ELCA's "Table and Font: Who is welcome?"

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nope, our invitation is for the baptized as the Use of the Means of Grace states. At the same time, I can't find anywhere in scriptures where baptism is required.

Comment to the bold statement above:  from Acts of the Apostles 2:  Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Baptism is required for the assurance of salvation and presence of the Holy Spirit. It is never stated that is it a requirement before participating in the "breaking of bread." There are communion elements to the feeding of 5000 & 4000; also with the two in Emmaus - and the command to baptize in the Triune name hadn't been given yet; (Actually it's never given in Luke/Acts.) Paul also has the breaking of bread with his shipwrecked shipmates in Acts 27:35 - was that a sacrament?


As I've stated before. There is a difference between someone who, for whatever reasons, is not yet baptized, and someone who refuses to be baptized. Baptism is not an option. Scriptures is clear on that. They are not clear about it being a requirement before participating in the breaking of bread of Holy Communion.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Nope, our invitation is for the baptized as the Use of the Means of Grace states. At the same time, I can't find anywhere in scriptures where baptism is required.

Comment to the bold statement above:  from Acts of the Apostles 2:  Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Baptism is required for the assurance of salvation and presence of the Holy Spirit. It is never stated that is it a requirement before participating in the "breaking of bread." There are communion elements to the feeding of 5000 & 4000; also with the two in Emmaus - and the command to baptize in the Triune name hadn't been given yet; (Actually it's never given in Luke/Acts.) Paul also has the breaking of bread with his shipwrecked shipmates in Acts 27:35 - was that a sacrament?

As I've stated before. There is a difference between someone who, for whatever reasons, is not yet baptized, and someone who refuses to be baptized. Baptism is not an option. Scriptures is clear on that. They are not clear about it being a requirement before participating in the breaking of bread of Holy Communion.

And around and around we go with the same red herrings...

We are to do this in remembrance of him.

And "we" are the baptized.

Not when Jesus first spoke his command, "do this," in the upper room.

I've also stated that no one at the first Lord's Supper had undergone Trinitarian baptism. Nor had the thousands who received bread that had been blessed by Jesus. Nor the tax collectors and sinners and Pharisees who shared Jesus' presence at meals.

So?  I've also stated:

Or, to make it more specific, how do you respond to the "radical hospitality" argument that none of the disciples in the upper room had been through Christian baptism before Jesus offered them communion?

Ah, that tired old red herring that you've dragged out before, Rev Stoffregen. I expect that we'll soon be reading the false distinction of baptizing in Jesus' name versus in the Triune Name.   


"But [Jesus] did not baptize [the children]!"

"Neither did he baptize anyone else. He took people directly into the kingdom. But to his church he has given baptism, that through this gateway we might be brought into the kingdom of God."  [Bo Giertz, The Hammer of God]

[Dan Fienen]

When you say that Jesus' real presence was at those fellowship meals what do you mean by real presence.  Do you mean that the same real presence was at those fellowship meal as His real presence in Holy Communion?  As Lutherans we confess the real presence in Holy Communion, is that the very same real presence that you see as being at any fellowship meal in which Jesus participated?  Or are there two meanings to "real presence" that you are working with?  That could easily lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding.

Yes, there are different ways that Jesus can be really present with us. The prayer, "Come, Lord Jesus," that was part of the earliest Eucharist is a prayer about the absence of Jesus. He is no longer present with us as he once was when he walked and talked and sat at table with others on earth. It is a prayer looking forward to the time when Jesus will be present with us in a way that is different than he is present with us now. We have little difficulties talking about different ways that Jesus is really present with humanity: as the living, breathing Jesus for about 30 years; as the risen and ascended Lord; and as the King of kings and Lord of Lords when he returns. So, why is there such difficulty in agreeing that ways we talk about Jesus' real presence in the sacrament can differ? Jesus is present with us in many different ways even as the risen and ascended Lord: in the Word proclaimed, in our gathering in his name, in the sacraments. Would you say that the sacramental presence of Jesus in baptism is the same or different from his sacramental presence in the eucharist?

