View Full Version : How important is the Lord's Supper to you?
Dante
11-27-2014, 03:27 AM
Is the Lord's Supper a neglected rite within our sect of Christianity? Is the Lord's Supper worthy of being a primary doctrine? Does the Lord's Supper matter? Has it ever mattered?
Pentecostals shun ritualism, but is the Lord's Supper a ritual worth observing more frequently than we do? What about the communion table? Have you ever noticed that the communion table is decorated with a bouquet of flowers, or moved out of the way of the pulpit altogether? Why has the pulpit replaced the communion table as the central focus of worship? When did this transition take place?
Michael The Disciple
11-27-2014, 06:22 AM
The Lords supper is important. If one NEVER observes it they may be lost. It actually seems to be a weekly thing in scripture.
shazeep
11-27-2014, 08:08 AM
I'm kind of glad this came up, as i thought (or imagined?) that there was Scripture indicating that it was supposed to be more of a 'special occasion,' or like maybe 4 times a year thing? But i went searching, and only found "as often as you gather together."
Aquila
11-27-2014, 04:46 PM
Is the Lord's Supper a neglected rite within our sect of Christianity? Is the Lord's Supper worthy of being a primary doctrine? Does the Lord's Supper matter? Has it ever mattered?
Pentecostals shun ritualism, but is the Lord's Supper a ritual worth observing more frequently than we do? What about the communion table? Have you ever noticed that the communion table is decorated with a bouquet of flowers, or moved out of the way of the pulpit altogether? Why has the pulpit replaced the communion table as the central focus of worship? When did this transition take place?
I house church. We have a full meal during which we have testimonies ("Jesus Stories") and close with prayer requests. Then we call to mind the cross of Christ. We pass a single loaf of bread and the cup. We tear the bread, dip the bread in the cup, and partake. We don't call it "Communion" we call it the "Lords Supper". It is central to our time of fellowship just prior to the Bible study.
The only other "sacrament" we observe is water baptism.
Michael The Disciple
11-27-2014, 05:34 PM
When I Pastored we did weekly communion.
Dante
11-27-2014, 10:04 PM
My soul rejoices with the replies so far. I've been researching the topic of the Lord's Supper, and I whole heartedly repent for neglecting this blessed rite of our faith.
mfblume
11-27-2014, 10:05 PM
It is serious business!
MarkBelosa
11-28-2014, 12:25 AM
I house church. We have a full meal during which we have testimonies ("Jesus Stories") and close with prayer requests. Then we call to mind the cross of Christ. We pass a single loaf of bread and the cup. We tear the bread, dip the bread in the cup, and partake. We don't call it "Communion" we call it the "Lords Supper". It is central to our time of fellowship just prior to the Bible study.
The only other "sacrament" we observe is water baptism.
Sounds good. I sure wish it was practiced more often like monthly if not weekly. The group that I fellowship with does it only once a year.
And I'm curious. Do you allow "unbelievers" to partake in the Lord's Supper? If they haven't been born again but they would like to participate and observe it reverently, do you allow them or not?
Esaias
11-28-2014, 02:20 AM
We view the Lord's Supper as a time when Christians share a meal with one another and with our Lord. Thus it takes place whenever believers eat together. The bread and wine, while a major part, are not the sine qua non of a Lord's Supper. That is to say, whenever believers eat together, even without sharing a loaf of bread and a common cup, it is at least a TYPE of the Lord's Supper for we eat together with the Lord's spirit in our midst.
In any event it should be often. And modern Pentecostal churches have imo a very defective view of the Supper:
First, they dont have a supper but instead recreate a Reformed-Evangelical version of a Roman Mass with overly morbidly somber introspection and misplaced ceremonialism designed to make the event seem "sacred" aesthetically.
Second, the use of storebought packaged wafer thingies and individual thimbles destroys the Biblical practice of breaking AND SHARING one loaf, and one common cup, which is supposed to demonstrate our COMMUNION or common sharing of new covenant life in Christ.
