that poor Old Joe really doesn't either know what he's talking about or doesn't really believe what Lutherans believe. So, maybe Joe needs to go talk things over with his pastor and get back on the right track, eh?

But, I digress on that...

Back to the point. When someone claims to be from a denomination, others look to what that denomination believes to learn about them. If someone claims to be Methodist, yet doesn't believe what Methodists believes, that person could come across as being deceptive, ignorant of the beliefs, or in denial of what Methodists believe. That doesn't change the fact that the people of that denomination have a set of beliefs that the denomination holds to be true. Just because a few people here and there decide they don't want to believe what the rest of the group believes, that doesn't change the fact that Methodists believe that the real presence is merely spiritual as stated on the website.

You can go to our Lutheran confessions and safely state something (oh, wait, you have done that already on this board) and we can go to the Methodist website and safely state what is stated on their board that lists their beliefs...and not be wrong.

[LilLamb219]

Do ALL of the 12,000,000 Methodists in the USA know and completely agree with these "official" UMC statements about the Lord's Supper?

You've stated something similar concerning Lutherans and their learning of their faith. At age 18, I certainly don't buy into it that you are so experienced at meeting vasts amounts of people in many different denominations to indicate that the people are so completely ignorant of what their denominations really believe. Sure, there are a few people who might be confused on a few points, but for the most part, people are not as ignorant as you make them out to be and it is extremely disrespectful of you to keep alluding to that.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You've stated something similar concerning Lutherans and their learning of their faith. At age 18, I certainly don't buy into it that you are so experienced at meeting vasts amounts of people in many different denominations to indicate that the people are so completely ignorant of what their denominations really believe. Sure, there are a few people who might be confused on a few points, but for the most part, people are not as ignorant as you make them out to be and it is extremely disrespectful of you to keep alluding to that.


Is it an assumption that...

1. All denominations have a specific Official Statement regarding the specifics of the nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament?


2. That all laity in all denominations have been thoroughly trained in specificly what this Official Statement says, and they have all given their full agreement to it?


3. This specific Official Statement is binding on all laity in all denominations? They cannot be members if they do not know and agree to this Official Statement?



My only point is rather than assume all those rather remarkable things, it might be better to do one of two things:

1. State what your position is regarding this issue, and ask if they agree.

2. Ask what they believe on this and determine if that's acceptable.

This seems especially advantagious since a large number of Christians don't officially belong to any denomination, which seems to make your approach a tad moot.

It seems to ME that what the person seeking His blessing believes should be the key factor, not what some statement of their denomination might proclaim. The denomination isn't coming to the Altar, the person is.

I refer you again to Luther's words on this in the Small Catechism, which is what I was referred to in this thread and what I quoted, verbatim.


I don't ask anyone to agree with me.

I am not the official authorized spokesperson for any denomination - Lutheran or otherwise. I'm just sharing my view.


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

It seems to ME that what the person seeking His blessing believes should be the key factor, not what some statement of their denomination might proclaim. The denomination isn't coming to the Altar, the person is.

Here you are in the LCMS/WELS, etc... forum and NOT listening to what the members of these synods are saying to you concerning OUR BELIEFS on who is admitted to the table. Those not in fellowship are not admitted to the table even though there are some exceptions (mainly for emergency). There are people who belong to other denominations who ARE NOT in altar and pulpit fellowship with us.

You seem to enjoy posting on the Lutheran forums because you claim to have a good background of what Lutherans believe, but here we are telling you in this forum what we believe and you ignore us. It's a slap in the face, sir, for you to continue as you are doing (not listening to what we are telling you about our synods' stances on the matter).

[LutherNut]

Could you quote from the studies that reveal that?
Could you show the evidence for this claim?

Evidence??!?? It's common sense!!! Why would someone joiun a church if they don't agree with what it teaches?? That's just stupid!



A Methodist presented official evidence to the contrary.

But my question would be: Do ALL of the 12,000,000 Methodists in the USA know and completely agree with these "official" UMC statements about the Lord's Supper? Are they required to study and subscribe to them in order to be a member of the United Methodist Church? Are they binding on all laity?


And I presented quotes from their official statements. Look it up!
If their laity don't subscribe and hold to their doctrines, why are they members of that denomination? To do so would make them hypocrites!



