How important is the Lord's Supper to you?

[Light]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?

Yes

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a person has repented and been baptised, but has not yet received the Holy Ghost, would you oppose their participation in the Lord's Supper?

No.

[thephnxman]

Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?

[Light]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?

The bible does not say one way or the other.


A person who doesn't have the Holy Ghost doesn't have a circumcised heart.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Let me ask: does anyone / everyone here believe that only a minister (pastor) can administer the Lord's Supper?

No. Any brother can give thanks and distribute bread and wine to the assembly, although I would think whoever is the elder (oldest in the Lord) and/or one who has oversight OR whoever is the host of the church would be the best choice to serve the bread and wine.

Technically deacons are responsible for serving meals/food to the church as well as alms/offerings to the poor so the deacons if any would be the ones to distribute the food, with perhaps one of the elders saying the blessing. Jmo

[Esaias]

Paul did not say many had participated when they were unworthy. NONE OF US are "worthy" to dine with the Lord of Glory. Paul spoke of those who ate unworthILY, that is, in an unworthy manner. Because some were gobbling up the food with no regard for their brethren, especially the poor (who therefore could not bring much to contribute to the meal) who wound up not being able to eat. Such disregard for the brethren shows a failure to discern (ie perceive or recognise) the Body of Christ, and was tantamount to a betrayal of the Body just as Judas betrayed the physical body of the Lord. As Judas betrayed Christ the same night in which he ate the Last Supper, so these self-centered and unthinking brethren were recreating that betrayal in their abuse of the Lord's Supper.

It was not about eating a magic piece of sacred bread without proper prior ritual sanctifications.

I notice that Paul did not warn against non Christians eating unworthily, but Christians. The warning is given to US to take care how we partake.

There is of course a good argument for excluding unbelievers on the basis that this is a fellowship between Christians and one another in the Lord and outsiders therefore have nothing to do with it. But when every meeting is designed as an evangelistic service and with the constant push to "invite the lost to come and hear" it seems there is not much room for exclusive fellowship.

[votivesoul]

I realize this may sound too Catholic for some, but I think one's salvation is tied to it, in a qualified sense.

The Lord's Supper doesn't save; the Gospel does, and the Gospel alone, being the power of God, is what saves.

But take note of what it means to be ex-communicated according to the Scriptures: it means to be "out of communion".

Someone who has legitimately been removed from the body of believers because of any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (e.g. fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, covetous idolatry, etc.) is turned over to Satan.

Consider then what Jesus said in John 6 and in Matthew 18. The bread and wine doesn't do the saving, but they are hallmarks that one is saved, and being denied access to the communal meal for legitimate reasons means one has not only lost their fellowship with the saints of the church, but also their fellowship with the head of the saints of the church.

There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. And for a member to fall into grievous, unrepentant sin, and so be removed, not only from geographical proximity, but also from the meal of the Lord's Supper (a la Judas), means that, unless God grants them repentance, they are lost (just like the son of perdition).

Take into account the "spots on the feasts of charity" mentioned by Peter and Jude. Such people, if allowed to partake, actually ruin the supper and cause dangerous problems to the Body of Christ.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I realize this may sound too Catholic for some, but I think one's salvation is tied to it, in a qualified sense.

The Lord's Supper doesn't save; the Gospel does, and the Gospel alone, being the power of God, is what saves.

But take note of what it means to be ex-communicated according to the Scriptures: it means to be "out of communion".

Someone who has legitimately been removed from the body of believers because of any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (e.g. fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, covetous idolatry, etc.) is turned over to Satan.

Consider then what Jesus said in John 6 and in Matthew 18. The bread and wine doesn't do the saving, but they are hallmarks that one is saved, and being denied access to the communal meal for legitimate reasons means one has not only lost their fellowship with the saints of the church, but also their fellowship with the head of the saints of the church.
There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. And for a member to fall into grievous, unrepentant sin, and so be removed, not only from geographical proximity, but also from the meal of the Lord's Supper (a la Judas), means that, unless God grants them repentance, they are lost (just like the son of perdition).
Take into account the "spots on the feasts of charity" mentioned by Peter and Jude. Such people, if allowed to partake, actually ruin the supper and cause dangerous problems to the Body of Christ.

Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.

Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.

Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.

Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.

I like your link about immortal souls. Good read.