Thread: The Lord's supper

I have been discussing the Lord's supper with someone who claims it is not taught in scripture to continue this.
this person says: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper"
I Corinth. 11:20.

And if anyone practices this they are a heretic, we should be celebrating the Life, not the Lord's death.
he also claims: It is clear, that the translators added the word "oft" to indicate that they should do this "often".

Whats everyone opinion on this? It is an important issue. I believe Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him, what He did for us.

Another question, what religion believes along these lines? "that we should not celebrate the Lord's supper? Or is it better phrased, what cult? The way international, and the Pentecostal oneness movement, are two that I can see.

Please reply and thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Dennis1963

I have been discussing the Lord's supper with someone who claims it is not taught in scripture to continue this.
this person says: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper"
I Corinth. 11:20.

And if anyone practices this they are a heretic, we should be celebrating the Life, not the Lord's death.
he also claims: It is clear, that the translators added the word "oft" to indicate that they should do this "often".

Whats everyone opinion on this? It is an important issue. I believe Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him, what He did for us.

Another question, what religion believes along these lines? "that we should not celebrate the Lord's supper? Or is it better phrased, what cult? The way international, and the Pentecostal oneness movement, are two that I can see.

Please reply and thanks in advance.

Hyper Dispensationalists in the line of Bullinger, Ethelbert W. (not the Reformer) believe that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism belong to a former dispensation not the actual one of the Church.

It is just non sense of course

concerning 1 Corinthians 11 the Apostle Paul in vs 21 explains why he wrote that and if you follow the passage it is very clear

I've never heard of this before. I agree with one aspect though, that the Lord's Supper is a celebration of life; life in Christ Jesus based on what He has done, is doing and promises to do. It's a celebration, which is often lost in the somber remembrance of some churches.

Your friend has completely misread 1 Cor 11:20, which is condemning the practice at Corinth, which was wrong - what Paul says they were doing was out of accord with what was commanded.... they were in fact NOT eating the Lord's Supper. He then goes on in the subsequent section to explain 1) what the Lord's Supper was supposed to look like, as it was instituted by Christ, and 2) that they were to continue it to perpetuity. What does your friend think was intended by Paul in the rest of chapter 11, particularly 23-26? What is that, if not an institution of the Supper for all of time until Christ returns?

Obviously the I Corinthians 11:20 quote is completely out of context. The apostles understood that it was to be done until Christ's return and it was practiced in the early church (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:42) and the apostle Paul gives specific instructions, I Corinthians 11:23-26, which he testifies to them being given him by Christ himself.

Note, this is a parallel post. The preceding message was posted between the time I started this message and posted it.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I've never heard of this before. I agree with one aspect though, that the Lord's Supper is a celebration of life; life in Christ Jesus based on what He has done, is doing and promises to do. It's a celebration, which is often lost in the somber remembrance of some churches.

Sorry for the confusion, let me clarify. What this person says, is, by celebrating the Lord's supper is celebrating His death, and this we shouldn't be doing, but, we should be celebrating His life.

-----Added 1/25/2009 at 12:24:04 EST-----

Thanks for the reply's, they were very helpful.

Just to affirm Todd and Jay, the verse given, 1 Corinthians 11:20, is clearly Paul's criticism of what the Corinthians are doing not an instruction of what the Corinthians should be doing. The argument goes that because the Corinthians are fighting over the bread and wine and being greedy, because that's not the spirit of the Common Meal, therefore they're not even really eating the Lord's Supper.

As for your friends argument:

by celebrating the Lord's supper is celebrating His death, and this we shouldn't be doing, but, we should be celebrating His life

What he has done is taken a stream of logic and ran with it to come to his conclusion. It seems reasonable because it is logical. BUT it is also contrary to what the scriptures teach us, therefore no matter how reasonable our logic seems, if it runs counter to scripture then we abandon it. We are told many times to remember the Lord's death until he comes again at the parousia. Therefore that is what we do.

Besides which there are many reasons to celebrate our Lord's death. It's in his death that my sins are paid for and forgiven. It's in his death that I see the greatness and extent of God's love for me. It's in his death that the devil is dealt his final blow. It's in his death that access is made possible to the Father. It's in his death that justification occurs. It's in his death that the old man is done away with. It's in his death that Jesus completes his perfect life. I could go on, but there are enough reasons for you to celebrate right there.

I think you friend is confused. He can celebrate Christ's life all day long but it won't get him life. I would explain to him that in order for him to live (regeneration) Christ had to die. He needs to acknowledge this. If he wants to celebrate Christ's life, then tell him to celebrate the resurrection...of course you can't have a resurrection without a death both are needed to explain each other. I've heard of people within the "evangelical" world getting rid of the term "blood". It's very subtle because all of what they say is true in a way. So for example they will say that Christ's death on the cross paid for their sins, but if you agreed with them and then stated that you were very thankful for the blood He shed they wouldn't go for that. It gets deeper than this, but that's all I can remember. I'm wondering if your friend is such a person.

Originally Posted by saintjonny

BUT it is also contrary to what the scriptures teach us, therefore no matter how reasonable our logic seems, if it runs counter to scripture then we abandon it. We are told many times to remember the Lord's death until he comes again at the parousia. Therefore that is what we do.

Logic has its place (a very central place) but by making repeated logic jumps from a single text you can come to almost any conclusion. Your friend is also wrong to discount apastolic tradition as the means of interpreting scriptures.

To borrow from Luther,

whenever you find someone who cannot seem to appreciate or to grasp (or even rejects) the Bible's "paradoxes", God's "foolishness" because it runs counter to that which "makes sense" in a rational calculus, there you have the theology of glory.

The opposite is the theology of the cross. Why is this the opposite? Because the death of Christ is the triumph of Christ. But go ask the chief priests and scribes if it looks like they have won or Jesus has won. "Come down from the cross, and we will believe in you!"

"by celebrating the Lord's supper is celebrating His death, and this we shouldn't be doing, but, we should be celebrating His life."

There it is: the theology of glory.
Don't celebrate the cross, that's sad!
Don't dwell on that; it happened, it's done.
You hear about it, you acknowledge "that was for me"
and you move on past as quickly and deliberately as you can.
Every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better!

No, but Paul says he "glories" in the cross, in the "weakness of God." He would know nothing among the believers except Christ and him crucified.

Does this mean he has no interest in the Christ risen and ascended? By no means; he has been laid on the altar and his life poured out unto death. And then, he demands it back again, takes his body back and his blood, and lives again. He ascends to where he was before and ministers in the true Temple with his own once-sacrificed blood on our behalf--our eternal priest.

If he is not Priest for us, he can hardly be Prophet and King for us either.

Your friend will find some folks who agree with him in the heretical Hyper Preterist camp.