Lord's Supper Doctrine 022022

The Lord's Supper: Its Meaning, Its History, Its Forms, and Its Practices Copyright (c) 1996, 2008 and 2012 by Floyd Knight. All Rights Reserved. An Outline and Bible Study for New and Returning Members By Floyd Knight, BA, M.Div. Table of Content Lesson One: I. The Four Biblical Symbols and Extended Metaphors for the Lord's Supper Lesson Two: II. Common Names for the Bread and Wine and Their Biblical Sources III. The Mystery of the Two Sequences for Communion IV. Psychological and Liturgical Considerations V. The Original Understanding and Use of the Word Sacrament Lesson Three: VI. Present Definitions and Usage of the Terms "Sacrament" and "Ordinances" A. Differences in the Number of Acts or Rituals (Two, Four or Seven) B. Lord's Supper as an Ordinance and as a Sacrament C. Differences in Sacramental Terminology for What Transpires after the Saying of the Words of Institution VII. Interpretive Theological Paradigms or Gestalts for the Lord's Supper A. Part 1: Medical versus Judicial (Forensic) Paradigms B. Part II: Different Understanding and Definition of Symbols for the Elements C. Part III: Differences in the Understanding of the Theology of Grace 1. Sacramentalists' Position on Grace and Its Efficaciousness 2. The Non-Sacramentalists' Theologies of Strong Grace VIII. Problems with the Sacramental Viewpoint Optional Lesson Four: IX. Who Can Take Communion? X. Study Conclusions The Lord's Supper: Lesson 1: Its Meaning, Its History, Its Form, and Its Practices The primary question regarding the functions and/or purposes of sacraments or ordinances is whether believers already experience in a full way Christ's "indwelling"? Do believers have the full indwelling of the Holy Spirit by having the Spirit of Christ living within them or do they need the sacraments to have the full indwelling or to receive grace fully and completely? I. The Four Biblical Symbols of and Metaphors for the Lord's Supper or Communion A. Three of the Four Biblical Symbols of and Metaphors for the Lord's Supper Passover Feast A. Matthew 26:26-29 B. Mark 14:22-25 C. Luke 27:15-20 Old Testament Allusions and Reference Exodus 12 & 34; Leviticus 23; Numbers 9 & Deuteronomy 16 Common Meal / Agape Feast A. Manna / Bread / Breaking of Bread: John 6:1-13, 22-59, esp. 32-35 Cf. parallels of the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000: Matt. 14:13-21 and 15:32-39; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17 and 24:13-35. B. 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, 33-34. (Context of a Bible Study with a potluck or brown bag gathering) Old Testament Allusions and Reference Exodus 16; Numbers 11 & Deuteronomy 8:1-18 Marriage Feast of the Lamb A. Revelations 19:6-9 Cf. this to Luke 14:15-24 "The Parable of the Great Banquet" and Matthew 22:1-14 "The Parable of the Wedding Feast" B. Luke 22:16-18 and Matthew 22:1-14 and the implications of Jesus' words, "I will not drink of the product of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (LEB, Lk 22:18). Old Testament Allusions and Reference Hosea 2:14-23 and 3 & Song of Solomon B. The Fourth Symbol: Jesus as Our Burnt, Meal, Peace, Sin, Guilt and Special Offering In the New Testament book of Hebrews, the author says that Jesus is not only our perfect, High Priest who lives forever, but also our perfect and eternal sacrifice and offering which once and for all times secured the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus was the once for all sacrifice in time and the one true priest who is the true and perfect mediator between God and humanity. He is the true and effective priest and sacrifice [the type] for which the Old Testament priesthood and sacrifices [the antitype] foreshadowed. The various Old Testament sacrifices include more than the Passover lamb and are listed below. 1. Leviticus 1: [Whole] Burnt Offering (Both the Daily and Special) a. Purpose: For Atonement and as a Soothing Aroma to the Lord b. Offering Requirements i. Male Animal --Young Bull --Sheep or Goat --Turtledoves or Young pigeons ii. No Blemish 2. Leviticus 2: Meal Offering (First Fruits and Ingathering) a. Purpose: As a Memorial and As a Soothing Aroma to the Lord b. Offering Requirements i. Unleavened Bread ii. Anointed with Oil (Oil must be poured upon it.) iii. Frankincense must be put on it. iv. Must not have honey on it v. Must be seasoned with salt 3. Leviticus 3: Peace Offering a. Purpose: As a Memorial and As a Soothing Aroma to the Lord b. Offering Requirements i. Male or Female--Cows or Bulls --Sheep or --Goats ii. Without Blemish iii. The Best Portions: Fats around colon, Kidneys, Liver and Gall Bladder must be removed 4. Leviticus 4: Sin Offering a. Purpose: To Receive Forgiveness for Unintentional Sins (Omission or Commission) b. Offering Requirements i. Male--Bull for Priest and for Nation ii. Female--Goat or Lamb for the Common Person iii. Female--Two turtledoves or two young pigeons for the Poor iv. Tenth of Ephah of Fine Flour for the Destituted --No oil --Incense Must Be Put on It v. Without Blemish vi. The Best Portions: Fats around colon, Kidneys, Liver and Gall Bladder must be removed 5. Leviticus 5: Guilt Offering 6. Special and Daily Offerings Leviticus 23 also lists the following required festivals and feasts (sacred assemblies) while Exodus 29:38-42, Numbers 28:1-8 list the requirements for the daily sacrifices a. Daily Sacrifices (Exodus 29:38-42, Numbers 28:1-8, and Leviticus 1) b. The Weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23) c. The Passover (14th Day of the 1st Month) (Lev. 23) d. The Feast of Thin or Unleavened Bread (15th through 22nd Day of the 1st Month) (Lev. 23) e. The First Fruits or Wave Offering (Lev. 23) f. Feast of Weeks or Pentecost Offering After the Seventh Sabbatical Year (Lev. 23) g. The Feast of Trumpets (1st Day of the 7th Month) (Lev. 23) h. The Day of Atonement (10th Day of the 7th Month) (Lev. 23) i. Feast of Tabernacles or Booths (15th Day to the 22nd Day of the 7th Month) (Lev. 23) j. The Sabbath Year (Every 7th Year) (Lev. 23) k. The Year of Jubilee (Every 50th Year) (Lev. 23) Discussion Questions: (1) Does having four symbols or metaphors for Communion of the Lord's Supper enhances or diminishes your own celebration of communion? Why? (2) How are the four symbols theologically related? (3) How are the four symbols different? (4) If one is emphasizing the metaphor of communion as being the agape feast, how would one celebrate this? (5) What do the four symbols say about your own relationship with God? i. Daily Manna: Do you have daily communion with God? ii. Old Testament Sacrifices and High Priest: Do you celebrate and rehearse with thanksgiving those special remembrances of how God saved you and brought you through trials and temptation? iii Wedding Banquet: Do you remind yourself of what the future holds for you in Christ? (6) How do the metaphors apply to your relationships with your significant others? Have the Class Brainstorm How to Reverse Engineer What the Author Presented. * How did author discover or find the four symbols for the Lord's Supper? * What are two or three ways in which anyone can discover and categorized the symbolism of the Lord Supper and/or other topics?i Note: Depending on the amount of class discussion present and the amount of readings assigned, the facilitator may want to end the first session here or after section "II" below. ***************************Option 1--End of First Session****************************** Lesson Two II. Common Names for the Bread and Wine and Their Biblical Sources A. Communion: Fellowship (with God and the Saints, i.e., Believers) 1. Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 10:14-17 2. Gk. Word: koinonia: Fellowship, Participation, Gift B. Eucharist: An act of thanksgiving and receipt of a blessing 1. Scriptures: Matthew's and Mark's Versions He took bread, and after blessing it, he . . .. He took the cup, and after giving thanks, he . . .. a. Gk. Words i. eulogeo: to bestow a blessing; to ask God's blessing upon (food); to praise. eucaristeo: to thank, give thanks; to be thankful, to be grateful. 2. Scriptures: Luke's & 1 Corinthian's Versions He took bread, and after giving thanks, he . . .. In the same way, . . . he took the cup. a. Gk. Word: i. eucaristeo: to thank, give thanks; to be thankful, to be grateful. C. Lord's Supper 1. Scriptures: 1 Cor. 11:20 ***************************Option 2--End of First Session****************************** III. The Two Sequences for Communion A. Cup, Bread, Cup: Luke 22:15-20 B. Bread, then Cup: Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 C. Probable Solution: The above refers to only one section of the Passover which has many toasts and symbolic gestures throughout the meal. In other words, depending on what Jewish tradition you use, there are two or four blessings of the wine in a Passover meal. The writers of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew wrote only about 1 of those sequences of blessings while the writer of Luke included a second. Passover Sequence Among Middle Eastern Jews Another difference between Sephardic [Middle Eastern] and Ashkenazic [European] Passover customs in terms of Jewish law or Halachah, is that unlike Ashkenazic Jews, Sephardic Jews do not recite blessings over the second and fourth cups of wine, claiming that the sanctification blessing over the first cup of wine, Kiddush, and the Grace After Meals blessing over the third cup of wine, also apply to the second and fourth cups of wine [respectively]. (Source: http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/sephardicandashkenazicpassover.html) Questions: (1) How would you feel if you were served the cup first and then followed by the bread? IV. Psychological and Liturgical Considerations In this section, the class will be discussing the different psychological and liturgical expectations that are brought by individuals to the actual communion moment. This will affect how one believes a person should act or feel when taking communion and how to arrange or organize a communion service. In other words, the psychological posture of a person will predispose in that person the type of poems, responsive readings, Scriptures and music that individual will select and how that individual will present the same: solemn or festive. It starts with the person's attitudes and conceptions as foundational. A more mature and Biblical response would start from a Biblically informed position. A Biblical perspective would use both alternatively and lean towards the celebratory as the following illustrations and principles show. It is not an "either/or, but not both" option. We should not take away from or add to the Scriptural principles and practices just because we have a personal preference or because we grew up with certain traditions and not others. A. Types of Psychological Liturgical Contexts 1. Modern Memorials Events a. Somber i. Memorial Day: Formal Cemetery Services ii. Personal Memorial Service or Community Memorial Service iii. Funerals iv. Communion (Lord's Supper) v. Lent (Ash Wednesday) vi. Good Friday b. Celebratory i. Memorial Day: Parades and Picnics ii. Dedicatory Services of Remembrance iii. Funerals (Repast and the New Orleans Tradition) iv. Eucharistic, Communion, Love or Eschatological Feast v. July 4th Celebration vi. Juneteenth Celebration vii. Jewish Passover viii. Anniversaries ix. Sundays in Lent (Non-fasting Days) x. Resurrection Sunday 2. Major Biblical Jewish Feasts and Festivals a. Somber i Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) b. Celebratory i. Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread ii. Festival of Harvest (Weeks, First Fruits, Pentecost) iii. Feast of Tabernacles (Ingathering, Booths, Shelters) iv. Feast of Purim (Lots) v. Festival of Trumpets or Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) vi. Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) vii. All Saints Day (Traditional) 3. Other Jewish Communal or Community Celebrations a. Somber i. Covenant Renewals b. Celebratory i. Covenant Renewals ii. Coronations and Installations iii. Victory Celebrations iv. Baptisms (John's and Jesus' Baptism) v. Baby Dedications and Births vi. Weddings vii. Rites of Passages B. African American Psychological Traditions of Communion 1. Somber (cf. Funeral or Memorial) a. Most Present Day Protestant and Pentecostal Churches b. Slave Churches (See Spirituals: e.g. "Were You There"?) 2. Celebratory a. Slave Churches (See Spiritual: e.g. "I'm Gonna Eat at the Welcome Table") C. Communion Conclusions (Biblical and Slave Sources versus Current Practices) 1. Facts a. Biblical Passover (Old and New Testaments) was celebratory and family-oriented. b. The post-resurrection NT view of the Passover and of the Agape (Love) Feast was celebratory and eschatological and more communal or church-oriented. c. The tradition among African-American slaves were dualistic in that communion was seen as having both a celebratory and eschatological dimension and a somber, reflective dimension. It was also a communal rather than a family celebration. 2. Your Conclusions Discussion Questions: Jesus is portrayed in various ways in the New Testament: for example, as being the manna from heaven (daily bread), as being the Passover lamb, and as fulfilling the demands of the sacrificial system of ancient Israel (Day of Atonement, Sin Offering, Guilt Offering, etc.). Given this variety, how would you answer the following: 1. How does your understanding of communion incorporate these various symbols? 2. What psychological tradition should be used in arranging a communion service and why? 3. What does the preponderance of the evidence suggests? 4. Is there room for all the various Biblical images and psychological traditions? 5. How would you manage or apply them in the various worship services and when? V. Original Understanding and Use of the Word "Sacrament" A. Sacrament 1. Scriptural Basis Latin translation and adaptation of the Greek word "musthrion," in passages like Roman 11:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7, 4:1, 15:51; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; and 6.19; Colossians 1:27; 2:2; 4:3; and etc. [Strong's Number: 3446] a. Greek musthrion: secret, mystery (of something formerly unknown, but now revealed.) b. Latin sacramentum: oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare, i.e., to consecrate or set apart. 