How does it become the Body and the Blood?

[Particular]

You need to stop thinking like we're cannibals. You're thinking with your human line of thinking and there you get the thought of someone tearing into the right arm of Jesus. It's through the descent and power of the Holy Spirit that the change happens.

George, if is means is then you is a cannibal.
Clearly Jesus is not teaching cannibalism. Like much of his teaching he is creating imagery to convey the substitutionary atonement provided to his elect.
Paul expresses this exchanged life in Galatians 2:20.

 

[Josiah]

George, if is means is then you is a cannibal.

Receiving Christ has nothing to do with eating Christ in any digestive way. Your comment is absurd. And just plain silly. You are just regurgitating the accusation of a few Roman pagan haters of Christ and Christianity who though this lie would sway people against Christ; I find it disconcerting that you would join hands with them. How desperate.... and sad.


You claim that it's perfectly "OBVIOUS" that Jesus and Paul are kidding, just using some symbol. Yet for over 1500 years, you can find NOT ONE CHRISTIAN who believed that Jesus and Paul were just kidding or just using some symbols or that the most obvious meaning of "is" is "is not." Most Christians STILL don't believe that. So I wonder if it's "perfectly obvious.' If it was, everyone would know that... or at least you could quote 2 Christians who did before 1500. I think you claim is OBVIOUSLY wrong.


You claim the context states they are just kidding. But you entirely, wholly ignore that context! You just delete the warnings about not discerning the Body (which you claim doens't exist and so cannot be discerned)..... you just delete the mandate to examine oneself (why would you be required to examine yourself before you put on a cap with a Nike swoosh on it?).... you just delete all the stuff about getting sick and even dying (can that Nike swoosh make you sick and kill you?). You are just entirely ignoring the context, just deleting a whole bunch of words (indeed, most of what Jesus said and Paul penned). It seems the context proves you wrong.


What Jesus actually SAID is clear and bold and stressed. THIS.... IS..... MY..... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD..... WINE..... REMEMBER.... FORGIVENESS.... and more. But you just delete all that. For over 1500 years, it seems ALL Christians thought it obvious that the words are true and meant. Most still do. But you have this "can't be true" rubric and so join with that new denomination tradition that agrees with you and thus must delete virtually every word in the text and replace them with entirely different (perhaps opposite) words NOT there.... and found a whole new dogma on those words that tradition substitutes. IMO, a very bad way to do theology.... bad to start with the insistence that what Jesus boldly and clearly says "can't be true".... bad to delete virtually everything Jesus says.... then replace all of it on totally different words..... and found a whole new dogma on the substitutions newly made.


You simply place your new invented tradition over Scripture.





.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

God can forgive and bring us remembrance without the bread and wine becoming the human flesh and human blood of Jesus.

In that case he can forgive and bring us remembrance without ANYTHING AT ALL. And, for our benefit, he does in his grace and mercy. All we do, we do for the sake of Christ who redeemed us, EVEN partaking of the bread and wine. It truly is a remembrance as you've said. But if it is that, and only that, why partake? Corporate prayer, worship, fellowship, etc. could have the same effect. But if it is to follow the ordinance (and it is an ordinance) that Christ instituted, following his words and example, then we're on the same page as recognizing the practice of the ordinance as a remembrance. NO ONE has denied that truth about it. HOWEVER, to take the words of Christ and place emphasis on one command (do this in remembrance...), and to ignore or spin the rest (...take and eat, this is my body... Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant) is to really ignore going the hard work of trying to find out WHAT Christ meant by those words.

Your argument of 1500 years of doing some tradition is irrelevant. The text of the Bible supercedes your traditions. When scripture shows your traditions to be wrong...you reform your traditions. Sadly, your church never truly reformed.

The argument isn't Josiah's, mine, the Lutheran Church's or anyone else. It was done a specific way. And the text of the bible DOES supersede tradition. It is the rule of faith - the yardstick by which we measure our doctrine. And to place emphasis on singular words of Christ because they're the "simplest" explanation for us, ignoring the rest, fails that test.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

George, if is means is then you is a cannibal.
Clearly Jesus is not teaching cannibalism. Like much of his teaching he is creating imagery to convey the substitutionary atonement provided to his elect.
Paul expresses this exchanged life in Galatians 2:20.

