| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 224 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dear valued friends, As I make my journey out of the theological confusion of Adventism, I find myself often trying to figure out what is Biblical vs. what I was taught that Ellen White dreamed up. In considering elementary school choices for my son this next year, today I stopped by one of the local Lutheran elementary schools. This school is part of a church complex that is a member of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. I have read many good things here on the forums about LCMS, and as a result hold LCMS in high regard. In the church foyer they had a number of attractive brochures addressing various subjects. The one that caught my attention is called "What about ... Fellowship in the Lord's Supper". Inside it says,
The full text can be found at http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/believe/wafellow.php When I was formerly and Adventist I remember the pastor stating that the Adventist Church practiced "open communion". Currently I attend the Evangelical Free Church where the pastor states the same thing and the communion service appears (on the surface at least) to be quite similar to how it is done in Adventism (minus the foot-washing). I also recently attended a nearby Lutheran church that I believe Stan told me was evangelical + congregational where they stated that they practiced "open communion". I have been of the impression from my past Adventist teaching that the form of communion that the Catholic church teaches promotes the idea that the wine and bread are somehow the literal blood and body of Christ. I was also familiarized with the Waldenses, etc, who refused to participate in Mass because this viewpoint was viewed as unbiblical. Perhaps I am "up in the night", but I thought that as an Adventist I had been taught that the grape juice and wafer "represented" the blood and body of Christ, and that "this do in remembrance of me" -- something like that. After reading this booklet I am not quite sure what I thought. I have never made a detailed study of the subject from the Bible. In 8th grade at Andrews University Elementary School our entire class went through "baptismal class" one semester, instead of the regular Bible class (eg study Patriarchs and Prophets for a whole semester!). All but two students were then afterwards baptised in a large impressive baptismal service at Pioneer Memorial Church. So at least some of what I learned came from the study materials we were provided with for class. In this LCMS booklet I read about the following interpretations: 1. "true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine", 2. the false teachings of Mass 3. that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine is actually changed into the body and blood of Christ 4. that it is representative as symbols of the body and blood of our Lord What is the difference between #1 and #3? And weren't we taught #4 as Adventists? What would be the difference between "true body" and "false body"? While the reasoning behind having a closed communion sounds like, perhaps a scriptural one that LCMS is certainly entitled to, that also is quite different from what I (think that) I have been taught... I feel like I am being drawn into another conundrum similar to trying to understand a single God of three persons that are (is) actually one being. I have developed the highest regard and respect for both the LCMS and the Evangelical Free Church. Also what are the finer points here of why the first would practice "closed communion" but the second, "open communion"? Can anyone help me understand from a former Adventist perspective what is actually being said here? Most gratefully, Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1518 Registered: 3-2005 |
Gilbert, I am not a Lutheran, and I am sure Ric and Raven, and Cathy2 can do better, but I will give it a try. Martin Luther was certainly influenced by Rome, but his passion was to reform RCC at first rather than leave it. However, Luther still had a very high view of communion. He strongly believed--contrary to the Anabaptists--that there was a true mystical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and the wine. Luther also believed it was a means of grace. Lutherans, since they have such a high view of communion feel very strongly that the Lord's table should be guarded very carefully, and that they want to be sure that those who partake are really true believers, and understand the holy significance of communion. That is why they have closed communion. I really do believe that there is much more to the communion than just a symbol and a memorial to the Lord's death. There is something very beautiful about taking communion with real wine, and realizing that in some mysterious way that Christ is literally ministering to you and building you up. It is not necessary for salvation, but just like a true regenerate Christian will receive grace from regular Bible study, so Communion in that way is a means of grace. The EV free view is the other major view, and it is similar to SDAs understanding of communion. And that is that the elements are symbolic, and point back as a memorial to the Lord's death. They also strongly feel that the communion table shoud be open to anyone who professes to be a believer. But they will advise against unbelievers from taking communion. These are two different views. But these are not issues for Christians to divide over. If you are being blessed Gilbert at the EV free church, then by all means stay. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 459 Registered: 7-2004  |