Would you please provide some official current statement of the United Methodist Church that so states?

Again, it's common sense!! :doh: :doh: :doh:
Your problem is that you know nothing about being a member of a church.



Why don't you follow your forum rules and cease the debate in the subforum? This is for LCMS/WELS/ELS members and not for outside debates.

[LutherNut]

[

;)

[DaRev]

1. All denominations have a specific Official Statement regarding the specifics of the nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament?


Yes, they do. You can most likely find the official teaching regarding their understanding and practice of the Lord's Supper on each body's individual web site. Every church body that celebrates the Lord's Supper has an official teaching about it.




2. That all laity in all denominations have been thoroughly trained in specificly what this Official Statement says, and they have all given their full agreement to it?

While no one here can speak for every individual, it is commonly held that every church body and every congregation has some form of membership training for those wishing to join their churches. The prupose of the church is to proclaim the truth of God's word in the Gospel. It wouldn't make sense if they openly allowed people to subscribe to their own beliefs and ideas. There's no unity that way. It undermines the very truth of the Gospel.



3. This specific Official Statement is binding on all laity in all denominations? They cannot be members if they do not know and agree to this Official Statement?

Yes. For someone to be a member of a congregation, they would have to be in agreement with what that congregation confesses. Why would someone want to be a member of a church if they don't agree with what the church teaches? Why would a church allow someone to join if they don't agree with that church's confession? It undermines the truth of the Gospel.

Now, having said that, there is no way for us to know what is in the heart of every individual. Only God knows that. We do know that the visible church contains both true believers and hypocrites. So are there members of congregations that do not agree with that church's confessions? Of course there are. These would be the hypocrites. Why would they publically proclaim to agree with the doctrines and confessions of the church that they inwardly do not agree with?

The point of this post was whether a confessing member of the United Methodist Church would be able to commune at an LCMS congregation. The LCMS holds to the Biblical teaching of closed communion. Communion is both an individual unity with God and a unity of faith with each other at the altar. Where either of those is missing, there is no communion, no unity.

The UMC member is only seeking the individual communion between him/her and God, while forsaking or even denying the communion of believers at the altar. That is not the teaching of the evangelical Lutheran Church, nor of the LCMS in particular.
The ELCA, on the other hand, does not recognize the communion of believers at the altar and so they open their practice to anyone regardless of their confession. This is in opposition to the teaching of our Lord in the Scriptures.





My only point is rather than assume all those rather remarkable things, it might be better to do one of two things:

1. State what your position is regarding this issue, and ask if they agree.

2. Ask what they believe on this and determine if that's acceptable.

This seems especially advantagious since a large number of Christians don't officially belong to any denomination, which seems to make your approach a tad moot.


My concern would by why this large number of Christians are not members of a congregation? This is where God comes to us to give us His gifts of word and Sacrament, His means of grace. "Where two or three are gathered..."

There's a reason why they are not members somewhere. That would be my concern.



It seems to ME that what the person seeking His blessing believes should be the key factor, not what some statement of their denomination might proclaim. The denomination isn't coming to the Altar, the person is.

Buy why would a person belong to a denomination that they do not agree with? There membership in that organization is in fact a public declaration of what they believe.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is exactly why there are thousands of denoms because of the position that you take that is all about you and not the denom. Boy talk about egotistical. If you want it to be all about you and that you are right as adverse to Lutheranism then the "me, me, I, I" denom is down the road at the "Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/ Charismatic (http://www.christianforums.com/f122-spirit-filled-pentecostal-charismatic.html)" or "Non- Deniminational" thread or.........start your own church since you really like to tell people what they should know about Christianity you can join the "http://www.christianforums.com/clear.gifHome Church & Unchurched (http://www.christianforums.com/f473-home-church-unchurched.html)". See I even gave you pretty little colored links to help you on your way.

My only point was that what a denomination may have stated at some point should not be the primary issue since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament. What matters is what the Christian believes.

I'm completely lost as to your point here.

Let me put it this way:
Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.


Why is the beleif of the denomination all important and the belief of the individual moot? The denominaiton isn't talking to the pastor, a person is. A denomination can't receive the Gift, only a person can.



