Closed Communion, the Biblical Case
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2022
- Closed Communion Outline of the Biblical Argument
1. Communion is to be practiced in the context of pastoral care.
1.1 Paul warns about the danger of unworthy communion.
1 Corinthians 11:27-32 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
1.2 Paul calls the pastors “stewards of the mysteries of God.”
1 Corinthians 4:1-2 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.
2. The Sacrament of the Altar is where theological unity is expressed.
2.1 The Scriptures command theological unity.
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
(See also Philippians 2:1-4, 1 Peter 3:8, John 17:11, 17, Jude 3, 1 Timothy 4:6, 16, 2 Timothy 1:13)
2.2 False teachers and false teaching are to be avoided.
Matthew 7:15 [Jesus says,] “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
(See also Matthew 16:6, 12, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:8, 2 Peter 3:17, Galatians 1:6-9, Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 11:19)
2.3 The altar is a place of confession.
1 Corinthians 10:14-22 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? (κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου) What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Theology is life. Here's a dose of Biblical teaching and reflection from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller of St Paul and Jesus Deaf Lutheran Churches in Austin, TX.
Today's question is about Closed Communion.
Links: Support Deaf Missions in central Texas: www.wolfmueller.co/deaf
The bookstore (where almost everything is free): www.wolfmueller.co/books/
To sign up for Pastor Wolfmueller's free weekly email of theological awesomeness called "Wednesday What-Not", visit www.wolfmueller.co/Wednesday. (Every month we give away a free book to a subscriber!)
All the theological awesomeness ends up on the website: www.wolfmueller.co
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.77[1/2] ก็ไม่ได้ชอบเอาชนะ แต่เรื่องอะไรต้องแพ้!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JraaBYOd7I0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this video. My wife and I were raised Lutheran and though we always appreciated their doctrine we moved to a nondenominational church after we moved across the country for reasons of community. Now 6+ years later and having kids we are struggling with differences in doctrine and practice of the faith. Communion has been a huge issue for us and I’m happy to say we are working our way back to the LCMS. The information in this video is what I have been looking for and needing as I try to lead my family through this difficult process. May the Lord continue to bless you and all your great work!
I do not know why anyone would want to commune outside of their confession of faith or altar and pulpit fellowship. People get offended if they cannot commune, and get offended if you will not commune with them....they don't get it.
God be thanked for wise wives. Thank you for speaking to a difficult subject so well. Not that I wouldn't expect it. Coming rather late to the Lutheran Confession, there is a great security finding unity and communion in the very location of God's great gift. It rejoices my heart when I commune with brothers and sisters to whom I truly belong and they to me. All because Christ meets us there. Thanks again for wonderful teaching, pastor.
Thank you for some good commentary on this issue. As a college student who converted to LCMS from the ELCA early in my undergrad, the idea of close communion was a sticking point for me. I couldn’t be at peace with the thought of going back to my home church where I grew up and not being able to take communion. But Covid happened, that church went online for God knows how long, and my family stopped attending there anyway. I think God shows us, through all the mainline churches with open communion - which also happened to be the ones focusing more on social justice, etc. than the Word - that if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.
At some point I just had to look at what I was learning from my LCMS pastor and what was being preached, and say “This is what I believe,” at which point I knew I had to become a member and that it would be dishonest to commune anywhere else anyway.
I lived through bring my ELCA mother to my (at the time) ELS church and she was offended for life when she was disallowed communion. She has never stopped resenting it. I learned later this was very wise considering some of her views. I grew up LCA (ELCA didn’t exist yet) and learned enough about the perilous nature of false doctrine before coming back to the Lutheran church-that it endangers souls, and as Ezekiel lays out vividly, is actual violence in God’s eyes (Ezekiel 22)-to be very grateful for churches who held strong.
@@cindystokes8347 The devil is always trying to water down the Gospel so his followers can attend church.
Thank you Pastor, pastoral care is so important to my walk with Christ.
I must say, after hearing Lutherans explain their theology and thinking, I find much of the Lutheran tradition very compelling.
Thank you dear Pastor. This is so clearly and lovingly expressed. God bless you.
The interesting question isn't whether to have closed communion but where the line is to be drawn where closure is in effect.
“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” - First Apology of Saint Justin Martyr (AD 155).
I think you are very passionate and thoughtful in your presentation of your understanding, as well as the LCMS's understanding of all of the topics you have taken to share with everyone on TH-cam.
I think closed vs open Communion is taken to the extremes too often these days. I believe, Paul when mentioning the Tabernacle, was clearly saying that Jews should not participate in Christian Communion. He wasn't saying that the Corinthian Christians who were disagreeing with each other over doctrie should not share Communion with one another. I think most, if not all Christians should be able to share Communion with each other.
1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept (i.e. revile) correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who refuse the theological correction of the pastor) are rightly excluded.
Mr. Whiteman: " I think most, if not all Christians should be able to share Communion with each other." I am curious as to why you would say this. Would you be willing to explain the basis for your statement? As a Lutheran pastor who received his B.A. in biblical studies at a Southern Baptist University (Palm Beach Atlantic Univ., West Palm Beach, FL.), it was quite obvious that conservative Baptists held to beliefs that were not faithful to Holy Scripture. Even though I made some great friends while there, and I held a couple of them in high regard, we still had major differences in what we believed. Thank you. Pax.
Very helpful. I have a Lutheran friend who disputes closed communion because of the word close. Also he says it's taking to ourselves.