Not all Lutheran synods practice closed communion, but the more conservative ones do. There is certainly plenty of debate on the topic. It is one of the issues that is under debate in the LCMS. Stan did a nice job of summarizing the Lutheran position. One of the questions surrounding closed communion is whether the church or the individual should be responsible for "guarding" communion. If you want to look over some of the debate on this subject you could look to these two threads on CARM. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=541 http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=1842 And I will concur strongly with Stan's statement that these are not issues for Christians to divide over. Communion is what it is, regardless of what we understand doctrinally about it. If there is a mysterious way in which Christ is literally ministering to us then this is present and true even if we don't understand. If it is only symbolic, even those who believe it is more also believe and appreciate the symbols as well. Thus I don't find it a reason for division, nor do I find it a reason to have concern about the group of believers with which I commune. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3727 Registered: 12-2003  |
One other thing about communion I now appreciate is that, just like baptism, it is a connection I share with all those who are unified with me in Christ through the Holy Spirit. For nearly 2,000 years Christ-followers have shared this table with each other, honoring our Savior and Redeemer. It is an intimate connection [have you ever pondered that sharing a meal with people really is an intimate, personally vulnerable thing to do?] that we quite literally share invisibly with each other and with Jesus. Amazing. Colleen | ||
| Mrsbrian3 Registered user Username: Mrsbrian3 Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2005 |
What amazes me is how quickly I became accustomed to participating in communion on a weekly basis. For several months we attended a church that celebrated the wine and the bread weekly. Then we found some things being taught there that we just didn't feel comforable with, plus their kids programs were too playful and not enough biblical, so we started the search again. Most of the churches we have visited in the past few months must only celebrate communion on a monthly or quarterly basis, so it's been awhile. I REALLY miss it. Which is funny because when I was an SDA it really didn't seem to matter. It wasn't that big a deal. Maybe it is just me. Whatever the reason, I sure have been missing out on a MAJOR blessing all these years! Kim | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 418 Registered: 7-2004  |
After worshipping in other churches for almost two years now, I think I can say that I've probably participated in more Communions outside the SDA church than in it! Especially when you count 4 times a year the SDA church does, the times we missed because we didn't want to do footwashing, and the several years we didn't attend anywhere -- then in the non-SDA churches some of them had it every month, some had it every week, and where we've been going the last six+ months they have it twice a month, plus special occasions, and everytime there's a 5th Sunday in the month. I agree, having Communion so infrequently is really missing out on an important and very real blessing! | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 254 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hey...this makes me think of a question I keep forgetting to ask. Why specifically, do Adventists do footwashing with the communion service? I mean, I don't see that mandated by Christ. Atually, HE did the footwashing before the last supper... Any thoughts would be appreciated. Patria | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 419 Registered: 7-2004 |
The footwashing Jesus did I think is only recorded in John, and it is in conjunction with the Last Supper. I would say proponents of footwashing do it because John 13:14,15 says
However, there is no indication in the New Testament churches of that ever happening again. It tells several times of participating in the Lord's Supper, but is silent about footwashing. When John 13:14,15 is read in its context, it seems the example of Jesus was for the point of showing servanthood, and all Christians should be servants to others' needs. I'm not sure footwashing today promotes servanthood--it mostly promotes people trying to hook up with whoever they're the closest to, or skipping so they don't have to feel uncomfortable. As SDA's, we only participated once they started offering "family" rooms, so spouses could wash each other's feet. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 115 Registered: 2-2006 |
When I was learning and coming into the LCMS Lutheran synod, the pastor explained that 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 is the basis of closed Communion for this synod. It is protective to the unbeliever, as well as to the sanctity of The Lord's Supper, not an exclusive, cliquish action for the believer.