Quick Question on Communion

[Zecryphon]

I didn't want to derail the other Holy Communion thread with this question so I thought I'd start a new one.

Can I or should I take Communion at say a Non-Denom church that follows Reformed theology? The reason I ask is, I have some friends that want me to go visit their churches with them and I know there's a good chance that Communion will be served when I go. What should I do? Should I pass on the Sacrament because, even though I believe in Real Presence, if I took Communion with them I would be endorsing their false understanding and saying it's okay for them to drink God's wrath upon themselves? Or should I take it, given my true understanding, because after all it is the Lord's Supper? I want to say I shouldn't take it at these churches but that for some reason feels wrong, like I'm denying Christ because of the people around me. What do I do? :confused:

[Aibrean]

I wouldn't because you aren't unified in spirit.

[BabyLutheran]

I am not very astute, but I would say, take communion since you are discerning the Lord's body.

[TCat]

I take Communion where ever it is offered.
God's gift of forgiveness and grace is about what He is doing in me not about what others around me are doing. I cannot discern or judge others understanding and their walk with Christ. I trust the Holy Spirit to do His work in others lives and trust Him to do what He is doing in mine.
He gives me faith and understanding, I trust that He does the same in others.

[Zecryphon]

I wouldn't because you aren't unified in spirit.
That's what I'm leaning towards. We practice close or closed communion for a reason. To commune with others who do not have the truth regarding the sacrament, is essentially giving my approval to such a practice and that's why I'm torn.

[TCat]

I do not think that God relies on my approval of other people's faith to bestow His grace on anyone. If He did there would be many many people in my church who would not be allowed to commune.

[LilLamb219]

I would not take communion because they would assume that by doing so, you believe exactly as they do...and it's not the same. You would be deceiving all those people.

[Lupinus]

Remember, communion is also about communing with like minded believers. That's not to say that they believe the exact same thing on every matter, but they should be close on at least the major ones.

So really depends on the church. If they are close in views I might consider it. For instance at an Orthodox or Catholic church if it was offered communion, even though we have differences, I might. However, if they have a very different understanding, really out there ideas, or just said it doesn't matter believe how you like, then no absolutely not.

[RegularGuy]

Zecryphon:

Since you are a member of the LC-MS, which practices close Communion, you should not, according to your own church bodies teaching, receive Communion in a non-Denom reformed congregation.

The ELCA adopts a different approach, as you doubtless know. ELCA members are encouraged to receive Communion in other denominations according to their conscience. Since you express qualms, I'd advise against it.

But, know why you do not Commune with them, so that you can express it in loving, gentle and kind terms.

[Zecryphon]

I do not think that God relies on my approval of other people's faith to bestow His grace on anyone. If He did there would be many many people in my church who would not be allowed to commune.
I'm going to project here, forgive me if I misspeak about your beliefs, I am relying upon what I have found to be true from my own experience. As a non-Denom and I used to attend a non-Denom church before becoming a Lutheran, you most likely hold to the Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper. You, most likely hold to the view that the bread and wine are just symbols of Christ's body and blood. You most likely do not believe in a real presence of Christ, in, with and under the elements as Lutherans do. We believe anyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper and lacks the proper understanding of it, drinks wrath upon themselves. By communing with people who do not have a proper understanding, I would be saying that I do not believe a proper understadning of this sacrament is necessary prior to receiving it. I would essentially be lying, which is a sin. I came out of the Reformed tradition and into the Lutheran tradition.

[BabyLutheran]

In response to Lil Lamb:

Huh?

I don't get it.

With that logic, you would be deceiving them just by attending their church.

And to the post just above: How are you lying when you take communion with people who don't believe the same way?

[Zecryphon]

I would not take communion because they would assume that by doing so, you believe exactly as they do...and it's not the same. You would be deceiving all those people.
Yeah I'm with you there. I told my parents not to go to the rail when they visited my church. They are Presbyterians and do not hold the same view as I do. We have had some great discussions about it though.

[Zecryphon]

In response to Lil Lamb:

Huh?

I don't get it.

With that logic, you would be deceiving them just by attending their church.

And to the post just above: How are you lying when you take communion with people who don't believe the same way?
I don't think so, because what's the difference between a ND Christian that attends a Biblically sound church and a Lutheran when it comes to worshipping God? I know the church in question that I will be going to. It's very similar to the church I attended before becoming a Lutheran and is said to be a church plant of my former church, but I've never been able to find any such connection between the two. The campuses were built by the same architect it looks like and they knew my former senior pastor, but I can't find anything official linking the two churches.

[DaRev]

You should not commune there for two reasons.

First, by kneeling at their altar (or whatever method they distribute) and receiving their "supper" you are making a public statement that you are in agreement with their doctrines and practices, especially of their view of communion. To have become a Lutheran and made the confession of faith in the Lutheran Church, and then to commune in a non-denom church shows you to be a hypocrite, saying one thing with your words and something completely different with your actions.

Second, they do not believe the Biblical teaching concerning the Lord's Supper. They teach that it is merely symbolic. They do not believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said "This IS My body..." Thus they have changed the meaning of Jesus' words so that they are no longer His words they speak during the service. Since they are not speaking the words of our Lord but rather their own interpretation of words, they do not even have the Lord's Supper. There is no body and blood of Christ to even discern.

From the FoC SD, The Holy Supper, 32:
"For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion."

[BabyLutheran]

Just attending the church would imply he is a hippocrite as well, if anyone there knows he is Lutheran.

Too much legalism going on for my taste.

[Zecryphon]

Just attending the church would imply he is a hippocrite as well, if anyone there knows he is Lutheran.

Too much legalism going on for my taste.
How would attending the church make me a hypocrite? We don't believe different things about Christ or His sacrifice. We just believe differently regarding communion. If I were asked to go to an LDS church, then you'd have a point regarding church attendance.

[Zecryphon]

You should not commune there for two reasons.

