Lutheran View on other Protestant Communions

[Filia Mariae]

Do Lutherans believe that Christ is really present in the communions of other Protestant churches? For example, would a Lutheran consider an Assemblies of God or Presbyterian communion to be valid?

(BTW, I just chose those two denominations randomly, there is nothing specifically about them that I am referring to.)

[Phoebe]

Does God's Word become null and void if we lack belief?

[ByzantineDixie]

Do Lutherans believe that Christ is really present in the communions of other Protestant churches? For example, would a Lutheran consider an Assemblies of God or Presbyterian communion to be valid?

(BTW, I just chose those two denominations randomly, there is nothing specifically about them that I am referring to.)


It's true that the "benefits and power" of the Lord's Supper do not depend on the faith of the pastor administering it. They depend on the power of God's Word and promises, which are present and effective whenever and wherever the Lord's Supper is administered in accordance with Christ's Word and will. Christian churches that publicly deny the Scriptural teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament, however, are clearly not administering the Lord's Supper "in accordance with Christ's Word and will."

I pulled this off of the LCMS website.

The reality is many Lutherans (LCMS and WELS, mostly) would not consider taking communion in a church not in communion fellowship so the question never even comes in play for these folks.

Peace

Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

Do Lutherans believe that Christ is really present in the communions of other Protestant churches? For example, would a Lutheran consider an Assemblies of God or Presbyterian communion to be valid?
No sir...
32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. 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. Fol. 245. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Holy Supper)


The reality is many Lutherans (LCMS and WELS, mostly) would not consider taking communion in a church not in communion fellowship so the question never even comes in play for these folks.
True. I am visiting my wifes Grandma (Methodist) next month, she wants everyone to come to her church. I plan to hit an early WELS or ELS service and, if celebrated, I will Commune there. Then I will go to the other church and I will refuse the Methodist table if celebrated. Not always an easy thing to do... expecially when people are thinking, "oh, he isn't a Christian", or "he thinks he is too good for us, the Pharasie!".

"Hey hey what can you do..."

:D

[Lexluther]

Do Lutherans believe that Christ is really present in the communions of other Protestant churches? For example, would a Lutheran consider an Assemblies of God or Presbyterian communion to be valid?

(BTW, I just chose those two denominations randomly, there is nothing specifically about them that I am referring to.)
Well, I would. The Lord's Supper is the Lord's supper, no matter who else is at the table. And the ELCA is in full communion with a few of our protestant neighbors, where the LCMS is not... You might, as often, see a division along that line in the responses here. But even if I weren't ELCA, I personally don't support anything that splits the church rather than mending it, and snubbing God's flesh because it's being served with the wrong garnish falls under that heading. Not to mention it goes squarely against the words of Paul. Of course, many denominations wouldn't consider letting Lutheran's share the Lord's Supper anyway. I was always a little miffed at being excluded from communion at mass, back at my Catholic high school. But... c'est la vie!

[ChiRho]

But even if I weren't ELCA, I personally don't support anything that splits the church rather than mending it, and snubbing God's flesh because it's being served with the wrong garnish falls under that heading.

I think you have oversimplified the differences of belief. This quest for unity must not swallow up truth!

"Do not sacrifice Truth on the altar of unity!"


Not to mention it goes squarely against the words of Paul.

Really? I thought I remembered an entire section in one of those umm...Corinthian Letters, I think...that speak harshly towards those who despise the Sacrament, and doesnt Paul liken them to filthy swine? Isnt he warning against sinning against the Body and the Blood, and drinking to one's own condemnation?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Pacigoth13]

*Speaking only for self*

Yes. I think the other mainline denominations are valid, and that God is found in, with and through them. I consider myself to be a Lutheran who is in full ecumenical fellowship with all non-fundamentalist Christian denominations. We worship in groups because people are different and as people we should be with those which whom we best identify. Differences are real, they are why there are different groups. But, in a way, we are all the same, and I look for the time when we can all be see ourselves as Catholics (using the general meaning of the word).

I think integration is a good thing as well. We can offer each other different things and integrate them within our own tradition. We have much to learn from the Charismatic stream, for example. We can learn how to be Lutheran Pentecostals and Methodist Pentecostals and Liberal Pentecostals and Episcopal Pentecostals and so on, so forth. And we can also learn from the Episcopals about gay Christianity, for example. We can have Gay Lutherans and Gay Presbyterians and Gay Pentecostals for that matter.