(which it can seem like to outsiders) It is up to each local pastor whom takes Communion or not, including visitors. Our 2 different pastors were flexible. I have found that asking a pastor gets me better explainations, sometimes, on deeper subjects and complements what I read online and in books for an everyday, personal kind of understanding. Our pastor allowed us to participate before an official joining because he knew we knew the Gospel and understood Communion and the seriousness of it. We had formally been in a Chruch of God; before that non-denom. Even though they had been baptized, our older children did not partake because they had not been through Confirmation (7/8th grades), yet(learning more of the Bible and their faith, so they will fully understand what they believe). Also, Lutherans do not believe in Transsubstantiation as Catholics do, although, it can sound like it in some articles or explainations. The Real Presence is a Holy Spirit means. It is a mystery of God, which cannot be intellectually explained completely. In the ancient church (before Catholicism) Communion and baptism were called The Mysteries before they were called by these other phrases and/or Sacraments (scared act of God--means of grace). Here is the LCMS site blurb, from their FAQ's, plus many other categories (like the Real Presence) about The Lord's Supper: 'The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion").' issuesetc.org has articles, which are more user-friendly for understanding; at least, they were for me.  That is if you still are interested. Like Stan said, if you are at peace where you are, remain. But if you feel the Holy Spirit drawing you towards somewhere else, by all means study, ask all the questions you have of the local pastor and pray in scripture for understanding. We humans will not ever understand the mysteries of God 100%, but we do benefit from his Graces and do know of it. Christ makes sure of that. Grace to you~ Cathy | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 116 Registered: 2-2006 |
Correction: I wrote "scared act of God"! LOL! Meant: 'sacred act of God'! No, we do not love and trust a scared god, but a Sacred God. Sorry, Cathy | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 117 Registered: 2-2006 |
It's not my day to post. Here is the URL for the LCMS Lord's Supper FAQ's site: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3968 | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 460 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, it is interesting that even your statement from a more symbolic viewpoint of communion still involves more than what we generally understood within SDAism And it also helps to show how much similarity truly exists, even within the differences of views. An intimate connection that we literally share is more the just a symbol to help us remember. I am convinced that there is a profound Spiritual reality of communion. I don't pretend to understand the mysteries of what that Spiritual connection may be, and Scripture doesn't give us much to base our conclusions on either. Much like Cathy described her experience, we are not members of the LCMS church, but we participate in communion. So it is not a closed communion in the sense that some are. Even still, it is one of the areas where I disagree with the LCMS. Scripture asks that we examine ourselves, not that the church opens or closes communion to whom it sees fit. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3732 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good insights, Rick. Actually, now that you mention it, I think my statement which you quoted above is more a result of my experience than of my analysis. I'm finding it rather interesting now to think about it a bit more deeply. I remember the first baptism I witnessed after studying Acts 2 in women's Bible study and being overwhelmed to the point of tears that this was a significant observance which connected every new believer with every other believer for the past 2,000 years through a shared belonging to Christ. I had never seen the universal reality of baptism that way before. Communion has come to look like the same sort of thing to me, and it makes sense to me a bit more when I think of it in light of Ephesians 4:3-6. As Christ-followers we have unity of the Spirit, and we are admonished to "keep" this unity through the "bond of peace". Further, there is "one body and one Spirit..." Somehow the Holy Spirit really does connect us all IN CHRIST (I don't completely understand that, but it is amazing!), and when we eat communion together, we are celebrating the Lord Jesus' body with each other through the Holy Spirit who holds us all as an organism complete IN Christ. It's rather breath-taking, and I can't quite get my mind around it! Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 79 Registered: 1-2004  |
If you take a high view of communion, and then understand this text - EPH 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. - literally, you can come up with the idea that we literally unite our flesh to Jesus' flesh in a mystery during communion, as we are united in spirit as well. This might have something to do with why Christians historically have had worship centered around the Lord's supper. Jeremiah | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 461 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, in my mind much of the difficulty that has arisen over the doctrine of communion has been because people try to get their minds around a mystery that is not well described in Scripture. And having created an explanation that makes sense to them, they codify that explanation and insist that others wrap their minds around the mystery in exactly the same way. I am learning now to rejoice in mysteries that I can't wrap my mind around. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 119 Registered: 2-2006 |