First, by kneeling at their altar (or whatever method they distribute) and receiving their "supper" you are making a public statement that you are in agreement with their doctrines and practices, especially of their view of communion. To have become a Lutheran and made the confession of faith in the Lutheran Church, and then to commune in a non-denom church shows you to be a hypocrite, saying one thing with your words and something completely different with your actions.

Second, they do not believe the Biblical teaching concerning the Lord's Supper. They teach that it is merely symbolic. They do not believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said "This IS My body..." Thus they have changed the meaning of Jesus' words so that they are no longer His words they speak during the service. Since they are not speaking the words of our Lord but rather their own interpretation of words, they do not even have the Lord's Supper. There is no body and blood of Christ to even discern.

From the FoC SD, The Holy Supper, 32:
"For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion."
I agree. Thanks for the clarification. That's what I was looking for.

[DaRev]

Just attending the church would imply he is a hippocrite as well, if anyone there knows he is Lutheran.

Too much legalism going on for my taste.

Attending is not the issue. Participating in their "sacrament" is.

[BabyLutheran]

If they don't believe in the real presence, there are probably a lot of other things that they believe differently as well. If the logic you guys are using against communing is extended to the situation that you are publicly worshiping with someone whom you do not agree with, then you are being a hippocrite. That's not necessarily my logic, but an extension of the logic you guys are using.

Just my 2 cents.

[TCat]

I'm going to project here, forgive me if I misspeak about your beliefs, I am relying upon what I have found to be true from my own experience. As a non-Denom and I used to attend a non-Denom church before becoming a Lutheran, you most likely hold to the Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper. You, most likely hold to the view that the bread and wine are just symbols of Christ's body and blood. You most likely do not believe in a real presence of Christ, in, with and under the elements as Lutherans do. We believe anyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper and lacks the proper understanding of it, drinks wrath upon themselves. By communing with people who do not have a proper understanding, I would be saying that I do not believe a proper understadning of this sacrament is necessary prior to receiving it. I would essentially be lying, which is a sin. I came out of the Reformed tradition and into the Lutheran tradition.

Actually I do believe in the Real Presence of the living Christ in the Sacrament. I also believe that understanding was given to me by The Holy Spirit and as I grow in my faith He teaches me, guides and counsels me to recieve even more.
I also believe that Communion is between God and I and I trust that He grants me mercy and grace in the recieveing of forgiveness of my sins.
When I commune in whatever Christian church I am in I trust that God has them where He wants them to be and is moving in others hearts to receive from Him what He has to give them.
I am saved from wrath by the blood of Jesus Christ, I have to trust that others who are taking communion are either convicted or in grace as well.
As I cannot determine the sins, lives or faith of other people I trust that God is in control and working as He desires with those who trust in Him.
There is One body, One faith, One baptism, and only One God, I beleive in His Real Presence and real ability to do what He intends in the hearts and with the faith of all Christians.

[TCat]

If we are waiting for all the hipocrits to leave the Church before communing we would never commune again!

[BabyLutheran]

Tcat, this is completely O/T, but I love that little mood indicator in your avatar!

Is that a giant tongue sticking out?

[DaRev]

There is a MAJOR difference between discerning what we do not know and discerning what we DO know. While we cannot know what is in the heart of any individual, we can certainly know what they publically confess. And if what they publically confess is contrary to the clear command of God in His word, then we most certainly know where they stand. We can only go by what we hear and see.

[Zecryphon]

If they don't believe in the real presence, there are probably a lot of other things that they believe differently as well. If the logic you guys are using against communing is extended to the situation that you are publicly worshiping with someone whom you do not agree with, then you are being a hippocrite. That's not necessarily my logic, but an extension of the logic you guys are using.

Just my 2 cents.
"If they don't believe in the real presence, there are probably a lot of other things that they believe differently as well."

Yep and as a former attender of Reformed churches you should know a couple of others. One is baptism. They hold that it's strictly symbolic. In my church it was "an outward expression of an inward commitment." Thus teaching that Baptism is something we do for God instead of something God does for us. Heresy.

The other issue we typically differ on is how a person is saved. All the Reformed churches I attended taught that you had to ask Jesus into your heart to be saved. Yep, all about me again as opposed to being all about God.

"If the logic you guys are using against communing is extended to the situation that you are publicly worshiping with someone whom you do not agree with, then you are being a hippocrite."

Not at all, because by attending the church we're worshipping Christ together. All I have to do to worship Christ with them is believe in the same Christ as they do, which I do. There is no difference in belief about who Christ is or what He has done for us sinners, between myself and the adherents of this particular church.

"That's not necessarily my logic, but an extension of the logic you guys are using."

And you'd be right if this church believed in a different Christ than the one revealed in the scriptures. Like if they believe He wasn't God or if they believed His sacrifice didn't fully pay for their sin or if they believed He was just a good moral teacher and denied His resurrection, then you'd have a point about not worshipping with them as well. But that's not the case.

You like me, left the Reformed church because you didn't like what you saw or what was being taught, right? If a friend invited you back to your previous church and Communion was being served, what would you do? Would you take the cup or let it pass? My former church actually told people to let the cup pass if they were not members of the church. Why would they do that do you think? Could it be because of these verses?

1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

*Boldface and underlining mine

[Zecryphon]

If we are waiting for all the hipocrits to leave the Church before communing we would never commune again!
This is most certainly true.

[TCat]

What are we to discern about others when it comes to Communion? That the person keeling next to us has faith in Real Presence? That they are not in unrepentant sin? That they have been to confirmation classes? That they have real faith?

How are we to know? I spend my time before, during and after Communion talking to God about my walk with Him, His will for my life and asking forgiveness or the willingness to be forgiven for those things in my life that need to be surredered.

I know that in my walk with Him my faith has grown, my life is changing and my will is being brought daily more in alignment with His.

My hope and prayer is that every one who claims Christ and salvation by His blood is also growing. To suggest that God cannot or is unwilling to work in the hearts of those whose faith is weak, or understanding is incomplete are not to be in communion with other believers is incomprehensible to me.