I don't agree with everything in the LCMS

Then should you be barred from His Gift? Kept away from the Sacrament?

If Jim agrees with the LCMS as much as you do - either 100% - why are you welcomed and he refused? Why is technical, official membership in a denomination more important that what you believe?

How much agreement is necessary for this welcome or refusal?

And if you don't agree with the LCMS on everything, why do you assume everyone else agrees with their denomination on everything?



but if I want to call myself Lutheran then I have to follow the Bible and Luther's teachings or I'm not a Lutheran..........just like you.......

Yes.
That's what I do, too.


You try to misslead people. You tried to misslead me about your denom. You said you were Lutheran and it states you're profile that you are Christan.

In MY opinion, Lutherans are Christians.
I consider it to be a Christian faith community.

My faith designation specifically says I'm Lutheran. Just like yours.

I MAY not agree with the LCMS on everything, but you said that you do not. Why that makes you a Lutheran but me a Christian is a point I guess I'm missing. To me, Lutherans are Christians.


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

Who says he has forgotten what he learned? There may be medical reasons why he cannot come to church more than an outsider might know about. Maybe the pastor has a firmer grasp of the situation than the outsider looking in and questioning.

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.

What is keeping Jim from wanting to "walk together" with other Christians of like mind? Synod means walking together. Why would Jim learn so much and agree but be so reluctant to join in the fellowship of like believers? There are some issues Jim apparently has and needs to talk it over with a pastor.

Some pastors will commune Jim if he's dying or something close to it and believes the same as the rest of the congregation, but has no energy or time left to join in membership. A pastor has that discretion to commune the man in such a case.

We keep referring you back to altar and pulpit fellowship as one of the points for communion in our synods. You keep throwing back to us that denominations do not commune, people do, but what we keep saying to you over and over again is that when people make a choice to belong to a denomination, they are agreeing to what the denomination holds as being true. Our synods are not in altar and pulpit fellowship with some denominations because of the false theology within those churches and the false theology that the members believe. For those people to bring that false theology to the table, is not being in "communion" with the others there in the congregation. I hope you finally understand this.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Who says he has forgotten what he learned? There may be medical reasons why he cannot come to church more than an outsider might know about. Maybe the pastor has a firmer grasp of the situation than the outsider looking in and questioning.

Sorry, my point perhaps was not clear.
The point is, Herman is being welcomed to His Gift because he is officially the member of an LCMS congregation somewhere. You know NOTHING of what Herman believes vis-a-vis the Sacrament (or anything else for that matter). He's not even asked. Because he's OFFICALLY a member of a denomination with which the LCMS is in fellowship, he MUST - automatically, without question - MUST know everything the LCMS has said since 1847 and MUST be in full, 100% agreement with it. It's just assumed.

On the other hand, because someone goes to a nondenominational church that has no official position on this, or because someone goes to a Methodist Church where they had various positions but none of them binding on laity, it's ASSUMED that that person MUST know everything the Methodist chruch has said or done since 1767 and MUST be in full, 100% agreement with it. It's just assumed.

I question the assumptions.

And why what the denomination says is all important and what the person believes is so irrelevant so as to be completely ignored.

It is MY opinion (and I speak for no one but myself, and I as NO ONE to agree with me and I seek NO denomination, synod or congregation to change their policy), that maybe what the person beleives is more of an issue than what some denomination may have said at a convention in 1881, that perhaps isn't binding and perhaps view even know about. But that's just MY view on this.

And I'm not an authorized, official spokesman for any denomination - Lutheran or otherwise. I speak for me.



What is keeping Jim from wanting to "walk together" with other Christians of like mind? Synod means walking together. Why would Jim learn so much and agree but be so reluctant to join in the fellowship of like believers? There are some issues Jim apparently has and needs to talk it over with a pastor.

This is a nearly unique Lutheran understanding that, IMO, should not be imposed on all the world's other 2,000,000,000 + Christians.

