We at Livebytruth.com have been dealing with the question of the Lord's Supper as well. Our issue is to decide if we can properly partake of it over the internet during our Sunday morning Cyber Church gathering. We have concluded that yes we can by each of us having the emblems ready and then at the time we designate, we will observe the rememberance at the same time (June 10).
I must say, that one in our group - my mother - is still slightly holding out. She, of course, wants not to desecrate the observance by doing it in an unworthy manner, but that is the same caution we all have.
So, the question I have for you all is what opinion you may have on this? One of our regulars presented an article which only created more questions in my mind. Not questions about our observance over the internet but rather questions as to whether any church is observing it properly. I will post the article in the next posting and then give my reponse to it.
The Lord's Supper
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"The SNACK WE CALL SUPPER"
-by David Servant (-AKA 'Brother David').
At the last church that I pastored, I required that our ushers wear
a coat and tie on those once-a-month Sundays when we
celebrated the Lord's Supper. It seemed to me that those who
distributed the elements of Jesus' body and blood should
demonstrate at least that much respect in performing their sacred duty.
On one of those Communion Sundays, while an usher was driving
his family to the church, his five-year-old son noticed that he was
wearing a coat and tie. He innocently asked, "Dad, is this the
Sunday that we all eat God's holy snack?"
When his father later recounted that story to me, it was an
emperor's-new-clothes moment of revelation. I had stood in front
of congregations hundreds of times and said, "Let us prepare our
hearts to receive the Lord's Supper," and then proceeded to pass
out a miniscule cracker and a thimble-sized sip of grape juice.
And nobody ever questioned it! And what we were doing had been
done in millions of churches for hundreds of years! A five-year-old
boy had exposed centuries of blind tradition---the snack we call supper.
The Way Things Were
Of course, just about everyone knows that the original Lord's
Supper was a fullmeal, a Passover meal, shared by intimate
friends who believed in Jesus. And anyone who reads the relevant
passages from the New Testament can ascertain in minutes that
in the early church, the Lord's Supper was indeed a supper---a full
meal---shared by people who loved each other like family. So
when and why did the Lord's Supper become a holy snack? And
what difference does it make if we celebrate the Lord's Supper as
did the early church?
Before we tackle those questions, let's first take a look at Paul's
words to the Corinthian Christians regarding the Lord's Supper.
That will help us begin to understand what many of us have been missing.
"Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's
Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and
one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses
in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God
and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall
I praise you? In this I will not praise you.... For he who eats and
drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge
the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and
sick, and a number sleep....
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for
one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you
will not come together for judgment." (1 Cor. 11:20-34).
From looking at the first and last verses of that passage, one often-
overlooked fact stands out. Clearly, eating the Lord's Supper was
a primary reason that the early Christians assembled. At least
some of their gatherings revolved around a common meal, and that
meal they called "the Lord's Supper." Take another look at those
first and last verses to see for yourself:
Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's
Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first [that
is, you say you are gathering to eat the Lord's Supper, but the way
you are doing it reveals something else]; and one is hungry and
another is drunk...So then, my brethren, when you come together
to eat... (1 Cor. 11:20, 34, emphasis added).
It is also obvious from these two verses that the Lord's Supper was
an actual meal. Once that is settled, a few other scriptures that
describe early church life seem to take on new meaning. For
example, Luke describes four activities that characterized the first
Christians, one of which was eating common meals:
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles'
teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer
(Acts 2:42, emphasis added).
And just a few verses later, Luke again highlights those common meals:
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together
with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor
with all the people (Acts 2:46-47, emphasis added).
Although Luke doesn't specifically refer to these meals as being
the Lord's Supper, they certainly are similar to Paul's description
of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34. And we might ask,
If the Lord's Supper is a common meal, what would be the major
difference between a common meal that is not the Lord's Supper
and a common meal that is the Lord's Supper, especially when
bread and wine were the most common elements of an average
meal in that day? (We might even go further and ask, Because
Jesus said "Do this, as often as your drink it, in remembrance of
Me," is it possible that He wanted them to remember Him every
time they drank the most common beverage of their day?)
Paul and Luke's descriptions of early church life expose the vast
difference between what was typical then and now. The Lord's
Supper is generally not the reason that we meet today. Rather,
the modern version of the Lord's Supper is tagged on near the end
of a Sunday service. Moreover, it is not a supper at all, but a little
snack. (Actually, the "pot-luck dinners" that some modern
churches occasionally enjoy are closer to what the Lord's Supper
looked like in the NewTestament.)
The Agapé Meal
It seems safe to conclude that Jude also referred to common
Christian meals in his little epistle, calling them "love feasts" (see
Jude 1:12). Those common meals were indeed a feast of love, a
meal at which those who could brought food to share with the
poor among them, which is precisely what Paul described in
1 Corinthians 11:20-23.
Keep in mind that when Paul wrote, "Or do you despise the church
of God?," he wasn't talking about despising a building where the
Christians went to church. He was talking about the Christians
themselves. Getting drunk and hogging all the food at a gathering
of the saints is a sure way to expose how lightly one esteems
God's children, the church. By so doing, one "despises the church
of God." Perhaps those food hogs were the types of people Jude
had in mind when he wrote, "These are men who are hidden reefs
in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring
for themselves" (Jude 1:12).
But let's return to Paul's words. The Corinthian Christians could
not rightfully call their common meal the Lord's Supper because
selfishness pervaded rather than love. Everyone who was able
brought food and wine to the meal, but not all arrived at the same
time. The earliest arrivals were eating without waiting for the
others, and by the time the rest arrived---who were apparently
sometimes so poor that they were unable to bring any food---
everything had already been consumed. Some of the earlier
arrivals were even inebriated from drinking all the wine, while late-
comers left hungrier than when they arrived. Not much of a "love feast"!
This is why Paul admonished the Corinthians in a concluding sentence,
"So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one
another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home" (1 Cor. 11:33-34).