And third, the continuation of Zwingli's unbiblical relegation of the Supper to a mere memorial has resulted in making the Lord's Supper essentially irrelevent and easily dispensed with. While "transubstantiation" is a pagan occultic nonsense the truth is there is more to the Supper than mere bread and wine and a mere remembrance of the past.
During Passover and sometimes other times we have footwashing with the Supper as well.
As to unbelievers eating... while the meal is essentially a Christian meal meant for Christians, Jesus never refused to eat with those whom he was "evangelizing". As often as we eat this bread and drink thus cup we show the Lord's death until he returns. Sounds evangelistic to me. Thus if an unbeliever were present I would not refuse them. Also we will have communion with any professing Christian unless they are in open mortal sin (adultery, fornication, idolatry, etc) or they profess antichrist doctrines. I am however still studying what the biblical apostolic approach to open vs closed communion is so my view may change in light of new information.
While too many seem to not appreciate or know the high and holy significance of the Supper, there is simultaneously a lot of superstition in people's views.
Light
11-28-2014, 06:51 AM
We view the Lord's Supper as a time when Christians share a meal with one another and with our Lord. Thus it takes place whenever believers eat together. The bread and wine, while a major part, are not the sine qua non of a Lord's Supper. That is to say, whenever believers eat together, even without sharing a loaf of bread and a common cup, it is at least a TYPE of the Lord's Supper for we eat together with the Lord's spirit in our midst.
In any event it should be often. And modern Pentecostal churches have imo a very defective view of the Supper:
First, they dont have a supper but instead recreate a Reformed-Evangelical version of a Roman Mass with overly morbidly somber introspection and misplaced ceremonialism designed to make the event seem "sacred" aesthetically.
Second, the use of storebought packaged wafer thingies and individual thimbles destroys the Biblical practice of breaking AND SHARING one loaf, and one common cup, which is supposed to demonstrate our COMMUNION or common sharing of new covenant life in Christ.
And third, the continuation of Zwingli's unbiblical relegation of the Supper to a mere memorial has resulted in making the Lord's Supper essentially irrelevent and easily dispensed with. While "transubstantiation" is a pagan occultic nonsense the truth is there is more to the Supper than mere bread and wine and a mere remembrance of the past.
During Passover and sometimes other times we have footwashing with the Supper as well.
As to unbelievers eating... while the meal is essentially a Christian meal meant for Christians, Jesus never refused to eat with those whom he was "evangelizing". As often as we eat this bread and drink thus cup we show the Lord's death until he returns. Sounds evangelistic to me. Thus if an unbeliever were present I would not refuse them. Also we will have communion with any professing Christian unless they are in open mortal sin (adultery, fornication, idolatry, etc) or they profess antichrist doctrines. I am however still studying what the biblical apostolic approach to open vs closed communion is so my view may change in light of new information.
While too many seem to not appreciate or know the high and holy significance of the Supper, there is simultaneously a lot of superstition in people's views.
1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse .
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
1Co 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not
shazeep
11-28-2014, 07:03 AM
ty, Light; that would seem to cover the attitude of one partaking, and seems to lend creedence to Esaias' 'full meal' approach. But what about the period? Ty.
Aquila
11-28-2014, 09:40 AM
Sounds good. I sure wish it was practiced more often like monthly if not weekly. The group that I fellowship with does it only once a year.
And I'm curious. Do you allow "unbelievers" to partake in the Lord's Supper? If they haven't been born again but they would like to participate and observe it reverently, do you allow them or not?
If they are reverent. It becomes a Bible lesson unto salvation.
Light
11-28-2014, 02:32 PM
ty, Light; that would seem to cover the attitude of one partaking, and seems to lend creedence to Esaias' 'full meal' approach. But what about the period? Ty.
When God instituted the passover the Lamb of God was not in the picture.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of passover:There shall no stranger eat thereof
44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
At the last supper Jesus is obeying Gods ordinance by observing the Passover. When He finishes the passover meal Jesus then institutes communion because there is no need to slay a lamb anymore, Jesus will become the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Only those who are save can partake of communion.