2. Early Church Definition with both terms a. Original Definition: An Oath of Allegiance and an Obligation (sacramentum) to the Divine Mystery (musthrion) revealed in Christ St. Augustine applied the term (sacramentum) to formulae such as the Apostle Creed and the Lord's Prayer. "A visible sign of an invisible grace." "A sign of a sacred (set apart) thing." ****************************Option 1--End of Second Session****************************** Lesson Three VI. Present Definitions and Usage of the Terms Regarding Sacraments and Ordinances A. Differences in Number of Acts or Rituals (Two, Four or Seven) Universal (All Churches) 1. Baptism 2. Lord's Supper Non-Universals (Some Churches) 3. Marriage 4. Orders/Ordination (Laying On of Hands) 5. Extreme Unction or Healing Service 6. Confirmation 7. Penance B. Lord's Supper as Ordinance and Sacrament 1. Ordinance: Act of Obedience to a Command or Order Scriptures: Do this in remembrance of me (Lord Supper) Go and make, . . . baptizing (Baptism) . . . and teaching them . . .. Notice that the verbs are imperatives. Jesus is commanding His Disciples to do these things. 2. Sacrament as a Supernatural Entity: A ceremonial act, in which it is believed, God's saving grace is uniquely active whereby the receiver is assisted in obtaining perfection. As medicines assist the body in its own healing, but do not heal in and of themselves, so sacraments assist the transformed and redeemed child of God in his/her growth toward perfection. (See the below section on "Interpretive Paradigms or Gestalts" and on "The Theology of Grace.") Most congregations will hold the Lord's Supper to be simply an ordinance [i.e. a command by Jesus] or a sacrament, but not both. Some congregations will have leaders who hold one and others who hold the second. In addition, there are some leaders in churches and congregations who hold both views simultaneously: one theologically and one experientially [i.e., one view with their minds and one view with their hearts]. This is the state of many Disciples. In their minds it is an ordinance; in their hearts, it is a sacrament. C. Differences In Sacramental Terminology for What Transpires after the Saying of the Words of Institution 1. Transubstantiation: An Aide (Medical Model or Paradigm) for Supernatural Growth, Maturity and Healing (that is, it is like vitamins or medicines given by a doctor [i.e. the Holy Spirit] that assess the body to heal itself.) a. From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone In the theology of the Eucharist, [Transubstantiation is] the conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the whole substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, only the accidents (i.e., the [outward] appearance of the bread and wine) remaining. b. From a Handbook of Theological Terms by Van A. Harvey Transubstantiation refers to the R[oman] C[atholic] dogma that the substance of the elements of bread and wine is transformed by God's power into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ directly upon the words of the priestly consecration in the Mass. Against any view that regards these elements as mere symbols of Christ's body, or as seals of faith, or as unchanged elements along with which Christ is really present (see Consubstantiation), the R[oman] C[atholic] asserts that the substance of each element is wholly transformed into both the body and blood of Christ. 2. Consubstantiation: An Explanation For the Wedding of the Supernatural with the Natural a. From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone [Consubstantiation is] the belief, especially associated with the name of Martin Luther, that, after the consecration, the substances both of the Body and Blood of Christ and of the bread and wine co-exist in union with each other. Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged. b. From A Handbook of Theological Terms by Van A. Harvey Consubstantiation is the term usually applied to [Martin] Luther's (1483-1546) teaching concerning Christ's presence in the Eucharist in contrast to the R[oman] C[atholic] Dogma of Transubstantiation, even though it is doubtful whether Luther himself ever used the term. If transubstantiation means the changing of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, Consubstantiation means that Christ is "bodily" present "in, with, and under" the elements, although they are not essentially (substantially) altered. The theory is only intelligible if one keeps Luther's Christology in mind [and his use of the term "communicatio idiomatum," translated as the "communion of the properties [communication of idiomatic characteristics]."] The theory is that, because of the intimate union of the two natures of deity and manhood in Jesus Christ, the attributes of the former [deity] may in a loose sense be predicated of [applied to/spoken of] the latter [humanity], so that it is possible to say "God suffered" and "Christ was active in creation." Luther (1483-1546) interpreted the idea radically, insisting that God so completely became [human] in Christ that human attributes, like suffering and dying, became indissolubly fused with the divine, and the divine, in turn, stamped the human. . . . The idea was rejected by Calvin (1509-1564). 3. Moody's Handbook of the Bible Summary VIEWS ON THE LORD'S SUPPER Views Christ and the Elements Significance Transubstantiation (Roman Catholic) Bread and wine literally change to body and blood of Christ Recipient partakes of Christ, who is being sacrificed in the Mass to atone for sins. Consubstantiation (Lutheran) Bread and wine contain the body and blood of Christ but do not literally change. Christ is actually present "in, with, and under" the elements. Recipient receives forgiveness of sins and confirmation of one's faith through partaking of the elements, but they must be received through faith. Reformed (Presbyterian, Reformed) Christ is not literally present in the elements but there is a spiritual presence of Christ. Recipient receives grace through partaking of the elements. Memorial (Baptist, Mennonite, [and Christian Churches /Church of Christ]) Christ is not present physically or spiritually Recipient commemorates the death of Christ.ii 4. The Reintroduction of the word "Sacrament" into Disciples and Christian Churches' Vocabulary Our academics and Consultation on Church Union (COCU) officials have been less than candid when they say that the Early Church had a "sacramental" understanding of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. As we have seen above in Section 5A, the definition that Augustine and the other church fathers held is different than the definition that is currently being used for "sacraments" by our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic and Anglican denominations (See Section 5B2 and in the paragraphs immediately above.) In fact, most dictionaries (especially theological dictionaries) that list both the early fathers' definitions and the current Roman Catholic or Anglican definitions list them as separate entries or as separate main sub-entries because their basic meanings and the connotations are different. Why are they being less than transparent in their use of the word sacraments? Because the ecumenical movement for better or worse has chosen the term "sacraments" for ecumenical discussion, it is felt that Disciples, Baptists, and other congregational churches must reclaim such language to live out its ecumenical calling. Consequently, our academics and COCU officials have been trying to develop a psychological and historical wedge within our denomination and especially among the lay members to reintroduce the term 'sacraments" into our common vocabulary without the old, anti-Roman Catholic baggage. By introducing the Early Church Fathers' definition, they hope the heirs of the Christian Churches and Church of Christ traditions will accept the term sacraments without raising a theological eyebrow. This strategy