A Unique Gathering
Clearly, the Lord's Supper in the early church was a gathering of
Christians from different social and economic classes, something
that made it absolutely unique on planet Earth, a veritable
foretaste of the marriage feast of the Lamb. Caring for the poor is
part and parcel of what Christianity is intended to be, so much so
that it was a component of the Lord's sacred Supper that was
regularly and frequently enjoyed by the early Christians.
By means of the Lord's Supper, the first believers fulfilled a
commandment of Christ that seems to be virtually ignored today:
"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends
or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they
may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But
when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame,
the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the
means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of
the righteous" (Luke 14:12-14).
Surely such a dinner would truly be a "love feast"!
But back to the Corinthians. They were, in part, fulfilling the
commandment of Christ that we just read. They invited the poor
among them to a common meal. However, before the poor arrived,
they were eating all the food! And by so doing, they were setting
themselves up for God's judgment:
If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not
come together for judgment (1 Cor. 11:34, emphasis added).
Paul elaborated more specifically on that judgment in the
preceding verses...
The judgment/discipline that some Corinthians were suffering was
weakness, sickness, and even premature death. Those judgments
fell upon them not simply for the act of hogging all the food or
getting drunk at the Lord's Supper. Those were but symptoms of a
larger heart-issue, what Paul referred to as "not judging the body
rightly" (11:29).
Perhaps Paul was speaking of the need for each person to properly
regard the body of Christ, the body of believers, lest anyone, as he
said earlier, "despise the church of God" (11:22)---an attitude that
was revealed, for example, when they ignored or mistreated the
poor among them at the Lord's Supper. The very act of eating all
the bread with no concern for hungry late-comers made a mockery
of what is represented by partaking of the single loaf---our unity
with Christ and each other (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17).
The only other possibility is that Paul was speaking of each
person judging his own selfish fleshy nature, again, something that
was revealed by the inconsiderate behavior of many at the Lord's
Supper.
Both interpretations yield the same conclusion: Partaking of the
Lord's Supper---what is supposed to be a remembrance of Jesus'
amazing love for us and an expression of our love for one another---
can be deadly if done in "an unworthy manner" (11:27), that is,
selfishly. Selfishness as a tacit denial of everything the Lord's
Supper represents. Imagine a few people hogging all the food and
drink at the Lord's Supper so that some of the "least of these"
among Christ's brethren went home hungrier than when they
arrived! When that happens, the sheep look no different than the
goats. And we know how God feels about the goats! (If not, see
Matt. 25:31-46).
Thus you can then understand why God disciplined such goat-like
sheep at Corinth. Amazingly, even that was an act of His mercy,
as Paul wrote, "When we are judged, we are disciplined by the
Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world"
(11:32). The world will one day be condemned to hell, but God
disciplines us to call us back to the narrow path to eternal life.
We can avoid His judgment if we, as Paul wrote, "judged
ourselves rightly" (1 Cor. 11:31). That means to confess and
forsake our selfishness.
I hope you are beginning to see that the little ritual we rehearse in
our churches is a far cry from what the Lord originally intended for
His special supper of love. And I hope no one thinks I'm calling for
nothing more than a relocation of the Lord's Supper from church
buildings to homes, along with an increase in the portion sizes of
the food! The greater issue is our love for one another.
Naturally, a joyous meal in a home is a better opportunity to
express our love for each other than is a two-minute snack that
we swallow while staring at the back of someone else's head.
But more importantly, sharing some of our food with poor believers
has a whole lot more to do with loving our neighbors as ourselves
(a fairly important commandment) than piously participating in a
church ritual that is based mostly on Roman Catholic tradition. I
tend to think that no matter if we partake of the Lord's Supper as
a snack in a church or as a full meal in a home, we are just as
guilty as the Corinthians if we aren't caring for those in the body
of Christ who have little or no food, even if they live in another
nation. What a mockery is made of the Lord's Supper by
professing Christians who sanctimoniously sip the wine yet who
couldn't care less about their brothers and sisters in Christ who
are starving. They, like the Corinthians, are eating and drinking
judgment upon themselves, and unless they repent, they too will
be condemned along with the world, just as Christ promised in
Matthew 25:31-46.
Spontaneous Lord's Suppers
I think it is quite possible that many of us have been enjoying the
Lord's Supper to some degree without even knowing it, as we
naturally have been drawn to share meals with those with whom
we feel our relationships are sacred and spiritual. This occurs
naturally when people are born again. As Paul wrote, "Now as to
the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to
you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another"
(1 Thes. 4:9). And John wrote, "We know that we have passed
out of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 John 3:14).
Love is part of the salvation package. Yet how many sincere
pastors have discovered that many of the people in their churches
have no genuine interest in meeting with other Christians in small
spiritual groups, much less actually gathering in a home to share
a meal together? Such people will attend a Sunday-morning show
and even shake a few hands during the "fellowship minute." But
they really don't love each other. As soon as they've put in their
time, the goats are running for the parking lot.
Meanwhile, for the sheep, church often really begins after the
benediction. They stand around for a long time talking, or head
out for lunch where the real food is spiritual and the fellowship is
filling. And of course, they don't do it because they feel obligated,
but because they really want to. The early Christians did not
gather for common meals because they read something in the
book of Acts about Christians sharing common meals and wanted
to "get back to the biblical pattern." They did it because they
wanted to do it! This principal is true for so much of what is truly
the work of God. Any pastor who tries to motivate the goats to
act like sheep is wasting his time. Rather, he needs to proclaim
the true gospel until the goats run or repent. Those who repent
God will turn into sheep. Then they'll start acting like sheep,
naturally (or perhaps I should say, supernaturally).
True Orthodoxy
Christian history indicates that it wasn't until the end of the second
century that the bread and wine began to be separated from the
meal of the Lord's Supper. By the end of the fourth century, the
love feast was actually prohibited by the Council of Carthage. In
the centuries that followed, the Lord's Supper evolved into a
somber and mystical ritual during which the bread and wine
actually changed into Christ's body and blood---a holy sacrifice
that could only be administered by an ordained priest in a sacred
spot of a sacred building.