[Zecryphon]

Actually I do believe in the Real Presence of the living Christ in the Sacrament. I also believe that understanding was given to me by The Holy Spirit and as I grow in my faith He teaches me, guides and counsels me to recieve even more.
I also believe that Communion is between God and I and I trust that He grants me mercy and grace in the recieveing of forgiveness of my sins.
When I commune in whatever Christian church I am in I trust that God has them where He wants them to be and is moving in others hearts to receive from Him what He has to give them.
I am saved from wrath by the blood of Jesus Christ, I have to trust that others who are taking communion are either convicted or in grace as well.
As I cannot determine the sins, lives or faith of other people I trust that God is in control and working as He desires with those who trust in Him.
There is One body, One faith, One baptism, and only One God, I beleive in His Real Presence and real ability to do what He intends in the hearts and with the faith of all Christians.
"Actually I do believe in the Real Presence of the living Christ in the Sacrament."

Wow, you're truly a rarity, as you're the first ND I've encountered that holds to real presence.

"I also believe that understanding was given to me by The Holy Spirit and as I grow in my faith He teaches me, guides and counsels me to recieve even more."

I agree.

"I also believe that Communion is between God and I and I trust that He grants me mercy and grace in the recieveing of forgiveness of my sins."

I agree, but do you see the dillemma here?

"When I commune in whatever Christian church I am in I trust that God has them where He wants them to be and is moving in others hearts to receive from Him what He has to give them."

Okay.


"I am saved from wrath by the blood of Jesus Christ, I have to trust that others who are taking communion are either convicted or in grace as well.
As I cannot determine the sins, lives or faith of other people I trust that God is in control and working as He desires with those who trust in Him."


Well we can judge people by their fruits. If we know they are denying the words of Christ Himself, can we really commune or should we commune with those people? It's something each person would have to answer for themselves.

"There is One body, One faith, One baptism, and only One God, I beleive in His Real Presence and real ability to do what He intends in the hearts and with the faith of all Christians."

You take Christ at His word and that's fantastic. I just wish more people did. But some prefere to believe Zwingli over Christ and that's sad.

[DaRev]

The Scriptures are very clear as to the conditions for worthy and beneficial reception of the Sacrament, as are the Lutheran Confessions which are thoroughly Scriptural. It is true that we cannot see what is in the heart of any individual. But we most certainly can see and hear their public outward confession and actions. It is then the responsibility of the pastor to make sure that this person does not do further spiritual harm to themsleves by partaking of the Sacrament in an unworthy state. Close communion is not a denial of the benefits of Christ in the Sacrament, it is a denial of the judgement of God against the unworthy, unprepared, and unrepentant.

[TCat]

[quote=Zecryphon;43259893]Wow, you're truly a rarity, as you're the first ND I've encountered that holds to real presence.

Well we can judge people by their fruits. If we know they are denying the words of Christ Himself, can we really commune or should we commune with those people? It's something each person would have to answer for themselves.
quote]

I am a member of an LCMS church. I do not however identify myself with denomination by name. I belong to Christ alone.

Yes we judge people by their fruits, and in my personal experience so far I have met many Christians who do not have the same understanding that the Lutherans do about communion but their lives reflect the beauty and grace of Christ.
I know a great many people in my own church who do not show much if any fruit but commune regularly with the "proper" understanding of presence.
I have to trust in Him to know the truth and continue in my own walk with Him.

[Zecryphon]

What are we to discern about others when it comes to Communion? That the person keeling next to us has faith in Real Presence? That they are not in unrepentant sin? That they have been to confirmation classes? That they have real faith?

How are we to know? I spend my time before, during and after Communion talking to God about my walk with Him, His will for my life and asking forgiveness or the willingness to be forgiven for those things in my life that need to be surredered.

I know that in my walk with Him my faith has grown, my life is changing and my will is being brought daily more in alignment with His.

My hope and prayer is that every one who claims Christ and salvation by His blood is also growing. To suggest that God cannot or is unwilling to work in the hearts of those whose faith is weak, or understanding is incomplete are not to be in communion with other believers is incomprehensible to me.
"What are we to discern about others when it comes to Communion? That the person keeling next to us has faith in Real Presence? That they are not in unrepentant sin? That they have been to confirmation classes? That they have real faith?"

For this discussion I think what we are to discern is confined to their view of real presence in the Lord's Supper. If we know they deny the words of Jesus, what do we do with that? Do we pray for them? We could, but would they be offended by that if they found out, because it would look like since they believe differently than we, who hold to real presence do, that we automatically think they're wrong.

"How are we to know?"

Well we do know what the Reformed churches typically teach regarding Communion. They typically hold to the Zwinglian view. We can compare what they believe with scripture and draw a conclusion. Like the Bereans did.

"I spend my time before, during and after Communion talking to God about my walk with Him, His will for my life and asking forgiveness or the willingness to be forgiven for those things in my life that need to be surredered."

That's great. Everybody should.

"My hope and prayer is that every one who claims Christ and salvation by His blood is also growing. To suggest that God cannot or is unwilling to work in the hearts of those whose faith is weak, or understanding is incomplete are not to be in communion with other believers is incomprehensible to me."

We're not suggesting that God is not working in the hearts of those whose faith is weak or whose understanding is incomplete. We're talking about communing with people who openly reject Christ's own words regarding Communion.

[TCat]

[quote=DaRev;43259950]It is then the responsibility of the pastor to make sure that this person does not do further spiritual harm to themsleves by partaking of the Sacrament in an unworthy state. quote]

I let the pastor decide whom to commune, and I will commune as the Holy Spirit directs me to.

[Zecryphon]

[quote=Zecryphon;43259893]Wow, you're truly a rarity, as you're the first ND I've encountered that holds to real presence.

Well we can judge people by their fruits. If we know they are denying the words of Christ Himself, can we really commune or should we commune with those people? It's something each person would have to answer for themselves.
quote]

I am a member of an LCMS church. I do not however identify myself with denomination by name. I belong to Christ alone.