The problem stems that no one can see into someone else’s heart, that’s God’s territory. And even if someone makes a case that Christians show themselves through their fruit, the double standard comes later when that Christian makes a “mistake”. Then a triple standard comes after that saying they were really never saved to begin with even after being “recognized” by the Church elders and pastor. Nothing and no one can divide and conquer His people for the Lord knows who He knows.
I probably read 1 Corinthians through 20 times (not exaggerating) before I realized the ENTIRE BOOK is about closed communion. Change my mind. Would you join the body of Christ with a prostitute? This is not an argument against sexual immorality (and not a non-sequitur) but rather a continuation of the argument of why not to allow the unrepentant sinner back into communion. When Paul says “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” the “Your” is plural. Same with the “unequally yoked”. It’s all about the communion of the altar.
Wonderful video with ample scriptural support! Sadly, many will overlook the pursuit of the good in pursuit of the perfect. Do we know that all of those we share the sacrament with believe exactly what the LCMS teaches and confesses? No. But does that mean we should invite any and all to share in our confession? No. We do the best we can with the clear teaching of God, knowing perfection in practice will not come this side of eternity...but striving nonetheless.
Thanks!
I think the arguments are very sound. As I have gotten older I have come to embrace this wisdom.
Once upon a time, ALL churches DID practice closed communion. I cannot understand why many of them opened their rails to virtually everyone.
Agree completely. One of the discouraging things I’ve noticed about a lot of modern evangelicalism is that doctrinal distinctions don’t matter anymore. You can have a Baptist who believes in Ince Saved Always Saved, and a Wesleyan who believes in perfectionism/ losing salvation, and both may join a nondenominational big box church, and the doctrinal implication is often “It doesn’t matter which one is right.” And this shallowness of doctrine does more to hurt than help, especially when it comes to something as clear and as Scriptual as communion.
Amen!
Hi Pastor,
Enjoyed this Closed Communion Analysis.
On a side Note, when you come to Hope for Hope's 70th Anniversary next year, I will be sure and mention how Keri was the only one that was able to setup Hope's Choir.
Thanks!
Dave
Thanks very well put. Member of Pilgrim Lutheran in Kilgore TX
Any updates on Table Talk Radio? I can only re-listen to old episodes so many times! God be with you and Evan in your ministries!
I agree
Thank you for this although this issue is the very reason why I could not be part of lcms you see I need to take communion as often as possible for I sin more often than I think I do I need this for the forgiveness of my sins every religion follows a tradition I rather follow Jesus this makes the lcms a little to catholic for me love your sermons besides this your right on track
Excellent presentation. I liken open communion to an open marriage. Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride - communion is Christ sharing Himself with those who believe and love Him - sharing this with people who don't believe is like the parable of the man who entered the feast without a wedding garment.
Well done, and the explanation helps more than I’ve heard previously. One point, however: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” It doesn’t say to STOP after one’s examination, but rather says “and so let him eat” - in others words, examine yourself, and go ahead and partake. I just find it interesting that within the Christian community, the vast majority accept an open communion. Can so many be so wrong?
If self examination does not have results it is meaningless. It is implied that one should not take communion until passing the test.
Yes that many people could be wrong. At least theoretically. A huge number of people are not Christian. They are all wrong. Being wrong on something much less important is much easier.
A lot of denominations practice some form of closed communion. Joe Biden was refused communion for supporting abortion. I was refused communion by a small Mexican congregation because I was Baptised as an infant, not later. Closed communion works both ways, I had no intention or desire to participate.
Yes, so many can be so wrong. Pure democracy is no guarantee of truth.
Incognito, I agree Jesus says "Take and eat... Drink all of you...
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Matthew 26:26-28 ESV
Believing what the Scripture say is what our Faith in God's Word/Son/Spirit is all about.
“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”
Acts 17:11 NAS.
We are suppose to compare teaching/doctrine with God's Word.
This was why Luther tried to reformed the Roman Catholic church.
But sadly, the Priest would not listen to Luther.
Martin Luther who said, “I can only choose to adhere to the Word of God, which has possession of my conscience; nor can I possibly, nor will I ever make any recantation, since it is neither right nor safe to act contrary to conscience! Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God! Amen.”
““Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.”
Matthew 23:37 NAS.
I believe in excommunication: for those who refuse to repent.
Matthew 18:
“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.”
Matthew 18:16 NAS.
Pastors give us Law & Gospel:
““What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.”
Matthew 18:12-13 NKJV
I pray the LCMS would see each Soul that Christ is drawing to Himself.
Many could be wrong and eating and drinking judgment upon themselves for.whatever reason....and by that pastor administering the elements to these people, is allowing these people to eat judgment upon themselves.....this is not pastoral
Excerpt of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod altered communion statement, and the method it is not supported by the Scripture,
nor is the method supported by Luther, who expounded for us all, the method of Scriptural instruction.
"In 1983, the LCMS justified its position on the Eucharist and stated that it is providing justification so that the church's posture does not appear to be a mere institutional accruement." Then it goes on to offer several institutional accruements. If it is a duck, no amount of confirming one's desire to not be a duck will change it from being a duck. A similar posture is seen in the RCC doctrine, although I am less familiar with their doctrinal writings so I won't quote them
(Why should communion be "closed"? By David Eisenbeisz)."
Thanks for a great video.
I have a question: I find your argument about patoral care convincing but still unsure about the argument that "you confess the faith of the altar". Why not understand 1.Cor 10, Acts 2:42 to be saying that there is a confession of faith in the sacrament and a horizontal fellowship but that fellowship is a confession around Christ as lord (meaning also non-lutherans, who says to the pastor that they are sinners, that they are baptised and believe in christ atoning work and want to live a holy life)
Are you any relation to Jon C Wolfmueller of a small town in Texas, runs or ran a bookstore? Never mind. I went looking for "Wolfey" and found he had died a month ago. He and I were friends and worked together in Alaska. I saw his obit and that you officiated it. I have passed this on to the community of the 6981st and add my condolences to his entire family.