I've asked pastors all over the developing world, "What would be
your reaction if you heard that some of your church members
were meeting in a private home to celebrate the Lord's Supper,
without you or some other ordained minister being present to
officiate and to bless and distribute the elements?" Most of them
confess that their gut reaction would be one of extreme alarm,
because such a thing would seem to be heretical! I then usually
chide them that they are really just Roman Catholic priests! They
have been blindly following an unbiblical tradition that goes back
more than 1,700 years! They may not believe that the bread and
juice actually become Christ's literal body and blood, but just
about everything else is the same.
The truth is, however, that the Lord's Supper as practiced by the
early Christians never occurred in a special church building, but in
homes. And it was never a little snack but always a full meal. And
there was never an "ordained minister" present to "officiate,"
because there were no "ordained ministers" and Scripture leads
us to believe that ordinary Christians enjoyed the Lord's Supper
together. Moreover, at the Lord's Supper, the poor were fed. And
every Bible scholar who has written about the Lord's Supper as it
was practiced by the early church will affirm these things (if you
don't trust me or the Bible!).
I wonder now, how many pastors reading this (there are hundreds
on our e-mail list) will just keep doing it the same old non-
traditional way, or how many will take steps to begin to educate
their congregations in order to do it the Lord's way---the biblical
way---the orthodox way? (If your church is nothing more than a
gathering place for goats, get ready for a lot of "butts"!)
--END--
Eric, thanks for that article. We at Live by Truth are about to embark on something unique and unheard of in the church, and that is to partake of the Lord's Supper over the internet. I now hesitate to call it the Lord's Supper as the article had expanded on since we can hardly share a 4 course meal with one another, but on the otherhand I see us doing this in the simpliest of ways by sharing a cup and a wafer. It may not be the exact method it is being done on Sundays all around the world, and it is certainly a far cry from the meals of the early church, but what it is is our coming together in one accord, in one spirit, in love and affection to remember the only One who truly can make a difference in our lives. I am not ashamed of that. I am not ashamed that we try, even in our small way, to honor and glorify the name of Jesus each time we meet together for this one specific rememberance. I only hope and I pray that when we do come and share in the cup and the bread that we do it just as we are commanded "In rememberance of" Jesus our Lord.
-by David Servant (-AKA 'Brother David').
At the last church that I pastored, I required that our ushers wear
a coat and tie on those once-a-month Sundays when we
celebrated the Lord's Supper. It seemed to me that those who
distributed the elements of Jesus' body and blood should
demonstrate at least that much respect in performing their sacred duty.
On one of those Communion Sundays, while an usher was driving
his family to the church, his five-year-old son noticed that he was
wearing a coat and tie. He innocently asked, "Dad, is this the
Sunday that we all eat God's holy snack?"
When his father later recounted that story to me, it was an
emperor's-new-clothes moment of revelation. I had stood in front
of congregations hundreds of times and said, "Let us prepare our
hearts to receive the Lord's Supper," and then proceeded to pass
out a miniscule cracker and a thimble-sized sip of grape juice.
And nobody ever questioned it! And what we were doing had been
done in millions of churches for hundreds of years! A five-year-old
boy had exposed centuries of blind tradition---the snack we call supper.
The Way Things Were
Of course, just about everyone knows that the original Lord's
Supper was a fullmeal, a Passover meal, shared by intimate
friends who believed in Jesus. And anyone who reads the relevant
passages from the New Testament can ascertain in minutes that
in the early church, the Lord's Supper was indeed a supper---a full
meal---shared by people who loved each other like family. So
when and why did the Lord's Supper become a holy snack? And
what difference does it make if we celebrate the Lord's Supper as
did the early church?
Before we tackle those questions, let's first take a look at Paul's
words to the Corinthian Christians regarding the Lord's Supper.
That will help us begin to understand what many of us have been missing.
"Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's
Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and
one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses
in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God
and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall
I praise you? In this I will not praise you.... For he who eats and
drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge
the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and
sick, and a number sleep....
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for
one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you
will not come together for judgment." (1 Cor. 11:20-34).
From looking at the first and last verses of that passage, one often-
overlooked fact stands out. Clearly, eating the Lord's Supper was
a primary reason that the early Christians assembled. At least
some of their gatherings revolved around a common meal, and that
meal they called "the Lord's Supper." Take another look at those
first and last verses to see for yourself:
Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's
Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first [that
is, you say you are gathering to eat the Lord's Supper, but the way
you are doing it reveals something else]; and one is hungry and
another is drunk...So then, my brethren, when you come together
to eat... (1 Cor. 11:20, 34, emphasis added).
It is also obvious from these two verses that the Lord's Supper was
an actual meal. Once that is settled, a few other scriptures that
describe early church life seem to take on new meaning. For
example, Luke describes four activities that characterized the first
Christians, one of which was eating common meals:
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles'
teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer
(Acts 2:42, emphasis added).
And just a few verses later, Luke again highlights those common meals:
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together
with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor
with all the people (Acts 2:46-47, emphasis added).
Although Luke doesn't specifically refer to these meals as being
the Lord's Supper, they certainly are similar to Paul's description
of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34. And we might ask,
If the Lord's Supper is a common meal, what would be the major
difference between a common meal that is not the Lord's Supper
and a common meal that is the Lord's Supper, especially when
bread and wine were the most common elements of an average
meal in that day? (We might even go further and ask, Because
Jesus said "Do this, as often as your drink it, in remembrance of
Me," is it possible that He wanted them to remember Him every
time they drank the most common beverage of their day?)
Paul and Luke's descriptions of early church life expose the vast
difference between what was typical then and now. The Lord's
Supper is generally not the reason that we meet today. Rather,
the modern version of the Lord's Supper is tagged on near the end
of a Sunday service. Moreover, it is not a supper at all, but a little
snack. (Actually, the "pot-luck dinners" that some modern
churches occasionally enjoy are closer to what the Lord's Supper
looked like in the NewTestament.)
