Importance of observing Communion

[Josiah]

jsimms435


IMO, the thread here is about the importance of receiving Communion, not self giving self the Sacrament?


Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst NOT giveth thyself a Sacrament?" I don't think so. Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst give thyself any Sacrament?" Nope.. I don't think we're going to address the question that way.


But, I think two things apply.....


1. We do have 2000 years of universal, ecumenical Tradition. How all Christians, everywhere, since Christ, have understood this. And I'm not aware that EVER has there been the understanding that self may baptize self or commune self or ordain self or marry self or anything else understood as a Sacrament by anyone. We don't find it in the Bible.... we don't fine this in the Early Church.... we don't find it anywhere, ever. Jesus instituted it within the framework of the Passover Meal which was a communal thing, never individualistic. He established it with His apostles, not by Himself. Paul addresses it, but always as a "when you come together." So, while I personally not aware of any verse that forbids it, we have universal, historic, complete consensus on the issue. Yes, one an dismiss Tradition (and thus dismiss the Bible since what is and is not embraced as such is a matter of Tradition) but I think it does need to be acknowledged. And yes, it could be that every Christian on the planet for 2000 years has been wrong about this, I don't for a moment deny that possibility, but I'd see the "burden of proof" on the one who holds that is the fact.


2. IMO, one of the tragic realities has been how individualism has infected so much of Christianity. Judaism was about the people of God. Christianity is, too. There is a strong COMMUNITY, family, communion, "oikos" aspect to Christianity. It is NOT all vertical - just Jesus and ME - it's also horizonal, Jesus and US. Christianity is one of two major world religions that was established in one culture/milieu but developed in another (Buddhism is the other); in our case, that was the Greco-Roman world, which was radically individualistic. SADLY, some of this infected Christianity like a cancer, and it has spread. It was made much worse by the Enlightenment. We've lost much of our sense of the church, the family of God, the community, the family, the "oikos" the communion of saints. "Fellowship" has simply become my enjoyment of donuts after church, lol. In THIS milieu, it's all vertical, Jesus and ME, selfish... and it's lead to much bad (including the whole thing that I can worship just as well in the shower or over the internet). We get all those "contemporary songs" about me, me, me, me, me. It's tragic. "COMMUNION" means to come-with-union. If self alone gives self alone communion, where is the union (other than with self)?



Thank you.


A blessed Advent to you and yours...


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Genesis 14:18 - Melchizedek, the first to be called "priest" offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper and commands that it be repeated regularly. His instructions were only to the Apostles and their successors.

Seems to me it was for the church as a whole, you know those believers that are saved or was the communion only for the apostles? I think not

 

[NewCreation435]

jsimms435


IMO, the thread here is about the importance of receiving Communion, not self giving self the Sacrament?


Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst NOT giveth thyself a Sacrament?" I don't think so. Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst give thyself any Sacrament?" Nope.. I don't think we're going to address the question that way.


But, I think two things apply.....


1. We do have 2000 years of universal, ecumenical Tradition. How all Christians, everywhere, since Christ, have understood this. And I'm not aware that EVER has there been the understanding that self may baptize self or commune self or ordain self or marry self or anything else understood as a Sacrament by anyone. We don't find it in the Bible.... we don't fine this in the Early Church.... we don't find it anywhere, ever. Jesus instituted it within the framework of the Passover Meal which was a communal thing, never individualistic. He established it with His apostles, not by Himself. Paul addresses it, but always as a "when you come together." So, while I personally not aware of any verse that forbids it, we have universal, historic, complete consensus on the issue. Yes, one an dismiss Tradition (and thus dismiss the Bible since what is and is not embraced as such is a matter of Tradition) but I think it does need to be acknowledged. And yes, it could be that every Christian on the planet for 2000 years has been wrong about this, I don't for a moment deny that possibility, but I'd see the "burden of proof" on the one who holds that is the fact.


