Closed Communion - continuation of discussion

[IowaLutheran]

At LilLamb's suggestion in the "gay pastor" thread, I am starting a new thread regarding closed communion.

Someone asked where "closed communion" is mentioned in the Book of Concord. DaRev responded by citing the Formula of Concord, Article VII.

It appears that this is the critical part of the Formula of Concord that needs to be examined:

18] 8. We believe, teach, and confess also that there is only one kind of unworthy guests, namely, those who do not believe, concerning whom it is written John 3, 18: He that believeth not is condemned already. And this judgment becomes greater and more grievous, being aggravated, by the unworthy use of the Holy Supper, 1 Cor. 11, 29.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#VII.%20The%20Lord's%20Supper

I think the following conclusions can definitely be drawn from the text:

(1) There is only one kind of unworthy guest.
(2) An unworthy guest is one who does not believe.
(3) Non-believers are condemned already. Their unworthy reception does not cause them to be condemned, but aggravates their judgment.

The questions I have are as follows:

(1) Unworthy guests are "unbelievers". "Unbelievers" in what? If the definition of "unbelivers" is limited to those who do not belief in Jesus Christ, then a policy of open communion to those who believe in Jesus and are baptized would seem to be acceptable. If "unbeliever" also means "those who do not believe in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament", then more restrictions would be necessary.
(2) If the latter definition of "unbeliever" is accepted, that would support a policy of restricting communion to those who believe the body and blood of Christ is present in the sacrament. Unless there is support for further restrictions, then, Lutheran communion would be open to those who profess a belief in the real presence of the body and blood, most likely from Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic churches. So, my second question is: What supports LCMS/WELS additional restrictions on reception of communion, which, as I understand, limits reception to members of your own denomination (or those denominations in full altar fellowship)?

[Zecryphon]

"The questions I have are as follows:

(1) Unworthy guests are "unbelievers". "Unbelievers" in what? If the definition of "unbelivers" is limited to those who do not belief in Jesus Christ, then a policy of open communion to those who believe in Jesus and are baptized would seem to be acceptable. If "unbeliever" also means "those who do not believe in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament", then more restrictions would be necessary."

I'm a new Lutheran so bear with me here, because I will most likely mangle the Book of Concord here. ;) I went back and read John 3:18 ESV: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

So to me the "unwelcome guests" would be those who are not Christians. They could be seekers, people who are looking for the truth and happen to find themselves in a Lutheran church. Before I became a Lutheran, I did understand that Lutherans had a different theological view about Communion than the last church I was attending at the time. I did not partake of Communion when I was visiting Lutheran chruches and I certainly did not feel like an "unwelcome guest" at the Lord's table. I abstained because I was showing respect for the church I was in and to the congregants of the church I was in and their beliefs.

"(2) If the latter definition of "unbeliever" is accepted, that would support a policy of restricting communion to those who believe the body and blood of Christ is present in the sacrament. Unless there is support for further restrictions, then, Lutheran communion would be open to those who profess a belief in the real presence of the body and blood, most likely from Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic churches. So, my second question is: What supports LCMS/WELS additional restrictions on reception of communion, which, as I understand, limits reception to members of your own denomination (or those denominations in full altar fellowship)?"

I'm too new to answer this with any kind of authority. I will say however, that when I visited a WELS church, the first Lutheran church I ever attended was a WELS, they asked me where I was at that time attending church. When I told them that is when they asked me not to partake of Communion because they were in disagreement with my church's position on the matter. Now if I had already been a Lutheran of let's say an LCMS church would they have denied me Communion? This is just a guess but I would say yes they would have denied me Communion, because I understand that the LCMS and WELS are no longer Communing with each other. I'm sure there's a better way to say that, I just can't think of what it is right now. :)

[DaRev]

Communion has two parts.

There is the communicant as an individual believer. There is much about this in both Scripture and the Confessions that are not hard to find. This requires individual belief in God and in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ to worthily receive.

There is also the communicant as a confessor. When we kneel at the altar, we are making a public proclamation that we are in communion with the confession held, proclaimed, and taught at that altar. The Formula also speaks about this in article VII. This is also based upon Acts 2:42-44, "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common."

Disregarding this aspect of the Lord's Supper leads to the belief that false teaching is of no importance, when both the Scriptures and the Confessions are repleat with warnings and admonishments concerning heterodoxy.

[Edial]

I think that a Closed Communion is a result of traditional and some political aspects of Lutheranism.

If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

But some also address the fellowship part as a dividing peg.

Well, in my opinion, fellowship between Lutherans should not be mandated by a synod.
And the very fact that there are several synods, excludes the individual fellowship from the Communion.

There are people in all the synods that are in good spiritual standing.

Synods are good in some ways. Agreed.
But they also have too much authority (in my opinion) in dictating such things to its' members.
They infringe upon the personal spiritual rights of a believer, regardless of whether he/she meets Scriptural requirements.

But that's politics.
Thankfully we would not have politics in heaven. :)

This is my opinion and I am certain that it has a good chance of being blasted. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[DaSeminarian]

I think that a Closed Communion is a result of traditional and some political aspects of Lutheranism.

If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

With whom is he in good standing? If he is in good standing with the ELCA he will not be with the LCMS.

What I am saying is if you were a member of an ELCA church and you went to take communion at an LCMS altar and the ELCA believes as they do about women's ordination but the LCMS does not should you take communion? NO. By doing so you are saying that you disagree with your church's beliefs and agree with the LCMS. If you do agree with the LCMS you should then consider joining a church that belongs to that synod and then you can take communion, but then you should refrain from communion in the ELCA to show your disagreement.

But some also address the fellowship part as a dividing peg.

Well, in my opinion, fellowship between Lutherans should not be mandated by a synod.
And the very fact that there are several synods, excludes the individual fellowship from the Communion.Too much is put into "individualism" in Communion. The very word "Communion" is not individualistic but whole. If a part of the whole not functioning it needs to be rehabilitated to function or amputated so that the rest of the body can function at its best. The reason for so many synods is due to sin. Some want to make church their own thing instead of conforming to God and allowing him to rule the church. We consider the ELCA to be heterodox. Just as the Wisconsin and Evangelical Lutheran Synods consider Missouri to be heterodox.

There are people in all the synods that are in good spiritual standing.By whose standard are they in good standing?

Synods are good in some ways. Agreed.
But they also have too much authority (in my opinion) in dictating such things to its' members.
They infringe upon the personal spiritual rights of a believer, regardless of whether he/she meets Scriptural requirements.

But that's politics.
Thankfully we would not have politics in heaven. :)

This is my opinion and I am certain that it has a good chance of being blasted. :)

Thanks, :)
EdNo one is taking your opinion away from you, but we are showing you where we disagree and why.

Synod is a greek word which means "walk together" The word is misused in the sense that we as human beings find it difficult to "walk together" on anything. In the case of the ELCA they wield more power over their congregations than do the LCMS. The LCMS was designed to be a consulting power not a dictatorial power. Henceforth when the LCMS gets together for a convention their rulings usually are suggestive to the congregations, but not demanding. In 1969, it was ruled that congregations could vote to allow women's suffrage. As a result some churches did vote to allow it right away. Others it took a couple of decades and some still have not voted to allow women the right to vote on their congregations business in voters meetings. Some churches that voted to allow it have actually now voted to take it away and the women were happy about it.

The LCMS for the most part has not done as the ELCA has when a church decides to leave synod. The ELCA owns all the church buildings and if your congregation decides to leave for whatever reason they have to give up the building and find a new building to worship in. The LCMS does not own the building and therefore any congregation wishing to cut ties does not have to surrender it's holdings in the building they meet in.

Granted these two are but minor issues but who determines "good standing" in your mind?

[DaRev]

I think that a Closed Communion is a result of traditional and some political aspects of Lutheranism.

It's actually based on Scriptural and Confessional standards, not politics or traditions.

If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

Even if that individual subscribes to heterodoxy? That would make him/her a hypocrite.


Well, in my opinion, fellowship between Lutherans should not be mandated by a synod.
And the very fact that there are several synods, excludes the individual fellowship from the Communion.


But communion is also a fellowship of confession. It is a proclamation of unity. How can there be communion when there is no unity?

Fellowship is mandated by Scripture and Confession.

There are people in all the synods that are in good spiritual standing.

Based upon what? If you take away the Scriptures and the Confessions, which are the basis of teaching and practice in the Church, on what then do you base such "spiritual standings"? Individual ideas and desires?


Synods are good in some ways. Agreed.
But they also have too much authority (in my opinion) in dictating such things to its' members.
They infringe upon the personal spiritual rights of a believer, regardless of whether he/she meets Scriptural requirements.


It is the business of the Church to teach orthodox Christianity to its members. The Church is not a collection of individuals each with their own doctrine, but is a single body with a common doctrine and practice.

[IowaLutheran]

There is also the communicant as a confessor. When we kneel at the altar, we are making a public proclamation that we are in communion with the confession held, proclaimed, and taught at that altar. The Formula also speaks about this in article VII.

Thanks for your response - do you happen to know which subpart of Art. VII says that? I skimmed through Art. VII this morning and I must have missed it.

[Tetzel]

In the LCMS we do not want to contribute to people harming themselves by improper taking of Communion. If we were not to restrict it to people in good standing with the LCMS and occasional emergency cases, then we would have to sift through all of the possible denominations and variations within the denominations in order to draw up some kind of criteria for communing non members. There are way too many variables. We can't just say "We'll commune ELCA and ECUSA members as well" because within both of these bodies there is too much room for doctrinal variation that would permit some (not all) of the members to fall outside of what the LCMS considers essential for the Christian Faith. For example, an Anglo-Catholic would likely believe in a justification schema that contradicts the central of our faith: Justification by Faith Alone. Similarly someone within these bodies (I'm not going to name names, but I bet you could guess easily) might deny the physical ressurection of Christ. When we say the Creed, we do not want various interpretations of it. How much heterodoxy are we able to tolerate and still be able to live in good conscience of not having heaped further coals on the errant? Where can we draw a line that lets some heresy in but keeps other out? It is for this reason that the simple thing to do is keep communion close, and if someone feels the need for communion as administered by the LCMS, they are more than welcome to join us.

[Edial]

With whom is he in good standing? If he is in good standing with the ELCA he will not be with the LCMS.