The Agapé Meal
It seems safe to conclude that Jude also referred to common
Christian meals in his little epistle, calling them "love feasts" (see
Jude 1:12). Those common meals were indeed a feast of love, a
meal at which those who could brought food to share with the
poor among them, which is precisely what Paul described in
1 Corinthians 11:20-23.
Keep in mind that when Paul wrote, "Or do you despise the church
of God?," he wasn't talking about despising a building where the
Christians went to church. He was talking about the Christians
themselves. Getting drunk and hogging all the food at a gathering
of the saints is a sure way to expose how lightly one esteems
God's children, the church. By so doing, one "despises the church
of God." Perhaps those food hogs were the types of people Jude
had in mind when he wrote, "These are men who are hidden reefs
in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring
for themselves" (Jude 1:12).
But let's return to Paul's words. The Corinthian Christians could
not rightfully call their common meal the Lord's Supper because
selfishness pervaded rather than love. Everyone who was able
brought food and wine to the meal, but not all arrived at the same
time. The earliest arrivals were eating without waiting for the
others, and by the time the rest arrived---who were apparently
sometimes so poor that they were unable to bring any food---
everything had already been consumed. Some of the earlier
arrivals were even inebriated from drinking all the wine, while late-
comers left hungrier than when they arrived. Not much of a "love feast"!
This is why Paul admonished the Corinthians in a concluding sentence,
"So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one
another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home" (1 Cor. 11:33-34).
A Unique Gathering
Clearly, the Lord's Supper in the early church was a gathering of
Christians from different social and economic classes, something
that made it absolutely unique on planet Earth, a veritable
foretaste of the marriage feast of the Lamb. Caring for the poor is
part and parcel of what Christianity is intended to be, so much so
that it was a component of the Lord's sacred Supper that was
regularly and frequently enjoyed by the early Christians.
By means of the Lord's Supper, the first believers fulfilled a
commandment of Christ that seems to be virtually ignored today:
"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends
or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they
may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But
when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame,
the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the
means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of
the righteous" (Luke 14:12-14).
Surely such a dinner would truly be a "love feast"!
But back to the Corinthians. They were, in part, fulfilling the
commandment of Christ that we just read. They invited the poor
among them to a common meal. However, before the poor arrived,
they were eating all the food! And by so doing, they were setting
themselves up for God's judgment:
If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not
come together for judgment (1 Cor. 11:34, emphasis added).
Paul elaborated more specifically on that judgment in the
preceding verses...
The judgment/discipline that some Corinthians were suffering was
weakness, sickness, and even premature death. Those judgments
fell upon them not simply for the act of hogging all the food or
getting drunk at the Lord's Supper. Those were but symptoms of a
larger heart-issue, what Paul referred to as "not judging the body
rightly" (11:29).
Perhaps Paul was speaking of the need for each person to properly
regard the body of Christ, the body of believers, lest anyone, as he
said earlier, "despise the church of God" (11:22)---an attitude that
was revealed, for example, when they ignored or mistreated the
poor among them at the Lord's Supper. The very act of eating all
the bread with no concern for hungry late-comers made a mockery
of what is represented by partaking of the single loaf---our unity
with Christ and each other (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17).
The only other possibility is that Paul was speaking of each
person judging his own selfish fleshy nature, again, something that
was revealed by the inconsiderate behavior of many at the Lord's
Supper.
Both interpretations yield the same conclusion: Partaking of the
Lord's Supper---what is supposed to be a remembrance of Jesus'
amazing love for us and an expression of our love for one another---
can be deadly if done in "an unworthy manner" (11:27), that is,
selfishly. Selfishness as a tacit denial of everything the Lord's
Supper represents. Imagine a few people hogging all the food and
drink at the Lord's Supper so that some of the "least of these"
among Christ's brethren went home hungrier than when they
arrived! When that happens, the sheep look no different than the
goats. And we know how God feels about the goats! (If not, see
Matt. 25:31-46).
Thus you can then understand why God disciplined such goat-like
sheep at Corinth. Amazingly, even that was an act of His mercy,
as Paul wrote, "When we are judged, we are disciplined by the
Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world"
(11:32). The world will one day be condemned to hell, but God
disciplines us to call us back to the narrow path to eternal life.
We can avoid His judgment if we, as Paul wrote, "judged
ourselves rightly" (1 Cor. 11:31). That means to confess and
forsake our selfishness.
I hope you are beginning to see that the little ritual we rehearse in
our churches is a far cry from what the Lord originally intended for
His special supper of love. And I hope no one thinks I'm calling for
nothing more than a relocation of the Lord's Supper from church
buildings to homes, along with an increase in the portion sizes of
the food! The greater issue is our love for one another.
Naturally, a joyous meal in a home is a better opportunity to
express our love for each other than is a two-minute snack that
we swallow while staring at the back of someone else's head.
But more importantly, sharing some of our food with poor believers
has a whole lot more to do with loving our neighbors as ourselves
(a fairly important commandment) than piously participating in a
church ritual that is based mostly on Roman Catholic tradition. I
tend to think that no matter if we partake of the Lord's Supper as
a snack in a church or as a full meal in a home, we are just as
guilty as the Corinthians if we aren't caring for those in the body
of Christ who have little or no food, even if they live in another
nation. What a mockery is made of the Lord's Supper by
professing Christians who sanctimoniously sip the wine yet who
couldn't care less about their brothers and sisters in Christ who
are starving. They, like the Corinthians, are eating and drinking
judgment upon themselves, and unless they repent, they too will
be condemned along with the world, just as Christ promised in
Matthew 25:31-46.
Spontaneous Lord's Suppers
I think it is quite possible that many of us have been enjoying the
Lord's Supper to some degree without even knowing it, as we
naturally have been drawn to share meals with those with whom
we feel our relationships are sacred and spiritual. This occurs
naturally when people are born again. As Paul wrote, "Now as to
the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to
you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another"
(1 Thes. 4:9). And John wrote, "We know that we have passed
out of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 John 3:14).
