Why Crackers and Grape Juice?

[Strong in Him]

This is untrue. Jesus uses leaven as a symbol for the Kingdom of God in the Parable of the Leaven.

That's true. Leaven doesn't always represent sin.

 

[Strong in Him]

**** SHAMELESS PLUG WARNING ****
If you want a more in-depth explanation of "after the meal," I suggest picking up a Messianic Passover Hagaddah. Pretty much any one of them would do.

I put out a digital downloadable one which is available on most e-readers or on Amazon. It is priced as low as the publisher would allow me to go.

They still had a meal, though. Scripture says "while they were eating".

 

[Dave-W]

They still had a meal, though. Scripture says "while they were eating".

Of course. That is actually part of the ceremony.

And the basic outline which I (and everyone else) followed was laid out in the first century bc.

 

[Strong in Him]

Of course. That is actually part of the ceremony.

And the basic outline which I (and everyone else) followed was laid out in the first century bc.

Yes. But that's far removed from the way that most churches today observe communion. Which involves special liturgy, congregation file up to a communion rail to receive a tiny piece of bread and small sip/thimbleful of wine/juice, which HAVE to have been blessed by an ordained person or it's not "valid".

If we're talking about breaking bread/observing the Lord's Supper as in the Bible, what is done by most churches today is not that.
Where, in Scripture, does it say that someone has to be wearing a dog collar and specially ordained? Anyone can give thanks to God before a meal; some of us started doing it when we were children. And it is the Lord himself who makes the elements holy. A Christian who loved the Lord, was filled with his Spirit, born again and understood what they were doing and the significance, could do it just as well. Not according to most mainstream churches; no ordained clergy present, no communion.

And if we are not following the Biblical pattern of the Lord's Supper/breaking bread, then arguing that the elements have to be exactly those laid down in Scripture, seems pointless.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. But that's far removed from the way that most churches today observe communion. Which involves special liturgy, congregation file up to a communion rail to receive a tiny piece of bread and small sip/thimbleful of wine/juice, which HAVE to have been blessed by an ordained person or it's not "valid".

We don't teach that doctrine. We do not believe the validity of the Lord's Supper is dependent on the person presiding. However, for the purposes of good order and pastoral care, it's not lawful within our congregations to preside at the Lord's Supper without being called to do so through the congregation and the synod.

The Reformed churches have a similar approach, as do historic Anglicans. It is a misunderstanding of Protestant theology to see ordination as confecting the sacrament. The sacrament is confected by God alone. The pastor or priest is merely called by God to administer the sacrament.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes. But that's far removed from the way that most churches today observe communion.

Paul actually changed it from a full meal to just the elements in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Strong in Him]

We don't teach that doctrine. We do not believe the validity of the Lord's Supper is dependent on the person presiding.

Great.
But many churches seem to.

However, for the purposes of good order and pastoral care, it's not lawful within our congregations to preside at the Lord's Supper without being called to do so through the congregation and the synod.

Well maybe.
But again, that's not how it was in the NT. Jesus did not say "the church/synod will call you so that you can do this in memory of me". When Paul criticised the Corinthian church for their attitude to the Lord's supper, he did not say "you observe it without a worthy/called/ordained/appointed person being present." There is no mention of the early church breaking bread with a special person presiding and saying certain words.
This is the LORD'S Supper; he instigated it, is present by his Spirit and we remember his sacrifice when he sent his Son to die for us. None of us is worthy to even receive from the Lord - except by his mercy and grace - and having a call or a dog collar does not make a person any more worthy to distribute the elements than anyone else; Christians, I mean. I wouldn't suggest dragging someone in off the streets.

The whole concept seems to be that the priest/Minister/Vicar/Bishop is representing Christ when they do this. But they spend the rest of the time telling us that if we have Christ in us and we are in Christ, then we represent him wherever we go. We are his ambassadors, 2 Corinthians 5:20, his witnesses, Acts of the Apostles 1:8. We are saved, called, chosen, anointed and sent by him - why can we not stand before a group of friends, or larger group of fellow believers, and say "let's break bread and worship the Lord together?

The sacrament is confected by God alone. The pastor or priest is merely called by God to administer the sacrament.

