Views of Communion and the Lord's Supper

brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
[ Specific issue here, so that discussion can continue. ] ;)

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."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


Matthew 26:26-27

With this meal, with these words, our Lord set down a tradition which is handed down to this day -- but not practiced with the same mindset between beliefs.

The Lord's Supper, also called the Eucharist, or Communion, essentially repeats Jesus' words that night, and commemorates that last meal with him and his friends, and the sacrifice he gave the next day.

There are four major views of the Eucharist among the churches, each interpretation forming a broad spectrum of differences regarding how the ceremony is involved in the actual sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

The Roman Catholic view, called "transubstantiation," states that as the Lord's Supper is repeated at Consecration and Communion, the bread and wine are miraculously transformed, physically AND spiritually, into the actual body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist becomes the Sacrifice, and the grace of Christ is transmitted to the believer through the sacrament.

The Lutheran view, on the other hand, holds that while the Sacrifice is repeated in the sacrament, the bread and wine do not physically transform into flesh and blood, and that the grace of Christ is transmitted spiritually. One is still partaking of the body and blood of Christ, but not in an actual physical sense. I think this is referred to as "consubstantiation."

The Calvinist view has it that the sacrifice itself is not transmitted through the sacrament, but the body of Christ is still present in it, though only in a spiritual manner. As such, the sacrament is not necessarily effectual to one's salvation, but is still a channel for the benefits of salvation and communion with Christ, still a necessity for one's Christian life.

The Zwinglian view is the least extreme on the spectrum, treating the Eucharist as a mere memorial of the sacrifice based on Christ's words, "Do this in memory of me." The body is not actually present in the elements, except in the essence of Christ's omnipresence as Lord. As such, while the bread and wine are still treated with reverence, no special meaning is ascribed to them, the presence of the Lord being purely spiritual apart from them.

Just for the record, I recently switched from Zwinglian to Calvinist, after reading an interesting verse in 1 Corinthians 11. I strongly believe that Calvin had the right biblical idea of the Eucharist according to what the early apostolic church taught, that effective benefits of salvation and communion with Christ come through the Eucharist, but only for edification, and not actual salvation, which comes only by grace. (Any Calvinists correct me if I'm wrong, though.)

Catholics hold to transubstantiation, while Lutherans and Episcopalians are, of course, Lutheran. Most modern Evangelicals use Zwingli's model today, although the historical Reformed Protestant norm was once Calvinist. Today, even staunchly Calvinist Presbyterian churches are being invaded by Zwinglian mindsets, which is not necessarily a good thing.

So, which view do you hold as Biblical? And why?

Which view of the Eucharist do you hold to?

Sign in to vote!
This is a private poll: no-one will see what you voted for.
«1

Comments

  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Um, you know what? I'm not sure I have the Calvinist model absolutely down pat. Here's a couple of articles from a Calvinist-Baptist resource, which outline the Reformed view better than I ever could...

    Overview of the Lord's Supper, Charles Hodge:
    http://graceonlinelibrary.org/theology/full.asp?ID=367

    Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, A. A. Hodge:
    http://graceonlinelibrary.org/theology/full.asp?ID=510
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
    The correct way and practice of The Lord's Supper is found in St. Paul's teaching in:

    1 Corinthians 11:17-33
    17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.
    18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.
    19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.
    20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,
    21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
    22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
    23 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, 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.
    30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
    31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.
    32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
    33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
    And when I come I will give further directions.