"You may kill me but the idea will survive, the sleeper has awoken and its too late to put him to sleep again... we are one, I look into your eyes, and you make me realise; we are one (mirror split up into pieces)."
--Project Pitchfork

[Willy]

In many ways this is a very sad discussion. The discussion around the nature of communion that began in the 16th century reflects a Greek world view that is no longer helpful. That view suggests that everything and every experience has an essence that somehow is detached from the reality involved. So the preoccupation became what is the essence of communion. Hebrews, who were responsible for much of the Bible, would find that conversation bizarre. They would see it in a more dynamic way. People gather. The story is told. Bread and wine are shared. Jesus is present. I don't need to be Lutheran (or the right kind of Lutheran) to participate in that. This "essence" view (you need to understand what really is going on) serves only as a way to justify the self and the denomination that purports this view. And as Paul makes quite clear: we are free from the need to justify ourselves. Justification is a gift.

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, I will buck the LCMS trend and say I think the sacraments at many non-Lutheran churches are valid because the sacrament does not depend on the person administering it nor does it depend on the person receiving it to be valid. (Though one who receives improperly does receive it to his condemnation.) The Sacrament is God’s work, not ours. It is valid when the Word is combined with the elements. The Word makes a valid sacrament, not man, nor not what man believes.

32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. 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. Fol. 245. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Holy Supper)

The problem I see in the reference is that it contradicts itself. (Oh man, I can't believe I just typed this :o ...I guess I knew I was a borderline Lutheran.) First it says the sacrament does not depend on the one administering it or the one receiving it and then it says but if they interpret God’s Word otherwise then it is no Lord’s Supper. Interpretation is dependent on either the administrator and/or the receiver and we just were led to understand that they did not play a role in the Sacrament's validity.

Now…to use these beliefs and say “I will not have fellowship with those who do not believe the way I do, they are all eating and drinking to their condemnation” is one thing but to say the sacrament Christ’s body and blood is not present in the sacrament based on their beliefs violates the premise that the sacrament is not dependent on man when properly administered per 1 Cor 11.

I liken this to Baptism. We believe Baptism confers faith regardless of which church baptizes in the name of the Triune God and whether or not that church believes Baptism actually brings faith. The Baptism is valid. AND because unlike the Roman Catholic church we do not believe it requires a priest to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ it follows that the Lord's Supper would also be valid when conducted in the proper manner and in conjunction with the Word.

Love y'all....

Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

The problem I see in the reference is that it contradicts itself. (Oh man, I can't believe I just typed this :o ...I guess I knew I was a borderline Lutheran.) First it says the sacrament does not depend on the one administering it or the one receiving it and then it says but if they interpret God’s Word otherwise then it is no Lord’s Supper. Interpretation is dependent on either the administrator and/or the receiver and we just were led to understand that they did not play a role in the Sacrament's validity.
Rose, if a congregation has absolutely no intention of consecrating the elements as per 1 Corinthians 11, or celebrating the Supper as Christ intended, I disagree and I don't think we can call it valid. God did not institute a symbolic eating and drinking celebration.

If mormons baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the understanding and interpitation that those are "gods" and not The Triune God of scripture is it valid? Those Christians Baptisms who are valid (even though they reject Baptismal regeneration) are valid because they are Baptized in the name of the Triune God. Just like a good friend of mine once said...
it follows that the Lord's Supper would also be valid when conducted in the proper manner and in conjunction with the Word.

...and I agree with her! :D

Blessings!

[JVAC]

I believe that when the Verba is said, that the Holy Scacrament of the Altar is made, and God honors His promise, and the Body and Blood are pressent in the Sacrament. Evil and false teachers may administer the Holy Sacraments all they want, for they only serve God's purposes of salvation.

To all those real pressence Churches I think they are right in believing that Christ is there on the Altar, and that the congregants should be admonished to recieve His broken body and spilt blood. However, I have been to churches that just pass the bread and grape juice around, with nothing, that is not the Holy Sacrament for it lacks the Word of God. Not even the Morman church invokes the Word of God.

Praise be to God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, who remembers His promises and feeds His children no matter which church they are in. Praise be to God and His Word that is not bound by denominational lines!

-James

[Lotar]

I have been to many churches that make it clear that communion is nothing more than bread and grape juice, as the confessions say, they are correct. Communion must be accompanied with the Word. So, the sacrament is not limited to Lutherans, but it is not present for the sacramentarians.

BTW, communion between churches has nothing to do with this, but rather that by communion we are declaring unity in belief with each other, and it is sinful to do so with the heterodox, or for the heterodox to do so with us.

[JVAC]

I think contrarily, if the Verba is said, you then have Word and Physical Symbol, and thus a Sacrament. I don't think, regadless of one's belief of what transpires, that the result is different. After the Verba is said, then God upholds His part of the Sacrament. Now whether they take part of it unworthily, or in a detestable manner is another issue, yet the Body and Blood is there, for there is the elements and the Verba.