What I am saying is if you were a member of an ELCA church and you went to take communion at an LCMS altar and the ELCA believes as they do about women's ordination but the LCMS does not should you take communion? NO. By doing so you are saying that you disagree with your church's beliefs and agree with the LCMS. If you do agree with the LCMS you should then consider joining a church that belongs to that synod and then you can take communion, but then you should refrain from communion in the ELCA to show your disagreement.

Too much is put into "individualism" in Communion. The very word "Communion" is not individualistic but whole. If a part of the whole not functioning it needs to be rehabilitated to function or amputated so that the rest of the body can function at its best. The reason for so many synods is due to sin. Some want to make church their own thing instead of conforming to God and allowing him to rule the church. We consider the ELCA to be heterodox. Just as the Wisconsin and Evangelical Lutheran Synods consider Missouri to be heterodox.

By whose standard are they in good standing?

No one is taking your opinion away from you, but we are showing you where we disagree and why.

Synod is a greek word which means "walk together" The word is misused in the sense that we as human beings find it difficult to "walk together" on anything. In the case of the ELCA they wield more power over their congregations than do the LCMS. The LCMS was designed to be a consulting power not a dictatorial power. Henceforth when the LCMS gets together for a convention their rulings usually are suggestive to the congregations, but not demanding. In 1969, it was ruled that congregations could vote to allow women's suffrage. As a result some churches did vote to allow it right away. Others it took a couple of decades and some still have not voted to allow women the right to vote on their congregations business in voters meetings. Some churches that voted to allow it have actually now voted to take it away and the women were happy about it.

The LCMS for the most part has not done as the ELCA has when a church decides to leave synod. The ELCA owns all the church buildings and if your congregation decides to leave for whatever reason they have to give up the building and find a new building to worship in. The LCMS does not own the building and therefore any congregation wishing to cut ties does not have to surrender it's holdings in the building they meet in.

Granted these two are but minor issues but who determines "good standing" in your mind?
I thought I was clear when I said ... If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

By good spiritual standing I do not mean within ELCA or LCMS or WELS, but in the Scriptural context.
Heart is confessed, importance of the Communion is considered.

Thanks,
Ed

[Jim47]

I thought I was clear when I said ... If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

By good spiritual standing I do not mean within ELCA or LCMS or WELS, but in the Scriptural context.
Heart is confessed, importance of the Communion is considered.

Thanks,
Ed


I think you are missing the point Ed. When someone joins a church they are confessing that hold to the teachings of that church. If that church is a member of a synod then the church is stating that they are in agreement with the synods teachings.

So if you aren't in a greement with your synods teachings then you should look for another church that is in agreement with your beliefs.

God doesn't say anywhere in scripture that it is O'k to hold to some false teachings. All false teachings serve to seperate us from God and His truthes, we should hold to none.

So if you aren't in agreement with the ELCA teachings on certain things but yet you remain a member of that church you are as much as saying that you don't believe that false teachings are wrong and therefore you give agreement to your church by remaining a member.

If one single false teaching krept into my church I would try to combat it, but in the end if I didn't win I would have to leave my church.

[filosofer]

The LCMS for the most part has not done as the ELCA has when a church decides to leave synod. The ELCA owns all the church buildings and if your congregation decides to leave for whatever reason they have to give up the building and find a new building to worship in. The LCMS does not own the building and therefore any congregation wishing to cut ties does not have to surrender it's holdings in the building they meet in.


Point of clarification: If a congregation had been ALC and went into the ELCA, then leaves, it would take the property with it, unless it had changed its own constitution after joining ELCA and gave the property to ELCA. And technically it would go to the Synods (equivalent of LCMS District) within ELCA, not ELCA itself.

In Christ's love,
filo

[DaSeminarian]

I thought I was clear when I said ... If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

By good spiritual standing I do not mean within ELCA or LCMS or WELS, but in the Scriptural context.
Heart is confessed, importance of the Communion is considered.

Thanks,
Ed

So tell me if you belong to an ELCA church and you attend and LCMS church. Who is the one to determine your "good spiritual standing" You ? The Pastor? Regardless of your opinion it does matter what the synod says. The LCMS does not ordain women. If I were to go to an ELCA church that does I would be guilty of Unionism. I am a student in an LCMS seminary and that would pretty much guarantee that I would be kicked out if it were brought to public knowledge.

I would say that it is more the mind and body confessing than it is the heart. My heart is full of sin and corruption. But I know in my mind that my Savior died for me. You need to think about this some more Ed. My heart is only clean when Christ is there, but I do not look to my heart to determine my worthiness to receive him. I know God's word because I have heard it with my ears and then I confess it with my mouth. There is no "heart" part of that verse.

So again who determines your good standing?

If you say God that is a subjective answer. He has called and ordained servants who shall determine your good standing.

Pastors are Shepherds and their call is to protect their flock even if it means they must reject a stray from another flock. It is always with intention of protecting his own flock from any diseases the stray might bring in like heresy or heterodoxy. These can kill a congregation if the stray is allowed to eat from the same grass it may spread it's disease to the others.

Luther1521

[DaSeminarian]

Point of clarification: If a congregation had been ALC and went into the ELCA, then leaves, it would take the property with it, unless it had changed its own constitution after joining ELCA and gave the property to ELCA. And technically it would go to the Synods (equivalent of LCMS District) within ELCA, not ELCA itself.

In Christ's love,
filo


Ok, So I am a little fuzzy as to the aspects of the situation, but I have heard of a few former ELCA congregations that had to forfeit their property to the synod upon leaving.

The LCMS does not do it that way.

[DaRev]

I thought I was clear when I said ... If a Lutheran (regardless of his/her synod) wants to partake and is in good spiritual standing, he should be able to.

By good spiritual standing I do not mean within ELCA or LCMS or WELS, but in the Scriptural context.
Heart is confessed, importance of the Communion is considered.


The Scriptural context holds that the breaking of bread is also a fellowship issue. Communion is a public proclamation of one's Confession.

[Edial]

... Regardless of your opinion it does matter what the synod says. The LCMS does not ordain women. If I were to go to an ELCA church that does I would be guilty of Unionism. I am a student in an LCMS seminary and that would pretty much guarantee that I would be kicked out if it were brought to public knowledge. ....
Probably so, since you are a Pastor (or to become one soon) of the LCMS.

... Pastors are Shepherds and their call is to protect their flock even if it means they must reject a stray from another flock. It is always with intention of protecting his own flock from any diseases the stray might bring in like heresy or heterodoxy. These can kill a congregation if the stray is allowed to eat from the same grass it may spread it's disease to the others.
But I'm not a stray that brings in heresy or a disease. :)

I believe the same way you do concerning Scriptural matters (from what I see).

People that I associate with do benefit from me spiritually. :)


... I would say that it is more the mind and body confessing than it is the heart. My heart is full of sin and corruption. But I know in my mind that my Savior died for me. You need to think about this some more Ed. My heart is only clean when Christ is there, but I do not look to my heart to determine my worthiness to receive him. I know God's word because I have heard it with my ears and then I confess it with my mouth. There is no "heart" part of that verse.
But of course the heart plays role in any confession.

RO 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," n that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

And I do agree that heart does play tricks on a person in a context of sin.

Yet one believes with the heart.

So when one comes to partake, heart should be open and all the sins of the heart presented to God.

... So tell me if you belong to an ELCA church and you attend and LCMS church. Who is the one to determine your "good spiritual standing" You ? The Pastor?
...
So again who determines your good standing?

If you say God that is a subjective answer. He has called and ordained servants who shall determine your good standing.

Luther1521
Now, how could men possibly determine the condition of one's heart? Isn't it God's business?

Others could see the acts that one does, the things that he confesses. But not the condition of one's heart.

Spiritual worthiness is primarily determined by one's inner state of repentance.

And that should be considered.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

The Scriptural context holds that the breaking of bread is also a fellowship issue. Communion is a public proclamation of one's Confession.
The Communion is a public proclamation of one's confession as a Lutheran believer, not synodal affiliation.
I do not think one could say this statement is not Scriptural.

And again, there clearly are differences between me as an indidvidual that believes the same way Scripturally as the LCMS or the WELS do, and the members of these synods.

But I am getting more certain that these differences are based on politics and traditions, not Scriptures.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I think you are missing the point Ed. When someone joins a church they are confessing that hold to the teachings of that church. If that church is a member of a synod then the church is stating that they are in agreement with the synods teachings.

So if you aren't in a greement with your synods teachings then you should look for another church that is in agreement with your beliefs.

God doesn't say anywhere in scripture that it is O'k to hold to some false teachings. All false teachings serve to seperate us from God and His truthes, we should hold to none.

So if you aren't in agreement with the ELCA teachings on certain things but yet you remain a member of that church you are as much as saying that you don't believe that false teachings are wrong and therefore you give agreement to your church by remaining a member.

If one single false teaching krept into my church I would try to combat it, but in the end if I didn't win I would have to leave my church.
Not necessarily.

There are plenty of congregations that do not agree with certain matters and directions that their synods take.

The debates that are seen here concerning elections and such in the LCMS testify to that.

And when I became a member of my church I was asked (among other things) if I believe the Lutheran doctrine.
Not synodal doctrine, but Lutheran.

I said "yes".

And concerning false teachings, I do not know of even one denomination that does not have certain teachings that are added to Scriptures.

And I also believe that one's lot on this Earth is to testify of Christ, both in words and deeds.

I think you and I would agree that the perfect church is in heaven.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[DaRev]

The Communion is a public proclamation of one's confession as a Lutheran believer, not synodal affiliation.

And when I became a member of my church I was asked (among other things) if I believe the Lutheran doctrine.
Not synodal doctrine, but Lutheran.

But what constitutes a "Lutheran" doctrine in the eyes of the individual congregation is the position of the larger church body that they belong to.
There is a huge difference bewteen the LCMS and the ELCA, thus there is a huge difference between what your congregation views as Lutheran doctrine and what mine does.

The congregations and pastors of the LCMS hold to certain truths: that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the source of teaching and practice in the Church, and they hold a quia subscription to the BoC of 1580. This is what defines Lutheran doctrine.

The ELCA does not hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and they do not hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. Thus, the LCMS does not consider the ELCA to be true Lutheran.

Thus you, who are a confessing member of an ELCA congregation, whose doctrine is shaped by their view of Scripture and Confessions, do not believe in the same teachings and doctrines as one who is a confessing member of an LCMS congregation, whose doctrine is shaped by their view of Scripture and Confessions.