Love is part of the salvation package. Yet how many sincere
pastors have discovered that many of the people in their churches
have no genuine interest in meeting with other Christians in small
spiritual groups, much less actually gathering in a home to share
a meal together? Such people will attend a Sunday-morning show
and even shake a few hands during the "fellowship minute." But
they really don't love each other. As soon as they've put in their
time, the goats are running for the parking lot.
Meanwhile, for the sheep, church often really begins after the
benediction. They stand around for a long time talking, or head
out for lunch where the real food is spiritual and the fellowship is
filling. And of course, they don't do it because they feel obligated,
but because they really want to. The early Christians did not
gather for common meals because they read something in the
book of Acts about Christians sharing common meals and wanted
to "get back to the biblical pattern." They did it because they
wanted to do it! This principal is true for so much of what is truly
the work of God. Any pastor who tries to motivate the goats to
act like sheep is wasting his time. Rather, he needs to proclaim
the true gospel until the goats run or repent. Those who repent
God will turn into sheep. Then they'll start acting like sheep,
naturally (or perhaps I should say, supernaturally).
True Orthodoxy
Christian history indicates that it wasn't until the end of the second
century that the bread and wine began to be separated from the
meal of the Lord's Supper. By the end of the fourth century, the
love feast was actually prohibited by the Council of Carthage. In
the centuries that followed, the Lord's Supper evolved into a
somber and mystical ritual during which the bread and wine
actually changed into Christ's body and blood---a holy sacrifice
that could only be administered by an ordained priest in a sacred
spot of a sacred building.
I've asked pastors all over the developing world, "What would be
your reaction if you heard that some of your church members
were meeting in a private home to celebrate the Lord's Supper,
without you or some other ordained minister being present to
officiate and to bless and distribute the elements?" Most of them
confess that their gut reaction would be one of extreme alarm,
because such a thing would seem to be heretical! I then usually
chide them that they are really just Roman Catholic priests! They
have been blindly following an unbiblical tradition that goes back
more than 1,700 years! They may not believe that the bread and
juice actually become Christ's literal body and blood, but just
about everything else is the same.
The truth is, however, that the Lord's Supper as practiced by the
early Christians never occurred in a special church building, but in
homes. And it was never a little snack but always a full meal. And
there was never an "ordained minister" present to "officiate,"
because there were no "ordained ministers" and Scripture leads
us to believe that ordinary Christians enjoyed the Lord's Supper
together. Moreover, at the Lord's Supper, the poor were fed. And
every Bible scholar who has written about the Lord's Supper as it
was practiced by the early church will affirm these things (if you
don't trust me or the Bible!).
I wonder now, how many pastors reading this (there are hundreds
on our e-mail list) will just keep doing it the same old non-
traditional way, or how many will take steps to begin to educate
their congregations in order to do it the Lord's way---the biblical
way---the orthodox way? (If your church is nothing more than a
gathering place for goats, get ready for a lot of "butts"!)
--END--
Eric, thanks for that article. We at Live by Truth are about to embark on something unique and unheard of in the church, and that is to partake of the Lord's Supper over the internet. I now hesitate to call it the Lord's Supper as the article had expanded on since we can hardly share a 4 course meal with one another, but on the otherhand I see us doing this in the simpliest of ways by sharing a cup and a wafer. It may not be the exact method it is being done on Sundays all around the world, and it is certainly a far cry from the meals of the early church, but what it is is our coming together in one accord, in one spirit, in love and affection to remember the only One who truly can make a difference in our lives. I am not ashamed of that. I am not ashamed that we try, even in our small way, to honor and glorify the name of Jesus each time we meet together for this one specific rememberance. I only hope and I pray that when we do come and share in the cup and the bread that we do it just as we are commanded "In rememberance of" Jesus our Lord.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hola:
In my opinion there would be three requirements. I am absolutely certain that my church would disagree , but que va.
1. a gathering in the presence of Christ:
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
2. A priest , and any believing Christian qualifies as a priest:
Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
3. The words of institution-consecration spoken by the "priest"
1 Cor. 11
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
I see nothing that would prevent a group from doing this.
Thomas
In my opinion there would be three requirements. I am absolutely certain that my church would disagree , but que va.
1. a gathering in the presence of Christ:
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
2. A priest , and any believing Christian qualifies as a priest:
Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
3. The words of institution-consecration spoken by the "priest"
1 Cor. 11
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
I see nothing that would prevent a group from doing this.
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Everyone,
I somewhat agree with the Presbyterian man mentioned in the origianal post. I'm new here, and I realize that there aren't many Catholics here, and that what I have to say is a bit UNUSUAL to say the least. I learned about this board from a guy at TOPIX.NET who suggested that others come here. Here I am! May God bless all of you!
Thomas mentioned in the previous post that all believers are priests. I agree with this, but not all believers have been ordained into the ministerial priesthood with the laying on of hands as described in 1 Timothy Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1 Timothy 3:1 tells us the qualifications for bishops, priests, and deacons, and 1 Timothy 4:14 follows up on these qualifications telling us that the gift of these ministries is conferred by the laying on of hands. I think that if the disciples of our Lord wrote of this, we as Christians should follow this and take it seriously.
1 Timothy 5:22 advises the followers of Christ not to lay hands too readily on anyone. Certainly, discernment must take place, not only in the case of the one seeking the ordained ministry, but also by those who will do the laying on of hands.
Also, in Allyn's last post, he states: "Christian history indicates that it wasn't until the end of the second
century that the bread and wine began to be separated from the
meal of the Lord's Supper. By the end of the fourth century, the
love feast was actually prohibited by the Council of Carthage. In
the centuries that followed, the Lord's Supper evolved into a
somber and mystical ritual during which the bread and wine
actually changed into Christ's body and blood---a holy sacrifice
that could only be administered by an ordained priest in a sacred
spot of a sacred building. "
I have found different information, Allyn. The bread and the wine have never been separated from the meal of the Lord's supper, especially when you realize that they are the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. One must have the Blood where His Body is present. If I read your posting of 1 Corinthians 11, read St. Justin Martyr's account of the Eucharist, and go to daily Mass, the main elements are all there.