Esaias
11-28-2014, 03:42 PM
When God instituted the passover the Lamb of God was not in the picture.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of passover:There shall no stranger eat thereof
44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
At the last supper Jesus is obeying Gods ordinance by observing the Passover. When He finishes the passover meal Jesus then institutes communion because there is no need to slay a lamb anymore, Jesus will become the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Only those who are save can partake of communion.
The idea that non Christians are to be excluded from the Lord's Supper is an ancient one for certain. However it is based on two things. First, the prohibition against the uncircumcised eating the passover. However the NT is clear that Jesus is our Passover. The uncircumcised in heart cannot eat the new covenant Passover until they become circumcised in heart, because nobody can partake of Christ without faith. This is not about bread but the Bread from Heaven, Christ himself.
Second, the eating damnation because he discerns not the body of Christ. But that is a valid argument only if transubstantiation is true. Paul warned against eating the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, specifically by being a pig and not sharing with the brethren, thus not discerning the Lord's body which is the community of the brethren.
While we certainly are not to give what is holy unto dogs, I still cannot see Jesus refusing to eat with someone who is sincerely interested in learning of him.
Esaias
11-28-2014, 03:45 PM
ty, Light; that would seem to cover the attitude of one partaking, and seems to lend creedence to Esaias' 'full meal' approach. But what about the period? Ty.
Paul's statements about the Lord's Supper seem to fit the idea of frequent communion rather than once a year. Church history shows no debate to my knowledge regarding weekly vs yearly, thus I assume the ancient practice of weekly (even daily) partaking to be of apostolic origin.
Lafon
11-28-2014, 07:48 PM
Paul, in explaining to the saints at Corinth the reason why they were to partake of the Lord's Supper, said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (I Corinthians 11:26).
By this statement it is readily apparent that Paul was NOT establishing any sort of "schedule" regarding how often this sacred symbolic act is to be accomplished, only that it be done "often."
However, there is also an important element of Paul's statement which it seems many, if not most, fail to take note of, and it is this .... by one's participation in the act of eating the bread and drinking of the cup, they are SHEWING their "identification" with the Lord's death UNTIL He comes. The question, of course, is in what manner does one's participation in the Lord's Supper "shew" such a thing? I tender the following for consideration:
We who have been made the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and been immersed in the waters of baptism for the remission of sins "in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ," do, in all reality, "shew," signify, or declare our identification/relationship with Him, both in our daily lives AND will do so as well when we experience death. By partaking of these sacred symbols we are publicly proclaiming (shewing) that identification.
Therefore, as for me, I am adamantly opposed to allowing any who has not taken heed to and obeyed the command to repent. and be baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus, and been filled with His Spirit, to partake of the Lord's Supper, for in so doing they will not have properly "discerned the Lord's body"! As stated by Paul, even in his day MANY had participated when they were unworthy, and had done so to their own damnation. Makes me wonder how many continue to do so today, albeit unwittingly, because they do not properly comprehend what Paul has written.
thephnxman
11-28-2014, 11:09 PM
In Remembrance of Me…
The Lord’s Supper: a time of renewal and faith. Of renewal, because we are called to remember His sacrifice; of faith, because we must not lose sight of His impending return.
Of Renewal
If we recall His work on the cross, we will not “…eat of this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily…”. It is a time not only of personal examination, but reflecting upon what the Lord’s sacrifice means (present tense) for each one as an individual.
The apostle goes on to say, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” Why? Because they (as we) were not aware of the power there is in “…discerning the Lord’s body (sacrifice)”. In discernment, there is a remembrance of what the Lord accomplished on the cross: “…he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed.” We do not mention the redemption, for we cannot be redeemed “again”; that is, we are His already. What? You see, “…there is no more sacrifice for sin.”
Of Faith
“…then we which are alive and remain…comfort one another with these words.” If the Lord’s soon return brings apprehension, doubt, or fear, when it should instill joy, then it is time to examine our lives and our faith. It is time to repent and renew our vows and recall that the Lord promised to return. When we see the dark clouds gathering and the night falling, that is the time to gird up our loins like men: that the light of the Lord may shine through in the Church.