-James





(Oh and in addition, the administer must be regularly called, and ordained into the Service of Word and Sacrament)

[Lotar]

Well, that's not what the confessions say.

[JVAC]

Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men;
-James

[JVAC]

In addition:

The usus (verba) or actio (action) does not refer primarily to faith or to the oral partaking, but to the entire external, visible administration of the Supper, as Chrst established the administration of the Supper: the consecration, or Words of Institution, and the distribution and reception or oral partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, Christ’s body and blood. Apart from this practice it is not to be regarded as a sacrament








Misunderstanding and division has also arisen among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession regarding consecration and the common rule that there is no sacrament outside its use according to Christ’s institution. In this question, we have reached the following unanimous, amicable agreement among ourselves, namely, that no human words or works create the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper, whether it be the merit or the speaking of the minister or the eating and drinking or the faith of the communicants. Instead, all this should be ascribed solely to the almighty power of God and to the words, institution, and arrangement of our Lord Jesus Christ.




Likewaise, when it is taught that not the words and omnipotence of Christ alone but also faith make the body of Christ present in the Holy Supper. For this reason some leave the Words of Institution unsaid in the administration of the Supper. For although the papistic consecration (in which the power to effect the sacrament is attributed to the speaking of the words as a work of the priest) is properly rejected and condemned, the Words of Institution should in no way be omitted in the administration of the Supper, as has been demonstrated in the explanation above







In the same way I also say and confess that in the Sacrament of the Altar the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even if the priests who distribute them or those who receive them do not believe or otherwise misuse the sacrament. It does not rest on human belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordincance of God.






Our conclusion is: even though a scoundrel receives or administers the sacrament, it is the true sacrament (That is, Christ’s body and blood), just as truly as when one uses it worthily.





-James

[Filia Mariae]

Okay another annoying (but related) question:o ...are Lutherans permitted to receive Communion in any Christian church?

[JVAC]

Okay another annoying (but related) question:o ...are Lutherans permitted to receive Communion in any Christian church?A Christian (Lutherans too) should be admonished to partake of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, whenever and where ever it be rightly offered (Verba, Elements) if they are in need of the solace and comfort that this Holy Sacrament offers.


-James

[Lotar]

Okay another annoying (but related) question:o ...are Lutherans permitted to receive Communion in any Christian church?
No, only those churches with whom we are in communion.

[Lotar]

JVAC,

The quotes refers to those within the Church who sinfully disbelieve the sacrament, are unbelievers, etc. Those in the sacramentarian sects are different.

[ByzantineDixie]

Rose, if a congregation has absolutely no intention of consecrating the elements as per 1 Corinthians 11, or celebrating the Supper as Christ intended, I disagree and I don't think we can call it valid. God did not institute a symbolic eating and drinking celebration.

If mormons baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the understanding and interpitation that those are "gods" and not The Triune God of scripture is it valid? Those Christians Baptisms who are valid (even though they reject Baptismal regeneration) are valid because they are Baptized in the name of the Triune God.

I follow you. But we do accept a Baptist Baptism or a Methodist Baptism or even a Pentacostal Baptism. And in those Baptisms those churches do not believe what we do...that Baptism brings faith. Some say that their Baptism is merely an outward sign of obedience. Yet we honor that Baptism.

Conversely...in the Lord's Supper (and I am only speaking about those churchs who use the proper Word in conjunction with the elements)...some truly believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present, some believe Christ is present only spiritually and yet others, like Baptism, see the Lord's Supper as merely an outward sign of obedience. Now, they may take communion, not recognizing the body and blood of Christ, to their condemnation. But how can we deny that the true body and blood of Christ is not present because their beliefs are not what makes the sacrament valid.

In one case (Baptism) we honor the sacrament, in the other we do not. Both are right Word, right elements, wrong beliefs. I do not understand why we have different acceptance criteria for these two sacraments. :confused:

Lotar, I do understand your comments with regard to limiting communion to those with whom do not share your beliefs. But I am unclear as to your comments regarding the validity (the Real Presence) in those other churches. Even if they do not believe in the Real Presence, do you think that so long as the Word is used properly in combination with the elements, Christ is present in body and blood in that communion? If not, what then makes the communion a valid one?

You both know me...I am not trying to be argumentative at all. I am just trying to gain some clarity. I have learned a lot since I have started coming to CF and even changed my thinking in a few cases. I first came to this conclusion about communion in other churches while studying in my doctrine class. Prior to that I was willing to accept no one else has the true Lord's Supper, but once I learn the validity is not in the celebrant nor in the receiver but is in the Word in combination with the elements...that this is God's work, not ours...well, I could no longer see how Lutherans had the market cornered on valid communion...just like we all admit we do not have the market cornered on valid Baptism.