Yes it is.
But why a Pastor or priest? Why not the missionary with 20 years service? Or churchgoer-all-his-life who has just been baptised in the Spirit? Or the young, student, street evangelist who is winning souls to Christ?

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul actually changed it from a full meal to just the elements in 1 Corinthians.

Where does it say that?
I doubt Paul would have changed something instigated by the Lord.

 

[Dave-W]

Where does it say that?
I doubt Paul would have changed something instigated by the Lord.

1 Cor 11.33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Right there Paul cut out the meal. (whether that was his intent or not) which reduced communion to just the bread and wine.

 

[Albion]

There's nothing in that verse which shows us that that meal was actually cut out, however.

It's mainly saying that the complaints of an individual should not operate as a veto on what the whole assembly has been doing. In other words, exactly what those today say who contend that no one in the congregation should commune with wine and bread in the manner of the Last Supper if one person has an objection to it for health reasons or, possibly, something else..

 

[Strong in Him]

1 Cor 11.33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Right there Paul cut out the meal. (whether that was his intent or not) which reduced communion to just the bread and wine.

No, he was saying don't starve yourself so that you are really hungry and eat the food before everyone gets there, urging them to unity; think of the body of Christ. Only a few verses later in chapter 12 he talks, at length, about the church being the body of Christ, each a limb or organ, with Christ as the head. They are not all the same; they need one another.
This is the same theme as back in chapter 3 where he urges people not to follow different leaders, but to follow Christ. And the same as in chapter 14 where he urges order in worship; no one prophesying all the time, letting others take a turn, and not all speaking in tongues at once. It also seems that some thought the gift of tongues was superior to other gifts - more cause for division; so Paul says that it isn't.

He didn't say, "some of you are eating too much so don't have the Lord's Supper as a meal."

 

[Dave-W]

Except this passage is why the church cut down from the meal to just the elements.

 

[Albion]

Except this passage is why the church cut down from the meal to just the elements.

You are going to have to show us that it is so. The verse doesn't work as your evidence, so what else is there? I am of the impression that the agape meal was still a feature after Paul's death.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The bread that Jesus ate was most likely unleavened (without yeast). Grape juice had not been invented at that point in history.

If grape juice had not been invented how did they make wine? I do not think grape juice was invented. It is a naturally occurring thing. Every grape I have in my vineyard contains it.

 

[Albion]

If grape juice had not been invented how did they make wine? I do not think grape juice was invented. It is a naturally occurring thing. Every grape I have in my vineyard contains it.

And now the necessary questions. Would you drink a glass of it at that stage and consider it a decent beverage for serving with a meal? Also, how long will that juice remain as it is when first squeezed?

 

[Paidiske]

The whole concept seems to be that the priest/Minister/Vicar/Bishop is representing Christ when they do this. But they spend the rest of the time telling us that if we have Christ in us and we are in Christ, then we represent him wherever we go. We are his ambassadors, 2 Corinthians 5:20, his witnesses, Acts of the Apostles 1:8. We are saved, called, chosen, anointed and sent by him - why can we not stand before a group of friends, or larger group of fellow believers, and say "let's break bread and worship the Lord together?

The idea that the clergy represent Christ is a Catholic thing. I would say in Protestant theology the clergy represent the Church. The point of having certain things only clergy may do (in practice, very few, but significant), is not to disenfranchise everyone else, but to allow for proper oversight of those significant things by the Church.

As a priest I've taken vows of obedience to my bishop and to the canons of my church. In effect, I've promised to do things the way that the church has discerned they should be done. I can't go off and be a maverick, saying or doing whatever I like. And it's in part because of that that I'm licensed to preside at the Eucharist; because the church can be confident that I will do things with faithfulness to its agreed norms and within agreed boundaries. (As an aside, one of the most destructive things I've seen is when clergy take those vows and then don't live by them, leading their congregations away from their denominational ethos and affiliation. I've seen congregations torn apart by it).

I would never dare say that if a lay person presides at the Eucharist, Christ is not present to those who receive. That's up to Christ. But having worshipped in churches which allow any baptised person to preside, and those who restrict it to clergy, my own clear preference is for the latter; because in my experience, that tends to create a degree of "quality control" on what is done and how it's done. (A communion talk by a young lay person comparing Jesus to her recently deceased dead dog stands out in my mind as a particularly awful example...).'