Sorry about not responding to this sooner, but this thought provoking post deserves a thoughtful response and I've spent most of the day taking care of my wife.

I have no difficulty in affirming that the ways in which people talk about Jesus' real presence in the sacrament differ.  That is really the point at issue.  The agreement that Jesus is really present in the sacrament seems to be a mere superficial verbal congruence.  The term "real presence" is being used by different parties in the discussion and agreement in different ways.  That is no substantive agreement but rather a papering over fundamental disagreements by the use of the same term to mean different things.

As a general expression, real presence can mean many different although related things, as you pointed out Brian.  There is nothing wrong with that in general, usually the context can guide us as to what is meant.  However in talking about Holy Communion, real presence has become for traditional Lutheran theology a technical term for a specific doctrine that describes the nature and location of Jesus' sacramental presence in the sacrament.  It is a shorthand term for a more complex formulation that would give a more extensive description.  That is often the function of technical terms - to avoid having to spell out several paragraphs or pages of descriptive definition every time a topic is talked about.  It is not unusual for technical terms to also have generalized nontechnical meanings.  As such it is necessary to at times be explicit as to whether you are using a term in a technical sense or the general sense.  This is perhaps most common in legal discussions, but scientific, engineering, social science and of course theology also have these occasions.  An agreement crafted by allowing one party to use a term in a technical sense but other parties to use the term in more general senses that differ significantly from the technical is not an agreement but an example of logodemain (neologism from legerdemain, slight of hand, in this case, slight of word).  Another term for this could be bait and switch.  The bait is using the term in once sense in crafting the agreement (perhaps the more general sense of real present, meaning that Jesus is in some sense really there as He is everywhere) and then selling the agreement by allowing one party to understand that real presence in the agreement means the Lutheran technical sense.

What is involved in the Lutheran understanding of "real presence" as a technical term for how Jesus is present in the sacrament?  At the risk of being accused of simply throwing out quotations or using outdated and obsolete understandings (as they are drawn from a 16th century collection of documents known as the Book of Concord how could they have relevance for Lutherans today in the 21st century?) the follow is not necessarily exhaustive.

CA X [X. Concerning the Lord's Supper]
Concerning the Lord's Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching.

Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 44

This is more specific than the idea that real presence is just that Jesus is there with us when we gather in His name - although it does not deny that.  Note also it speaks of the body and blood of Christ being "under" the bread and wine.  The use of "under" in this context had previously in the discussion been much scorned by some.

Ap X:1-3 [X: The Holy Supper]
They approve the tenth article, in which we confess our judgment that in the Lord's Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly distributed with those things that are seen, the bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament. Our preachers constantly defend this position.
Moreover, we have ascertained that not only the Roman church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but that the Greek church has always maintained the same position and still does so, as the canon of the Mass among the Greeks testifies.
Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 184

Similar to the Augsburg but more specifically makes the point that Jesus in present in His body and blood in a way that it is distribute to the participants with the bread and wine.  Again not a general presence but a specific one.

SA III:VI:1 [6:] Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar
We maintain that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that they are not only offered to and received by upright Christians but also by evil ones.
Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 320

Continues to talk about the true body and blood of Christ.  Also adds the manducatio indignorum that also the unfaithful eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus.  His presence in the sacrament is not just apprehended by faith.

Small Catechism

The Sacrament of the Altar:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer:

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.
Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 362

The standard description we all learned in confirmation class.  Again, the word "under" is used here much objected to by some previously.

Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar paragraphs 8-11
Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by Christ's word to eat and drink. And just as we said of baptism that it is not mere water, so we say here, too, that the sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine such as is served at the table. Rather, it is bread and wine set within God's Word and bound to it.
It is the Word, I say, that makes this a sacrament and distinguishes it from ordinary bread and wine, so that it is called and truly is Christ's body and blood. For it is said, "Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum," that is, "When the Word is joined to the external element, it becomes a sacrament."227 This saying of St. Augustine is so appropriate and well put that he could hardly have said anything better. The Word must make the element a sacrament; otherwise, it remains an ordinary element. Now, this is not the word and ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the divine Majesty at whose feet all creatures should kneel and confess that it is as he says, and they should accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 467

More mention is made here of the roll of the Verba in the sacrament.  Again, it is apparent that what is meant here by Jesus being there is something more than His general presence among His people.  It is something that must be invoked and is centered in the elements, the bread and wine not the whole assembly.

One more quotation:

Ep VII:2
In the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ truly and essentially present, distributed with the bread and wine, and received by mouth by all those who avail themselves of the sacrament—whether they are worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers—to bring believers comfort and life and to bring judgment upon unbelievers?

{Ep VII:5}
For "spiritually" means to them nothing other than "the spirit of Christ" that is present, or "the power of the absent body of Christ and his merit." The body of Christ, according to this opinion, is, however, in no way or form present, but it is only up there in the highest heaven; to this body we lift ourselves into heaven through the thoughts of our faith. There we should seek his body and blood, but never in the bread and wine of the Supper.

{Ep VII:15 Affirmative Theses}
6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually through faith but also orally with the bread and wine, though not in Capernaitic fashion but rather in a supernatural, heavenly way because of the sacramental union of the elements. The words of Christ clearly demonstrate this, when Christ said, "take, eat, and drink," and the apostles did this. For it is written, "and they all drank from it" (Mark 14[:23]). Likewise, Saint Paul says, "The bread, which we break, is a Communion with the body of Christ" [1 Cor. 10:16], that is, who eats this bread eats the body of Christ. The leading teachers of the ancient church—Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, and others—unanimously testify to this.

{Ep VII:26 Negative Theses}
The Contrary, Condemned Teaching of the Sacramentatians
. . .
5. That the body of Christ in the holy sacrament is not received orally with the bread, but only bread and wine are received by mouth; the body of Christ, however, is received only spiritually, through faith.

Kolb, Robert ;  Wengert, Timothy J. ;   Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 504-7

This is what Lutherans have meant by real presence in the sacrament in a technical sense.  Note: I will not comment on whether the position described in the condemned teaching #5 above accurately describes the position of the Reformed today, but it does again emphasize that in talking about the sacrament, Lutherans were not simply referring to a generalized presence of Jesus among His people but a presence that is received orally, by mouth along with the bread and wine.

Now up to date Lutherans may have decided that these statements no longer count, being so old and written by long dead Germans.  Or perhaps the controversies out of which they were forged now bore.  But this is what Lutherans have long meant by talking about real presence in Holy Communion.  If that is to be set aside in favor of a more generally presence somehow vaguely connected to the assembled Christians meeting in His name and participating in an old ritual somehow commanded by Jesus, please say so.  Do not affirm this by using the term "real presence" but meaning it not in a technical Lutheran sense but a general sense without warning.

Oh, yes, and I would affirm that the sacramental presence of Jesus in the sacrament of Holy Baptism is different from His sacramental presence in Holy Communion.  In baptism Jesus is not connected by His promise to the element for us to receive orally.  The He has promised that the Holy Spirit would work regeneration through the element connected to the Word.  Similar but not the same.

Dan

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A comment about one small section (boldface added)

What is involved in the Lutheran understanding of "real presence" as a technical term for how Jesus is present in the sacrament?  At the risk of being accused of simply throwing out quotations or using outdated and obsolete understandings (as they are drawn from a 16th century collection of documents known as the Book of Concord how could they have relevance for Lutherans today in the 21st century?) the follow is not necessarily exhaustive.

In the ELCA (with the Reformed,) we are saying that how Jesus is present is a mystery. It's not something that we can fully understand nor put into words. It is sufficient to say that Jesus is present. To go beyond that is to try and say more than God has revealed to us in Scriptures. The God who is omnipresent, is particularly present in the bread and wine.