Talk about imagery... :O
I'd be more inclined to believe Jesus was teaching about cannibalism (which I don't - so don't even go there)

 

[Particular]

In that case he can forgive and bring us remembrance without ANYTHING AT ALL. And, for our benefit, he does in his grace and mercy. All we do, we do for the sake of Christ who redeemed us, EVEN partaking of the bread and wine. It truly is a remembrance as you've said. But if it is that, and only that, why partake? Corporate prayer, worship, fellowship, etc. could have the same effect. But if it is to follow the ordinance (and it is an ordinance) that Christ instituted, following his words and example, then we're on the same page as recognizing the practice of the ordinance as a remembrance. NO ONE has denied that truth about it. HOWEVER, to take the words of Christ and place emphasis on one command (do this in remembrance...), and to ignore or spin the rest (...take and eat, this is my body... Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant) is to really ignore going the hard work of trying to find out WHAT Christ meant by those words.



The argument isn't Josiah's, mine, the Lutheran Church's or anyone else. It was done a specific way. And the text of the bible DOES supersede tradition. It is the rule of faith - the yardstick by which we measure our doctrine. And to place emphasis on singular words of Christ because they're the "simplest" explanation for us, ignoring the rest, fails that test.

We obey Jesus command line when we partake in communion. Communion is not a "do this and then you will receive" conditional action. Communion is a celebratory remembrance of Christ's already accomplished work. It is very similar to the Jewish Passover celebration that God established with Israel. It functions as a solemn reminder.

Second, when the Lutheran Church declares communion to be a means of grace, they declare they are teaching syncretism, not monergism. They are stating an "if, then" scenario.
If you partake in communion, then God will extend saving grace to you. This is also true with infant baptism. If you partake in infant baptism, then God will extend saving grace to you.
In these areas, Lutherans and Roman Catholics are joined by the hip. Both teach syncretism whereby God and man must work together for salvation to be procured.

"Means of grace" is a term not established or taught in the Bible, but has been philosophically inserted into Lutheran and Roman Catholic theology.

We will not agree on the function of communion simply because your denomination has added philosophical syncretism to its doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

when the Lutheran Church declares communion to be a means of grace, they declare they are teaching syncretism, not monergism.

Nice evasion....

Absurd. Just because GOD can use something doesn't mean GOD is not the active one. If He is impotent to do so, as you suggest, using any means suggests synergism, then you'd be against reading God's Word, you'd outlaw sermons and Christian education, you'd forbid evangelism and missions - because God is impotent when any means is used and this makes soteriology synergistic. Now, you may reject that COMMUNION is a means of grace, but you're apologetic here is that ANY means makes God impotent and justification synergistic. Again, your apologetic is absurd. And of course, evasive.

"Means of grace" is a term not established or taught in the Bible

Nor is synergism. Or Trinity. Or Bible.

But your idea that God is rendered impotent if the Bible is taught (using it as a means of grace) is certainly not Biblical. If you actually held to the absurdity you present, you could not quote a single verse of Scripture because then it's a means and God is too small and impotent to use it.

We will not agree on the function of communion simply because your denomination has added

Actually, the LCMS hasn't added anything. It was JESUS who added the "forgiveness" part. Note the following...

Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This IS my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

"THIS" (the cup he was holding).... IS (not something future like after Easter but right now).... "FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

Jesus said that. Not the LCMS.




First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.


If you are right.... and every Christian who has ever lived thinks that it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul here are just kidding, just using some symbol... that EVERY Christian thinks it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul only meant a mere symbol... then why verses 27 and 28 and 29? Does Scripture say the exact same things about the Star of David? About the Nike scoosh? About foot washing? Even about circumcision? All you'd claim are mere symbols?


What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we can do so in a "unworthy manner?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure... demands that first we "examine ourselves?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we "recognize" something? Please give examples.


IF this is NOT what is said.... but rather it's just a figure... then it's a completely, entirely, absolutely unique case! Not even circumcision has ANY of these things connected to it.






.





.

 

[Particular]

then you'd be against reading God's Word, you'd outlaw sermons and Christian education, you'd forbid evangelism and missions

None of the above are means of grace.

We can and should do all the above. God is not obligated to show saving grace in any of those activities. It would be foolish to call them a means of grace. They are however a means of learning more about God. How a person responds to that information is solely at God's discretion. God may choose to bring a person to salvation and he may not.

