Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[Thinkingstuff]

the Bible makes no conditions to staying saved, in christ though!

That isn't true.

If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned

As God is the one that saves and secured us in christ, and NONE can remove us from God!

You could always choose yourself above God. We are not automaton or robots. We have free will to choose for or against God. We must remain in him.

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

if a catholic refused Eucharist, is that a Mortal Sin? refused the sacraments, would that condemn him?

Depends on how much they understood. However, why would anyone who is being saved refuse to draw closer to Jesus? Makes no sense. However, if a person knowing the truth of these things still refused to participate in the graces God gave them they are basically saying God I really want nothing that you have and thus I want nothing to do with you. And God being a good father will give that person what they want the most. Themselves apart from God. Which is one way of saying hell.

 

[Yeshua1]

That isn't true.

jesus said that we would NEVER be taken out of the fathers hand, paul seconded that!

You could always choose yourself above God. We are not automaton or robots. We have free will to choose for or against God. We must remain in him.

Once saved by his grace, we are sealed with Spirit, have new natures, translated to Christ Domain...

Bible explicit that we are eternally secured in him once saved by him!

Depends on how much they understood. However, why would anyone who is being saved refuse to draw closer to Jesus? Makes no sense. However, if a person knowing the truth of these things still refused to participate in the graces God gave them they are basically saying God I really want nothing that you have and thus I want nothing to do with you. And God being a good father will give that person what they want the most. Themselves apart from God. Which is one way of saying hell.

except that what God has done for us getting saved is eternal, as we are already in his mind already glorified and seated with Christ !
NOTHING can changed that done fact!

Christians can still sin, sometimes greatly, but that is AGAINST new natures in jesus, and they will repent and confess theuir sins to God to get restored, but NOTHING will break their relationship with God in Christ, NOT even God can/will, as He decided that once one is saved, its eternally saved!

Again, what is lacking in death of christ that requires Eucherist or other sacraments to make one 'more spiritual?"

 

[Bro. James]

Sorry this post seems to be misplaced. This is addressed to the one who was advocating open communion.

Open communion does not discern The Lord's Body, which is not universal. The body is local, visible, redeemed, and sanctified--a visible assembly. Open communion does not picture any of these things. The Church at Corinth had a problem with discerning the Lord's Body--they were literally dying because of their practices. They had many serious discipline problems--they did not exercise church discipline in morals issues as well.

There are many Corinthian style churches today.

Universal church is an insidious doctrine which goes back before Constantine the Great, the one who married the universal church to the State. The New Testament Churches never participated, never did, never will. NT churches have always been persecuted, still are. "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution."

Now what?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

So where does it come from then?

Book of Jude, especially vs. 3. The Book of Jude takes us from the shores of Galilee, where Jesus started the First Church, through: The End--of this age.

Verse 24-25 are a real blessing: "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever."

There are no diversions to Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, Wittenburg, Geneva, Nauvoo, etal, etal, etal.

God is not the author of confusion.

Now what?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[DHK]

Thanks to all who have responded in this thread.

I believe in open communion -- any who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior should be allowed to partake. The Lord's Supper is not a Catholic supper, a Baptist supper, or any other denomination's supper. It is the Lord's Supper.

And for this reason some of you are sickly, some weak, and some of you sleep (are dead). 1Cor.11:30

Was open communion acceptable in Paul's eyes? Certainly not! Because of the abuse of the members of the Church at Corinth God judged them harshly, and killed some of them. Certainly there was a love feast that preceded it, as their custom was. And at that time some got drunk, and were very gluttonous as well. They formed cliques: the rich with the rich and the poor with the poor, so that the poor went home hungry and the rich went home over-fed and drunk.

Paul rebuked them: "What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in!"

And then proceeded with an order and reasons for having the Lord's Supper. It was a solemn and sacred time. It was symbolic not sacramental. It was worshipful but not liturgical. One of the key statements made was "Let a man examine himself." This statement in itself rules out "open communion." There was to be unity in the church. They were to examine themselves as to sin, doctrine, any reason why they should not partake. Was there a reason why they could not partake in the Lord's Supper while in fellowship with that particular group of believers?