I have seen the Lord perform healings, and even reviving the hearts of individuals by sharing the Lord’s Supper. I’m sure that many others have seen and bear witness to His works as well.
Esaias
11-29-2014, 01:36 AM
Paul, in explaining to the saints at Corinth the reason why they were to partake of the Lord's Supper, said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, anrd drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (I Corinthians 11:26).
By this statement it is readily apparent that Paul was NOT establishing any sort of "schedule" regarding how often this sacred symbolic act is to be accomplished, only that it be done "often."
However, there is also an important element of Paul's statement which it seems many, if not most, fail to take note of, and it is this .... by one's participation in the act of eating the bread and drinking of the cup, they are SHEWING their "identification" with the Lord's death UNTIL He comes. The question, of course, is in what manner does one's participation in the Lord's Supper "shew" such a thing? I tender the following for consideration:
We who have been made the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and been immersed in the waters of baptism for the remission of sins "in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ," do, in all reality, "shew," signify, or declare our identification/relationship with Him, both in our daily lives AND will do so as well when we experience death. By partaking of these sacred symbols we are publicly proclaiming (shewing) that identification.
Therefore, as for me, I am adamantly opposed to allowing any who has not taken heed to and obeyed the command to repent. and be baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus, and been filled with His Spirit, to partake of the Lord's Supper, for in so doing they will not have properly "discerned the Lord's body"! As stated by Paul, even in his day MANY had participated when they were unworthy, and had done so to their own damnation. Makes me wonder how many continue to do so today, albeit unwittingly, because they do not properly comprehend what Paul has written.
If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?
Lafon
11-29-2014, 04:08 AM
If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?
Absolutely, that is, "IF" they asked me whether it was appropriate for them to participate.
The reason why I would do so is because of the words of Romans 8:9, to wit, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
To me it seems rather clear that only those who have been "born again of the water and of the Spirit" should participate in such a sacred symbolic act, however, I do know that there are those who would disagree.
Michael The Disciple
11-29-2014, 06:23 AM
As stated by Paul, even in his day MANY had participated when they were unworthy, and had done so to their own damnation.
A very good point.
Light
11-29-2014, 11:14 AM
If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?
Yes
mfblume
11-29-2014, 11:45 AM
If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?
No.
thephnxman
11-29-2014, 12:13 PM
Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?
Light
11-29-2014, 03:41 PM
Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?
The bible does not say one way or the other.
A person who doesn't have the Holy Ghost doesn't have a circumcised heart.
Esaias
11-29-2014, 06:00 PM
Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?
No. Any brother can give thanks and distribute bread and wine to the assembly, although I would think whoever is the elder (oldest in the Lord) and/or one who has oversight OR whoever is the host of the church would be the best choice to serve the bread and wine.
Technically deacons are responsible for serving meals/food to the church as well as alms/offerings to the poor so the deacons if any would be the ones to distribute the food, with perhaps one of the elders saying the blessing. Jmo
Esaias
11-29-2014, 06:15 PM
Paul did not say many had participated when they were unworthy. NONE OF US are "worthy" to dine with the Lord of Glory. Paul spoke of those who ate unworthILY, that is, in an unworthy manner. Because some were gobbling up the food with no regard for their brethren, especially the poor (who therefore could not bring much to contribute to the meal) who wound up not being able to eat. Such disregard for the brethren shows a failure to discern (ie perceive or recognise) the Body of Christ, and was tantamount to a betrayal of the Body just as Judas betrayed the physical body of the Lord. As Judas betrayed Christ the same night in which he ate the Last Supper, so these self-centered and unthinking brethren were recreating that betrayal in their abuse of the Lord's Supper.
It was not about eating a magic piece of sacred bread without proper prior ritual sanctifications.
I notice that Paul did not warn against non Christians eating unworthily, but Christians. The warning is given to US to take care how we partake.
There is of course a good argument for excluding unbelievers on the basis that this is a fellowship between Christians and one another in the Lord and outsiders therefore have nothing to do with it. But when every meeting is designed as an evangelistic service and with the constant push to "invite the lost to come and hear" it seems there is not much room for exclusive fellowship.
votivesoul
12-02-2014, 03:42 PM
I realize this may sound too Catholic for some, but I think one's salvation is tied to it, in a qualified sense.