Are the Bible verses you used provided somewhere in the comments or description? I may have just not found them yet. Wonderful explanation.
At about 9:30, there are Baptists that have held historically to closed communion, so you can't lump all of them into that category of open communion. Consider the Old Landmarkism movement, and people such as J.R. Graves (1800's author and Baptist pastor) and Pendleton. Graves actually wrote a very elaborate discourse on the Lords' Supper and why it should be closed communion. If I recall, he wrote other works as well. Those works used to be available for free online, or in print with the American Baptist Association, the group that Graves' teachings and 1800 debates helped to create.
@10:55 What does it mean to "serve the tabernacle"?
I am in a foreign country with no choices..It's a happy clappy church or stay home. It is tough because I believe in closed communion.. Anyone who participates in Communion participates in the eating and drinking of our Saviors body and blood. If you do that. and do not not believe that, you are profaning our Lord's Supper. You are partaking in your own condemnation. I am sorry so many people have bought into inclusiveness. In many churches, Communion is just an ordinance, not a Sacrement. As such it really has no meaning or significance and really no benefit.😔 In these churches, works are their primary obsession. They are always giving and never receiving, and they are never happy.
We also don't have the privilege of having an abundance of LCMS churches in my country. Only one in the entire province. When I watch the online services, I wonder how many of those congregants realise how very blessed they are, to be served by those pastors. But praise God for the small Lutheran Church I was raised in and returned to after many years of wandering. They have many faults, but I am grateful for the sacraments still honored there. I can imagine the sadness and emptiness you feel going to a modern church. May God comfort you and bless you.
I totally disagreed with this until attending a LCMS church for a month. I saw the wisdom in it, then I saw the Biblical case while studying for membership
You must know what you are confessing or it is not a confession at all. Confessing in ignorance as a matter of ceremony is a sin.
I appreciate the argument you have and can see your perspective, but I have one question in opposition to your argument.
Communion is a means of grace and a gift God gives to us to strengthen our faith. Why should we limit God’s gift to his children if they do not hold to certain confessions (if a Baptist or an Anglican visits an LCMS church)?
I’m part of the LCMS church and it is interesting to hear two sides of the argument on this topic. I hope to be adding to the discussion and not detracting.
Interesting topic that needs more unpacking or explanation. I understand the idea of pastoral care but what about congregations perceptions? Some people in LCMS churches think that church visitors taking communion without discernment or understanding of the Lords Supper doesnt effect them; since, the rest of the chruch has an understanding. I dont think that is right but I dont know how to convince them otherwise.
So what if you have theological fellowship, but don’t get along with the people in your church or are too anxious to get to know them, etc?
Would that person be right in choosing not to take communion?
The big problem for those who argue for closed communion never read the whole passage. Doesn't the context start at vs 17 not verse 27. What is the unworthy matter. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. Context Context Context As Chris Rosebourgh says. I normally love Brian videos. However doesn't context matter with these verses too.
This is my other account. To clairfly a couple of points . I not saying that a non christian should commuion or someone that is not baptized should take it. I have heard that at times the ELCA has allowed someone off the mulisim faith be allowed to take it that is blashismed. How ever when a christian denied the sacrament that is wrong. I understand Brians point on false doctrine. How ever recently I heard a lutheran pastor say that his 5 year old understand the sacrement. Yet he would not him to allow him to take it. That is wrong on so many levels. Yet there are probaly some adults that dont understand what commuion means that h he allows to take it. The ten bible hour man was asking why cant i take the sacremnt. I have known a baptist that knows commuion better than some Lutherans. Yet you would not let him take commuion. I know of an LCMS church that has a yoga class. Whats next not allowing someone that is phyiscally handicaped to to commuion. I sure that has happen. I not trying to make this out as an attack. I trying to see that is other points of view. It seems that we are not allowed to question this. Sorry for spelling srrors. I doing this on my tablet. I could on more on this subject I will stop now.
The last time we took communion at a Lutheran Church there was a note in the bulletin about non-Lutherans checking with the minister before taking it. We checked and told him we were Anglican Catholics. He said OK.
N.B.: The Episcopal Church now invites all baptized people to receive.
The Baptists and the Methodists "don't ask." Nor did the "Disciples of Christ."
John Gilmer: I am so sorry you had this experience. You obviously were at a "Lutheran" congregation with a LINO pastor (Lutheran in name only). He is also more concerned about offending people rather than offending God. As an LCMS pastor, it angers me when I hear this. Why don't such men just leave and start a church of the own? 😔
@@rickpettey8822 -- I don't understand your problem. We are both confirmed by bishops in the apostolic succession.
@@GilmerJohn: And that is why I confess you as a brother in Christ. However, our confessions regarding the catholic Faith are not the same. That was Pastor Wolfmuller's point. Our altars do not on "the doctrine" given by Christ to His apostles. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. Pax, in Christ.
Scripture flooded my mind reading this response. Please forgive me if I'm out of place.
Christian Church: believers of God's Word becoming flesh...
We are all sinners in need of our Savior. There is not a perfect this side of heaven.
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”
Philippians 1:18 NIV
The LCMS gets pretty close. Except for denying God's people the Lord's Supper.
The Apostles tell us to judge for ourselves/themselves. Discerning Christ's body/blood.