Yes we judge people by their fruits, and in my personal experience so far I have met many Christians who do not have the same understanding that the Lutherans do about communion but their lives reflect the beauty and grace of Christ.
I know a great many people in my own church who do not show much if any fruit but commune regularly with the "proper" understanding of presence.
I have to trust in Him to know the truth and continue in my own walk with Him.
Forgive me, I made an assumption based upon your ND icon.

Yes we judge people by their fruits, and in my personal experience so far I have met many Christians who do not have the same understanding that the Lutherans do about communion but their lives reflect the beauty and grace of Christ.

That's great, but since we're talking about the proper understanding of Communion, how they live their lives outside of taking Communion really isn't relevant to this discussion.

"I know a great many people in my own church who do not show much if any fruit but commune regularly with the "proper" understanding of presence."

We're not talking about works as fruit of salvation in this thread. We're talking about a proper understanding of scripture regarding Communion. What fruit people produce outside of church is relevant how?


I have to trust in Him to know the truth and continue in my own walk with Him.


I agree.

[BabyLutheran]

I am one who can see both sides on this issue, but you asked me if I would take communion in a reformed theology church now?

Yes, I would take communion at any church that I attend that it is offered, if the pastor did not specifically announce before serving it that it is just a symbol. If he did not say that, then I would not be lying or a hypocrite by partaking. Jesus is present in the elements whether the specific denomination's doctrine says so or not.

[Zecryphon]

I am one who can see both sides on this issue, but you asked me if I would take communion in a reformed theology church now?

Yes, I would take communion at any church that I attend that it is offered, if the pastor did not specifically announce before serving it that it is just a symbol. If he did not say that, then I would not be lying or a hypocrite by partaking. Jesus is present in the elements whether the specific denomination's doctrine says so or not.
Okay.

[TCat]

Is the understanding here that any Christian, anywhere who takes communion any place other than in an LCMS church, distributed by an LCMS pastor during the Divine service sinning and bringing wrath on themselves?

[Zecryphon]

Is the understanding here that any Christian, anywhere who takes communion any place other than in an LCMS church, distributed by an LCMS pastor during the Divine service sinning and bringing wrath on themselves?
No, the understanding for me, is that any Christian who denies the words of Christ Himself regarding Communion, who holds to the sybmolic only view is indeed sinning and bringing wrath upon themselves.

[BigNorsk]

Well there's a twist to that understanding. As the Book of Concord states, they do not really have Communion or the Lord's Supper because their meaning is so different they don't actually have the sacrament.

Therefore they are not thereby subject to the worldly judgment 11 Cor mentions.

You can't have it both ways. You can't hold they don't have the sacrament, and yet still hold that they are subject to judgment for partaking.

What they have is a shot of wine or grapejuice with a little cracker or piece of bread.

Your participation is not going to be a Communion because it's not Communion. Nor does your faith make it Communion (that's been another common error). So there really isn't anything to gain under such a circumstance with participation. There is no Lord's Supper there and nothing you can do at the time will make it so. Maybe your nonparticipation will open up an opportunity for discussion and teaching.

Marv

[BabyLutheran]

So would you agree that he would lose nothing by partaking, if he gains nothing by partaking?

[BigNorsk]

Partaking in what? It's not Communion.

The question is, will he cause his weaker brother to stumble by his participation? If he does, then partaking is sinful.

I can't think of what there would be to gain by participating under those circumstances, maybe the pretense of agreement where no exists. Maybe being spared from any consequence of his faith? I don't know. Maybe an appetizer?

Marv

[NordicLutheran]

I have been to a non-denominational/evangelical church service. The divine service is in no way close to whatever they have. We are not just seperated by the sacrament of the altar. Keep that in mind. The divine service is for God. The nd/evangelical worship is heavily reliant on self.

[BabyLutheran]

This turned out to be a not so quick question on communion.

The divine service is not for God. It is God's gift to us.

Maybe we should start an "arguing about communion" thread, where it just goes on and on and on and on.....

No new communion threads should be allowed. No new ground is covered, no one is ever persuaded or even gives a rip about anyone else's opinion (I include myself in this critique)

[Zecryphon]

This turned out to be a not so quick question on communion.

The divine service is not for God. It is God's gift to us.

Maybe we should start an "arguing about communion" thread, where it just goes on and on and on and on.....

No new communion threads should be allowed.
Maybe we should start an "arguing about communion" thread, where it just goes on and on and on and on.....

No new communion threads should be allowed.

:scratch:

There's no need to start a new thread. This thread works just fine as a debate thread about Communion and I, as the OP, do hereby sanction it to now be a debate thread. I really didn't think there'd be this much debate considering we're all Lutherans. Oh well. You learn something new every day.

[DaRev]

So would you agree that he would lose nothing by partaking, if he gains nothing by partaking?

By partaking in that church he is making a public proclamation that he agrees with what they teach regarding communion. He would basically be saying "Yes, I agree with you all that Christ is not present bodily and it's just a symbol." If he truly believes that, then by receiving communion at a Lutheran church would be sinful according to 1 Corinthians 11 since he does not discern the body of Christ in the Sacrament. If he believes as the Lutheran church (and the Scriptures and the Confessions) teaches that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, then he would be a hypocrite by partaking of the "supper" in the ND church.

[BabyLutheran]

... Nor does your faith make it Communion (that's been another common error).
Marv

So it sounds like, unless a LCMS minister consecrates the elements, they do not become the flesh and blood of Jesus. In other words, it is up to a human being to turn them into the real thing.

[Zecryphon]

So it sounds like, unless a LCMS minister consecrates the elements, they do not become the flesh and blood of Jesus. In other words, it is up to a human being to turn them into the real thing.
Nobody has limited it to an LCMS minister. A WELS minister will do as well. LOL

[BabyLutheran]

:scratch:

There's no oneed to start a new thread. This thread works just fine as a debate thread about Communion and I, as the OP, do hereby sanction it to now be a debate thread. I really didn't think there'd be this much debate considering we're all Lutherans. Oh well. You learn something new every day.
I know I sound stupid, but it is just endless debate about this, with nothing really being figured out for sure.

