Is Communion still to be observed?

[tdavis]

I would like to hear logical, Scriptural arguments both for and against celebrating communion in the post-apostolic age.

No, this is not a trick question.

In Christ,

Tim

[spl_cadet]

"Do this in memory of me."

Plus that's what all the early Christians did.

[dizzle]

And I believe the entirety Scripture in view of Christ's messianic role is that it is celebrated until the Consummation.... which is why Paul tells us that it is done in remembrance of Him until He "comes." When He comes, the marriage is complete.

[Hitch]

Arent we still 'grateful'?

H

[Gavin]

I believe in Communion for today for the same reason that I believe in miraculous spiritual gifts like prophecy for the church today. They are clearly taught by Scripture as a means of edification for ordinary lay Christians, and there is nothing to indicate that they have any kind of temporary purpose or uniqueness to the apostolic age. If we throw these things out the window, what couldn't be thrown out the window as only for the apostolic age?

(I would argue that miraculous gifts continuing throughout the church age is even clearer, based on a number of texts, but that is another topic. See my upcoming debate with Apollos.)

[George Blaisdell]

Tim[/i] writes:

I would like to hear logical, Scriptural arguments both for and against celebrating communion in the post-apostolic age.



Did I hear you say that you would like to hear arguments???

Christianity, if it is not apostolic, is nothing...

A post-Apostolic age Christian is kind of an oxymoron, don't you think? I mean, did the apostolic Church just disappear at the lingering death of the last apostle??? Is not Christ's Church the one instituted via the apostles? Do you think it just kinda died off gradually, until by now it is now pretty much yesterday's refuse?

Communion is entered - The faith was given once for all - The mystery of the Faith, held in a purified conscience, is itself communion, entered in baptism... And within it are sacraments, the mysteries of the Church...

Why do you like to hear arguments, for and against, Scriptural and logical, or any other kinds?

geo

[Xmansmommy]

tdavis,
It depends on who you ask. The only persons that I am aware of at this point that teach communion isn't for today, are Acts 28 dispensationalists. I'm sure there are probably more but I've not met any yet. Yes, I partake of communion, in thankfulness and remembrance for what Christ has accomplished at Calvary for me.

Blessings,
Linda

[Salus]

I don't have an issue with partaking in Communion. I do it to thank Jesus for dying for my sins and to remember all that he stands for.

Do This In Rememberance of Me

[tdavis]

Yes,

I believe in taking communion too. I'm asking on behalf of a friend who's hesitation about communion is based upon the New Testament priority of the Spiritual above the physical things. Let me play devil's advocate:
If we are worshipping "in Spirit" why do we need to use physical symbols? The physical temple was destroyed in favor of a spiritual temple. The O.T. Law in stone was replaced by a law written on our heart. Etc., etc.

Do you understand the question better? I'm looking for some good ammo.

TimD

[George Blaisdell]

03-11-2003 @ 07:30 PM
tdavis:

Yes,

I believe in taking communion too. I'm asking on behalf of a friend who's hesitation about communion is based upon the New Testament priority of the Spiritual above the physical things. Let me play devil's advocate:
If we are worshipping "in Spirit" why do we need to use physical symbols? The physical temple was destroyed in favor of a spiritual temple. The O.T. Law in stone was replaced by a law written on our heart. Etc., etc.

Do you understand the question better? I'm looking for some good ammo.

TimD


Christ did not ONLY come in Spirit - He came in the flesh. We worship in Spirit AND Truth, and the Truth incarnated, and sent the Holy Spirit into His Church at Pentecost, and if we are going to worship in truth, in the Holy Spirit, we need to eat and drink the flesh and blood [in the holy communion] of our Lord...

Christianity is incarnational, as long as we are incarnate, as Christ was...

You cannot just turn "in Spirit" into some discarnate head-trip form of worship. And our Lord told us that if we do not eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us...

Tell him he can stop taking communion when he is dead, and until then, he needs it more than his next breath...