Are we disagreeing with other denominations concerning God's very Word or is the division with man made traditions?
Jesus said~
... “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Matthew 26:26b-28 NIV
“Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.”
Matthew 12:25 NIV
Apostles teaching the Good News:
“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
Acts 20:28 NIV
“Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” ”
1 Corinthians 4:6a NIV
“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.” 2 Timothy 2:14 NIV
“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.”
Romans 15:7 NIV
Dear LORD JESUS, please help your Church/Bride! Amen
@@prettypleasevideo: You obviously take this issue seriously and with great passion. For that I commend you. Please receive these words in the Christian spirit in which they are offered without taking any offense.
Your response is a very common one. You provide a plethora of passages without any consideration to the various contexts in which they found. It is quite interesting that you provide my favorite passage on the responsibilities of pastors and why. It is Acts 20:28. Your improper use of this passage for your argument is found in the passages after verse 28 which read, For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. [Acts 20:29-31]
What is the purpose of these passages? That Paul has for three years catechized these elders/pastors about false men, who are leaders WITHIN the church, who will introduce false teaching to the churches. We see this admonition about awareness about false teaching that is not coming from those outside the church [such as from other religions} but from those supposedly speaking for Christ. That is why we see warning after warning beginning with Jesus and continuing from the apostles. [Matt. 16:6, 12; Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:13; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2 John 1:10]
The passage that you quoted (Acts 20:28) clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit has called pastors to be overseers in the church. This oversight of pastors over the church is carried out by teaching, preaching the truth and rebuking what is false. Your inclusion of 2 Tim. 2:14 in no way addresses this issue. It is about not getting entangled in meaningless issues that have nothing to do with the Word of God.
Paul admonishes the Christians in Corinth to take responsibility over a right reception of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:28). This, however, does not exclude the pastors from the responsibility over those coming to the Lord’s Supper. To declare that the absence of Paul speaking specifically about pastors in this context, means that they have no authority over the Lord’s altar is a fallacy called “An Argument from Silence.” God has called pastors to such a responsibility (1 Cor. 4:1), even as I have demonstrated above.
The church from the time of the apostles practiced “closed-communion” as instructed by Paul. Why such a practice? Verses 27-29 explain. Those receiving the Lord’s Supper without believing that the bread and wine are the true, real body and blood of Christ. Not believing this causes one to receive it to their spiritual judgment. Why would you want someone to receive the Lord’s Supper to the harm?
The other issue is receiving this supper in unity of faith. If two people, though Christians, hold to two opposing confessions (i.e., Reformed, Roman Catholic, Zwinglian, Enthusiasm, confessional Lutheranism, etc.), how can they stand before God and man in a meal that requires such unity of faith? It is an act of love. First, last and always, it is about love of God. That love is expressed in not wishing anyone to come to spiritual harm and that all present are of the same confession. For Paul also warns to be aware that there will always division within the visible church because of sin (1 Cor. 11: 18,19). The Lord's Supper does not create unity.
Eucharistic Practice in the First Four Centuries of the Chistian Chuch by Werner Elert is a great place to read about this. This is the best scholastic examination of how the first Christians practiced these words of Christ and of Paul. It is also vital that you understand that simply listing verses does not prove your case. We call that "cherry-picking." You must be well versed in the contexts in which these verses are found and their teaching. I greatly encourage you to read a different Bible version than N.I.V. It is loaded with all manner of theological bias from the translators. While there is no perfect Bible version (pastors must be able to read the N.T. in the original Koine Greek to properly understand what God actually inspired), there are versions that are better than others (i.e., KJV, NKJV, ESV, NAS, etc.)
Pax, in Christ.
as a Reformed Baptist pastor I agree 100%. all forms of open communion is contrary to Christian Scripture, theology and tradition
Yes will deny it to a Christian? That is what is being done. That is wrong.
@@marklitton2997 how is a pastor to know who are believers but those who are committed to the church?
Out of my ignorance, I've had negative feelings about closed communion. The common quick explanation I've often found is that it is to prevent eating and drinking judgment unto ourselves. The Lutheran teaching of eucharist as I understand it is that the eucharist is Jesus's body and blood, but also bread and wine. We don't have an explanation for this like the Catholic "transubstantiation", we accept it as a mystery. For this reason I had a hard time understanding why communion should be closed over something viewed as a mystery, where do we find the harm? What I failed to see was the unity and confessional aspects of the sacrament, and I think I now understand that ignoring those portions and partaking in eucharist without that knowledge would be inappropriate. Open to correction, thoughts anyone?
I am so confused. A Christian for almost thirty years, fully baptised, I always participated in communion in my old Baptist church. I relocated and now go to a small evangelical church with very sound teaching. I have been attending for over two years but have struggled with their closed communion rule. I must be a member of the church before I can receive communion. Currently membership isn't something that I can commit to as it means I should aim to attend every meeting, something I am unable to do. One of the reasons being that I attend with my sister who has learning difficulties and some physical problems. She has become very agitated and frightened at the mention of being baptised but has a very simple and wonderful love for Jesus. She has always taken communion as well but wouldn't be able to here as she isn't baptised or a member.
Any thoughts out there?
This is a wonderful exposition which I believe most fervently. However, the case isn’t as airtight as ‘is’ is.
I think it’s difficult today since there are many different Christian camps. In the days of the apostles with the exception of Gnosticism, the Christian’s were all the same in doctrinal agreement. Now that’s not to say that every church was the same since we hear different comments from Paul to different church’s. So that Corinth wasn’t in fellowship with Ephesus I would imagine at the time Corinthians was written.