has been successful with academics and clergy from the Stone and Campbell movement, now they are extending such usage into our denominational curriculum and Sunday Schools' materials so that the term can be reintroduced into the vocabulary of the average Disciples' and Christian Church/Church of Christ lay person. I would have preferred the term ordinances as the basic term for ecumenical discussion and preferred to have reference the "sacramental" positions with an adjective as in "sacramental" ordinances. Since both groups hold to the "sacraments" as being commands or orders from God [i.e., ordinances] while the other imbue or brings to these ordinances a sacramental position, an adjectival use of "sacraments" with the base term being "ordinances" would have preserved both terms for ecumenical discussion. This would give full respect to the radical reformers from Zwingli to the present and to those from the sacramental positions. My proposed usage of the terms "ordinances" and "sacramental ordinances" would have clearly and transparently displayed the commonality and differences between those two positions. As it now stands, the ecumenical language of "sacraments" as the de facto common term displays the "sectarian" and "heretical" biases of the major Reform, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox denominations against the Radical Reformers and "Anabaptists" (and their descendants) who were more likely to use the term ordinance rather than sacraments. This is again another example of the powerful and privileged dominating the conversation and forcing their worldviews and vocabulary upon the weaker or disadvantaged. As denominations that pride themselves on their acceptance of theological views of those who have been traditional oppressed, disadvantaged, and marginalized (for example, (White) Feminist, Womanist (Black Feminist), Hispanic Feminist Theologians as well as various Liberation Theologians from the First and Third World countries), this disconnect in respect to our relationships in the Ecumenical Movement is disheartening. As an African-American Christian, it reminds me of those who argued for the Union of the Republic at all cost at the expense of the enslaved and down-trodden before and during the Civil War. It also remind me--as an Asian-American Christian--of the imprisonment of Japanese and Okinawans citizens during World War II to support the war and morale of the majority, that is, the non-Japanese and non-Okinawan citizens and troops. Do we argue for the importance of progress in the Ecumenical movement at the expense of those from the "ordinance" perspective who ancestors were often persecuted by those who held to the "Sacramental" positions in Reformed, Roman and Orthodox branches? Optional Discussion Questions (5 - 10 Minutes) 1. The author argues that there are better and more transparent terms for the Lord's Supper, Communion, or Eucharist than sacrament. He proposes the terms ordinances and sacramental ordinances. Do you agree or disagree and please explain why? 2. Do you think the discussion surrounding sacraments versus ordinances is important? Does the concept of sacraments impact your understanding of salvation and sanctification [growing into the likeness and holiness of Christ]? 3. Do you think the terms ordinances better describes (1) what the Bible teaches, (2) what you believe, and (3) how you received and have practiced the Lord Supper? Please share your reasoning rather than just sharing a yes or no answer. ****************************Option 2--End of Second Session****************************** VII. Interpretive Paradigms or Gestalts A. Part I: Medical versus Judicial (Forensic) Paradigms This section explores how a particular gestalt or perspective can lead one to choose one of the particular theological solutions discussed above. If a person sees the concept of original sin within a bio-genetic gestalt or medical paradigm, then the solution will be sought within that framework. Likewise, if a person sees the concept of original sin within a judicial or declarative gestalt then the solution will be sought within that framework. Note: The facilitator may want to review "Section V: Theological Arguments for and Against the Necessity of Infant Baptism" from the class on Baptism. See especially sub-section "A through C." 1. Medical/Pathological/Biological Gestalt a. Roman Catholics b. Some Episcopalians As medicines assist the body in its own healing, but do not heal in and of themselves, so the sacraments assist the transformed and redeemed child of God in his/her growth toward perfection. 2. Judicial/Dramatic/Forensic/Declarative Gestalt a. Most Protestants The heart of the Gospel is that sinners are justified by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. We are declared righteous by the almighty Judge because of Christ life, death and resurrection. Salvation is an unmerited gift. Sacraments are, therefore, not needed for sanctification [spiritual growth or restoration] or for salvation. Salvation is by faith alone! Sanctification is by grace alone through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. B. Part II: Different Understanding and Definition of Symbols for the Elements In this section, we will discuss how different understandings or gestalts regarding symbols or referents can have different consequence for understanding communion. In general, there are three different ways of understanding referents: (1) Sign Symbol, (2) Presentational Symbol and (3) Representational Symbol. When applied to the elements of communion, they will determine how one views the elements themselves and will effect one's theology regarding communion. We will first discuss the different types of symbols or referents and then consider the implications for theology. 1. Sign Symbol (Objects which are causally related to or regularly symptomatic of another object or event; one object points to or is automatically linked with another object.) a. Dark Clouds = Rain in weather forecasting b. Backed-up water in two upstairs bathtubs and their accompanying toilets = a clogged waste down pipe rather than just clogged drains. c. HIV = AIDS 2. Presentational Symbol (objects or presences which people, or individuals, believe are--in some way or in some manner--part of the essence of the thing that it symbolizes; the symbolized object or person is present in the symbol). a. Dark Clouds = Manifestation of Zeus [Greek god], of Baal [Canaanite/Phoenician god], of Bel [Babylonian god] b. Voodoo Doll = Intended Victim 3. Representational Symbol (objects or images that tie together things that are distinct from one another based upon arbitrary inferences, historical happenstance or customary practices; e.g. the ambassador is the representative of the country he or she is representing.) a. Dark Clouds = Code word for a secret commando operation b. Thirteen Stars and Stripes = American Flag c. Bald Eagle = Official Bird of the United States of America d. Hydrogen = H; Oxygen = O 4. Implications There are two important insights to be gained in this section. The first is that one referent, e.g., Dark Clouds, can be seen in different ways. (See above 1a, 2a and 3a.) The second is that different understandings of a particular referent can invoke different reactions, thought processes, and solutions. For example, a lighting storm may invoke awe and fascination in someone who sees storm clouds and lightning as physical phenomena of