What a congregation teaches its flock shapes what that person believes. The doctrines of the LCMS and the ELCA are as different as those of the Episcopalians and the Southern Baptists.

[Edial]

But what constitutes a "Lutheran" doctrine in the eyes of the individual congregation is the position of the larger church body that they belong to.
There is a huge difference bewteen the LCMS and the ELCA, thus there is a huge difference between what your congregation views as Lutheran doctrine and what mine does.

The congregations and pastors of the LCMS hold to certain truths: that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the source of teaching and practice in the Church, and they hold a quia subscription to the BoC of 1580. This is what defines Lutheran doctrine.

The ELCA does not hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and they do not hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. Thus, the LCMS does not consider the ELCA to be true Lutheran.

But if the LCMS believes quia concerning everything in the BOC, then this in itself is not Scriptural, since the BOC contains topics that are not found in the Scriptures.

For example, perpetual Virginity of Mary is not found in the Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, the Scriptures plainly state that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Pope the Antichrist? I do not think so.
That guy might have had a spirit of the Antichrist, (that is Scriptural), but so did Nero and others that persecuted believers.
But THE Antichrist - not Scriptural.

In the beginning I thought that I followed quia, but when I saw such items in the BOC that are not Scriptural, my priorities changed.

The difference between the non-LCMS conservatives and LCMS conservatives are not based on Scriptures, but tradition and church politics.
I do not see it otherwise.

(Also, ELCA does not deny the Scriptures as a product of God's inspiration, as you noted).
ELCA is tolerant in their traditional and political views.
They also tolerate un-Scriptural behavior and that is bad. But their tolerance of the traditional aspects is not necessarily un-Scriptural.
But they do not legislate the tolerance to the local congregations.

LCMS is not tolerant in their traditional and Scriptural views.
While the intolerance of the latter part is admirable, the intolerance of the former in not necessarily Scriptural.

Thus you, who are a confessing member of an ELCA congregation, whose doctrine is shaped by their view of Scripture and Confessions, do not believe in the same teachings and doctrines as one who is a confessing member of an LCMS congregation, whose doctrine is shaped by their view of Scripture and Confessions.
Again, in order to become a member of ELCA I was asked whether I believe in the Lutheran confessions and doctrine.
No ELCA was mentioned.

Scripturally speaking, I do not see a difference between the conservatives of any of the Lutheran synods.
Traditionally and politically speaking, I do see a difference.

What a congregation teaches its flock shapes what that person believes. The doctrines of the LCMS and the ELCA are as different as those of the Episcopalians and the Southern Baptists.
I simply do not agree with this analogy.

But for the argument's sake, I'd let you have the Southern Baptists ... :) :liturgy:

Ed

[DaSeminarian]

But if the LCMS believes quia concerning everything in the BOC, then this in itself is not Scriptural, since the BOC contains topics that are not found in the Scriptures.

For example, perpetual Virginity of Mary is not found in the Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, the Scriptures plainly state that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Ed, There is speculation by many experts that Jesus "brothers" and sisters are only half-siblings. In other words they were not born of Mary, but were Joseph's children from a previous marriage. Again it is speculation because scriptures do not indicate that Joseph was marrying for a second time when he took Mary, but it is pretty well accepted that he was much older than she and could have had a prior family.


Pope the Antichrist? I do not think so.
That guy might have had a spirit of the Antichrist, (that is Scriptural), but so did Nero and others that persecuted believers.
But THE Antichrist - not Scriptural.


Can you prove that the office of the Papacy is not the Anti-Christ? I doubt that he would say that Joseph Ratzinger the person is the Anti-Christ, but that the office that he holds is that of the Anti-Christ.

In the beginning I thought that I followed quia, but when I saw such items in the BOC that are not Scriptural, my priorities changed.

The difference between the non-LCMS conservatives and LCMS conservatives are not based on Scriptures, but tradition and church politics.
I do not see it otherwise.

(Also, ELCA does not deny the Scriptures as a product of God's inspiration, as you noted).
ELCA is tolerant in their traditional and political views.
They also tolerate un-Scriptural behavior and that is bad. But their tolerance of the traditional aspects is not necessarily un-Scriptural.
But they do not legislate the tolerance to the local congregations.

LCMS is not tolerant in their traditional and Scriptural views.
While the intolerance of the latter part is admirable, the intolerance of the former in not necessarily Scriptural.

There are many other areas that the ELCA is heterodoxical and those are in the areas of Liturgy which is why the LCMS stopped working with them on the LBW in 1978 and went on to publish their own LW in 1982. Their liturgy often follows that of Odo Casel, a Monk from the early part of the 20th century that began Liturgical Reforms before Vatican II. Now the ELCA has also signed the JDDJ and is in concert once again with the Roman church.

I would rather be accused of intolerance of certain practices than tolerance so thank you for the compliment.


Again, in order to become a member of ELCA I was asked whether I believe in the Lutheran confessions and doctrine.
No ELCA was mentioned.

Scripturally speaking, I do not see a difference between the conservatives of any of the Lutheran synods.
Traditionally and politically speaking, I do see a difference.


I simply do not agree with this analogy.

But for the argument's sake, I'd let you have the Southern Baptists ... :) :liturgy:

Ed

No that's quite alright. I really don't want them either. They deny the power of Baptism to save.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

At LilLamb's suggestion in the "gay pastor" thread, I am starting a new thread regarding closed communion.

Someone asked where "closed communion" is mentioned in the Book of Concord. DaRev responded by citing the Formula of Concord, Article VII.

It appears that this is the critical part of the Formula of Concord that needs to be examined:

18] 8. We believe, teach, and confess also that there is only one kind of unworthy guests, namely, those who do not believe, concerning whom it is written John 3, 18: He that believeth not is condemned already. And this judgment becomes greater and more grievous, being aggravated, by the unworthy use of the Holy Supper, 1 Cor. 11, 29.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#VII.%20The%20Lord's%20Supper

I think the following conclusions can definitely be drawn from the text:

(1) There is only one kind of unworthy guest.
(2) An unworthy guest is one who does not believe.
(3) Non-believers are condemned already. Their unworthy reception does not cause them to be condemned, but aggravates their judgment.

The questions I have are as follows:

(1) Unworthy guests are "unbelievers". "Unbelievers" in what? If the definition of "unbelivers" is limited to those who do not belief in Jesus Christ, then a policy of open communion to those who believe in Jesus and are baptized would seem to be acceptable. If "unbeliever" also means "those who do not believe in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament", then more restrictions would be necessary.
(2) If the latter definition of "unbeliever" is accepted, that would support a policy of restricting communion to those who believe the body and blood of Christ is present in the sacrament. Unless there is support for further restrictions, then, Lutheran communion would be open to those who profess a belief in the real presence of the body and blood, most likely from Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic churches. So, my second question is: What supports LCMS/WELS additional restrictions on reception of communion, which, as I understand, limits reception to members of your own denomination (or those denominations in full altar fellowship)?


Thank you.


I read the entire Seventh Article of the Formula of Concord (no simple accomplishment!). I found nothing that said that a communicant must agree with everything taught by a specific synod or be a Confirmed member of any specific synod or denomination. But it was a profitable reading anyway.


I read this from Luther's Small Catechism, under "Sacrament of the Altar." Who receives this Sacrament worthily? Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: 'Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,' But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words 'for you' require all hearts to believe."


I think it's sound to rely on the Confessions, but I'm still wondering where the Confessions teach closed communion?



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think you are missing the point Ed. When someone joins a church they are confessing that hold to the teachings of that church. If that church is a member of a synod then the church is stating that they are in agreement with the synods teachings.

So if you aren't in a greement with your synods teachings then you should look for another church that is in agreement with your beliefs.

God doesn't say anywhere in scripture that it is O'k to hold to some false teachings. All false teachings serve to seperate us from God and His truthes, we should hold to none.

So if you aren't in agreement with the ELCA teachings on certain things but yet you remain a member of that church you are as much as saying that you don't believe that false teachings are wrong and therefore you give agreement to your church by remaining a member.

If one single false teaching krept into my church I would try to combat it, but in the end if I didn't win I would have to leave my church.


Respected and understood, but I'm not so convinced, LOL. I wonder what percentage of the 2 million members of the LCMS have studied the Book of Concord and every CTCR statement since 1847, as well as every convention resolution having to do with faith and practice, and for that percentage, how many of them agree with it all? I wonder how many of those 2 million members have read the Brief Statement of 1932 and agree with every word in it?

In many Lutheran churches, the only part of the Confessions that are taught is Luther's Small Catechism (often with very extensive "explainations" which, of course, are not a part of the Catechism, confessions or official teachings of any Lutheran group), I don't think too many pastors take their confirmation students through the entire Book of Concord or every convention resolution. And I'm well under the opinion that not even every pastor is in absolute and full agreement with everything in every CTCR statement ever written or every convention resolution ever passed in the 160 years of the LCMS's existance. I wouldn't be too surprised if most pastors haven't even read all the CTCR documents or convention proceedings. So, I'm just not sure that 100% agreement with one's denomination exists among all the laity - I'm not even sure it exists among the clergy (but I could be wrong about that). If a 14 year old boy does not agree that the Papacy is the Antichrist, is it your position he should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist in an LCMS congregation? I'm not so sure this is black and white, "agree or disagree," one must agree with EVERYTHING that denomination has ever said or done or must be barred from the Sacrament. If that's what you are saying.

But I guess where I'm confused is this emphasis on being Confessional; because I don't know where it says that a person must be in 100% agreement with everything taught and done in the denomination to which the congregation belongs in order to be worthy of the Gift of Communion. That might be a policy a congregation or denomination might embrace (doesn't seem too practical however), but is it Confessional? If so, where do the Confession say one must agree with everything said or done by a denomination in order to receive the Holy Sacrament there?


Could you clarify for me?



Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah

[LilLamb219]

You know, you make a lot of assumptions in your posting, Josiah.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I were to go to an ELCA church that does I would be guilty of Unionism. I am a student in an LCMS seminary and that would pretty much guarantee that I would be kicked out if it were brought to public knowledge.


:confused:


Worshiping with ELCA Christians would get you kicked out of an LCMS seminary? Wow. Gives me considerable pause for thought...