Suppose you were at Corinth, and the Lord's Supper was being held. You knew that the Lord had just struck some with serious illnesses, and had even killed others for abusing the Lord's Supper. Would you take the chance that if you could not fellowship with this church on the basis of both faith and practice, and moral living, that you would partake of the elements with them?

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's a hypothetical situation. Well, actually, there is some basis in fact.

A known prostitute walks the aisle at the end of the service and asks to join your church. Would you let her?

The next Sunday, she goes to the Minister of Music and volunteers to join the choir. Would you let her?

She attends the Sunday night service, when the Lord's Supper will be observed. Will you serve her?

Let's say she comes to you prior to the observance and says "I have examined myself and I am satisfied that it's okay for me to take communion with you." Will you serve her?

Given what you know about her lifestyle, would you want to warn her that if she participates the Lord may kill her?

One of your own members, who has not attended in more than two years, shows up.
What do you do with him?

A member of another church shows up. His church was recently involved in a big fight. You don't know if he was one of the instigators or not, but his church is in a mess. Do you invite him to the table?

Would a homosexual be welcome at the Lord's table in your church?

Would you serve the known prostitute's pimp?

Would you serve anybody who shows up?

Does your church exercise any judgment in this area?

If no, is it worth the risk that you are observing communion with ungodly people? Doesn't opening the Lord's table to such people give sanction to their behavior?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And for this reason some of you are sickly, some weak, and some of you sleep (are dead). 1Cor.11:30

Was open communion acceptable in Paul's eyes? Certainly not! Because of the abuse of the members of the Church at Corinth God judged them harshly, and killed some of them. Certainly there was a love feast that preceded it, as their custom was. And at that time some got drunk, and were very gluttonous as well. They formed cliques: the rich with the rich and the poor with the poor, so that the poor went home hungry and the rich went home over-fed and drunk.

Paul rebuked them: "What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in!"

And then proceeded with an order and reasons for having the Lord's Supper. It was a solemn and sacred time. It was symbolic not sacramental. It was worshipful but not liturgical. One of the key statements made was "Let a man examine himself." This statement in itself rules out "open communion." There was to be unity in the church. They were to examine themselves as to sin, doctrine, any reason why they should not partake. Was there a reason why they could not partake in the Lord's Supper while in fellowship with that particular group of believers?

Suppose you were at Corinth, and the Lord's Supper was being held. You knew that the Lord had just struck some with serious illnesses, and had even killed others for abusing the Lord's Supper. Would you take the chance that if you could not fellowship with this church on the basis of both faith and practice, and moral living, that you would partake of the elements with them?

None of that has anything to do with open communion. It is a non sequitur.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here's a hypothetical situation. Well, actually, there is some basis in fact.

A known prostitute walks the aisle at the end of the service and asks to join your church. Would you let her?


If she walks the aisle because she is accepting Jesus as her Savior and wants to join the church, would you let her?


The next Sunday, she goes to the Minister of Music and volunteers to join the choir. Would you let her?

She attends the Sunday night service, when the Lord's Supper will be observed. Will you serve her?

Let's say she comes to you prior to the observance and says "I have examined myself and I am satisfied that it's okay for me to take communion with you." Will you serve her?

Given what you know about her lifestyle, would you want to warn her that if she participates the Lord may kill her?

One of your own members, who has not attended in more than two years, shows up.
What do you do with him?

A member of another church shows up. His church was recently involved in a big fight. You don't know if he was one of the instigators or not, but his church is in a mess. Do you invite him to the table?

Would a homosexual be welcome at the Lord's table in your church?

Would you serve the known prostitute's pimp?

Would you serve anybody who shows up?

Does your church exercise any judgment in this area?

If no, is it worth the risk that you are observing communion with ungodly people? Doesn't opening the Lord's table to such people give sanction to their behavior?

See also my answer in red within your post.

I don't see any place in the Bible that says one person is the arbiter of another's conscience.

 

[DHK]

None of that has anything to do with open communion. It is a non sequitur.

This is not a non sequitor. It is a hypothetical situation with a question that demands an answer.