Thanks for your patience. It is a fruit of the Spirit! :D

Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

I follow you. But we do accept a Baptist Baptism or a Methodist Baptism or even a Pentacostal Baptism. And in those Baptisms those churches do not believe what we do...that Baptism brings faith. Some say that their Baptism is merely an outward sign of obedience. Yet we honor that Baptism.
Absolutely! :D The question I asked though, was, "if mormons used the baptismal formula, 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit' with the understanding and belief that those are seperate gods and not the God of Scripture, would it be valid?" Methodists, Baptists, non-denoms and any other denomination that confesses the true Triune God, and Baptizes in His Holy name with water in the Formula given to us by Jesus is a legit Baptism regardless of where they stand on regeneration issues. The Word is what matters.
Now as far as Faith of the recipient or distributor of the Holy Supper, that is not dependent on the validly of it. What matters is the Word, again if some one recites the consecration wording, with the understanding and intent that they were going to have nothing more then earthly elements, that is all that will be present. The wording may be recited, but it is not truly what Paul intended to pass on, "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...". This is what the confession means when it says, "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." ...making them invalid.

You both know me...I am not trying to be argumentative at all. I am just trying to gain some clarity.

Thanks for your patience. It is a fruit of the Spirit! :D

RoseI know! Rose, you are always so sweet and I know you are not trying to be a troublemaker ^_^ .

:hug:

[JVAC]

JVAC,

The quotes refers to those within the Church who sinfully disbelieve the sacrament, are unbelievers, etc. Those in the sacramentarian sects are different.Absolutely not. Those quotes clearly show the Sacraments are completely reliant on the usus and actio, that is the Institution (God's Word Omnipotent) and the partaking, and this can be done in most any church. To say that one's communion is null and void because of their belief contradicts our confessions, for in it we state that the Sacrament is God's work by His Word; thus when the Word is spoken the materials are just as promised regardless of belief or merit.

Neil, I don't see your logic, and I would like you to explain more, because seemingly it looks very rediculous to me that you hold this possition. You obviously know who does the work in the Sacraments, and that they are vehicles of Grace. We do not and cannot look to the faith of the Church or belief, but must wholy lean on the promise of God which is: "Take ye and eat, this is my body broken for you ... Take ye and drink, this is my blood shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin".

-James

[Lotar]

The argument is because you stop in your quote:

32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. 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. Fol. 245. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Holy Supper)
Are Mormon sacraments valid? Of course not. Niether is the communion of the sacramentarians, as they deny what our Lord taught. It is not the case of a layman or a priest disbelieving what their church teaches, it is that their church teaches heresy. Christianity isn't all about individuals but is also communial.

[JVAC]

Are Mormon sacraments valid? Of course not. Niether is the communion of the sacramentarians, as they deny what our Lord taught. It is not the case of a layman or a priest disbelieving what their church teaches, it is that their church teaches heresy. Christianity isn't all about individuals but is also communial.
Of course a mormon sacrament is not valid, not because of their belief but because the lacking of the Verba in the administration of this most sacred meal. When one looks at the quote, the most important part is this: "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". It is not because of their belief it is that they changed the Verba.

I maintain that if the verba is said by a rightly called minister (usus), and communion is distributed (actio) then it is a valid Sacrament.

-James

[LuxPerpetua]

:clap: for Rose! You said exactly my thoughts in all of your posts.

I agree with the LCMS on almost all points, but close communion is not something I agree with at all, and I personally find it very discouraging and disheartening to see this within the church. The only sacrament that I would not consider a valid sacrament is one that is not done using Christ's words at the Last Supper or is not done is such a way to differentiate it from any other common meal. I would certainly consider even "remembrance" communion a valid communion because, trust me, these people take communion every bit as seriously as sacramentalists and the Holy Spirit is certainly present in that room. Sorry to go on and on, but I get really peeved at the "I'm better than you attitude" that I detect concerning how communion is treated amongst the Christian community. I know Lotar and ChiRho will quickly come back and quote something LCMS Lutheran at me, but I just really disagree with close communion.

Rant over and putting on :) face. And please, folks, don't be mean to me. I've had a hard week, okay?

[ChiRho]

Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching

A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

November 1999

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

Summary Observations of “The Congregation’s
Sacrament of Unity”

1. Christians can commune “unworthily” (ajnaxivw"). This may be
difficult to understand, perhaps, when we recall the gracious character
and purposes of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, Paul’s testimony
is clear. The apostle, to be sure, carefully distinguishes
between the judgment (krivma) and training (paideuvesqai) that God
administers on the one hand, and being “condemned along with the
world” (katakriqh'nai su;n tw'/ kovsmw/) on the other hand. Yet no child
of God should commune in such a way that this divine training and
judgment become necessary.