I would like to hear some thoughts on that thanks.
I didn't know there was any Biblical requirement for communion.
Hello, does anyone know of a good TH-cam channel for kids that you can recommend? Something that my 9yr old can watch and learn about the Bible?
@@Mygoalwogel 😳 Well, you're obviously morally superior to me. Congratulations. Jerk.
The answer to your original question is "no, closed communion is not in the bible". Even at Corinth when people were getting sick and dying, Paul only said that we should judge ourselves, he never even hinted that the clergy should implement a screening system to see if baptized and confessing believers were lined up with them enough to be worthy of it. If God wanted closed communion, that would have been a great place to actually put it in the bible. This is perhaps the biggest flaw in what otherwise is a very solid Christian denomination. LCMS just does not live up to the Sola Scriptura creed on this one.
Closed Communion is pointing to the Christian and saying, "You cannot receive Christ because you have not done/believed the right thing, and you are condemned under the Law." Instead of pointing the Christian to Christ, they point the Christian inward to themselves. When we look to ourselves we only find total loss and condemnation.
Communion is Christ for you. For the unworthy, for the sinner, for the lost. Turning a Christian away from our Lord, as is the practice in closed communion, is proclaiming condemnation, not forgiveness. It is saying, "You cannot have our Lord, because you haven't fulfilled the Law."
Thanks be to God, that Christ has given himself to us poor and needy sinners, despite our careless and clumsy attitudes towards Him and His love.
LW 36: 27-28 (WA 6, 6-33)
The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness, which the
tyranny of Rome has wrested from us. Not that those who use only one kind sin against Christ,
for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but left it to the choice of each individual,
when he said: “As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me” [1 Cor. 11:25]. But they are
the sinners, who forbid the giving of both kinds to those who wish to exercise this choice. The
fault lies not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but
to all men. The priests are not lords, but servants in duty bound to administer both kinds to those
who desire them, as often as they desire them. If they wrest this right from the laity and deny it to
them by force, they are tyrants; but the laity are without fault, whether they lack one kind or both
kinds. In the meantime they must be preserved by their faith and by their desire for the complete
sacrament. These same servants are likewise bound to administer baptism and absolution to
everyone who seeks them, because he has a right to them; but if they do not administer them, the
seeker has the full merit of his faith, while they will be accused before Christ as wicked servants.
Thus the holy fathers of old in the desert did [28] not receive the sacrament in any form for many
years at a time.
Therefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized upon by force, as if we were bound to this form
by a rigorous command, but I instruct men’s consciences so that they may endure the Roman
tyranny, knowing well that they have been forcibly deprived of their rightful share in the
sacrament because of their own sin. This only do I desire-that no one should justify the tyranny
of Rome, as if it were doing right in forbidding one kind to the laity. We ought rather to abhor it,
withhold our consent, and endure it just as we should do if we were held captive by the Turk and
not permitted to use either kind. This is what I meant by saying that it would be a good thing, in
my opinion, if this captivity were ended by the decree of a general council, our Christian liberty
restored to us out of the hands of the Roman tyrant, and every one left free to seek and receive
this sacrament, just as he is free to receive baptism and penance. But now we are compelled by
the same tyranny to receive the one kind year after year, so utterly lost is the liberty which Christ
has given us. This is the due reward of our godless ingratitude.
So If I don't receive communion will I go to hell?
what denomination is this pastor involved in? I am curious, he doesn't dress as a closed communionist.
While I can see the argument with respect to different denominations and what they confess in terms of the Sacrament, I guess the question is how far does the theological unity have to be to allow communion at the same altar? Even surveys of the LCMS show that actual belief and practice vary. So what doctrines are essential to agree upon to have altar fellowship?
I confess the Book of Concord and the Real Presence and Baptism as salvific, but am not a member of an LCMS congregation (long story), the only faithful congregation I've found is LCMC.
So, my understanding is, that even though I probably line up with confessional Lutheranism, I would be denied communion at an LCMS church.
I am in the same general situation. I left an ELCA congregation for the obvious reasons. I wonder if I could commune at LCMS church. I believe in the 'in, with and under' of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. I miss it so much! I live in deep ELCA 'territory' with no LCMS nearby.
Go to a LCMS church and talk to the Pastor. If you believe the same as them, it is likely you can receive Communion.
I need help understanding,m. Is it wrong then to join in communion with another Christian church who has a different confession? If we visit with family at a different church, should we not partake of their communion?
No, you should not partake in a church with a different confession.
Yes, good question. Does that cause division? I would think someone wouldn't go to another church, even as a guest, if they disagreed with it. Seems many denominations have rules that a person must belong to 'their' church, or not partake.
Yes if you have significant theological differences with them do not partake of the Supper with them. For me open communion is a sufficient difference. You can of course worship with fellow Christians who you don't agree with on everything. Do be alert for false doctrine though. That is the reason for closed pulpit. Only Lutheran clergy preach in Lutheran pulpits, Lutheran pastors do not preach in other churches or ecumenical meetings.
If they will serve you, you should certainly partake with others in communion. Absolutely no reason not to.
@@PenMom9 If you don't know their theology they could be heretics, or think you are. That is reason enough for me
Thanks for your answer to my Solomon question on Issues Etc. I agree with you also he probably isn't with Christ. I didn't read anything on Scripture where ever repented from his idolatry.
It is strange though, that we have Solomon writing Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? God can use anyone to speak his Word though.