[DaSeminarian]

Respected and understood, but I'm not so convinced, LOL. I wonder what percentage of the 2 million members of the LCMS have studied the Book of Concord and every CTCR statement since 1847, as well as every convention resolution having to do with faith and practice, and for that percentage, how many of them agree with it all? I wonder how many of those 2 million members have read the Brief Statement of 1932 and agree with every word in it?

In many Lutheran churches, the only part of the Confessions that are taught is Luther's Small Catechism (often with very extensive "explainations" which, of course, are not a part of the Catechism, confessions or official teachings of any Lutheran group), I don't think too many pastors take their confirmation students through the entire Book of Concord or every convention resolution. And I'm well under the opinion that not even every pastor is in absolute and full agreement with everything in every CTCR statement ever written or every convention resolution ever passed in the 160 years of the LCMS's existance. I wouldn't be too surprised if most pastors haven't even read all the CTCR documents or convention proceedings. So, I'm just not sure that 100% agreement with one's denomination exists among all the laity - I'm not even sure it exists among the clergy (but I could be wrong about that). If a 14 year old boy does not agree that the Papacy is the Antichrist, is it your position he should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist in an LCMS congregation? I'm not so sure this is black and white, "agree or disagree," one must agree with EVERYTHING that denomination has ever said or done or must be barred from the Sacrament. If that's what you are saying.

But I guess where I'm confused is this emphasis on being Confessional; because I don't know where it says that a person must be in 100% agreement with everything taught and done in the denomination to which the congregation belongs in order to be worthy of the Gift of Communion. That might be a policy a congregation or denomination might embrace (doesn't seem too practical however), but is it Confessional? If so, where do the Confession say one must agree with everything said or done by a denomination in order to receive the Holy Sacrament there?


Just wondering...


Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah

Josiah,

You are probably correct in that only a small percentage have read or understood the Statement of 32. As for the confessions, they are what I as a Pastor will have to subscribe to at my ordination. As for the Laity they need to agree with the Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, the Sacraments and how they are administered. Your confession of faith is not tested on Article 14 or 24 or 28. It is based on your understanding of how you come to faith, what you believe and how that is carried out in the church.


L1521

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

You are probably correct in that only a small percentage have read or understood the Statement of 32. As for the confessions, they are what I as a Pastor will have to subscribe to at my ordination. As for the Laity they need to agree with the Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, the Sacraments and how they are administered. Your confession of faith is not tested on Article 14 or 24 or 28. It is based on your understanding of how you come to faith, what you believe and how that is carried out in the church.


L1521


Thank you, that's my understanding.

But I'm still confused about this (no jokes, please, LOL).

1. IF I was taught and agree with Luther's Small Catechism from the Book of Concord, then should I be banned from the altar if I disagree with something the LCMS has said or done or if I'm ignorant of it? If so, why?

2. I know pastor's have a greater level of subscription (as they should). Yet I wonder if everyone of the 8000 LCMS pastors totally agree with everything the LCMS has ever said and done, and with each other? I suspect the answer is no, which suggests to me this isn't so black and white - it's a bit of a fuzzy line, subjectively interpreted? I mean, you seem to suggest that attending a wedding at an ELCA church is grounds for dismissal from seminary and from being a pastor, yet I suspect MANY LCMS members have attending a wedding in a non LCMS congregation, should they be forbidden from the altar? Do you follow my question?

3. Policy is policy; every congregation and denomination has the right to develop it and enforce it. I have no arguement with that. But I AM curious about this Confessional arguement, because I'm not the Confessional expert that many here are. I studied Pieper for 3 years, but not really the Confessions. So, I'm curious, where is close Communion taught in the Confessions? If it clearly is, then it's Confessional. If not, then it's not - it seems to me. It may or may not be good policy (I'm not clear how that policy works anyway, so I'm not much in a position to evaluate it), but for now, I'm just focused on do the Confessions clearly state this? I read the Formula of Concord about the Sacrament and saw nothing about it.


Sorry to ask so many questions; I just like to understand.


Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

[CaliforniaJosiah]

While I'm asking questions about this, what is the difference between "closed" and "close" communion?

[Jim47]

Respected and understood, but I'm not so convinced, LOL. I wonder what percentage of the 2 million members of the LCMS have studied the Book of Concord and every CTCR statement since 1847, as well as every convention resolution having to do with faith and practice, and for that percentage, how many of them agree with it all? I wonder how many of those 2 million members have read the Brief Statement of 1932 and agree with every word in it?

In many Lutheran churches, the only part of the Confessions that are taught is Luther's Small Catechism (often with very extensive "explainations" which, of course, are not a part of the Catechism, confessions or official teachings of any Lutheran group), I don't think too many pastors take their confirmation students through the entire Book of Concord or every convention resolution. And I'm well under the opinion that not even every pastor is in absolute and full agreement with everything in every CTCR statement ever written or every convention resolution ever passed in the 160 years of the LCMS's existance. I wouldn't be too surprised if most pastors haven't even read all the CTCR documents or convention proceedings. So, I'm just not sure that 100% agreement with one's denomination exists among all the laity - I'm not even sure it exists among the clergy (but I could be wrong about that). If a 14 year old boy does not agree that the Papacy is the Antichrist, is it your position he should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist in an LCMS congregation? I'm not so sure this is black and white, "agree or disagree," one must agree with EVERYTHING that denomination has ever said or done or must be barred from the Sacrament. If that's what you are saying.

But I guess where I'm confused is this emphasis on being Confessional; because I don't know where it says that a person must be in 100% agreement with everything taught and done in the denomination to which the congregation belongs in order to be worthy of the Gift of Communion. That might be a policy a congregation or denomination might embrace (doesn't seem too practical however), but is it Confessional? If so, where do the Confession say one must agree with everything said or done by a denomination in order to receive the Holy Sacrament there?


Could you clarify for me?



Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah



Hi Josiah

Glad to see you back. Is it possible that you read someone elses post and then quoted mine while trying to answer the other guy?

I have never read but only very small parts of the BoC and have never quoted it. I am a scripture man.

[filosofer]

While I'm asking questions about this, what is the difference between "closed" and "close" communion?



Spelling

In Christ's love,
filo

[LilLamb219]

Jim, here is the book of concord online...

http://www.bookofconcord.com/

Easy to read bits and pieces at a time :)

[DaSeminarian]

Spelling

In Christ's love,
filo



This is true. There is a "d" at the end of one of them and not the other.;)

[RayJGentry]

From the Formula of Concord:

24] Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which at the present time men are
disturbed, as, for instance, whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute the Sacrament, and
such like other points. For here conclude and reply: Even though a knave take or distribute the
Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he
who receives or administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men,
but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can change bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be abused.

and seeing everything else in the book of Concord, the only things i can see regarding communion are these:

If i believe the body and blood of Christ are Truly present and I receive communion with repentance and faith, then i am not misusing or abusing the sacrament.

So, what am I missing? It seems that they say in these texts, over and over, that ultimately it's the bread and wine with God's word that make it a sacrament and true, not exactly what person giving or receiving believes. I do realize that it says this should not intentionally be abused, but for the most part, the only issues are if one is repentant and truly believe in Christ's presence in the sacrament.

[Confess]

As I understood it years ago and hope that I can relay somewhat an intelligent responce. The Baptists came up with the close(d) spelling to relay a total different meaning then what we Lutherans teach. I wish my memory was better then that, maybe someone can Google it.

[RayJGentry]

68] But it must [also] be carefully explained who are the unworthy guests of this Supper, namely, those
who go to this Sacrament without true repentance and sorrow for their sins, and without true faith and the
good intention of amending their lives, and by their unworthy oral eating of the body of Christ load
themselves with damnation, that is, with temporal and eternal punishments, and become guilty of the
body and blood of Christ.

That seems to be the confessional basis for who is worthy at God's Table of the Lord's Supper. Not exact doctrine or denomination. It seems that closed communion is more against the true intents of the confessions rather than excluding people who do not fall into who is unworthy. If this text does not describe me as unworthy, I should be able to commune in any confessional church.

I've also heard in here that the reason LCMS doesn't allow non LCMS to commune is because of the condemnation someone could recieve for not properly receiving communion. the book of concord says this about it:

125] 14. Likewise (we reject), the teaching that even true believers, who have and keep a right, true, living faith, and
yet lack the said sufficient preparation of their own, could, just as the unworthy guests, receive this
Sacrament to condemnation.

[DaRev]

But if the LCMS believes quia concerning everything in the BOC, then this in itself is not Scriptural, since the BOC contains topics that are not found in the Scriptures.

For example, perpetual Virginity of Mary is not found in the Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, the Scriptures plainly state that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

But the Scriptures do not state that Mary was their mother.


Pope the Antichrist? I do not think so.
That guy might have had a spirit of the Antichrist, (that is Scriptural), but so did Nero and others that persecuted believers.
But THE Antichrist - not Scriptural.


Scripture says there are more than one anti-Christ. So it is Scriptural.

In the beginning I thought that I followed quia, but when I saw such items in the BOC that are not Scriptural, my priorities changed.

You mean items that were not Scriptural in your opinion... which is not Scriptural either.


The difference between the non-LCMS conservatives and LCMS conservatives are not based on Scriptures, but tradition and church politics.
I do not see it otherwise.


Then I would suggest that you open your eyes. The main differences are doctrinal. And since doctrine comes from sola Scriptura...

(Also, ELCA does not deny the Scriptures as a product of God's inspiration, as you noted).

The ELCA claims that the Scriptures "contain" the inspired word of God which means that there are parts of the Scriptures that are not the inspired word of God. So they indeed do deny this.


ELCA is tolerant in their traditional and political views.
They also tolerate un-Scriptural behavior and that is bad. But their tolerance of the traditional aspects is not necessarily un-Scriptural.
But they do not legislate the tolerance to the local congregations.

LCMS is not tolerant in their traditional and Scriptural views.
While the intolerance of the latter part is admirable, the intolerance of the former in not necessarily Scriptural.


But since the LCMS "traditions" are doctrinally based, and since doctrine is sola Scriptura...



Again, in order to become a member of ELCA I was asked whether I believe in the Lutheran confessions and doctrine.
No ELCA was mentioned.


They didn't have to mention it. They were the ones asking it, thus they were asking about their particular view of "Lutheran" doctrine.


Scripturally speaking, I do not see a difference between the conservatives of any of the Lutheran synods.
Traditionally and politically speaking, I do see a difference.