If I were to go to the celebration of what Justin Martyr describes in his writings around 150 a.d., I would be at a Catholic mass, and feel quite at home.
How was this "love feast" prohibited by the Council of Carthage? Can you clarify this?
As for the somber and mystical ritual which finally evolved after centuries with the bread and the wine evolving into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. How so? The writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians and those of the Early Church fathers ALL point to the Body and Blood of Jesus being presented from the beginning of the Lord's Supper.
St. Justin Martyr writes in 150 a.d. "...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but... as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnated Jesus." First Apology 66.20
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 a.d. writes in Catechetical Lectures, 4, 22, 6 "Do not therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's decree, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ."
From the beginning of the Church, the Eucharist has been viewed and offered as the true Body and Blood of Jesus. No writings exist until the year 800 which dispute or claim that the Eucharist is purely symbolic. This was written by a Catholic monk who was denounced as heretical.
So for the original poster's question, I think the Presbyterian man was on to something.
God bless,
Liseux (p.s. I'll be on vacation for the next few days, but I would enjoy a friendly exchange after then, as I realize that my comments are a bit unorthodox here. )
I somewhat agree with the Presbyterian man mentioned in the origianal post. I'm new here, and I realize that there aren't many Catholics here, and that what I have to say is a bit UNUSUAL to say the least. I learned about this board from a guy at TOPIX.NET who suggested that others come here. Here I am! May God bless all of you!
Thomas mentioned in the previous post that all believers are priests. I agree with this, but not all believers have been ordained into the ministerial priesthood with the laying on of hands as described in 1 Timothy Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1 Timothy 3:1 tells us the qualifications for bishops, priests, and deacons, and 1 Timothy 4:14 follows up on these qualifications telling us that the gift of these ministries is conferred by the laying on of hands. I think that if the disciples of our Lord wrote of this, we as Christians should follow this and take it seriously.
1 Timothy 5:22 advises the followers of Christ not to lay hands too readily on anyone. Certainly, discernment must take place, not only in the case of the one seeking the ordained ministry, but also by those who will do the laying on of hands.
Also, in Allyn's last post, he states: "Christian history indicates that it wasn't until the end of the second
century that the bread and wine began to be separated from the
meal of the Lord's Supper. By the end of the fourth century, the
love feast was actually prohibited by the Council of Carthage. In
the centuries that followed, the Lord's Supper evolved into a
somber and mystical ritual during which the bread and wine
actually changed into Christ's body and blood---a holy sacrifice
that could only be administered by an ordained priest in a sacred
spot of a sacred building. "
I have found different information, Allyn. The bread and the wine have never been separated from the meal of the Lord's supper, especially when you realize that they are the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. One must have the Blood where His Body is present. If I read your posting of 1 Corinthians 11, read St. Justin Martyr's account of the Eucharist, and go to daily Mass, the main elements are all there.
If I were to go to the celebration of what Justin Martyr describes in his writings around 150 a.d., I would be at a Catholic mass, and feel quite at home.
How was this "love feast" prohibited by the Council of Carthage? Can you clarify this?
As for the somber and mystical ritual which finally evolved after centuries with the bread and the wine evolving into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. How so? The writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians and those of the Early Church fathers ALL point to the Body and Blood of Jesus being presented from the beginning of the Lord's Supper.
St. Justin Martyr writes in 150 a.d. "...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but... as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnated Jesus." First Apology 66.20
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 a.d. writes in Catechetical Lectures, 4, 22, 6 "Do not therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's decree, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ."
From the beginning of the Church, the Eucharist has been viewed and offered as the true Body and Blood of Jesus. No writings exist until the year 800 which dispute or claim that the Eucharist is purely symbolic. This was written by a Catholic monk who was denounced as heretical.
So for the original poster's question, I think the Presbyterian man was on to something.
God bless,
Liseux (p.s. I'll be on vacation for the next few days, but I would enjoy a friendly exchange after then, as I realize that my comments are a bit unorthodox here. )
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Justin Martyr's 2nd-century description of the Eucharist (thanksgiving), he states that wine and bread were brought and "the presiding one of the brethren" offered prayers and thanksgivings (presumably for the great sacrifice which Christ made on our behalf). There is no indication that "the presiding one of the brethren" held a special office. Indeed, it is likely that a different brother was "the presiding one" on the following Sunday.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidion,
Sorry for the long delay in answering you. This is a busy month!
As far as the "presiding brethren," I think that you've found a key point. Does scripture provide insight into just who would preside? Surely, not just any Christian would preside over the memorial of the Lord's Supper.
At the Last Supper, Jesus told the Twelve: "Do this in memory of me." He was speaking to the apostles, who were the leader of the Church. I believe he did not have the Last Supper in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, where He was talking to thousands. It was a small, intimate group, those who were most worthy and CHOSEN to "do this in memory" of Him.
Also, Acts 14:23 tells us "In each Church they installed presbyters and, with prayer and fasting, commended to the Lord in whom they had put their faith." These presbyters are the chosen leaders of each Church, who were INSTALLED, presumably by the laying on of hands which scripture gives as the method of replacing bishops and apostles (1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22).
The fact that the brother PRESIDED tells us that he is a leader. I believe that scripture gives evidence to the fact that this is a leader of the Church who was chosen and installed by those who knew Christ and were following His instructions on the ministerial priesthood.
God bless,
Liseux
Sorry for the long delay in answering you. This is a busy month!
As far as the "presiding brethren," I think that you've found a key point. Does scripture provide insight into just who would preside? Surely, not just any Christian would preside over the memorial of the Lord's Supper.
At the Last Supper, Jesus told the Twelve: "Do this in memory of me." He was speaking to the apostles, who were the leader of the Church. I believe he did not have the Last Supper in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, where He was talking to thousands. It was a small, intimate group, those who were most worthy and CHOSEN to "do this in memory" of Him.