2. The key to communing in a worthy manner is the ability and
willingness to “discern the body.” This ability and willingness is
God’s gift. It consists of repentance and faith, and these move in two
directions at the same time. Repentance applies to sin committed
against God in general, the vertical dimension. But owing to the corporate
character of the Sacrament, such repentance also applies
specifically and especially to one’s relationship to fellow communicants,
the horizontal dimension. One who communes “worthily”
acknowledges the importance of preserving a unity with fellow
communicants and is willing to do what is needed to remove any
fracture or division in that unity.
The faith of one who communes worthily includes faith in
Christ in a general way as well as faith in the real presence of
Christ’s body and blood. Moreover, faith in the Sacrament’s benefits
is also required, and especially its purpose to maintain the corporate
identity and unity of the church as the body of Christ. Thus, faith in
the Sacrament’s benefits also moves in two directions: toward the
blessing of renewed relationship with God in Christ as well as
toward the blessing of preserved and restored unity with fellow
communicants.

3. The Lord’s Supper, Paul declares, is a joint proclamation of the
Lord’s death, that is, of the nature and benefits of the Lord’s death.
This is a point of some importance to Paul. Paul twice repeats
Christ’s words that His body and blood are “for my remembrance”
(11:24, 25) as often as the bread will be eaten and the cup will be
drunk. Just so, as often as the Corinthians eat and drink the Supper
they are proclaiming—perhaps especially to each other 36—the
nature and benefits of the Lord’s death until He comes. Yet, the disunity
in their assemblies was giving the lie to the proclamation of
the Lord’s death, even as such factionalism stood in contradiction to
the Lord’s Supper and the gifts that it offers.

4. The next point should be familiar. Since the body and blood
of Christ are for the oneness and unity of the body, those who commune
must not perpetrate or ignore sinful disunity in their midst.
Paul’s treatment of “divisions” at the Lord’s Supper (scivsmata,
11:19) probably has specific reference to the social class distinctions
that are defiling the Corinthians’ communal meals and the accompanying
eucharistic celebration. The apostle is not indifferent to
divisions of a doctrinal nature, however, as the next section of this
study will describe. In 1 Corinthians the apostle is dealing, as it
were, with members of his own congregation. He therefore addresses
the immediate abuses regarding the Lord’s Supper in chapter
eleven, while pastorally, patiently, and firmly dealing with other
doctrinal and moral aberrations throughout the remainder of the
letter.

Nevertheless, this must be said: disunity contradicts the very
character of the Lord’s Supper itself. This point has immense implications
for pastoral and congregational practice in our churches
today. Lutherans, it is true, have given some traditional emphasis to
the necessity of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation among those
who participate together at the congregation’s eucharistic assembly.
But more emphasis and teaching would reflect the apostle’s chief
and explicit concern in dealing with the fractured Corinthian situation.
Modern situations of congregational conflict and in-fighting
can bear obvious and eerie resemblance to the situation in Corinth.

Pastors should continue regularly to teach their congregations about
the need for unity, mutual love, and forgiveness at the congregation’s
sacrament of unity.

[SPALATIN]

Well, I would. The Lord's Supper is the Lord's supper, no matter who else is at the table. And the ELCA is in full communion with a few of our protestant neighbors, where the LCMS is not... You might, as often, see a division along that line in the responses here. But even if I weren't ELCA, I personally don't support anything that splits the church rather than mending it, and snubbing God's flesh because it's being served with the wrong garnish falls under that heading. Not to mention it goes squarely against the words of Paul. Of course, many denominations wouldn't consider letting Lutheran's share the Lord's Supper anyway. I was always a little miffed at being excluded from communion at mass, back at my Catholic high school. But... c'est la vie!
I guess it depends on what is splitting it and what is mending it. If we can't come to agreement on important things like Communion than I wouldn't want to take communion.

Besides ELCA should drop the L from it's name as it is not truly Lutheran. They have compromised way too much to even be considered true Lutheran. It all started with Women's ordination and will continue on with the ordination of Gays and Lesbians. We all know that they are going to approve it and it will cause the biggest synod split since Seminex in the mid-70s.

Scott Strohkirch

[ChiRho]

I guess it depends on what is splitting it and what is mending it. If we can't come to agreement on important things like Communion than I wouldn't want to take communion.

Besides ELCA should drop the L from it's name as it is not truly Lutheran. They have compromised way too much to even be considered true Lutheran. It all started with Women's ordination and will continue on with the ordination of Gays and Lesbians. We all know that they are going to approve it and it will cause the biggest synod split since Seminex in the mid-70s.