Even the "conservatives" in the ELCA hold to the ordination of women and open communion, both unScriptural. Again, open your eyes.

[DaRev]

Go to this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf

and read pages 41-47. It explains the Confessional position concerning "Communicants as Confessors."

Also this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

specifically pages 20-23 concerning Close Communion.

The fact is that Close Communion is a Biblical doctrine that is supported by the Confessions.

[DaSeminarian]

Go to this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf

and read pages 41-47. It explains the Confessional position concerning "Communicants as Confessors."

Also this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

specifically pages 20-23 concerning Close Communion.

The fact is that Close Communion is a Biblical doctrine that is supported by the Confessions.


DaRev,

Perhaps it would help some if you could tell them by what criteria do you examine someone in order that they may commune in your church at the Altar of the Lord.

Is it understanding the Real Presence of Christ?
Is it knowing the 10 commandments?
Is it professing the Creed?
Is it knowing the full BOC or at least accepting what it says without having read it all?
Or even deeper, knowing that Christ died on the cross for their sins?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

DaRev,

Perhaps it would help some if you could tell them by what criteria do you examine someone in order that they may commune in your church at the Altar of the Lord.

Is it understanding the Real Presence of Christ?
Is it knowing the 10 commandments?
Is it professing the Creed?
Is it knowing the full BOC or at least accepting what it says without having read it all?
Or even deeper, knowing that Christ died on the cross for their sins?


(I'm no tsure how we can accept something we've never read).


I'd add to that list...

Is it knowing and agreeing with every CTCR doc?
Is it knowing and agreeing with every Convention resolution and vote?
Is it knowing and agreeing with every policy or practice, past or present, of the denomination our congregation belongs to?



Just wondering...

[DaRev]

DaRev,

Perhaps it would help some if you could tell them by what criteria do you examine someone in order that they may commune in your church at the Altar of the Lord.

Is it understanding the Real Presence of Christ?



Is it knowing the 10 commandments?
Is it professing the Creed?


They have to be Christian, which would assume a basic knowledge of the Christian faith that includes knowing the Commandments, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc.

Is it knowing the full BOC or at least accepting what it says without having read it all?

In the Rite of Confirmation and the Receiving of Members, they are asked if they "confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from the Scriptures, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism". It is not necessary that a member know and memorize the entire BoC, but it is the basis of their instruction. One cannot confess the Christian faith unless they are taught the Christian faith. In the Lutheran Church, the Scriptures are the source of the Christian faith and the Confessions explain what the Scriptural teaching of the Christian faith is. Does it need to be memorized? No. Does it need to be taught? Absolutely!

Or even deeper, knowing that Christ died on the cross for their sins?

Again, they would have to be Christian.

[DaRev]

(I'm no tsure how we can accept something we've never read).

You don't have to read the document to be taught from it.



I'd add to that list...

Is it knowing and agreeing with every CTCR doc?
Is it knowing and agreeing with every Convention resolution and vote?
Is it knowing and agreeing with every policy or practice, past or present, of the denomination our congregation belongs to?


Absolutely none of these have anything to do with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. All of those things are derived from the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The doctrine is sola Scriptura as explained in the Confessions. This is what is necessary for doctrinal fellowship, which includes altar fellowship.

Josiah,

If you do not like the LCMS teaching and practice, I suggest you find another church body that doesn't care what it teaches. That shouldn't be hard to do. There are plenty to choose from.

[BigNorsk]

This thread has given me an idea. I think I am going to start referring to "believer's baptism" as "closed baptism".

Marv

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

If you do not like the LCMS teaching and practice, I suggest you find another church body that doesn't care what it teaches. That shouldn't be hard to do. There are plenty to choose from.


I hope we won't make this discussion personal...

While I spent 3 solid years studying Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and have completed a Confirmation course, etc., and while I have been invited to be Confirmed in the LCMS, I hesitate. This is one of the issues I'm unsure about.

Since I graduate from college in a few months, several (including my Lutheran pastor grandfather and my s/o's Lutheran pastor father) are strongly encouraging me toward seminary, and I have no intention of considering that until a couple of issues are resolved (the comment here that worshipping the ELCA people is grounds for dismissal from seminary raised another one).

I have read the Small Catechism and the Formula of Concord on this issue, but find no support for "closed communion." My pastor also loaned me a November 1999 CTCR doc, "Admission to the Lord's Supper" which I studied in great detail and discussed with my pastor. I have few problems with it, although it does seem to raised a great many questions and seems to lay open this whole question. I pretty much agree with it, except for pages 41-48 which IMHO seems to run a bit counter to all that comes before that. I'm sure you've studied it, too.

My pastor also gave me an excellent article conveying the content of the Texas District Theological Convocation of April 30-May 1, 2001. It's very lengthy, detailed and difficult, but very helpful. You can write to the district office there and I'm sure get a copy of it. It's written primarily by Samuel H. Nafzger, the Executive Director of the CTCR It does an excellent job of explaining the history of all this in the LCMS, from CFW Walther to current.

I find this interesting:

From Pieper, "Christian congregations and their public servants are only administrants and not lords of the Sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not theirs but Christ's. Therefore, they must follow Christ's instructions in administering His Sacrament." In keeping with Walther, he stated that the Sacrament may be granted to:
1. Such as has been baptized
2. Such as are able to examine themselves.
3. Such as believe the words of invitation, hence believe both that they receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Supper. This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations. These certainly are children of God among the Refored who still preach Christ satisfactio vacaria. Since, however, they lac k the right understanding of and hence faith in the words of institution, they are not in condition to use it to their benefit.
4. Such as must first remove public office that has been given.
To me, this is profound not only in what it says but in what it clearly does not say.

This "confessors" argument seems to have been popularized by John H.C. Fritz, whose book "Pastoral Theology" was for a couple of generations the unquestioned tome for such matters. Edward Koehler in 1939 agreed and furthered it more. Interestingly, Theodore Graebner, now sainted treasure at CS St. Louis, quoting Walther and a host of LCMS statements, argued in 1943 that synodical fellowship in not a requirement for admission to the Sacrament. He wrote in the Lutheran Witness for the seminary in 1943, "The pastor may commune such as are conscious of repentanc and hold the essence of faith, including the doctrine of the real presence and of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace and profess acceptance thereof." Well into the 1970's, it was the official policy of the LCMS to admit non Lutherans in campus and military chaplain ministries revealing such was the embraced policy of the LCMS. When altar and pulpit fellowship with the ALC was terminated, the resolution stated, "The LCMS has long encouraged (sic!) it's congregations and pastors to provide pastoral care, including the administration of Holy Communion to Christians who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS. The LCMS recognizes that its congregations and pastors may provide responsible pastoral care to individuals of the ALC." This even though the Synod in the same resolution voted to terminate official altar fellowship. You might want to secure that document.

The 1999 CTCR doc stresses pastors must be sensitive of "the dangers that emerge should pastors and congregations view individual Christians of differing confessions ONLY as 'confessors' and not as individuals. The Comission notes 4 such dangers of such a practice:
1. Denominational membership may be a substitute for faith - since faith is the sole requirement for worthy communion, not membership.
2. The temptation to engage in "how orthodox" one must be (WOW!)
3. The danger of intellectualizing "faith in these words"
4. The unwillingness of pastors and congregations to "struggle with those situations of personal need and pastoral care."
In my struggle with this issue, I see those "dangers" often coming true.

Anyway, I ask because I want to understand.


My $0.005


Pax!


- Josiah

[Edial]

Go to this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf

and read pages 41-47. It explains the Confessional position concerning "Communicants as Confessors."

Also this link:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

specifically pages 20-23 concerning Close Communion.

The fact is that Close Communion is a Biblical doctrine that is supported by the Confessions.
I read the pages from the top link.
Very informative and clear.

I found it interesting that the article admits that there are non-LCMS believers that indeed qualify as worthy participants and have genuine faith. (p.41).

It also presents that individual worthiness and genuine faith should not be considered on it's own merit, but also with the affiliation with other denominations, synods.
(And they give reasons as to why). (pp.43-46)

They also address ELCA and their open communion with other denominations. (p.45)

In other words, individual worthiness and genuine faith of an individual is NOT considered during the LCMS communion, but also the association to it's membership regardless even if an individual personally agrees with LCMS' doctrine while being a non-LCMS.

This brings up at least one question and 2 observations.

1. If all the saints that passed away are included in the LCMS communion, does that mean that they are in full doctrinal agreement with LCMS in heaven?
And if so, why do the saints of heaven ALSO participate with other denominations at THEIR communion?
And if they do, does that mean they agree with their heterodox teachings?
(Unless of course LCMS claims that the saints in heaven participate only with LCMS and ignore the others).

2. It appears to me that the closed communion of this context is a result on one's Traditional approach and not Scriptural, since the individual worthiness and genuine faith is not considered outside of one's affiliation with LCMS.

3. The very thing (Communion) that supposed to unite believers based on their personal worthiness and genuine faith, appears to divide them based on their affiliation.

4. Also, Christ presented that any man-made tradition regardless of their positive intent would eventually contradict the very word of God from which it is derived.

Interesting link.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

(the comment here that worshipping the ELCA people is grounds for dismissal from seminary raised another one).

I'm most certain that Josiah meant to include the word "with" in there :)

[DaSeminarian]

I hope we won't make this discussion personal...

While I spent 3 solid years studying Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and have completed a Confirmation course, etc., and while I have been invited to be Confirmed in the LCMS, I hesitate. This is one of the issues I'm unsure about.

Since I graduate from college in a few months, several (including my Lutheran pastor grandfather and my s/o's Lutheran pastor father) are strongly encouraging me toward seminary, and I have no intention of considering that until a couple of issues are resolved (the comment here that worshipping the ELCA people is grounds for dismissal from seminary raised another one).

I have read the Small Catechism and the Formula of Concord on this issue, but find no support for "closed communion." My pastor also loaned me a November 1999 CTCR doc, "Admission to the Lord's Supper" which I studied in great detail and discussed with my pastor. I have few problems with it, although it does seem to raised a great many questions and seems to lay open this whole question. I pretty much agree with it, except for pages 41-48 which IMHO seems to run a bit counter to all that comes before that. I'm sure you've studied it, too.