To be clear then, is the lcms alter the only christian alter and only right place to partake the Lord's supper? The argument of unity, i find interesting how we make unity to be "agree with me" then there is unity, the desire i have "agree with scripture' Believe, hope, and trust in the promises of Christ, God, then there is unity. If scripture is not clear for example of closed communion then what unity can be taken. You have discerned that the scripture you gave justify closed communion, by the verses given where does it declare that we are to impose whether or not to give or withold the Lord's Supper.
When you have declared that "closed communion" is right, who decides what a person truly believes, for example, do all lcms members come to the table worthily because they are lcms confessed? Or are there some who lie and do not trust in Christ who come to the table, are there some who disregard their own baptism as nothing and then turn away from Christ who partake? (Rhetorical)
Seemingly, open communion and closed communion go too far, open communion shouldnt disregard the warnings, or allow pastors to disregard blatant false teaching and outward unbiblical teachings must be dealt with but to deny someone of coming to communion because they dont agree with closed communion, seems a stretch.
If my pea sized brain doesnt understand all things of how God works in the lords supper, and then doesnt agree on closed communion but by the grace of God i have come to believe Jesus is the Christ, who died for the sins of the world and my sins that i might be reconciled to God, undeservedly so and desires to be fed the body and blood of Christ to be strengthened and preserved by God, the standard of unity you have given, I would not be acceptable enough to come to the table by this standard of agreement or unity on open or closed communion? What if im in agreement on all other things with lcms but not on closed communion? that closed communion seems to be an added understanding raise up mans idea and limits Gods ability to strengthen and preserve a Christian man whom does not hold outward membership to lcms but had inward membership to the Church, the invisible, must the visible membership be required for God's act toward man thrrough the Lords supper? Is Communion our act to Him or His to us? If its His to us then let God judge the worthiness of a man and let God gift the reward of blessing and not act as though it is my gift to give a member or take away from someone who i think is a non member of Christ's church. Teach the things you said here, yhe importance of claiming Christ by taking etc.. leave the rest to God, do not play God, if someone outwardly speaks heresy then the supper he takes after your brotherly warning is to his own judgement
I agree partially the heart of closed communion might be right but the execution is not, that care must be taken, warnings given, Gospel preached, body and blood present because simply Christ says this is my body, but when Christ allowed Judas to drink, what of that? Luke 22:22. Was judas worthy? John 13:22-28.
Our Saviour gave the body and blood to judas? Was it closed to him?
Open and closed go to far extreme in many cases. So consider that the closed communion has refused to give the gift from God to a brother or sister in Christ. And open communion has disregarded God's word in the manner of importance watchfullness from pastors, from self reflection upon our lives and allowed people to do as judas without knowing what they were doing.
On a different side note, I'm curious of how lcms views free lutheran, or lutheran brethren congregations?
The argument over the Lord's Supper began centuries ago with the Western Church bishops and priests particularly after the Council of Nicea. The Western Church bishops, during the Council of Constantinople and Council of Ephesus, began to adopt idiologies which entitled them to primacy of place in the public square. Firstly, we must remember that the Scriptures support the context of the pastoral office: The pastor speaks and acts as Christ’s ambassador; that is His Office. The Western Church bishops began to step out of the Biblical boundaries and they began to call their authority a substitute for the authority of Christ. The described transition was not yet a glaring feature during the Council of Nicea. Any human being who claims, or who is claimed by others, as having all authority given to them, denies that all authority has been given to Christ Jesus
(Matthew 28: 18-20). By Christ and His authority, we being many members in one body of Christ, have been given gifts differing
according to the grace that is given to us: Office of pastor (Ephesians 4: 11), Office of prophecy (Romans 12: 6),
Office of Ministry (Romans 12: 7), Office of teaching (Romans 12: 7), Office of exhortation (Romans 12: 8). We do not become more divine, and we do not rise to higher levels of divinity, and eventually become fully deified. Since Christ cleansed us from our sins, there is no cleansing that further takes place. This Scripturally affirms that the pastor is not the only divine office of the whole body of Christ, but the pastor is part of the whole body of divine offices in the fellowship of Christ's Church, and we are instructed to submitt ourselves to one another (Ephesians 5: 15-21). The Western Church bishops falsley claimed that there are levels of fellowship, and the pastoral need became an office not by Christ and his authority, but by The Western Church bishops authority, and by their authority, not Christ's authority, congregational singing, by men and women, was repressed by the 4th century, along with a "Closed Door" interpretation of the Communion. The same divisive idiology is applied in recent times in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The Communion can only be provided to men by the merits of Christ under His authority. For an exposition of the full submission to Christ's authority, as supported in the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 11: 17-34), see Large Catechism, "Sacrament Of The Altar," bracket number [35]. Luther has expounded, for us, the context of the Scripture (Christ's words) is expressing: When we are in the Spirit of Christ, we are in submission to His authority, and Christ is saying to all 'Take eat," "Take drink," and He is saying it is His body and blood, not the pastor's body and blood. Therefore, under Christ's authority, no man is refused to receive His body and blood.
1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests from sects whose beliefs and lives are unknown to the pastor have not yet had a chance to receive correction from him. Those who verbally object to the Lutheran pastor's most basic catechetical teachings can arguably fall into the "revilers" category.
