Communion - Literal vs Spiritual

stmatthew · #1 02-21-2007, 07:09 PM

If was brought to my attention that a certain preacher teaches Spiritual Communion. Now I cannot for the life of me see that this as truth (spiritual communion), as Paul got on to the folks because of the way they were eating the Lords supper. So I can see plainly that there was a literal partaking of the Lords Supper taking place. This is one of those areas that I really have not taken a lot of time to consider, so I am fishing for some answers here.

Having said all that, I would like to know your opinion one the 2. Are they heaven and hell issues? Would you fellowship with the opposite type? Why not?

Brother Price · #2 02-21-2007, 08:21 PM

I am a literal communionist. I believe in partaking of the literal bread and wine. Is taking communion a Heaven or Hell issue? I would want to say yes, because it was meant to be a remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Would I fellowship with those who do not believe in communion as I do? Yes, so long as we avoid this subject, or choose to discuss this subject civilly.

#3 02-21-2007, 08:21 PM

I don't know what spiritual communion is...

I just read the other day in the bible where it said to take it with reverence...it is not to be done by non believers. To me its a very serious thing to take of Him...makes me weep...tender....

ChTatum · #4 02-21-2007, 08:28 PM

OK, who is the preacher? I know of one who does preach this.We've never discussed it, and have good fellowship.

ManOfWord · #5 02-21-2007, 08:31 PM

Communion, as we practice it today, wasn't remotely like it was done in the NT. In the NT it was a Passover meal which had been observed for centuries before. Only when the early church veered off and left its Jewish roots, was it able to reduce the Passover to a swig of juice and a cracker.

However, I used to have a family @ NLC who firmly believed in spirutual communion. He gave me some tracts explaining it and asked me to consider it. I did and didn't see it then and don't see it now. However, this family had such a Christ-like spirit that rather than cause difficulty by not partaking in commuion when the church did, they would quitely either leave or not attend if they knew in advance. They did not try to convince others of their beliefs and are still good friends of ours even though they moved out of state.

This belief is taught in numerous places in the South, which is where he came from. He picked the doctrine up from his Father. They were oneness to the core, but believed that communion was not to be observed until the marriage supper of the lamb.

ReformedDave · #6 02-21-2007, 09:33 PM

Here's chap. 29 of the Westminster Confession of Faith which is the position I hold-

Of the Lord's Supper

1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration 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 abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.

3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

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; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.