2. IMO, one of the tragic realities has been how individualism has infected so much of Christianity. Judaism was about the people of God. Christianity is, too. There is a strong COMMUNITY, family, communion, "oikos" aspect to Christianity. It is NOT all vertical - just Jesus and ME - it's also horizonal, Jesus and US. Christianity is one of two major world religions that was established in one culture/milieu but developed in another (Buddhism is the other); in our case, that was the Greco-Roman world, which was radically individualistic. SADLY, some of this infected Christianity like a cancer, and it has spread. It was made much worse by the Enlightenment. We've lost much of our sense of the church, the family of God, the community, the family, the "oikos" the communion of saints. "Fellowship" has simply become my enjoyment of donuts after church, lol. In THIS milieu, it's all vertical, Jesus and ME, selfish... and it's lead to much bad (including the whole thing that I can worship just as well in the shower or over the internet). We get all those "contemporary songs" about me, me, me, me, me. It's tragic. "COMMUNION" means to come-with-union. If self alone gives self alone communion, where is the union (other than with self)?



Thank you.


A blessed Advent to you and yours...


- Josiah




.

I'm sorry I saw a false statement and called attention to it by asking for scripture which the scripture that was provided didn't prove anything. And instead of giving me scripture that actually proves the point I get whining.
Acts 2:46 says that the early believers of the church met in each others homes and broke bread together. It doesn't say that ministers or professional ministers where in charge of giving out the juice or wine and bread. It also doesn't negate that some could have done it alone if they lived alone. Is it the preference to do communion alone, no it is not. But, some situations may require it. Scripture doesn't say that a person can't do communion on their own or with one other person.
It isn't that church history isn't important at all. It is that it is very imperfect. As I have pointed out to you before, church history is full of corruption and very black periods. Because a practice was adopted for a period of time doesn't mean that it is right or that we should do it.

 

[Albion]

Seems to me it was for the church as a whole, you know those believers that are saved or was the communion only for the apostles? I think not

The right and obligation of conducting the ceremony we call the Lord's Supper was entrusted not to every disciple Christ had but specifically and very definitely only to his Apostles. That is what the Gospels tell us.

These were the men specifically given the responsibility of bringing the faith to the world and leading the churches. There is no question about this. And then other elders, missionaries, etc. were commissioned by the Apostles as the church grew. They administered the sacraments, including Holy Communion, i.e. the Lord's Supper.

 

[psalms 91]

The right and obligation of conducting the ceremony we call the Lord's Supper was entrusted not to every disciple Christ had but specifically and very definitely only to his Apostles. That is what the Gospels tell us.

These were the men specifically given the responsibility of bringing the faith to the world and leading the churches. There is no question about this. And then other elders, missionaries, etc. were commissioned by the Apostles as the church grew. They administered the sacraments, including Holy Communion, i.e. the Lord's Supper.

Again tradition not fact. The fact is that we are called to be kings and priests therefore it is lawful for us to fulfill the priests dutird. I am not saying this is preferred but I am saying there is nothing wrong with it. It is tradition for men to get married by a preacher or judge but lets face it marriage is just as lawful biublically if two people in front of witnesses declare their holy bond to one another, only diofference is that you will not enjoy the civil benefits.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION]
[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]

IMO, the thread here is about the importance of receiving Communion, not self giving self the Sacrament?


Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst NOT giveth thyself a Sacrament?" I don't think so. Is there a verse that says, "Thou canst give thyself any Sacrament?" Nope.. I don't think we're going to address the question that way.


But, I think two things apply.....


1. We do have 2000 years of universal, ecumenical Tradition. How all Christians, everywhere, since Christ, have understood this. And I'm not aware that EVER has there been the understanding that self may baptize self or commune self or ordain self or marry self or anything else understood as a Sacrament by anyone. We don't find it in the Bible.... we don't fine this in the Early Church.... we don't find it anywhere, ever. Jesus instituted it within the framework of the Passover Meal which was a communal thing, never individualistic. He established it with His apostles, not by Himself. Paul addresses it, but always as a "when you come together." So, while I personally not aware of any verse that forbids it, we have universal, historic, complete consensus on the issue. Yes, one an dismiss Tradition (and thus dismiss the Bible since what is and is not embraced as such is a matter of Tradition) but I think it does need to be acknowledged. And yes, it could be that every Christian on the planet for 2000 years has been wrong about this, I don't for a moment deny that possibility, but I'd see the "burden of proof" on the one who holds that is the fact.