Scott Strohkirch

Careful man! :eek: Are you trying to incite a riot? ;)

[SPALATIN]

Careful man! :eek: Are you trying to incite a riot? ;)
Riot, no. Speaking the truth as I see it which is my opinion. Having spent a couple of years in an ELCA church I have seen how they have forsaken much of what is taught in the Book of Concord for American Evangelicalism. They are at best Phillipists and they (the leadership at Higgins Rd) are ready to impose their liberal agenda on the churches expecting all to go along with it.

There is a group that I get a newsletter from called Word Alone which is trying to work change from with in the ELCA but I don't think they are getting far and most likely will end up being a way for the Congregations that don't approve of the Homosexual agenda to depart from the synod.

I don't agree with their Historical-critical views of Culture.

Scott Strohkirch

[JVAC]

Besides ELCA should drop the L from it's name as it is not truly Lutheran. They have compromised way too much to even be considered true Lutheran. It all started with Women's ordination and will continue on with the ordination of Gays and Lesbians. We all know that they are going to approve it and it will cause the biggest synod split since Seminex in the mid-70s.
If it causes a split then obviously not everyone agrees along those lines, so calling all ELCA Lutherans not Lutherans and giving this instance doesn't hold ground. Yet again I point to your own Synod and 'renegade' congregations serving open communion, I don't see you calling them "non-Lutherans".

This "My Lutheranism is better than yours" is getting old really fast, especially when someone goes as far to say that we should change our names and our beliefs. I thought we could civily discus our differences with out the slander but I guess I am wrong :doh: .

[SPALATIN]

If it causes a split then obviously not everyone agrees along those lines, so calling all ELCA Lutherans not Lutherans and giving this instance doesn't hold ground. Yet again I point to your own Synod and 'renegade' congregations serving open communion, I don't see you calling them "non-Lutherans".

This "My Lutheranism is better than yours" is getting old really fast, especially when someone goes as far to say that we should change our names and our beliefs. I thought we could civily discus our differences with out the slander but I guess I am wrong :doh: .
As I said my experience and opinion is to say that about the ELCA, however, in respect to your experience and what you have said about he renegade churches in the LCMS I would agree. There are many churches and people in the LCMS who are almost too liberal for what the LCMS and the doctrines it is supposed to believe.

So therefore I will not point a finger out unless I can refute for certain what your stand is on the subject.

[SPALATIN]

[QUOTE=JVAC]If it causes a split then obviously not everyone agrees along those lines, so calling all ELCA Lutherans not Lutherans and giving this instance doesn't hold ground. Yet again I point to your own Synod and 'renegade' congregations serving open communion, I don't see you calling them "non-Lutherans".


Actually I didn't say that the congregations should do it, but the Synod itself should. The liberals who run the synod should elect to take the Lutheran out.

There are I believe many congregations that don't see eye to eye with the present Mark Hanson Bishopry and will split off once the decision has been made(only a formality imho) to allow active Gays/Lesbians to be ordained.

As for the renegade congregations in the LCMS maybe they too should consider dropping out of the synod if they don't agree with the Synod stand on the issues of Communion, Baptism, Contemporary worship etc.



Scott Strohkirch

[Flipper]

I go to a liberal renegade congregation because we have open communion? LOL! I have to share that with my pastor. Actually, we are so conservative that we should probably be WELS.

Further, the only reason communion is "open" in our church, is because our congregation is so darn huge that it is impossible to police the communion line. I don't have doctrine to quote, but I believe you can take communion as a non-LCMS if you go to an elder or pastor first to get permission - in all other LCMS churches I've ever been to, I was handed a communion card that stated something to that effect. Therefore, the questions asked by the elder before one is allowed to take communion, is asked in our weekly worship folder - if you can answer yes to all the questions, you can take communion. We are on our honor. What's so wrong and anti-Lutheran about that?

I never mentioned this before, but how we handle communion was the selling point for my husband. If communion was closed, we probably would have joined a Methodist church (he grew up Methodist). That's an issue he is very sensitive about.

[ByzantineDixie]

If we can't come to agreement on important things like Communion than I wouldn't want to take communion.

The reality is that you commune every Sunday (or every other week, whatever the schedule) with people who do not believe as you do and worse. I'm even willing to bet there are probably a few non-Christians at your table as well. Membership does not automatically constitute agreement.

As for the renegade congregations in the LCMS maybe they too should consider dropping out of the synod if they don't agree with the Synod stand on the issues of Communion, Baptism, Contemporary worship etc.