    1 Corinto 11:17-33
    17 Ngayon, sa sasabihin ko, hindi ko kayo pinupuri sapagkat ang pagtitipon ninyo ay hindi para sa ikabubuti kundi sa lalong ikasasama.
    18 Ito ay sapagkat una sa lahat, sa pagtitipun-tipon ninyo sa iglesiya, naririnig ko na may pagkakampi-kampi sa inyo. Naniniwala ako na maaaring ito ay totoo.
    19 Ito ay sapagkat kinakailangang mahayag ang pangkat na nagtuturo ng mga kamalian na nasa inyo nang sa gayon ay mahayag ang mga katanggap-tangap sa Diyos.
    20 Sa pagtitipon ninyo sa isang dako, hindi kayo nagtitipon upang kumain ng hapunan ng Panginoon.
    21 Ito ay sapagkat sa inyong pagkain, ang bawat isa ay kumakain ng kani-kaniyang hapunan nang una sa iba. Kaya ang isa ay gutom at ang isa ay lasing.
    22 Hindi ba mayroon kayong mga bahay upang doon kumain at uminom? O baka naman hinahamak ninyo ang iglesiya ng Diyos at ipinapahiya ang mga walang pagkain? Ano ang dapat kong sabihin? Pupurihin ko ba kayo sa ganito? Hindi ko kayo pupurihin.
    23 Ito ay sapagkat tinanggap ko mula sa Panginoon ang siya ko namang ibinibigay sa inyo. Ang Panginoong Jesus, nang gabing siya ay ipinagkanulo, ay kumuha ng tinapay.
    24 Pagkatapos niyang magpasalamat, pinagputul-putol niya ito, at sinabi: Kunin ninyo, kainin ninyo, ito ang aking katawan na pinagputul-putol para sa inyo. Gawin ninyo ito sa pag-alaala sa akin.
    25 Sa gayunding paraan kinuha niya ang saro pagkatapos maghapunan. Sinabi niya: Ang sarong ito ay ang bagong tipan sa aking dugo. Sa tuwing kayo ay iinom nito, gawin ninyo ito sa pag-alaala sa akin.
    26 Ito ay sapagkat sa tuwing kakain kayo ng tinapay na ito at iinom sa sarong ito, inihahayag ninyo ang kamatayan ng Panginoon hanggang sa siya ay dumating.
    27 Ang sinumang kumain ng tinapay at uminom sa saro ng hindi nararapat ay nagkakasala sa katawan at dugo ng Panginoon.
    28 Ngunit suriin muna ng tao ang kaniyang sarili. Pagkatapos hayaan siyang kumain ng tinapay at uminom sa saro.
    29 Ito ay sapagkat siya na kumakain at umiinom nang hindi karapat-dapat ay kumakain at umiinom ng kahatulan sa kaniyang sarili. Hindi niya kinikilala nang tama ang katawan ng Panginoon.
    30 Dahil dito marami sa inyo ang mahihina at may karamdaman at marami ang natulog na.
    31 Ito ay sapagkat hindi tayo hahatulan kung hahatulan natin ang ating mga sarili.
    32 Kung tayo ay hinahatulan, tayo ay tinuturuan upang hindi tayo mahatulang kasama ng sanlibutan.
    33 Kaya nga, mga kapatid, sa inyong pagtitipon upang kumain, maghintayan kayo sa isa’t isa.
    _________________________________________________________

    So, my vote goes to: NONE OF THE ABOVE.

    Why? Because the teaching of Paul about The Lord's Supper is not LITERAL supper, but SPIRITUAL supper. In fact, he scolded those who took the Lord's Supper literally. Yes, the first Lord's Supper was literal, but Christ did it so that we could understand the deeper meaning of His Supper.

    Remember that ST. Paul was not present during the LAST SUPPER of Jesus Christ before he was crucified. But St. Paul says this:

    1 Corinthians 11:23-24
    "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 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."

    "Ito ay sapagkat tinanggap ko mula sa Panginoon ang siya ko namang ibinibigay sa inyo. Ang Panginoong Jesus, nang gabing siya ay ipinagkanulo, ay kumuha ng tinapay. Pagkatapos niyang magpasalamat, pinagputul-putol niya ito, at sinabi: Kunin ninyo, kainin ninyo, ito ang aking katawan na pinagputul-putol para sa inyo. Gawin ninyo ito sa pag-alaala sa akin."


    So, ang pinapagawa sa atin ni Kristo ay hindi literal na hapunan, sapagkat sabi ni Paul, "for I received from the Lord that I also passed on to you..." Yung nareceived ni Paul kay Christ na Supper ay hindi literal because he wasn't present in that first LORD'S SUPPER.

    Next, I will discuss the meaning and symbolisms of "bread", "wine", and body" in the Lord's supper.

    to be continued...
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    MEM, you seem to have completely misconstrued all four views mentioned, with this claim that they take the Lord's Supper as a literal meal. They do not.

    Neither Romanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, nor Zwinglianism declares nor practices the Eucharist as a literal meal in any way. The breaking of the bread and the sharing of the wine are practiced as a commemoration (for Romanists and Lutherans, a reenactment) of Jesus' sacrifice and a communion with the Body of Christ -- him and his church.