[Dan Fienen]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A comment about one small section (boldface added)

What is involved in the Lutheran understanding of "real presence" as a technical term for how Jesus is present in the sacrament?  At the risk of being accused of simply throwing out quotations or using outdated and obsolete understandings (as they are drawn from a 16th century collection of documents known as the Book of Concord how could they have relevance for Lutherans today in the 21st century?) the follow is not necessarily exhaustive.

In the ELCA (with the Reformed,) we are saying that how Jesus is present is a mystery. It's not something that we can fully understand nor put into words. It is sufficient to say that Jesus is present. To go beyond that is to try and say more than God has revealed to us in Scriptures. The God who is omnipresent, is particularly present in the bread and wine.

I'm afraid that I did not express myself well.  No where in the confessional material that I posted, or the material I looked at to select those quotations are explanations given as to the method by which Jesus effects His presence with His body and blood in, with and under the bread and wine.  So for me to have said, "What is involved in the Lutheran understanding of "real presence" as a technical term for how Jesus is present in the sacrament?"  was not the best way to say it.  What I meant was more like "real presence" as a technical term for describing the what or the nature of Jesus' presence in the sacrament, than how He does it.

By the by, are you saying that the Confessions go beyond what God has revealed to us in Scriptures?  Are you saying that the Confessions have got it wrong or at least have no warrant for what they describe as Jesus presence with His body and blood with the bread and wine for us to eat and drink?

[Dan Fienen]

Some time back I asked a question concerning the intercommunion agreement between the ELCA and several Reformed bodies.  I never really got an answer.

As I understand it, the agreement was that there was enough agreement to allow for intercommunion.  In the agreement it was acknowledged that there were still areas of disagreement to be resolved concerning Holy Communion.  It has been vehemently denied that the agreement was simply an agreement to disagree about the remaining doctrinal disagreements over the sacrament and there was an intention to continue to discuss to work toward resolving the remaining areas of disagreement.

My question is simply this, what progress has been made toward that resolution?  At least how often do representatives from the respective church bodies sit down together to discuss those unresolved issues?  So far, no answer?  Are discussions on going or has that part of the agreement simply faded from mind?

If discussions are ongoing, I'd be glad and interested to know the progress made.  If not, how does not working toward resolving disagreements differ from agreeing to disagree?

Dan

[Dan Fienen]

The Lutheran Confessions make several assertions to describe Jesus' presence in Holy Communion.  In brief:

• Jesus' body and blood are connected to the bread and wine for the communicant to receive orally in the eating and drinking.
• This participation conveys spiritual blessings including the forgiveness of sins.
• Both the worthy and the unworthy, the believing and the unbelieving receive the body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament.
• The sacramental presence of Jesus in the sacrament is not the same as Jesus presence everywhere or His presence with His people when they gather in His name.  The sacramental presence is focused on the bread and wine which is connected to His body and blood by His word of promise, the Verba.

Am I misrepresenting the Confessions in these assertions?

Are these assertions accepted by the Reformed Churches as congruent with their understanding of sacrament?  They may not use the same verbal formulas to express their teachings but are they recognizable as teaching the same?

Are these assertions by the Confessions superfluous and unnecessary to proper understanding, use, and enjoyment of the sacrament?  In other words were the Confessors just flapping their gums and dulling their quills when they wrote these things and making much over nothing important?  Were they going beyond scripture and promoting their own pious opinions as divine doctrine?

If Jesus is really present whenever Christians gather, need we posit His presence in another way in the sacrament or is His real presence basically the same whether we gather to pray, praise and meditate on His word or gather to celebrate His Supper for us?

Need we repudiate the Confessions on these points to be good ecumenical Christians in this day and age?