@@MygoalwogelDear Mygoalwogel: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5: 11, writes unto those whose glorying was not good, and he instructed: "I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Mygoalwogel, as long as you continue to seek the false idiologies of the Western Church bishops, who side-stepped the authority of Christ, the goal that I have is not to associate with separate sinful doctrines of LCMS, but to share with sinful people, by Christ's authority
(Not my own) the true understanding of Scripture, in the Spirit of faith, hope, and love. Paul instructed us not to have fellowship or even to eat with those who follow their own false idiologies such as this one: "In 1983, the LCMS justified its position on the Eucharist and stated that it is providing justification so that the church's posture does not appear to be a mere institutional accruement." Then it goes on to offer several institutional accruements. If it is a duck, no amount of confirming one's desire to not be a duck will change it from being a duck." Mygoalwogel, your pastor must abide by the said false idiology, in order to have social recognition in LCMS, so he misuses his office, by desperately trying to read, into the Scriptures, using the same manipulative method that the Western Church bishops had to do. I am making you aware of this, not desiring to have any association with you.
Thats the one thing stopping me from going to lcms everything else is right on point but didnt judas take communion thats why i don't get it we should live in unity with one another love one another if i go to lcms and not take communion i feel like an outsider feel like im being judged in acts 5 during penticost they brok bread and drank wine every day were they lutherans, Baptist, Mennonites, methodists ,catholic no they were Christians followers of our Lord and savior jesus christ
So sorry, so long...😥
📖 The Power/Sword of God's truth.
“Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.
*Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
Ephesians 6:11, *17 NIV
Luther found Scripture that has reformed God's Church back to God's gifts of faith in Christ through His Word/blood/Spirit.
Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 5:8-9, 10:17, Titus 3:3-7
My Dad, Children, Friends needed to hear the wonders of God's love. ✝️♥️🕊
But sadly, they think of our Church has a Lutheran cult. And there are other Lutheran's (ELCA)
who use God's grace as a license to sin.
Jude 1:4
My family knows:
“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.””
Acts 4:12 ESV
And yet, to receive Christ's body and cup/blood, we need to follow Luther's BOC over Scripture.
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”
Ephesians 2:19-21 ESV
My Dad died not hearing God's law & gospel through our beautiful liturgy of prayer, praise and songs of God's Word and mercies.
And yes, Closed Communion (excommunication) is granted with the testimony of 2-3 witnesses if sinners choose not to repent.
Matthew 18:
1 Corinthians 5:
It is man's interpretations that cause division. But, God's Word unites His people.
Jesus:
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
John 17:17, 23 ESV
“To those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:”
1 Corinthians 1:2b ESV
“...and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”
1 Corinthians 12:3b, 21, 27 NIV
"And yes, Closed Communion (excommunication) is granted with the testimony of 2-3 witnesses if sinners choose not to repent." Closed communion is NOT (caps. are for emphasis, not screaming :) excommunication. You are confused regarding each teaching. Pax.
At the Last Supper, Jesus allowed even Judas, who he knew was going to betray him later that night, to receive the Bread and Wine as Christ instituted Holy Communion at that meal. The early church only allowed Baptized believers to receive Communion so that ONLY Christians could receive Christ's Body and Blood.
We all, who call Jesus, Lord and Savior, are His followers, but yet all of us are sinners saved by God's Grace, Love, Mercy, and Forgiveness. None of us are truly worthy of receiving His Holy Body and Blood in Communion, but because of what Christ did on the Cross, we can come to the Communion table as those worthy, because it's what Christ did, and nothing we did or do.
No one should come to communion in a frivolous manner, as it is a gift from God to each of us, so it is something Holy and Sacred.
So, in my view, whomever is Baptized as a Christian, should be allowed to receive Communion. It is the pastor's job to remind everyone in that service of the Holiness and Sacredness of Communion. To not allow a fellow Baptized brother or sister in Christ to receive Communion, because they may not totally agree with all of your church doctrines is wrong, because NONE of us have it all correct.
We all are frail sinful humans, and the leaders of EVERY denomination or church is run by those sinful humans, who do not have a total clear understanding of what the Bible teaches, or we'd NOT have so many different denominations. As Paul said, we see through smoked colored glass, unclearly, and won't see clearly until we're with Christ in Heaven.
The Bible says mark those who cause division and avoid them. That would discount the idea that being baptized is the only prerequisite. Pastor W. is correct...Communion is a public expression of unity in all doctrine. I am thankful that he faithfully teaches this and practices it by practicing closed communion.
@@Alan-kz7sj
Hello, which divisions are we supposed to mark? I only ask, because pulling that verse like this can easily be abused to puff oneself or ones congregation up. I'm sure many Catholics would use this idea to call many people heretics..
nonetheless, the goal being what does scripture say?let that convince me that closed communion is the only and right way. There is scripture that speaks to protection, to warning, to significance of the Lord's supper, agreed, but I'm not convinced that the practice of "closed communion" is the right and only way.
At the same time if lcms and Brian choose to have closed communion, by all means, but to claim it is the only and right way I say, by scripture, convince me. Otherwise, it might be more proper to say this makes sense to our congregations and we appreciate the value in unity on closing the table for communion to anyone we don't know spiritually for sure if they are of Christ or not. There must be comfort in this for your congregations, but as a doctrine of unity in the Church, invisible, Christ's Church, is it not a stretch to say someone who is not convinced of "closed communion' is schismatic or even a heretic? Which is what is indicated by way of calling out division on "closed communion". Is this the hill that lcms will die on and for?, just the same, it must not be a hill to die on for the side claiming closed communion goes to far, because of fear of sharing communion with someone not of Christ, and willingly say this makes sense to our congregation, unless convinced there is only one way by scripture, then there is some freedom, no? I appreciate that many believers in lcms want to protect people from coming and drinking judgement unto themselves, and that you want to partake among believers.
My question is How do you determine and know the heart of someone?
We are able to make judgements of behavior, fruits, speaking truth, but not in the innermost of another's heart are we?