With communion and baptism, however, those two commandments are only given to those who are already saved. We don't provide communion to the unsaved on the hopes that God might save them when they partake. We don't baptize a person on the hopes that God might save them when we do. Therefore, neither communion nor baptism are a means of grace. These are not activities designed to persuade God to save someone.

 

[Albion]

With communion and baptism, however, those two commandments are only given to those who are already saved. We don't provide communion to the unsaved on the hopes that God might save them when they partake. We don't baptize a person on the hopes that God might save them when we do.

Fascinating. And what Christians or Christian churches do you imagine that you are rebutting with this bizarre collection of pronouncements? I mean, if most--or even many--denominations actually thought along the lines you have denounced here, you might have a point.

 

[Particular]

Fascinating. And what Christians or Christian churches do you imagine that you are rebutting with this bizarre collection of pronouncements? I mean, if most--or even many--denominations actually thought along the lines you have denounced here, you might have a point.

Most/Many denominations do think along the lines I stated. Only those who kept a foot in Rome hold to the idea that you baptize the unsaved in hopes that God might save them. As for communion, those who are not members are forbidden to partake (closed communion) so it truly becomes odd that "means of grace" would be taught when you cannot (theoretically) receive communion until you are a member. I suppose the way to that end is to make all unbeliever's members first so then you can have them receive communion in hopes that God saves them through partaking in communion. (That seems odd). In either case, performing a ritual in hopes of God looking down and graciously saving you smacks of works.
Do this and perhaps God will do that.

 

[Albion]

Most/Many denominations do think along the lines I stated.

No, they don't. But go ahead and name a half-dozen or so and we'll all take a look.

 

[Particular]

No, they don't. But go ahead and name a half-dozen or so and we'll all take a look.

Baptists, Methodists, Weslyans, Nazarenes, Mennonites, Free Church, Christian Missionary Alliance, Plymouth Brethren, Independent Fundamental Church of America, Assembly of God, etc.

 

[Albion]

Oh, for an accurate list. I don't think there is such an entity as "Free Church," the Methodists and Wesleyans certainly do not hold to the Baptistic view of the sacraments as mere commandments, and most of the others (except for Baptists) are of an insignificant percentage of the Christian population.

Meanwhile, the people on the other side that you intend to vilify do not believe that baptism guarantees salvation, they do not baptize only those persons that they consider to have already been saved, and most do not practice "closed communion."

 

[Josiah]

Actually, the LCMS hasn't added anything. It was JESUS who added the "forgiveness" part. Note the following...

Matthew 26:26-28

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This IS my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

"THIS" (the cup he was holding)....
"IS" (present tense, not something future like after Easter but right now)....
"FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

Jesus said that. Not the LCMS.




First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If you are right.... and every Christian who has ever lived thinks that it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul here are just kidding, just using some symbol... that EVERY Christian thinks it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul only meant a mere symbol... then why verses 27 and 28 and 29? Does Scripture say the exact same things about the Star of David? About the Nike scoosh? About foot washing? Even about circumcision? All you'd claim are mere symbols?


What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we can do so in a "unworthy manner?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure... demands that first we "examine ourselves?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we "recognize" something? Please give examples.


IF this is NOT what is said.... but rather it's just a figure... then it's a completely, entirely, absolutely unique case! Not even circumcision has ANY of these things connected to it.






.

None of the above are means of grace.

I reject your view that God is too small to use means to extend His grace.... that God is rendered impotent if some means is used (such as preaching/teaching the Word);.


I reject your premise that if YOU feel something the Bible clearly says can't be true, therefore it's not and the words all have to be replaced with opposite ones so that to YOU the Bible is thus correct.


I reject your premise that theology is to be based entirely on words missing from the text, words such as NOT, ISN'T, CAN'T, SYMBOL, PRETEND, JUST KIDDING. I hold that it is better to found theology on the words there, words such as THIS, IS, MY, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, REMEMBER, FORGIVENESS.


I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in tbe first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).


I reject your idea that forgiveness is not grace.






.

 

[Particular]

Oh, for an accurate list. I don't think there is such an entity as "Free Church," the Methodists and Wesleyans certainly do not hold to the Baptistic view of the sacraments as mere commandments, and most of the others (except for Baptists) are of an insignificant percentage of the Christian population.