[Dan Fienen]

A question for Pr. Stoffregen.  You have made the point that the term "breaking of bread" has been used both to refer to the Lord's Supper and in a more general way for people sitting down to a meal together.  Also, the act of eating together in Jesus day often had greater meaning and implied closer fellowship than we place on it today.  Do you assert that the breaking of bread that is a meal together is essentially no different than the breaking of bread that is Holy Communion?  Do you assert that both are an act of fellowship with no essential difference?

Principal 37 in The Use of the Means of Grace (which comes from A Statement on Communion Practices, approved in 1978 by the ALC & LCA; and in 1989 by the ELCA) answers the question - and also makes a statement about who is doing the welcoming:

Admission to the Sacrament is by invitation of the Lord, presented through the Church to those who are baptized.


What does it mean to say that it is Jesus who invites people to the Sacrament? Was there anyone with whom Jesus refused to eat during his ministry? The gospels gives accounts of him eating with sinners, tax collectors, Pharisees, and even the disciples who abandoned him in the garden.

Is every time that Jesus ate with someone the same as when we eat the Sacrament of the Altar together?  Does that mean that every time that we sit down and eat a meal with someone that is the same as sharing the Sacrament of the Altar with them?

Was the meal about to be share with the two disciples at Emmaus the first Easter Sunday a sharing of the Sacrament of the Altar?  What evidence do you have for that?  Is it significant if that were the case that Jesus did not actually eat with the two disciples at Emmaus but vanished after breaking the bread (a standard part of every meal in that era before the invention of sliced bread.)

Whenever people ate with Jesus, his "real presence" was there. From what I've read of first century meals, eating together also implied a close fellowship - a "communion" if you will. If it is Jesus who invites us to the Sacrament, I would think that an understanding of the people he did actually invite to meals (or the invitations to meals that he accepted) gives a picture of whom Jesus is willing to be present with at meals.


The phrase "breaking of bread" came to be used for the Sacrament (Ac 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 1 Cor 10:16; perhaps also Ac 27:35).

[Brian Stoffregen]

A question for Pr. Stoffregen.  You have made the point that the term "breaking of bread" has been used both to refer to the Lord's Supper and in a more general way for people sitting down to a meal together.  Also, the act of eating together in Jesus day often had greater meaning and implied closer fellowship than we place on it today.  Do you assert that the breaking of bread that is a meal together is essentially no different than the breaking of bread that is Holy Communion?  Do you assert that both are an act of fellowship with no essential difference?

No. Holy Communion includes the fellowship elements of eating together - and more. There are unique words used in the blessing of bread and wine in the Eucharist that make it different than other meals where bread and wine may be blessed and eaten.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
As I understand it, the agreement was that there was enough agreement to allow for intercommunion.  In the agreement it was acknowledged that there were still areas of disagreement to be resolved concerning Holy Communion.  It has been vehemently denied that the agreement was simply an agreement to disagree about the remaining doctrinal disagreements over the sacrament and there was an intention to continue to discuss to work toward resolving the remaining areas of disagreement.

My question is simply this, what progress has been made toward that resolution?  At least how often do representatives from the respective church bodies sit down together to discuss those unresolved issues?  So far, no answer?  Are discussions on going or has that part of the agreement simply faded from mind?

If discussions are ongoing, I'd be glad and interested to know the progress made.  If not, how does not working toward resolving disagreements differ from agreeing to disagree?

I comment:
I believe "working groups" from the fellowship partners meet regularly. The ELCA's ecumenical affairs office might have more detailed information. We do not set a timetable on "fuller" agreement, that is up to the Spirit. This is not an "agreement to disagree" forever, nor is it a plan to get one party over to the full understanding of the other party and adopting that position.
Meanwhile, many local situations - shared pastorates, shared ministries, etc. - continue with attendant blessings.
Again, the intent has never been to get one "side" over to the position of the other "side."
That means - hard to do, I know - that we all must admit that we might not have things "pure" and "full" in our understanding of the sacrament.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Meanwhile, many local situations - shared pastorates, shared ministries, etc. - continue with attendant blessings.
Again, the intent has never been to get one "side" over to the position of the other "side."
That means - hard to do, I know - that we all must admit that we might not have things "pure" and "full" in our understanding of the sacrament.