    Bread is eaten and wine is drunk at communion, and Paul is indeed admonishing the church at Corinth in 1Cor, for practicing communion in an unworthy manner as though this were a mere worldly supper. But I've seen communion among Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, and none of them practice or view the Eucharist as a literal meal. So none of your "literal meal" accusations holds water. What's up with that?

    Any other input, anyone else?
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Anyway, it was precisely because of an indepth reading of 1 Corinthians 11 that I changed my mind about the Lord's Supper, from Zwingli to Calvin. I had originally believed that the breaking of the bread was merely a memorial that we practiced for remembrance and nothing else. However, Paul tells us in that chapter that we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves when we do it in an unworthy manner -- not "recognizing the body and blood of the Lord."

    Which means that the body and blood are there in the bread and wine, and should be recognized. At the same time, however, I could not subscribe to a Romanist/Lutheran view which says that the body and blood are there for salvific grace, and that we partake of the sacrifice by partaking of the bread and wine. Paul tells us that salvation is by grace through faith, and not by the transmission of a Eucharistic tradition.

    Calvin's view on this seems to be the perfect balance: communion as a partaking of Christ's body through the Holy Spirit, and a source of spiritual blessing and renewal, but not a source of eternal salvation in itself.
  • PaulDamascusPaulDamascus Praise be YHWH PExer
    To brownpau

    Kung hindi literal na tinatangkilik ng Romanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, nor Zwinglianism ang Lord Supper o Santa Cena, eh bakit may kinakain parin silang literal na tinapay at alak. Diba literal nun ang pagkaunawa niyan sa Lord Supper????
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Originally posted by PaulDamascus
    To brownpau

    Kung hindi literal na tinatangkilik ng Romanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, nor Zwinglianism ang Lord Supper o Santa Cena, eh bakit may kinakain parin silang literal na tinapay at alak. Diba literal nun ang pagkaunawa niyan sa Lord Supper????
    We practice it as the Lord taught us: to commemorate him, we pass around bits of bread and wine, just as he passed around bread and wine to his apostles.

    A reading of 1 Cor 11 shows us that we are indeed supposed to eat bread and drink wine as part of that legacy, but that the members of the church at Corinth abused the practice by eating too much and even getting drunk, without concern for each other, and without reverence for the body and blood of Christ.

    Is the practice of literally eating bread and wine established at the Lord's Supper by Christ?

    The answer is Yes. Paul tells us that it is received from Christ, and that we are to eat of the bread and drink of the cup after proper self-examination (1 Cor 11:28), that we are to do it together (1 Cor 11:33), and that eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper is serious business, because if we do it in an improper manner, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves (1 Cor 11:29).

    The issue being discussed is not whether we are supposed to literally eat bread and wine or not. Scripture treats it as self-evident that the bread and wine are to be partaken of in commemoration of Christ. What's at question here is what the symbol holds for you. Does the bread and wine contain the actual physical body and blood? Is it just a remembrance and nothing more? Which do you think?
  • BarakomanBarakoman Victory is ours! PExer
    Originally posted by brownpau

    We practice it as the Lord taught us: to commemorate him, we pass around bits of bread and wine, just as he passed around bread and wine to his apostles.

    A reading of 1 Cor 11 shows us that we are indeed supposed to eat bread and drink wine as part of that legacy, but that the members of the church at Corinth abused the practice by eating too much and even getting drunk, without concern for each other, and without reverence for the body and blood of Christ.

    Is the practice of literally eating bread and wine established at the Lord's Supper by Christ?

    The answer is Yes. Paul tells us that it is received from Christ, and that we are to eat of the bread and drink of the cup after proper self-examination (1 Cor 11:28), that we are to do it together (1 Cor 11:33), and that eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper is serious business, because if we do it in an improper manner, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves (1 Cor 11:29).

    The issue being discussed is not whether we are supposed to literally eat bread and wine or not. Scripture treats it as self-evident that the bread and wine are to be partaken of in commemoration of Christ. What's at question here is what the symbol holds for you. Does the bread and wine contain the actual physical body and blood? Is it just a remembrance and nothing more? Which do you think?

    Brownpau, as a Christian we basically just do it for as a remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to save our sins. So whether you eat and use a real bread, or cookie or a cake to symbolize the body of Christ, and use any liquid drink to symbolize the blood of Jesus, are ok.

    And the only way thing that we may offend God by taking communion IF that person is not a born-again in spirit yet.