Also, Acts 14:23 tells us "In each Church they installed presbyters and, with prayer and fasting, commended to the Lord in whom they had put their faith." These presbyters are the chosen leaders of each Church, who were INSTALLED, presumably by the laying on of hands which scripture gives as the method of replacing bishops and apostles (1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22).
The fact that the brother PRESIDED tells us that he is a leader. I believe that scripture gives evidence to the fact that this is a leader of the Church who was chosen and installed by those who knew Christ and were following His instructions on the ministerial priesthood.
God bless,
Liseux
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Greetings,
I found some info at this site: Second Temple Synagogues
How other versions translate ARXISUNAGOGOS:
the synagogue ruler (NIV)
leader of the synagogue (NASB)
the official of the synagogue (NRSV)
the chief ruler of the synagogue (KJV)
In some evangelical circles you hear a lot about how the NT teaches a "plurality of eldership" and that we should follow a similar type of church government today. My cousin is a pastor (elder) in one such church that has five elders. Steve (Gregg) talks about this in his "Some Assembly Required" mp3 series. I don't recall him talking about "the president of the synagogue" [Acts 18:8] offhand. I think he may have addressed it but I can't remember to what extent if he did.
Those who advocate a plurality of eldership in the church are "biblical," imo: The NT teaches it. However, the people who do this don't take into account the fact that there was, at least in many instances, one overall leader in the synagogues; they see the plurality of elders functioning in an egalitarian way. Iow, no one is "in charge."
The early churches (the first ones) were established in two ways. First, there is the general pattern or norm of the synagogues. Some synagogues seem to have "become churches" which would be to say they believed in Jesus now, and, otherwise, kept going along with their same governmental polity. Other churches had a non-Jewish government, being set up along the lines of tradesmen guilds.
My cousin's church, though it believes plurality of eldership to be biblical, etc.; they have my cousin "set aside" as the general overseer. Put another way, he presides over everything in the church. He doesn't call himself the "senior pastor" but for all intents and purposes he functions as one, even within this plurality structure.
He's like a chief ruler of a synagogue.
I'm not episcopalian about my ideas on church government. But I do believe a case can be made from the Bible that one person is to be the overseer of everything that happens in a church (a presiding elder over the other elders).
Paul wrote to Titus, [ Titus' Task on Crete ] "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint [or ordain] elders in every town, as I directed you," (Tit. 1:5). If Paul and Titus were following common and established Jewish practices, would Titus have appointed one elder over the other elders in each church? (keeping in mind that "each church" could be "by itself" or one of a group of churches that met in one city: "Paul...to the church of God that meets in Corinth" (1 Co 1:1-2, NAB).
I think: Probably so....
Thanks,
Rick
P.S. I'm using this post to start another thread.
I found some info at this site: Second Temple Synagogues
Donald Binder, the site owner wrote:Who were the leaders of the synagogues?
The organizational structure varied somewhat from synagogue to synagogue. One common scheme had a "ruler of the synagogue," known variously as an archisunagôgos, archôn or prostates, at the head of the congregation. He would control the flow of religious services, serve as judge over community disputes, and represent the congregation outside the local community. He was frequently a patron of the synagogue.
Surrounding the synagogue ruler was a group known as the "elders" (prebyteroi, gerontes) or "notables" (dynatoi), who served as an advisory panel and assisted in administration and teaching in the synagogues. In additional, one or more trained scribes--most frequently a Levite or priest--maintained the synagogue archives and assisted in the reading and teaching of scripture. Finally, a synagogue assistant (hyperêtes or neôkoros) would oversee the upkeep of the physical plant and assist the synagogue ruler in various servile tasks during assemblies.
There are a number of variations on this scheme. In some locales there were several synagogue rulers, rather than just one. In others, the offices of archisunagôgos and archôn became specialized, with the former being concerned with religious ritual and the latter with more temporal affairs. Priests and Levites frequently functioned among the various leadership roles, though synagogue positions were not restricted to the priestly or Levitical caste.
While in later centuries women occasionally served in leadership positions in diaspora synagogues, the existence of female synagogue leaders during the Second Temple period is currently unattested.
comments:NeXt Bible (an updated NET Bible), Acts 18:8 wrote:
Crispus, the ***president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it 2 believed and were baptized.
***archisunagogos <752>
arcisunagwgov archisunagogos
Pronunciation: ar-khee-soon-ag'-o-gos
Origin: from 746 and 4864
Reference: TDNT - 6:844,1107
PrtSpch: noun masculine
In AV: ruler of the synagogue 7, chief ruler of the synagogue 2
Count: 9
Definition: 1) ruler of the synagogue. It was his duty to select the readers
or teachers in the synagogue, to examine the discourses of the
public speakers, and to see that all things were done with
decency and in accordance with ancestral usage.
from 746 and 4864; director of the synagogue services:-(chief) ruler of the synagogue.
see GREEK for 746
see GREEK for 4864
How other versions translate ARXISUNAGOGOS:
the synagogue ruler (NIV)
leader of the synagogue (NASB)
the official of the synagogue (NRSV)
the chief ruler of the synagogue (KJV)
In some evangelical circles you hear a lot about how the NT teaches a "plurality of eldership" and that we should follow a similar type of church government today. My cousin is a pastor (elder) in one such church that has five elders. Steve (Gregg) talks about this in his "Some Assembly Required" mp3 series. I don't recall him talking about "the president of the synagogue" [Acts 18:8] offhand. I think he may have addressed it but I can't remember to what extent if he did.
Those who advocate a plurality of eldership in the church are "biblical," imo: The NT teaches it. However, the people who do this don't take into account the fact that there was, at least in many instances, one overall leader in the synagogues; they see the plurality of elders functioning in an egalitarian way. Iow, no one is "in charge."
The early churches (the first ones) were established in two ways. First, there is the general pattern or norm of the synagogues. Some synagogues seem to have "become churches" which would be to say they believed in Jesus now, and, otherwise, kept going along with their same governmental polity. Other churches had a non-Jewish government, being set up along the lines of tradesmen guilds.