2. IMO, one of the tragic realities has been how individualism has infected so much of Christianity. Judaism was about the people of God. Christianity is, too. There is a strong COMMUNITY, family, communion, "oikos" aspect to Christianity. It is NOT all vertical - just Jesus and ME - it's also horizonal, Jesus and US. Christianity is one of two major world religions that was established in one culture/milieu but developed in another (Buddhism is the other); in our case, that was the Greco-Roman world, which was radically individualistic. SADLY, some of this infected Christianity like a cancer, and it has spread. It was made much worse by the Enlightenment. We've lost much of our sense of the church, the family of God, the community, the family, the "oikos" the communion of saints. "Fellowship" has simply become my enjoyment of donuts after church, lol. In THIS milieu, it's all vertical, Jesus and ME, selfish... and it's lead to much bad (including the whole thing that I can worship just as well in the shower or over the internet). We get all those "contemporary songs" about me, me, me, me, me. It's tragic. "COMMUNION" means to come-with-union. If self alone gives self alone communion, where is the union (other than with self)?





.

instead of giving me scripture that actually proves the point I get whining.

Nope, I offered no whining. I simply addressed your point: Yup, there is no verse that states, "Thou canst baptize self, commune self, confirm self, marry self, ordain self and anything else thou wantest to do unto and for self." Nope, no such verse.

Acts 2:46 says that the early believers of the church met in each others homes and broke bread together.

Correct. No "Everyone art required to baptize self, commune self, ordain self, marry self, and anything else self desires to give or do unto self."

And note, it was a COMMUNITY. Nothing in that verse about each separate individual, nothing about "Bob stayed home and did not gather with other believers because Bob just preached to self, taught self, baptized self, communioned self, ordained self since Bob neededth not anyone or anything else but Bob." The verse you note stresses COMMUNITY, the TOGETHERNESS. Nothin' to affirm individualism.

It isn't that church history isn't important at all. It is that it is very imperfect. As I have pointed out to you before, church history is full of corruption and very black periods. Because a practice was adopted for a period of time doesn't mean that it is right or that we should do it.

As I noted, Tradition is not infallible. However, the Tradition on this matter is much stronger than is Scripture and yet you seem to have no problem accepting Tradition on that point.


As I noted, we have 2000 years of universal, ecumenical Tradition. How all Christians, everywhere, since Christ, have understood this. And I'm not aware that EVER has there been the understanding that self may baptize self or commune self or ordain self or marry self or anything else understood as a Sacrament by anyone. We don't find it in the Bible.... we don't fine this in the Early Church.... we don't find it anywhere, ever. Jesus instituted it within the framework of the Passover Meal which was a communal thing, never individualistic. He established it with His apostles, not by Himself. Paul addresses it, but always as a "when you come together." So, while I personally not aware of any verse that forbids self giving self the Sacraments, we have universal, historic, complete consensus on the issue. Yes, one an dismiss Tradition (and thus dismiss the Bible since what is and is not embraced as such is a matter of Tradition) but I think it does need to be acknowledged. And yes, it could be that every Christian on the planet for 2000 years has been wrong about this, I don't for a moment deny that possibility, but I'd see the "burden of proof" on the one who holds that is the fact.




You missed the other point: IMO, one of the tragic realities has been how individualism has infected so much of Christianity. Judaism was about the people of God. Christianity is, too. There is a strong COMMUNITY, family, communion, "oikos" aspect to Christianity. The coming together, joined together, being together. It is NOT all vertical - just Jesus and ME - it's also horizonal, Jesus and US. Christianity is one of two major world religions that was established in one culture/milieu but developed in another (Buddhism is the other); in our case, that was the Greco-Roman world, which was radically individualistic. SADLY, some of this infected Christianity like a cancer, and it has spread. It was made much worse by the Enlightenment. We've lost much of our sense of the church, the family of God, the community, the family, the "oikos" the communion of saints. "Fellowship" has simply become my enjoyment of donuts after church, lol. In THIS milieu, it's all vertical, Jesus and ME, selfish... and it's lead to much bad (including the whole thing that I can worship just as well in the shower or over the internet). We get all those "contemporary songs" about me, me, me, me, me. It's tragic. "COMMUNION" means to come-with-union. If self alone gives self alone communion, where is the union (other than with self)?




Thank you!


Back to the issue of the thread, the IMPORTANCE of Communion


Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

Again tradition not fact.

It's not tradition; it's history. It's what happened.

The fact is that we are called to be kings and priests therefore it is lawful for us to fulfill the priests dutird.