The Lord's Supper doesn't save; the Gospel does, and the Gospel alone, being the power of God, is what saves.
But take note of what it means to be ex-communicated according to the Scriptures: it means to be "out of communion".
Someone who has legitimately been removed from the body of believers because of any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (e.g. fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, covetous idolatry, etc.) is turned over to Satan.
Consider then what Jesus said in John 6 and in Matthew 18. The bread and wine doesn't do the saving, but they are hallmarks that one is saved, and being denied access to the communal meal for legitimate reasons means one has not only lost their fellowship with the saints of the church, but also their fellowship with the head of the saints of the church.
There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. And for a member to fall into grievous, unrepentant sin, and so be removed, not only from geographical proximity, but also from the meal of the Lord's Supper (a la Judas), means that, unless God grants them repentance, they are lost (just like the son of perdition).
Take into account the "spots on the feasts of charity" mentioned by Peter and Jude. Such people, if allowed to partake, actually ruin the supper and cause dangerous problems to the Body of Christ.
thephnxman
12-03-2014, 08:43 AM
I realize this may sound too Catholic for some, but I think one's salvation is tied to it, in a qualified sense.
The Lord's Supper doesn't save; the Gospel does, and the Gospel alone, being the power of God, is what saves.
But take note of what it means to be ex-communicated according to the Scriptures: it means to be "out of communion".
Someone who has legitimately been removed from the body of believers because of any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (e.g. fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, covetous idolatry, etc.) is turned over to Satan.
Consider then what Jesus said in John 6 and in Matthew 18. The bread and wine doesn't do the saving, but they are hallmarks that one is saved, and being denied access to the communal meal for legitimate reasons means one has not only lost their fellowship with the saints of the church, but also their fellowship with the head of the saints of the church.
There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. And for a member to fall into grievous, unrepentant sin, and so be removed, not only from geographical proximity, but also from the meal of the Lord's Supper (a la Judas), means that, unless God grants them repentance, they are lost (just like the son of perdition).
Take into account the "spots on the feasts of charity" mentioned by Peter and Jude. Such people, if allowed to partake, actually ruin the supper and cause dangerous problems to the Body of Christ.
Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.
Esaias
12-03-2014, 01:38 PM
Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.
Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.
Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.
BrotherEastman
12-03-2014, 05:54 PM
Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.
Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.
I like your link about immortal souls. Good read.
KeptByTheWord
12-03-2014, 07:05 PM
The Lord's Supper is very important. It was the last thing Jesus did with his disciples before his death, and he asked them to do it in remembrance of him. Then we see the church in Corinthians continuing to celebrate the Lord's Supper, but with Paul seeing that they needed some guidance on how to go about doing it.
votivesoul
12-04-2014, 08:03 AM
Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.
Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.
And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.
If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.
Esaias
12-04-2014, 07:29 PM
And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.
If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.
Indeed. Cases of putting people out of the church for any reason other than provable sin seems to put that church at risk of being disfellowshipped by God himself...
Aquila
12-05-2014, 11:57 AM
It is my understanding that Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only ordinances established for the church by Jesus Himself.
Esaias
12-05-2014, 08:04 PM
It is my understanding that Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only ordinances established for the church by Jesus Himself.
I notice there is no Bible verse or passage stating that. Everything the apostles taught are the commandments of Christ.
Abiding Now
12-06-2014, 09:51 AM
It is my understanding that Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only ordinances established for the church by Jesus Himself.
and let's not forget foot washing.
John 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Esaias
12-07-2014, 09:18 PM
and let's not forget foot washing.
John 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Indeed. Too many nowadays like to forget that part.
Esaias
12-10-2014, 01:45 AM
Some say only those who have the Holy Ghost should partake of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
But the disciples were given communion by Jesus himself - BEFORE they had the Spirit. According to the traditional theory and rules for the Lord's Supper, as maintained by catholics, protestants, and apparently even by some here... the original disciples would not have been eligible to partake when Jesus told them to. And Jesus himself was out of line with their rules, for he gave the bread and wine to people who had not been baptised with the Spirit.