I meet regularly with a couple of Presbyterian ministers. One will be preaching and presiding for me next month - he is also a regular attender to our worship services and calls us "his church". Conversely, a retired ELCA pastor in town often worships with us on Saturday evening and the Presbyterians on Sunday morning. Conversations on the local level and learning how and why we do things the way we do continue.


Like with ELCA and even LCMS clergy, these two PCUSA ministers don't agree about everything.

[Jim_Krauser]

I've made this point in other forums and so I'll make it here....(apologies if someone else has made the point...I haven't had time to read all the posts)

The fundmental error in this discussion is understanding baptism as a requirement or prerequisite for communion, rather than both as fundamental to the rite of Christian initiation itself.  To call baptism a requirement or prerequisite is at best conceptually anachonistic.

When we look to adult baptism as the basic form we recognize that one's first communion is meant to be received with baptism, at the same service on the same day.  We have allowed the exception of infant baptism (made for perfectly valid and good reasons) to skew the fundamental understanding of the fullness of baptism as a rite within the eucharistic assembly.  When the ancients said that they did not give communion to those who were not baptized, it was because they the understood that these things were a unity, not stages in a progressive revelation of teaching or inclusion in the community.

For those in the East the relationship between baptism and eucharist has been maintained through infant communion.  But this topic has been a difficult and rocky one among Lutherans.  UMG moved the ball on this by lifting the ban on infant communion so stridently introduced into the joint ALC/LCA Statement on Communion Practice in 1980.  [It was practically a non-sequiter to the sentence that it followed.]

I am coming to believe that my intellectual support for "communion of all the baptized" needs to find more application in teaching and practice, if for no other reason but to demonstrate and reinforce in the church the connection between the two great sacraments of the church.

Baptism is not meant to lead to Eucharist;  Eucharist is not meant to lead to Baptism. 
They are meant to be of a piece.  They are meant to be received together. 

[Harvey_Mozolak]

So then, if one follows what you say, Jim Krauser, if someone comes without ever intending to be Baptized and of course therefore not being baptized... then he should not partake of the Supper, right?  Or wrong?

In actual practice, say a neighbor, a Buddhist, comes to church with me because my kid is singing a solo and he or she wants to hear my kid sing.  And say the Eucharist is being celebrated.  Why would my neighbor want to go to Communion?  Well, he does not want to seem out of place as the flow from the pews moves to the altar and besides that he would block the traffic pattern and he notices that almost no one remains in the pew.  Is this any good reason, of course not.  Say, he has not been real happy with his practice of Buddhism and hasn't followed through much with it and he wonders what in the world is going on with this business at the altar.   He liked a couple of things the sermon said about trust and he has a feeling that this Jesus person was really a good man though his followers don't always follow well and as nicely.  What do the words mean that they are giving away body and blood?  Let's try this and see if anything good happens, after all no one seems to get hurt by what they are doing.  Is this a reason to commune?  Is it sort of like someone in the days of our Lord's visible presence on earth, a person coming where Jesus was teaching, preaching, healing, walking and joining in to see what he was doing and saying?  Is that what folks are saying by inviting the non-baptized?   I am not sure I understand the real point that is being made.    Harvey Mozolak

[Team Hesse]

The fundmental error in this discussion is understanding baptism as a requirement or prerequisite for communion, rather than both as fundamental to the rite of Christian initiation itself.  To call baptism a requirement or prerequisite is at best conceptually anachonistic.

Anachronistic? For a Lutheran to speak of the Sacraments as "fundamental to the rite of Christian initiation" is anachronistic.....


Not on this page at all.....


Lou

[Harvey_Mozolak]

doesn't communing mean that we are swallowing the death and resurrection of Christ, doing so by eating and drinking his body and blood, crucified and risen?   Harvey Mozolak