I really find it hard to take this question seriously...

Any help yet?

geo

[jramage]

I'm asking on behalf of a friend who's hesitation about communion is based upon the New Testament priority of the Spiritual above the physical things. Let me play devil's advocate:
If we are worshipping "in Spirit" why do we need to use physical symbols?
We worship in the Spirit, but we are also physical human beings. We live in the physicial world and we relate to God through physical means. The Bible, for example, is a physical book that we can touch and feel, and it's also the Word of God that posseses power over all things seen and unseen. Christ instructed his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism, again, is merely a physical act on the surface, but spritually it represents the washing away of sins and sets a Christian apart from the world as one who is claimed for Christ. When we pray, we speak audible words, even though God doesn't audibly hear us like we hear each other. When possible, we even take a posture of pray, usually by kneeling. Not because kneeling is necessary to be heard, but by kneeling we symbolize our submission before God, who is holy.

Think about it... how can we not use physical symbols (or sacraments, depending on your tradition)? What would the body of Christian believers looks like if we didn't baptize, read the Bible, pray, and participate in Communion? How would we be edified, rebuked, and reminded of how to live in this physical world where Christ also lived 2000 years ago?

Jason Ramage
Louisville, KY

[Amazing Rando]

Why in the world would anyone besides a loopy dispensationalist argue against the observance of the Lord's Supper? :huh:

[spiritmech]

Why in the world would anyone besides a loopy dispensationalist argue against the observance of the Lord's Supper? :huh:

Yeah it sounds weird. But some people also believe that the Holy Spirit has ceased from giving certain gifts. So it's not that far from wondering if other things might be up for grabs.

When I saw the OP, the first thing I thought of was "Hyperpreterism" since it says the 2nd coming happened in AD70.

George called it right, though, the Apostolic age hasn't ended. Communion, to me, is one of the most enjoyable practices of the Christian faith. I can't imagine stopping it.

[spiritmech]

One thing: ask your friend if he believes in a fully bodily resurrection, or if it's just our souls. He sounds an awful lot like a hyper-preterist to me. Christianity has not abandoned the physical for the spiritual. Anything that tries to insert this dualism is neo-Platonism, not Christianity.

[Jin-Roh]

I honestly can't say how someone could argue against communion.

Since the scriptural reasons have already been cited, I'll give some of my "pragamatic" reasons.

I think for one thing, it provides us with a connection with history. Since it's something that can't be 'contextualized' in the same way that say the music in a church or the clothing of the clergy could. The eblems only have meaning when they remind you of the original event. It takes us out of our modern world/lives and puts in the shoes of the early Christians in otherwords.

Related point, I think communion places us alongside Christians worldwide, regardless of culture or language. This is important for me since I'm begining to think that the American church has tunnel vision is often more centered on the individual believer rather than the Church.

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah it sounds weird. But some people also believe that the Holy Spirit has ceased from giving certain gifts. So it's not that far from wondering if other things might be up for grabs.

When I saw the OP, the first thing I thought of was "Hyperpreterism" since it says the 2nd coming happened in AD70.

George called it right, though, the Apostolic age hasn't ended. Communion, to me, is one of the most enjoyable practices of the Christian faith. I can't imagine stopping it.

:thumb:

[Amazing Rando]

I honestly can't say how someone could argue against communion.

Hey- we've seen some Christians argue against baptism too. So I suppose if even baptism is up for debate, it's not that far outside the realm of possibility that someone would also chuck another fundamental of the faith like communion.

[AV1611]

I would like to hear logical, Scriptural arguments both for and against celebrating communion in the post-apostolic age.

No, this is not a trick question.

In Christ,

Tim
1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

[Amazing Rando]

It's very important to shew the Lord's death. :lol:

[AV1611]

It's very important to shew the Lord's death. :lol:
Indeed it is. :wink:

[Jin-Roh]

I honestly thought it was just something strange in the KVJ bible.