    In short, only the born-again Christians should participate in that holy communion.
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
    Originally posted by brownpau

    We practice it as the Lord taught us: to commemorate him, we pass around bits of bread and wine, just as he passed around bread and wine to his apostles.

    A reading of 1 Cor 11 shows us that we are indeed supposed to eat bread and drink wine as part of that legacy, but that the members of the church at Corinth abused the practice by eating too much and even getting drunk, without concern for each other, and without reverence for the body and blood of Christ.

    Is the practice of literally eating bread and wine established at the Lord's Supper by Christ?

    The answer is Yes. Paul tells us that it is received from Christ, and that we are to eat of the bread and drink of the cup after proper self-examination (1 Cor 11:28), that we are to do it together (1 Cor 11:33), and that eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper is serious business, because if we do it in an improper manner, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves (1 Cor 11:29).

    The issue being discussed is not whether we are supposed to literally eat bread and wine or not. Scripture treats it as self-evident that the bread and wine are to be partaken of in commemoration of Christ. What's at question here is what the symbol holds for you. Does the bread and wine contain the actual physical body and blood? Is it just a remembrance and nothing more? Which do you think?

    Kung literal ang Lord's Supper, ibig sabihin literal din yung kinakain ninyo like bread and wine. Pero hindi lang yan ang pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo. Pinapakain din niya tayo ng katawan niya, He commands us to eat his body. Ikaw ba brownpau can you eat his body literally? Of course not!

    Kaya, yung pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo na bread, wine, and body, eh hindi literal sapagkat ang pawang sinasabi ni Kristo ay pawang espiritu at pawang buhay. BASA:

    John 6:63
    "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

    Question to Brownpau:

    Galing ba sa bakery yung "bread" na pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo?
  • PaulDamascusPaulDamascus Praise be YHWH PExer
    Kasi I really appreciate itong sinulat na ito ni MEM
      So, ang pinapagawa sa atin ni Kristo ay hindi literal na hapunan, sapagkat sabi ni Paul, "for I received from the Lord that I also passed on to you..." Yung nareceived ni Paul kay Christ na Supper ay hindi literal because he wasn't present in that first LORD'S SUPPER....posted by
    MEM 02-23-2002 11:01 AM

    Kasi tama nga naman na wala naman talaga si Paul nung ginawa yung Literal na Last Supper na yun. Eh napansin ko din ang sinabi ni Paul na : "for I received from the Lord that I also passed on to you...", kaya di nga literal na supper ang tinanggap ni Pablo.

    Ang isa pa pong napansin ko sa talata ay ito: "Dahil dito marami sa inyo ang mahihina at may karamdaman at marami ang natulog na." Bakit kaya???

    Ito ay sapagkat sa tuwing kakain kayo ng tinapay na ito at iinom sa sarong ito, inihahayag ninyo ang kamatayan ng Panginoon hanggang sa siya ay dumating. Ito ay sapagkat siya na kumakain at umiinom nang hindi karapat-dapat ay kumakain at umiinom ng kahatulan sa kaniyang sarili. Hindi niya kinikilala nang tama ang katawan ng Panginoon. Eh alin ba ang katawan ng Panginoon ayon sa Bibliya?
      Mga Taga-Colosas 1:18 At siya ang ulo ng katawan, ang iglesiya. Siya ang pasimula, ang panganay mula sa mga patay upang siya ang maging kataas-taasan sa lahat ng bagay.

    Ang iglesia naman pala ang katawan, di ito ang di nila kinikilala ng tama. Ano ang katunayan ng di nila pagkilala sa iglesia?
      Ito ay sapagkat una sa lahat, sa pagtitipun-tipon ninyo sa iglesiya, naririnig ko na may pagkakampi-kampi sa inyo. Naniniwala ako na maaaring ito ay totoo.

    Ayun may pagkampi kampi naman pala sa kanila. Eh di ba bawal ang pagkakampi kampi sa iglesia......

    Kaya nga dapat sabay sabay ang pagkain at pag inom , upang maging isang katawan, isang espiritu, isang pag asa, isang Panginoon, isang pananampalataya, isang bautismo.

    Ngayon ano kaya iyong sabay sabay na dapat kanin at inumin??? Sana lagay ni MEM

    Kaya ang boto ko din ay: NONE OF THE ABOVE
  • BarakomanBarakoman Victory is ours! PExer
    Originally posted by MEM


    Kung literal ang Lord's Supper, ibig sabihin literal din yung kinakain ninyo like bread and wine. Pero hindi lang yan ang pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo. Pinapakain din niya tayo ng katawan niya, He commands us to eat his body. Ikaw ba brownpau can you eat his body literally? Of course not!