Whoa...that's harsh! Contemporary worship is a make it or break it Lutheran deal? I can see doctrinal issues related to Communion and Baptism but Contemporary Worship??? No, my friend, that crosses the border on over to legalism. Contemporary worship does not have to mean working a crowd into an emotional frenzy and singing mindless contemporary Christian songs....ooops...I promised I'd wait to discuss this until ChiRho finishes his post on Lutheran hymnody (and ChiRho...no hurry. My husband thinks I spend to much time here, anyway. :o )

Peace y'all

Rose

[Protoevangel]

As for the renegade congregations in the LCMS maybe they too should consider dropping out of the synod if they don't agree with the Synod stand on the issues of Communion, Baptism, Contemporary worship etc.

Scott,

That's a little off in left field, don't you think? Contemporary worship?



Article VII: Of the Church.
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

[SPALATIN]

Scott,

That's a little off in left field, don't you think? Contemporary worship?


[/size][/font][/left]



Actually no, Most contemporary worship puts an emphasis on Theology of Glory rather than a Theology of the Cross. The music plays on the emotional part of us and we start thinking that we are there for God when in truth we go to church to receive God's blessings. I much prefer the traditional service more as it brings me to where I need to be in worship.

Scott Strohkirch

[Rechtgläubig]

Scott, you are about 1 Deutschlander quote away from becoming my new hero. :kiss:


LOL! ^_^

[SPALATIN]

Well let's see what I can pull out of my list of good Deutschlander quote book. Actually this one is latin but it was said by Martin Luther in a debate between himself and Ulrich Zwingli "Hoc est corpus meum" translated "This is my Body".

[Phoebe]

:(

[ByzantineDixie]

Phoebe :hug:

[Protoevangel]

As for the renegade congregations in the LCMS maybe they too should consider dropping out of the synod if they don't agree with the Synod stand on the issues of Communion, Baptism, Contemporary worship etc.Scott,
That's a little off in left field, don't you think? Contemporary worship?



Article VII: Of the Church.

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6. Actually no, Most contemporary worship puts an emphasis on Theology of Glory rather than a Theology of the Cross. The music plays on the emotional part of us and we start thinking that we are there for God when in truth we go to church to receive God's blessings. I much prefer the traditional service more as it brings me to where I need to be in worship.It is great that you prefer the traditional music. I have nothing against traditional music. The style of worship has nothing to do with the Theology. If the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered, then you have what is necessary, as long as you agree with the Book of Concord, anyway.

I disagree with some in my church, but one thing they do well is to choose appropriate contemporary songs and fit them well into the liturgy. There is nothing wrong with emotions being involved in worship, as long as one does not base the validity of the worship on those feelings. If you like the traditional music better, great, but I don’t think turning an issue of adiaphora into a necessity for unity to be an appropriate response.

[JMRE5150]

Besides ELCA should drop the L from it's name as it is not truly Lutheran. They have compromised way too much to even be considered true Lutheran. It all started with Women's ordination and will continue on with the ordination of Gays and Lesbians. We all know that they are going to approve it and it will cause the biggest synod split since Seminex in the mid-70s.

Scott StrohkirchScott, I need clarification on this from you...

/MODHAT ON
Are you saying that current ELCA church should drop the "L" as we shouldn't be considered Lutherans?

And for the record, NO, you don't "know" that they are going to approve it.

This type of verbal tongue lashing is against the rules, and totally inappropriate for these forums (if that is how you intended it). Everyone must keep in mind that this forum is for all Lutheran sects, and not just one sect. If anyone here feels as though they can't refrain from hurtful mudslinging at each other, I suggest they seek forums on another site more suitable for their needs/desires. This goes for both sides.

/MODHAT OFF

/PERSONAL HAT ON
As I am preaching as a mod about the importance of this, I will myself refrain from lashing out (believe me - I can do it with equal ferver)on this quote..but I will say this:

I too will be furious if this "decision" is made in 2005, at which time I was considering switching Seminary to LCMS from ELCA, as I cannot willfully accept this either, but I continually get turned off by the image of distaste and anger I see towards my christian brothers and sisters. I see this again and again on these forums, and I'm sickened in my stomach by the vicious attacks that seem to slyly project a aura of disdain and a "casting away" of fellow christians that don't share the beliefs of LCMS. I keep telling myself "Its only a select few that give this impression, don't stop following your calling to be a sheperd to your beloved Martin Luther's teachings because of a few folks", but its becoming increasingly hard to cast an image of a sect I would need to call "home" if all I see is people prepared to wave their "Lutheran Guns" at anyone who doesn't agree with them.