Meanwhile, the people on the other side that you intend to vilify do not believe that baptism guarantees salvation, they do not baptize only those persons that they consider to have already been saved, and most do not practice "closed communion."

I suggest you look up the Evangelical Free Church, a denomination that is much larger than the Lutheran denomination in the US.
Second, your question was what churches do not teach "means of grace" via communion and baptism. You asked me to list them. I did. Please don't attempt to move the goalpost now that you are faced with the reality that a large majority of Christian churches don't teach "means of grace" via communion or baptism.

 

[Particular]

I reject your view that God is too small to use means to extend His grace.... that God is rendered impotent if some means is used (such as preaching/teaching the Word);.


I reject your premise that if YOU feel something the Bible clearly says can't be true, therefore it's not and the words all have to be replaced with opposite ones so that to YOU the Bible is thus correct.


I reject your premise that theology is to be based entirely on words missing from the text, words such as NOT, ISN'T, CAN'T, SYMBOL, PRETEND, JUST KIDDING. I hold that it is better to found theology on the words there, words such as THIS, IS, MY, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, REMEMBER, FORGIVENESS.


I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in tbe first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).


I reject your idea that forgiveness is not grace.






.

You aren't forgiven because you receive communion or are baptized.
Just as in the Gospels, only God can forgive sin. You cannot coerce God to do this. You can't perform a ceremony and "poof" you are therefore forgiven.

I reject your works based theology that is synergist in form and substance.

 

[Josiah]

You aren't forgiven because you receive communion or are baptized.

I reject your claim that forgiveness is not grace; that if God forgives that's not extending grace.

Your point is that God cannot use means.... God is rendered impotent to extend grace if some means (such as preaching) is used. THAT is what I disagreed with, as everyone knows. I accept that you may not choose to accept that God can use Communion or preaching, but that's not the disagreement.

only God can forgive sin. You cannot coerce God to do this

Of course, no one disagrees with that. Just more diversion.

Matthew 26:26-28

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This IS my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

"THIS" (the cup he was holding)....
"IS" (present tense, not something future like after Easter but right now)....
"FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

Jesus said that.

Note what Scripture STATES:

THIS (not something else, what He holds)
IS (not isn't)
MY (Christ's)
BODY
BLOOD
BREAD
WINE
FORGIVENESS

Note what Scripture does NOT say:

Isn't
Nope
Just kidding
Can't be
symbol

First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Note what Scripture actually states"

THIS
IS
MY
BODY
BLOOD
BREAD
WINE
REMEMBER
FORGIVENESS

If this is done unworthily, it is guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord
We just examine ourselves first
If we don't recognize the Body of the Lord, we are judged.

If you are right.... and every Christian who has ever lived thinks that it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul here are just kidding, just using some symbol... that EVERY Christian thinks it is "OBVIOUS" Jesus and Paul only meant a mere symbol... then why verses 27 and 28 and 29? Does Scripture say the exact same things about the Star of David? About the Nike scoosh? About foot washing? Even about circumcision? All you'd claim are mere symbols?


What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we can do so in a "unworthy manner?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure... demands that first we "examine ourselves?" Please give examples.

What verse - "OBVIOUSLY" speaking of a mere symbol or figure.... demands that we "recognize" something? Please give examples.


IF this is NOT what is said.... but rather it's just a figure... then it's a completely, entirely, absolutely unique case! Not even circumcision has ANY of these things connected to it.

I reject your premise that if YOU feel something the Bible clearly says can't be true, therefore it's not and the words of God all have to be replaced with opposite ones so that to YOU the Bible is thus correct.


I reject your premise that theology is to be based entirely on words missing from the text, words such as NOT, ISN'T, CAN'T, SYMBOL, PRETEND, JUST KIDDING. I hold that it is better to found theology on the words there, words such as THIS, IS, MY, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, REMEMBER, FORGIVENESS.


I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in tbe first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).




.

 

[Albion]

I suggest you look up the Evangelical Free Church, a denomination that is much larger than the Lutheran denomination in the US.

LOL. The Evangelical Free Church has a reported membership of 180,000 as compared with approximately 7 to 9 million members in the various Lutheran churches in the USA.

Second, your question was what churches do not teach "means of grace" via communion and baptism. You asked me to list them. I did.