    Kaya, yung pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo na bread, wine, and body, eh hindi literal sapagkat ang pawang sinasabi ni Kristo ay pawang espiritu at pawang buhay. BASA:

    John 6:63
    "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

    Question to Brownpau:

    Galing ba sa bakery yung "bread" na pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo?

    tama ka dyan parekoy. dahil ginagamit lang natin yun just to symbolize the body and the blood of jesus christ.

    ewan ko lang kung ano ulit yung stand ni bossing brownpau dahil di ko na masyado nabasa yung reply nya, nagmamadali aksi ako eh....... :D
  • PaulDamascusPaulDamascus Praise be YHWH PExer
    Isa pang tanong kay browpau, kung pwede lang po hane!!!

    Ilan po ba yung "saro" na inyong pinagsasalusaluhan? At ilan po ba yung tinapay na binabahagi?
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
    Originally posted by PaulDamascus
    Ngayon ano kaya iyong sabay sabay na dapat kanin at inumin??? Sana lagay ni MEM

    continuation...

    What is the "cup of thanksgiving" that Christ told us to drink? Ano ba yung saro ng pagpapala?

    1 Corinthians 10:16a
    "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?..."

    "Ang saro ng pagpapala, na aming pinagpala, hindi ba ito ay ang pakikipag-isa sa dugo ni Cristo?"


    What is then the "breaking of bread"? Ano ba yung pagkain ng tinapay?

    1 Corinthians 10:16b-17
    "...And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."

    "Hindi ba ang tinapay na pinagputul-putol, hindi ba ito ay ang pakikipag-isa sa katawan ni Cristo? Tayo bagamat marami ay iisang tinapay dahil tayong lahat ay nakikibahagi sa iisang tinapay."


    Question to Mr. Brownpau, galing ba sa bakery shop yung "bread" na pinapakain sa atin ni Kristo?
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    It doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from, and you know that quite well. It can come from a bakery, it can come from the oven, it can be Skyflakes or Graham Crackers; such legalistic nitpicking is irrelevant. As Barakoman said above, you can even use a cookie or a piece of cracker if that's what's available. (Although in the spirit of the night the of the Lord's meal with his apostles, I feel it best to use unleavened bread, just as with the Passover meal he ate with them. Indeed, the Roman Church requires it no other way.)

    What's most important is that Jesus commanded his followers, "Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) That's exactly what the early Christians would do in the early apostolic church: they would gather together in worship, pass around loaves of bread and jugs of wine, and would eat together in commemoration of Christ and his sacrifice, the bread and wine symbolizing his body and blood (with reference to Jesus' "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6).

    When Paul says in 1 Cor 11, "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread..." he directly refers to the tradition (Yes, yes, I know we all hate that word :D but this is a biblical tradition that we all practice, whether Catholic or Protestant) of breaking bread and drinking wine together to proclaim Christ crucified. He received that tradition from the Lord, and so he passed that tradition on to the church at Corinth -- which promptly abused it by turning it into a fleshly meal rather than a ceremony of commemoration. Hence the problems of 1 Cor 11.

    The ritual is handed down to us even today, though different churches celebrate it differently. Baptists only have it once amonth or quarterly, handing out wafers of unleavened bread (others use loaves of plain sliced bread from the grocery) and small cuplets of juice. Catholics have it every week, or even everyday, with communicants lining up to receive it from the priest.

    "The bread is a participation in the Body of Christ," and that is precisely why we call it "communion" -- a communion with the Church, which Paul also refers to as Christ's body. That's a doctrine you're familiar with, I'm sure. ;) As for the cup being a cup of thanksgiving, certainly I can acknowledge that in the cup we also express our thanks for Jesus' blood spilled for our sins. But to use these verses as a prooftext for declaring the entire ceremony of the Eucharist a false "symbolic" practice is to go beyond what the Scripture says, especially since we know that the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the wine were what the early apostolic church actually did practice.

    I don't know what Eli Soriano teaches you in his reruns, but we are commanded in the Bible via the Gospels and Epistles to celebrate Christ in the bread and wine. This, not because this ritual is a saving sacrament, but because it symbolizes Christ's body and blood, and is the manner by which we commune with him and each other as Christians.