The idea of closed seems to say "we think is better to err on this side", if we stop the inclusion of many unbelievers we might sacrifice including a few believers, so be it, where the opposing would say, let us warn, guide, preach, to strengthen all believers to the table at the risk of allowing unbelievers to partake unworthily, not by inviting them, but upon their will of participation against the word given.
Thoughts?
Pastor, I really enjoy most of your videos, and they show me just how united we confessional Lutherans are, but to see this breaks my heart all over again. I would be an LCMS member if not for two doctrines: (1) the literal 6-day creation and (2) closed communion. My quick argument against 6-day creation: Rom 1:19-20 indicates that the nature of God is plain through His creation. To me, that means that we are to understand God's ways of doing things through the things He has created. Our careful examination of the physical evidence (i.e., His creation) indicates that the creation accounts are intended as figurative language, and that "yom" here does not designate a 24-hour time period as we now understand it.
As for closed communion, Paul's words in 1 Cor 10 & 11 clearly lay out that we need to have unity at the Christian altar. However, how far does the public profession of unity have to go before it undermines the critical purposes of the Sacrament outlined by Christ at its institution? As Lutherans (despite my inability to commune at LCMS or WELS altars), we all recognize the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament. That slight differences (I'm not talking ELCA vs. LCMS or WELS here--that ship has sailed) among confessional Lutherans could lead to such a violation of Christ's command (i.e., barring other confessional Lutherans from the altar) to do this in remembrance of Him is both saddening and shocking to me. I understand the LCMS's and WELS's desire to promote unity per Paul in this practice, but how can we achieve unity when we cut Christians off from the altar where they receive strengthening of faith and the Holy Spirit which leads to discernment and in turn will promote unity?
I find it sadly ironic that the primary doctrine that keeps me out of the LCMS is the one that it uses to proclaim unity. Is there NO room for ANY doctrinal disagreement, no matter how tangential or slight?
I understand your trouble there. May I ask which denomination you are a member of? I would join any confessional Lutheran Church here IF we had one in the country
Many LCMS churches are close communion, not closed communion. As they should be. Keep looking, we have found them all over the US in our family travels.
Interesting. Isn’t Romans 1:18-32 the very thing that drives us to the sacraments? I understand we’re not there for love and unity but rather our unrighteousness. Doesn’t the text state “day”? Is this not why ,through our unrighteousness, we stay with what the text states? We will always “suppress the truth”, “become futile in our thinking”, “exchange the truth about God for a lie”. Isn’t this why “day” as written means,“day”, to us? Just curious. Your comment caught my eye. 😁
I deny your claim that language in the creation accounts is intended to be purely figurative. Further, I am always amused that those who claim that yom may mean different things (which it does) claim that it must only mean one thing in Genesis. It must mean something other than a 24-hour day. I guess once you determine the truth of scripture it is impossible to consider an alternative view. How sad the theologians over the vast majority of the last 2,00 years disagree with you.
The LCMS church doesn't even really practice closed communion. It varies from congregation to congregation. One large church is San Antonio does internet communion. Another about an hour away isn't even too thrilled about fellow LCMS communing that don't belong to that particular congregation. One LCMS pastor who I respect told me that belief in the real presence of Christ was necessary for him to serve communion to that person. The details were between the communicant and God. I thought that made a lot of sense.
The example you use is to not have fellowship with demons not other Christians we disagree with. It's a.bad argument in my opinion
1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded.
It is also written "who are you to judge the servant of another?" You are using that scripture way out of context because it is talking about people you know are guilty of gross and unrepentant sin. People were getting sick and dying at Corinth and Paul STILL did not suggest that the clergy scrutinize the communion-takers, but only that they scrutinize themselves. What we do in communion is a shadow of that which we will have in heaven, and LCMS probably isn't getting its own table. @@Mygoalwogel
Eating that loaf, and drinking that wine, means you are eating and drinking the saving doctrine that Christ taught. Not so much as something physical, but rather spiritual. You have no part in Christ if you do not eat of his doctrine. I think JR graves had a book called something like, "what does it mean to eat and drink unworthily" and some other books on this very topic. decades since I read them.
I took the training at lcms after leaving elca. There is no difference in belief between the two, regarding the real presence, or episcopalean for that matter, in my opinion. RC is not same.
You’re presenting theological concepts, but you aren’t deriving them from Scripture. You’re making it sound like you are, because you’re starting with the doctrine and then trying to support it: it’s a method all traditions use and its “fail proof.” Start by looking in Scripture at meals with God. Don’t lead the sheep astray.
Probably your weekest explantion. You even appear to be stretching the Holy Scripture to justify a pious practice. i have worshiped in LCMS churchs my entire life and 90% of the pastors I have spoken to believe closed communion is one of the most distructive practices in the church. Now, that is not to say that they administer the sacerament as if it were some symbolic gesture, but denying the sacrament to a repentent sinner, who joins us in fellowship, and agrees with our beliefs, is hipocritical. You can try to explain it any way you like, but closed communion signals, "You are not as worthy as we are." It's like the RC Priest withholding the wine because the laity is not worthy. However, love what you do. Thought provoking and educational.
3 minutes in and you're just incoherent and non-sequiturs already
I'm glad my hospitals and doctors/nurses/pharmacist do not practice medicine as you do religion or we'd all be dead in our cold, dark graves. Excluding the spiritually needy "sick" is like refusing to treat an infection because someone doesn't like how it occurred. And I thank God you are not my pastor.
Nobody the altar biblically speaking was where the animal sacrifice took place it was a bloody bloody place genius