I am turning the thread into an "arguing about whether we should argue about arguing about commuunion" thread...lol

[BabyLutheran]

To be honest though, this is probably the only issue that kept me from even visiting an LCMS church.

[DaRev]

So it sounds like, unless a LCMS minister consecrates the elements, they do not become the flesh and blood of Jesus. In other words, it is up to a human being to turn them into the real thing.

It has to do with the word of God. The elements of bread and wine combined with the words of Christ is what constitutes the Sacrament. When a church body has changed or perverted the meanings of Christ's words, then they are no longer His words but Man's words. Man's word means nothing in terms of the Sacrament, thus there is no Sacrament in those churches that have changed and perverted the words of Christ, such as the Reformed church bodies and the ND's.

[Zecryphon]

I know I sound stupid, but it is just endless debate about this, with nothing really being figured out for sure.

I am turning the thread into an "arguing about whether we should argue about arguing about commuunion" thread...lol
"I know I sound stupid,"

Not stupid, just contradictory. Thank God for the Edit button. LOL

"but it is just endless debate about this, with nothing really being figured out for sure."

Well, that's what I don't understand. Where the debate is. Jesus seems very clear on this in scripture. If He meant the elements to be symbolic representatives, He would have said "this bread represents my body, this wine represents my blood." He didnt' say that. He said "is my body, is my blood." I don't understand what all the debate is about. I would clearly be a hypocrite if I communed at that church, therefore if it even becomes an issue. I will let the grape juice and crackers pass me by.

I am turning the thread into an "arguing about whether we should argue about arguing about commuunion" thread...lol

Also, do not let my decision on this matter end the debate. This is good stuff.

[RevCowboy]

Partaking in what? It's not Communion.

The question is, will he cause his weaker brother to stumble by his participation? If he does, then partaking is sinful.

I can't think of what there would be to gain by participating under those circumstances, maybe the pretense of agreement where no exists. Maybe being spared from any consequence of his faith? I don't know. Maybe an appetizer?

Marv

There have a been a few times in my short life that I have been at Christian event (conference, workshop etc...) where some Non-Denominational or evangelicals have passed around what I like to call surprise communion. Both times there was no pastor and no words of institution. I have also heard of this happening at a ND Bible school where a group was presenting on Augustine in class. At the end of their presentation they passed around bread and wine and said something to the effect, "Augustine would have thought this was important".

While I didn't partake any time I have been surprised, I didn't consider it anymore than a mid-service snack.

[LilLamb219]

So it sounds like, unless a LCMS minister consecrates the elements, they do not become the flesh and blood of Jesus. In other words, it is up to a human being to turn them into the real thing.

If the church denies in Christ's presence...is it really communion then...or just some meal?

[BabyLutheran]

No, I am not denying that it is the real presence, I am just arguing that the real presence can be there whether EVERY SINGLE person in the church believes it.

Anyway, just to derail the thread, how can other denominations be that ignorant to deny the presence? I mean, what arguments do they use against "discerning the body of Christ" meaning exactly that?

I want to understand why the vast majority of protestant denominations feel the way they do. It just doesn't make sense, especially for the very conservative denominations like southern baptists, who take the bible so literally.

[TCat]

This thread reminds me once again why I am a Christian who is a member of a Lutheran church, and not a Lutheran Christian.

[Zecryphon]

No, I am not denying that it is the real presence, I am just arguing that the real presence can be there whether EVERY SINGLE person in the church believes it.

Anyway, just to derail the thread, how can other denominations be that ignorant to deny the presence? I mean, what arguments do they use against "discerning the body of Christ" meaning exactly that?

I want to understand why the vast majority of protestant denominations feel the way they do. It just doesn't make sense, especially for the very conservative denominations like southern baptists, who take the bible so literally.
One thing they do is they focus on Jesus' statement, "do this in remembrance of me." They take that to mean that the Sacrament is really a memorial of Jesus, and not something supernatural. But what they forget is that memorials are for the dead. Since Jesus Christ is very much alive, this reasoning doesn't work.

[porterross]

There are very few other denominations I would even consider receiving communion and even then, I would listen very carefully to the words of Institution before deciding whether or not to actually partake. The words used for consecration are most definitely important to as to whether or not we could discern Christ's Body and Blood are present and the only other denomination I've ever felt comfortable with in this regard was Anglican.

[DaRev]

No, I am not denying that it is the real presence, I am just arguing that the real presence can be there whether EVERY SINGLE person in the church believes it.

Anyway, just to derail the thread, how can other denominations be that ignorant to deny the presence? I mean, what arguments do they use against "discerning the body of Christ" meaning exactly that?

I want to understand why the vast majority of protestant denominations feel the way they do. It just doesn't make sense, especially for the very conservative denominations like southern baptists, who take the bible so literally.

It's because they try to employ human reason into their interpretation of Scripture. Since Jesus has ascended into heaven bodily, and since He was only 5 foot something and a hundred and some pounds, how could His very body and blood be on the altar in every church in the world? There are two main problems with this. First, human reason is flawed when it comes to spiritual matters. We are fallen, sinful people who simply cannot comprehend the intricacies of God. "'Your thoughts are not My thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord." And second, they seem to deny that Christ is both human and divine and that these two natures are inseperable. Jesus, as God, shares the divine attribue of omnipresence even in His human nature, thus He certainly can be physically present everywhere.

This thread reminds me once again why I am a Christian who is a member of a Lutheran church, and not a Lutheran Christian.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. The Lutheran Church holds fast to God's word as revealed in the Scriptures. They say what they say, regardless of what we personally may feel. While I praise God that you have an understanding of the Sacrament that allows you to worthily partake to your benefit, I am truly saddened that you feel that our Biblical stance on these matters is unimportant to you. I pray that the Holy Spirit continue to guide you to all truth.

