The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Communion Given by LayPerson

Stuart DiNenno said:


speratus said:
Since you quoted Scripture but did not explain your application of it, I suppose I will have to guess at what you meant. And my guess is that you believe these are "words of institution" that must be repeated whenever the Lord's Supper is practiced. But Paul never said that was the case, and it should not be made into some kind of incantation, although it certainly would not be wrong to repeat the words for instructional purposes since this is exactly what Paul was doing in repeating the words of Christ.


Stuart DiNenno said:

speratus said:

No, I was not referring to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I was referring to the notion that the sacraments become efficacious or only have validity when "administered" by an ordained elder. It seems to me that this doctrine effectively makes New Testament church officers into priestly mediators between God and men and I do not believe that it can be biblically supported. The elders are to oversee these functions but I believe it is an error to think of them as conduits through whom God's sacramental blessings must exclusively flow.

I don't know that anything to which you referred me is really informative. Maybe your opinion of the documents which you referenced is correct and they are useful, but I'm not willing to take the time to find out. And I would not refer you to articles on my website and insinuate that you choose to remain ignorant if you don't go there and read them, so please don't do that to me. If you would like to refer me to other places where I can find information which you believe to be helpful, then please do so. But don't act as though I am neglecting a responsibility if I choose not to look at your referenced documents.



Maybe I could have prefaced my remark by thanking you for the referrals. But what I said is true. I am not interested in reading old threads or articles. I came here for discussion.

I can accept that you aren't willing to take the time to read the referenced documents, but it is antithetical to then say you came here for "discussion". As I mentioned before, it is best to have informed discussions and not one out of ignorance. Secondly, I own The Highway website and this Board and thus I do believe I have every right to reference articles and other information which I have taken the time to provide for the benefit of those who visit the website and participate on this Board. In short, this is my "home" and you are a guest. Therefore it is rather odd that you would want to dictate how I conduct myself in my own home and even disregard the time and effort I have put into this place for the benefit of all. Thirdly, the other thread I referenced was done so in the interest of prudence and to be helpful. Why would I want to retype all the things I have previously written when they are readily available to anyone who was interested in "discussion"? One could conclude that you don't read anything that isn't written consequent to something you ask about. Where would that leave the Bible as a source for information to you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

And this is one of the ways in which discussions are carried out here. For the most part our members are interested in gaining knowledge without preference to its age. If you are on some existential trip, then you are going to have a hard time of it here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> May I suggest a change in attitude on your part is in order if you plan on remaining here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

The words of institution should be repeated because Christ says, "This do." The Formula of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church explains:




The validity of a sacrament does not depend on the person administering the sacrament but upon the words that are spoken and the promises attached to those words in scripture. However, scripture also teaches that ministers should administer the sacraments.

Of course you have that right, as does everyone else here. But I am free to remain strictly within the active thread if I choose to do so, and you don't have the right to act as though I am obligated to read the things that you link outside of the thread. Also, you don't know the level of knowledge that I already possess, and therefore it is wrong for you to insinuate that I'm ignorant of the issues just because I choose not to read the documents that you recommend.

You're not obligated to read anything. But why even bother communicating with other members if you're not willing to learn from them?

Apparently you don't have much respect for your host and for those who give oversight to this message board. If you continue with this attitude you will not be here very long.

I don't care if you are an expert on religion. You haven't demonstrated Christlike character by your arrogant comments. In this thread you've pointed out that practical Christianity is better than just head knowledge. I believe your credibility is left wanting because of your actions and attitude not your head knowledge.


Wes

But neither He nor any of the apostles ever said, "This repeat." They never said that Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 11 were to be stated as "words of institution" over the Lord's Supper. You might think that it is a good idea to do so, but you cannot bind others to do so.




The promises and admonitions attached to the practice of the Lord's Supper should be made known to those who are partaking of it. But it is not scriptural to maintain that there must be some set formula ("words of institution") that must be spoken in order to make the sacrament valid.




What is your definition of a minister, as you are using it in this sentence?

Stuart DiNenno,

No you are not "obligated to read the things that you link outside of the thread", but then again, we are not obligated to rehash things just for you either! Your attitude is not one conducive to "good" discussions, it seems.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

In His Hands,

Ruth

I am willing to learn from other members. But if I choose not to visit links outside of the thread, is it not my right to do that?




I am only asserting my right to disregard links that lead outside of the thread. There is nothing disrespectful in that. On the contrary, it is being disrespectful to me to act as though I am obligated to read the things that others link outside of the thread, and to insinuate that I'm ignorant of the issues just because I choose not to read the documents that others recommend.

There is really nothing more that needs to be said about the issue. I just wanted to make it clear that I would like to limit myself to discussion within the active threads.

That's right, you're not obligated to rehash anything. You may respond to my posts or you may ignore them. I'm not putting obligations on anyone in here and all I ask is that no one put obligations on me. Does that sound fair?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> that doesn't sound "fair" because you asked for "discussions" and the previous threads where the topic in question has been "discussed" are relevant, despite your lack of interest in reading them. What isn't fair is your demanding that "I" for example, re-type or copy/paste what I have written previously on this Board because you are too lazy to click a simple link. One of the advantages of this Board is its database where people can search for previous "discussions" and glean from what others have "discussed" before their arrival.

As has been acknowledged several times before, you are under no obligation to read anything. And likewise, no one here is obligated to cater to your arrogance, laziness and/or narrow ideas on how this Board should function. Personally, I refuse to conform to your personal standard and definition of "discussion". And my guess is you aren't going to find anyone else here, at this point, who will waste their time "discussing" anything with you either, given your demeanor.

So, I'm going to give you a warning at this point and tell you that if you don't show a little more respect for me and the Staff here and change your attitude, you will find yourself on the outside looking in; if you know what I mean, Vern? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The proverbial ball is now in your court. You either play by the house rules or find another game. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

I never said that the things you linked were not relevant. I only made it clear that I chose not to read things linked outside of the thread.




I never made any such demand.




That's fine. As long as I am "under no obligation to read anything," as you said.

I am bound by scripture. "This do" is not merely a good idea but the command of our Lord.

When Luther reformed the Roman communion liturgy, he eliminated all introductory words and prayers lest anyone would think that Christ was present due to human mediation rather than according to the sure promises of scripture. But he restored the words of institution which the Papists had removed, "the devil has in a masterly manner stolen from us the chief thing in the Mass and put it to silence." Luther actually followed the regulatory principle closer than Zwingli or Calvin who added their own introductory words and prayers.


1 Cor. 4:1

Yes, but "This do" refers to the action of partaking of the bread and wine. It does not refer to the action of repeating so-called "words of institution."





"Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

There are many other verses which use the same word for minister [Greek - huperetes] and I think it is best to examine them all before reaching a conclusion as to what it means (and, of course, it might have different meanings depending on the context). But perhaps you have done such an examination already.

What do you interpret the word to mean in 1 Cor. 4:1? Do you believe that Paul is referring to the apostles here, or the elders of the church, or Christians in general?

"This do" refers to every aspect of the Supper. The words spoken are His words. The bread and wine are elements He has chosen and supplied through field and vineyard. We are simply beggars at His banquet where He bids us to hear His words and eat and drink His precious body and blood.


There is one office in the NT for public preaching and administering the sacraments (the mysteries) that was instituted by Christ by whatever name that office is called. Acts 20:28. Christ calls qualified men to that office to preside over churches.