If someone really strongly feels called to preside, such that not being able to preside is a grief to them, I'd suggest that person consider whether they're actually called to ordination.

 

[FireDragon76]

But again, that's not how it was in the NT. Jesus did not say "the church/synod will call you so that you can do this in memory of me".

We admit that the Bible does not specifically talk about what organizational structure to have for the Church, however, we believe our congregationalist-episcopal structure is useful and our congregations have a role in God's calling of ministers, that it is not strictly equivalent to the secular process of voting for a favorite candidate. This is tied to our sacramental view of vocation in general, which we believe is biblical (1 Cor 3:7 is a good example).

Calling is something spiritual for us, it's not merely procedural, institutional rhetoric. We used to have a young vicar (roughly equivalent to an assistant pastor) who thought he wanted to be a marine biologist in college, but one night God came to him and told him, no, he was going to be a pastor.

When Paul criticised the Corinthian church for their attitude to the Lord's supper, he did not say "you observe it without a worthy/called/ordained/appointed person being present." There is no mention of the early church breaking bread with a special person presiding and saying certain words.

We don't necessarily deny that other Christian churches have valid Lord's Suppers. However, due to a lack of doctrinal agreement about its nature as a sacrament, we cannot affirm that those who commune do so worthily as a means of grace.

This is the LORD'S Supper; he instigated it, is present by his Spirit and we remember his sacrifice when he sent his Son to die for us.

Along with other sacramental churches, we affirm that the Lord's Supper is more than a bringing to mind of Christ's Passion, but it is also partaking of the person of Christ himself. Those who deny this doctrine may not be allowed to commune at our churches, at the pastors discretion, for their own spiritual wellbeing (1 Corinthians 11:29). In our fliers at church, we make it quite clear that Communion is partaking of Christ as not only the host, but also the meal, so that all visitors are properly informed.

None of us is worthy to even receive from the Lord - except by his mercy and grace - and having a call or a dog collar does not make a person any more worthy to distribute the elements than anyone else

Every church must have rules for good order. This is necessary to create an orderly, spiritually edifying, and even safe, atmosphere for preaching the Gospel.

At our church we have called and trained lay ministers who assist the pastor in distributing communion. This is true at most other sacramental churches now days, including the Catholics.

The whole concept seems to be that the priest/Minister/Vicar/Bishop is representing Christ when they do this.

They are.

But they spend the rest of the time telling us that if we have Christ in us and we are in Christ, then we represent him wherever we go.

That is also true, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Married people also represent Christ to each other, for instance.

why can we not stand before a group of friends, or larger group of fellow believers, and say "let's break bread and worship the Lord together?

And every person would be within their God given rights to exercise spiritual discernment.

But why a Pastor or priest? Why not the missionary with 20 years service? Or churchgoer-all-his-life who has just been baptised in the Spirit? Or the young, student, street evangelist who is winning souls to Christ?

Ultimately that is up to the congregation and their constitutions or canons. However, I have pointed out all the reasons why it is a bad idea in general to let just anyone do so. Our denomination, along with many others, sees the wisdom in requiring theological and pastoral training for those in religious ministry.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is untrue. Jesus uses leaven as a symbol for the Kingdom of God in the Parable of the Leaven.

Nothing has changed. It's still a symbol of sin in Matthew 13:33. I know it's meaning, but I am not able to share it here on the forums without possibly violating the forum rules.

Anyways, at no other time was leavened ever used as something good. It was always in reference to something bad or sinful. But you are free to believe whatever you desire.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't know whether he did or not - nor, I suspect, do you.
But the host called it the best wine.
Whatever wine they had had as part of the wedding ceremony; the wine Jesus made, surpassed that.

It was best in quality of taste and not by the level of alcoholic content. Even wine tasters of today do not judge how good a wine is based solely on it's alcoholic content.

 

[Strong in Him]

It was best in quality of taste and not by the level of alcoholic content. Even wine tasters of today do not judge how good a wine is based solely on it's alcoholic content.

Scripture doesn't say anything about alcoholic content - only that it was wine, and the best.
Anything else is an attempt - possibly by both sides - to back up their views.