nature. It can also invoke awe and fear in someone who sees the same as a presentational symbol of Baal, Zeus or Thor [Nordic/German god]. If the latter, the lightning strikes are then seen as a display of the wrath or whim of the gods. This may require that individual to perform some type of religious ritual as homage to, or as an act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of, that God. These two important insights will also effect or change how we see communion. Is communion a presentational or representational symbol? a. Communion as both Presentational and Representational Symbols The communion elements (i.e. the bread and wine) can be seen as being either a presentational or a representational symbol. In the former, Christ is actually present in the bread and wine. (See section "VI.C." above.) In the latter, the bread and wine represent, but are not the same as, the body and blood of Christ. Christ is, therefore, not present in the elements. The bread and wine are related to Christ because of prior historical happenstance (or, in this case, divine providence). They are related because of the Exodus experience and its related festivals and the church's vision of Jesus as the true "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (e.g., John 1:29), and as the true bread or manna of life (e.g., John 6:35). For those who hold the representational view, Christ is the archetype [the original standard] of all that has gone before and will come after. (See for example, the book of Hebrews, Matthew 5:17-19 or Luke 24:13-31.) b. Most sacramental views of communion are usually associated with a presentational understanding of the elements. In addition, there is a corresponding affinity for the medical/pathological/biological gestalt for the efficacy of the sacraments. The reverse is usually true for those who hold to communion as being an ordinance. i. Presentational Understanding <----> Medical/Genetic Paradigm <----> Sacramental Theology ii. Representational Understanding <----> Forensic/Legal Paradigm <----> Ordinance Theology C. Part III: Differences in the Understanding of the Theology of Grace 1. Sacramental Position on Grace and Its Efficaciousness a. From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone In Christian theology, the supernatural assistance of God bestowed upon a rational being with a view to his[/her] sanctification. . . . In the theology of grace, the following distinctions have been currently drawn: (1) Habitual or sanctifying grace. The gift of God inhering in the soul, by which men are enabled to perform righteous acts. It is held to be normally conveyed in the Sacraments [e.g., in baptism and communion]. (2) Actual grace. A certain motion of the soul, bestowed by God ad hoc for the production of some good act. It may exist in the unbaptized. (3) Prevenient (Restorative/Salvific) grace. That form of actual grace which leads men to sanctification before the reception of the Sacraments. It is the free gift of God and entirely unmerited. b. From A Handbook of Theological Terms by Van A. Harvey The R[oman] C[atholic] concept of G[race] is finally based on the conviction that salvation is nothing less than the divinization of the Soul, the enjoyment through out eternity of the beatitude God himself enjoys. To achieve this end, it is necessary that the soul be elevated to a higher order of Being. An infusion of supernatural powers and virtues is required, the exercise of which will merit for [humanity] the splendor of the final beatific vision; sanctifying G[race] is that elevating, supernatural power. Adam and Eve possessed it before the fall but lost it. . . Redemption is the restoration of that supernatural power and the virtues it infuses. Over the centuries, R[oman] C[atholic] theologians have created a host of fine theological distinctions. . . .Actual G[race] and Sanctifying G[race], Prevenient G[race] and Subsequent G[race], Sufficient G[race] and Efficacious G[race--these and numerous other concepts, enable the R[oman] C[atholic] to order and defend his beliefs with great subtlety. These distinctions, however, all rest on the view that G[race] is a super-natural power that, without destroying the freedom of the will, infuses the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity into the soul, virtues that are rewarded with the final vision for which life is destined. It follows also that G[race] may be given and received in degrees, and that the successful use of what one has merits an increase in G[race]. [Bold emphases have been added.] Luther (1483-1546) only gradually realized that his conception of Justification by faith alone was irreconcilable with the basic R[oman] C[atholic] premise. . . . But the important aspect of Luther's teaching was that G[race] was primarily the forgiveness of sins that removed the barrier of personal communion between God and man. This teaching was ultimately irreconcilable with the R[oman] C[atholic] idea of G[race] as an infused power imparting certain virtues to the soul. For if G[race] denotes God's forgiveness, then there are no degrees of G[race]. Either one is forgiven or one is not. . . . Finally, Luther's conception necessarily involves the rejection of the sacrament as the instrumental cause of G[race]. The preaching of the Word of God is the "cause" of faith and it need not be limited to the sacraments. ([See Luther's Commentary on Romans, section] 14-17) 2. The Non-Sacramentalists' Theologies of Strong Grace (From Baptism: Its Meaning, Its History, Its Forms, and Its Practices by Floyd Knight) a. Option 1: Sanctification Is Afforded Through the Believing Parent. Infants and children are covered by Grace under the faith of their believing parent(s) until the age of accountability. The believing parent provides for the temporary sanctification of their children. (Read 1 Cor. 7:12-14.) This is why children are allowed to eat the Passover and to participate in the various Jewish festivals and celebration. The point of this understanding of grace as it is applied to communion is found in the fact that the children do not have to do anything to be sanctified. They are sanctified by virtue of one of their parents being a believer. This understanding is based on a judicial or forensic understanding of grace rather than on a mechanical or medical one. b. Option 2: Infants and young people receive "actual grace" until the age of accountability like Old Testament saints. The question is "if God used actual grace on the Old Testament saints to allow them to overcome the moral and rational defects brought about through original sin, why would God stop using this vehicle now?" If actual grace was also used by God to forgive Old Testament saints of their sins and to heal and reestablish the covenant relationship, why would God not use actual grace today? One may add something without subtracting or taking away something else. The argument for this solution is based on the application of grace and justice that is espoused by Paul in Romans 1 and 2. Consequently, infants, like adult gentiles or pagans who have not heard the Gospel preached, are judged, saved or condemned, by their level of consciousness of and obedience to the will of God to which they have access via Actual Grace and/or Prevenient Grace. (See subject headings under "Natural Theology," "Natural Philosophy" and "Moral Theology" in various other denominations' doctrines and reference resources for more information.) When applied to the doctrine of communion, this theology of strong grace [or of strong "actual grace"] makes the use of sacraments unnecessary. Grace is given directly by God to the pre-Christian and the children of Christians without the mediation of the sacraments. 3. Affinity of the Sign Symbol, Interpretive Paradigm, Sacramental/Ordinance Theology and Concept of Grace Sacramental/Eucharistic Ordinance/Lord's Supper 1. Presentational Symbol Theory 1. Representation Symbol Theory 2. Medical/Genetic Paradigm 2. Forensic/Legal Paradigm 3. Modes of Sanctification 3. Modes of Operation a. Habitual Grace via Sacraments empowering Natural Human Growth a. Strong Actual Grace b. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit c. God's Word Applied in One's Life d. Sanctification via Parents for Minor Children through "a, b, and/or c" above. 4. Source of Sanctification 4. Source of Sanctification a. Transformed Human Effort with the Supernatural Tools or Aides known as the Sacraments a. Supernatural Power of the Indwelling Holy Spirit with Human Consent and Obedience D. Your Conclusion Questions: 1. Does having a different understanding of the Theology of Grace predispose a person to having a different understanding of communion as a sacrament or ordinance and as a representational or presentational symbol? If so, explain your position. 2a. Does having a medical understanding of the sacraments or ordinances predisposes one to hold to a presentational and sacramental understanding of communion and vice-versa? If you answered yes, please explain your position. b. Could someone hold a representational position and still have a medical understanding of communion? Why or why not? VIII. Problems With The Sacramental Viewpoint A. A Failure to Take God's Promises and Words Seriously: If the End is Faith and Grace, Why Not Start with Faith and Grace? (See the discussion on the Strong Theologies of Grace Above!) B. A Failure to Take the Biblical Witness Seriously Since the Bible Declares That The Word/Truth Itself Purifies (If the "Word" or "Truth" itself sanctify believers, why is there a need for "sacramental" sanctification? Which comes first--the Word or the sacrament?) John 17:17 My prayer is . . . Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 1 Tim 4:4-5 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer. 1 Peter 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. C. The Failure to Apply the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Correctly to the Sanctification Process 1. Essential Pneumatological [Pneuma- (Spirit) + -ology (study of)] Truths (i.e., teachings about the Holy Spirit) a. Christians receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon confession of faith and trust in the Good News of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. b. The Holy Spirit is GOD! c. The Holy Spirit is indivisible (Undividable): a person cannot have 1/2 of the Holy Spirit or 1/2 of the Holy Spirit's power and/or presence during one portion of the day or of a certain time period and then 1/4 of the Holy Spirit or 1/4 the Holy Spirit's power and presence during another portion of the day or of a certain different time period. A person has 100% of the Holy Spirit indwelling (power and presence) within him or her at all times. We may choose to ignore the Holy Spirit's presence or indwelling within us or choose not to avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit's presence and power; nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is always wholly presence, omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite and always dwells within us. d. Christians individually are the temples of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:19) while the Church is collectively the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 6:16). 2. The Greater Sanctifies the Latter. 16"Blind guides! How terrible it will be for you! For you say that it means nothing to swear `by God's Temple'--you can break that oath. But then you say that it is binding to swear `by the gold in the Temple.' 17Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? [The Temple is greater and sanctifies the lesser, the gold.] 18And you say that to take an oath `by the altar' can be broken, but to swear `by the gifts on the altar' is binding! 19How blind! For which is greater, the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? [The greater is the altar which sanctifies the lesser, the gifts.] 20When you swear `by the altar,' you are swearing by it and by everything on it. 21And when you swear `by the Temple,' you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. [God is the greatest, the temple the greater, and everything in the temple the lesser.] 22And when you swear `by heaven,' you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne. [God is the greatest; heaven, which is God's throne, is the lesser; and the earth, which is the footstool of God, is also lesser still [vs. 23].] (Matthew 23:16-23 NLT) If we are the temple of God and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit who lives inside of us, would not that which is sanctified already (meaning ourselves) consecrate that which was not? Following the logic of Jesus as given by Matthew in the above passage, the offerings (i.e., the bread and wine) do not sanctify the temple (i.e., the individual or collective people of God). Since the temple itself is greater, the temple (i.e. the people) sanctifies the offerings and all that is brought into it. The temple can be defiled by something brought into it, but it cannot be sanctified by anything other than the presence of God. We can prepare the temple for cleansing, but not sanctify it. Or to put it another way, the temple (i.e., the individual Christian) has no need for sanctification because they are already sanctified by the indwelling presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. And because we are the temple of God, we, ourselves, through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit sanctify any and all offering (including the bread and the wine of communion) taken into our bodies individually. (See also the arguments contained in Acts 10:9-16, 10:34-11:18 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5.) The Roman Catholic and Episcopalian position would have the bread and wine sanctifying the temple (i.e., the people of God). This is in direct opposition to the theology of Jesus as just stated above. It could be said by a presentationalist that the partaking of the elements signifies God's presence entering into God's temple, i.e., the people of God. This would then make their theology consistent with the concept of the greater (i.e. God) sanctifying the latter (i.e. the temple or the people). However, this would radically change the doctrines of the Ecclesiology (the theology of the church), Pneumatology (the theology of the Holy Spirit), and Soteriology (the theology of Salvation). Does the Holy Spirit leave the temple (i.e., the people of God) periodically and, therefore, must be called back to inhibit its abode? Second, if the Holy Spirit does not leave, does it cease to be fully God? Third, does the Holy Spirit need fortification from the sacraments whenever sin is committed by an individual? This would imply either that sin weakens the Holy Spirit itself and that the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) is insufficient to cleanse sin-weakened humanity without an outside aide. Like a supernatural Popeye, the Holy Spirit must rely on its spinach [that is the sacramental elements] to overcome its nemeses (sin). Such arguments quickly lead to heresy. Most Christians would hold to the teaching that the Holy Spirit dwells in the midst of the church universal and in the individuals' own bodies as the guarantee of salvation. (See 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 5:5 and Ephesians 1:14.) Trying to harmonize the understanding of the elements as somehow signifying God's presence entering into his temple via the partaking of communion with the orthodox understanding of the theology of the Church, of the Holy Spirit, and of the doctrine of Salvation creates more problems than it solves. D. Conclusion: If the Living Word (Christ) and/or the Word (Scriptures) sanctify persons directly and God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, tabernacles within us, why use indirect means as the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians do with the sacraments? The real question is not whether the sacraments per se are efficacious or not? It is not whether they work. The real questions are (1) whether the Living Word and the written Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit are, in themselves, efficacious for salvation and (2) whether the Living they are, in themselves, efficacious for sanctification. It is whether the Living Word (Christ), the written Word (Scriptures), and the Holy Spirit dwelling within Christians work. The answer to the first (their efficaciousness for salvation) is primary and non-negotiable; the answer to the second (their efficaciousness for sanctification) is secondary and open to a diversity of opinions. The crux of the matter is whether one holds to the Protestant principle that "the Righteous shall live by Faith" and, therefore, that "Salvation is by Faith Alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone." If someone holds to this principle but also feels or believes that the sacraments aide in sanctification [or in spiritual maturation], then this is a matter of personal conscience and is a non-essential or secondary matter. However, to hold that the sacraments are also essential for salvation is heresy! In Essential, Unity; In Opinions [Non-Essentials], Liberality [Freedom]; In All Things, Love! Many Protestants, including those in Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, non-instrumental Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ congregations, hold the belief that "Salvation is by Faith Alone," but personally experience "something" holy and sacred in the partaking of the elements. While communion is not essential for salvation or sanctification for these Christians; they, nevertheless, feel it is essential for Christian living and spiritual growth. The how and the why of their positions may appear to be theologically inconsistent or a matter of cognitive dissonance to other Christians. In the final analysis, it is still a matter of personal choice and conscience. They do it for the glory of God. Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, you must do all for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31) ***********************Optional End of Third Session and End of Lesson************************* Lesson Four IX. Who Can Take Communion? A. Worthy Adults (1 Corinthians 11:20-34): What does it mean to "Eat the bread and to drink the wine in a way that isn't worthy of the Lord." 20When you meet together, you don't really celebrate the Lord's Supper. 21You even start eating before everyone gets to the meeting, and some of you go hungry, while others get drunk. 22Don't you have homes where you can eat and drink? Do you hate God's church? Do you want to embarrass people who don't have anything? What can I say to you? I certainly cannot praise you. . . . (CEV) 27But if you eat the bread and drink the wine in a way that isn't worthy of the Lord, you sin against his body and blood. 28That's why you must examine the way you eat and drink. 29If you fail to understand that you are the body of the Lord, you will condemn yourselves by the way you eat and drink. 30That's why many of you are sick and weak and why a lot of others have died. 31If we carefully judge ourselves, we won't be punished. 32But when the Lord judges and punishes us, he does it to keep us from being condemned with the rest of the world. 33My dear friends, you should wait until everyone gets there before you start eating. 34If you really are hungry, you can eat at home. Then you won't condemn yourselves when you meet together. After I arrive, I will instruct you about the other matters. 1. Preliminary Observations a. This was a regular, community meal which had more in common with our potluck fellowship dinners than with our modern practice of having a symbolic wafer and a small tablespoon of wine or grape juice in a communion tumbler. How can I be so sure? Deduction! i. First, people are having an excess of wine; they are getting drunk (v. 21). Most people cannot get drunk on a tablespoon of wine. ii. There was food available as some were going away hungry (v. 21) and are embarrassed by what they don't have vis-à-vis what others have (v.22). It is implied that some are blessed with abundance. Some are hungry, but not all are hungry. Some are probably full and satiated. When put together with Paul statement that "if you are hungry, you can eat at home. Then you won't condemn yourselves. . . " (v. 34), there is an implication that the satiated, that is, those who had not departed from the church hungry, probably acted out of gluttony. They did not chose to wait to share their food with others because they were famished and chose not to wait and to keep the food all to themselves. iii. And finally the rhetorical question in verse 22a, "Don't you have homes where you can eat and drink?" The assumed answer is yes; these people have homes in which to eat and drink in excess. Why excess? See i. and ii. Above. iv. The Passover feast was a real feast that was symbolic; it was a lavish spread. v. The Last Supper depicted in John's Gospel was a regular meal on the day before the Day of Preparation. vi. The phrase "eats and drinks" or "eating and drinking" is usually used in conjunction with a hearty meal, not a light snack or a morsel of food. vii. If the Corinthian congregation was eating something similar to the wafers we use, everyone would go away hungry, not just some. 2. Exegetical Questions (Facilitators/Teachers: You can delete the answers to these questions for your class to find and answer.) a. Why did Paul scold them for their communion? See verses 11:24-22; 33-34. i. Some were eating before everyone had made it to the meeting (vs. 21, 33 (a) Lack of humility and a servant spirit (See iii(a) below.) (b) Gluttony [presumably because some are going first and eating all of the food and condemning themselves (vs.21, 33-34).] (c) Impatience ii. Some were getting drunk on wine (v. 21c and v 34b) iii. Some were being embarrassed by others who did not have anything to eat or drink (v. 22c) (a) Failure to share with those in need. This is the reverse of what Jesus did at the Last Supper. He took bread and wine and served it to others. The bread and wine symbolized the giving of himself for us. (b) Failure to show concerns for the feelings of others (v. 22b-c). b. What were the results or consequences of eating unworthily? i. NOT CELEBRATING THE LORD SUPPER CORRECTLY: The failure to demonstrate true Christian Unity and Love, the remedy of which will be discussed in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13. Chapters 12 and 13 speaks to one of the major reasons Paul had for writing this letter (vs.20-22, 33) (a) They don't really celebrate the Lord's Supper. . . . [Paul] cannot praise [them] (v. 20, v. 22e) (b) Some are hungry; some are not. (v. 21b) (c) Some are drunk (v.21c) (d) Some are impatient and selfish. (v. 21a, v.22c, v.33, v. 34c) ii. SICKNESS: Some were sick and weak because of their selfishness and impatience (v.30a). iii. DEATH: A lot of others were dying because of their selfishness and impatience (v.30b). (a) The phrase "a lot" could refer to the Corinthians. (b) The phrase "a lot" could also refer to the Old Testament stories of those who originally took for granted either the Passover meal or the Manna from heaven (or both) and who subsequently died for their rebellion. Consequently, Paul is referring back to his comments in the previous chapter. See 1 Corinthian 10:1-11. 