Hmmm....
thephnxman
12-10-2014, 07:21 AM
And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.
If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.
I like the first paragraph. I would add, in the proper manner (talk to brother alone; two witnesses or three; tell the congregation).
The second is a little vague: the "...group doing the ex-communicating..."; I believe you mean the entire Church is the group, right?
I can visualize one little group in Church ex-communicating another little group;
well...you know what I mean.
Aquila
12-10-2014, 08:25 AM
I notice there is no Bible verse or passage stating that. Everything the apostles taught are the commandments of Christ.
I don't see it that way. Some things are cultural. Some things are relating to specific issues, the wisdom and principle we can glean from. Some things are indeed admonitions we do well to continue to walk in.
My statement was with regards to ordinances or "rituals". In my opinion, the only two ordinances we are to continually observe are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Anointing the sick with oil is optional and at the request of the sick or family. I see foot washing as a demonstration of service that Christ gave, not an instituted ordinance. Also, marriage isn't an ordinance we see the church performing. Instead we see the church either blessing and recognizing unions or choosing not to bless and/or recognize unions. In my mind, the church rather simple or "primitive" in structure and practice.
Aquila
12-10-2014, 08:28 AM
and let's not forget foot washing.
John 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
I see Christ's act of foot washing as being an example of how we are to serve one another. I don't see an institutionalized ordinance or rite to be repeated. Let's look at the passage again...
John 13:12-15
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you
It was an example in the moment. We do the same not by washing feet... but by serving one another with respect and reverence.
Aquila
12-10-2014, 08:31 AM
Some say only those who have the Holy Ghost should partake of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
But the disciples were given communion by Jesus himself - BEFORE they had the Spirit. According to the traditional theory and rules for the Lord's Supper, as maintained by catholics, protestants, and apparently even by some here... the original disciples would not have been eligible to partake when Jesus told them to. And Jesus himself was out of line with their rules, for he gave the bread and wine to people who had not been baptised with the Spirit.
Hmmm....
Amen.
In the house churches I attend the breaking of bread and passing of the cup is a message in itself. The single loaf of bread, being torn apart for the sustenance of those present, is the Lord's body. He was literally torn apart in His scourging and crucifixion. The cup represents the blood that was shed for our atonement. When the bread and the cup are passed around the table we remember Christ's sacrifice and how He has now come to reside in us as we partake in Him through the Spirit as the Bread of Life. We've even had visitors accept Christ's work upon the cross and break down weeping as the bread and the cup are passed.
Aquila
12-10-2014, 08:34 AM
I like the first paragraph. I would add, in the proper manner (talk to brother alone; two witnesses or three; tell the congregation).
The second is a little vague: the "...group doing the ex-communicating..."; I believe you mean the entire Church is the group, right?
I can visualize one little group in Church ex-communicating another little group;
well...you know what I mean.
I believe that should the issue not be resolved privately, or resolved after bringing witnesses, it should be told openly to the congregation or group. Then the entire body should have a voice as to if the person is to be ex-communicated, disciplined, or given more consideration. In our fellowship, we set aside a prayer meeting for it and then vote as a body.
Lafon
12-10-2014, 08:50 AM
I see Christ's act of foot washing as being an example of how we are to serve one another. I don't see an institutionalized ordinance or rite to be repeated. Let's look at the passage again...
John 13:12-15
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you
It was an example in the moment. We do the same not by washing feet... but by serving one another with respect and reverence.
I agree wholeheartedly, however, it does not answer the question - How does one's participation in the Lord's Supper by partaking of these sacred symbols, "SHEW the Lord's death till he come," as explicitly stated by Paul in I Corinthians 11:25. Does not the word "SHEW" (or, SHOW) in this context, indicate a "visible exhibit" or outward display of an inner feeling or belief?
Aquila
12-10-2014, 09:51 AM
I agree wholeheartedly, however, it does not answer the question - How does one's participation in the Lord's Supper by partaking of these sacred symbols, "SHEW the Lord's death till he come," as explicitly stated by Paul in I Corinthians 11:25. Does not the word "SHEW" (or, SHOW) in this context, indicate a "visible exhibit" or outward display of an inner feeling or belief?
