Chapter 9: Diluting the Sacraments: The Lord's Supper

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nathan Lambshead on May 13, 2009 at 10:04am

I am very interested in this discussion. I have not thought this one through in detail myself. (Been preoccupied with so other subjects)
However, to put my two copper coins in, one thing God got through to me a few years ago was this notion that kids are too young. Too young to understand salvation for one. The Lord asked me just how much I understood when I got saved? and asked me if I got saved by my understanding? He reminded me that He tells us we need to believe like a child, not that children are too young to understand.
I also read of an account in England where a very young boy (around 5 or 6 I think it was) killed a young toddler deliberately. God asked me why I believed the devil could get hold of a young kid and He could not?
Institutional denominational beliefs (and deceptions) started to become clearer to me through that lesson.
I know it is not directly involved with the Lord's Supper, but it is something I will never forget when it comes to children.

Nathan

Permalink Reply by Janeen Puckett on May 13, 2009 at 12:35pm

Have you ever been to a Passover sedar? I've been to two now, put on by Messianic congregations. We cannot talk about the Lord's Supper without talking about Passover. Anyone remember why?

Well, when Jesus and his disciples "took bread" that night, they were in fact observing a Passover sedar. There are 4 times during the sedar when one drinks wine, and I can't remember how many times one eats unleavened bread. But the last of the four cups is preceded by taking bread (as I recall), and that is the segment that is highlighted in the gospels. Jesus was saying, "You've been doing this for centuries, and you will continue to do it for centuries more. But what you may not have understood until now is that I am the bread, I am the wine. From now on, celebrate Passover in remembrance of me."

In fact, the Passover sedar does incorporate a full meal, but if we really want to consider the meal as communion, the unleavened bread and wine should not be omitted. Also, we should be mindful of the letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Cor 11:20-34, Paul writes:

"When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 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!

"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." 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." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

"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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

"So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If 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."

Paul specifies here that the Lord's Supper is an intentional act. So when we meet and have food set out and people help themselves and come and go, this is not the Lord's Supper.

I think we should observe a form of the Lord's Supper, even if it is not part of a full Passover sedar. I think the full meal is optional. What is most important is the attitudes of the participants, and that they participate together in remembrance of the Lord and His atonement.

Any thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Mark Collings on February 10, 2011 at 9:16am

I did the passover sedar a few times at easter, as a way to show my kids the meaning of the passover.  Eating ham seems to be an affront to the sedar ;-).  The kids liked the aspect of a story woven into a meal, and so did I. 

 

Our church has a full meal together, which constitutes roughly half our time together.  Eating together has a bonding effect and as we view the development of relationships (with each other and the triune God) a keystone of Jesus church, it is an important part of our life together.  But we are not offering the bread and the cup in a ceremony of sacrifice, as is done in some other expressions of the church.  

 

Baptism holds a new meaning to us in organic church.  We baptized several members (in my swimming pool in Ottawa).   The impact of these ceremonies on the people in the church were significant.  We saw not only a transformation of the individual, but the body, as people realized that indeed we were truly part of body of Christ, growing and  functioning in His presence as He ordained.   I had to get in the water and baptize a new believer for the first time.  It is truly a humbling experience. 

 

Organic church is a 100% participation with the living God deal.  Not so much in the knowing as in the believing and doing. 

Permalink Reply by Jim London on February 10, 2011 at 10:22am

Mark, it is good to sense the celebration in your heart this morning. Your closing statement, that our lives are, "... a 100% participation with the living God deal.  Not so much in the knowing as in the believing and doing" is just so true. We are currently discovering that God has brought us to a crossroad by presenting us with a greater disclosure of truth that demands change, a new doing. It's interesting to discover how we are locked into old patterns of life that cannot be sustained if we are to travel with Him, but that take a level of submission that still has to be achieved in us. Accepting the cost by "believing and doing" is our need. Self is the obstacle! We need His grace for the changes that are required, and are asking that it be a corporate community experience.

Permalink Reply by Scott McCrae on February 11, 2011 at 10:54pm

In delving deeper in this chapter Viola says:

<We are merely saying that it (sinners prayer) should not replace water baptism as the biblical mode of conversion-initiation.>

 

I completely disagree with this. We are saved by grace, not by water baptism. Eph 2:8,9 Viola is wrong on this. Salvation by grace is a basic belief of Christianity. You can be saved without the sinners prayer by believing. But baptism is a statement of what has already taken place. It is not the conversion itself. Again Viola is wrong.

Permalink Reply by Cindy Skillman on February 12, 2011 at 4:22pm

It's been a while since I read that chapter, but I do know Frank, and I don't think that's what he was saying . . . to whit that baptism somehow saves a person or that, barring baptism, the person is not saved. We all have trouble expressing difficult and complex concepts such as this one from time to time.Watchman Nee is hard to follow on this subject as well.

That said, I think baptism was a much bigger deal to the early church than it is to many modern believers. It was practiced in many religions and for many purposes other than as an initiation into the way of Christ. I believe it had as a focus in these other purposes similar to what it has for us; ritual washing and symbolic death and resurrection. So when a believer was baptized, it said something to those around which they would understand. It was a testimony that this person had passed from his old life into the new life of the body of Christ. It was and is also a testimony to those in the spiritual realms.

 

While I absolutely agree with you that salvation is by grace alone and that baptism is a testimony of this and not the actual fact, I also believe that a person who refuses to be baptized (and I have know a few) might reasonably be questioned as to the genuineness of his faith. I would never push anyone into being re-baptized who felt that his/her infant or childhood baptism or even baptism as an adult who did not understand what he was doing was sufficient, nor do I think that such a person is not saved because of this. However most will come to desire and request re-baptism in these and other situations once the Holy Spirit has had time to work in their hearts through the Word (usually by means of the word).