There are very few other denominations I would even consider receiving communion and even then, I would listen very carefully to the words of Institution before deciding whether or not to actually partake. The words used for consecration are most definitely important to as to whether or not we could discern Christ's Body and Blood are present and the only other denomination I've ever felt comfortable with in this regard was Anglican.

The problem with the Anglican Church is that they don't require one to believe in the Real Presence to commune with them (same with the official ELCA stance). This, along with some other beliefs and practices that are not in accord with Scripture, would preclude me from ever communing there. I would rather commune in a RCC church, even with their errors, than Anglican. (My opinion on the matter.)

[BabyLutheran]

Too bad the RC wouldn't let you!:cool:

Anyway, the communion issue was this for me:

Go where I could find a place that believed in the Real Presence, but which would allow open communion. My wife was so angry that the RC church would not let us commune with them. If I had gone with her to an LCMS she would have felt the same way.

Too bad the real world isn't black and white.

Sometimes I am torn, I had to compromise somewhat in order to get our family to go to church again. What's the worse sin, going to church by yourself and letting your wife and daughter just sit home and stew, or going to a church with open communion where at least you say you believe in the real presence (which I believe is really true, and I also believe that my particular pastors ascribe to as well)? Even if my wife doesn't 100% believe in the real presence, can't being around others who do eventually convince her? That last part of the question is my belief, and is why I believe in open communion: if others commune with me and those who agree that the real presence is there, then they might believe also.

Sorry to unload, but that's my story and why I believe the ELCA is the best choice for us.

[DaRev]

Even if my wife doesn't 100% believe in the real presence, can't being around others who do eventually convince her?

Is she communing, even though she does not discern the body?? How is that benefitting her, by committing a sin at the communion rail?

We have to remember, it's not about what we want, it's about what God wants. And He has spelled that out quite clearly in the Scriptures.

[BabyLutheran]

Is she communing, even though she does not discern the body?? How is that benefitting her, by committing a sin at the communion rail?

We have to remember, it's not about what we want, it's about what God wants. And He has spelled that out quite clearly in the Scriptures.
I am not sure she doesn't believe, she is just adamantly against closed communion. I do know that the first time she took communion at this church, she was weeping pretty badly. I would say that does show some discernment!

I had read a couple of months back aloud to her the part of John's gospel where Jesus plainly said that unless you ate his flesh and drank his blood...and she said that she had never realized Jesus actually said it so plainly!

I kind of think our souls (or whatever term you want to use) prompted by the Holy Spirit can discern things of this nature at the same time our tiny little intellect can be struggling with it. Like, we can believe deep down inside, but still have our doubts intellectually.

Does that make any sense to anyone? I really have a hard time expressing things.

[porterross]

The problem with the Anglican Church is that they don't require one to believe in the Real Presence to commune with them (same with the official ELCA stance). This, along with some other beliefs and practices that are not in accord with Scripture, would preclude me from ever communing there. I would rather commune in a RCC church, even with their errors, than Anglican. (My opinion on the matter.)


I think that actually depends on where you are, though, as some are pretty strict about it, much the same as LCMS and I can't imagine that I would be comfortable communing in a RCC because being refused Christ's blood is offensive to me. At least where the Book of Common Prayer has been used to consecrate, I know what I'm receiving is what I believe it is and nothing more or less. I know the CoE's position on this, but here in the US, I know it's anyone's guess as to what the rector believes. The local Episcopal priest here doesn't even see the need for catechism!

As for the person beside me, I'm not so sure everyone really grasps what it is they're supposed to or not, given those who are not properly catechized. That's why I rely on the things that I know to be proper as I've been taught to understand them. I'm not going to deny myself the Body and Blood of Christ for fear that others at the altar with me are ignorant, thus my reliance on the church's and pastor's doctrinal view and words of institution. Again, there are very few instances where I might consider doing this.

[DaRev]

I am not sure she doesn't believe, she is just adamantly against closed communion. I do know that the first time she took communion at this church, she was weeping pretty badly. I would say that does show some discernment!

I had read a couple of months back aloud to her the part of John's gospel where Jesus plainly said that unless you ate his flesh and drank his blood...and she said that she had never realized Jesus actually said it so plainly!

Well, bless her heart. :clap:

I kind of think our souls (or whatever term you want to use) prompted by the Holy Spirit can discern things of this nature at the same time our tiny little intellect can be struggling with it. Like, we can believe deep down inside, but still have our doubts intellectually.

That's called "faith". :thumbsup:

[maylor]

I kind of think our souls (or whatever term you want to use) prompted by the Holy Spirit can discern things of this nature at the same time our tiny little intellect can be struggling with it. Like, we can believe deep down inside, but still have our doubts intellectually.

Does that make any sense to anyone? I really have a hard time expressing things.

Makes perfect sense to me. This is why I try not to delve too deep into theology. I start to use my mind to reason things out and my faith begins to weaken!

My brother who is a hardcore Calvinist gave me a book on predestination that made my head hurt!

[LilLamb219]

This thread reminds me once again why I am a Christian who is a member of a Lutheran church, and not a Lutheran Christian.

Honestly, there shouldn't be a difference in terms whatsoever.

[porterross]

Honestly, there shouldn't be a difference in terms whatsoever.


:amen:

[TCat]

:amen: There is a difference to me.

[DaRev]

I find it strange that you have joined an LCMS congregation and yet you do not uphold or believe what the LCMS holds, teaches, and confesses. When you joined that church you must have made a confession that you believe the canonical books of the Old and New Testament are the inspired word of God, and that the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as found in the Book of Concord of 1580, as you have learned them through Luther's Small Catechism, are the true exposition of Scriptural truths, and that you make these confessions your own.
Either you made this confession but didn't really understand what it meant, or your congregation never taught you these things. I find this disturbing.

In reality, there is no distinction between being Lutheran and being Christian since they are synonomous.

[PreachersWife2004]

I would have to agree with DaRev here.

Why join a church if you disagree with its doctrine?

[BigNorsk]

There are Christians under many names that are not Lutheran. The two words are not synonymous at all. Though one would hope that all Lutherans are Christian, certainly not all Christians are Lutheran. Lutherans are a subset of Christians.