My cousin's church, though it believes plurality of eldership to be biblical, etc.; they have my cousin "set aside" as the general overseer. Put another way, he presides over everything in the church. He doesn't call himself the "senior pastor" but for all intents and purposes he functions as one, even within this plurality structure.
He's like a chief ruler of a synagogue.
I'm not episcopalian about my ideas on church government. But I do believe a case can be made from the Bible that one person is to be the overseer of everything that happens in a church (a presiding elder over the other elders).
Paul wrote to Titus, [ Titus' Task on Crete ] "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint [or ordain] elders in every town, as I directed you," (Tit. 1:5). If Paul and Titus were following common and established Jewish practices, would Titus have appointed one elder over the other elders in each church? (keeping in mind that "each church" could be "by itself" or one of a group of churches that met in one city: "Paul...to the church of God that meets in Corinth" (1 Co 1:1-2, NAB).
I think: Probably so....
Thanks,
Rick
P.S. I'm using this post to start another thread.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Rick,
On just a logical basis, it seems to me that if one says that there is not a ministerial priesthood, then it makes nonsense out of scripture which gives us the instructions and details about the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:22).
Why would laying on of hands be necessary if every person who wanted to be a church leader could just declare himself one?
2 Timothy 2:2 tells us "what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers." How do they know if the person is faithful or not? Surely, interaction and a period of discerning must take place.
You say your cousin is a pastor in one church that has five elders. Well, what happens when one elder has a differing or evolving point of view on, let's say, the nature of the Eucharist. What if TWO of them start to think the same way? Do they break off and form their own church and take some of the congregation with them? If they all have equal leadership, do they have to be of one mind on essential teachings?
Who would boot whom out of the Church?
How would you know who held the Truth? I know this is getting a bit off topic, but it does relate to what you bring up about a church being "by itself." I think if they drift from the one faith, one baptism, they can be by themselves a bit too much, to the point of teaching error.
God bless,
Liseux
On just a logical basis, it seems to me that if one says that there is not a ministerial priesthood, then it makes nonsense out of scripture which gives us the instructions and details about the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:22).
Why would laying on of hands be necessary if every person who wanted to be a church leader could just declare himself one?
2 Timothy 2:2 tells us "what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers." How do they know if the person is faithful or not? Surely, interaction and a period of discerning must take place.
You say your cousin is a pastor in one church that has five elders. Well, what happens when one elder has a differing or evolving point of view on, let's say, the nature of the Eucharist. What if TWO of them start to think the same way? Do they break off and form their own church and take some of the congregation with them? If they all have equal leadership, do they have to be of one mind on essential teachings?
Who would boot whom out of the Church?
How would you know who held the Truth? I know this is getting a bit off topic, but it does relate to what you bring up about a church being "by itself." I think if they drift from the one faith, one baptism, they can be by themselves a bit too much, to the point of teaching error.
God bless,
Liseux
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I'm sure that Rick will answer for himself.You say your cousin is a pastor in one church that has five elders. Well, what happens when one elder has a differing or evolving point of view on, let's say, the nature of the Eucharist. What if TWO of them start to think the same way? Do they break off and form their own church and take some of the congregation with them? If they all have equal leadership, do they have to be of one mind on essential teachings?
Notwithstanding, I would like to affirm that in the first century, there was a plurality of elders in a church, each with equal authority. When differences arose, they would pray together, seeking the will of God. His Spirit would reveal the same thing to them all, and they would corporeally come to the decision which God wished.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidon,
That surely could have happened at times, especially when the men's differences were not so great. However, as scripture points to a hierarchy, with apostles and bishops at the top under headship of Our Lord, being first called by Jesus then having successors named, as with Matthias (Acts 1 25-26), I don't conceive that multiple "elders" are going to all have the same authority. Somebody gotta be da' boss.
I can't see a local "elder" having more authority than a successor to the Apostles, such as Clement of Rome or Ignatius.
When the Church in Corinth was having disputes, their pastors could not come to terms. They appealed to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, and he settled the dispute, saying: "For ye will give us great joy and gladness if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter." Clement 63, in Lightfoot Apostolic Fathers, 84, as quote in Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray, p. 128.
Have certain lay people, elders, or evangelists straightened out those above them in authority from time to time? Yes, but if everyone were equal in auhority, chaos would generally ensue in the Body of Christ.
Without a hierarchy of authority, Truth metastasizes and ceases to be Truth. As with homosexual acts today, pastors disagree in some denominations. This is not something that we just get together and vote on, with the side having the greatest number of votes winning. With this type of shared authority, a church can often move further from the Truth, which these groups have that say homosexual acts are now not sinful.
Blessings,
Liseux
That surely could have happened at times, especially when the men's differences were not so great. However, as scripture points to a hierarchy, with apostles and bishops at the top under headship of Our Lord, being first called by Jesus then having successors named, as with Matthias (Acts 1 25-26), I don't conceive that multiple "elders" are going to all have the same authority. Somebody gotta be da' boss.
I can't see a local "elder" having more authority than a successor to the Apostles, such as Clement of Rome or Ignatius.
When the Church in Corinth was having disputes, their pastors could not come to terms. They appealed to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, and he settled the dispute, saying: "For ye will give us great joy and gladness if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter." Clement 63, in Lightfoot Apostolic Fathers, 84, as quote in Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray, p. 128.
Have certain lay people, elders, or evangelists straightened out those above them in authority from time to time? Yes, but if everyone were equal in auhority, chaos would generally ensue in the Body of Christ.
Without a hierarchy of authority, Truth metastasizes and ceases to be Truth. As with homosexual acts today, pastors disagree in some denominations. This is not something that we just get together and vote on, with the side having the greatest number of votes winning. With this type of shared authority, a church can often move further from the Truth, which these groups have that say homosexual acts are now not sinful.
Blessings,
Liseux
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: