Paragraph 6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
Paragraph 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Paragraph 8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
Paul's life was wholly taken up with Christ, not living for himself any longer. Personally I do not call that dung. He did refer to dung in his testimony in Philippians, but that referred to all the OT and old covenant privileges, not the teaching of Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:15 KJV (15)¬† And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Every Christian is to live wholly and solely for Jesus Christ, not for themselves any longer. This is called 'under new management' and involves handing over the reins to him, being a good steward of all he gives.
If men and women will not have this man reign over them, it will not go well for them on judgment day.
Paragraph 3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
Paragraph 4. The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
Paragraph 5. The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, in other words, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
BTW, because of limited characters, I have removed the texts which go alongside these paragraphs. So if you want the link to the full works, you've only got to ask.
James Thomas wrote: Per the context St. John, That is a specific group of people that was being spoken to.... not all people.
St James, in my Bible it says great multitudes. And then...
Luke 14:31-33 KJV (31)¬† Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? (32)¬† Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. (33)¬† So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Oh sure, for many it is all too much, expecting such a sacrifice. And there I was thinking salvation was a free gift, and now Jesus wants so much from me. It is grossly unfair, and I'm not sure I could go along with that.
Matthew 19:21-22 KJV (21)¬† Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (22)¬† But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
This has been repeated many times in the history of the church. Jesus costs too much.
Allow me the privilege of thrilling your heart by showing you what conclusions over 100 pastors arrived at concerning the communion in 1689. Such joy.
CHAPTER 30; OF THE LORD‚ÄôS SUPPER
Paragraph 1. The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
Paragraph 2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
James Thomas wrote: Faith is not the human ability to reason and make informed decisions.
St James, why then does Jesus tell us to make informed decisions before becoming a disciple?
Luke 14:25-30 KJV (25)¬† And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, (26)¬† If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (27)¬† And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (28)¬† For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? (29)¬† Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, (30)¬† Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
1 Corinthians 10:20 KJV (20)¬† But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
This is during his discourse on the Lord's Supper. Note,
"and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils; as all wicked men have, in the commission of any lust, sin, or immorality; and as all idolaters have in their superstitious practices, and idolatrous worship; and if grace prevent not, will have to all eternity in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; wherefore the apostle would have the Corinthians flee from idolatry, and all appearance of it, and abstain from eating things offered to idols, **of which they could not eat without having fellowship with devils**; this he says, to deter them from such practices, which must be very horrible and shocking, and bespeaks in him great care of them, and affection for them." Gill
Now Bro US, you see why I say there is far more to the communion than we have ordinarily been taught? There is the Lord's Table and a Devilish Table, and at the latter, the partaker fellowships with demons.
Therefore, at the Lord's Table, the partaker fellowships with........?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Yes please, and I have started an answer to your question but please respond to mine, thanks
Your questions are: "The verses you cited still teach that communion is symbolic. Are you trying to say it is not? Are you saying there is more to it than symbolism?"
I will do my best to answer, as I do not see it as yes/no answers. I will answer both questions together.
The bread and wine which you hold in your hand, you are going to eat the bread and drink the wine. Are they bread and wine? Yes. Do they represent the broken body and shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes.
Is there more to it than symbolism? I believe there is far more to the communion than is commonly understood. And I believe there is far more to communion than a simple remembrance.
For example, I hold the bread in my hand and I am thinking about Jesus. I put it in my mouth and chew on it, and I am thinking about Jesus. I am thinking about his broken body (which is why we break the bread). My focus is on Jesus and what he has done for me, in permitting his body to be broken. There is a specific reason why we have bread and wine not just wine, but not for the moment - later.
Michael Hranek wrote: Brother John it is because of Scripture I disagree Please reread the 2 I've posted to you there are more For instance Philip the Evangelist had 4 daughters who prophesied Off to church
Ah but brother, it is because of scripture I disagree with you.
Let us look at one of your proof texts for women preaching the gospel.
Acts 21:8-9 KJV (8)¬† And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. (9)¬† And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
Certainly Philip was a preacher of the gospel; he was an evangelist; he saw a great many converted.
But his four daughters were not preachers nor evangelists. It said that they prophesied. And where did they prophesy? What sort of prophecies did they give out? I suggest they gave prophesies relating to believers only. In other words it was a charismatic gift to the church, and they would have exercised that gift either at the assembly or at home, for their father to give out at some point in the church meeting.
Michael Hranek wrote: Whoa! Dear Brother, were in the world did you get that!
Good morning Michael. It seems to me that you disagree with me. Does that make me wrong? Well it could do; but there again not necessarily. I could be right and you could be wrong. Are you keeping an open mind? Or are you one of those dogmatic sort?
Brother, I am studying again the missionary journeys of the apostle Paul and friends. This was a time of intense gospel preaching and persecution.
It is interesting the number of different disciples Paul ended up with throughout his journeys, all of them seem to have been men. Indeed, if you can show me a passage of scripture from Paul's missionary journeys where we have a woman preaching the gospel - in the same manner that Paul preached the gospel - well, let me see it and I will rethink what I said.
I am bound by the word of God, and am happy with whatever God says. It is up to him not me. If he says women can preach to men, fine. If he says prophecy is for today (as you seem to be saying) then that is fine by me. I did not invent Christianity, it is God's plan, and it is my purpose and desire to conform to his plan not mine.
I see Bible-Bashing is still popular among some. As far as I'm aware, it has never been used by the Lord to save or edify anyone, because it is the antithesis of Christianity and NT principles.
I also see the Bible-Study by Unprofitable Servant, and commend all that he taught in that sermonette.
I also see Lurker's excellent message, and commend that to the house.
I also see several others who contributed in a loving and gracious manner, which is a great example to the saints, and edifying to the humble hearted.
All in all, congratulations to everyone who posted something, especially Dr Tim who knows a thing or two about preaching the gospel to the lost, having been called and enabled by the Lord to do such a thing.
Women of course are never called to preach the gospel, which is why the Lord does not give them insights into this aspect of the Christian life. Rather he teaches them to play their role in submission to the man as their head, which, if they were to do such a momentous thing, would improve the world enormously overnight and bring such a peace that passes understanding. Obedience to God tends to have that effect, but there are so few who desire it nowadays. Sad.
Frank wrote: My communions at home are so shallow. So, if the definition of the breaking of bread would help, please let me know.
Frank, you know the just shall live by faith.
But I'll share this anyway.
To have the breaking of bread you have to 'break the bread'. I told you it was simple enough.
Matthew 26:26 KJV (26)¬† And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
The bread that Jesus would have broken at the last passover was Jewish unleavened matzah bread. This looks nothing like our western sliced bread, which is soft and fluffy, and which you cannot break, only tear. Matzah is like a cracker, which snaps when you bend it. I have found a similar sort of bread in Ryvita Slims, which makes a snapping noise when you break it. It also crunches when you chew it, which ties in with the greek word for 'eat' which means 'gnaw' as in eating nuts, 'eating with a crunching sound'.
It all makes sense to me.
There is more, but I'll leave that for another day.
I commend daily communion to you bro. See what happens as the weeks go by.
Frank wrote: Pilgrim JohnUK I know that you don‚Äôt believe in the catholic definition of communion. That would mean you believe only the priest can change the wafer/bread and the grape juice/wine into the literal body and blood of our Lord and Savior. I know that you don‚Äôt attend a catholic church and that you and your team partake of the Lord‚Äôs Supper. It is normally immoral for any catholic to take communion anywhere outside the catholic mass.
Thank you Frank, I appreciate it.
Yes I take communion every Monday with my fellowship, and at home I take it every day. Today I have taken it twice. It is a wonderful way to become focussed entirely on the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has accomplished at Calvary and even before Calvary. It involves fellowship with him, and that always leads to a time of prayer, which is always rewarding.