Perhaps one doesn't belong to the congregation because they are in college or on a business trip or on vacation. But, again, the issue is, which is more important? What a denomination may have stated at some point (which a particular member may not even be aware of and which may be binding on no one), should that be regarded as the key (and only) factor for welcome or barring OR is the person's own heart and faith more important? THAT'S the issue I've raised. MY opinion (and it's ONLY MY OPINION), is since the denomination isn't taking Communion, maybe the person's faith is more important than some statement of the denomination. But that's just MY view. I've asked NO ONE to agree. I've asked NO congregation, synod or denomination to change their policy.



What we keep saying to you over and over again is that when people make a choice to belong to a denomination, they are agreeing to what the denomination holds as being true.

IMO, and you are 100% welcome to have a varient or opposite opinion - I'm not asking you to agree with me or anyone - this is an invalid assumption on your part.

I've seen several studies of why people join a church - and consistently, doctrinal beliefs are near the bottom of the list of reasons. And I'm aware that most of the Christians here at college don't belong to ANY denomination. Many of America's largest and fastest growing congregations don't belong to any denomination. In some denominations, a person joins a congregation but in so doing they are not joining the denomination - only congregations join the denomination, not the individual members of those congregations.

I furthermore disagree with your assumption that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS even KNOW everything of a theological nature that the LCMS has said since 1847. I wonder how many have carefully studied the Brief Statement of 1847 for example? And since they don't even know it, why is it assumed that they fully, completely, 100% agree with it? I've seen Confirmation books used in Lutheran churches!!!! I find it a bit of an assumption to view that every Lutheran over the age of 14 knows and agrees to everything the Lutheran church has taught. And the Lutherans do such instruction FAR, FAR better than anyone else!!! Since there are many Protestants whose entire 'membership class" consisted of 3 hours (and much of that about stewardship), I find the assumption that these people KNOW and TOTALLY AGREE with EVERYTHING that denomination teaches, well, I think that might be a stretch. And to base the ENTIRE issue of whether they are welcomed or barred from His Sacrament on the basis of this assumption - THAT'S what I'm discussing here.


For those people to bring that false theology to the table, is not being in "communion" with the others there in the congregation. I hope you finally understand this.

I do, but you said "those people." So, the issue is the people - not the denomination, IMO.

And what if "those people" don't bring that false theology to the table? Why are they barred from His Sacrament?

Is the key factor here what the denomination they MAY belong to said somewhere, sometime. Or is the key factor that person? Their heart and faith?


Again, I'm not disrespecting the POLICY of any congregation, synod or denomination. I specifically ASKED the pastor and got his approval. I followed the rubric. And I am NOT asking any person, congregation, synod or denomination to agree with my point. I'm just expressing my view.

I am not an authorized official spokesperson for any congregation, synod, denomination or other organization. I'm only sharing MY thoughts in a DISCUSSION forum.


- Josiah

[C.F.W. Walther]

My only point was that what a denomination may have stated at some point should not be the primary issue since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament. What matters is what the Christian believes.

I'm completely lost as to your point here.

Let me put it this way:
Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.


Why is the beleif of the denomination all important and the belief of the individual moot? The denominaiton isn't talking to the pastor, a person is. A denomination can't receive the Gift, only a person can.





Then should you be barred from His Gift? Kept away from the Sacrament?

If Jim agrees with the LCMS as much as you do - either 100% - why are you welcomed and he refused? Why is technical, official membership in a denomination more important that what you believe?

How much agreement is necessary for this welcome or refusal?

And if you don't agree with the LCMS on everything, why do you assume everyone else agrees with their denomination on everything?





Yes.
That's what I do, too.




In MY opinion, Lutherans are Christians.
I consider it to be a Christian faith community.

My faith designation specifically says I'm Lutheran. Just like yours.

I MAY not agree with the LCMS on everything, but you said that you do not. Why that makes you a Lutheran but me a Christian is a point I guess I'm missing. To me, Lutherans are Christians.


- Josiah


You know..........you have no idea what any of us went through back then to complete confirmation and if confirmation today by LCMS much less the ELCA, is any indication of what a comfirmant knows then I would take Joe of 52 over Josh of 94 anyday. I memmorized the Small cathecism backwards and forwards and 100's of bible verses. His word does not come back to him void.

It doesn't make any differance what you know in your head becasue the longest distance in the world is the distance between the head and heart. As trite as it seems I have a certicicate of confirmation and you don't. Simple as that. I confessed and was excepted into the Lutheran church and you didn't therfore I can commune with other believers and you shouldn't be able until you confess the support ot the Lutheran Church.

Certainly Christians are Lutheran and visa versa but you try to deceive poeple into believing you are with them or on there side by using that generic phrase and not have enough guts to stand up for one denom or another by an expression of membership. You can't be everything to everybody.

I'm finished talking to you.

[LilLamb219]

Because he's OFFICALLY a member of a denomination with which the LCMS is in fellowship, he MUST - automatically, without question - MUST know everything the LCMS has said since 1847 and MUST be in full, 100% agreement with it. It's just assumed.

Ok, you state that this guy only goes to church a few times a year and we know nothing about what he believes since he was confirmed a long time ago. Here is something that maybe you have not thought about and could give you some more insight... Lutheran pastors generally aren't lazy sloths who only preach on Sunday mornings. They put in many hours during the week taking care of the sheep in ways we don't always see or hear. One thing for you to consider is that maybe the pastor went to visit this pretend guy who rarely comes to church. You see, pastors don't like to let the sheep stray too far. It's very much possible that the pastor knows more than the outsiders do about what this fellow still believes.

And what if "those people" don't bring that false theology to the table? Why are they barred from His Sacrament?

Is the key factor here what the denomination they MAY belong to said somewhere, sometime. Or is the key factor that person? Their heart and faith?

What if they don't bring false theology to the table? Who would know since they still are in fellowship with a denomination that espouses false theology. When one is in fellowship with a denomination, one confesses to what the denomination confesses whether or not that person has knowledge or is so ignorant he/she doesn't care to research the group before joining. You really don't give people enough credit.

Concerning our head and heart, well, our life will dictate what our head and heart follow. If my head and heart are with the Lutherans, I'll join a Lutheran congregation (I already have), and if Joe's head and heart lead him to a Baptist church, then he'll pretty much join because our lives are a reflection of what we believe.

[LutherNut]

My only point was that what a denomination may have stated at some point should not be the primary issue since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament. What matters is what the Christian believes.

I'm completely lost as to your point here.

Let me put it this way:
Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.


Why is the beleif of the denomination all important and the belief of the individual moot? The denominaiton isn't talking to the pastor, a person is. A denomination can't receive the Gift, only a person can.





Then should you be barred from His Gift? Kept away from the Sacrament?

If Jim agrees with the LCMS as much as you do - either 100% - why are you welcomed and he refused? Why is technical, official membership in a denomination more important that what you believe?

How much agreement is necessary for this welcome or refusal?

And if you don't agree with the LCMS on everything, why do you assume everyone else agrees with their denomination on everything?





Yes.
That's what I do, too.




In MY opinion, Lutherans are Christians.
I consider it to be a Christian faith community.

My faith designation specifically says I'm Lutheran. Just like yours.

I MAY not agree with the LCMS on everything, but you said that you do not. Why that makes you a Lutheran but me a Christian is a point I guess I'm missing. To me, Lutherans are Christians.


- Josiah



God gives His gifts to the Church. The Church is the "ecclesia", the "assembly." Why would someone want His gifts, but not want to be a mamber of the "ecclesia" to which He gives them?

It doesn't matter at all how "book smart" someone is. It's a faith issue. And if someone refuses to join the "ecclesia" and yet demands the gifts, that's a faith issue. Any pastor worth his salt would ask about this.

It is a Biblical fact that Communion, the breaking of the bread, is a fellowship thing. Why would someone want to break bread and not be part of the fellowship? It just doesn't make sense.

It is also a fact of the LCMS that those who are communicant members hod to go through the instruction of the Small Catechism. It is also the statement that they make when they are accepted into the membership of the congregation that they agree with the faith of the Church as learned through the Small Catechsim. So those who are members of LCMS congregations have gone through the same instruction.

:scratch: I'm just baffled that this conversation is even happening.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, you state that this guy only goes to church a few times a year and we know nothing about what he believes since he was confirmed a long time ago. Here is something that maybe you have not thought about and could give you some more insight... Lutheran pastors generally aren't lazy sloths who only preach on Sunday mornings. They put in many hours during the week taking care of the sheep in ways we don't always see or hear. One thing for you to consider is that maybe the pastor went to visit this pretend guy who rarely comes to church. You see, pastors don't like to let the sheep stray too far. It's very much possible that the pastor knows more than the outsiders do about what this fellow still believes.


But how does the pastor of the church where he is guest know that?

This thread is about banning guests.


Herman reads the bulletin blurb that says that persons who are official members of denominations with which the LCMS are in altar fellowship are welcome to attend. So, he's a member of St. John's in Lincoln, Ill - a church in fellowship with the LCMS. So, he's welcomed. Period. That's all that matters. Does the pastor of this church, at which he is a guest, know ANYTHING about Herman's knowledge and beliefs about real presense? Does he know ANYTHING about Herman - other than he is officially on the rolls of a church that belongs to a denomination which which the LCMS has altar fellowship? Evidently, he doesn't need or desire to. Herman is technically an official member of a congregation associated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. That's all that's relevant. He's welcomed.

Another person comes who completely knows, understands, accepts and is committed to the LCMS's position, but because he is currently attending a nondenom church or because there are no Lutheran churches in his community or he just simply hasn't OFFICIALLY become a member, he is barred. That's it. He is not an OFFICIAL member of a church that associates with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. He is refused and barred from His Sacrament.


It seems to ME what matters in this policy are the various statements of a denomination and our view of them rather than the faith of the communicant. Or, more, in what congregation does the person have OFFICIAL membership and whether the LCMS is in altar fellowship with them or not.


It is MY opinion (but clearly not of anyone else) that the faith of the person should be a higher priority than various statements of the denomination - which, of course, may well not even be known to the person, may not be binding on any laity, and the person may not even agree with it.

We just disagree on this point. I think what matters is what the person believes - heart and head. This is more important than their official congregational membership status. As I read Luther's Catechism (the entire section is quoted verbatim earlier in this thread), Luther too speaks of the PERSON'S heart and faith, without any mention of the various statements made by various denominations and our views of them. But that's how I read Luther's words in the Small Catechism to which the policy directs us.



What if they don't bring false theology to the table? Who would know since they still are in fellowship with a denomination that espouses false theology. When one is in fellowship with a denomination, one confesses to what the denomination confesses whether or not that person has knowledge or is so ignorant he/she doesn't care to research the group before joining. You really don't give people enough credit.

You are assuming that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS have no erronious views whatsoever about the Sacrament and must agree completely with the LCMS, and that all the other 1,998,600,000 Christians must - because they aren't an official member of a congregation of the LMCS - must all have false views on the Sacrament? If so, I respectfully disagree. So, to ME, what matters more is what a person has in their heart and faith - this guest in our church seeking His Gift We clearly disagree about that, and that's okay with me.

The question here is this: In determining if a guest (whom we know nothing about) should be barred from His Sacrament, which is more important? What the person beleives and holds in his heart or what the various historic statements of his denomination (if he belongs to one) are thought to state, which may or may not be known to him, which may or may not be binding on him, which may or may not be agreed upon by him, what those statements are thought to say by the pastor (or others) of the church in which he is a guest. PERSONALLY, IMO, I think that what's in the communicant's heart is the more important issue. That he isn't even asked (because he is, after all, an official member of a congregation assoicated with a denomination with which the LCMS has altar fellowship) seems remarkable to me, and that another person is rejected - without a question asked or even considered - entirely on the basis that he lacks official membership in a congregation assoicated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. This, IMO, places all the importance on the denomination and none on the faith of the person.

I ask no one to agree with me.
I'm just sharing MY viewpoint on this.
I'm not suggesting any one, any congregation, any synod or any denomination change their policy.
I just think a person's faith is more important than the status of his official membership, but clearly many disagree with me. And that's okay.


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

You are assuming that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS have no erronious views whatsoever about the Sacrament and must agree completely with the LCMS,

You are assuming that their faith is lacking in this area.

If you come across such an individual, do you know the proper biblical proceedings to take?

You have such a lack of respect for the way our synods handle the matters of our beliefs and not only that but you have great doubt for how our members are kept in their catechism and don't trust the pastors enough in their role of the Holy ministry.

You need to stop and examine yourself and how you are treating our synods by continously bringing up these charges that you are doing. If you have come across real life examples, it's not biblical to just come here and pout and stomp your feet about it.