Your list was partially correct and partially incorrect, but the bottom line is exactly what I said.

You not only mischaracterized the views of the great majority of Christians and Christian denominations that you were criticizing as too much like "Rome," but the churches that DO adhere to the several views that you favor represent but a relatively small minority.

 

[Particular]

I reject your claim that forgiveness is not grace; that if God forgives that's not extending grace.

Your point is that God cannot use means.... God is rendered impotent to extend grace if some means (such as preaching) is used. THAT is what I disagreed with, as everyone knows. I accept that you may not choose to accept that God can use Communion or preaching, but that's not the disagreement.





Of course, no one disagrees with that. Just more diversion.




Note what Scripture STATES:

THIS (not something else, what He holds)
IS (not isn't)
MY (Christ's)
BODY
BLOOD
BREAD
WINE
FORGIVENESS

Note what Scripture does NOT say:

Isn't
Nope
Just kidding
Can't be
symbol


Note what Scripture actually states"

THIS
IS
MY
BODY
BLOOD
BREAD
WINE
REMEMBER
FORGIVENESS

If this is done unworthily, it is guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord
We just examine ourselves first
If we don't recognize the Body of the Lord, we are judged.




I reject your premise that if YOU feel something the Bible clearly says can't be true, therefore it's not and the words of God all have to be replaced with opposite ones so that to YOU the Bible is thus correct.


I reject your premise that theology is to be based entirely on words missing from the text, words such as NOT, ISN'T, CAN'T, SYMBOL, PRETEND, JUST KIDDING. I hold that it is better to found theology on the words there, words such as THIS, IS, MY, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, REMEMBER, FORGIVENESS.


I reject your claim that it's just "OBVIOUS" to everyone (and always has been) that Jesus and Paul are just speaking of some symbol.... Your claim is rendered incredible since you can't name ONE PERSON, not even one, who lived in tbe first 1500 years of Christianity who thought that AT ALL, much less as "obvious"..... and such a view is absurd, silly, laughable given the warnings and mandates of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, the context you just delete (along with this... is.... my.... body.... blood..... bread..... wine.... forgiveness).




.

I am not making the claim you are asserting that I make. Therefore you are confused and are rejecting a phantom claim you have created, not me.
My point is that you cannot coerce God to action by performing a ceremony.
Nowhere in the Bible do we observe an unrepentant sinner receiving communion and then, by God's gracious choosing, that person is saved. Nowhere in the Bible do we observe an unrepentant sinner being baptized and then, by God's gracious choosing, that person is saved.

It seems you are claiming that you can do anything you want and by circumstance God may, at that moment, graciously save a person so therefore teach that such an action is a means of grace.
That approach strikes me as horrific policy and an extremely poor way to manufacture doctrine out of silence. Moreso, it can ultimately be a vehicle that gives false comfort to the hell bound sinner. Do you want that on your conscience?

 

[Particular]

LOL. The Evangelical Free Church has a reported membership of 180,000 as compared with approximately 7 to 9 million members in the various Lutheran churches in the USA.


Your list was partially correct and partially incorrect, but the bottom line is exactly what I said.

You not only mischaracterized the views of the great majority of Christians and Christian denominations that you were criticizing as too much like "Rome," but the churches that DO adhere to the several views that you favor represent but a relatively small minority.

You assume, of course, that being on the membership roles makes you a Christian. Since the false doctrine of salvation by baptism is taught in your church there are literally millions who are dead in their sins who have been baptized in your church. Such knowledge should frighten you when you stand before God and he asks why you falsely told people they were saved by virtue of their baptism.
Second, such teaching is pure synergism and minimizes God to a secondary character in salvation while your church practice of baptism and communion gets elevated to preeminence.

 

[Albion]

You assume, of course, that being on the membership roles makes you a Christian.

I made no such assumption about any of the denominations that have been named here.

However, I think you are warming up to saying "Who knows? The statistics don't mean anything definite. Maybe there are millions upon millions of people who identify with the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance church or several other splinter churches, but do not hold membership. And there are none who are in the same situation with regards to the Lutheran or Episcopal or Catholic or other traditional church bodies," thereby refuting what you argued in your earlier posts here. There is no way for you to prevail by doing that.

Since the false doctrine of salvation by baptism is taught in your church

It is not taught in my church.