I don't believe either the WELS nor the LCMS teaches differently. If they do, I'd sure appreciate a reference.

Marv

[LilLamb219]

If they believe what is biblically correct, then they are Lutheran whether they call themselves that or not. This is why Lutheran and Christian are synonymous as DaRev points out.

Now, just because those people may call themselves something else, such as Baptist or Methodist, shows how they have strayed from what is biblically correct. They're still Christian...and a little bit of Lutheran is in all Christians ;)

[Zecryphon]

Too bad the RC wouldn't let you!:cool:

Anyway, the communion issue was this for me:

Go where I could find a place that believed in the Real Presence, but which would allow open communion. My wife was so angry that the RC church would not let us commune with them. If I had gone with her to an LCMS she would have felt the same way.

Too bad the real world isn't black and white.

Sometimes I am torn, I had to compromise somewhat in order to get our family to go to church again. What's the worse sin, going to church by yourself and letting your wife and daughter just sit home and stew, or going to a church with open communion where at least you say you believe in the real presence (which I believe is really true, and I also believe that my particular pastors ascribe to as well)? Even if my wife doesn't 100% believe in the real presence, can't being around others who do eventually convince her? That last part of the question is my belief, and is why I believe in open communion: if others commune with me and those who agree that the real presence is there, then they might believe also.

Sorry to unload, but that's my story and why I believe the ELCA is the best choice for us.
Even if my wife doesn't 100% believe in the real presence, can't being around others who do eventually convince her?

She shouldn't believe in real presence because of peer pressure. Her beliefs shouldn't come from other people around her. Her beliefs should come from the conviction and teaching of the Holy Spirit. When people start trusting the opinions of others over the Holy Spirit that's when people start backsliding into the world and it's temptations.

[Zecryphon]

Honestly, there shouldn't be a difference in terms whatsoever.
I really don't see the difference myself. In this case, since it seems that the Lutheran Christians, which I guess from the tone of her post, is a "bad" tihng to be, are the ones who are taking Jesus at His word.

[Zecryphon]

:amen: There is a difference to me.
What is the difference as you see it?

[Zecryphon]

I would have to agree with DaRev here.

Why join a church if you disagree with its doctrine?
A couple reasons people join a church is because it's close to home and the music is really good. Not saying that's what's happened with TCat, but I do find her statement really disturbing. Is it possible that there are LCMS churches out there that are not as focused on the Bible and the Confessions as they should be? I've never found one, so I'm genuinely asking here.

[Zecryphon]

If they believe what is biblically correct, then they are Lutheran whether they call themselves that or not. This is why Lutheran and Christian are synonymous as DaRev points out.

Now, just because those people may call themselves something else, such as Baptist or Methodist, shows how they have strayed from what is biblically correct. They're still Christian...and a little bit of Lutheran is in all Christians ;)
Didn't all Protestant denominations ultimately come out of Luther's Reformation, if you traced the history back?

[BigNorsk]

Well that's probably a bit simplified, though I think it would be correct to say they all took something from Luther. The Moravians for instance, trace back to John Hus who preceeded Luther, but clearly Luther had a great effect upon them.

Marv

[Zecryphon]

Well that's probably a bit simplified, though I think it would be correct to say they all took something from Luther. The Moravians for instance, trace back to John Hus who preceeded Luther, but clearly Luther had a great effect upon them.

Marv
My point was that until Luther's Reformation we had nothing but Roman Catholics. After Luther's Reformation is when we saw all the other Protestant denominations come into existence.

[BigNorsk]

As for Lutheran and Christian being synonymous. I would agree if going from Lutheran to Christian, but I think it would confuse things and not be true if you tried to substitute Lutheran wherever you saw the word Christian.

For instance take the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) they are Campbellites not Lutherans.

All Christians are of course going to agree on the fundamental doctrines. But I really wouldn't say that everyone who agrees on the fundamentals is Lutheran. For instance someone could deny both secondary fundamental doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper, maybe they say they are just a church rite to memorialize what has happened. They could be Christian, but I have a hard time shoehorning them into the word Lutheran.

And of course we have that other equivalent of catholic and christian as used by Luther in the Creed where he, in order to avoid the confusion caused by the word catholic substituted christian. That is a similar case. In the sense Luther used them there, they were equivalent. The word catholic actually would have seemed to be saying more than what was meant. But would one thereby just take anywhere the word catholic is used and say it is equivalent to christian? I sure wouldn't.

Neither would I use Lutheran and Christian that way. Because they aren't always equivalent. I wonder if that would get a rise out of people if we went and substituted Lutheran in place of catholic or christian in the creed? I'm thinking that would make the news. Maybe some of you really already are actually confessing one holy Lutheran church, but I'm not.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

My point was that until Luther's Reformation we had nothing but Roman Catholics. After Luther's Reformation is when we saw all the other Protestant denominations come into existence.

As just pointed out we had the Moravians before Luther. The picture of perfect harmony is one painted by Roman apologists, it really is a revisionist view of history. I wouldn't call the Lollards Catholics either. Nor for that matter the Waldensians.

Those are groups that come to mind, they all preceeded Luther.

Marv

[Zecryphon]

As just pointed out we had the Moravians before Luther. The picture of perfect harmony is one painted by Roman apologists, it really is a revisionist view of history. I wouldn't call the Lollards Catholics either. Nor for that matter the Waldensians.

Those are groups that come to mind, they all preceeded Luther.

Marv
Okay. Why is Luther said to have started the Protestant Reformation if we had all these non-Catholics that preceeded him?

[RevCowboy]

My point was that until Luther's Reformation we had nothing but Roman Catholics. After Luther's Reformation is when we saw all the other Protestant denominations come into existence.

There were many other reformers before, Luther just happened to have good timing with Guttenberg.

As far as Rome being the only thing? I am sure the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christians and the 11 other rites of Catholicism would disagree.