Call them something else then, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Pastors, perhaps. You need to address the issue here, just like your colleague needs to do. The issue is THE IMPORTANCE OF OBSERVING COMMUNION.

I am not saying this is preferred but I am saying there is nothing wrong with it. It is tradition for men to get married by a preacher or judge but lets face it marriage is just as lawful biublically if two people in front of witnesses declare their holy bond to one another, only diofference is that you will not enjoy the civil benefits.

The topic here is Holy Communion and its importance. Not matrimony.

 

[Josiah]

To the issue....

The Lutheran Confessions state that Lutherans celebrate this weekly, however, practice is rarely required so this is a statement of what was done, not what must be done. My parish does this every Sunday and I think this is common but not universal among Lutherans.


Why is it important?


1. We are told to. "DO THIS often....." When God tells us to do something, it's likely a good idea to do it. Of course, "OFTEN" is rather subjective. But is 4 times a year "often?" If you and your spouse had sex 4 times a year, would you say that's clearly "often?" (lol.... but you get my point; perhaps).


2. There is forgiveness, grace, mercy. Those are good things to receive!


3. We are remembering Jesus - and the grace, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, etc. that are ours via His Body and Blood. And that seems good.



Now, for the Zwinglians, yeah.... it's hard to come up with any reason. It's just a symbolic thing (just like foot washing and circumcision - neither of which they ever do) but to them, there is this supremely ODD, very WEIRD, very inappropriate COMMAND to "do it." How inconvenient! My brothers huge mega church does it once at year, at a special evening service attended only by the ex-Catholics and ex-Lutherans in their midst) cuz well, like taxes, it's something you gotta do. I "get it" - if Communion is ONLY a symbol, then there really is no reason to do it except Jesus thought there was and thus commanded it.





.

MY view.... as to the issue of "how often" and "why important."




A blessed Advent to all




.

 

[NewCreation435]

[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION]
[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]





Nope, I offered no whining. I simply addressed your point: Yup, there is no verse that states, "Thou canst baptize self, commune self, confirm self, marry self, ordain self and anything else thou wantest to do unto and for self." Nope, no such verse.







Correct. No "Everyone art required to baptize self, commune self, ordain self, marry self, and anything else self desires to give or do unto self."

And note, it was a COMMUNITY. Nothing in that verse about each separate individual, nothing about "Bob stayed home and did not gather with other believers because Bob just preached to self, taught self, baptized self, communioned self, ordained self since Bob neededth not anyone or anything else but Bob." The verse you note stresses COMMUNITY, the TOGETHERNESS. Nothin' to affirm individualism.







As I noted, Tradition is not infallible. However, the Tradition on this matter is much stronger than is Scripture and yet you seem to have no problem accepting Tradition on that point.


As I noted, we have 2000 years of universal, ecumenical Tradition. How all Christians, everywhere, since Christ, have understood this. And I'm not aware that EVER has there been the understanding that self may baptize self or commune self or ordain self or marry self or anything else understood as a Sacrament by anyone. We don't find it in the Bible.... we don't fine this in the Early Church.... we don't find it anywhere, ever. Jesus instituted it within the framework of the Passover Meal which was a communal thing, never individualistic. He established it with His apostles, not by Himself. Paul addresses it, but always as a "when you come together." So, while I personally not aware of any verse that forbids self giving self the Sacraments, we have universal, historic, complete consensus on the issue. Yes, one an dismiss Tradition (and thus dismiss the Bible since what is and is not embraced as such is a matter of Tradition) but I think it does need to be acknowledged. And yes, it could be that every Christian on the planet for 2000 years has been wrong about this, I don't for a moment deny that possibility, but I'd see the "burden of proof" on the one who holds that is the fact.




You missed the other point: IMO, one of the tragic realities has been how individualism has infected so much of Christianity. Judaism was about the people of God. Christianity is, too. There is a strong COMMUNITY, family, communion, "oikos" aspect to Christianity. The coming together, joined together, being together. It is NOT all vertical - just Jesus and ME - it's also horizonal, Jesus and US. Christianity is one of two major world religions that was established in one culture/milieu but developed in another (Buddhism is the other); in our case, that was the Greco-Roman world, which was radically individualistic. SADLY, some of this infected Christianity like a cancer, and it has spread. It was made much worse by the Enlightenment. We've lost much of our sense of the church, the family of God, the community, the family, the "oikos" the communion of saints. "Fellowship" has simply become my enjoyment of donuts after church, lol. In THIS milieu, it's all vertical, Jesus and ME, selfish... and it's lead to much bad (including the whole thing that I can worship just as well in the shower or over the internet). We get all those "contemporary songs" about me, me, me, me, me. It's tragic. "COMMUNION" means to come-with-union. If self alone gives self alone communion, where is the union (other than with self)?