The breaking of the bread shows, or demonstrates/symbolizes, the breaking of Christ's body as witnessed in the crucifixion. The passing of the cup represents our acceptance of the blood that was shed for our sins in the crucifixion, as it symbolizes Christ's blood. We are remembering the broken body and shed blood (Christ's death) every time we partake.
Remember, the first Christians didn't have a NT. They retold the story of Christ's death in the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup.
Esaias
12-10-2014, 02:07 PM
I see Christ's act of foot washing as being an example of how we are to serve one another. I don't see an institutionalized ordinance or rite to be repeated. Let's look at the passage again...
John 13:12-15
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you
It was an example in the moment. We do the same not by washing feet... but by serving one another with respect and reverence.
Jesus did something out of the ordinary. The disciples did not expect it.
Jesus said his disciples OUGHT to do this to one another. Therefore we OUGHT to do it.
Jesus gave us an example, that we should do as he did.
If one does not practice footwashing, one is not doing what they OUGHT to do, nor is one following Jesus' example.
Jesus taught and demonstrated humility, agape, and service in many ways other than footwashing. Therefore when he says we OUGHT TO WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET he is not speaking metaphorically.
One cannot wash one another's feet by not washing one another's feet.
mizpeh
12-10-2014, 02:24 PM
Jesus did something out of the ordinary. The disciples did not expect it.
Jesus said his disciples OUGHT to do this to one another. Therefore we OUGHT to do it.
Jesus gave us an example, that we should do as he did.
If one does not practice footwashing, one is not doing what they OUGHT to do, nor is one following Jesus' example.
Jesus taught and demonstrated humility, agape, and service in many ways other than footwashing. Therefore when he says we OUGHT TO WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET he is not speaking metaphorically.
One cannot wash one another's feet by not washing one another's feet.
Footwashing was a custom they did back then in the first century when they wore sandals. But now a days it seems out of place in the USA to do that. I don't want anyone to wash my feet. Aren't there other acts of service and hospitality we could do for one another?
Aquila
12-10-2014, 02:26 PM
Jesus did something out of the ordinary. The disciples did not expect it.
Jesus said his disciples OUGHT to do this to one another. Therefore we OUGHT to do it.
Jesus gave us an example, that we should do as he did.
If one does not practice footwashing, one is not doing what they OUGHT to do, nor is one following Jesus' example.
Jesus taught and demonstrated humility, agape, and service in many ways other than footwashing. Therefore when he says we OUGHT TO WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET he is not speaking metaphorically.
One cannot wash one another's feet by not washing one another's feet.
I see this position like Catholic sacraments. Instead of seeing the overall point of Christ's actions and how we should serve one another in all things, we enshrine the literal act and make it a ritual. But if you think it adds virtue to your walk... feel free to do it.
I'd also like to point out... no where do we see foot washing as an ordinance in the recorded history of the church (Acts of the Apostles) or the Epistles. So it's quite unlike baptism and the Lord's Supper, which we do see as common observances.
Aquila
12-10-2014, 02:30 PM
Footwashing was a custom they did back then in the first century when they wore sandals. But now a days it seems out of place in the USA to do that. I don't want anyone to wash my feet. Aren't there other acts of service and hospitality we could do for one another?
If a brother or sister's car broke down... commit to giving them a ride to church. If they don't have a lawn mower, lend them yours. If they are older and need help with lawn care or general home maintenance, be willing and available to do the work for them.
I know this doesn't speak for all churches... but in the first church I attended we practiced foot washing. However, if you were in desperate need of any kind... you were essentially on your own. This kind of neglect makes the very notion of a foot washing ritual a mockery of Christ's true lesson in the matter.
Revelationist
12-19-2014, 07:51 PM
Jesus has the table spread, where the saints of God are feed, He invites his chosen ones, come and dine.
Come and die the master calls, come and dine, we can feast at Jesus table all the time.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.