It wasn't so long ago I was considering taking the Supper once a year, as was the Passover. But I'm glad the Lord led me to take it every day, as it is being a real blessing.
BTW, do you know why the Bible calls it the breaking of bread? The answer is quite simple, but most do not know the answer.
MS wrote: John, no one is ‚Äúattacking‚ÄĚ anyone. But, to propagate false ways needs to be addressed. Your RC view of the Lord‚Äôs Table is not shared by most on here, because it‚Äôs not Biblical. You have a romanist belief of it. No need to respond to this, I am taking my leave, as I have said what needs to be said and I am not getting in to a donnybrook about this.
On the contrary MS, I do need to respond, lest the Lord break out against you. I AM interceding for you right now. What did you say?
[US wrote: ‚ÄúThere is no spiritual content in the elements of the Lords Supper that are consumed, it has none and transmits none‚ÄĚ.
AMEN and AMEN! To try and convey that it does is propagating the devils religion, the cult of RC. ‚ÄėTis what happens when one reads to many heretical RC mystics and their ilk.]
1. Please show me where I made that claim.
2. Please tell me how many RC mystics I have read, and which others of their ilk, and what has happened to me of a consequence.
You say you have had enough, and are taking your leave. And you will do, until the next time. Your track record is terrible. You never have anything good to say, it is always negative. Don't you realise how much harm you can do in this world? Please consider.
Here is the thought of most normal theologians: that our wonderful Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, is both 100% man and 100% God. Now if he is 100% man, that means his blood was human and just like ours. If he is 100% God (and God is a Spirit) then he doesn't have any blood from that direction.
So I will agree with you, that his blood is like ours. When it poured out at Calvary, it was like any other blood poured out. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.
When people tell me that the blood of Jesus Christ does not cleanse me from all sin, I start calling them the devil, because that sort of talk comes from him.
God is a gracious God.
John 3:17 KJV (17)¬† For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
This is the word of God, which some will never accept. They recognise it opposes their new-fangled belief structure. The cure for this malady is to return to the teachings of Charles Spurgeon or Bishop Ryle, and get a better handle on what God was saying in that verse. Maybe then, they will experience the love of Jesus Christ in their bosom, and cease behaving like a manic depressive.
Dr. Tim wrote: Revelation 22:17‚ÄĒ‚ÄúAnd the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.‚ÄĚ If you‚Äôre thirsty, you are invited by the Holy Spirit of God to come, and if you will come, you can drink. This is not man‚Äôs philosophy or ‚ÄúArminian dung.‚ÄĚ It is the solemn promise of God Almighty. To deny it is to call God a liar.
Yes, it is a serious offence, Doc.
But that is the state some hyper-Calvinists get into.
I put it down to a lack of experience in seeing people saved through spending too much time doing other things, like listening to hyper-Calvinists.
The other thing is not accepting the Bible as God's word, which gives them freedom to jettison much of scripture which opposes their view. And there is a huge amount of scripture which opposes their view, sure there is.
Revelation 22:17 KJV (17)¬† And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Any evangelist, taught of God, will be more than happy to quote this text of scripture during his address, because it is the word of God, plain and simple, easy to understand, easy to explain.
The gospel produces a thirst in many souls. They thirst for forgiveness. They thirst for Jesus Christ. They thirst for a fresh start in life. They are becoming thirsty for all the things of God. So what instruction does the Spirit of God give to anyone in such a state of thirstiness? He says, "Come, and assuage your thirst." And who has this water of life? This living water? To whom must they come? To Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, who already said in the gospels, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink."
Is this talking about the salvation of the sinner? Sure it is. And those who avail themselves, get saved. And those who don't, don't get saved. At some point, you have to make a decision. "Shall I come to Jesus and ask him to save me?" "Or shall I do nothing, and if he wants to save me he will."