My pastor also gave me an excellent article conveying the content of the Texas District Theological Convocation of April 30-May 1, 2001. It's very lengthy, detailed and difficult, but very helpful. You can write to the district office there and I'm sure get a copy of it. It's written primarily by Samuel H. Nafzger, the Executive Director of the CTCR It does an excellent job of explaining the history of all this in the LCMS, from CFW Walther to current.

I find this interesting:

From Pieper, "Christian congregations and their public servants are only administrants and not lords of the Sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not theirs but Christ's. Therefore, they must follow Christ's instructions in administering His Sacrament." In keeping with Walther, he stated that the Sacrament may be granted to:
1. Such as has been baptized
2. Such as are able to examine themselves.
3. Such as believe the words of invitation, hence believe both that they receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Supper. This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations. These certainly are children of God among the Refored who still preach Christ satisfactio vacaria. Since, however, they lac k the right understanding of and hence faith in the words of institution, they are not in condition to use it to their benefit.
4. Such as must first remove public office that has been given.
To me, this is profound not only in what it says but in what it clearly does not say.

This "confessors" argument seems to have been popularized by John H.C. Fritz, whose book "Pastoral Theology" was for a couple of generations the unquestioned tome for such matters. Edward Koehler in 1939 agreed and furthered it more. Interestingly, Theodore Graebner, now sainted treasure at CS St. Louis, quoting Walther and a host of LCMS statements, argued in 1943 that synodical fellowship in not a requirement for admission to the Sacrament. He wrote in the Lutheran Witness for the seminary in 1943, "The pastor may commune such as are conscious of repentanc and hold the essence of faith, including the doctrine of the real presence and of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace and profess acceptance thereof." Well into the 1970's, it was the official policy of the LCMS to admit non Lutherans in campus and military chaplain ministries revealing such was the embraced policy of the LCMS. When altar and pulpit fellowship with the ALC was terminated, the resolution stated, "The LCMS has long encouraged (sic!) it's congregations and pastors to provide pastoral care, including the administration of Holy Communion to Christians who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS. The LCMS recognizes that its congregations and pastors may provide responsible pastoral care to individuals of the ALC." This even though the Synod in the same resolution voted to terminate official altar fellowship. You might want to secure that document.

The 1999 CTCR doc stresses pastors must be sensitive of "the dangers that emerge should pastors and congregations view individual Christians of differing confessions ONLY as 'confessors' and not as individuals. The Comission notes 4 such dangers of such a practice:
1. Denominational membership may be a substitute for faith - since faith is the sole requirement for worthy communion, not membership.
2. The temptation to engage in "how orthodox" one must be (WOW!)
3. The danger of intellectualizing "faith in these words"
4. The unwillingness of pastors and congregations to "struggle with those situations of personal need and pastoral care."
In my struggle with this issue, I see those "dangers" often coming true.

Anyway, I ask because I want to understand.


My $0.005


Pax!


- Josiah


Josiah,

There really was never a need to define what kind of communion until the last quarter century. Prior to that Communion was done a particular way and there was no question about it. In the past 25 years though we have seen a good deal of Post-modern thinking or relativism creep into the church. This post-modern relativism discounts absolute truth and therefore discounts Christianity and Scripture. Some more liberal churches opened up communion to just about anyone who walked in the door that said they believed in Jesus. Guess what? Believing in Jesus does not save you. Having faith that God sent his Son and that his Son gave himself as a ransom for your sinful soul.

Satan believes in God or that he exists but it doesn't save him. The Lutheran Church is about preaching/proclaiming God's Word and administering his sacrament to those who have the understanding of what the sacraments are about. I think you can go to any number of churches outside the Lutheran church and see that their understanding of God is more subjective than objective. Even within Lutheranism, we can still see a relativism shaping the more liberal synods. The Book of Concord interprets scripture. It is not scripture itself and it can err. Scripture however, can not err as it is God's word.

We in the LCMS have some grave concerns about what those in the ELCA are compromising in their altar and pulpit relationships with the ECUSA, PCUSA and now the Roman Catholic Church with the Joint Document on the Doctrine of Justification. The LCMS is currently in talks along these same lines with the Roman Church, but the thing that stopped us from signing before was that it didn't have the Roman side give up their position whereas the Lutherans had to give up theirs.

Would you want to belong to a church that compromises itself to heresy? The truth of the matter is that most churches in the LCMS practice "close" communion not closed. Close allows the Pastor to determine through examination of would be communicant whether or not they believe Baptism and Holy Communion are means of Grace which distribute God's mercy and forgiveness through the consumption of his Body and Blood in Communion and Water in Baptism.

I don't know if this is enough to satisfy your questions or not, but I will be happy to add more later.

[Edial]

I'm most certain that Josiah meant to include the word "with" in there :)
I think worshipping any people should be grounds for dismissal from any seminary. :)

[DaRev]

I hope we won't make this discussion personal...

While I spent 3 solid years studying Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and have completed a Confirmation course, etc., and while I have been invited to be Confirmed in the LCMS, I hesitate. This is one of the issues I'm unsure about.

Since I graduate from college in a few months, several (including my Lutheran pastor grandfather and my s/o's Lutheran pastor father) are strongly encouraging me toward seminary, and I have no intention of considering that until a couple of issues are resolved (the comment here that worshipping the ELCA people is grounds for dismissal from seminary raised another one).

I have read the Small Catechism and the Formula of Concord on this issue, but find no support for "closed communion." My pastor also loaned me a November 1999 CTCR doc, "Admission to the Lord's Supper" which I studied in great detail and discussed with my pastor. I have few problems with it, although it does seem to raised a great many questions and seems to lay open this whole question. I pretty much agree with it, except for pages 41-48 which IMHO seems to run a bit counter to all that comes before that. I'm sure you've studied it, too.

My pastor also gave me an excellent article conveying the content of the Texas District Theological Convocation of April 30-May 1, 2001. It's very lengthy, detailed and difficult, but very helpful. You can write to the district office there and I'm sure get a copy of it. It's written primarily by Samuel H. Nafzger, the Executive Director of the CTCR It does an excellent job of explaining the history of all this in the LCMS, from CFW Walther to current.

I find this interesting:

From Pieper, "Christian congregations and their public servants are only administrants and not lords of the Sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not theirs but Christ's. Therefore, they must follow Christ's instructions in administering His Sacrament." In keeping with Walther, he stated that the Sacrament may be granted to:
1. Such as has been baptized
2. Such as are able to examine themselves.
3. Such as believe the words of invitation, hence believe both that they receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Supper. This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations. These certainly are children of God among the Refored who still preach Christ satisfactio vacaria. Since, however, they lac k the right understanding of and hence faith in the words of institution, they are not in condition to use it to their benefit.
4. Such as must first remove public office that has been given.
To me, this is profound not only in what it says but in what it clearly does not say.

This "confessors" argument seems to have been popularized by John H.C. Fritz, whose book "Pastoral Theology" was for a couple of generations the unquestioned tome for such matters. Edward Koehler in 1939 agreed and furthered it more. Interestingly, Theodore Graebner, now sainted treasure at CS St. Louis, quoting Walther and a host of LCMS statements, argued in 1943 that synodical fellowship in not a requirement for admission to the Sacrament. He wrote in the Lutheran Witness for the seminary in 1943, "The pastor may commune such as are conscious of repentanc and hold the essence of faith, including the doctrine of the real presence and of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace and profess acceptance thereof." Well into the 1970's, it was the official policy of the LCMS to admit non Lutherans in campus and military chaplain ministries revealing such was the embraced policy of the LCMS. When altar and pulpit fellowship with the ALC was terminated, the resolution stated, "The LCMS has long encouraged (sic!) it's congregations and pastors to provide pastoral care, including the administration of Holy Communion to Christians who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS. The LCMS recognizes that its congregations and pastors may provide responsible pastoral care to individuals of the ALC." This even though the Synod in the same resolution voted to terminate official altar fellowship. You might want to secure that document.

The 1999 CTCR doc stresses pastors must be sensitive of "the dangers that emerge should pastors and congregations view individual Christians of differing confessions ONLY as 'confessors' and not as individuals. The Comission notes 4 such dangers of such a practice:
1. Denominational membership may be a substitute for faith - since faith is the sole requirement for worthy communion, not membership.
2. The temptation to engage in "how orthodox" one must be (WOW!)
3. The danger of intellectualizing "faith in these words"
4. The unwillingness of pastors and congregations to "struggle with those situations of personal need and pastoral care."
In my struggle with this issue, I see those "dangers" often coming true.

Anyway, I ask because I want to understand.


My $0.005


Pax!


- Josiah

First, I would suggest that you try and contact one of the seminary professors at either of the synod seminaries and ask them about your concerns. It is difficult for me to try and explain in the detail that you demand over this type of medium. Besides, they have much more in the way of experience and resources to answer you adequately.

Second, while the practice of close communion is indeed supported by the Confessions, it is a Biblically based doctrine. Communion is a public proclamation of faith. That proclamation is an agreement with the confession of the particular altar. The practice of close communion is meant for two basic reasons. One is to protect the individual from communing unworthily. The other is to protect the altar from heterodoxy.

If you would like, I could give you some names of people to contact at St. Louis. Their emails are available on the seminary web site.

You are inquisitive. If you are serious about persuing seminary, please look into asking one of the profs about your concerns.


Blessings

[DaRev]

I read the pages from the top link.
Very informative and clear.

I found it interesting that the article admits that there are non-LCMS believers that indeed qualify as worthy participants and have genuine faith. (p.41).

It also presents that individual worthiness and genuine faith should not be considered on it's own merit, but also with the affiliation with other denominations, synods.
(And they give reasons as to why). (pp.43-46)

They also address ELCA and their open communion with other denominations. (p.45)

In other words, individual worthiness and genuine faith of an individual is NOT considered during the LCMS communion, but also the association to it's membership regardless even if an individual personally agrees with LCMS' doctrine while being a non-LCMS.



Concerning the bold print above, I'm sure you meant to say NOT ONLY. If not, I suggest you read the documents again.

This brings up at least one question and 2 observations.

1. If all the saints that passed away are included in the LCMS communion, does that mean that they are in full doctrinal agreement with LCMS in heaven?
And if so, why do the saints of heaven ALSO participate with other denominations at THEIR communion?
And if they do, does that mean they agree with their heterodox teachings?
(Unless of course LCMS claims that the saints in heaven participate only with LCMS and ignore the others).

This passage is ridiculous. I'm sure that you also know in heaven is the true Church of Christ, the true believers. No such divisions or seperations exist there. (At least I hope you know that.)

2. It appears to me that the closed communion of this context is a result on one's Traditional approach and not Scriptural, since the individual worthiness and genuine faith is not considered outside of one's affiliation with LCMS.

Both go hand in hand. Both are indeed Scriptural. Scripture supports both worthiness of the individual and the fellowship with the Church in terms of doctrine and heterodoxy/heresy.

3. The very thing (Communion) that supposed to unite believers based on their personal worthiness and genuine faith, appears to divide them based on their affiliation.

Their "affiliation" as you put it is a public affirmation of their belief. If one is affiliated with a Reformed
congregation, they do not hold to Christ's teaching of the Sacrament and therefore are not worthy recipients. If one is affiliated to a heterodox tradition they bring with them false teaching to the altar. You don't seem to understand, Ed, that when one joins a particular church, they are in fact making a statement of faith based upon what that church teaches. If they don't believe what that church teaches, then they are a hypocrite.

4. Also, Christ presented that any man-made tradition regardless of their positive intent would eventually contradict the very word of God from which it is derived.


I agree with this statement. But close communion is not a man made tradition. It is Biblically based and supported by the Confessions of the Church.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

The truth of the matter is that most churches in the LCMS practice "close" communion not closed. Close allows the Pastor to determine through examination of would be communicant whether or not they believe Baptism and Holy Communion are means of Grace which distribute God's mercy and forgiveness through the consumption of his Body and Blood in Communion and Water in Baptism.



Even that "close" vs. "closed" thing seems to be something Missouri Synod folks argue about, LOL..


1. I DEEPLY and sincerely appreciate the civil and helpful tone. I well know this is controversal "stuff" in Lutheranism and especially in the LCMS. I do NOT want to "stir the pot" (so to speak) - although I suspect the mere topic itself will do so to some degree, it's simply one of the areas within Lutheranism in which I struggle and seek to understand. Everyone who knows me KNOWS I can be terribly persistent in that goal. I apologize if I sometimes come off argumenative or debative - I'm really not at all, but I do tend to hang on to something until I've reached a conclusion, and that can be misinterpreted. Again, my apologies.


2. I actually have few "problems" with the LCMS position as I understand it officially exists. But, as I 'see' it, there seems be quite a range in how that position is understood and applied - and I'm not sure that's bad or unintentional (others strongly disagree with me).


3. AT THIS POINT in my quest (that's saying nothing about tomorrow), I believe the following is reasonable policy regarding "worthiness:"
* Baptized
* Accepts Real Presence (this assumes some level of training)
* Is repentent and willing to forgive
* "He is worthy who sincerely knows he is not" - Dr. Loren Kramer, Chair, CTCR.
* Has examined themselves (this suggests not infants).
* A case might be made (I'm just not sure how big) that one who knowingly embraces a view CLEARLY and EXPICITELY contradictory to the Confessions and Scriptures would be grounds to refusal (note: this isn't what - in my opinion - is a very different position of the person doesn't know and agree with everything my specific denomination has said and done since it's founding which I view as impractical, unwise and impossible to determine).
* I think blanket things such as "has been Confirmed" "technically has membership in a congregation our denomination is in fellowship with" etc. all evade the issue of worthiness rather than address it. As I read historic statements of the LCMS, great emphasis has always been placed on the role of the pastor and congregation to handle each case personally and pastorally. IMHO, a pastor who refuses to do so but rather assumes that everyone who has ever been Confirmed in an LCMS church (or one in fellowship with it) is worthy and everyone who is not is therefore not worthy is abdicating his pastoral responsibility. I think the LCMS has traditionally placed great responsbility (and trust!) in the pastor - and this is appropriate. One size does not fit all. My father (a minister) encouraged me to worship outside his denomination - and I have. His advise to me was to NEVER commune unless and until I have PERSONALLY and at some length have spoken to the pastor (such suggests not for 30 seconds at the door as I'm shaking his hand). I have done so personally by appointment is some cases or by phone in a few - but never "at the door" or with a layperson or simply taking the counsel of an usher or friend. My father added that if the pastor seems hesitant, to take no offense and to refrain, and only if he specificly welcomes me to participate. I've always followed that advise, and I think it's not too far off from the bottom line in the LCMS.



I don't know if this is enough to satisfy your questions or not, but I will be happy to add more later.


You are invited to respond to anything I say, but again, I want to stress as clearly and boldly as I can, I desire no offense or to cause any "trouble." Nor do I desire to change anyone's mind (except perhaps my own) or the policy of any congregation or denomination. My desire is not to debate, but only to understand. In the end, I may or may not fully agree with the current LCMS position (either way, I'll be in good company), I'll then need to decide whether such is sufficient to lead me out of Lutheranism and continue my spiritual journey elsewhere. I am struggling with that.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm most certain that Josiah meant to include the word "with" in there :)

Yes....


I've spent WAY too much time on discussion boards and (in my younger and more innocent years) in chat rooms and IM's. As a result, my typing skills have advanced too much for my own good - I type at an amazing rate. As a result, what gets down is not always exactly what I intended (and with this WIERD tendency for a completely different word than what I meant, must be some Freudian thing, LOL). I always proof what I typed before I hit the "submit" icon but I'm mostly checking if I'm clear and unoffensive - not for typos or thos peski speilling mistates. I do apologize for that; at my former website, I got teased a lot for that and for my long posts - I was twice awarded the "Long Winded Poster of the Year" award - no one else even got nominated, LOL. I got teased for my "1. 2. 3. " style, too. The "$0.01" thing is a new habit I've picked up since coming here, I use to sign off with "hang loose" (a leftover of my surfing days).


;)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I read the pages from the top link.
Very informative and clear.

I found it interesting that the article admits that there are non-LCMS believers that indeed qualify as worthy participants and have genuine faith. (p.41).

It also presents that individual worthiness and genuine faith should not be considered on it's own merit, but also with the affiliation with other denominations, synods.
(And they give reasons as to why). (pp.43-46)

They also address ELCA and their open communion with other denominations. (p.45)

In other words, individual worthiness and genuine faith of an individual is NOT considered during the LCMS communion, but also the association to it's membership regardless even if an individual personally agrees with LCMS' doctrine while being a non-LCMS.

This brings up at least one question and 2 observations.

1. If all the saints that passed away are included in the LCMS communion, does that mean that they are in full doctrinal agreement with LCMS in heaven?
And if so, why do the saints of heaven ALSO participate with other denominations at THEIR communion?
And if they do, does that mean they agree with their heterodox teachings?
(Unless of course LCMS claims that the saints in heaven participate only with LCMS and ignore the others).

2. It appears to me that the closed communion of this context is a result on one's Traditional approach and not Scriptural, since the individual worthiness and genuine faith is not considered outside of one's affiliation with LCMS.

3. The very thing (Communion) that supposed to unite believers based on their personal worthiness and genuine faith, appears to divide them based on their affiliation.

4. Also, Christ presented that any man-made tradition regardless of their positive intent would eventually contradict the very word of God from which it is derived.

Interesting link.

Thanks,
Ed


All points I've thought about a lot....


Thank you.

[DaSeminarian]

First, I would suggest that you try and contact one of the seminary professors at either of the synod seminaries and ask them about your concerns. It is difficult for me to try and explain in the detail that you demand over this type of medium. Besides, they have much more in the way of experience and resources to answer you adequately.

Second, while the practice of close communion is indeed supported by the Confessions, it is a Biblically based doctrine. Communion is a public proclamation of faith. That proclamation is an agreement with the confession of the particular altar. The practice of close communion is meant for two basic reasons. One is to protect the individual from communing unworthily. The other is to protect the altar from heterodoxy.

If you would like, I could give you some names of people to contact at St. Louis. Their emails are available on the seminary web site.

You are inquisitive. If you are serious about persuing seminary, please look into asking one of the profs about your concerns.


Blessings

The same goes for Fort Wayne. You could ask the professors there as well as CSL. I also have a few names of people who would be able to talk to you.

[Edial]

...

This passage is ridiculous. I'm sure that you also know in heaven is the true Church of Christ, the true believers. No such divisions or seperations exist there. (At least I hope you know that.)

This was my question ... I see that I omitted a word and that caused misunderstanding.
The context is the communion of saints in heaven with the saints on Earth.

1. If all the saints that passed away are included in the LCMS communion on Earth, does that mean that they are in a full doctrinal agreement with the LCMS that is on Earth?

And if so, why do the saints of heaven ALSO participate with other denominations at THEIR communions that they hold on Earth?

And if they do, does that mean they agree with their heterodox teachings?

(Unless of course LCMS claims that the saints in heaven participate only with LCMS on Earth and ignore the others).

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

I use to sign off with "hang loose" (a leftover of my surfing days).

Ahh, so you truly ARE "California"Josiah!

Dude!

:wave:

[Edial]

All points I've thought about a lot....


Thank you.
You know Josiah that I openly disagree with my own ELCA synod on a number of topics.

But concerning the open communion, they appear to have one over the Confessionals.

Open Communion practice does get abused in ELCA by openly communing with Christians that live in an openly non-Scriptural behavior.

However, open communion practice is Scriptural as long as it accepts the Lutheran understanding of the elements, personal confession and faith of a believer that is supported by his/her Scriptural behavior.

So, it looks like I am stuck in a conservative ELCA congregation while being at odds with the ELCA synod. :)

Ed

[DaRev]

2. I actually have few "problems" with the LCMS position as I understand it officially exists. But, as I 'see' it, there seems be quite a range in how that position is understood and applied - and I'm not sure that's bad or unintentional (others strongly disagree with me).

There is latitude, not only within the synod, but also doctrinally, for pastoral discretion.



3. AT THIS POINT in my quest (that's saying nothing about tomorrow), I believe the following is reasonable policy regarding "worthiness:"
* Baptized
* Accepts Real Presence (this assumes some level of training)
* Is repentent and willing to forgive
* "He is worthy who sincerely knows he is not" - Dr. Loren Kramer, Chair, CTCR.
* Has examined themselves (this suggests not infants).


So far so good.

* A case might be made (I'm just not sure how big) that one who knowingly embraces a view CLEARLY and EXPICITELY contradictory to the Confessions and Scriptures would be grounds to refusal...

That would indeed be a big case since vwhat we hold, teach, and confess is based upon the Scriptures and Confessions. We certainly believe that ours is the true teaching, otherwise none of us would be LCMS Lutherans.

* I think blanket things such as "has been Confirmed" "technically has membership in a congregation our denomination is in fellowship with" etc. all evade the issue of worthiness rather than address it.

But which church they have made a confession of faith in certainly speaks volumes of what a person believes. One who is Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist or even ELCA certainly does not hold to the Lord's teaching and command concerning His Supper.

As I read historic statements of the LCMS, great emphasis has always been placed on the role of the pastor and congregation to handle each case personally and pastorally. IMHO, a pastor who refuses to do so but rather assumes that everyone who has ever been Confirmed in an LCMS church (or one in fellowship with it) is worthy and everyone who is not is therefore not worthy is abdicating his pastoral responsibility.

But to examine each and every member of each and every LCMS congregation would be impractical, not to mention unnecessary. There is an assumption made (and I agree its a big assumption, but the congregations of the synod are "supposed" to be "walking together" doctrinally) that all LCMS pastors teach the same doctrine to their members. Therefore knowing what their confession is by their church membership is a given.

I think the LCMS has traditionally placed great responsbility (and trust!) in the pastor - and this is appropriate. One size does not fit all. My father (a minister) encouraged me to worship outside his denomination - and I have. His advise to me was to NEVER commune unless and until I have PERSONALLY and at some length have spoken to the pastor (such suggests not for 30 seconds at the door as I'm shaking his hand). I have done so personally by appointment is some cases or by phone in a few - but never "at the door" or with a layperson or simply taking the counsel of an usher or friend. My father added that if the pastor seems hesitant, to take no offense and to refrain, and only if he specificly welcomes me to participate. I've always followed that advise, and I think it's not too far off from the bottom line in the LCMS.

It is difficult to understand the basis of your father's ideas not knowing what tradition he is from. I know that you wish not to discuss that. That is your choice.
While I agree to a point with what he said, I'm not sure he understands the confessional (not Confessional) aspects of the Lord's Supper.


You are invited to respond to anything I say, but again, I want to stress as clearly and boldly as I can, I desire no offense or to cause any "trouble." Nor do I desire to change anyone's mind (except perhaps my own) or the policy of any congregation or denomination. My desire is not to debate, but only to understand. In the end, I may or may not fully agree with the current LCMS position (either way, I'll be in good company), I'll then need to decide whether such is sufficient to lead me out of Lutheranism and continue my spiritual journey elsewhere. I am struggling with that.

I wish you well on your journey. I must say, however, I'm not sure where else you would go considering your educational background and the faith you have expressed in your posts here. I do not think you would be comfortable anywhere else. But that is my $.0005. :)

[seajoy]

But concerning the open communion, they appear to have one over the Confessionals.

Are we keeping score? :)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You know Josiah that I openly disagree with my own ELCA synod on a number of topics.

But concerning the open communion, they appear to have one over the Confessionals.

Open Communion practice does get abused in ELCA by openly communing with Christians that live in an openly non-Scriptural behavior.

However, open communion practice is Scriptural as long as it accepts the Lutheran understanding of the elements, personal confession and faith of a believer that is supported by his/her Scriptural behavior.

So, it looks like I am stuck in a conservative ELCA congregation while being at odds with the ELCA synod. :)

Ed


I'm a tad uncomfortable with any "blanket/one size fits all" approach to this that is based on assumptions and circumvents pastoral care and responsibility. I said "a tad uncomfortable" not anything more than that.

"Close/closed" policy seems to assume that everyone who technically belongs to a congregation technically belonging to a denomination with which the host congregation has "fellowship" must be "worthy" and otherwise the person is not "worthy." I think that's assuming a LOT and places the emphasis on membership rather than faith, repentance, etc. that Scripture and the Confessions all stress. On the other hand, "open" policy that just communes anyone seems to assume that no one needs any counsel or instruction or pastoral care either - and seems to circumvent any responsbilitity too. Thus, I find myself where I seem to find myself way too much - rejecting both extremes and wondering where in that great middle is the "right" place to be. IMHO, I keep coming back to the very thing those CTCR docs and convention resolutions keep coming back to - the pastor. He needs to exercise his care and responsbility seriously. IMHO, simply putting five sentences on a card and leaving it at that, or saying "Mo Syn people are in, all others out," or "Hey, wanna? That's cool with me" are all cop outs and evasions of his CARE and responsibility in this regard.

Lutheran pastors are among the best trained and finist in all of Christianity. There's a reason why the CTCR and Convention resolutions place the responsibility on them, in the end - we can, they are trustworthy. I think maybe we need to reconsider the micromanaging of them with all these "one size fits all" rules. We have good pastors and good elders. We trained them well. Let them do what God has Called them to do - while avoiding the two extremes. IMHO.


My $0.00


Pax!


- Josiah

[seajoy]

saying "Mo Syn people are in, all others out," or "Hey, wanna? That's cool with me" are all cop outs and evasions of his CARE and responsibility in this regard.

This is a good post, Josiah, but which side would you rather err on?

Also, there is room for Pastors to speak with people outside of their respective synods before the service. I'm not sure how that works, though, as I'm not a pastor. :)

May God bless your seeking of answers in this matter.

[RayJGentry]

i posted some stuff from the book of concord on the last page, and it seems to have been ignored? maybe not, but i didn't really see anything that dealt with them as i was reading through the posts. i guess i'm just wondering if i have understood them incorrectly. i figure since this discussion is based largely around the confessions, it would be good to discuss what they say regarding communion. i apologize if they weren't brought up because the points i've brought up have been discussed over and over. i guess i'm just curious if i am misunderstanding things or something.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is a good post, Josiah, but which side would you rather err on?

This would be for the pastor...

PERSONALLY, I would be apt to lean toward grace - I'm rather be accused of being too loving than in being too legalistic - but both are wrong. I'm pretty okay leaving this with the pastor and elders, especially if I know their heart and mind. I'm not sure we should overly micromanage pastoral care and supervision?


Also, there is room for Pastors to speak with people outside of their respective synods before the service. I'm not sure how that works, though, as I'm not a pastor. :)


My Dad is a minister (not Lutheran) and I know that Sunday mornings are the WORSE time to talk to him - he's very busy, he has a thousand things on his mind, there's way too much he's trying to juggle and remember. He might have a minute to talk to a guest about this but he'll probably be interrputed twice during that minute. That's why he counselled me to never do that. He told me to phone or visit the pastor BEFORE the Sunday when the Eucharist would be celebrated. Give the pastor all the time he needs and wants; answer all his questions fully and honestly. And do as the pastor counsels. It's what I've always done. I don't think it's all that radically different than what I'm reading in all these Confessions, CTCR docs and convention resolutions my pastor has been so kind to gather for me (he already KNOWS how I struggle with all this stuff, his patience with me amazes me - he is a godly man whom I trust, respect and love). Some here, however, would very much disagree with him on this issue - which I'm discovering in a reality in Lutheranism; it too is not monolithic.

May God bless your seeking of answers in this matter.

Thank you. And thank you for your understanding, patience, and willingness to hear me out as I struggle with some issues.


Pax!


- Josiah

[IowaLutheran]

i posted some stuff from the book of concord on the last page, and it seems to have been ignored? maybe not, but i didn't really see anything that dealt with them as i was reading through the posts. i guess i'm just wondering if i have understood them incorrectly. i figure since this discussion is based largely around the confessions, it would be good to discuss what they say regarding communion. i apologize if they weren't brought up because the points i've brought up have been discussed over and over. i guess i'm just curious if i am misunderstanding things or something.

I'm waiting for a response too. I think you're analysis was correct.

[Edial]

Are we keeping score? :)
:) You see, ELCA gets beat up so often that sometimes it is good to see that they do have some unique practices within the Lutherdom that are reflective of the Scriptural pattern.
And despite the the very fact that the Confessional side does adhere to the Scriptures closer than the liberals, the ELCA practice of open communion is more Scriptural than the closed one in the context of each Confessional synod not even communing with each other.

I am a critic of ELCA while being a part of the synod.

I am not liked by a more liberal members due to my conservative views ... but I am grateful to them for having an open communion. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[BelindaP]

It has always been my understanding that Communion was about communing with God and the church. I put myself in danger of judgment if I don't present myself worthily with regard to faith, contrition, etc. However, I don't understand how disagreeing on some point of doctrine with my brethren puts me in the same position. I am not making doctrinal statements when communing with the Lord. I am doing just that--communing with the Lord.

The early church wasn't always in agreement on everything. In fact, Acts records various times when the leaders of the church had severe disagreements. Yet, I have no doubt that they communed together.

[Edial]

i posted some stuff from the book of concord on the last page, and it seems to have been ignored? maybe not, but i didn't really see anything that dealt with them as i was reading through the posts. i guess i'm just wondering if i have understood them incorrectly. i figure since this discussion is based largely around the confessions, it would be good to discuss what they say regarding communion. i apologize if they weren't brought up because the points i've brought up have been discussed over and over. i guess i'm just curious if i am misunderstanding things or something.
You had a good post that cannot really be denied, or is hard to deny Scripturally.


Although ELCA and the Confessional Lutherans are at odds over many things, I personally do believe that the Confessionals do have greater Scriptural arguments concerning many of their views.

However, the Closed Communion is not one of them, or at least does not appear to be.

Now, I respect their individuality concerning this and certainly would not impose upon their practices.

And I also think that ELCA should not be considered "all bad" in the eyes of the Confessionals. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[BelindaP]

I should hope not. We're going to have to share heaven, you know. ;)

[DaRev]

IMHO, I keep coming back to the very thing those CTCR docs and convention resolutions keep coming back to - the pastor.
Lutheran pastors are among the best trained and finist in all of Christianity. There's a reason why the CTCR and Convention resolutions place the responsibility on them, in the end - we can, they are trustworthy.

You say that Lutheran pastors are the best trained, and yet you give no credence to any of them if one church cannot trust the teachings of the pastor of another in the same synod holding the same confession. We are members of a synod. The synod has a common confession that the pastors vow before the Lord to uphold in their ordination.
What I hear you suggesting is that every pastor is derelict in his responsibilities and thus every other pastor in the synod has to second guess and question them. I take offense at this. I suggest you think a bit harde