Some scholars think that if Luther had been able email the EO church, we would all be Orthodox now.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Okay. Why is Luther said to have started the Protestant Reformation if we had all these non-Catholics that preceeded him?

I'm of the opinion that God put Luther in the right place at the right time. Unlike most of the preceding reformers, Luther had the politics of the day on side, he had the printing press available to spread the reformation, and he had a large portion of the clergy and laity behind him as well. Luther was very moderate also in his reforms, which helped bolster the popularity.

But...

Luther's reformation could also be supported and defended with Scripture. Something that could not always be said for some of the earlier reforms.

[DaRev]

we would all be Orthodox now.

But we are orthodox. ;)

[porterross]

There were many other reformers before, Luther just happened to have good timing with Guttenberg.




John Wycliffe comes to mind. Remember, in the US, we're hard-pressed to get our schools to teach must history prior to the 18th century. ;)

[RegularGuy]

There were many other reformers before, Luther just happened to have good timing with Guttenberg.


That, and he had friends who kept him from being burned at the stake.

[BigNorsk]

Okay. Why is Luther said to have started the Protestant Reformation if we had all these non-Catholics that preceeded him?

You are taking two different things and trying to make them equivalent. Luther was the start of what we would call the Reformation. Luther wasn't the start of every group of non-Catholics.

Marv

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Okay. Why is Luther said to have started the Protestant Reformation if we had all these non-Catholics that preceeded him?

I'm of the opinion that God put Luther in the right place at the right time. Unlike most of the preceding reformers, Luther had the politics of the day on side, he had the printing press available to spread the reformation, and he had a large portion of the clergy and laity behind him as well. Luther was very moderate also in his reforms, which helped bolster the popularity.

But...

Luther's reformation could also be supported and defended with Scripture. Something that could not always be said for some of the earlier reforms.

[LutheranChick]

Nobody has limited it to an LCMS minister. A WELS minister will do as well. LOL

Or an ELS minister... :D

[BabyLutheran]

How about just a Lutheran minister...lol?

[LutheranChick]

Oh dear, can't go there or we'll totally derail this thread... :)

[BabyLutheran]

We already have. hehehehe

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We already have. hehehehe

Okay....

My Mom (as a treat) would make us pancakes for breakfast. From stratch, with buttermilk. Very light and fluffy (and big).

Hot. Dripping with butter and maple syrup that she'd warm up. Served up with bacon. Extra crispy.

I love my mom....


Memories....



I have the recipe but it's just too much work. I make oatmeal almost every morning for breakfast. The old fashioned kind (takes 5 minutes, but much better). A bit of butter and a tiny bit of milk. No sugar or raisins. Comfort food. And I down it with about 10 cups of VERY strong, black Starbuck's coffee (yes, I'm addicted).


What was this thread about again???



;)




.

[BabyLutheran]

You don't love her, you love her cooking! lol

Who cares what this thread was about!

[PreachersWife2004]

Hey, this ties in quite nicely with the other communion thread where they went on a waffle tangent...

[LutherNut]

You are taking two different things and trying to make them equivalent. Luther was the start of what we would call the Reformation. Luther wasn't the start of every group of non-Catholics.

Marv

This is true. The Anabaptists were around a while before Luther came on the scene.

[LutheranChick]

Hey, this ties in quite nicely with the other communion thread where they went on a waffle tangent...
Typical Lutherans- whatever the subject is we end up talking about food. :D
Waffles sound sooooooo good! I've been on South Beach Diet for 3 years and rarely eat pancakes & waffles anymore. I sure miss em....

[Zecryphon]

You are taking two different things and trying to make them equivalent. Luther was the start of what we would call the Reformation. Luther wasn't the start of every group of non-Catholics.

Marv
I'm not the one who's trying to draw a distinction between Christians who are Lutherans and Lutherans who are Christians. That would be TCat as she said it's debates like this that make her glad that she's a Christian Lutheran as opposed to a Lutheran Christian. As if there are some here who place more importance on Luther than on Christ Himself. I've never seen a Lutheran take that position.

[Zecryphon]

Oh dear, can't go there or we'll totally derail this thread... :)
I, as the OP, do hereby grant you permission to derail this thread. :)

[DaRev]

This is TCL. Derailed threads are the norm here. :D

[PreachersWife2004]

Thank goodness they don't force us to moderate derailed threads. I'd be far too busy to post anymore!

A derail is okay here and there, and as long as the OP doesn't care, I don't care.

There's a couple of threads in another forum where the OP immediately jumps on ANYONE going off topic. I find that rude, but I guess it's the OP's right.

Sometimes a derail helps calm the waters a bit when a thread gets a little heated. A little laughter here and there tends to relax the atmosphere, or a slight deviation can take the heat away, too.

So I don't mind derails at all, and unless it's a serious awful derail or the OP is making a fuss, I'm not going to try to control them. Know what I mean?

[Zecryphon]

Thank goodness they don't force us to moderate derailed threads. I'd be far too busy to post anymore!

A derail is okay here and there, and as long as the OP doesn't care, I don't care.

There's a couple of threads in another forum where the OP immediately jumps on ANYONE going off topic. I find that rude, but I guess it's the OP's right.

Sometimes a derail helps calm the waters a bit when a thread gets a little heated. A little laughter here and there tends to relax the atmosphere, or a slight deviation can take the heat away, too.

So I don't mind derails at all, and unless it's a serious awful derail or the OP is making a fuss, I'm not going to try to control them. Know what I mean?
To me, threads are like conversations. At the end of one, you're in a completely different place than where you started from. To try and keep a thread totally focused on the OP is not natural to me. At some point in the conversation, someone will pick up on something and either ask a question or make a statement that takes the thread in a new direction. It's not a bad thing.

[LilLamb219]

That's how I view it :)

To me, threads are like conversations. At the end of one, you're in a completely different place than where you started from. To try and keep a thread totally focused on the OP is not natural to me. At some point in the conversation, someone will pick up on something and either ask a question or make a statement that takes the thread in a new direction. It's not a bad thing.