My heart is so troubled by what I see here sometimes, and now my soul is in constant anguish as to whether or not I will ever have a home to lay my Lutheran head. See, because regardless of what the man Martin Luther said...God in his human form said "Go love one another". To me, that supercedes anything Martin may have said, as I'm a Christian first, Lutheran second. I don't think Jesus meant "Go love one another until they disagree with your views on biblical teachings".

Can we PLEASE stop the bashing and sneaky jabs at each other? This causes pain of the soul, not just the mind.

/PERSONAL HAT OFF



Robb

[Protoevangel]

Hi Robb,



I hope I am not breaking any rules by posting this, since I am referencing what you said with your mod hat on, I mean this to be constructive and I am not criticizing you or any judgments you may need to make. But, I would like to put in a good word for Scott.



You mention a “verbal tongue lashing”, and then temper that with “(if that is how you intended it)”. For what it’s worth, I would just like to say I don’t think that is how he meant it. I did not see his post as being too harsh, but as a valid opinion, which is beginning to be shared by some ELCA members as well. The problem is not necessarily with the members of the ELCA, but with our leadership.

Also, I see the “study” by the ELCA to be heavily pre-weighted how the ELCA leadership wants the study to go. Out of 13 members (including 2 psychologists, 2 seminary professors, 2 bishops, a surgeon, and a college professor), only Louis Hesse (a farmer) and Gary Liedtke (a pastor) are the only members of the official study who began the study with a stance for Biblical truth. While this task force do not make policy (they can only offer a recommendation), it is pretty clear how this recommendation will be weighted. True, no one “knows” they are going to approve it, but we certainly have a challenge ahead of us.

You also speak about a place to go if the ELCA does make this monstrous error. Conservative members in my church met about this last night, unfortunately, I was not able to make it. One of the options that was spoken abut is the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ. I don’t know anything about them yet, I was just sent their link, but from what I was told, this is a growing movement within the ELCA, that may offer a more Biblically and BOC orientated option to disenfranchised ELCA congregations.

http://www.lcmc.net/ (http://www.lcmc.net/)

Like I said, I do not yet know anything about them; I plan to read about them today.

Thanks for the good work Robb!

[SPALATIN]

Dan,


There is a Yahoo group called "Christ Alone" they would know a lot more about LCMC. I get the "Word Alone" newsletter every couple of months which is a group of churches that was organized back when CCM was being considered. YOu might check out the Yahoo sight and look into their groups for Religion/Lutheran.

Scott

[Victrixa]

Hi everyone,

I would like to say that I am not a Lutheran right now and that my Lutheran pastor friend allows open communion in his mission. My husband and I had the privilege of sharing the Eucharist with our friend and it spoke tons to me, at least! I experienced the power of the Lutheran Eucharist and that in itself speaks more than words. My eyes were opened to the grace and love of Jesus Christ. I think that sharing the Eucharist can enable many Christians to accept the Lutheran teaching on the Real Presence.

Just my humble opinion. ;) You don't have to agree, but that is my experience!

Caroline

[Victrixa]

Oh I believe in the Real Presence, my goodness, but for one who doesn't agree with it, he or she might be convinced just by partaking in a Lutheran Eucharist. I was talking about, in my previous post, how the Lutheran Eucharist spoke a lot to me and may weigh very much on my/our decision to become Lutherans... :)

As for other denominations, I remember, in my Pentecostal days, how the pastor would always mention Christ's words: This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me - that Scripture passage. It would occur to me, practically every time we shared Communion, that this must be the Body and the Blood of Jesus... The Holy Spirit was very present during Communion service and the faithful were very moved by His loving presence and some would weep.

Just thought I would share. ;)

Caroline

[SPALATIN]

Oh I believe in the Real Presence, my goodness, but for one who doesn't agree with it, he or she might be convinced just by partaking in a Lutheran Eucharist. I was talking about, in my previous post, how the Lutheran Eucharist spoke a lot to me and may weigh very much on my/our decision to become Lutherans... :)

As for other denominations, I remember, in my Pentecostal days, how the pastor would always mention Christ's words: This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me - that Scripture passage. It would occur to me, practically every time we shared Communion, that this must be the Body and the Blood of Jesus... The Holy Spirit was very present during Communion service and the faithful were very moved by His loving presence and some would weep.

Just thought I would share.


Caroline
To my knowledge if you asked the Pentecostal minister what is believed about the Bread and Wine (or juice) in Communion you would probably be told that the elements only "represent" the body and blood. Pentecostals are close to the Baptists in this regard. To many of these denominations Communion is just a Memorial meal.

Scott:hug:

[Victrixa]

Scott,

To many of these denominations Communion is just a Memorial meal.

Oh yes, I know that! ;) I was just sharing what I experienced and saw. :D

:hug: to you too!

Love in Christ,

Caroline