    Another interesting article on Communion by Rev. Brian Bass-Riley, a Methodist preacher: http://www.gbgm-umc.org/umcredbank/bread.html

    Now go on, continue with your bakery fixation. ;)
  • nymianymia Think about OFWs PExer
    Interesting, I'm just wondering why Arius wasn't mentioned here. I believe Arius and his movement that were later called Arianism is relevant in the thread though.
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Originally posted by nymia
    Interesting, I'm just wondering why Arius wasn't mentioned here. I believe Arius and his movement that were later called Arianism is relevant in the thread though.
    That sounds interesting. I know that has lots of bearing on this, but I've never done the necessary research, other than knowing that he denied Christ's deity. What were his heresies regarding the practice of communion?
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
    Originally posted by brownpau
    It doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from, and you know that quite well. It can come from a bakery, it can come from the oven, it can be Skyflakes or Graham Crackers; such legalistic nitpicking is irrelevant. As Barakoman said above, you can even use a cookie or a piece of cracker if that's what's available. (Although in the spirit of the night the of the Lord's meal with his apostles, I feel it best to use unleavened bread, just as with the Passover meal he ate with them. Indeed, the Roman Church requires it no other way.)

    Does your point about "it doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from..." can be supported by the verses of the bible?

    Did Christ teach us to use any kind of bread? Did Christ teach us to use any bread wherever it comes from?
  • MacholagehMacholageh WALAACOLAGEHDITO! PExer
    Originally posted by MEM


    Does your point about "it doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from..." can be supported by the verses of the bible?

    Did Christ teach us to use any kind of bread? Did Christ teach us to use any bread wherever it comes from?

    Hmmm? Hindi pa ba malnaw sa iyo ang sinabi nila Barakoman at Brownpau?

    God bless!:)
  • abuGianabuGian angel baloney detector PExer
    I believe those who should partake of the Communion are those who deem themselves worthy (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29) to receive it (i.e, those who have the url]http://thebereans.net/sav-signs.shtml[/urlinternal and external evidences of salvation[/url] or those already saved by Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Let’s call them persons, born-again believers. (Romans 8:1)

    I believe it is a memorial of the ONCE-AND-FOR-ALL sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. (Hebrews 10:10)

    I believe it is a command (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) to be observed by every born-again believers after carefully examining themselves (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).

    I don’t believe it becomes a real body or real blood as it violates the natural laws (Galatians 4:4; John 6:63) of the universe and the ONCE-AND-FOR-ALL rule. (Hebrews 10:10)

    ***

    I am not really sure about the difference between the Zwinglian view and the Calvinist view on the matter except that the later contend that it “is not necessarily effectual to one's salvation, but is still a channel for the benefits of salvation.”

    Didn’t vote yet I am really not sure if I hold to Calvin’s view. ;)

    Just a trivia: The Communion (of the New Covenant) is the modification of the Jewish Pesach (of the OldCovenant).

    ***

    As to the kind of bread, If Christ did not specify the dimension, taste, type ingredients or color of the bread (even though the unleavened bread is most appealing) why should we insist on any dimension, taste, type, ingredients or color of it?:D

    Is there any Christian congregation that commemorates the Communion it by having a full meal?
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
  • MEMMEM Banned by Admin PExer
    Originally posted by Macholageh


    Hmmm? Hindi pa ba malnaw sa iyo ang sinabi nila Barakoman at Brownpau?

    God bless!:)

    Malinaw sa akin yung sinabi nila. Pero wala akong pakialam kung malinaw sa akin yung sabi ni Barakoman at Brownpau sapagkat gusto kong malaman kung biblical yung pinagsasabi nila o nanloloko lang sila ng kapwa.

    HETO:
    Originally posted by brownpau
    It doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from, and you know that quite well. It can come from a bakery, it can come from the oven, it can be Skyflakes or Graham Crackers; such legalistic nitpicking is irrelevant. As Barakoman said above, you can even use a cookie or a piece of cracker if that's what's available. (Although in the spirit of the night the of the Lord's meal with his apostles, I feel it best to use unleavened bread, just as with the Passover meal he ate with them. Indeed, the Roman Church requires it no other way.)


    QUESTION TO BARAKOMAN AND BROWNPAU:
    Does your point about "it doesn't matter what kind of bread you use or where it comes from..." can be supported by the verses of the bible?

    Did Christ teach us to use any kind of bread? Did Christ teach us to use any bread wherever it comes from?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file