Answer the question:

Suppose you were at Corinth, and the Lord's Supper was being held. You knew that the Lord had just struck some with serious illnesses, and had even killed others for abusing the Lord's Supper. Would you take the chance that if you could not fellowship with this church on the basis of both faith and practice, and moral living, that you would partake of the elements with them?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is not a non sequitor. It is a hypothetical situation with a question that demands an answer.

Answer the question:

Thank you for making my point: It should be up to the person whether to partake or not, not some self-appointed judges and guardians of that which they have no authority to guard. It is the Lord's Table and Supper, not theirs.

 

[Melanie]

Thinking Stuff told me that the RCC looked at me as a lapsed Catholic & I have the ability (guess cause I received the sacraments up to confirmation) & could easily go back :smilewinkgrin:

Why though do you go back to a pre -Vatican II Mass? Like Latin....its a dead language ....how do you understand & appreciate the service when you cant understand the words....that I cant understand. I will respect your being a Roman Catholic, even a Retro Roman Catholic ....but does it transform you, does it awaken you (those bells rung at mass are a call to "be awake") .... has the Holy Spirit shown you your sins & have you claimed them as too much for you withstand anymore? Have you looked to Christ as your Savior & have you amended your life to Gods love rather than mere duty, surrender & trust rather than mere obedience? See I would ask these questions to anyone wishing to be ordained.... so I sincerely request an answer.

Latin was the prefered language precisely for the reason it is "dead", that is the meaning of the word is unchanged, which is in keeping with the Church being ageless. As a Catholic, one could go to any part of the world and participate in the offering of the Mass. My missal has the Latin and the vulgate (in my case English) . Sunday Gospel and Epistle is read out in the common tongue as well as in Latin . This use of Latin is a good thing as our priests are very international and accents can be difficult to follow....why we even have American priests!!!:smilewinkgrin:

Does the Mass transform me....absolutely which is why a fallen away Catholic returned to the Church. My first Mass was an amazing and very personal experience, I guess you would say the same when "you were saved". As a lapsed Catholic I had a very superficial knowledge, now it is a more mature one I think.

My life has been transformed in ALL ways and the serenity of this is very consoling.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Latin was the prefered language precisely for the reason it is "dead", that is the meaning of the word is unchanged, which is in keeping with the Church being ageless. As a Catholic, one could go to any part of the world and participate in the offering of the Mass. My missal has the Latin and the vulgate (in my case English) . Sunday Gospel and Epistle is read out in the common tongue as well as in Latin . This use of Latin is a good thing as our priests are very international and accents can be difficult to follow....why we even have American priests!!!:smilewinkgrin:

Does the Mass transform me....absolutely which is why a fallen away Catholic returned to the Church. My first Mass was an amazing and very personal experience, I guess you would say the same when "you were saved". As a lapsed Catholic I had a very superficial knowledge, now it is a more mature one I think.

My life has been transformed in ALL ways and the serenity of this is very consoling.

Ecclesiastical Latin is an exacting language and I enjoy the Latin Mass for several reasons it gets closer to the older liturgies and the meanings rather than a poorer english translation of the mass. Its more exacting in its doctrine. There are fewer liberal Catholics or Catholics in name only who attend the Triniditine Latin Mass. Vatican II is an interesting council and has many benefits. However, modernist and liberal clergy used it as an oportunity to move the Catholic Church from its long held traditional beliefs and attempt to move it towards their liberal views trying to affect the morality stance of the Church. It didn't work but because of their activity many Catholics have lost 40 years of proper catachesis evolving into a people who don't know their faith because "this priest says this" or "that priest says that" depending on how liberal or orthodox the priest is rather than holding directly to the documents. Which is why the nuns in the United States are in such big trouble. They are holding heretical views and attempting to teach it as Catholic when it is not. Which is why the Constitution for the Doctrine of the Faith (inquisition) is actually trying their leadership represented by The Leadership Conference of Women Religious and may make them defunct (the organization not the nuns) or excommunicate them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christians can still sin, sometimes greatly, but that is AGAINST new natures in jesus, and they will repent and confess theuir sins to God to get restored, but NOTHING will break their relationship with God in Christ, NOT even God can/will, as He decided that once one is saved, its eternally saved!

Again, what is lacking in death of christ that requires Eucherist or other sacraments to make one 'more spiritual?"

for the top statement my question to you is what if they don't repent. I agree with you that if someone repents they are forgiven however just like Adam if you sin against God you effect your relationship with God. Which is why repentance is so important. So then the question becomes that yes generally a person who has a new nature will repent and confess and attempt to amend their lives. But what if they choose not to? Which they can if they chose. Because once again people are not robots.

To the bottom statement. You obviously don't understand sacraments or the graces given. Let me ask you a question as it is exactly the type of question you are asking me with this question. What is lacking in the death of Christ that requires scripture reading and prayer? Nothing. However, if you want to grow in your faith, remain in Jesus, and draw close to him you study scripture and pray right? So it is with the sacraments.

 

[Walter]

Christians can still sin, sometimes greatly, but that is AGAINST new natures in jesus, and they will repent and confess theuir sins to God to get restored, but NOTHING will break their relationship with God in Christ, NOT even God can/will, as He decided that once one is saved, its eternally saved!

Again, what is lacking in death of christ that requires Eucherist or other sacraments to make one 'more spiritual?"

Plenty of Baptist's disagree with you. Ask the the Freewiller's.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

...my question to you is what if they don't repent.

snip...

Let me give you the Baptist fall back answer from my neck of the woods...

"Then they will go to hell because they were never saved to begin with!"

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Rome demands that SPIRITUAL UNION and JUSTIFYING GRACE are found in baptism as SPIRITUAL UNION and grace are found in the Supper and the Baptist repudiates both EQUALLY.

Romes position is oxmoronic and totally inconsistent as their view of the Supper where SPIRITUAL UNION is obtained with Christ is NO DIFFERENT than their view of baptism were SPIRITUAL UNION is obtained with Christ as the Supper is simply CONTINUATION of what was first received in baptism and if Baptist reject was first received in baptism then that is a much more serious rejection than something merely CONTINUED in the supper.

My point was never addressed. If Baptist reject what was received in baptism, how can rejection of what is continued in supper be more serious? Actually Baptist baptism rejects both equally as the RCC idea of spritiual union with Christ has its origin in baptism not the supper as the supper only continues what the RCC believes they receive in baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is only inconsistent if you confuse yourself as you already have. Paul makes it clear that you must have the aspect of believing in the real presense to be properly disposed to recieve it.

whereas with baptism

The scripture you quote says NOTHING about the point you are attempting to make it say. Paul "received" from the Lord not merely instruction about the Supper but about everything else as well, including baptism as he was directly taught by the Lord as were the other apostles.

Proper discernment of baptism is expliclty the very point of 1 Cor. 1:12-18; Rom. 6:4-6; etc.

You cannot play this game of pick and choose. It is the Roman Catholic "BELIEF" about both baptism and the Supper we are talking about and the RCC beleif about baptism is that it is in baptism that spiritual union/regeneration/justification is received whereas the supper only continues what was received in baptism. Baptist baptism by its very doctrinal nature repudiates both and the purposed Baptist administration repudiates both RCC baptism and RCC supper.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The scripture you quote says NOTHING about the point you are attempting to make it say.

The scriptures says everything about what I said because its what scripture said regrading the Eucharist. It is plain, and it is clear. All I did was quote the text and the text said that you must believe in the body and blood presented at communion.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me give you the Baptist fall back answer from my neck of the woods...

"Then they will go to hell because they were never saved to begin with!"

WM

That is not a "Baptist fall back answer" that is a very Biblical based answer and a very real possibility.

1. The field of "tares" and true seed - Mt. 13
2. Those who turn anti-christ - 1 Jn. 2:19
3. The call to confirm your own election - 2 Pet. 1:10
4. We are not "OF THEM" who draw back to perdition but "OF THEM" who believe tothe saving of the soul - Heb. 10:39
etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

The scriptures says everything about what I said because its what scripture said regrading the Eucharist. It is plain, and it is clear. All I did was quote the text and the text said that you must believe in the body and blood presented at communion.

You are reading into it your RCC doctrine.

You assume first, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ are in the Supper - false!

You assume second that "discerning" has to do with that idea when contextually it deals with the SYMBOLISM (1 Cor. 5:8) being violated by the unfit life of the partaker.