Well said, Ric_b!!!! What else is faith, but acceppting what we have not seen nor mentally understand fully, yet still believe and participate in, in the unity of Christ? The pagan Greeks just had to have human intellect and their gods reflected this. The Jews just had to have works and their system reflects this. True Christianity, including mysteries of God, transcends both, and those who accept this, in faith, begin to just 'know', discern it, through the Holy Spirit. If we humans would just accept that God is God, uncreated, beyond us--utterly cannot be absolutely intellectualy quantified, all wrapped up in our limited minds, even through scripture and Jesus on earth, we would have had less disputing for 2000 years. Long ago, I noticed that EGW wrapped up God and all else into a box, to the nth detail, presenting it as Truth. It may be very, very secure to know it all, to every detail, but it doesn't necessarily make it very correct. We only know (anything) partially right now; when he comes, then we will know face to face. Jeremiah, I have just re-discovered that verse and will be searching for expository articles on it. It goes along with some other things I have been pondering about Christ's death, blood and flesh concerning us, in the past few months. Colleen, I have experienced what you described, too, with baptism and Communion, in past decades. There can be great and deep peace and joys beyond our understanding... In Christ, Cathy | ||
| Freeindeed Registered user Username: Freeindeed Post Number: 17 Registered: 3-2006 |
Colleen, Ric_b, Cathy, Stan, (and any others), thank you for your insights and comments. I never looked forward to communion growing up because of the foot washing and the formality and dead/heavy feeling that came along with it. I can remember my mother bowing her head after she would crunch on the hard bread and drink the thimble-full of Welches grape juice, and pray. Everyone did. I would bow my head too and try to pray some formal-sounding prayer to a God I didn't really know. Mostly I would listen to the unified crunching of the communion bread and I wanted to laugh but knew it was too "holy" of a moment to do so. It didn't seem like that big of a deal really. More of a formality that we had to do because the Bible told us to. I was always glad when it was over, and even "gladder" when we had to be gone on that Sabbath. My perspective has changed drastically though and I'm not sure when it happened. But as I read the Bible I came to realize how important and significant communion is. Colleen, you described it so well. It connects all Christians and, somehow (mystery?), unites us in Christ. I don't have to understand it or be able to wrap my mind around it (mostly because I don't think I can), but it carries significance that I never experienced before. As often as we do it, we do it in remembrance of HIM! It's not just reserved for a church service once every 13 weeks. I now "remember" every time I drink grape juice (even if it's not Welches), and "break" bread, as often as I do it. My mother would say this is irreverant and reserved for a church service. But I see it as just the opposite. It is holy reverance in an ordinary moment on an ordinary day eating an ordinary meal. They are God-moments where my family and I simply remember. I do communion at church too but for different reasons now. I still want to laugh at the crunching. I skip out on the foot washing (still an SDA member, but journeying out). But I enjoy the connection with the rest of the body of believers in Christ (globally). As often as we do it... Freeindeed | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 154 Registered: 12-2004 |
Great thread folks. I am appreciating all of your insights. Freeindeed,it's good to hear from you again. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 80 Registered: 1-2004 |
Looks like the view of Ephesians 5:30 I mentioned does in fact have historical support; Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century says this; 3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,14 from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."15 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;16 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,17 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,18 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality,19 that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves? -Irenaeus Against Heresies book V. Some deep theology there... Jeremiah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, yet another interesting thread I've arrived at too late! I like what Colleen & others shared about how taking the Lord's Supper really is a connection between us all throughout all the ages. It's wonderful to try and wrap your mind around... it's so huge! I was shocked several years ago when reading the conversion story of Charles Finney (forget the debate about his theology, I'm only talking about the beginning) because it was obvious he met the same Guy (that is, Jesus) that I met. And then reading the words & especially hymns of the Wesleys... they knew the same Jesus! And then reading things by C.S. Lewis---we knew the same Guy! As we meet Jesus, we meet the same Guy who has guided all of these people in the past. It's really fun just between friends to discover that you both know a mutual friend. It's so much more awesome, though, to realize this "down through the ages", that we know the same Guy whom Luther met, whom Calvin met, whom Tozer met, whom all the martyrs rested their lives on, etc. An experience that really halted me was when I was explaining something to a friend about God's grace or presence, and my friend said "I know!" suddenly, and we both just smiled and cried. My friend already knew the same Guy I did! I also liked what Freeindeed shared about the dead/heavy feeling that came with communion in the old days. I wrote something along those lines awhile back here: http://fulfilledinjesus.blogspot.com/2005/09/supper-of-grace.html I'm really enjoying having the Lord's Supper together at home(s) with whatever believers happen to be together. It's wonderful, intimate, and refreshing. I soooo look forward to that! (Thank You, Jesus!) |