3. In the Context of 1 Corinthians 11, What does "eating and drinking unworthily" referenced? a. Being Gluttonous b. Being Drunk c. Not waiting on, and not sharing one's provisions with, others d. Not imbuing the humble and servant Spirit of Christ-the giving of one's self. 4. If 1 Corinthians 11:30b is linked to 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, What added references do "eating and drinking unworthily" refer? What disqualifies someone from partaking in the Lord's Supper? a. Idolatry-10:7a b. Pagan revelry (gluttony, drunkenness, and dancing before another god)-10:7b c. Sexual Immorality-10:8 d. Detesting the Lord Supper and Wanting to Return to Pagan Fellowship-10:9 The reference in Chapter 10 is regarding how some of the Israelites in the desert wilderness who began to test the Lord [that is, to try the Lord's nerves by criticizing God and seeking to plumb the depths of his patience and mercy and forgiveness] by detesting God's manna and creating a rebellion to return to Egypt because there was no other meat to eat and no water to drink. (Cf. Numbers 11:4-9) e. The Rejection of God's Plan of Atonement and Final Judgment-10:10. The reference here is to the Levite, Korah, and the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, and approximately 250 other who felt that there should be no difference between the Aaronic priesthoods and the rest of the people. At first God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites, but Moses and Aaron interceded for the rest of the assembly when they asked the Lord, "O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?" (NIV). Consequently, Moses was allow to separate the rest of the assembly from Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and their followers so that the earth swallowed only their families and fire consumed the 250 men holding the golden censers. However, on the very next day the rest of the Israelite community charged Moses and Aaron with mass murder and began to grumble against them. Consequently, 14,700 people died by a plague that was only stopped because Moses and Aaron worshipped God and Aaron made atonement for the assembly. If these verses are to be applied to 1 Corinthians 11, then we must say that those who reject Christ's priesthood, self sacrifice, and coming judgment and who partake in the Lord's Supper are eating "unworthily." 5. Who is to judge whether someone is unworthy? a. Let a man [or woman] examine himself [or herself]-11:28 b. Tough Love: Suffering the Consequences-11:29-30 This is tough love. Notice that Paul is not advocating that the community protect the individual from his or her stupidity and resulting condemnation and punishment. The individual is to suffer for his righteous or unrighteous judgment and actions. We do not swoop in to rescue them in this instance. Warn, yes! Rescue, no! 6. How do you read 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 and how would you apply these insights and principles to today's church or congregation? a. Would you fault those who tried to protect individuals from their own stupidity? b. Do you fault Disciples of Christ for having an open communion with very little warning or instructions regarding the consequences for partaking unworthily. c. How would you institute warnings for individuals: (a) preparatory classes before baptism and for new members who join by transfer or Christian experience; (b) the public reading of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 and/or 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 in the communion liturgy; (c) a warning footnote or asterisk in the bulletin and/or the printing of those verses in the same; (d) in yearly sermons; or (e) in annual lessons for all church members, etc.? B. Children and the Biblical Traditions 1. Passover Tradition (Biblical and Modern): Children Participate in the Passover Meal 2. Agape Feast (Communal Supper): Children Participated in the Agape Feast 3. Theology of Holiness Applied to Children and Communion (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not have a godly influence, but now they are set apart [sanctified] for him. (Verses 14-15) C. Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and Disciples Historic Positions: 1. Open Table for Adults a. The Table is Open to All Who Confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior b. Individual Conscience: Let the individual adults be fully convinced in his or her own mind as to the course of action he or she should take. (Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:25-29.) 2. Children Participation a. Some Congregations = Yes-Children are allowed b. Some Congregations = No-Children aren't allowed i. Modified No-Adults only receive communion; children receive grapes. c. Individual Conscience: Let each individual parent decide whether his or her child will participate. (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10:25-29) D. Draw Your Own Conclusions X. Study Conclusion What is our Position? We--who consider ourselves to be strong and to have a deeper understanding of God's Word, who have a proper understanding of symbols and their limitations--must bear with our weaker presentationalist and representationalist brothers and sisters regarding the proper interpretation of the Lord Supper so long as this does not lead to the oppression of others or non-orthodox beliefs. For the strong are able to worship God in all ways (Romans 14-15:3, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:25-29). For the strong are able by the Grace of God to be all things to all persons for the sake of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:21-23). Endnote i E.g., (1.) reading the whole Bible and keeping a journal and then reviewing the same for common themes; (2.) reading whole Bible and keeping a notebook arranged by topics and/or themes; (3.) using a Bible concordance or index and cross-references to look up the references for a topic or theme; or (4.) using a reference resource like a Bible dictionary, handbook, commentary or a topical resource. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 of 34 Copywritten (c) 1996, 2008 and 2012 by Floyd Knight. All Rights Reserved. No part of this book covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without the written permission of the author. 34 of 34 Copywritten (c) 1996 and (c) 2008 by Floyd Knight. All Rights Reserved.