Thank you!


Back to the issue of the thread, the IMPORTANCE of Communion


Josiah






.

I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned whining.
I do agree with you when you talk about the individualism of today and the danger of interpreting things in a vacuum without considering other believers point of view. I think we see some of that in this forum where individuals simply study at home and don't go to church or look at how the verses have been interpreted in the past. I could name a few people on here who do that. You get wild interpretations not based on any history at all.

 

[NewCreation435]

I want to mention why communion is important to me as a person who has a history in the Baptist tradition. I think it has to do with the fact that the cross and resurrection are the key cornerstones of our faith. Without it the gospel simply isn't the gospel. Jesus mentioned in the gospel of John that he had been sent by the Father at least 20 times. He was on mission. Part of that mission as to be our Savior and to die and rise again. Communion reminds me of that and the sacrifice that he made for us. It is a very special time in the life of the church and not to be entered into lightly.

 

[Lamb]

I want to mention why communion is important to me as a person who has a history in the Baptist tradition. I think it has to do with the fact that the cross and resurrection are the key cornerstones of our faith. Without it the gospel simply isn't the gospel. Jesus mentioned in the gospel of John that he had been sent by the Father at least 20 times. He was on mission. Part of that mission as to be our Savior and to die and rise again. Communion reminds me of that and the sacrifice that he made for us. It is a very special time in the life of the church and not to be entered into lightly.

There are parts of what you wrote that I completely agree with...

And here is why Communion is important to me...because it's a means that God uses to bring the cross to me personally to increase my faith by eating Jesus' very body and blood for the forgiveness of my sins. I look to the resurrection in assurance that God has me in His hands and Communion isn't something I "have" to do but that I long for.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I want to mention why communion is important to me as a person who has a history in the Baptist tradition. I think it has to do with the fact that the cross and resurrection are the key cornerstones of our faith. Without it the gospel simply isn't the gospel. Jesus mentioned in the gospel of John that he had been sent by the Father at least 20 times. He was on mission. Part of that mission as to be our Savior and to die and rise again. Communion reminds me of that and the sacrifice that he made for us. It is a very special time in the life of the church and not to be entered into lightly.

Imo, I think this point gets lost in the shuffle when the sacraments are being discussed with mainline Protestants. I know much of the time discussion in other threads can focus on the body/blood/bread/wine matter, and not so much on the point you've made. And it is important. When communing, it's important for me to keep the perspective of the ultimate sacrifice that Christ has made - coming to the foot of the cross in humility and asking for forgiveness. That foundation brings more significance (for me as a Lutheran) to the other matters.

 

[atpollard]

[1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB]

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 [He took] the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink [it,] in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.​

So what was “this bread” and “cup”? (I am not speaking of real presence vs symbolic).

• If the event being remembered was the Passover Meal that Jesus shared with His Apostles, then the bread was not just any bread, it was the unleavened bread of the Passover feast and the cup was the ceremonial cups drunk at the Passover meal. If this is the intent, then it need only be performed once per year (around Easter on the Passover) in remembrance of a specific event ... like an Ebenezer (stone of remembrance from the Old Testament).
• If the thing being remembered is the Jesus Christ himself as the Bread of Life and the ongoing New Covenant in His Blood, then the Scripture could be read as a call for us to remember that it is Christ (the Bread of Life) that sustains us every time we eat any bread ... making this an act of worship at every meal. Along the same line, every time we drink anything (wine was the bottled water of the First Century) we are to be reminded that Christ is the “Living Water” that sustains our grace.

The ceremony (real or symbolic) is an act of corporate worship, uniting the believers as “one body” with each other and with Christ. It is appropriate for a congregation to set aside a time to do it ... but WEEKLY is not a biblical command. What is important about the corporate celebration is that the whole body participate. What is important about the Scriptural Command is remembering Christ.