Please, be courteous to the synods of which you are posting within this thread. You have a right to your opinion which you have stated...once too many times. You've said what you wanted to say, to keep saying it repeatedly is disrespectful and I believe goes against forum rules.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are assuming that their faith is lacking in this area.

You are assuming that it's not lacking.

THAT'S my point.
Is assuming the best policy?

When a guest in our church (about whom nothing is known), is the best policy to assume that if they technically belong to a congregation assoicated with a denominaiton with which the LCMS as altar fellowship, therefore they MUST know and believe exactly as we do, and if they worship in a congregation that is not associated with a denomination with which the LCMS as altar fellowship, they MUST believe differently than we do in this regard.

My view is that rather than assuming, it might be good to consider talking with the person. To discover rather than to assume.

But I seem to be a minority of one in this view.
And that's totally okay with me.
As I'm stressed, I'm NOT suggesting that any person, pastor, congregation, synod or denomination change their policy or that any policy is good, bad, biblical, confessional or not. I'm simply sharing MY personal viewpoint that it might be worth considering that speaking with the person might be better than assuming about the person.



If you come across such an individual, do you know the proper biblical proceedings to take?

I'm not sure there's solid biblical support for the practice of assuming, but I'll leave that to others.


You have such a lack of respect for the way our synods handle the matters of our beliefs and not only that but you have great doubt for how our members are kept in their catechism and don't trust the pastors enough in their role of the Holy ministry.

?

The point to ME is that you know NOTHING about this guest in your church. Your entire knowledge of him/her might be limited to a 5 second greeting at the door. It is MY opinion (shared by no one here - and that's okay, being a minority isn't always bad) that it might be considered a good policy to actually TALK to the person about their believes rather than assume them based on their technical membership in a certain congregation. I'm suggesting a conversation rather than an assumption.

Actually, I'm placing the trust in the pastor. Pastors are well trained theologically. I think the pastor could have this discussion with this person and make a judgement that I would respect. I think I'm more comfortable with the pastor's judgement upon conversation than just making assumptions based on their technical, official congregational membership, but we do disagree on that, and for reasons a mystery to me, my view seems highly offensive.


You need to stop continously bringing up these charges that you are doing.

What charges?


I'm sharing my viewpoint that it might be considered to discuss rather than assume. Since nothing is known of this guest, that it MIGHT be a good idea to actually talk to the person rather than assume about the person, and that the judgement be made based on what is known rather than what is assumed. That's it. That's my viewpoint. That's all. I've suggested nothing more.


But, yes, we strongly disagree on this - to the point that it has resulted in considerable anger and rebuking and more (and some nasty PM's!). I'm puzzeled by that - especially since I've repeatedly stressed that I'm NOT suggesting any changes in any policy or seeking that anyone agrees with me. :scratch:

CF is a discussion forum.
The idea is someone posts something.
Someone else shares their viewpoint or questions. So it goes, with mutual respect, and without personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, flaming, etc.


- Josiah


.

[LutherNut]

But how does the pastor of the church where he is guest know that?

This thread is about banning guests.

First, the LCMS does not ban guests from the altar. The LCMS takes the words of our Lord very seriously, especially the words that say unworthy reception or not recognizing the body result in sin and judgement. The LCMS does not want anyone to sin or bring judgement upon themselves by their unworthy reception of the Sacrament. What kind of Church or what kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone who does not hold what the Scripture teaches us about the Lord's Supper to eat and drink to their judgement? What kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone to commit a sin at the altar? Certainly not one that I would want in my Church!

Second, those who are members of LCMS congregations are so because they have been instructed and examined in the teachings of the Church, at least from the Small Catechism. And every member has been asked to confess those beliefs when they join the church.
Could they be lying? Of course! Does the Pastor know that? Of course not! At that point it is no longer in the Pastor's hands but in the hands of the unworthy recipient and of God Himself to deal with that person. The pastor cannot know what is in that person's heart.

If that person is an official member of an LCMS congregation, they have been instructed and have made that confession before the Church. This is how the LCMS operates, and every congregation does this.


Herman reads the bulletin blurb that says that persons who are official members of denominations